HHC Open Practice & Rotation/Minutes Discussion

[SoCal Hoya85]

mciguy said:

Spann played no minutes last year and Rivers is hurt.

What does last season have to do with this season? Didn't III tell his sophs to all improve over the offseason and work hard? Are you suggesting he said this knowing in advance he wasn't going to give certain players a true chance if they indeed worked on their games?

Based on last season I suppose Tyler won't be playing this year either, right?

Plus if they play that means we will be going 11 deep which is not going to happen.

Oh, and now you're the coach?

Its one thing for all of us to suggest what he should do; its quite another to act as if you exactly what he will do.

He better get used to playing 11 because he's not recruiting kids who will sit on the bench. In Spann's case we are talking about a player that has legit talent, size and athleticism for the three. IMO he would have been a starter on most of those late JT II teams and Esherick's teams. That may not be saying much but it does tell you that the guy would be wasted if he sat on the bench for two seasons. Its one thing if you're Tyler Crawford and came in with less of a rep (and even from sources it seemed clear that Tyler and especially his family were kinda frustrated with his lack of playing time his first two years); its a different story when you're a basically consensus top 100 recruit like Spann who had a choice of going to other high major programs. And if Crawford and Spann feel that way then just wait until the Wrights, freemans, Braswells, etc start joining the team. There is, at this rate, going to be a time in the near future when the Hoyas have about 11 consensus top 100 players on its roster at once, including four or more five-star guys. All of these guys may look pretty darn good when you catch them at the KL and in practice. If and when this happens I'd love to see some of you folks come up with these scenarios that justify playing 7 or 8 while the others look on. Because only to a loyal Gtown fanatic (and perhaps its head coach) does that type of rotation make any sense. Those other top flight players, unlike the fans, won't be as willing to see the "logic" in wasting one or two seasons of their lives blissfully watching on as their teammates get all the run while they barely get squeezed into a blowout game against Southwestern Idaho State. Its not the real world.

Coaching isn't just about X & Os. Its also about recruiting. Its also about managing egos. As charismatic as III may be he will still have a hard time keeping much of his team happy if talented players of his feel they never get a chance to get on the court to show what they can do. If all III wants to do is play 7 or 8 guys he better not fil all of his schollies and he certainly better not fill 11 or more of them with four and five star recruits. This ins't the 1950s or even the 1970s and this ain't the Ivy League. This is 2006 and the conference the Hoyas play in is Big Time. They are now drawing big time recruits. Big time recruits expect, if not demand, some quality playing time.

I think you have a point MCI, however I wouldn't give time to a player just because he is a consensus top 100 recruit. Playing time is earned. Lets not forget that for every minute were playing the 11th guy there is one less minute for a Green or a Hibbert. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[Nitrorebel]

According to the theories of some, a guy like Hibbs should NEVER have seen the court his first year, when he was clearly rubbish (I know I felt that way half the time AT that time!!). Now of course, 3 didn't have a choice, but I highly doubt Roy would be anywhere close to the player he is today without all those mins 2 seasons ago. The same is true for any other player. There may not be an immediate benefit to having a 9-man rotation, but it will pay off in the long run.

Anyway, if 3 DOESN'T give burn to his highly-rated horses by '07/'08, I would be very surprised to see top '09 recruits flocking to the program the way the '07 and '08 guys have been if we are at 13 schollies again. Again, why would they if they know that they won't see time anyway behind Ticket, Summers, Freeman, Braswell, etc.

By the way, if Calhoun can manage to squeeze in a frosh like Adrien in a front-court of first-round picks, I don't think it is implausible to suggest that one squeeze Ticket or Spann into a comparable front-court.

[GIGAFAN99]

Big East Season mpg for UConn (With Williams back)

Gay 31
Anderson 23
Williams 33
Brown 22
Boone 27
Armstrong 30
Adrien 17
Austrie 11

Lets see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...that can't be...1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...MCI can you help me count the number of players Calhoun used in his important games? It has to come out to 11 somehow.

Maybe if we include 3 of the 7 guys who played double-digit minutes in the 2004 championship game...

[hoyaboy1]

Wallace, Green, and Hibbert will be playing a bare minimum of 90 minutes a game, probably closer to 100 in meaningful games. That leaves 100-110 minutes to go around - does dividing that 8 ways make sense? I would suspect players are generally more effective getting 20 minutes than 10. In addition, if JTIII doesn't expect Spann or Egerson to play much after this year, why give them playing time this year if they aren't the best options?

There is a clear argument to give guys like Summers and Macklin developmental time even if they aren't currently our best options, as they will play big minutes next year for sure. The same argument doesn't necessarily apply to Rivers, Spann or Egerson.

If I was in charge, I'd probably start Wallace, Sapp, Ewing, Green and Hibbert. I'd give the threee juniors 30-34 minutes a game, depending on quality of opponent. I'd give Sapp and Ewing around 25. I'd split the remaining 50-60 among Crawford, Summers, and Macklin. In blowouts I'd make an effort to get Spann, Egerson and Rivers on the floor, but I wouldn't go out of my way to play them for its own sake.

Unless they are our best options this year or likely to play important minutes later on, why play them? An 8 man rotation should be plenty to keep everyone fresh.

[Nitrorebel]

OK, you got me at least Giga, LOL! I hang my head in shame for real. I'll have to recant some of my rhetoric.

BUT still, I'd rather us have a Duke roster if we have only 6-7 players on the court. There's no need having 13 scholarship players of the highest caliber if we only need have the number (a guy like Ticket is a little too good to be an Izzo). Anywhere I'm being an uber-armchair coach since none of us really KNOW the rotation depth for the next 2 seasons at the moment. But is still an important topic to follow over the next few months in terms of recruiting and attrition.

[SFHoya99]

After reading all of this, this is my thought:

In tough games, the rotation, provided that we have enough good players, should probably be around 8. If we have enough talent or are really running, 9 will be fine. If we don't have a lot of talent, 7 can barely pass.

But in blowouts, or games we should win easily, it'd be nice to get up to 11 guys in the game, even if the last few are only 5 minutes or so.

In big games, the starters would get 30+ minutes. In easy games, they may play less than 25 minutes. It doesn't allow for stat padding, but if you are good enough to have your starters play less than 30 minutes in most games, then you don't need stat padding.

That seems to be some sort of generic ideal to me. But I don't want to lose a lot of games to get players game experience.

[Eurostar]

mciguy said:

Spann played no minutes last year and Rivers is hurt.

What does last season have to do with this season? Didn't III tell his sophs to all improve over the offseason and work hard? Are you suggesting he said this knowing in advance he wasn't going to give certain players a true chance if they indeed worked on their games?

Based on last season I suppose Tyler won't be playing this year either, right?

Plus if they play that means we will be going 11 deep which is not going to happen.

Oh, and now you're the coach?

Its one thing for all of us to suggest what he should do; its quite another to act as if you exactly what he will do.

He better get used to playing 11 because he's not recruiting kids who will sit on the bench. In Spann's case we are talking about a player that has legit talent, size and athleticism for the three. IMO he would have been a starter on most of those late JT II teams and Esherick's teams. That may not be saying much but it does tell you that the guy would be wasted if he sat on the bench for two seasons. Its one thing if you're Tyler Crawford and came in with less of a rep (and even from sources it seemed clear that Tyler and especially his family were kinda frustrated with his lack of playing time his first two years); its a different story when you're a basically consensus top 100 recruit like Spann who had a choice of going to other high major programs. And if Crawford and Spann feel that way then just wait until the Wrights, freemans, Braswells, etc start joining the team. There is, at this rate, going to be a time in the near future when the Hoyas have about 11 consensus top 100 players on its roster at once, including four or more five-star guys. All of these guys may look pretty darn good when you catch them at the KL and in practice. If and when this happens I'd love to see some of you folks come up with these scenarios that justify playing 7 or 8 while the others look on. Because only to a loyal Gtown fanatic (and perhaps its head coach) does that type of rotation make any sense. Those other top flight players, unlike the fans, won't be as willing to see the "logic" in wasting one or two seasons of their lives blissfully watching on as their teammates get all the run while they barely get squeezed into a blowout game against Southwestern Idaho State. Its not the real world.

Coaching isn't just about X & Os. Its also about recruiting. Its also about managing egos. As charismatic as III may be he will still have a hard time keeping much of his team happy if talented players of his feel they never get a chance to get on the court to show what they can do. If all III wants to do is play 7 or 8 guys he better not fil all of his schollies and he certainly better not fill 11 or more of them with four and five star recruits. This ins't the 1950s or even the 1970s and this ain't the Ivy League. This is 2006 and the conference the Hoyas play in is Big Time. They are now drawing big time recruits. Big time recruits expect, if not demand, some quality playing time.

Obviously all the guys will play at some point in the season. I think we differ on our definition of a player "getting minutes". My point was that in big games that are close, we probably wont see more than 7 guys. Spann played almost no minutes last year and didnt look good, plus I saw him in Kenner this year. Ewing, Summers, Egerson are ahead of him on the depth chart at SF. None of them are leaving next year. I dont think its a stretch to say that he wont get meaningful minutes this year. Crawford didnt play a ton last year, but his improvements from last year to this seem Roy-esque so far. Plus his talents go along with what we need: someone who understands the offense, can take over for DJ in making timely backdoor cuts, and can shoot from the outside.

You make it out like we are the Yankees managing all this top talent, egos and expectations. Maybe one day in the near future, but not yet.... not this year. If the guys are improving enough to warrant minutes, great give them minutes. But I dont see who youre going to take them from. No team goes 11 deep in close games.

[Filo]

Re: Macklin - there have been points about his rawness, him droppping balls, and him seeing limited minutes. One point I have not seen made is that he is a rebounding machine, and JTIII is putting an emphasis on rebounding this year. I think VM will be getting some minutes from game one, spelling Roy. They may be somewhat limited but I think they will be going up as the year progresses.

[bmartin]

JTIII's pattern so far has been to sub to game situations and matchups. I think teams will try to press this season, and the coach hates turnovers, so ball handling will be imporant to those guys competing for 2 & 3 spots. He also wants to rely on defense in a close game. He does not like trading baskets, so strong defense and rebounding are likely to get someone on the floor. The new guys do not have to learn to do everything in the offense. If they learn the spacing and the simple reads - when to cut, when to screen - and let the juniors make the bounce passes off the dribble and the other plays that come with time. I would also recommend that any player who wants floor time needs to work on the two-man game with Jeff Green. DJ Owens had a very good understanding of what Green was doing and knew when to cut and when to pop out for a spot up three.

[MCIGuy]

sfhoya99 said:

The only team I've ever heard of going 11 deep was the 95-96 Kentucky Wildcats, and that's only if you include Nazr Mohammed and Oliver Simmon's 5 mpg as the 11th.

In the title game, only 7 people got more than 10 minutes and only nine even played.

The only team you ever heard of going 11 deep was Kentucky? I'm surprised by that. There are teams who use up to 11 players on a regular basis everywhere (and I don't even have to mention that III's dad went further than 11). Notice I didn't writte a game-to-game basis, I wrote on a "regular" basis. Earlier in this thread I suggested the Hoyas should have 7 to 8 players who got consistent playing time but that there should be a few other players who are rotated and get on the court based on the characteristic of an individual game. So while these other two or three players aren't on the floor every game (one or two may play one game, another one or two may play in the following game, etc.) at least they get some sort of run in legitimate games which seems better than keeping up to four or five scholarship players on the bench for about a month during Big East play. They also get valuable expereince that one can't learn from practice. That is how you use an 11 man rotation. And that's how you get your young players valuable expereince and keep them (somewhat) happy to boot.

There is nothing wrong with a coach who, with eight minutes left in the first half of a game with his team in need of an in-game shakeup, an unexpected spark or a way to keep the opponent off guard, looks down at the bench and suddenly puts in one of the players who is not in the main rotation. Especially if that player happens to be someone whom the coach offered a scholarship in the first place.

And I guess I should emphasize that I'm not suggesting the Hoyas play every scholarship player, every walk-on and every trainer in a championship game. Obviously when it gets to the post season you cut down on the bodies you use (although hopefully not as much as Pat Riley did during the 1990s).You rely on the main rotation during that point. But the benefit of playing more guys during the regular season are:

1)your main guys are more fresh during the post season; sure some teams don't need to do that but plenty of other teams have been worn down because of how much themain six or seven guys expend during the regular season (think last year's Duke team).

2)If one or more of your key guys gets hurt and can't play, you are much better off replacing him with a guy that got solid minutes off the bench during the regular season than you are with a guy who spent all of February in his warmup suit. Even more important you are better off with having battle tested guys to come off the bench than you are with the option of the coach shortening his rotation even more after an injury occurs.

[SFHoya99]

mciguy said:

sfhoya99 said:

The only team I've ever heard of going 11 deep was the 95-96 Kentucky Wildcats, and that's only if you include Nazr Mohammed and Oliver Simmon's 5 mpg as the 11th.

In the title game, only 7 people got more than 10 minutes and only nine even played.

The only team you ever heard of going 11 deep was Kentucky? I'm surprised by that. There are teams who use up to 11 players on a regular basis everywhere (and I don't even have to mention that III's dad went further than 11). Notice I didn't writte a game-to-game basis, I wrote on a "regular" basis. Earlier in this thread I suggested the Hoyas should have 7 to 8 players who got consistent playing time but that there should be a few other players who are rotated and get on the court based on the characteristic of an individual game. So while these other two or three players aren't on the floor every game (one or two may play one game, another one or two may play in the following game, etc.) at least they get some sort of run in legitimate games which seems better than keeping up to four or five scholarship players on the bench for about a month during Big East play. They also get valuable expereince that one can't learn from practice. That is how you use an 11 man rotation. And that's how you get your young players valuable expereince and keep them (somewhat) happy to boot.

There is nothing wrong with a coach who, with eight minutes left in the first half of a game with his team in need of an in-game shakeup, an unexpected spark or a way to keep the opponent off guard, looks down at the bench and suddenly puts in one of the players who is not in the main rotation. Especially if that player happens to be someone whom the coach offered a scholarship in the first place.

Okay, I understand what you are saying now. I suppose it makes some sense, especially if you are dealing with players with different skill sets.

That said, it hasn't been III's MO, either to relieve starters early or to vary his subs. Although I think the Princeton posters said that he did that commonly at Princeton (though presumably based on matchups, not on development).

[MCIGuy]

[quote author=socalhoya85
[/quote]


I think you have a point MCI, however I wouldn't give time to a player just because he is a consensus top 100 recruit. Playing time is earned. Lets not forget that for every minute were playing the 11th guy there is one less minute for a Green or a Hibbert. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.[/quote]

Very true. But lets remember we're playing a system that even when Roy and Jeff are in the game the ball is just as likely to be in the hands of less talented teammates (not including whomever is playing point) when a shot is taken. So if we are going to play this system in which we don't, for example, take advantage of a mismatch in favor of Roy by giving him the rock every time down the floor, is it going to hurt too much if he is off the court for 10 minutes each game?

[MCIGuy]

gigafan99 said:

Big East Season mpg for UConn (With Williams back)

Gay 31
Anderson 23
Williams 33
Brown 22
Boone 27
Armstrong 30
Adrien 17
Austrie 11

Lets see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...that can't be...1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...MCI can you help me count the number of players Calhoun used in his important games? It has to come out to 11 somehow.

Do the math, Giga. UConn brought in seven or eight eight recruits for this upcoming season but they lost only five guys to either graduation or the NBA draft. What does that mean? It means they were at least a couple of guys under 13 last season, which means they weren't as deep as normal. The one guy who got the short stick in terms of minutes was the transfer from GTech but I believe still he managed to get about as many minutes as guys like Spann and Thornton and Sead combined.

[jerseyhoya34]

Well, Hashish or whatever his name is might not be jumping center for UCONN due to eligibility concerns, so that number might be 6 or 7.

Great points, all. I'm at a point where I think we have 8 guys who can play, as I said before, with 2 others playing limited/defined roles. I don't want us to go deep for its own sake, which I think Pitt does. If that is depth, give me shallow.

[MCIGuy]

hoyaboy1 said:

Wallace, Green, and Hibbert will be playing a bare minimum of 90 minutes a game, probably closer to 100 in meaningful games. That leaves 100-110 minutes to go around - does dividing that 8 ways make sense? I would suspect players are generally more effective getting 20 minutes than 10. In addition, if JTIII doesn't expect Spann or Egerson to play much after this year, why give them playing time this year if they aren't the best options?

How do you know he isn't expecting them to play much after this season? Just because of the new guys coming in? Won't the new guys have to go through that same freshmen learning curve that some of you insist was the reason why Spann and Co didn't play last season and why Macklin and Rivers won't play all that much this season? And what if next year's frosh don't turn out to be as good as their clippings? And what if they are as good but a numbers' crunch occur as more talented players are brought in? There are so many pitfalls here. Yet I still am wondering how you have come to this definitive conclusion that Spann and Rivers won't ever play. Especially considering that countless posters basically said the same about Tyler Crawford during last year and now half the people here suddenly thinks he will start. What am I missing?

If I was in charge, I'd probably start Wallace, Sapp, Ewing, Green and Hibbert. I'd give the threee juniors 30-34 minutes a game, depending on quality of opponent.

For some of the posters who were Hoya fans during the Final Four years can you tell me how many minutes Ewing averaged per game. During at least two of those seasons didn't Ewing average under 30 minutes per contest?

I know Alonzo didn't get to that 34 minutes average until his senior season.

[hoyaboy1]

I never said that Spann and Egerson won't play after this year - I said if JTIII doesn't expect them to, there is no point in giving them development time this year.

As for minutes, I think we literally couldn't play Wallace less than 30. And do you really want Jeff on the floor less than that? Why?

[GIGAFAN99]

I think this argument has gotten to the point where the definition of "rotation" is the players you play in some games plus the players you play in all games. That's very close to another term which I believe is "team."

By rotation, I mean the guys who at the end of the Big East season have the number 16 under the "G" column. Everyone else is a role player and can play spot minutes to keep guys fresh, use fouls, avoid foul trouble for other players, defend a specialized player, or play garbage minutes. They're valuable in that sense, but by my definition are not part of a rotation.

I agree with using guys for all those purposes. I just think having a core group of 8 with G=16 during the Big East season is likely and a good idea given how much our offense relies on familarity and "hot reads."

[RDF]

MCI is 100% on the money here. You don't recruit people to sit and watch. I realize playing time has to be earned--but kids can't earn it if they never get to play in the Non Conference portion of the schedule and you need to go 8/9 deep come season's end--not at the beginning of year.

What depth brings is the ability to maintain your level of play--so instead of having to play a Roy 35 mpg where he's going to give you a great 28 and average 7, you can play someone else who can keep the team rolling and maintain the lead/help things go smoothly. Jeff got in foul trouble last year and we were a lost team--if that happens this year, you have capable replacements that will allow the team to not have to rush/chance another foul on Jeff--we can save him for important parts of game and protect our players.

Also some matchups are just better then others and against athletic teams--you better be able to go deep on your bench and use some fouls because they are going to bang/beat on you and if you have Jeff/Roy trying to fight UConn's Frontline or Pitt's physical frontline, you get worn down.

Last but not least--big time talent doesn't come to watch--they will understand being beaten out for playing time but if they are good enough to play, they don't come to sit and watch someone else play all of the minutes. It's that simple whether we like it or not and I don't blame the kids. I'm not saying you have to go 11 deep--but early in the year you should to see who can do what, who's improved, and who's not ready--film never lies and you can show the players "I'd like to play you more, but look at this and here's what I want to see you improve....." instead of "Why didn't I get in the game?".

Players understand as long as you communicate and I think III is strong here--but I admit MCI made a great point and just hope we see more kids playing early on and then you can narrow your rotations down come February/March to the guys who have earned the trust/playing time. Jeff/Roy/Wallace will be out there for certain--but outside of them minutes should be available for anyone who produces/earns them.

[HoyaChris]

Ewing's minutes per game were 28.8, 32.0, 31.9 and 30.6 over the course of his career.

[YB]

III wants to win a title. Tough to do with younger guys- I don't think he has a hard and fast rule, but generally it takes a long time for young guys to learn his system- about a year and a half.

Plus it depends on the player. I think Summers is most ready for PT; Vernon and Jeremiah are coming along nicely but not there yet. Vernon is a great rebounder, but you can't just do one thing on the floor for Coach's team- you have to be able to do everything, that's what the style of play is based on. Precision. Defense. Patience. Good reads. Good shooting. Passing, above all. Summers is close, but are the other guys? I think they might be closer by the end of the year, but I doubt they are there yet. Conversely, I think the sophs look much closer to being game ready. Egerson and Spann have made nice improvements, it seems.

Ultimately, we'll find out soon enough; but my take is to trust Coach. He's done more with less in the past few years to be able to earn our trust, right?