|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 19, 2017 11:52:54 GMT -5
I don't think the rebounding is an issue with personnel. MA and RC and PB all seem to be rebound pretty well when they have a chance. On offense, we literally give up rebounds and Josh Sankes and Tim Clifford couldn't get rebounds if they turn and run back when a shot is taken.
Agree defensively more of an issue but I think it is mostly a lack of emphasis by CWC.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 19, 2017 11:54:10 GMT -5
We lead the PL in defensive points allowed which does not take in pace of play(very slow). We do not lead the league in defensive efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 19, 2017 11:56:23 GMT -5
We lead the PL in defensive points allowed which does not take in pace of play(very slow). We do not lead the league in defensive efficiency. What are the defensive efficiency stats for each of the PL teams, hoops?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 19, 2017 11:58:06 GMT -5
I don't think the rebounding is an issue with personnel. MA and RC and PB all seem to be rebound pretty well when they have a chance. On offense, we literally give up rebounds and Josh Sankes and Tim Clifford couldn't get rebounds if they turn and run back when a shot is taken. Agree defensively more of an issue but I think it is mostly a lack of emphasis by CWC. We do not have consistently aggressive rebounders, and when we play with 2 small guards, that makes it harder for the other 3. When we play a very small 3 man, ex MZ or CLS, that makes it even more difficult. Every coach, CBC included, emphasizes defensive rebounding.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 19, 2017 12:04:16 GMT -5
I believe in many ways they are the equal of RW's teams. Not even close. This HC team does not protect the rim remotely close to as well as Willard's HC teams, nor do they rebound the ball well at the defensive end. The defensive effective FG% this year is a putrid 54.6%. The main reason we are able to stay afloat defensively is our ability to force turnovers (opponents' turn the ball over on 25% of their possessions. which ranks fourth nationally). Willard's teams 1) protected the basket well, 2) forced turnovers, 3) rebounded. HC, under Carmody, only does one of these things. The defensive effective FG% under Willard ranged from 44.6% to 48.2% from 2002-2009.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 19, 2017 12:19:33 GMT -5
That may be true. But, I thought that forcing turnovers was done by the defense. Was HC ever in the top 5 nationally in that category before?
HC is giving up 63.8 point/game this year in the PL. What was that number like for RW's HC team in his second year? (Not being lazy, I just don't know where to look with the new site.)
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Jan 19, 2017 12:22:57 GMT -5
We lead the PL in defensive points allowed which does not take in pace of play(very slow). We do not lead the league in defensive efficiency. What are the defensive efficiency stats for each of the PL teams, hoops? Per Kenpom (Adjusted Defensive Efficiency/Points per 100 possessions): Bucknell 101.6 (113th nationally) Boston 103 (141st) Army 103.5 (156th) Lehigh 103.5 (157th) Holy Cross 103.7 (160th) Navy 104.3 (176th) American 105.3 (191st) Loyola 106.5 (217th) Colgate 108.8 (268th) Lafayette 115.3 (337th)
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Jan 19, 2017 12:24:50 GMT -5
7 and a half pages in before this reminder. Hard to fathom how we went down 17 points to this team. Oh and given last nights results, only Buck looks any good right now with Lehigh being super inconsistent. Need more info on how Champion is going to get healthy while playing with an injury....howz that accomplished ?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 19, 2017 12:26:08 GMT -5
Thank you, NJJ. I was surprised to see 5 teams in a virtual tie (after Bucknell). Only Lafayette and Colgate (to a lesser extent) seem to be clearly behind the rest of the PL in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 19, 2017 12:27:37 GMT -5
That may be true. But, I thought that forcing turnovers was done by the defense. Was HC ever in the top 5 nationally in that category before? Yes. HC is giving up 63.8 point/game this year in the PL. As has been discussed many times, judging an offense or defense on points alone is foolish. Points per possession is a much better way, as teams play at varying paces.What was that number like for RW's HC team in his second year? Since you asked, HC gave up 61.9 PPG in the PL in 2001-02.(Not being lazy, I just don't know where to look with the new site.) If we take conference games only into consideration, HC's defense actually hasn't been great -- a defensive efficiency of 102.2, which ranks 7th in the PL.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 19, 2017 12:35:50 GMT -5
That may be true. But, I thought that forcing turnovers was done by the defense. Was HC ever in the top 5 nationally in that category before? Yes. HC is giving up 63.8 point/game this year in the PL. As has been discussed many times, judging an offense or defense on points alone is foolish. Points per possession is a much better way, as teams play at varying paces.What was that number like for RW's HC team in his second year? Since you asked, HC gave up 61.9 PPG in the PL in 2001-02.(Not being lazy, I just don't know where to look with the new site.) If we take conference games only into consideration, HC's defense actually hasn't been great -- a defensive efficiency of 102.2, which ranks 7th in the PL. Interesting. I know you believe judging a defense by points allowed is "foolish" but it appears that Army has a better defensive efficiency than HC. It is sad that their opponents seem to score more points than they do (as HC did last night.) Thank you for the stat on RW in 2001. I appreciate that info. Since you seem to know, when was HC in the top 5 nationally in forcing turnovers?
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 19, 2017 12:41:28 GMT -5
If we take conference games only into consideration, HC's defense actually hasn't been great -- a defensive efficiency of 102.2, which ranks 7th in the PL. Interesting. I know you believe judging a defense by points allowed is "foolish" but it appears that Army has a better defensive efficiency than HC. It is sad that their opponents seem to score more points than they do (as HC did last night.) Well, yeah, it's because Army plays at a very fast pace which equals more possessions in the game which equals more points scored. If there are 75 possessions in a game and a team gives up 75 points, did they play worse defense than the team who gave up 65 points in a game with 55 possessions? Thank you for the stat on RW in 2001. I appreciate that info. Since you seem to know, when was HC in the top 5 nationally in forcing turnovers? 2006-07.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Jan 19, 2017 12:59:04 GMT -5
Thank you, NJJ. I was surprised to see 5 teams in a virtual tie (after Bucknell). Only Lafayette and Colgate (to a lesser extent) seem to be clearly behind the rest of the PL in this regard. Colgate isn't good defensively. Lafayette is on a whole different level. We scored 71 against them with 18 turnovers; if we'd taken minimum care of the ball we would have busted 80.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 19, 2017 14:26:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 19, 2017 14:46:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 19, 2017 15:54:16 GMT -5
Two things to think about 1-we don't have the personnel to run it effectively 2- 35 sec to 30 sec clock is a huge factor to running the offense to it's best potential Princeton themselves seem to be doing a pretty good job of running that offense AND running if faster. Saw a game on tv last year where the commentators said that the coach (Henderson) was really emphasizing that. We can only hope CBC would like to take the team in the same direction because, yes, with 30 seconds to shoot you can't be particularly deliberate. They probably should make the 10 second call 8 seconds, like the NBA; would actually help offenses in the long run if you had to push it over midcourt faster.
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Jan 19, 2017 17:24:54 GMT -5
One of the little talked about factors that come from running the PO is simply it makes the defending team play D for close to 30 seconds every trip down the court...If they don't, we get an open shot or lay-up. NO team likes to play D for 30 seconds every trip.. If we shoot the ball well, all goes well..As I see it, we need at least 3 players every night to get about 15 points, when that happens we are in good shape..Doesn't matter which 3, or how they get their points, just need 3 to get around 15..MA, PB, RC, Ant, MH, and maybe now CLS are all capable of doing that.
|
|
|
Army (M)
Jan 19, 2017 18:35:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 19, 2017 18:35:12 GMT -5
One of the little talked about factors that come from running the PO is simply it makes the defending team play D for close to 30 seconds every trip down the court...If they don't, we get an open shot or lay-up. NO team likes to play D for 30 seconds every trip.. If we shoot the ball well, all goes well..As I see it, we need at least 3 players every night to get about 15 points, when that happens we are in good shape..Doesn't matter which 3, or how they get their points, just need 3 to get around 15..MA, PB, RC, Ant, MH, and maybe now CLS are all capable of doing that. 1) Playing a zone completely counters your first point. (Also, RW's offense also forced the defense to play for 25+ seconds.) 2A) We are a loooooong way away from having 3 consistent 15 PPG scorers, especially with an offense that doesn't create shots for individual players. There are only 7 players in the PL that average 15 PPG. 2B) Relying on defense and rebounding would provide FAR more consistent returns than relying on three different players to score 15 points to win games.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 19, 2017 18:47:18 GMT -5
There are not many RW's around, and I doubt that he is returning
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 19, 2017 19:56:19 GMT -5
And I wouldn't want him back unless he could bring Rick Pitino with him as his assistant.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 19, 2017 19:56:51 GMT -5
One of the little talked about factors that come from running the PO is simply it makes the defending team play D for close to 30 seconds every trip down the court...If they don't, we get an open shot or lay-up. NO team likes to play D for 30 seconds every trip.. HC definitely plays at a slow pace - 3rd from the bottom nationally - but their average time of possession on offense might be faster than some think. It is 20.5 seconds, and that includes some possessions that run much longer due to getting an offensive rebound. The two teams at the bottom other than Holy Cross are Virginia and St. Mary's, who also take 20.5 seconds per possession. The fast teams average between 14.5 and 16 seconds per possession.
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Jan 19, 2017 20:23:50 GMT -5
One of the little talked about factors that come from running the PO is simply it makes the defending team play D for close to 30 seconds every trip down the court...If they don't, we get an open shot or lay-up. NO team likes to play D for 30 seconds every trip.. If we shoot the ball well, all goes well..As I see it, we need at least 3 players every night to get about 15 points, when that happens we are in good shape..Doesn't matter which 3, or how they get their points, just need 3 to get around 15..MA, PB, RC, Ant, MH, and maybe now CLS are all capable of doing that. 1) Playing a zone completely counters your first point. (Also, RW's offense also forced the defense to play for 25+ seconds.) 2A) We are a loooooong way away from having 3 consistent 15 PPG scorers, especially with an offense that doesn't create shots for individual players. There are only 7 players in the PL that average 15 PPG. 2B) Relying on defense and rebounding would provide FAR more consistent returns than relying on three different players to score 15 points to win games. 1. Even playing a zone, teams don't like to defend for 30 seconds..Players want to play offence, that is where the glory is 2. It doesn't have to be same 3 players every night! Hope it is any 3 close to 15! 2B..It would be great to rely on D and rebounding, but the team that scores the most points still wins the game. And most of our opponents can score at least 45 points, even against a good D.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 20, 2017 0:23:55 GMT -5
1) Playing a zone completely counters your first point. (Also, RW's offense also forced the defense to play for 25+ seconds.) 2A) We are a loooooong way away from having 3 consistent 15 PPG scorers, especially with an offense that doesn't create shots for individual players. There are only 7 players in the PL that average 15 PPG. 2B) Relying on defense and rebounding would provide FAR more consistent returns than relying on three different players to score 15 points to win games. 1. Even playing a zone, teams don't like to defend for 30 seconds..Players want to play offence, that is where the glory is 2. It doesn't have to be same 3 players every night! Hope it is any 3 close to 15! 2B..It would be great to rely on D and rebounding, but the team that scores the most points still wins the game. And most of our opponents can score at least 45 points, even against a good D.That is a losing strategy against teams that are equal or more talented than us.
|
|
|
Post by possum on Jan 20, 2017 8:26:35 GMT -5
Missed the Army game but from game reports looks like turned what appeared to be a bad loss into an exhilarating win. Hopefully this kind a win can provide a little momentum going forward. Nice to see CLS have a good game, if it carries forward it will help tremendously as we can certainly use a bigger contribution from the bench players. It appears that out of desperation Carmody put out a lineup that got us back in the game then the starters returned and finished the job.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 20, 2017 8:50:53 GMT -5
Missed the Army game but from game reports looks like turned what appeared to be a bad loss into an exhilarating win. Hopefully this kind a win can provide a little momentum going forward. Nice to see CLS have a good game, if it carries forward it will help tremendously as we can certainly use a bigger contribution from the bench players. It appears that out of desperation Carmody put out a lineup that got us back in the game then the starters returned and finished the job. Not exactly. the starters got us back in the game. CLS helped greatly bring us all the way back. Do not think there was any desperation in any lineup.
|
|