|
Post by efg72 on Dec 7, 2021 19:19:04 GMT -5
The A/TO ratio has dramatically improved in the last three games - 24/24 (1.0) - from the hideous 25/73 (.342) of the first four D1 games. But that's not because of Johnson, who's had just two assists and a team-high seven turnovers since his return. PGs are gonna get the turnovers they commit and the ones they don’t unfortunately. It’s a part of playing the position. You are right tho the assist numbers have got to improve to balance it out. Once they start making shots consistently and the offense yields itself to more easy catch and shoots that will improve. Right now they are playing selfish in a offensive system designed to be selfless. The read and react shouldn’t yield such low assist numbers. I agree about the level of play that can look selfish, but I think that happens out of desperation. An offense that starts the weave with some motion comes to a screeching halt as everybody stands around and spacing disappears. I would argue there is no design to the offense, at least not to score
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Dec 7, 2021 20:09:06 GMT -5
Is that what our offense is described as by our coaching staff and/or knowledgeable observers?
Haven't heard the term "read and react" for quite a while now. Remember a coach trying to teach it to a youth team and the kids having no clue what she was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Dec 7, 2021 20:11:33 GMT -5
PGs are gonna get the turnovers they commit and the ones they don’t unfortunately. It’s a part of playing the position. You are right tho the assist numbers have got to improve to balance it out. Once they start making shots consistently and the offense yields itself to more easy catch and shoots that will improve. Right now they are playing selfish in a offensive system designed to be selfless. The read and react shouldn’t yield such low assist numbers. I agree about the level of play that can look selfish, but I think that happens out of desperation. An offense that starts the weave with some motion comes to a screeching halt as everybody stands around and spacing disappears. I would argue there is no design to the offense, at least not to score A lot of times we blame the ending of the possession on the last person with the ball, when in reality the problem went back two or three passes before that. I'm sure many of you recall how many possessions one coaching staff ago ended up with Patrick Benzan trying to create something out of nothing and not having the talent to do it.
|
|
rose22
Climbing Mt. St. James
Posts: 54
|
Post by rose22 on Dec 21, 2021 10:31:54 GMT -5
Is that what our offense is described as by our coaching staff and/or knowledgeable observers? Haven't heard the term "read and react" for quite a while now. Remember a coach trying to teach it to a youth team and the kids having no clue what she was talking about. Yes there running a lot of read and react. Drive and kick, automatic back door cuts on overplays, just common sense type stuff. Every college team has some sort of read and react in there offense. A lot of teams do the weave too just to see how teams are going to cover dribble handoffs and how they like to switch. Kinda window dressing. Not a big fan of it either. Waste of time in my opinion. I think the health of this team has been just enough to keep them from getting over the hump in a couple of these games. Making no excuses they haven’t shot the ball well enough especially from three to make up for their struggles in other areas. The three ball is the great equalizer in todays game…It can cover a multitude of sins…Let the church say amen!!!
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 21, 2021 10:41:27 GMT -5
Our three point shooting has not been bad but we are not taking many of them. Someone pointed out on another thread that it's not a good sign when your key 3-point shooter, Judson Martindale, has zero attempts in a game as he just had against Harvard. He had none vs UNH as well, I hate the three, but it's a key part of the current game and HC is not making many per game because we have few attempts per game.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Dec 21, 2021 11:17:36 GMT -5
Our three point shooting has not been bad but we are not taking many of them. Someone pointed out on another thread that it's not a good sign when your key 3-point shooter, Judson Martindale, has zero attempts in a game as he just had against Harvard. He had none vs UNH as well, I hate the three, but it's a key part of the current game and HC is not making many per game because we have few attempts per game. Maybe, first, we should focus on making twos.
Holy Cross has taken 72% of its shots inside the arc - only twenty teams in D1 have taken a higher percentage. But we've made just 42% of them - and only twenty teams have shot them more poorly. Not coincidentally, we are 357th in assists per game, and 355th in A/TO.
The team doesn't handle the ball well, and the offensive "philosophy" apparently is for everybody to go one on one, and not look for one another to find better options.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 21, 2021 11:26:23 GMT -5
I agree 100% --the shooting percentage on twos is woeful.
Here's an interesting tidbit: The top 10 teams in two point percentage, led by Gonzaga, are a composite 99-15 year to date.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2021 11:49:32 GMT -5
So my takeaway is that if a team shoots well, they tend to win games.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 21, 2021 12:04:01 GMT -5
Our three point shooting has not been bad but we are not taking many of them. Someone pointed out on another thread that it's not a good sign when your key 3-point shooter, Judson Martindale, has zero attempts in a game as he just had against Harvard. He had none vs UNH as well, I hate the three, but it's a key part of the current game and HC is not making many per game because we have few attempts per game. Maybe, first, we should focus on making twos.
Holy Cross has taken 72% of its shots inside the arc - only twenty teams in D1 have taken a higher percentage. But we've made just 42% of them - and only twenty teams have shot them more poorly. Not coincidentally, we are 357th in assists per game, and 355th in A/TO.
The team doesn't handle the ball well, and the offensive "philosophy" apparently is for everybody to go one on one, and not look for one another to find better options.
Which is why I made a flip post during the Harvard game which is completely impractical and no coach would ever do: give Luc a three dribble limit once the ball gets over half court. That would give the other four players an incentive to get free as they would know a pass is coming to the most open man that Luc feels he can get the ball to. Luc would then have an incentive to get free for a return pass,maybe while moving towards the basket.
|
|
|
Post by crusader1970 on Dec 21, 2021 12:05:54 GMT -5
Our three point shooting has not been bad but we are not taking many of them. Someone pointed out on another thread that it's not a good sign when your key 3-point shooter, Judson Martindale, has zero attempts in a game as he just had against Harvard. He had none vs UNH as well, I hate the three, but it's a key part of the current game and HC is not making many per game because we have few attempts per game. Not coincidentally, we are 357th in assists per game, and 355th in A/TO.
The team doesn't handle the ball well, and the offensive "philosophy" apparently is for everybody to go one on one, and not look for one another to find better options.
These stats reflect offensive sets are so easy to defense that they make most passes challenged and virtually never free up players for open shots.
Sorry. It's not soley inexperience. It's the coach.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 21, 2021 12:51:43 GMT -5
So my takeaway is that if a team shoots well, they tend to win games. I suppose that could be an indictment of me as being "Captain Obvious", but there is more to the story. I should have presented a second list that may illustrate that the two is more important than the three: The top ten teams in 3 point shooting percentage are a composite 83-31, a terrific W-L percentage but still twice as many losses as the 2PT % stalwarts The top ten teams in "3PT attempt %" (3ptrs as % of total FGA) are a composite 71-48 If I get ambitious, I'll look at the bottom 10 teams in all three categories
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2021 13:33:34 GMT -5
Don’t bother. We know one team there already, the one we care the most about. “We don’t shoot it so well.”
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 21, 2021 16:07:06 GMT -5
Bottom 10 teams in 3 point percentage are composite 39-65
Bottom 10 teams in 2 point percentage are composite 28-74
|
|