|
Post by hchoops on Nov 10, 2017 10:37:15 GMT -5
It's pretty clear that the season revolves around the freshmen: if they're better (talented, ready to contribute) than the "experts" think, and improving as the year progresses, we can do a lot better than the 7th-8th-9th place finishes that some of the annuals project. Of course, we know that they put little effort into their analysis of the PL teams and others (Ken Pomeroy, for example) may put a lot of effort into their work but it's highly mathematical and algorithmic ("multiply the percentage of returning points by the average age of the players and divide by.....). I pay attention to the PL preseason coaches poll... they know league/us best and presumably have a better idea of the frosh talent coming into the league. I chose 8 PL wins and consider matching last year's 9 would be a considerable achievement. a better source than most, but PL coaches may know 1-3 of our freshmen, and maybe those do not play much, so their predictions(half come from SIDs who know far less), are not that reliable, especially for a team such as ours relying on so many freshmen and one, Floyd, who played little last season
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Nov 10, 2017 11:50:50 GMT -5
OOC 7-4 PL 11-7 PLT 2-1
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 10, 2017 12:41:33 GMT -5
Very weak OOC = 7 wins Very weak PL = 12 wins
19 regular season wins, with 20-21 within reach.
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Nov 10, 2017 12:41:41 GMT -5
10 Wins. Will be a difficult year especially with no seniors. But look out in the next 2 years we will be very good IMO.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 10, 2017 12:52:57 GMT -5
Very weak OOC = 7 wins Very weak PL = 12 wins 19 regular season wins, with 20-21 within reach. very surprising for such a Carmody skeptic
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 10, 2017 13:47:59 GMT -5
Re: out-of-Conference, I thought it might be interesting to compare strength of schedule LY vs TY. Of course we don't know how string this year's opponents are (using the traditional measures) is until the season is over, but here's how last year's actuals compare to this year's starting point on KenPom.
Last year we went 6-7 OOC with wins over
112 Harvard 129 Albany 294 Quinippiac 301 Sacred Heart 312 Marist 336 So Carolina State
We lost to 24 South Carolina 34 URI 55 Syracuse 81 Monmouth 158 UMass 182 UNH 337 (the ignominious loss to U Maine)
The median ranking was #158 UMass
This year we play
62 URI 110 Harvard 117 Albany 134 Iona 137 LaSalle or 162 Towson 176 UMass 202 Manhattan 217 UNH 259 Fairleigh Dickinson 261 Siena 300 Sacred Heart
So U Mass is the median team each season (#158 LY versus #176 TY) but last year's schedule had three teams higher ranked (lower number) than this year's #62 URI and 4 teams ranked worse than this year's #300 Sacred Heart.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 10, 2017 14:00:39 GMT -5
Not so much the lack of seniors but the plethora of unproven freshmen. 6 of 14 on the roster are frosh. 5 juniors would be solid especially if experienced. KC and PB lead and likely will be as good or better than most seniors. MP, unfortunately due to his many injuries, is not someone we can expect a lot from. If he does produce as he might have been expected sans injuries, it'll be a huge plus. JF needs to get over his propensity to foul but while I would expect some improvement in that area this season, I just don't think he can help himself. MZ has so much potential but hasn't shown it and he may be a big key to possible success this year.
The 3 sophs include a walk on, so not much there.
So, as we all know, the success or lack of success will depend on how fast the talented freshmen develop. I certainly expect many of them will leapfrog over the sophs for court time.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 10, 2017 14:12:55 GMT -5
Re: out-of-Conference, I thought it might be interesting to compare strength of schedule LY vs TY. Of course we don't know how string this year's opponents are (using the traditional measures) is until the season is over, but here's how last year's actuals compare to this year's starting point on KenPom. Last year we went 6-7 OOC with wins over 112 Harvard 129 Albany 294 Quinippiac 301 Sacred Heart 312 Marist 336 So Carolina State We lost to 24 South Carolina 34 URI 55 Syracuse 81 Monmouth 158 UMass 182 UNH 337 (the ignominious loss to U Maine) The median ranking was #158 UMass This year we play 62 URI 110 Harvard 117 Albany 134 Iona 137 LaSalle or 162 Towson 176 UMass 202 Manhattan 217 UNH 259 Fairleigh Dickinson 261 Siena 300 Sacred Heart So U Mass is the median team each season (#158 LY versus #176 TY) but last year's schedule had three teams higher ranked (lower number) than this year's #62 URI and 4 teams ranked worse than this year's #300 Sacred Heart. Interesting look. Instead of looking at exact numbers, I think it would be useful to bucket teams together in terms of win probability. For the sake of quick math/lack of better terms (Rank: Description - last year / this year): 1-100: Low Probability - 4 / 1 100-150: Winnable - 2 / 4 150-200: Should Win - 2 / 1 200-300: Bad Loss - 1 / 4 300+: Very Bad Loss - 4 / 1 If we set the barrier for games that we "should win' at 150+, it accounts for a very similar percentage of our schedule this year compared to last year -- 53.8% LY vs 54.5% TY. However, if we change that to "winnable" and above (100+), there is a rather significant difference -- 69% LY vs 91% TY . This is a weak and boring schedule that I hope is not replicated in any future years.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 10, 2017 14:23:14 GMT -5
Very weak OOC = 7 wins Very weak PL = 12 wins 19 regular season wins, with 20-21 within reach. Please name the seven OOC wins. You must have a lot of faith in Carmody and the team he has put together this season if you're thinking 20+ wins baby.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 10, 2017 14:27:23 GMT -5
Very weak OOC = 7 wins Very weak PL = 12 wins 19 regular season wins, with 20-21 within reach. Please name the seven OOC wins. You must have a lot of faith in Carmody and the team he has put together this season if you're thinking 20+ wins baby. 7 out of the 10 teams from Harvard and below in the rankings from the post above. We did beat Harvard last year, right? And you said it would be addition by subtraction when Milan's players left, so no reason why we shouldn't also beat them this year. Correct? ----------------- We won 6 of the 9 games against teams ranked 100+ last year (67%). This year we play 10 teams ranked 100 and above. That puts us at 6.7 wins if we stay the same as last year. Factor in your "addition by subtraction" and losing the "worst 3 point shooter in Holy Cross history" (or whatever it was that AT was labeled), and 7 may even be a conservative estimate.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 10, 2017 14:36:53 GMT -5
Please name the seven OOC wins. You must have a lot of faith in Carmody and the team he has put together this season if you're thinking 20+ wins baby. 7 out of the 10 teams from Harvard and below in the rankings from the post above. We did beat Harvard last year, right? And you said it would be addition by subtraction when Milan's players left, so no reason why we shouldn't also beat them this year. Correct? ----------------- We won 6 of the 9 games against teams ranked 100+ last year (67%). This year we play 10 teams ranked 100 and above. That puts us at 6.7 wins if we stay the same as last year. Factor in your "addition by subtraction" and losing the "worst 3 point shooter in Holy Cross history" (or whatever it was that AT was labeled), and 7 may even be a conservative estimate. Given this logic, how in the world did Ralph Willard not win 25+ games every season at HC?
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 10, 2017 14:47:46 GMT -5
7 out of the 10 teams from Harvard and below in the rankings from the post above. We did beat Harvard last year, right? And you said it would be addition by subtraction when Milan's players left, so no reason why we shouldn't also beat them this year. Correct? ----------------- We won 6 of the 9 games against teams ranked 100+ last year (67%). This year we play 10 teams ranked 100 and above. That puts us at 6.7 wins if we stay the same as last year. Factor in your "addition by subtraction" and losing the "worst 3 point shooter in Holy Cross history" (or whatever it was that AT was labeled), and 7 may even be a conservative estimate. Given this logic, how in the world did Ralph Willard not win 25+ games every season at HC? Why must you always use HOF RW as a crutch? There's what, 30-32 games per year on average? Say 27 are again teams ranked above 100 (probably a bit high) -- winning 67% of those games would put you at 18 wins. RW did that in 7 out of his 10 seasons. If we were to set a bar at seasons with a .500 winning percentage, Ralph did that only 2 times in 10 years -- a number already matched in the first 2 years under Carmody. For the sake of the Carmody backers, I recommend not trying to compare him to RW.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 10, 2017 14:53:37 GMT -5
I, for one, would love to see no more references to former coaches - good or bad - and certainly not as a standard of measurement good or bad.
Carmody is Carmody. He is not Wllard, Brown, Kearney or even Jack Donohue. The environment they all worked in was different from one another.
|
|
|
Post by HC1843 on Nov 10, 2017 15:26:17 GMT -5
I, for one, would love to see no more references to former coaches - good or bad - and certainly not as a standard of measurement good or bad. Carmody is Carmody. He is not Wllard, Brown, Kearney or even Jack Donohue. IThe environment they all worked in was different from one another. It is not true that they all worked in different environments....simply not true. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Nov 10, 2017 16:12:14 GMT -5
As a Mets fan in the 70's and early 80's I went into every season thinking the off-season acquistions and recently promoted rookies from Tidewater were exactly what they needed to transform the Mets from 75 wins to World Series champions, so I'm incurably optimistic.
So, with that as backdrop, I'm going with
OOC 5 - 6
PL 10 - 8
PLT 2 - 1
Overall 17 - 15 with things looking up for next year.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 10, 2017 16:17:51 GMT -5
'43, starting small here . . . . pretty sure you weren't around during Donohue's days but would you at least concede that the environment he coached in was different than Carmody's? You know, no PL, schollies, eastern basketball a big thing?
Each of these coaches had either different ADs, different presidents (with different philosophies), different Board members and perhaps different admissions obstacles (hinted at but can't be proven). The competition, even within the PL, changes from year to year. Under one coach, we had a distinct advantage for a few years having basketball scholarships when other PL schools didn't. Indeed, the environment, from my perspective, was different.
The larger point is, what is the use of comparing one coach to another?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 10, 2017 17:38:41 GMT -5
Just about 20 minutes to go before your window closes . Now is the time to go on record so you can say “i told you so” next Spring
|
|
|
Post by HC1843 on Nov 10, 2017 21:27:55 GMT -5
'43, starting small here . . . . pretty sure you weren't around during Donohue's days but would you at least concede that the environment he coached in was different than Carmody's? You know, no PL, schollies, eastern basketball a big thing? Each of these coaches had either different ADs, different presidents (with different philosophies), different Board members and perhaps different admissions obstacles (hinted at but can't be proven). The competition, even within the PL, changes from year to year. Under one coach, we had a distinct advantage for a few years having basketball scholarships when other PL schools didn't. Indeed, the environment, from my perspective, was different. The larger point is, what is the use of comparing one coach to another? Donohue is a silly comparison. Next. Looking at Willard, the biggest difference is he had Scholls for a few years where other did not. That said, the top teams were still the top teams and very conpetitive. Kearney, Brown, Carmody...all the same with differences of degree, not kind. Small differences but not material ones. In sum, extracting the ridiculous outlier, the last three coaches all had the same academic challength and institutonal environment. Willard had an advantage being first with schollies. The differences for the last three are not noteworthy. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by HC1843 on Nov 10, 2017 21:31:33 GMT -5
The larger point is, what is the use of comparing one coach to another? Competency. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Nov 10, 2017 23:43:56 GMT -5
Factor in your "addition by subtraction" and losing the "worst 3 point shooter in Holy Cross history" (or whatever it was that AT was labeled), and 7 may even be a conservative estimate. I'm not sure if this was meant to be sarcasm, but there is no way anyone could consider the class of 2017 "addition by subtraction". That group was instrumental in a play-off run. Two different players scored over 400 points last year. The most optimistic among us hope that development of juniors and an almost non-existent learning curve for freshmen will fully replace the hole left - but there is a hole
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 23, 2017 12:41:26 GMT -5
Bump
The team went 3-8 OOC.
Of the people that responded, 17 gave specific OOC records. Three people (Worc Gray, HC87, Possum) correctly predicted 3 wins. 14 people predicted more. None predicted less
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 23, 2017 13:13:00 GMT -5
Tom--- good idea bringing this back into discussion
|
|
|
Post by lou on Dec 23, 2017 13:15:30 GMT -5
Does this mean my 23+ wins won't happen? Too busy to do the math
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 23, 2017 14:42:58 GMT -5
OK, let's see who was wearing the purple eyeshades!:
Good thing I didn't bet the rent!
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Dec 23, 2017 19:21:50 GMT -5
Factor in your "addition by subtraction" and losing the "worst 3 point shooter in Holy Cross history" (or whatever it was that AT was labeled), and 7 may even be a conservative estimate. I'm not sure if this was meant to be sarcasm, but there is no way anyone could consider the class of 2017 "addition by subtraction". That group was instrumental in a play-off run. Two different players scored over 400 points last year. The most optimistic among us hope that development of juniors and an almost non-existent learning curve for freshmen will fully replace the hole left - but there is a hole I think it's impossible to replace the people HC lost in a year when one of the upper classes did not contribute much to last year's team and one upper class did not contribute at all. Impossible for freshmen to replace seniors under these circumstances.
|
|