|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 12, 2018 7:24:18 GMT -5
Thanks for he heads up!
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Nov 12, 2018 8:50:33 GMT -5
Attended the game with my son (U of M alum) as an HC and U of M alum. All loyalties in this one were with the Crusaders. Agree with the comments of sader81, dado and kycrusader1975 that the game was very reminiscent of the Louisville ‘04 (?) and Duke ‘06 games (both of which I attended) in terms of competing/leading for a half, getting a very bad whistle and being “clamped” offensively in the second half by superior defensive athleticism (particularly at Louisville and with Michigan). I think that if you look back at the play by play vs. Louisville, the first half scoring was incredibly low (something like 11-7 HC with about 4-5 minutes left in the first half).
As I was watching the game, I thought the officiating was pretty one-sided (more for non-calls in favor of HC than favorable calls for Michigan). After reading the comments on the board and hearing that McCarthy was part of the crew, it seemed as if my in-game impression was confirmed by others. In particular, I thought the second foul on Jehyve at the 17 minute mark of the first half was a charge. As it turned out, it may have worked out for the best because Niego came in and was en fuego.
Beilein commented after the game that one scenario Michigan hadn’t focused on too much was what would happen if Jehyve got in early foul trouble and HC put in a 5 who could shoot. Midway through the first half and in the second half, Michigan went with a small lineup without Teske (except when Jehyve was in the game) and clamped us with individual defensive athleticism. After we got to 18 pts. in the first 10 (?) minutes, we scored only 19 the rest of the way. There were a few missed opportunities that should have been made and some fouls that should have been called on the Wolverines but, for the most part, we were offensively stymied.
All in all though, I was impressed with the overall effort, the significant improvement at the defensive end over the SH game and the play of our top 7.
Also, Michigan has lost a lot offensively from last year but not defensively. I suspect as the season progresses, they will prove to be one of the top 10-15 teams in country on D and Teske was a particularly bad matchup for Jehyve. Several times Jehyve used his quickness to get Teske on his hip only to have Teske turn and use his 6” height advantage to throw off or block Jehyve’s shot. We will probably not see that again all year.
Lastly, in order to complete an upset against a team like Michigan, you need some luck/good fortune. Michigan (particularly Mathews and Simpson) is not a good FT shooting team-66% as a team last yr. and 13-29 in the Norfolk State game. I told several posters before the game that they’d probably shoot 75%+ against us and, sure enough, they went 17-21. Watch and see what they shoot from the FT line vs. Villanova tomorrow night. Gonna guess it won’t be 81%.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 12, 2018 10:09:13 GMT -5
The number of free throws that HC attempted in the game (3) tells me that this was never a serious challenge.
We will never win a game like this with the current passive, finesse, soft style that we employ.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 12, 2018 10:14:27 GMT -5
The number of free throws attempted by HC shows me that officials were more than a bit one-sided. The number of FTs attempted by Michigan (21) shows me that HC was playing a game where they mixed it up pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 12, 2018 10:44:03 GMT -5
The number of free throws attempted by HC shows me that officials were more than a bit one-sided. The number of FTs attempted by Michigan (21) shows me that HC was playing a game where they mixed it up pretty well. Free throws are earned by aggressive offensive plays. They are not just handed out by officials, with the intention of being evenly distributed to both teams. The endless excuses about the officiating whenever HC loses is getting more and more out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 12, 2018 11:03:36 GMT -5
Here's a stat that can't be blamed on officials:
HC had offensive rebounds on 15.8% of their opportunities vs Michigan.
For context, that would be ranked 316 out of the 329 teams that have played at least one gave vs. a D1 team this year. For the season last year, the worst team finished at 18.0%.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 12, 2018 11:05:42 GMT -5
The number of FTs attempted by Michigan (21) shows me that HC was playing a game where they mixed it up pretty well. What do you mean by this? It's not good when the opponent shoots a lot of free throws.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Nov 12, 2018 11:12:40 GMT -5
A lot of times when a game is a mismatch on paper, there is a big foul disparity. Not because officials are protecting the big boys from suffering an embarrassing upset, but the slower team is grabbing, fouling, etc to prevent the easy bucket after getting beaten on a move.
This observation does not change the fact the Bill McCarthy is a bad human being
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Nov 12, 2018 11:24:06 GMT -5
The number of free throws attempted by HC shows me that officials were more than a bit one-sided. Actually, the historical data support bbc's observation. Carmody's teams at Northwestern and here have consistently ranked among the worst in the country in free throws attempted per game. The fact that other P.O. teams - like Richmond (Mooney), Air Force (Scott), Denver (Scott), American (Brennan) and, of course, Princeton - also consistently show up in the bottom tier of this statistical category strongly suggests that (like low OR%), it's strongly correlated with teams that run (or try to run) the Princeton Offense.
Not suggesting he can't be successful using a finesse approach, but it's the approach - not the officiating - that produces these results year after year.
HC FTA/G (Rank) 15-16. 19.4 (262) 16-17. 16.7 (324) 17-18. 15.0 (339)
Northwestern FTA/G Rank 00-01. 301 01-02. 283 02-03. 261 03-04. 306 04-05. 312 05-06. 327 06-07. 336 07-08. 339 08-09. 335 09-10. 269 10-11. 322 11-12. 259 12-13. 287
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Nov 12, 2018 11:29:36 GMT -5
Willard's teams, of course, tended to be among the better ones in the country in OR% and FTA/G. Again, a result of approach.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Nov 12, 2018 12:00:06 GMT -5
Doesn't support the narrative of a few, but HC wasn't winning this game regardless of how many FT's they took.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Nov 12, 2018 12:26:59 GMT -5
Are backdoor layups finesse? Have to agree with Xmass, just from watching the highlight reel of a few minutes, looked like at least Butler got clobbered a few times going to the rim, no call
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Nov 12, 2018 12:28:23 GMT -5
For the heck of it, a little stroll down memory lane, to look at four high-profile games where free throw parity helped make HC competitive with the big boys. FTA/G.March 15, 2001. Kentucky 12, Holy Cross 11. March 14 2002. Kansas 23 Holy Cross 23. March 20 2003. Holy Cross 25, Marquette 23. March 15 2005. Holy Cross 30 Notre Dame 30.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 12, 2018 12:36:39 GMT -5
I think all but the last were on neutral courts.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Nov 12, 2018 12:53:04 GMT -5
For the heck of it, a little stroll down memory lane, to look at four high-profile games where free throw parity helped make HC competitive with the big boys. FTA/G.March 15, 2001. Kentucky 12, Holy Cross 11. March 14 2002. Kansas 23 Holy Cross 23. March 20 2003. Holy Cross 25, Marquette 23. March 15 2005. Holy Cross 30 Notre Dame 30.
Why don't you do a side-by-side comparison of the talent of these squads vs the talent on any of Carm's squads.
But of course some will think quality of players has nothing to do with being competitive with this level of teams.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Nov 12, 2018 13:09:47 GMT -5
For the heck of it, a little stroll down memory lane, to look at four high-profile games where free throw parity helped make HC competitive with the big boys. FTA/G.March 15, 2001. Kentucky 12, Holy Cross 11. March 14 2002. Kansas 23 Holy Cross 23. March 20 2003. Holy Cross 25, Marquette 23. March 15 2005. Holy Cross 30 Notre Dame 30.
All of the above with referees being paid for by a tournament, not by the Power conference that pay officials more per game thereby encouraging the officials to curry favor with the home coach who is the sole evaluator for getting more assigments in that higher paying conference. That said - given style of play, HC was never going to get close to the number of Free Throws as Michigan. I think most would have liked to have seen a few more calls go HC's way though. And to move off free throws ... I can't find it now, but I checked the shot chart on ESPN GameCast or on the Live Stats after the game it showed that Holy Cross missed about 18 shots in the lane, most of them within (or at most a step outside) the restricted arc. Hit 40% of them and we're hanging with them the whole game. We didn't and got the results we did. I believe the guys will learn and benefit from the experience.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 12, 2018 13:18:38 GMT -5
For the heck of it, a little stroll down memory lane, to look at four high-profile games where free throw parity helped make HC competitive with the big boys. FTA/G.March 15, 2001. Kentucky 12, Holy Cross 11. March 14 2002. Kansas 23 Holy Cross 23. March 20 2003. Holy Cross 25, Marquette 23. March 15 2005. Holy Cross 30 Notre Dame 30.
And OReb% (calculated based on missed FGs so may not be exact to include missed back-end FTs)Kentucky: 15% Kansas: 30% Marquette: 47% Notre Dame: 49% Kentucky is the only game even remotely close to where we are under Carmody. Some other notable games vs top 50 opponents: 07-08 @ St. Joes (#45): 36% 07-08 NCAA SIU (#16): 39% 06-07 @ Duke (#10): 31%
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 12, 2018 13:23:46 GMT -5
For the heck of it, a little stroll down memory lane, to look at four high-profile games where free throw parity helped make HC competitive with the big boys. FTA/G.March 15, 2001. Kentucky 12, Holy Cross 11. March 14 2002. Kansas 23 Holy Cross 23. March 20 2003. Holy Cross 25, Marquette 23. March 15 2005. Holy Cross 30 Notre Dame 30.
Why don't you do a side-by-side comparison of the talent of these squads vs the talent on any of Carm's squads.
But of course some will think quality of players has nothing to do with being competitive with this level of teams.
Completely missing the point. Things like free throw attempts and offensive rebound are about effort and aggressiveness, not talent. Also, Carmody has recruited 6 of the top 8 players on the current roster (but didn't recruit our best player - Floyd). It's beyond time for the "talent" excuse to be falling off the list for Carmody.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Nov 12, 2018 13:30:45 GMT -5
My final comments on the game - I didn't watch it, only listened, so I am at a disadvantage vs. those who watched on tv, and a bigger disadvantage vs those who were at the game (I'll exclude any mental disadvantages I might have lol). The second have sounded to me like a lot of low major/high major games where the underdog plays really hard, but eventually gets stymied by the superior athletic ability of the high major. To me, missing really easy, makeable shots is a common symptom. It's frustrating, because you only get so many of these opportunities in a given year, and Michigan seemed vulnerable. But, in the end for me, it comes down to the number 6: Six HC sophomores were playing their first game against a high major, and, 6 Wolverines who played got minutes in the National Championship game 7 months ago (Teske, Mathews, Poole, Simpson, Livers and Brooks). And that may be looked upon as an excuse, but it is also a FACT.
I hope having to get right back on the horse tomorrow night turns out to be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 12, 2018 13:34:14 GMT -5
Why don't you do a side-by-side comparison of the talent of these squads vs the talent on any of Carm's squads.
But of course some will think quality of players has nothing to do with being competitive with this level of teams.
Completely missing the point. Things like free throw attempts and offensive rebound are about effort and aggressiveness, not talent. To a degree, but it's more about scheme and strategy than effort and aggressiveness.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Nov 12, 2018 14:14:35 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, this was the sort of good-sized and athletic opponent that might expose the one-dimensionality of JF's offense (even beyond his foul trouble) and the physical limitations of a couple of other starters. At the same time we know that at our level (Patriot League), JF is a matchup nightmare and borderline unstoppable down low while someone like Austin Butler (1 for 13 v Michigan) can get open for shots and drive to the basket (and score) in the PL.
|
|
letsgohc
Climbing Mt. St. James
Posts: 80
|
Post by letsgohc on Nov 12, 2018 16:41:01 GMT -5
Watched the game. Plain and simple, Michigan Out-coached Holy Cross. 2nd half UM made adjustments and we didn't.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 12, 2018 16:42:47 GMT -5
Nonsense Was the talent level equal ?
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Nov 12, 2018 16:49:37 GMT -5
Not always about talent. If that's the case, we can always schedule these types of games, collect the check, and save money on travel-- just take an automatic L and stay home and study.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 12, 2018 16:56:22 GMT -5
Right, it is not always about talent. But in this case , we competed well for a half, then their far superior talent and size prevailed. Did you watch it ? Charles Matthews, their best player, began his career at Kentucky. As was pointed out, 7 players who saw action in last season’s championship game played against us. They are not No.18 for nothing
|
|