hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 26, 2008 11:19:54 GMT -5
Dan,
Who is "castigating" Esh for not coming to the event? The point was simply that he hasn't been exiled from the basketball community.
Also, you must realize that games where he was still the coach and a gala are drastically different formats. Besides that, your claim that his family was harassed regularly at games is absurd.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 26, 2008 11:13:19 GMT -5
Craig was invited to attend the 100th Anniversary Basketball gala last year, and declined to come. That's just one example, but there are others. To argue that he's not being welcomed back is incorrect. This is debatable, but do you think he'd be practically boo-ed out of the room? An invitation doesn't mean a whole lot if the University and its supporters virtually hate you. I don't think there is any way that people would have been rude to him in that venue, D. Pierce.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 24, 2008 17:02:46 GMT -5
Jack,
I am too quick for you.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 24, 2008 17:00:06 GMT -5
High indexes are good on the left, bad on the right. SF: could you expand on this at all? I'm a bit confused on how the indexes are calculated. They appear to be percentages based off the number of offensive rebounds and offensive rebounds allowed on average by the opponent. In other words, on the right the "index" is our offensive rebound percentage divided by their average, so high is good. The right side is the opposite (ORs allowed divided by opponents' average OR), so low is good.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 21, 2008 14:16:01 GMT -5
RDF,
We actually played at a slower than average pace against Providence - the extra field goal attempts were due to our much higher than usual total of offensive rebounds.
In any case, taking more shots shouldn't be a goal in and of itself - leaving rebounding and TOs out for a minute, when you take a shot you are also by default giving your opponent one. The goal is taking good shots and playing at a pace that maximizes the team's efficiency on those shots.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 20, 2008 11:13:55 GMT -5
ProBoards bringing back the "Ignore" feature? Exactly. I don't know, or care, what meds Lic is on. I just wish I wouldn't forced to wade through the quagmires that are his ramblings on my way to finding a cogent thought, insight or piece of analysis on HoyaTalk. This post and Buffalo's (and now mine, I suppose) are more useless than lic's. If you don't like his posts don't click on the thread, even though you'll miss out on an opportunity to show off your rapier wit.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 18, 2008 22:22:44 GMT -5
You guys sound like the company I work for. "Let it work 'cause it works until it doesn't work anymore" is our motto. Smart. We start second halves slowly. That's a problem. We have a guy who brings energy and defense. So why not try starting him, at least in the second half? What if we then were bad starting in the middle of the half? Early in the season people said we needed a spark off the bench and Ewing would be better there. Now apparently we need a spark in the starting lineup. Personally I don't think messing with the rotation will fix any of our problems (although I wish Rivers didn't have to play as much). It seems to me that your purpose would be better served by simply playing Ewing more; again, I don't see why it matters if he starts the game or comes in after 5 minutes if he plays the same amount overall.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 18, 2008 22:19:26 GMT -5
Crawford is no bigger than Freeman and Macklin realistically is only going to get minutes when Roy sits (if that). So, that means we have to have a smaller SF for a decent amount of the game unless you want "Dujuan" and Ewing to play 40 minutes each.
Freeman's problem lately has been offense, in any case (although I thought he was OK today) - opposing SFs haven't done a disproportionate amount to hurt us and there aren't that many much bigger than Austin anyway.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 18, 2008 19:14:37 GMT -5
I can't say I see why it would matter who starts, just who gets minutes.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 17:55:15 GMT -5
Very nice work, HoyaSinceBirth. Did you find a database or something to search through? I hope you didn't do that all manually.
Of the 7 in the BE, 5 are guards. Of those 5, 1 is clearly worse offensively right now (Stokes). The other 4 all have better A/TO ratios (and significantly better in conference play based on my quick glances through their stats). Rivers is shooting much worse in conference play, but he also shoots less than all these guys, which is good.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 16:10:45 GMT -5
On other teams Rivers would score more, but I don't think he'd be any more efficient. If he had to play like Braswell, I think he'd shoot even worse than KB did, perhaps significantly (at least compared to his senior year). If KB only took a few shots a game, like Rivers, I think he'd shoot a pretty solid percentage. KB also actually got assists on occasion.
This is all hypothetical and a bit pointless, though. Still, in general shooting more hurts efficiency, not helps it - every extra shot a player finds tends to be a bit worse than the last. On the other hand, as pointed out above Rivers does tend to shoot out of desperation, which counteracts this - he passes up shots when he's open and forces them later when the clock is running out.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 14:55:13 GMT -5
I said Rivers was one of the worst offensive guards getting minutes with high majors because I think it's true. Not sure how many others can top his shooting percentages and poor A/TO ratio in conference play. Can't be very many.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 14:38:08 GMT -5
Get off your high horse. As far as I can tell Jeremiah works hard to improve, is a good kid, and gives his all on the court. His defense has been key in 2 of our wins. I always root for him and hope he that can fix the areas he currently struggles in. The people who say he should play 1-2 minutes a game are crazy - we obviously need him right now.
That doesn't mean, however, that I need to ignore the fact that he has major weaknesses on the offensive end and is only a contributor on one side of the court. I evaluate the play of all players on equal grounds, Hoya or not. Jeremiah just isn't anythign approaching a decent offensive player, as good a kid as he may be.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 14:26:53 GMT -5
Ok, Hometown - I'll be very generous and add 20% to our pace, putting us in the top 10 (so way above a "normal pace").
Jeremiah's new BE numbers numbers at 30 mpg:
4.2 points, 4.6 boards, 1.3 assists, 2.3 TOs, 1 steal, 30% FG, 10% 3pts.
Yea, so, besides boards and total TOs (ratio is of course the same), those numbers are still horrible.
Basically, he contributes by being a solid rebounder (better than Wallace, worse than Sapp) and playing man D. He isn't good at anything else, whether we wish he was or not.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 14:14:10 GMT -5
That's a mischaracterization. Rivers can shoot- his form is decent and he has made some nice jumpshots this season. He has to get much more consistent, but it's unfair to say that he has no shot. Also, Jeremiah can penetrate. He's not one of our best offensive options, so he doesn't do it a lot, but when he tries to burst past his man, he does it. Come on now - he is shooting 30% in Big East play and 10% from 3. While he literally "can shoot," he's about as bad at it as any guard can be. If he is shooting 30% while barely taking any shots, I can't imagine how terrible his numbers would be if he was expected to be a scorer and take 8+ shots a game. Jeremiah gets to the basket once every few games, so I'm not exactly ready to credit him for his abilities there. Again, every guard CAN penetrate - but the people who aren't very good at it (like Jeremiah) do so rarely. I suspect if people feared his shot at all it might be easier, though. And by the way, he's nowhere close to one of the worst guards who gets minutes for a high-major team- maybe for a top-ten team. But Jeremiah starts for a LOT of teams in the BE, not to mention inferior leagues...For instance, I'd take him over all of "Nova's guards outside of Scrubbie. Did you read my post? I said offensive guards, and it is clearly correct - he's an abomination on offense, especially in Big East play. I really, really, really don't think that he starts for a lot of Big East teams. Which are you thinking of? If Wallace could play D and Wright was healthy, he'd barely be playing here and our guards aren't top-tier. If you extrapolated Jeremiah's BE numbers to 30 minutes a game (reasonable time for a starter) he'd be putting up 3.5 points, 3.8 rebounds, 1.1 assists, 1.9 TOs, and .8 steals, along with his terrible percentages. Good man D or no, I'm not sure how many teams would settle for that sort of production.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 13, 2008 12:33:05 GMT -5
Right now Rivers is probably one of the worst offensive guards at the high major level that actually gets minutes - can't shoot, can't penetrate, can't break the press well, doesn't set up teammates. It's a pretty long way to go from that to an NBA player, so I'd say the odds are pretty long. Solid man defense with very few steals ain't enough.
Right now, we obviously need Jeremiah - he's the third guard. I'd prefer that longterm we don't need to settle for having a player that's only useful on one end of the court, but unless Clark develops quickly I imagine Rivers will get sizable minutes next year as well.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 12, 2008 17:31:58 GMT -5
But you would think a coach who runs a progressive offense would also think about things like going 2 for 1. It's safer to assume that all coaches are Luddites. I've given up on getting mad about that kind of stuff - no matter how often I yell about it, baseball managers will still bunt in the first inning and basketball coaches will pass up 2 for 1s.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 12, 2008 17:15:56 GMT -5
JTIII isn't a fan of the two for one, I don't think. Whenever it's a possibility I start yelling to my friends about it, but we never go for it.
This is more of a generic stupid coaching decision (like not fouling up 3), so I left it off my list of JTIII-specific issues.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 12, 2008 12:03:26 GMT -5
I'm not one to immediately jump on coaches for every failure of execution by the players. However, there have been a number of ongoing issues (some going back years) that have never been remedied, and the coaching staff has to take some heat for that.
Before anyone jumps on me, I absolutely love what JTIII has done for the program (I was a student for the last 2 Esh years and first 2 of JTIII, so I witnissed the change firsthand). Still, he is a young coach and in my opinion has some weaknesses that I hope he can address.
1. Breaking the Press
Not much to be said here. For years the team has shown no concept of how to break the press effectively, and never gets easy baskets off of it. Presses are supposed to be high-risk, high-reward; against us, it's just high-reward. Yes, some of the problems here are due to poor passing, but the scheme is obviously a problem as well and it's worrying that after years of struggling JTIII does not seem to have made adjustments.
2. Fastbreaks
I'm not talking about how often we break here - personnel to a large part dictates that. However, the few times we do break the players look clueless in terms of spacing and timing on their passes. Supposedly we spend very little time practicing the break, but you'd think we spent none. This will be more of a problem next year if we don't see improvement, since the team will be quicker and more athletic.
3. Half-time Adjustments
I can't remember if this was a problem last year, but this season the team has consistently struggled out of the break. Against almost every good team we've played, we have gone on a drought at the start of the half. I might have passed it off as a fluke before but now it's become a pattern.
4. Getting it to Roy
In his post-game interview, JTIII said that he was happy with the job the team did of getting the ball inside in the 2nd half. Yet, as we all know, getting away from that is what almost cost us the game. For years now we have shown poor technique on entry passes and a lack of consistent effort to work the ball into the post. Some of this is certainly on the players, but it is the coaches job to work with them on their technique and to get on them if they aren't feeding Roy enough. If JTIII really wanted Roy to get the ball more, it's hard to believe that he wouldn't be by this point.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 12, 2008 11:44:54 GMT -5
Definitely agree on point 4 - not sure that teams have caught on (Nova has always defended it well) as much as our team simply isn't running it as in past seasons. Too often on offense our guys stand around without the ball - and if I were JT3 I'd mandate that Hibbert has to touch the ball once before anyone takes a shot, unless we have numbers on the break, obviously. There's nothing wrong with the offensive system. It's how the players are running it. There's no system that works when you don't give the ball to your best player and when you settle for jump shots. This is probably half true. After the game JTIII said he was happy with the job we did getting the ball to Roy in the second half. If he was actually getting on the players to get the ball inside, I suspect we'd see a lot more of it. The coaches obviously have to share some blame here.
|
|