Something to talk about

[jwp91]

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:

Minutes per Game.

Mack. 33
Epps. 35
Peavy. 32
Burks. 22
Fielder. 22
Sorber. 25
Mulready. 6
Curtis Williams. 10
Caleb Williams. 5
Drew McKeena. 10


PPG
Mack. 18
Epps. 16
Peavy. 11.5
Burks. 8
Fielder. 10
Sorber. 11
Mulready. 3
Curtis Williams. 6
Caleb Williams. 3
Drew McKeena. 5

[DFW HOYA]

Jul 7, 2024 22:16:37 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:


PPG
Mack. 18
Epps. 16
Peavy. 11.5
Burks. 8
Fielder. 10
Sorber. 11
Mulready. 3
Curtis Williams. 6
Caleb Williams. 3
Drew McKeena. 5

Under.

1. Mack: I think we are underestimating Mack's adjustment to higher level competition. 18 points vs. Dartmouth is not 18 against St. John's.
2. Epps: 16 makes sense.
3. I see Peavy as a defensive-minded player, so somewhere around 7-8.
4. Burks averaged 7 MPG and 1.9 PPG. Let's tap the brakes on this one for now.
5. A combined 21 points from the paint (Fielder, Sorber) is a lot.
6. The bench: Less from the CW's, more from McKenna.

You have Georgetown averaging how many points per game?

[jwp91]

Jul 7, 2024 23:28:44 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jul 7, 2024 22:16:37 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:


PPG
Mack. 18
Epps. 16
Peavy. 11.5
Burks. 8
Fielder. 10
Sorber. 11
Mulready. 3
Curtis Williams. 6
Caleb Williams. 3
Drew McKeena. 5

Under.

1. Mack: I think we are underestimating Mack's adjustment to higher level competition. 18 points vs. Dartmouth is not 18 against St. John's.
2. Epps: 16 makes sense.
3. I see Peavy as a defensive-minded player, so somewhere around 7-8.
4. Burks averaged 7 MPG and 1.9 PPG. Let's tap the brakes on this one for now.
5. A combined 21 points from the paint (Fielder, Sorber) is a lot.
6. The bench: Less from the CW's, more from McKenna.

You have Georgetown averaging how many points per game?

1. One of the big questions of the year is what Mack we will see. Pre-mono freshman Mack playing his first games in college against high major competition was incredibly productive. He had 32 against Umass, 18 against BC, and and 27 against Indiana, If that period of time is indicative of his form as a Hoya then we are going to love what we see. If his stats for the year were not affected as much by mono as we hope, then we will not be as happy.
3. Agree but he averaged 10.9 last year
4. I think Burks gets minutes if he can stay out of foul trouble out of necessity . He is a dynamic athlete who could get most of the points I have projected with offensive rebounds and points in transition. Supreme had 10.5 points primary from offensive rebounds. Perhaps 8 is too optimistic.
5. Probably.


Too many points overall. I was just trying to get a strawman on paper.

[conshyhoya]

Jul 7, 2024 23:28:44 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jul 7, 2024 22:16:37 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:


PPG
Mack. 18
Epps. 16
Peavy. 11.5
Burks. 8
Fielder. 10
Sorber. 11
Mulready. 3
Curtis Williams. 6
Caleb Williams. 3
Drew McKeena. 5

Under.

1. Mack: I think we are underestimating Mack's adjustment to higher level competition. 18 points vs. Dartmouth is not 18 against St. John's.
2. Epps: 16 makes sense.
3. I see Peavy as a defensive-minded player, so somewhere around 7-8.
4. Burks averaged 7 MPG and 1.9 PPG. Let's tap the brakes on this one for now.
5. A combined 21 points from the paint (Fielder, Sorber) is a lot.
6. The bench: Less from the CW's, more from McKenna.

You have Georgetown averaging how many points per game?

So you think Fielder is going to stop taking 3s if he is the center? I do think Sorber will have less than 10 PPG so the points in the paint will be less and overall point totals will be less as you already noted. I do think Mack will be under too but not because his adjustment but more because I feel Epps will still be the highest and Mack will get others like Peavy and Sorber/Fielder involved.

[hoyaguy]

Jul 8, 2024 11:29:20 GMT -5 conshyhoya said:

Jul 7, 2024 23:28:44 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Under.

1. Mack: I think we are underestimating Mack's adjustment to higher level competition. 18 points vs. Dartmouth is not 18 against St. John's.
2. Epps: 16 makes sense.
3. I see Peavy as a defensive-minded player, so somewhere around 7-8.
4. Burks averaged 7 MPG and 1.9 PPG. Let's tap the brakes on this one for now.
5. A combined 21 points from the paint (Fielder, Sorber) is a lot.
6. The bench: Less from the CW's, more from McKenna.

You have Georgetown averaging how many points per game?

So you think Fielder is going to stop taking 3s if he is the center? I do think Sorber will have less than 10 PPG so the points in the paint will be less and overall point totals will be less as you already noted. I do think Mack will be under too but not because his adjustment but more because I feel Epps will still be the highest and Mack will get others like Peavy and Sorber/Fielder involved.

Idk how much sorber can do but just pointing out Fielder scored 10 or more points when he played more than 20 minutes other than his second game in college. So even if Fielder doesn’t budge much on the points to minutes front, I think he will definitely get better at rebounding and defense. It wouldn’t blow my mind if Fielder contributes more than Cook did last year. The number of assists should go up on the team simply by Mack being on the team which should be great though I doubt he averages more than 15 (but that doesn’t mean I’m not high on him).

[jwp91]

Jul 8, 2024 11:29:20 GMT -5 conshyhoya said:

Jul 7, 2024 23:28:44 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Under.

1. Mack: I think we are underestimating Mack's adjustment to higher level competition. 18 points vs. Dartmouth is not 18 against St. John's.
2. Epps: 16 makes sense.
3. I see Peavy as a defensive-minded player, so somewhere around 7-8.
4. Burks averaged 7 MPG and 1.9 PPG. Let's tap the brakes on this one for now.
5. A combined 21 points from the paint (Fielder, Sorber) is a lot.
6. The bench: Less from the CW's, more from McKenna.

You have Georgetown averaging how many points per game?

So you think Fielder is going to stop taking 3s if he is the center? I do think Sorber will have less than 10 PPG so the points in the paint will be less and overall point totals will be less as you already noted. I do think Mack will be under too but not because his adjustment but more because I feel Epps will still be the highest and Mack will get others like Peavy and Sorber/Fielder involved.

If Fielder is healthy, I have to project he is going to at least 3-4 looks at a 3 a game.

It will be interesting to see to what extent Mack is primarily a creator or a scorer who also creates.

[hoyaguy]

Jul 8, 2024 11:52:27 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Jul 8, 2024 11:29:20 GMT -5 conshyhoya said:

So you think Fielder is going to stop taking 3s if he is the center? I do think Sorber will have less than 10 PPG so the points in the paint will be less and overall point totals will be less as you already noted. I do think Mack will be under too but not because his adjustment but more because I feel Epps will still be the highest and Mack will get others like Peavy and Sorber/Fielder involved.

If Fielder is healthy, I have to project he is going to at least 3-4 looks at a 3 a game.

It will be interesting to see to what extent Mack is primarily a creator or a scorer who also creates.

The shot distribution and usage should be an interesting watch throughout the season, would not mind a graph on the matter. Definitely dependent on how the Epps and Mack dynamic plays out. I think Mack will create a lot since he should have a better roster around him. But I can see early growing pains of recognizing a good opportunity to score in the Ivy League vs a good opportunity in a BE game. 

[jackofjoy]

Lots of interesting dynamics here but I’ll pick two:

Epps - I’ll take the over on 16ppg, but if it’s much over 20 it probably means either 1) he hasn’t changed much and/or 2) others aren’t at the level needed

Fielder - 20mpg is probably a good baseline but I’d hope for more like 25 which means he’s 1) not in foul trouble, 2) in BE level shape and 3) being productive - even if that means facilitating/opening up the floor if not scoring

[SFHoya99]

Jul 7, 2024 22:16:37 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:

Minutes per Game.

Mack. 33
Epps. 35
Peavy. 32
Burks. 22
Fielder. 22
Sorber. 25
Mulready. 6
Curtis Williams. 10
Caleb Williams. 5
Drew McKeena. 10


PPG
Mack. 18
Epps. 16
Peavy. 11.5
Burks. 8
Fielder. 10
Sorber. 11
Mulready. 3
Curtis Williams. 6
Caleb Williams. 3
Drew McKeena. 5

Aaah, the inevitable ppg post where we're scoring over 90 ppg.

We score 71 ppg last year on 67 possessions. While the pace might increase, unless we're amazing, I don't expect Cooley to want us to jump up much -- middle of the road would be 3 more possession and about three more points.

I don't actually think our efficiency is going to rise a ton; our improvement will be on defense. But the absolute peak is going to be about 10% -- that would be amazing even before factoring in that we lost most of our good three point shooting. But at most, you are getting 7 points out of that.

So the very upper end of ppg is 81, and we're more likely to be in the 74 ppg range even being optimistic.

If I had to take a guess:

Lead Guard (Mack): 16 ppg. Mack's backup will be Epps, but I'm placing him in SG. This could be low but I'm factoring in adjustment and risk. (Last year: 19)

Shooting Guard (Epps, Mulready, Curtis Williams): 24 ppg. I think Epps plays and shoots slightly less, but efficiency offsets. Mulready and Williams also grab some three guard minutes and chip in about 5 points combined. (Last year: 16)

Wing (Peavy, Caleb Williams, McKenna): 15 ppg. Peavy did about 12 this last year, but some of those shots are going to Mack. I don't think we see a ton of minutes for both Caleb and McKenna. So the actual points per total games played will be low even with some nice games in there. (Last year: 16)

Bigish (Fielder, Sorber, Burks): 19 ppg. These guys will get more than one spot's minutes, and I expect Fielder to lead it somewhere around 10 ppg. If we end up playing smaller, then these points shift elsewhere -- either to shooting guard or wing. But it's tough to see something like 60-70 mpg doing much worse than Cook+Fielder+Massoud even if this year's "bigish" is less versatile scoring wise. (Last year: 21 on ~65 mpg)

That puts us at 74 ppg, and that's probably somewhere in realistic optimism. Maybe a bit high as the shooting is really a gap.

The actual player by player numbers will look higher than the above because what we look at doesn't factor in DNPs at all. If Mack or Epps miss time, that's a lot of points that will get picked up elsewhere. And particularly at wing, I don't see everyone playing every game.

But I think this is more or less right if everyone was there every game.

[blueandgray]

Think fielder will get closer to 25 minutes a game and will score north of 10. It’s his time!

[SSHoya]

I'm going to worry about the defense first.

[jwp91]

Jul 9, 2024 10:20:02 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

I'm going to worry about the defense first.

Great. How do you break down what we may defensively with the changes?

[SSHoya]

Jul 9, 2024 11:34:12 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Jul 9, 2024 10:20:02 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

I'm going to worry about the defense first.

Great. How do you break down what we may defensively with the changes?

A very generic comment: I think we have guys with greater athleticism and higher basketball IQs. The lack of depth is worrisome but I think if the guys on the floor can play with good communication, it has yo be better than last two years - it 's hard to see it getting worse.

Short backcourt worries me, though.

[SFHoya99]

Jul 9, 2024 11:34:12 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Jul 9, 2024 10:20:02 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

I'm going to worry about the defense first.

Great. How do you break down what we may defensively with the changes?

There's so many question marks, given the freshmen and transfers.

But I think we'll try to do what we tried to do last year and couldn't do: Extend the perimeter D to limit 3s, switch often, don't collapse or help too much on drives. That changed drastically as the year went on because we had multiple points of failure.

Point of Failure #1: Getting beat off the dribble. It happens. It's going to keep happening. If for nothing else than having Peavy and not having Heath and Massoud, we'll probably be a bit better. But it's not the 80s anymore; you get beat. Defenses are largely built on how you react.

Point of Failure #2: Rim protection and offensive rebounding. Early on, we actually had Cook contest shots. But we were getting murdered on the glass. He was also picking up fouls, Fielder was nursing and injury and suddenly Cook stopped contesting much, started rebounding, but layups became way too easy.

We know Fielder can protect the rim, but can he stay out of foul trouble, avoid being bullied or isolated in pick and rolls? Is Sorber ready? Can Burks use his wingspan to help out in rim protection and the boards? So much of our defensive chances counts on all three of these guys at least being passable, available and not in constant foul trouble.

Point of Failure #3: Rotation. The biggest disappointment in coaching last year for me was how we simply could not get rotations down at all; in fact they seemed to regress. I don't know if we were trying more or the players were just done, but we can do better with #1, we can skim by with no depth in #2, but if we cannot rotate probably, we will get slaughtered on threes. Yes, the starting guards are short, but the rest of the team is much longer and athletic, so the perimeter D will likely improve significantly on this if we can just get people to know where they are supposed to go. The added protection behind will get us where we likely want to be -- a team that great discourages threes and takes its chances defending inside where the length can at least bother you.

It ain't perfect. It might not even be good. But if we can upgrade from Cook / no trying to contest layups to even passable (not to mention the plus work Fielder actually did when he wasn't fouling) and if we can upgrade Massoud to Burks or whomever, and if we can simply get decently intelligent rotation ... it can look like a real defense.

I'm not worried about Epps and Mack's size. It's not that it isn't a thing, it's that a) teams nowadays are really bad at exploiting short guys down low on switches and b) worrying about guard height is like six levels forward in defense. If that's our major issue, we are going to be so much better.

[hoyazeke]

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:

Minutes per Game.

Mack. 33 (O)
Epps. 35 (O)
Peavy. 32 (U)
Burks. 22 (U)
Fielder. 22 (O)
Sorber. 25 (U)
Mulready. 6 (U)
Curtis Williams. 10 (P)
Caleb Williams. 5 (0)
Drew McKeena. 10 (O)


PPG
Mack. 18 (U)
Epps. 16 (O)
Peavy. 11.5 (U)
Burks. 8 (P)
Fielder. 10 (O)
Sorber. 11 (U)
Mulready. 3 (P)
Curtis Williams. 6 (U)
Caleb Williams. 3 (O)
Drew McKeena. 5 (O)

I am predicting nice production from both Drews...and I think Caleb will get solid rotation mins.

[jwp91]

Jul 9, 2024 7:40:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Jul 7, 2024 22:16:37 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

We need something to talk about…

Do you take the over or under for each player below:

Minutes per Game.

Mack. 33
Epps. 35
Peavy. 32
Burks. 22
Fielder. 22
Sorber. 25
Mulready. 6
Curtis Williams. 10
Caleb Williams. 5
Drew McKeena. 10


PPG
Mack. 18
Epps. 16
Peavy. 11.5
Burks. 8
Fielder. 10
Sorber. 11
Mulready. 3
Curtis Williams. 6
Caleb Williams. 3
Drew McKeena. 5

Aaah, the inevitable ppg post where we're scoring over 90 ppg.

We score 71 ppg last year on 67 possessions. While the pace might increase, unless we're amazing, I don't expect Cooley to want us to jump up much -- middle of the road would be 3 more possession and about three more points.

I don't actually think our efficiency is going to rise a ton; our improvement will be on defense. But the absolute peak is going to be about 10% -- that would be amazing even before factoring in that we lost most of our good three point shooting. But at most, you are getting 7 points out of that.

So the very upper end of ppg is 81, and we're more likely to be in the 74 ppg range even being optimistic.

If I had to take a guess:

Lead Guard (Mack): 16 ppg. Mack's backup will be Epps, but I'm placing him in SG. This could be low but I'm factoring in adjustment and risk. (Last year: 19)

Shooting Guard (Epps, Mulready, Curtis Williams): 24 ppg. I think Epps plays and shoots slightly less, but efficiency offsets. Mulready and Williams also grab some three guard minutes and chip in about 5 points combined. (Last year: 16)

Wing (Peavy, Caleb Williams, McKenna): 15 ppg. Peavy did about 12 this last year, but some of those shots are going to Mack. I don't think we see a ton of minutes for both Caleb and McKenna. So the actual points per total games played will be low even with some nice games in there. (Last year: 16)

Bigish (Fielder, Sorber, Burks): 19 ppg. These guys will get more than one spot's minutes, and I expect Fielder to lead it somewhere around 10 ppg. If we end up playing smaller, then these points shift elsewhere -- either to shooting guard or wing. But it's tough to see something like 60-70 mpg doing much worse than Cook+Fielder+Massoud even if this year's "bigish" is less versatile scoring wise. (Last year: 21 on ~65 mpg)

That puts us at 74 ppg, and that's probably somewhere in realistic optimism. Maybe a bit high as the shooting is really a gap.

The actual player by player numbers will look higher than the above because what we look at doesn't factor in DNPs at all. If Mack or Epps miss time, that's a lot of points that will get picked up elsewhere. And particularly at wing, I don't see everyone playing every game.

But I think this is more or less right if everyone was there every game.

While your comment is very thoughtful, there are a couple of nuances that I think you omit.

I predict 5 quadruple overtimes games that will inflate stats....lol

Peavy and Burks are exceptional in transition. Fielder also has phenomenal speed for his size. It might be criminal not to significantly increase our pace given our assets. On paper, we might be able to go 10 deep. A 5% increase in possessions might be understated if we change our approach.

Peavy and Burks also have great length and are + defenders. I think we will get more turnovers resulting from their length and more easy buckets.

I'll take the over on averaging 70 possessions per game.

[SFHoya99]

Jul 10, 2024 11:34:11 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Peavy and Burks are exceptional in transition. Fielder also has phenomenal speed for his size. It might be criminal not to significantly increase our pace given our assets. On paper, we might be able to go 10 deep. A 5% increase in possessions might understated if we change our approach.

Peavy and Burks also have great length and are + defenders. I think we will get more turnovers resulting from their length and more easy buckets.

I'll take the over on averaging 70 possessions per game.

This is an interesting debate. I based my thoughts on pace on three ideas: Generally, when you are outgunned, you don't want to get into a running match; our transition defense was even worse than our half court defense last year; and our key weaknesses on depth will likely want us to take some time as well.

Obviously, saying over on 70 doesn't mean a massive increase, so we could be picking nits. But while I can totally see your point on personnel -- toss in freshmen who tend to do better in games that more closely resemble high school and AAU -- my gut reaction is that poor transition D and a real concern on fatigue at some spots will cause us to pound it more often than not.

[jwp91]

Jul 10, 2024 11:44:02 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Jul 10, 2024 11:34:11 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Peavy and Burks are exceptional in transition. Fielder also has phenomenal speed for his size. It might be criminal not to significantly increase our pace given our assets. On paper, we might be able to go 10 deep. A 5% increase in possessions might understated if we change our approach.

Peavy and Burks also have great length and are + defenders. I think we will get more turnovers resulting from their length and more easy buckets.

I'll take the over on averaging 70 possessions per game.

This is an interesting debate. I based my thoughts on pace on three ideas: Generally, when you are outgunned, you don't want to get into a running match; our transition defense was even worse than our half court defense last year; and our key weaknesses on depth will likely want us to take some time as well.

Obviously, saying over on 70 doesn't mean a massive increase, so we could be picking nits. But while I can totally see your point on personnel -- toss in freshmen who tend to do better in games that more closely resemble high school and AAU -- my gut reaction is that poor transition D and a real concern on fatigue at some spots will cause us to pound it more often than not.

It is certainly worthy of some early season testing to figure out how they can play most effectively.

[prhoya]

Is the roster set? Fall semester starts Aug. 28th. I cannot believe that, in Year 2 of the Cooley Era, we’re going with an inexperienced and unbalanced roster of just 10 scholarship players, with two upperclassmen and no true center.

[jwp91]

I think there is a distinct possibility that 1) we are going to go with what we have or 2) that any additions will be to the bottom of the roster to add depth and the key contributors are already on the roster.