purple71
Crusader Century Club
Posts: 169
|
Post by purple71 on Jan 3, 2017 17:52:15 GMT -5
Hops- IMHO it was not "a good shot" in the sense of a high percentage shot. He had at least two tall defenders in his face. PB's athleticism made it a great shot. We criticize AT for his kamikazee dives into tall defenders. Also, remember how we crucified CMB for throwing his players under the bus by always talking about missed shots. CBC is doing the same thing. He doesn't know what to do about it? How about giving CLS significant minutes. MH attempted exactly ONE 3. Did CBC tell him to look for the 3? How about insisting that MZ keeps shooting 3's till he starts making them. Practice time is no substitute for real game time. (Please don't start accusing me of hate talk against CBC. Is he immune from some criticism?) I invite you to watch the replay of the sequence of the last 5 seconds. If you examine it closely you will see that from about the top of the key on in there was nowhere for PB to dish the ball. The defender to his left had perfect position to block an attempt to kick it out to the wing for an open shot and the wing was out about 3 point land. As PB passed the foul line, it became even more apparent that it was do or die and no opportunity for a dish presented itself. It took a hell of a lot of guts to drive into the forest and put that ball up but I think his real time analysis was the same as my armchair analysis: there was no better alternative. I also believe that there was a realistic possibility of him getting fouled although I know that referees don't like game changing fouls.
I believe that you are correct in that it wasn't "a good shot" if it had been taken with 20 seconds left. However, given our unproductive ball movement all night long, it was a great decision under the time constraints which presented themselves.
I often watch games more than once as it gives me the opportunity to look at what worked and what didn't without the distraction of rooting and score watching. You can see things you missed in real time. You can count the number of times a poor shot was taken because of time issues and the number of defensive deflections, who crashed the boards and who didn't, you boxed out, etc.
Just so you don't accuse me of wearing purple colored glasses, my bottom line is that we have to get moving if we struggled with a team as unathletic as Navy.
Do you have any constructive thoughts on what type of offensive sets might be more productive? For my amateur take, I would like to see more dribble penetrations and kickouts as opposed to perimeter passing. Also, we need more player movement as the guys seem to frequently go to a stop and camp there. Just my take.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2017 18:09:33 GMT -5
Pat definitely did not have any time to pass the ball. Taking it all the way was his only realistic option.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 3, 2017 19:25:20 GMT -5
Good shot or not, it was the only shot available. I thought it was a great shot, Benzan was in complete control, and it won the game
|
|
|
Post by sader81 on Jan 3, 2017 19:26:21 GMT -5
Interesting timing with PB's game winning shot corresponding with receiving today's Holy Cross Magazine article about him. Gave much credit to his Mom for his basketball talents (she played at HC and is a coach). Also interesting was his apprehension about being recruited under comb and much uncertainty with the new coaching staff.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Jan 3, 2017 19:31:33 GMT -5
Ray- Why don't you stop calling him "Henry." Are you trying to show off, show you know something the rest of us don't know. Unlike you, I can tolerate diversity--even if it's uninformed, unreasonable, stupid, aggravating, etc. I don't have the censorship gene you apparently have. The old saying "Sticks & stones can break my bones but words can't hurt me" has a lot of wisdom in it. i like most of your posts sota, but it seems you cannot tolerate diversity of opinions at all. this has to be at least the tenth post of yours condescendingly suggesting a course of action to someone that has challenged hc70. not everyone feels the same way about hc70 as you. so your posting this kind of thing after seemingly every post about hc70 does not change how anyone thinks, but it does show quite clearly that you can't tolerate that some people think differently than you when you feel the need to post this kind of thing over, and over, and over again. it's especially ironic in that you have accused others here of being "cops". it is abundantly clear by now and we all get it that your love for hc70 is undying. you're not changing anyone's mind at all by repeatedly posting things like this.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Jan 3, 2017 19:33:37 GMT -5
Good shot or not, it was the only shot available. I thought it was a great shot, Benzan was in complete control, and it won the game completely agree. it was not a good shot for some players, but it was a good shot for benzan. he is expert at finishing at unconventional angles and using his body to protect the ball and give himself space to get shots off against taller players. i like benzan going to the hole and he is one of our best finishers.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jan 3, 2017 19:37:27 GMT -5
purple, hoops, lou, dado- You guys convinced me. I agree with you. Also, while I regret naming players in these posts, I don't see how to communicate often without naming players.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jan 3, 2017 19:43:18 GMT -5
dado- Are my multiple defences of HC70 more incessant than some posters' repeated attacks on HC70? I just hate to see a poster being ganged up on.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 3, 2017 20:32:51 GMT -5
dado- Are my multiple defences of HC70 more incessant than some posters' repeated attacks on HC70? I just hate to see a poster being ganged up on. Even if said poster was banned from the board for unethical behavior and sneaked back on using a false name?
|
|
purple71
Crusader Century Club
Posts: 169
|
Post by purple71 on Jan 3, 2017 21:38:44 GMT -5
Is it just my imagination or is this Board losing its basketball focus in favor of personality assaults and defenses?
Can we go back to focusing on a constructive discussion on HC hoop?
I would be very interested in opinions on the cause of our poor offensive efforts. Not so much in who might be smarter than whom.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2017 21:42:11 GMT -5
Our 2 game poor shooting and foul trouble in the last game are the main causes.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 3, 2017 21:44:43 GMT -5
In close to the rim, we have had chances where it appears that the player (more than one) seems to tighten up and the shot misses. It is as if they fear to miss and that causes the thing they fear. Perhaps a few god shots early can offset that. The problem can be magnified for players who do not get much time. They fear they will sit after the first error. Too general?
Foul trouble is certainly an issue with a short bench.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 3, 2017 21:55:18 GMT -5
Surely the coaches or managers chart every shot a player takes. That way they can see where each player has strengths and weaknesses. We have all lamented how many "bunnies" or layups we have missed --wonder if we really do miss more than other teams , or is it a matter of us remembering our misses but forgetting the opponents? I bet we'd find out we do miss more......
I am 100% confident that stats would show PB makes a much higher percentage of his drives to the basket (maybe captured as shots in the paint?) than other sub 6 foot guards we have had.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 3, 2017 22:01:13 GMT -5
I think we played against two very good defenses in these first PL games. Had a lot to do with our poor shooting
|
|
|
Navy (M)
Jan 3, 2017 23:37:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ncaam on Jan 3, 2017 23:37:54 GMT -5
We have not been a good offensive team for the last two years....Bill carmody
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Jan 4, 2017 0:15:30 GMT -5
Basically, we are not running the PO. Maybe that's because our opponents are playing packed down zones. But I also see many times when a cut is made but the potential passer does not make the pass when the ball could have gotten to the passer. In last game MA was posting up and it was effective. MH attempted only one 3 pt shot (he made it). I'm confused by what I'm seeing. I'm disregarding purely missing shots. That comes and goes.
|
|
|
Navy (M)
Jan 4, 2017 7:27:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by crossbball13 on Jan 4, 2017 7:27:09 GMT -5
We have not been a good offensive team for the last two years....Bill carmody Are you saying you haven't seen this team play well offensively over the last two years?
|
|
|
Navy (M)
Jan 4, 2017 8:03:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ncaam on Jan 4, 2017 8:03:57 GMT -5
No
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 4, 2017 10:16:22 GMT -5
This team shoots too poorly/too streaky to be taking as many outside shots as they do. This is the poor man's West Virigina team of the mid/late 2000s. Live by the 3, die by the 3. If we are going to take as many threes-- and many of them have been open, we just aren't hitting them-- as we do, we sure as hell better get butts on bodies and box out and rebound better.
If a player was shooting in the 20% range for 3 pointers during the season and hoisted up a 3 during a game, unless it was at the expiration of the shot clock, I would make sure he'd find his way to the bench immediately. Players need to recognize when their shots aren't falling and drive to the hoop. Ray Allen always said that when his shot was cold (and cold for him is still all-world from 3 point range) that he would attack the basket to get the groove going and open up better shooting lanes. This is basic stuff.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 4, 2017 11:34:14 GMT -5
The statistics say that Holy Cross is an average three point shooting team, # 154 of 351 D-1 teams at .352 for the season. We have moved up the 100 places I predicted (hoped for?) prior to the season. #176, midpoint of the division, is at .347 so you can see a lot of teams are bunched in the middle, the typical bell-shaped curve. We are average, despite the fact that we take a high percentage of shots as three pointers. If we take out our "red light" guard, AT, we'd be at .369 for the season and #91 in D-1. Of course, I understand that any team looks better if it takes out its lowest percentage player. But, let's say that AT took only half as many 3 point attempts as he has taken, and still made the same percentage--we'd be at .360 for #128 of 351 D-1 teams. That's pretty good. So, while I am "on record" (what a vanity--as if I see myself as some kind of authority) as "hating the three", it's fair to say we are an average three point shooting team.
Holy Cross, as hard as it is to believe as we all recall many missed layups, has been, to date, an average two point shooting team as well. HC is hitting twos at .484 for #188 in D-1. # 176 is .487. Of course, this obscures the fact that the Princeton Offense, which we run from time to time, is geared to providing more back doors and other close-in two point attempts and thus typically increases a team's two point percentage. For example-- Northwestern ranked as follows in 2 point percentage from 2001-2002 (first year on my KenPom site) thru 2007-2008: 147, 41, 13, 25, 6, 62, 140
One way of looking at taking so many threes is that our effective FG percentage on threes is 1.5 X .352= .528 while our effective FG percentage on twos is .484. It would be interesting to see if, believing that threes, being long distance shots, bounce out farther on a miss and thus yield more offensive rebounds. .....
We need to be hitting a higher percentage of our twos in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 4, 2017 12:18:44 GMT -5
Also should note the Ft shooting is a good deal below average - is this consistent with the level of scoring inefficiency we're seeing? Maybe Ky or SoV can double-check the Pomeroy numbers, but it looks like we're scoring about 95 points per 100 possessions, which seems pretty poor - and worst for any HC team since the 2003-04 edition. Is there something else going on here?
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jan 4, 2017 12:30:33 GMT -5
The statistics say that Holy Cross is an average three point shooting team, # 154 of 351 D-1 teams at .352 for the season. We have moved up the 100 places I predicted (hoped for?) prior to the season. #176, midpoint of the division, is at .347 so you can see a lot of teams are bunched in the middle, the typical bell-shaped curve. We are average, despite the fact that we take a high percentage of shots as three pointers. If we take out our "red light" guard, AT, we'd be at .369 for the season and #91 in D-1. Of course, I understand that any team looks better if it takes out its lowest percentage player. But, let's say that AT took only half as many 3 point attempts as he has taken, and still made the same percentage--we'd be at .360 for #128 of 351 D-1 teams. That's pretty good. So, while I am "on record" (what a vanity--as if I see myself as some kind of authority) as "hating the three", it's fair to say we are an average three point shooting team. Holy Cross, as hard as it is to believe as we all recall many missed layups, has been, to date, an average two point shooting team as well. HC is hitting twos at .484 for #188 in D-1. # 176 is .487. Of course, this obscures the fact that the Princeton Offense, which we run from time to time, is geared to providing more back doors and other close-in two point attempts and thus typically increases a team's two point percentage. For example-- Northwestern ranked as follows in 2 point percentage from 2001-2002 (first year on my KenPom site) thru 2007-2008: 147, 41, 13, 25, 6, 62, 140 One way of looking at taking so many threes is that our effective FG percentage on threes is 1.5 X .352= .528 while our effective FG percentage on twos is .484. It would be interesting to see if, believing that threes, being long distance shots, bounce out farther on a miss and thus yield more offensive rebounds. ..... We need to be hitting a higher percentage of our twos in my opinion Some 3's are what I consider "good looks" Some aren't Although I have no stats to back this up, I have a sense that HC has more shot clock desperation heaves than the average team. It is reasonable to assume that HC hits a higher percentage of "good look" 3's than desperation 3's. If HC takes more desperation shots than the average team, but still has an average overall percentage, HC likely shoots the "good look" 3's somewhat better than average. While I firmly believe in the old adage live by the 3, die by the 3, I don't think the answer is a definitive take fewer 3's, but just take fewer crappy ones. Easier said than done, but we've all seen guys pass up real good looks early in the shot clock in hopes of getting a better look that never materializes. Sometimes I think they're under instructions not to shoot until the shot clock hits 10. Re
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 4, 2017 12:33:00 GMT -5
FT shooting hasn't been strong this season, nor have we been getting to the line all that often.
69.1% FT ranks 191st -- Ant, Champ, and Malachi are collectively shooting 65.6%. We are only getting to the line on 31.1% of our FGA, which ranks 263rd. As you'd expect, only 17.6% of our points come from FT.
None of this helps our offensive efficiency, which is currently ranked 247th.
Believe it has been mentioned earlier in this thread (or another thread?), but we need to find ways to get Charles the ball as he's moving to the basket.
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Jan 4, 2017 12:34:47 GMT -5
We need to be hitting a higher percentage of our twos in my opinion We seem, to my eye, to miss some very easy shots around the hoop. Perhaps it is because of so many 3's..players don't focus on scoring off the drive in practice, so in games doing so is a different adaptation of practice. A higher speed, with more pressure from the D..One can see that at almost every level of play..PB makes a lot of those shots because, IMHO, he has to work so hard ALL the time to get them off. Game pressure is no different for him, whereas KC most likely makes shot in practice, and is forced to play a bit faster in games..If I am correct, we should see a rise in the shooting percentage as the season progresses..
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 4, 2017 12:40:55 GMT -5
it looks like we're scoring about 95 points per 100 possessions, which seems pretty poor - and worst for any HC team since the 2003-04 edition. Is there something else going on here? The adjusted efficiency is better this year (99.3) than last year (96.0), a big reason is that our eFG% is 2.5 percentage points better. The 2003-04 season did indeed feature a very bad offense (92.5).
|
|