|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 28, 2019 11:50:49 GMT -5
This game will be a high-intensity one and I would love to see hockey-style subs as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by augustusfinknottle on Jan 28, 2019 12:28:13 GMT -5
This game will be a high-intensity one and I would love to see hockey-style subs as much as possible. Home game. We get the last line change,eh?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,805
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2019 12:32:48 GMT -5
This game will be a high-intensity one and I would love to see hockey-style subs as much as possible. By that, do you mean frequent substitutions or whole team substitutions? I've never understood the latter, and I think it is a really bad idea with this team.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,626
|
Post by guru on Jan 28, 2019 12:39:20 GMT -5
This game will be a high-intensity one and I would love to see hockey-style subs as much as possible. Xavier fans are the New Big East's most annoying - would love to shut them up for once. They have been loud and proud in our arena since we joined the big east. They have pretty much zero respect for our program (not that we've deserved much since they joined, but still)
|
|
justsaying
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 709
|
Post by justsaying on Jan 28, 2019 12:41:30 GMT -5
Xavier will go bully ball; Need all our bigs on deck for the interior play.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 28, 2019 12:43:54 GMT -5
I presume that part of the strategy is based on the fact that the subs play as a unit most of the time in practice and will therefore be used to playing together, defending as a unit, etc.; it can also keep the starters together as a unit rather than mixing and matching as you give some rest to just one or two guys at a time. Seems more of an NBA thing, and of course quite dependent on the skill levels of your bench.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 28, 2019 13:01:29 GMT -5
This game will be a high-intensity one and I would love to see hockey-style subs as much as possible. By that, do you mean frequent substitutions or whole team substitutions? I've never understood the latter, and I think it is a really bad idea with this team. Usually I'd agree, but yesterday I think those substitutions were key to getting the win. Both time the non-starter line-up went in they changed the pace of the game for the better, at least from what I observed. They played better defense and got St Johns our of their rhythm offensively by slowing it down. In the second half especially, they went in with the team up right after the lead had gone from 10 to 7 and the pace was starting to get away from us a bit. Kept the score steady for a bit then brought us back up to a 10 point lead. St Johns started speeding them up a bit too much and it went back down to 5-7 when Ewing started bring the starters back in, who took us back up to 8-9 point margin. I actually think these handoffs were key in the win as the the on- the fly adjustments St Johns had to make with the totally different line-ups allowed us to extend the lead each time. Ewing just needs to sense with we've reached the limit with that second team a bit better and start subbing in starters before they get overwhelmed so we are putting our foot on their throats when we bring the starters back in, not just holding serve on what we've been doing. I don't find any of our starters trust worthy enough on both sides of the ball to need one of them in at all times personally. Govan is too weak defensively. Akinjo and Mac have a tendency to play too much hero ball with alone without any other starters. Picket is a turnover machine, and Leblanc isn't really an on-the court stabilizer yet. On the flip side, I have enough trust in Mosley, Johnson, Greg, and Blair to play defense and a few big shots/plays that I don't feel like they need the starters. The drastic change in style/personal can be really disruptive for the other team to adjust to, if utilized correctly and against the right teams. We'll see if it lasts as an effective strategy, but I'm comfortable trying it out going forward.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 28, 2019 13:31:21 GMT -5
This game will be a high-intensity one and I would love to see hockey-style subs as much as possible. By that, do you mean frequent substitutions or whole team substitutions? I've never understood the latter, and I think it is a really bad idea with this team. Frequent subs- in and out every couple of minutes for every player, but staggered with the starters for the most part (although I LOVED the all-sub lineup yesterday).
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 28, 2019 14:56:31 GMT -5
By that, do you mean frequent substitutions or whole team substitutions? I've never understood the latter, and I think it is a really bad idea with this team. Usually I'd agree, but yesterday I think those substitutions were key to getting the win. Both time the non-starter line-up went in they changed the pace of the game for the better, at least from what I observed. They played better defense and got St Johns our of their rhythm offensively by slowing it down. In the second half especially, they went in with the team up right after the lead had gone from 10 to 7 and the pace was starting to get away from us a bit. Kept the score steady for a bit then brought us back up to a 10 point lead. St Johns started speeding them up a bit too much and it went back down to 5-7 when Ewing started bring the starters back in, who took us back up to 8-9 point margin. I actually think these handoffs were key in the win as the the on- the fly adjustments St Johns had to make with the totally different line-ups allowed us to extend the lead each time. Ewing just needs to sense with we've reached the limit with that second team a bit better and start subbing in starters before they get overwhelmed so we are putting our foot on their throats when we bring the starters back in, not just holding serve on what we've been doing. I don't find any of our starters trust worthy enough on both sides of the ball to need one of them in at all times personally. Govan is too weak defensively. Akinjo and Mac have a tendency to play too much hero ball with alone without any other starters. Picket is a turnover machine, and Leblanc isn't really an on-the court stabilizer yet. On the flip side, I have enough trust in Mosley, Johnson, Greg, and Blair to play defense and a few big shots/plays that I don't feel like they need the starters. The drastic change in style/personal can be really disruptive for the other team to adjust to, if utilized correctly and against the right teams. We'll see if it lasts as an effective strategy, but I'm comfortable trying it out going forward. I just don’t think it’s a viable long term strategy though. If it becomes commonplace, a good coach will surely pick up on it on film and start gameplanning against it. And those second 5 are not nearly good enough to have sustained success against a better team and better coach that can force them into turnovers and bad shots and get them running around on D. I think the only reason it was successful yesterday is because Mullin is a brutal coach and the players, while talented and athletic, aren’t a particularly savvy group. There are a number of other coaches in the BE that would be licking their chops thinking “this is our chance to get back in the game.” If Pat continues to do it, I think he’s playing with fire.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 28, 2019 15:09:21 GMT -5
Usually I'd agree, but yesterday I think those substitutions were key to getting the win. Both time the non-starter line-up went in they changed the pace of the game for the better, at least from what I observed. They played better defense and got St Johns our of their rhythm offensively by slowing it down. In the second half especially, they went in with the team up right after the lead had gone from 10 to 7 and the pace was starting to get away from us a bit. Kept the score steady for a bit then brought us back up to a 10 point lead. St Johns started speeding them up a bit too much and it went back down to 5-7 when Ewing started bring the starters back in, who took us back up to 8-9 point margin. I actually think these handoffs were key in the win as the the on- the fly adjustments St Johns had to make with the totally different line-ups allowed us to extend the lead each time. Ewing just needs to sense with we've reached the limit with that second team a bit better and start subbing in starters before they get overwhelmed so we are putting our foot on their throats when we bring the starters back in, not just holding serve on what we've been doing. I don't find any of our starters trust worthy enough on both sides of the ball to need one of them in at all times personally. Govan is too weak defensively. Akinjo and Mac have a tendency to play too much hero ball with alone without any other starters. Picket is a turnover machine, and Leblanc isn't really an on-the court stabilizer yet. On the flip side, I have enough trust in Mosley, Johnson, Greg, and Blair to play defense and a few big shots/plays that I don't feel like they need the starters. The drastic change in style/personal can be really disruptive for the other team to adjust to, if utilized correctly and against the right teams. We'll see if it lasts as an effective strategy, but I'm comfortable trying it out going forward. I just don’t think it’s a viable long term strategy though. If it becomes commonplace, a good coach will surely pick up on it on film and start gameplanning against it. And those second 5 are not nearly good enough to have sustained success against a better team and better coach that can force them into turnovers and bad shots and get them running around on D. I think the only reason it was successful yesterday is because Mullin is a brutal coach and the players, while talented and athletic, aren’t a particularly savvy group. There are a number of other coaches in the BE that would be licking their chops thinking “this is our chance to get back in the game.” If Pat continues to do it, I think he’s playing with fire. Maybe, but I'm not trying to say its a gimmick that only works because of unfamiliarity. I think the second 5 bring somethings the starting 5 don't, namely defense and a a more controlled tempo. I think they move the ball a bit better because of lack of offensive star (Or 3 in the case of the starters) and have more experience that allows them to score a bit more creatively. They aren't as talented individually, but they are more consistent in how they play which balances some of the erratic play we get from the starters from a play to play basis. Quite frankly, I just didn't the drastic drop off some are referencing yesterday, or the last few games to be honest, between our starters and our bench*. We will see how it goes, but I have a hunch that second group will be able to surprisingly hold their own in most games the rest of the season and give the starting 5 valuable bench time. Valuable both from a rest perspective, but also I think the freshman need time to collect themselves to keep from getting out of control. * In limited minutes of course. I don't think our second five is as good as our starters, but I think they are capable of playing starter free for 3 minutes a half without significant drop off.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 2,522
|
Post by bostonfan on Jan 28, 2019 15:46:54 GMT -5
Usually I'd agree, but yesterday I think those substitutions were key to getting the win. Both time the non-starter line-up went in they changed the pace of the game for the better, at least from what I observed. They played better defense and got St Johns our of their rhythm offensively by slowing it down. In the second half especially, they went in with the team up right after the lead had gone from 10 to 7 and the pace was starting to get away from us a bit. Kept the score steady for a bit then brought us back up to a 10 point lead. St Johns started speeding them up a bit too much and it went back down to 5-7 when Ewing started bring the starters back in, who took us back up to 8-9 point margin. I actually think these handoffs were key in the win as the the on- the fly adjustments St Johns had to make with the totally different line-ups allowed us to extend the lead each time. Ewing just needs to sense with we've reached the limit with that second team a bit better and start subbing in starters before they get overwhelmed so we are putting our foot on their throats when we bring the starters back in, not just holding serve on what we've been doing. I don't find any of our starters trust worthy enough on both sides of the ball to need one of them in at all times personally. Govan is too weak defensively. Akinjo and Mac have a tendency to play too much hero ball with alone without any other starters. Picket is a turnover machine, and Leblanc isn't really an on-the court stabilizer yet. On the flip side, I have enough trust in Mosley, Johnson, Greg, and Blair to play defense and a few big shots/plays that I don't feel like they need the starters. The drastic change in style/personal can be really disruptive for the other team to adjust to, if utilized correctly and against the right teams. We'll see if it lasts as an effective strategy, but I'm comfortable trying it out going forward. I just don’t think it’s a viable long term strategy though. If it becomes commonplace, a good coach will surely pick up on it on film and start gameplanning against it. And those second 5 are not nearly good enough to have sustained success against a better team and better coach that can force them into turnovers and bad shots and get them running around on D. I think the only reason it was successful yesterday is because Mullin is a brutal coach and the players, while talented and athletic, aren’t a particularly savvy group. There are a number of other coaches in the BE that would be licking their chops thinking “this is our chance to get back in the game.” If Pat continues to do it, I think he’s playing with fire. I think the second group, or second 5, is an NBA thing, where some teams do tend to have pretty much an entire second group that will play together while the starters rest. Even the NBA teams do not typically take the entire starting group out together, but will often end up with 4 or 5 subs in the game at the same time while resting the starters. The NBA season is a really long season and making sure starters are not over taxed in the regular season is a huge thing, along with the fact that even second string NBA players are typically accomplished players and do not show a huge drop off in the course of 5 -6 minutes of playing time. Even NBA teams get away from that strategy when the playoffs start and they typically shrink the rotation and start playing 7 or 8 guys at the most. Most college teams do not have the quality depth to maintain a consistent performance once they get to the 8 -10 player on their roster. I am a bigger fan of always having at least three of your starters on the floor at all times and making sure you have the correct mix of players on the court together to maintain some type of offensive flow. It is really hard to get back momentum once you lose it and you give another team some confidence.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,630
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 28, 2019 15:57:27 GMT -5
I just don’t think it’s a viable long term strategy though. If it becomes commonplace, a good coach will surely pick up on it on film and start gameplanning against it. And those second 5 are not nearly good enough to have sustained success against a better team and better coach that can force them into turnovers and bad shots and get them running around on D. I think the only reason it was successful yesterday is because Mullin is a brutal coach and the players, while talented and athletic, aren’t a particularly savvy group. There are a number of other coaches in the BE that would be licking their chops thinking “this is our chance to get back in the game.” If Pat continues to do it, I think he’s playing with fire. I think the second group, or second 5, is an NBA thing, where some teams do tend to have pretty much an entire second group that will play together while the starters rest. Even the NBA teams do not typically take the entire starting group out together, but will often end up with 4 or 5 subs in the game at the same time while resting the starters. The NBA season is a really long season and making sure starters are not over taxed in the regular season is a huge thing, along with the fact that even second string NBA players are typically accomplished players and do not show a huge drop off in the course of 5 -6 minutes of playing time. Even NBA teams get away from that strategy when the playoffs start and they typically shrink the rotation and start playing 7 or 8 guys at the most. Most college teams do not have the quality depth to maintain a consistent performance once they get to the 8 -10 player on their roster. I am a bigger fan of always having at least three of your starters on the floor at all times and making sure you have the correct mix of players on the court together to maintain some type of offensive flow. It is really hard to get back momentum once you lose it and you give another team some confidence. Surprised that no one has mentioned that Dean Smith did the "Blue Team" substitution on a fairly regular basis. www.espn.com/espn/dickvitale/story/_/id/12299796/former-north-carolina-coach-d
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 28, 2019 17:03:27 GMT -5
I just don’t think it’s a viable long term strategy though. If it becomes commonplace, a good coach will surely pick up on it on film and start gameplanning against it. And those second 5 are not nearly good enough to have sustained success against a better team and better coach that can force them into turnovers and bad shots and get them running around on D. I think the only reason it was successful yesterday is because Mullin is a brutal coach and the players, while talented and athletic, aren’t a particularly savvy group. There are a number of other coaches in the BE that would be licking their chops thinking “this is our chance to get back in the game.” If Pat continues to do it, I think he’s playing with fire. Maybe, but I'm not trying to say its a gimmick that only works because of unfamiliarity. I think the second 5 bring somethings the starting 5 don't, namely defense and a a more controlled tempo. I think they move the ball a bit better because of lack of offensive star (Or 3 in the case of the starters) and have more experience that allows them to score a bit more creatively. They aren't as talented individually, but they are more consistent in how they play which balances some of the erratic play we get from the starters from a play to play basis. Quite frankly, I just didn't the drastic drop off some are referencing yesterday, or the last few games to be honest, between our starters and our bench*. We will see how it goes, but I have a hunch that second group will be able to surprisingly hold their own in most games the rest of the season and give the starting 5 valuable bench time. Valuable both from a rest perspective, but also I think the freshman need time to collect themselves to keep from getting out of control. * In limited minutes of course. I don't think our second five is as good as our starters, but I think they are capable of playing starter free for 3 minutes a half without significant drop off. I was one of those bashing the 4-5 sub lineups during the game. I just think we got lucky that it didn’t bite us. I guess I just don’t see the same tangible skills that you see in the second group. I see 4 players who generally have one strong skill and are largely deficient in most other areas and Mourning, who is deficient in all aspects of the game. I just think a better coach and team can easily exploit that second group on both ends of the floor if left in for any extended period of time. There’s a reason none of them start isn’t there? So why are they ever on the floor all at the same time?
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,083
|
Post by jwp91 on Jan 28, 2019 17:09:01 GMT -5
I am surprised how little a bump we got on our KenPom ranking after beating #55 St. John’s by 11 who KenPom predicted we would lose to by 9. We got a very modest increase. We are currently 94.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 28, 2019 17:23:06 GMT -5
Maybe, but I'm not trying to say its a gimmick that only works because of unfamiliarity. I think the second 5 bring somethings the starting 5 don't, namely defense and a a more controlled tempo. I think they move the ball a bit better because of lack of offensive star (Or 3 in the case of the starters) and have more experience that allows them to score a bit more creatively. They aren't as talented individually, but they are more consistent in how they play which balances some of the erratic play we get from the starters from a play to play basis. Quite frankly, I just didn't the drastic drop off some are referencing yesterday, or the last few games to be honest, between our starters and our bench*. We will see how it goes, but I have a hunch that second group will be able to surprisingly hold their own in most games the rest of the season and give the starting 5 valuable bench time. Valuable both from a rest perspective, but also I think the freshman need time to collect themselves to keep from getting out of control. * In limited minutes of course. I don't think our second five is as good as our starters, but I think they are capable of playing starter free for 3 minutes a half without significant drop off. I was one of those bashing the 4-5 sub lineups during the game. I just think we got lucky that it didn’t bite us. I guess I just don’t see the same tangible skills that you see in the second group. I see 4 players who generally have one strong skill and are largely deficient in most other areas and Mourning, who is deficient in all aspects of the game. I just think a better coach and team can easily exploit that second group on both ends of the floor if left in for any extended period of time. There’s a reason none of them start isn’t there? So why are they ever on the floor all at the same time? Because basketball is a team sport and they play better together as a unit than as individuals? Not actually saying thats true of this group but I don't think the argument of "They don't start therefore they should never be on the court without a starter) holds water. Again, I could be wrong as until two weeks ago I was strictly in the "there should always be two starters on the floor at a time" camp. But based on both the starters play and the benches play as a unit, right now I'm comfortable with taking all 5 starters out for short stretches. Don't have any numbers to back me up, I just think what we lose offensively we generally make up through tighter defense and more conservative offense. This is most based on Mosley and Johnson's play over the last couple of weeks, not their historical play mind you. I also think Ewing did a good job of implementing these line-ups as momentum was shifting away from us a bit, which is also how I think it should be used. Don't know if this is a viable for the rest of the season, but I'd be willing to ride it out until it stops working, which might be next game. Its an interesting approach that might be beneficial to everyone on the team.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 28, 2019 17:23:33 GMT -5
I am surprised how little a bump we got on our KenPom ranking after beating #55 St. John’s by 11 who KenPom predicted we would lose to by 9. We got a very modest increase. We are currently 94. Got a 20 point bump in NET ranking though....
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,368
|
Post by calhoya on Jan 28, 2019 18:05:34 GMT -5
The key to the Xavier game and the two bigs line-up they will use is going to be the play of LeBlanc and our new whipping boy in Mourning. Mourning may not be the most skilled big out there (but neither are the Xavier posts) but he plays hard, generally passes well and can spell Govan. LeBlanc has to overcome the size difference and outplay Xavier with his quickness. Carter may have a shot to play as well. Hoping that McClung, Pickett and Blair are still hitting their 3s.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,437
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 28, 2019 18:11:34 GMT -5
The key to the Xavier game and the two bigs line-up they will use is going to be the play of LeBlanc and our new whipping boy in Mourning. Mourning may not be the most skilled big out there (but neither are the Xavier posts) but he plays hard, generally passes well and can spell Govan. LeBlanc has to overcome the size difference and outplay Xavier with his quickness. Carter may have a shot to play as well. Hoping that McClung, Pickett and Blair are still hitting their 3s. Don't forget Akinjo's 3s. Anyway, all else being equal plus Goodin, the key to the game will be Mac. He didn't play in the first one.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,583
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jan 28, 2019 18:22:40 GMT -5
The Hoyas Sagarin ratings have gone from 95 to 75 with the SOS from 200+ to 87.
|
|
dchoya72
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,488
|
Post by dchoya72 on Jan 28, 2019 18:34:56 GMT -5
Grayson Carter can contribute!
|
|