|
Post by hcpride on Nov 24, 2018 10:34:05 GMT -5
No doubt a kid coming out of high school with size/strength/skills at the level JF has now is not heading to HC. I think that the fact he is so valuable to our success at this point (coupled with the fact that the recruits and bench are not nearly at his level) is why several posters realize this - more than next - is the year. A very credible (v PL) down low offensive and defensive threat is tremendous added-value in our scheme. This is notwithstanding the fact that shooting and passing are very important to Carmody's philosophy and key attributes in the recruits he can land.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Nov 24, 2018 10:36:19 GMT -5
Unless there is some type of evidence of a correlation between A/FGM and winning, I don’t see it as some type of stat that proves the offense is great. Carmody’s offense is based on passes and most shots come off the pass, rather than on drives to the rim, pull-ups, etc. That mere fact alone is going to generate a high A/FGM, because almost every made jump shot/3 pointer is off a pass, and therefore an assist, even if the pass/passer isn’t the one who created the open shot. If all of our assists were on backdoors for open layups, A/FGM would be a much more meaningful stat. But a pass to someone who makes a 3 pointer generally has more to do with the shooter than the assist. I struggle to see how we can maintain an “identity” of being a good passing/shooting team and have that be enough to beat more talented teams like other traits (defense, rebounding, deflections, possession battle, etc) that aren’t as reliant upon talent and skill.the fact is that there are teams and programs all over the country and at every level - from high school (christian brothers academy) to college (gonzaga) to the nba (golden state warriors) - that utilize a shooting and passing focus to maintain success. what does this mean at hc? just as i loved how we used to recruit guys under rw who were a little too short, too thin, too heavy, not athletic enough - but had potential for defensive prowess - we are now recruiting guys who are a little too short, too thin, not athletic enough, etc. - but have exceptional potential for offensive (namely shooting and passing) prowess. when all is said and done, we may not look back at the carmody era as a success at hc - i happen to think we will - but the key is that it is a fallacy to think there is only one way to skin the cat of overcoming an athleticism differential. i'm sure some who refuse to see things any other way than their own preference will cherry pick individual elements of this post, but i think it is hard to argue against my bolded conclusion. Interesting discussion. I would point out, though, that both Gonzaga and the Warriors, respectively, have been among the best DEFENSIVE teams in recent years (Gonzaga and the Warriors were both tops in the NCAA and NBA, respectively, in Defensive Rating in 2016-17, and have been at or near the top of most defensive metrics in most years during their recent runs.) The Warriors' reign over the NBA has been buttressed not just by the phenomenal shooting of Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, but by a defense that can, because of Draymond Green playing center many nights despite going just 6-6 or so, switch one through five--everybody can switch defensively onto anyone on the floor at any time. This mitigates the effectiveness of the NBA's staple play, the pick and roll. And, thus, the Warriors' defensive stops are even more impactful on a game, as they shoot the ball so well, you can't possibly keep up with them over 48 minutes. In the case of HC and other mid/low majors, I'd argue that the main way to overcome an athleticism differential is reducing possessions. In fact, I think it's the only realistic way. That's why, while I understand offenses like the Princeton are anathema to lots of fans, they're often the most effective way to keep a team that's "nailed to the floor" in games longer. Most of the time, if you're going against a team that's superior athletically, they're superior in ALL ways. Their rebounders are better than your rebounders. Their defenders are better than your defenders. And, their shooters are better than your shooters. So the best way to compete in a game like that is to limit the number of times the superior team actually has the basketball in hand. Time is the greatest equalizer for two disparate teams--at some point, both teams run out of it, no matter how much more talented one is than the other.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Nov 24, 2018 10:52:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 24, 2018 11:41:15 GMT -5
Unless there is some type of evidence of a correlation between A/FGM and winning, I don’t see it as some type of stat that proves the offense is great. Carmody’s offense is based on passes and most shots come off the pass, rather than on drives to the rim, pull-ups, etc. That mere fact alone is going to generate a high A/FGM, because almost every made jump shot/3 pointer is off a pass, and therefore an assist, even if the pass/passer isn’t the one who created the open shot. If all of our assists were on backdoors for open layups, A/FGM would be a much more meaningful stat. But a pass to someone who makes a 3 pointer generally has more to do with the shooter than the assist. I struggle to see how we can maintain an “identity” of being a good passing/shooting team and have that be enough to beat more talented teams like other traits (defense, rebounding, deflections, possession battle, etc) that aren’t as reliant upon talent and skill.i think it comes down to how we conceptualize the "talent" differential. keep in mind that defense, rebounding, etc. are all themselves measures of basketball talent. players can be - and usually are - more talented in these dimensions relative to others. some players are gloves with extraordinary defensive instincts, others have a knack for seeing the angle of a shot and anticipating where the rebound will fall, etc. of course, a lot of these dimensions come down to effort, but to think that shooting is talent and defense is not talent is a mistake. i imagine you will agree with this. what i really think we are talking about here is not talent, which is hugely multi-dimensional, but rather - ATHLETICISM discrepancy. that's what rw often talked about as has carmody at various points of his career. defense and rebounding are one way to overcome an athleticism discrepancy. although it is almost impossible to argue that athleticism plays a major role in defense (lateral speed, overall quickness, jumping ability, etc.) and rebounding (strength, jumping ability, quickness, etc.). for some reason, it seems that you and some others here refuse to acknowledge that shooting and passing are another way - proven by many teams over the years - to overcome an athleticism discrepancy. in fact, i would actually argue that shooting and ball movement are less reliant upon athleticism than defense and rebounding for the aforementioned reasons. as i have said many times here over the years, i personally prefer strong defensive minded teams. it was my calling card as a player and coach in baltimore who every night was going up against more athletic teams. and my favorite team in college basketball is virginia as bennett is the master at defense. however, defense is not the only way and not being able to score puts you at major risk. just look at virginia in the big dance last year! or our frustrating close but no cigar results so many times under rw, when we just couldn't buy a bucket. the fact is that there are teams and programs all over the country and at every level - from high school (christian brothers academy) to college (gonzaga) to the nba (golden state warriors) - that utilize a shooting and passing focus to maintain success. what does this mean at hc? just as i loved how we used to recruit guys under rw who were a little too short, too thin, too heavy, not athletic enough - but had potential for defensive prowess - we are now recruiting guys who are a little too short, too thin, not athletic enough, etc. - but have exceptional potential for offensive (namely shooting and passing) prowess. when all is said and done, we may not look back at the carmody era as a success at hc - i happen to think we will - but the key is that it is a fallacy to think there is only one way to skin the cat of overcoming an athleticism differential. i'm sure some who refuse to see things any other way than their own preference will cherry pick individual elements of this post, but i think it is hard to argue against my bolded conclusion. Gonzaga and the Warriors are not exactly a good comparison, as their talent is equal or drastically better than the teams they are playing against. And Gonzaga is a team that has somewhat plateaued in the NCAA tournament with quite a few early exists, and has struggled to get over the hump where the elite teams are. (Before some jump down my throat — Mark Few has done an amazing job there, and just the fact that they are in the conversation with the elite teams is remarkable.) The big piece that many seem to be failing to see (and as Gray and Crosspride have pointed out) in already reaching their conclusions that Carmody’s system is great based on 4 wins against below average teams to start this year after 3 years well below .500 is how big of a role Floyd plays as the duct tape that keeps the defense from falling apart. Carmody is able to play this extended defense that causes turnovers on the perimeter because he has one person who can keep things somewhat respectable in the paint. Without Floyd in the back of the defense, we will get exposed by good teams if we continue to play this way. And without those turnovers that we are forcing, and more possessions instead becoming easy 2FGs, that just means we’ll have to shoot an even higher percentage at the other end to keep pace. RW’s system wasn’t just about defense, but rather a meticulous effort to maximize HC’s possessions while minimizing the opponent’s possessions and making it as difficult as possible for the opponent to score during those possessions. The offense that he ran at HC was designed to make an opponent work for 25+ seconds for the majority of the game, including fighting through a ton of screens, having to fight for every rebound, etc. The idea was that even if HC didn’t score, they were still taking something out of the opposition’s tank each time down the floor. This fed into the defensive approach (and recruiting philosophy) perfectly. It was a holistic approach to offense and defense. Of course teams can win with exceptional shooting and passing, but it is highly unlikely that shooting and passing alone will lead to sustained success without paying close attention to the many other areas that influence games, especially as a team that will have a talent disadvantage when we are playing up a level. A four game sample against teams ranked 317-201-257–254 with defenses ranked 341-204-298-249 is not exactly proof of a sustainable model.
|
|
|
Stats
Nov 24, 2018 12:03:04 GMT -5
efg72 likes this
Post by hchoops on Nov 24, 2018 12:03:04 GMT -5
With the way the game is called today, would HC’s defense that we ran under RW be less effective? Very possible. These new emphases certainly would not help RW’s physical defense.
|
|
|
Stats
Nov 24, 2018 13:03:09 GMT -5
Post by hchoops on Nov 24, 2018 13:03:09 GMT -5
Just checked the available Pomeroy rankings for the RW years. Pomeroy began in 2001-02 Yr. rank. adjO. adjD 02. 162. 245. 75 03. 66. 107. 45 04. 171. 270. 65 05 66. 131. 22 06. 129. 211. 53 07. 93. 186. 39 08. 170. 204. 143 09. 182. 235. 114
BBC will probably now put the 3 CBC seasons in contrast, but my point is only to see that although our offense was not bad in those years, it was well behind both our defense and our overall rank. And though CBC correctly points out that our offensive performances in this season was against low rated defenses and teams, our current Pomeroy rank which includes all 6 games, is 175 (D is 150)
|
|
|
Stats
Nov 24, 2018 18:13:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 24, 2018 18:13:58 GMT -5
Just checked the available Pomeroy rankings for the RW years. Pomeroy began in 2001-02 Yr. rank. adjO. adjD 02. 162. 245. 75 03. 66. 107. 45 04. 171. 270. 65 05 66. 131. 22 06. 129. 211. 53 07. 93. 186. 39 08. 170. 204. 143 09. 182. 235. 114 BBC will probably now put the 3 CBC seasons in contrast, but my point is only to see that although our offense was not bad in those years, it was well behind both our defense and our overall rank. And though CBC correctly points out that our offensive performances in this season was against low rated defenses and teams, our current Pomeroy rank which includes all 6 games, is 175 (D is 150) Yes, I don’t know if anyone would argue that RW’s HC teams were efficient on offense from any type of statistical angle, except for perhaps in tempo stats. However, they were effective at complementing the offense and helping to establish the tone for each game. If those teams were successful in RW’s effort stats (deflections, offensive rebounds, close-outs, etc.), the offense only had to get to 65 points. There are no KenPom stats from RW’s Western Kentucky days, but I’ll bet that those teams would have been very highly rated playing a full court up-tempo system that scored a lot of points. While much different than the HC defense, the full-court defense those teams played was also complementary to the offense.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Nov 24, 2018 18:36:42 GMT -5
I am sure few will agree but
Honestly I am not sure why we make comparisons to the past as it is so easy to criticize or praise depending on the past.
I am a glass full guy and we should focus our energy and comments on what might be done over the next decade. Each sport is evolving and given our current status what needs to be done over the next decade to transform our efforts in all sports given the league we are in today.
If we address these issue we just might play an important role in the future of Crusader sports while enjoying the successes and some disappointments of the moment, but I believe for the first time in years the possibilities are under our control
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 25, 2018 8:23:32 GMT -5
Sort of a moment for Shakespeare: "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones. (Julius Caesar 3.2.79)" ...but at Holy Cross we seem to have reversed it for some former coaches
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 26, 2018 16:04:12 GMT -5
Unless there is some type of evidence of a correlation between A/FGM and winning, I don’t see it as some type of stat that proves the offense is great.
Carmody’s offense is based on passes and most shots come off the pass, rather than on drives to the rim, pull-ups, etc. That mere fact alone is going to generate a high A/FGM, because almost every made jump shot/3 pointer is off a pass, and therefore an assist, even if the pass/passer isn’t the one who created the open shot. If all of our assists were on backdoors for open layups, A/FGM would be a much more meaningful stat. But a pass to someone who makes a 3 pointer generally has more to do with the shooter than the assist. I struggle to see how we can maintain an “identity” of being a good passing/shooting team and have that be enough to beat more talented teams like other traits (defense, rebounding, deflections, possession battle, etc) that aren’t as reliant upon talent and skill. Here's a quick look at the A/FGM ranking of the Top 10 and Bottom 10 teams per KenPom Top 10 teams rank as follows in A/FGM 170 for # 1 team overall 130 37 49 83 82 41 6 149 5 So all are in top half of D-1 and the median ranking is #62 The bottom 10 teams rank as follows 337 325 303 106 166 257 24 173 248 128 for lowest ranked team in D-1 median ranking for A/FGM is #210 KenPom data can be easily extracted into Excel, so I took a quick look at the correlation between the 22 primary stats that his site tracks and a team's final KenPom ranking over the past two seasons: Stat | Correl w/ Rank (2-year AVG) | HC AVG (16-18) | eFG% - Def | .644 | 266 | eFG% - Off | .609 | 179 | FG2% - Def | .608 | 269 | FG2% - Off | .556 | 144 | Block% - Def | .450 | 150 | FG% - Off | .449 | 248 | TO% - Off | .448 | 141 | FG3% - Def | .422 | 188 | OR% - Def | .359 | 260 | FT Rate - Def | .333 | 118 | Ast Rate - Off | .327 | 22 | Steal Rate - Off | .299 | 164 | OR% - Off | .278 | 342 | Ast Rate - Def | .276 | 326 | FT% - Off | .269 | 235 | Steal Rate - Def | .196 | 59 | Block % - Off | .186 | 185 | FT Rate - Off | .146 | 225 | FG3 Rate - Def | .065 | 338 | TO% - Def | .056 | 53 | FG3 Rate - Off | .034 | 63 | FT% - Def | -.034 | 278 |
- It appears that there are four somewhat distinct tiers with groups of stats that matter the most (eFG%, 2FG%) down to those with minimal correlation (FG3 Rate, FT%).
- While not on the "top tier," I was very surprised to see Block % - Def so high on the list. This should jump out to those who think that losing Floyd without anything close to a real replacement on the roster is not a big issue.
- In addition to our only contributor to stat #5 (Blocks), Floyd is also our best 2FG shooter, which is stat #4.
- The stat that has gotten the most hype in this thread (Asst Rate - Off) is either at the bottom of tier 2 or the top of tier 3 -- which doesn't suggest that it has much of a direct correlation with winning.
- More significant than Asst Rate simply being on the tier 2/3 border is that it's the only stat that Carmody has had in tiers 1-3 with an average finish in the top 100 over his first 3 full seasons
|
|
|
Stats
Nov 26, 2018 18:57:47 GMT -5
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 26, 2018 18:57:47 GMT -5
Fantastic analysis--thanks for doing all that work for the group's benefit. In his "Game Plan" section KenPom provides correlations between several key factors and each teams offensive and defensive efficiency and those are always interesting to monitor as well.
|
|
|
Stats
Nov 30, 2018 12:13:53 GMT -5
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 30, 2018 12:13:53 GMT -5
Something really jumped out at me when looking back at Carmody's tenure at Northwestern -- his teams were in the top 5 in the country in A% every year. While this may seem wonderful on the surface, the reality is that if it had any impact on the team's performance, the data would suggest that it had a negative impact on the team's winning percentage: Assist % | Winning % | 64.9 | 57.6 | 66.1 | 58.8 | 67.7 | 54.8 | 68.6 | 48.3 | 68.8 | 41.4 | 70.3 | 48.4 | 70.5 | 55.2 | 70.7 | 40.6 | 70.7 | 48.3 | 71.5 | 26.7 | 71.6 | 58.8 | 71.6 | 41.9 |
As this data shows, he had three years where his team had an assist % of 71.5 or 71.6, but one of those years was his worst year at NW from a W-L perspective, and the other was 4th worst year. In the two years with the lowest assist %, he had two of his three best years at NW. Here is the correlation between each of the stats that KenPom tracked during Carmody's year's at Northwestern and Northwestern's winning percentage during those years: Stat | Correl. | OR% - Off | .628 | Blk% - Def | .538 | AdjO - Off | .522 | FTR - Off | .511 | eFG% - Off | .477 | AdjTempo | .467 | 3P% - Off | .361 | 3PA% - Off | .313 | FT% - Off | .180 | 2P% - Off | .144 | TO% - Off | -.160 | FTR - Def | -.222 | A% - Def | -.294 | TO% - Def | -.310 | 3PA% - Def | -.336 | 2P% - Def | -.433 | AdjD - Def | -.466 | A% - Off | -.520 | OR% - Def | -.539 | eFG% - Def | -.544 | 3P% - Def | -.625 |
Hmmm … the two stats that have had the highest correlation with winning for Carmody are Offensive Rebounding % and Block % (Def). Perhaps it would have been wise to invest more scholarships in players who can play in the post rather than continue to recruit perimeter player after perimeter play.
|
|
|
Stats
Nov 30, 2018 12:18:38 GMT -5
via mobile
mm67 likes this
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 30, 2018 12:18:38 GMT -5
I have to hand it to you, you certainly are tenacious
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 5, 2018 10:27:06 GMT -5
HC is back up to #3 in assists per fgm after last night’s impressive 24-41
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 5, 2018 13:23:19 GMT -5
Jehyve returned to the top 100 in FG% for the first time this season. He was in the top 10 most of last season. Hopefully this is just the beginning. He also leads the PL in assist to turnover ratio and is #64 nationally, pretty rare for a center
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 5, 2018 14:03:28 GMT -5
Caleb is now #12 in FT%
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 5, 2018 14:17:55 GMT -5
Jehyve returned to the top 100 in FG% for the first time this season. He was in the top 10 most of last season. Hopefully this is just the beginning. If Jehyve can make 34 baskets in his next 100 field goal attempts (or fewer) he will become Holy Cross's all-time leader in field goal percentage, moving Ernie Floyd down to second place and knocking Jim Nairus off the list. That would put JF at .582 versus Ernie's .581. The key here is that JF does not yet have the required 300 field goals made--so he won't work his way up the leader board (as he has done with blocks) but will arrive right at #1. My guess is that it will take him 50 to 60 attempts to make those 34 baskets (perhaps at home versus Lehigh or Lafayette) and he'll arrive with a mind-blowing career .635 percentage or thereabouts. Of course, we all know that competing honorably and winning games is more important than nerdy statistics; still, I think it's good to recognize the achievements of great performers when they reach such milestones.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 9, 2018 19:48:33 GMT -5
Team up to #2 in assists per FGM
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 21, 2018 7:27:18 GMT -5
Jehyve moves from 11th to 8th in blocks
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 24, 2018 22:46:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 26, 2018 8:20:40 GMT -5
It helps not playing We are now first in assist per field goals made, ahead of Tennessee
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Dec 26, 2018 8:42:58 GMT -5
87.3% of all statistics are unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 26, 2018 9:05:12 GMT -5
Much more creative and funny than how I would have put it but I was thinking essentially the same thing.
If you aren't betting on the game, and especially if you are wearing glasses that have the same hue as your school colors, these are starting to get like baseball statistics, "fun" for those who come up with them but often meaningless.
Once the game begins, there are so many intangibles and variables that they don't mean an awful lot. Who's hot; who's injured; who's sick; who is taking a final exam in 2 days; who just broke up with a girlfriend; etc., etc.
Who would have guessed Williams could have beaten a Ralph team in the Hart Center?
|
|
|
Stats
Dec 26, 2018 9:21:45 GMT -5
via mobile
mm67 likes this
Post by dadominate on Dec 26, 2018 9:21:45 GMT -5
no criticism of the assist to turnover ratio statistic (and the successful teams who excel in this area) from our gloom and doom experts?
|
|
|
Stats
Dec 26, 2018 10:43:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 26, 2018 10:43:06 GMT -5
We also rank 330th in offensive and defensive rebounding percentage. Is being #1 in assists per FG made any more or less important than being one of the worst rebounding teams in the country with respect to winning and losing?
|
|