whatmaroon
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 819
|
Post by whatmaroon on Jan 26, 2014 15:53:33 GMT -5
31% 'Nova, 19% MSU, according to Pomeroy. Unfortunately, most of that rating is based off the Trawick/Smith Hoyas. Not sure what it would be right now. Dan Hanner ran the post-Smith numbers before the last two games (http://basketball.realgm.com/article/231580/College-Basketball-Injury-Splits-Part-1). Based on what he got, and assuming I did the math right, maybe about 6% MSU and 10.5% Nova. Those numbers feel a little low to me, but I think they're closer than 19%/31%.
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Jan 26, 2014 17:38:33 GMT -5
Solid effort by the team and staff. The staff had a good game plan defensively and offensively. They just do not have the talent to execute those plans consistently throughout the game. Watching this proud program this year is like watching a championship boxer fight with cuts over both eyes with one completely shut and the other half way and a broken knuckle on his right hand. It's hard to watch but you have hope that the boxer can stay close and maybe land a knockout punch with that left hand. Listening to Rafferty you can hear the pain he feels for the Hoyas. Despite this being a down year the Hoyas drew a record crowd for Creighton. The chant " we are Georgetown" should have been proudly chanted last night. I saw a severely undermanned team give all that they had with the misfit pieces that they had. Savor this win people in Omaha for relief is on the way next year and given those graduating from the Creighton team, this maybe the last victory you see for a very long time. Come to think of it maybe they know that already and hence the large crowd.
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Jan 26, 2014 17:41:04 GMT -5
You tell 'em, OldHoya. No doubt this is tough times for everyone right now. I really hate to see Markel go out under these circumstances. But we do have a great program and great coaches.
|
|
dense
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,021
|
Post by dense on Jan 27, 2014 3:15:37 GMT -5
But i know the issue that was being discussed was leaving the shooters open but im talking about how we vant keep anyone out of the lane has alot to do with fatigue. We can't keep anyone out of the lane because we have bad defensive guards laterally. We played man the whole game tonight so it showed. The guards were equally as bad last year but we played zone probably 90% of the season so you could hide the deficiencies. Markel is averaging 2 more minutes per game this year than he did last year and DSR is at the same minutes per game that Markel was at last year. They shouldn't be so fatigued in JANUARY playing twice a week that they are so tired minutes into the game they can't stay in front of their men. There is obviously a depth problem and no one is denying that but blaming poor defense on fatigue is pretty comical. Have you seen Bowen or Cameron defend someone? DSR and Markel aren't horrible but laterally they aren't quick enough to guard anyone straight up defensively. Hence the zone that was effective the last two years because of our length. Yes so playing 39 minutes when you have to guard and create every offensive chance your team has doesnt have a cummulative effect..Get outta here... I swear some the opinions like that are comical. If it didnt teams would just play their starters 40 mins a game since its only 2 games a week lol. The new rules probably have something to do with it but too many straight line drives without being able to turn someone or recovery helpside. That doesn't require you using your hands. So thats where that falls flat.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 27, 2014 10:20:45 GMT -5
Obviously, I would have liked to win this, but we largely played even with Creighton for much of the game despite our well discussed deficiencies, particularly on offense. I thought this was one of our best defensive efforts of late. If we play exactly the same way the rest of the season, we will win some games (maybe not enough for the NCAA tournament, but enough to be respectable).
You have to really appreciate Creighton's offensive efficiency too. Every player on their team has an outstanding offensive efficiency. They are, in order from top to bottom: 139.7, 138.8, 131.8, 121.2, 118.2, 118.0, 115.2, 114.1, 110.9, and 107.0. Sure, some of those guys are smaller role players, but that's a great set of statistics. For purposes of comparison, Porter was spectacular last year, had an offensive efficiency of 118.8.
In contrast, our offensive efficiency stats: DSR (121.9), Smith (114.2), Starks (105.9), Trawick (101.5), Cameron (100.1), Lubick (99.0), Bowen (94.4), Hopkins (94.0), Caprio (93.9), Moses (93.4). Now, consider that among our top 5 offensive players, Smith is out for the season, and Trawick has been out too. We are basically left with two respectable shooters (DSR and Starks), one decent guy (Cameron), and that's about it.
When you compare us to Creighton's offense, it's not even a contest. They have the best offense in the country, and we kept them from exploding on us, like they did against Villanova. By any measure, we should have been run out of the gym, but we defended well and kept the game within a respectable margin for the entire game. As I said, if we can play this way all season, we should be able to win some, and perhaps even pull off an upset or two (including possibly tonight).
Lastly, the atmosphere in the arena was great. It was one of the first games we have played that "felt" big, like many of the games we had from the old Big East. If the fans provide support like that in the upcoming years, I have no doubt Creighton was a great addition to the conference.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 27, 2014 10:53:56 GMT -5
Our creators are not very energy efficient in the way they create. Dribbling and dancing around trying to get through the defense is strenuous and not effective for a full game. We don't move well off the ball and the defense sags off the weak shooters, so we do not get crisp ball and/or player movement resulting in an open catch-and-shoot three or a high-percentage mismatch.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Jan 27, 2014 11:11:03 GMT -5
Obviously, I would have liked to win this, but we largely played even with Creighton for much of the game despite our well discussed deficiencies, particularly on offense. I thought this was one of our best defensive efforts of late. If we play exactly the same way the rest of the season, we will win some games (maybe not enough for the NCAA tournament, but enough to be respectable). You have to really appreciate Creighton's offensive efficiency too. Every player on their team has an outstanding offensive efficiency. They are, in order from top to bottom: 139.7, 138.8, 131.8, 121.2, 118.2, 118.0, 115.2, 114.1, 110.9, and 107.0. Sure, some of those guys are smaller role players, but that's a great set of statistics. For purposes of comparison, Porter was spectacular last year, had an offensive efficiency of 118.8. In contrast, our offensive efficiency stats: DSR (121.9), Smith (114.2), Starks (105.9), Trawick (101.5), Cameron (100.1), Lubick (99.0), Bowen (94.4), Hopkins (94.0), Caprio (93.9), Moses (93.4). Now, consider that among our top 5 offensive players, Smith is out for the season, and Trawick has been out too. We are basically left with two respectable shooters (DSR and Starks), one decent guy (Cameron), and that's about it. When you compare us to Creighton's offense, it's not even a contest. They have the best offense in the country, and we kept them from exploding on us, like they did against Villanova. By any measure, we should have been run out of the gym, but we defended well and kept the game within a respectable margin for the entire game. As I said, if we can play this way all season, we should be able to win some, and perhaps even pull off an upset or two (including possibly tonight). Lastly, the atmosphere in the arena was great. It was one of the first games we have played that "felt" big, like many of the games we had from the old Big East. If the fans provide support like that in the upcoming years, I have no doubt Creighton was a great addition to the conference. Wow, this is a depressing post with a defeatist tone. Maybe RDF should've handed out orange slices to everyone post-game for a good, hard-fought 13 point loss.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 27, 2014 12:12:55 GMT -5
Obviously, I would have liked to win this, but we largely played even with Creighton for much of the game despite our well discussed deficiencies, particularly on offense. I thought this was one of our best defensive efforts of late. If we play exactly the same way the rest of the season, we will win some games (maybe not enough for the NCAA tournament, but enough to be respectable). You have to really appreciate Creighton's offensive efficiency too. Every player on their team has an outstanding offensive efficiency. They are, in order from top to bottom: 139.7, 138.8, 131.8, 121.2, 118.2, 118.0, 115.2, 114.1, 110.9, and 107.0. Sure, some of those guys are smaller role players, but that's a great set of statistics. For purposes of comparison, Porter was spectacular last year, had an offensive efficiency of 118.8. In contrast, our offensive efficiency stats: DSR (121.9), Smith (114.2), Starks (105.9), Trawick (101.5), Cameron (100.1), Lubick (99.0), Bowen (94.4), Hopkins (94.0), Caprio (93.9), Moses (93.4). Now, consider that among our top 5 offensive players, Smith is out for the season, and Trawick has been out too. We are basically left with two respectable shooters (DSR and Starks), one decent guy (Cameron), and that's about it. When you compare us to Creighton's offense, it's not even a contest. They have the best offense in the country, and we kept them from exploding on us, like they did against Villanova. By any measure, we should have been run out of the gym, but we defended well and kept the game within a respectable margin for the entire game. As I said, if we can play this way all season, we should be able to win some, and perhaps even pull off an upset or two (including possibly tonight). Lastly, the atmosphere in the arena was great. It was one of the first games we have played that "felt" big, like many of the games we had from the old Big East. If the fans provide support like that in the upcoming years, I have no doubt Creighton was a great addition to the conference. Wow, this is a depressing post with a defeatist tone. Maybe RDF should've handed out orange slices to everyone post-game for a good, hard-fought 13 point loss. This was actually meant to be anything but negative. I was basically trying to show that we more than held our own against a team that is actually substantially better than us on offense. I was actually encouraged by the Creighton game (once the frustration of watching our offense wore off) because we actually did a lot of good things on defense. If we play the same way tonight, we could beat Villanova. Unlike some others here, I try to accept the team for what it is. We simply do not have the personnel this season to be as effective as we have been the last few years. Trust me, it's intensely frustrating watching our team lose and sputter on offense, and I am not "happy" with any loss. I think the problem a lot of people are facing here is that you cannot admit that we simply aren't as good as many of the other teams in the country. This shows how spoiled we have become because we have legitimately fielded excellent top 25 teams every year since 2009. It's very frustrating, but I'm also realistic. Even that said, I think we stand a good chance of winning a bunch more games this season.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 27, 2014 13:02:43 GMT -5
We can't keep anyone out of the lane because we have bad defensive guards laterally. We played man the whole game tonight so it showed. The guards were equally as bad last year but we played zone probably 90% of the season so you could hide the deficiencies. Markel is averaging 2 more minutes per game this year than he did last year and DSR is at the same minutes per game that Markel was at last year. They shouldn't be so fatigued in JANUARY playing twice a week that they are so tired minutes into the game they can't stay in front of their men. There is obviously a depth problem and no one is denying that but blaming poor defense on fatigue is pretty comical. Have you seen Bowen or Cameron defend someone? DSR and Markel aren't horrible but laterally they aren't quick enough to guard anyone straight up defensively. Hence the zone that was effective the last two years because of our length. Yes so playing 39 minutes when you have to guard and create every offensive chance your team has doesnt have a cummulative effect..Get outta here... I swear some the opinions like that are comical. If it didnt teams would just play their starters 40 mins a game since its only 2 games a week lol. The new rules probably have something to do with it but too many straight line drives without being able to turn someone or recovery helpside. That doesn't require you using your hands. So thats where that falls flat. My point is they aren't playing much more per game than they are used to playing, that other players around the country also play, that they should be run down in JANUARY after only having this extra load to carry for a few games. Valid argument in March possibly, or at the end of games, but not for the first half of a mid January game. And certainly not a valid argument when they've always been this bad at staying in front of their men. I don't think you understand that they are playing man consistently for the first time in 3 years. Their weakness have been able to be hidden by our 2-3 and length we used to have. Not the case anymore.
|
|