|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 25, 2018 20:19:52 GMT -5
So he achieved at least that one goal
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jan 25, 2018 20:38:51 GMT -5
When a new coach speaks of “winning championships” he’s really talking about becoming a championship level team, not just walking off with a trophy.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 25, 2018 20:55:54 GMT -5
When a new coach speaks of “winning championships” he’s really talking about becoming a championship level team, not just walking off with a trophy. The "Five Games in March" was a stretch that none of us will ever forget. Thank you HCBC for sticking Eric Green on the baseline of our 1-3-1 zone. Definitely my favorite Holy Cross sports moment since I graduated, ahead of the BC basketball & hockey wins. But, let's just say 2016 didn't quite go down the way Carm drew it up.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jan 25, 2018 21:07:21 GMT -5
Same story over and over. Other than a few outlier seasons, HC sports teams seem to consistently succeed only when they find themselves as the only scholarship school in their respective conference. Assuming we can't figure out another way to do this again, there needs to be a seismic culture shift at 1 College Street regarding how to succeed as a D1 school. It takes more than a coach for this. Also, hard as it may be for some to believe, you can't throw 97 million dollars at the problem either. It's a mindset first. Then it's about coaching, recruiting, and fundamentals. It's about admissions. I would have been willing to have no locker and practiced in a barn if it meant I would compete nationally as a college hoops player. Oh wait a minute . . .
I believe when trying to strategize ways to return to these so-called glory days in any sport, most observers have a hard time admitting the hard truth stated above. The rest is, as the said in the movies, "smoke filled coffee house crap."
Also, maybe some are right in saying the days of the PO have come to end.
An awful lot of truth and reality in this post. I, however, am hopeful that the 97 million will help.
As far as the PO, you're probably right. My money says that if Carmody doesn't win here, it's because our league foes bring in better recruits. Is our system attractive to coveted mid-major recruits? Would the next Steph Curry or CJ McCollum possibly shy away due from committing to Holy Cross because of the offense we run?
My belief is that to win at our level, we need to recruit the best scorers/athletes as we possibly can while employing at head coach the best defensive mind we can get our hands on.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jan 26, 2018 6:21:38 GMT -5
Agree ‘10. And agree that that magical run a couple of years ago was among the greatest fan moments of my life. But that should have been a catalyst for improved recruiting and continued success. I feel similar to last football season after we disintegrated after the UNH win. Carm has failed to capitalize on that incredibly fortuitous success (thanks Rob Champion) and I’m beginning to agree with the assertion that he is not invested, energetic, enthusiastic, or aggressive when it comes to recruiting. Maybe at Princeton the school’s name was its own best recruiter and he didn’t have to do much. 75 pointed out Carm’s record while at NE as some kind of positive thing, but frankly it’s sobering. I hadn’t seen it broken down by 5 year periods. Yikes. A steady personal decline.
I love the PO like anyone but it doesn’t seem to be working. And with a short shot clot and today’s AAU mindset, I can see how it doesn’t appeal to younger players. And by the way, where are all the back door cuts? Why so much perimeter passing? Maybe part of the problem is we use two point guards and no center. At this point, this can only be characterized as a recruiting failure.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 26, 2018 8:34:19 GMT -5
How is our freshman class ?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jan 26, 2018 9:15:40 GMT -5
Average to slightly above average. There's a lot of them, but that's different. Easy to confuse the two things. How will they be next year and the years after is what matters. My confidence is getting shaky on this.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 26, 2018 9:26:49 GMT -5
Agree ‘10. And agree that that magical run a couple of years ago was among the greatest fan moments of my life. But that should have been a catalyst for improved recruiting and continued success. I feel similar to last football season after we disintegrated after the UNH win. Carm has failed to capitalize on that incredibly fortuitous success (thanks Rob Champion) and I’m beginning to agree with the assertion that he is not invested, energetic, enthusiastic, or aggressive when it comes to recruiting. Maybe at Princeton the school’s name was its own best recruiter and he didn’t have to do much. 75 pointed out Carm’s record while at NE as some kind of positive thing, but frankly it’s sobering. I hadn’t seen it broken down by 5 year periods. Yikes. A steady personal decline. I love the PO like anyone but it doesn’t seem to be working. And with a short shot clot and today’s AAU mindset, I can see how it doesn’t appeal to younger players. And by the way, where are all the back door cuts? Why so much perimeter passing? Maybe part of the problem is we use two point guards and no center. At this point, this can only be characterized as a recruiting failure. Carmody has never made the NCAAs with a roster that he built. His two appearances at Princeton were with Carril’s team, and his appearance at HC was with Milan’s. IMO you are right on the money with your “average to slightly above average” ranking of the current frosh class. The thread that tracks them against all of the frosh in the league is further proof — there is nothing about our frosh that separates them from the rest of the league.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 26, 2018 9:45:22 GMT -5
'hoops, other experts can help me here...Carmody calls it a version of pass-dribble-shoot, the basics. Some here like to bash the PO. I would like to understand what "offense" Bucknell runs, or Colgate, or Loyola, or the rest of them? Something called dribble-drive, something else? Seems to me we see a lot of backcuts in the PL. Is that a version of P-D-S?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 26, 2018 10:03:42 GMT -5
P-d-s is not actually an offense. They are the basics of any offense, more so some than others. The other PL schools run varied offenses, some pro sets, others variations of motion, continuity offenses. All rely on P-d-s. RW ran a deliberate offense with many pro sets. UVA runs a very deliberate offense with pro sets also, inc many screen and rolls.
|
|
|
Post by trimster on Jan 26, 2018 10:24:15 GMT -5
I think it is way too early to make any judgments on the class of 2021. Think about Patrick Whearty for example. He was the Patriot League Player of the Year as a senior. As a frosh he was a skinny kid who got pushed around in the paint and had an unremarkable offensive game. As time went by, he became a beast physically and developed a really effective baby hook. I'm not saying all of our frosh are going to develop like that example but all of them have shown flashes and an off season in the weight room and a year of experience on the court along with a year of adjusting to college life will hopefully show dividends next year.
As far as the Princeton Offense is concerned, I am not a fan. In general, I don't find our style of play appealing. Too much passing around the perimeter, too much settling for 3 pointers, rarely get to the foul line, poor offensive rebounding and on defense, way too many open looks. I really liked the way Ralph Willard's teams brought strong defense and superior rebounding to the table every game. To be honest, I don't remember what type of offense those teams ran but I do think there was a lot more emphasis on getting the ball into the post which led to getting to the line far more often. Of course those teams had far more physical players like Curry, Sankes, Szatko and Whearty along with a physical point guard in one of my favorite Crusaders, Jave Meade.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 26, 2018 10:54:00 GMT -5
I think it is way too early to make any judgments on the class of 2021. Think about Patrick Whearty for example. He was the Patriot League Player of the Year as a senior. As a frosh he was a skinny kid who got pushed around in the paint and had an unremarkable offensive game. As time went by, he became a beast physically and developed a really effective baby hook. I'm not saying all of our frosh are going to develop like that example but all of them have shown flashes and an off season in the weight room and a year of experience on the court along with a year of adjusting to college life will hopefully show dividends next year. As far as the Princeton Offense is concerned, I am not a fan. In general, I don't find our style of play appealing. Too much passing around the perimeter, too much settling for 3 pointers, rarely get to the foul line, poor offensive rebounding and on defense, way too many open looks. I really liked the way Ralph Willard's teams brought strong defense and superior rebounding to the table every game. To be honest, I don't remember what type of offense those teams ran but I do think there was a lot more emphasis on getting the ball into the post which led to getting to the line far more often. Of course those teams had far more physical players like Curry, Sankes, Szatko and Whearty along with a physical point guard in one of my favorite Crusaders, Jave Meade. Yes, here's where the CRW teams finished among 325+ D-1 teams in getting to the line, as measured by FTA/FGA 01-02= #13 02-03= #56 03-04= #102 04-05=#159 05-06= #68 06-07=#84 07-08=#63 08-09= #156 So, those teams finished in the top half every year and most often in the top1/4. KenPom does not have data before 2001-02 so that is where I had to start. Thus we miss the Sankes teams
|
|
|
Post by trimster on Jan 26, 2018 11:27:34 GMT -5
On a side note, I think Tim Szatko led the country in up fakes within 5' of the hoop. Things like getting rebounds, making it difficult for the other team to score, not turning the ball over, getting the other team in foul trouble, making free throws, all add up to winning basketball games.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 26, 2018 12:16:01 GMT -5
On a side note, I think Tim Szatko led the country in up fakes within 5' of the hoop. Things like getting rebounds, making it difficult for the other team to score, not turning the ball over, getting the other team in foul trouble, making free throws, all add up to winning basketball games. I think you've captured the essence of winning basketball. Our friend Ken Pomeroy looks at what he calls the "four factors" : effective field goal percentage, offensive rebounding rate, turnover rate, and free throw rate. His site will link you to Dean Oliver's explanation of those four factors. I've copied part of his treatise below and have provided a link to the Dean Oliver site. Let's describe the Four Factors before talking about strategy. First of all, you need four of them. You can't really describe winning in full without at least four distinct factors. They are four different skills and they are pretty much independent of each other. The first factor, shooting the ball, is the most important. The game of basketball was set up that way more than one hundred years ago, where the objective of that first game in Massachusetts with two peach baskets was nothing more than getting the ball into those baskets. In that essence, the game hasn't changed. Whether it's 3-foot shots or 3-point shots, shooting the ball from the field remains the dominant means of scoring points before giving it back to opponents. (See Box for details of how the Four Factors are calculated, not that it's hard.) The second factor is taking care of the ball, or avoiding turnovers. This factor can be very important at lower levels of basketball, such as with young kids, where dribbling and passing skills aren't very well developed. They may not be able to get the ball over half court if these skills aren't refined, which means that they're not even able to take shots. But at professional levels, each team often has several players who can bring the ball across half court without significant concerns about losing it. Full court pressure may change this, but it isn't commonly used much at the highest levels because it isn't as effective. Nonetheless, turnovers are an underappreciated aspect of pro basketball, with traveling and shot-clock violations rarely getting the outrage (from coaches or commentators) that a bad shot gets. The third factor is offensive rebounding. If a team can get back its missed shots, it can partially make up for a problem with that first factor. It still eventually has to put the ball in the basket, but giving itself multiple opportunities allows a team a chance when its gunners from the outside are misfiring. The fourth factor is getting to the foul line. I phrase this intentionally as "getting to the foul line," not "making foul shots" or "free throw percentage" or "free throws." This is because the biggest aspect of "free throws" is actually attempting them, not making them. Teams that get to the line more are more effective than teams that make a higher percentage of their free throws. Game-by-game exceptions can definitely exist - there are plenty of games that are lost by a team missing its foul shots - but over the long haul, just getting to the line frequently wins a lot more games than missing a few freebies will lose. www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 26, 2018 12:17:05 GMT -5
I think it is way too early to make any judgments on the class of 2021. Think about Patrick Whearty for example. He was the Patriot League Player of the Year as a senior. As a frosh he was a skinny kid who got pushed around in the paint and had an unremarkable offensive game. As time went by, he became a beast physically and developed a really effective baby hook. I'm not saying all of our frosh are going to develop like that example but all of them have shown flashes and an off season in the weight room and a year of experience on the court along with a year of adjusting to college life will hopefully show dividends next year. As far as the Princeton Offense is concerned, I am not a fan. In general, I don't find our style of play appealing. Too much passing around the perimeter, too much settling for 3 pointers, rarely get to the foul line, poor offensive rebounding and on defense, way too many open looks. I really liked the way Ralph Willard's teams brought strong defense and superior rebounding to the table every game. To be honest, I don't remember what type of offense those teams ran but I do think there was a lot more emphasis on getting the ball into the post which led to getting to the line far more often. Of course those teams had far more physical players like Curry, Sankes, Szatko and Whearty along with a physical point guard in one of my favorite Crusaders, Jave Meade. Yes, here's where the CRW teams finished among 325+ D-1 teams in getting to the line, as measured by FTA/FGA 01-02= #13 02-03= #56 03-04= #102 04-05=#159 05-06= #68 06-07=#84 07-08=#63 08-09= #156 So, those teams finished in the top half every year and most often in the top1/4. KenPom does not have data before 2001-02 so that is where I had to start. Thus we miss the Sankes teams The vastly increased reliance on the 3 in all of college might change these stats in the last 10 years. It is a different game because of that, offensively and defensively.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 26, 2018 14:15:31 GMT -5
Yes, here's where the CRW teams finished among 325+ D-1 teams in getting to the line, as measured by FTA/FGA 01-02= #13 02-03= #56 03-04= #102 04-05=#159 05-06= #68 06-07=#84 07-08=#63 08-09= #156 So, those teams finished in the top half every year and most often in the top1/4. KenPom does not have data before 2001-02 so that is where I had to start. Thus we miss the Sankes teams The vastly increased reliance on the 3 in all of college might change these stats in the last 10 years. It is a different game because of that, offensively and defensively. The median point distribution on FTs over the last 16 season has actually changed very little: 2003: 20.4% 2004: 20.6% 2005: 20.3% 2006: 20.2% 2007: 20.2% 2008: 20.3% 2009: 20.4% 2010: 20.9% 2011: 21.1% 2012: 20.3% 2013: 20.5% 2014: 22.1% 2015: 20.6% 2016: 20.6% 2017: 19.8% 2018: 19.0% Very little variance to the historical annual median of 20.4%There has been slightly more variance in the 3FG distribution %, particularly in the last 2 years (17-18), but still only 3-4% variance from the median (27.4%) -- which equates to only about one additional 3FG per game. 2003: 27.0% 2004: 26.9% 2005: 27.1% 2006: 27.8% 2007: 28.2% 2008: 28.7% 2009: 27.2% 2010: 26.8% 2011: 26.9% 2012: 27.1% 2013: 27.5% 2014: 26.6% 2015: 28.5% 2016: 29.2% 2017: 30.4% 2018: 31.3%
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Feb 2, 2018 14:12:56 GMT -5
The main "First Dance" knock on Carmody was that he wasn't an aggressive recruiter. This is in line with what was the NU administrative party line about Coach Chris Collins when he was first hired: that he was a Chicago guy who really could go out and get plenty of first-class talent for the Wildcats.
|
|