|
|
Post by jellybean on Feb 16, 2014 8:45:25 GMT -5
Quote is widely attributed to Bill Parcells and it is perfect description of this year's La Salle team.
Overall record 12-12 .500
Points scored 1659 69.1
Points allowed 1660 69.2
G's record at La Salle 155-150 .508
Offense in A10.
Scoring 12th out of 13
FG% is 12th out of 13
3FG% is 12th out of 13.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnocchi on Feb 16, 2014 9:00:51 GMT -5
NPOA
|
|
|
|
Post by lasalle89 on Feb 16, 2014 9:24:24 GMT -5
So who gets the blame for this?
The media for expecting a team who went to the Sweet 16 to have a good year?
G for not having this team ready from day one.
Us for expecting another post season run.
The players for just not executing or playing with passion.
LaSalle had a chance to be a household name by getting back in the tourny and being in the office pool brackets everywhere.
Sad thing is even without Ramon there was enough talent here. Zack and JW have been very good this year. TD is a very good point guard. That's 3 of your 5 starters. The guys left are pretty good as well. No one stepped up to fill the void of Ramon. In fact most shrank from the opportunity. G did nothing to play to the strengths of the team. In fact G thinks we are just a hair from being a top 20 team. He tells anyone who will listen that the difference between winning and losing is very small. WE KNOW THIS. The entire world knows this. Just watch the Olympics and see the clocks they use measuring down to ten thousands of a second to separate racers.
I will have zero expectations for next years team. Someone once told me if you expect nothing you will never be disappointed. I don't like that philosophy but will apply it to LaSalle next year.
Want to end with a positive that these seniors and players gave us an amazing run last year. I am thankful to them and G. Even with all the disappointment we can hang on to that for a while. Sweet 16. 24th in nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Feb 16, 2014 9:39:39 GMT -5
Quote is widely attributed to Bill Parcells and it is perfect description of this year's La Salle team. Overall record 12-12 .500 Points scored 1659 69.1 Points allowed 1670 69.2 G's record at La Salle 155-150 .508 Offense in A10. Scoring 12th out of 13 FG% is 12th out of 13 3FG% is 12th out of 13. Undeniable! As the stats indicate the O woes are glaring. Another odd biteing reality about this years team was also pointed out by the coach at yesterdays's post mortem. If anyone had told you that our Bigs would emege so prolifically during this season at the start of the season, you would have thought we were going to be terrific! Despite their steps forward we have really not played a good brand of basketball with consistency. My take on this years collapse. We did not have the guards to execute the coach's O and adequate adjustments were not made in this regard (others have certainly made this point). I also thought this team made more mistakes than last years (did not playpoised like the veteran squad i expected) and the D was also inconsistent too often. This years team has not seemed to be as committed to execution in general. Many of our ills can be directly attributed as many have pointed out to the loss of the Xfactor (Explorer 88 et al). Coaches and players could not find a way to recover from the loss of Ramon. |
|
|
|
Post by broderickpresident on Feb 16, 2014 10:41:20 GMT -5
Another one, from KenPom: 13.9% of our shots have been blocked this season. That's 344th out of 351 D-I teams. If this was tracked for individual players, I'm sure we'd have the national leader.
|
|
|
|
Post by lasalle69bestever on Feb 16, 2014 11:08:10 GMT -5
I know this sounds cynical, sarcastic and downright mean spirited - but if Sam Mills ends up his career with 998 or 999 points, it will be self deserved.
By the same token I'll be pleased for him if gets the 1000.
|
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Feb 16, 2014 11:47:49 GMT -5
I think G's biggest problem this year is that he has the team wired to play defensively or "not to lose" instead of being the aggressor and playing to win. That is my general sense of frustration with this season.
IMO, we don't put enough scorers on the floor. We played good D last year and we have most of the same guards, but the reality is that our guards are not defending well. When G puts out 3 scorers in a game against teams with 4 or 5 scorers, we get outscored. For the last 6 losses, we have had almost two full spots in the lineup that are completely unproductive from an offensive standpoint. Would you play these players this much if you were the coach?
Player A : 176 minutes or 29.3 Min/game; 7-28 or 25% FG%; 31% from 3; 1-2 FT; 16 TOs; 19 points. That is invisible O. TOs almost equal points. 1 Point every 10 minutes!
Player B: 124 minutes or 20.6 Min/game; 7-17 or 41% FG %; 20% from 3; 3-7 FT; 2 TOs; 19 points. Pretty invisible O. 1.5 points every 10 minutes!
Player C: 108 minutes or 18 Min/game; 8-36 or 22% FG %; 9.1 % from 3; 6-8 FT; 9 TOs; 22 points. Pretty invisible O. 2 points every 10 minutes!
If our D is ranked 12th, why does G see the benefit in playing these "D-first" guys so many minutes. BTW, neither has any notable other statistical contributions. When the ball comes their way, 2 of the 3 pretty much play hot potato rather than doing anything productive and the stats reflect it (and the one who is aggressive is shooting 22%).
I am not saying, never play these guys, but I think G needs to be more offensive minded early and grab and maintain a lead and have these guys play basically one at a time unless we have a nice lead and want to play two to amp the defensive pressure up. Based on the stats, G should not be playing more than one of them at the same time.
Jerrell needs to play no matter how many fouls he has. When he comes out our productivity goes down. He just needs to get the minutes. Dunn has shown he deserves more minutes. He has a shot and has energy. I'd really like to see him play more and play early, so we can extend the D and open things up.
To get more offensive production, why not try
Zack playing 35 minutes, Jerrell playing 30 and Rohan 15. That is 2 front-court playing spots. As for the other 3 spots, why not play
Duren 35
Garland 30 plus Dunn 10 -- IMO he deserves, until proven otherwise, the 10 minutes Garland is not in the game
Spot # 3 - 45 minutes (Duren's remaining 5 plus 40 for the 3 position)
Sam - 20 minutes (Player A)
DJ - 12.5 minutes (Player B)
Khalid - 12.5 minutes (Player C)
The "D-first" player rotations are just not working. Why not go more offensive minded. What do you guys think?
|
|
baab
Mop-Up Time
Posts: 93
Likes: 15
|
Post by baab on Feb 16, 2014 12:35:00 GMT -5
ORtg DRtg USG
Duren 114 104 21
Wright 115 105 27
Zack 108 98 18
Garlamd 100 108 29
Mills 93 109 15
These stats tell me all I need to know. Almost half (44%) of the teams plays were used by 2 players (when they were in the game) who had horrible years (Garland and Mills). Duren had a fantastic year and his USG should have been around 30 (like Galloway's was last year), if so all things being equal he probably would have been close to 18-19 ppg. The Garland 29% USG kind of sums it up. Mills' shooting % was way off this year but at 14% USG that had less effect. Not a knock on any player but the stats are what they are, the coach should be aware of this and make appropriate adjustments, technically its still not too late.
|
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Feb 16, 2014 13:48:35 GMT -5
I know this sounds cynical, sarcastic and downright mean spirited - but if Sam Mills ends up his career with 998 or 999 points, it will be self deserved. By the same token I'll be pleased for him if gets the 1000. Yes and yes. This board is getting absolutely ridiculous. I'm not happy that the team has underachieved, but to say someone just missing getting to 1,000 points is self deserved is silly. The guy has shied away from taking shots this year and it's frustrating to watch, but in balance, the guy has represented the team and school well, hasn't been in any trouble and has been a good player for the team through the years. He deserves our respect and support. Let me ask you and all the other naysayers who have continually jumped down the team's throats this year. Were any of you the perfect man at 21? |
|
|
|
Post by cpico on Feb 16, 2014 14:28:40 GMT -5
[quote author=" calsufan" Let me ask you and all the other naysayers who have continually jumped down the team's throats this year. Were any of you the perfect man at 21? [/quote] To answer your question - nope, and I'm still not. But not quite sure what that has to do with discussing how the team (coaches and players) have woefully underperformed this season - a season that was a really important one for the program. Unfortunately underperformance and disappointment is about all the team has provided us to discuss this season. |
|
|
|
Post by lasalle69bestever on Feb 16, 2014 15:36:39 GMT -5
23 won - I'm in agreement.
A few hours ago, I was thinking of posting that JW and Zack should get 34-36 minutes each regardless. That G should give them short rests utilizing TO's to supplement the bench minutes. No more time outs for anything other than making sure JW, SZ and Tyreek get sufficient breathers. No more TO's called by players to maintain only one possession when getting near to being tied up. Use them for resting purposes for the three guys who need to be out there 90% of the time. JW showed he can play heavy minutes in the NCAA's last year.
We have to go very deep into the A-10 tournament to even sniff an NIT bid. And we will NOT do it without willing shooters and offensive guys....PERIOD. Dunn has earned minutes from Mills and DJ - give them to him.
If G keeps the rotation as it is, we get zero to one win at Barkley Ctr and could even have a losing season. I don't know how much clearer things can be at this point. BTW, I though Garland showed some spunk on defense yesterday. He IS trying - if he had hit that 3 pointer when he was momentarily hot it could have given us some momentum. At least he's willing to "go on record" as trying to inject some "O". Unlike some others.
|
|
|
|
Post by gymrat67 on Feb 16, 2014 16:17:54 GMT -5
23 won - I'm in agreement. A few hours ago, I was thinking of posting that JW and Zack should get 34-36 minutes each regardless. That G should give them short rests utilizing TO's to supplement the bench minutes. No more time outs for anything other than making sure JW, SZ and Tyreek get sufficient breathers. No more TO's called by players to maintain only one possession when getting near to being tied up. Use them for resting purposes for the three guys who need to be out there 90% of the time. JW showed he can play heavy minutes in the NCAA's last year. We have to go very deep into the A-10 tournament to even sniff an NIT bid. And we will NOT do it without willing shooters and offensive guys....PERIOD. Dunn has earned minutes from Mills and DJ - give them to him. If G keeps the rotation as it is, we get zero to one win at Barkley Ctr and could even have a losing season. I don't know how much clearer things can be at this point. BTW, I though Garland showed some spunk on defense yesterday. He IS trying - if he had hit that 3 pointer when he was momentarily hot it could have given us some momentum. At least he's willing to "go on record" as trying to inject some "O". Unlike some others. Langston Galloway was being shut-out early in the first half yesterday by Sam Mills and DJ. The minute G inserted TG into the game and had him covering Galloway, Galloway promptly found enough room to maneuver to hit 3 jumpers in a row. At the next timeout, G put Khalid Lewis on Galloway. While it may be that TG is trying harder on defense, he continues to be largely ineffective. |
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 16, 2014 17:58:47 GMT -5
I know this sounds cynical, sarcastic and downright mean spirited - but if Sam Mills ends up his career with 998 or 999 points, it will be self deserved. By the same token I'll be pleased for him if gets the 1000. Yes and yes. This board is getting absolutely ridiculous. I'm not happy that the team has underachieved, but to say someone just missing getting to 1,000 points is self deserved is silly. The guy has shied away from taking shots this year and it's frustrating to watch, but in balance, the guy has represented the team and school well, hasn't been in any trouble and has been a good player for the team through the years. He deserves our respect and support. Let me ask you and all the other naysayers who have continually jumped down the team's throats this year. Were any of you the perfect man at 21? I generally like your posts. And I agree the whole hoping he doesn't get 1000 points thing is not right. But I think the reaction has been pretty measured to this game, considering how bad things are going. Are we really not allowed to critique the on-court performance of individual players? How is that somehow besmirching their character? I really feel like the two extreme wings of this board are squashing any chance for discussion at this point. Calling the team a joke or an embarrassment is ridiculous. Saying we can't discuss someone's poor play because humanity is inherently flawed is as well. |
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Feb 16, 2014 19:21:44 GMT -5
Yes and yes. This board is getting absolutely ridiculous. I'm not happy that the team has underachieved, but to say someone just missing getting to 1,000 points is self deserved is silly. The guy has shied away from taking shots this year and it's frustrating to watch, but in balance, the guy has represented the team and school well, hasn't been in any trouble and has been a good player for the team through the years. He deserves our respect and support. Let me ask you and all the other naysayers who have continually jumped down the team's throats this year. Were any of you the perfect man at 21? I generally like your posts. And I agree the whole hoping he doesn't get 1000 points thing is not right. But I think the reaction has been pretty measured to this game, considering how bad things are going. Are we really not allowed to critique the on-court performance of individual players? How is that somehow besmirching their character? I really feel like the two extreme wings of this board are squashing any chance for discussion at this point. Calling the team a joke or an embarrassment is ridiculous. Saying we can't discuss someone's poor play because humanity is inherently flawed is as well. I'm not trying to squash discussion at all about the players not playing well. I 100% agree that Sam has underperformed this year and he's one reason that the team's record is poorer than we all expected it to be. What I have a problem with are people making comments like it's self deserved if he doesn't make 1,000 points. The kid has been a good player and ambassador for this school and to kind of sort of hope he doesn't get to a milestone because he's had a bad year is just wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 16, 2014 19:45:23 GMT -5
There's a fine line between remembering they're just college kids and defining them as damn near professional athletes with weekly national television appearances.
If we want to play on that stage, the stakes are going to be higher, the criticism more harsh. Not saying it's always right, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 16, 2014 20:04:18 GMT -5
I generally like your posts. And I agree the whole hoping he doesn't get 1000 points thing is not right. But I think the reaction has been pretty measured to this game, considering how bad things are going. Are we really not allowed to critique the on-court performance of individual players? How is that somehow besmirching their character? I really feel like the two extreme wings of this board are squashing any chance for discussion at this point. Calling the team a joke or an embarrassment is ridiculous. Saying we can't discuss someone's poor play because humanity is inherently flawed is as well. I'm not trying to squash discussion at all about the players not playing well. I 100% agree that Sam has underperformed this year and he's one reason that the team's record is poorer than we all expected it to be. What I have a problem with are people making comments like it's self deserved if he doesn't make 1,000 points. The kid has been a good player and ambassador for this school and to kind of sort of hope he doesn't get to a milestone because he's had a bad year is just wrong. OK, thanks for clarifying. I agree with that aspect of it totally. |
|
|
|
Post by lasalle69bestever on Feb 16, 2014 20:57:30 GMT -5
Yes and yes. This board is getting absolutely ridiculous. I'm not happy that the team has underachieved, but to say someone just missing getting to 1,000 points is self deserved is silly. The guy has shied away from taking shots this year and it's frustrating to watch, but in balance, the guy has represented the team and school well, hasn't been in any trouble and has been a good player for the team through the years. He deserves our respect and support. Let me ask you and all the other naysayers who have continually jumped down the team's throats this year. Were any of you the perfect man at 21? I generally like your posts. And I agree the whole hoping he doesn't get 1000 points thing is not right. But I think the reaction has been pretty measured to this game, considering how bad things are going. Are we really not allowed to critique the on-court performance of individual players? How is that somehow besmirching their character? I really feel like the two extreme wings of this board are squashing any chance for discussion at this point. Calling the team a joke or an embarrassment is ridiculous. Saying we can't discuss someone's poor play because humanity is inherently flawed is as well. There is a HUGE difference between hoping Sam doesn't get a 1000 points and saying it would be "self deserved' if he doesn't. Look at his stats year to year and his lack of shooting this year (especially compared to his Soph yeaar). IMO, one's senior year is when they stand up - particularly with such a large scoring void to fill. If Tyreek (a point guard by trade) can get himself open for threes, why can't a shooting guard? And why does a 4th year starter pass up open threes? I don't believe Garland deserves all the criticism he gets while Sam gets more of a free ride based on his defense, but with ZERO offensive contribution. |
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,489
Likes: 6,383
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 16, 2014 20:57:55 GMT -5
Critiquing their game is all well and good and part of the board. "Sam needs to pull the trigger" is ok. In my opinion, "Sam is scared to shoot" is where the line is crossed. First, it's just stupid and lazy couch analysis of a kid we don't know. Second, how often do you hear about injuries once the season is over?
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,489
Likes: 6,383
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 16, 2014 20:58:26 GMT -5
And any piece of rooting against a milestone is shitty. No gray area.
|
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 16, 2014 21:06:43 GMT -5
And any piece of rooting against a milestone is shitty. No gray area. Think this is something most of us can agree on. Unless it's Marshall Henderson or Halil. Because of reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Feb 16, 2014 21:12:06 GMT -5
Another one, from KenPom: 13.9% of our shots have been blocked this season. That's 344th out of 351 D-I teams. If this was tracked for individual players, I'm sure we'd have the national leader. This stat is *the* most significant stat of the year. Why? It means the players are not getting open looks. And why aren't they? The offense is run through the middle and the ball often does not come back out. Last year, when Zach was hurt and we played all-point-guard, and we went on our run, the ball would be whipped around the perimeter. Look at any game from the tourney run last year. The ball was passed quickly around the perimeter until a shot was opened up, or until the defense was spread enough to drive the lane. When Zach is playing he also clogs the lane and takes away Garland's biggest strength, his ability to drive the lane quickly. I realize Zach isn't a bad player, and I'm aware of his double-double stats, but the team plays better without him. I'd love to know if there is a way to look at the team's +/- in scoring with and without him this year. I'd bet the farm we score more than we give up when he is on the bench. |
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Feb 16, 2014 22:03:54 GMT -5
I generally like your posts. And I agree the whole hoping he doesn't get 1000 points thing is not right. But I think the reaction has been pretty measured to this game, considering how bad things are going. Are we really not allowed to critique the on-court performance of individual players? How is that somehow besmirching their character? I really feel like the two extreme wings of this board are squashing any chance for discussion at this point. Calling the team a joke or an embarrassment is ridiculous. Saying we can't discuss someone's poor play because humanity is inherently flawed is as well. There is a HUGE difference between hoping Sam doesn't get a 1000 points and saying it would be "self deserved' if he doesn't. Look at his stats year to year and his lack of shooting this year (especially compared to his Soph yeaar). IMO, one's senior year is when they stand up - particularly with such a large scoring void to fill. If Tyreek (a point guard by trade) can get himself open for threes, why can't a shooting guard? And why does a 4th year starter pass up open threes? I don't believe Garland deserves all the criticism he gets while Sam gets more of a free ride based on his defense, but with ZERO offensive contribution. I know there's a huge difference between the two. The way you wrote your original it strikes me that you were strongly inferring that you'd be just as happy if Sam didn't hit the 1,000 point milestone than if he did. I don't think I was alone in that interpretation based on a few other posters comments. I will agree with you that typically a senior year can be the year that a player stands up. Sam didn't, but that doesn't negate what he's done for 3 other years nor does it negate his defensive help. His offense though, has been very disappointing this year. Isn't it pretty obvious why Tyrone is able to shoot 3's so easily? It's because he's quick and therefore he can get open easily. Sam's not quick. Sam needs space to create his shot and he hasn't been able to get open as easily because there's no one like Galloway on this team to draw the defender away from him. The reason Sam's passing up open 3's IMO is that he's lost confidence in his shot. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 16, 2014 22:36:52 GMT -5
I'd love to know if there is a way to look at the team's +/- in scoring with and without him this year. I'd bet the farm we score more than we give up when he is on the bench.
Rohan Brown -6
Steve Zack 5.8 Tyrone Garland -2
Tyreek Duren 4.3 Jerrell Wright 7.9 Sam Mills -1
Khalid Lewis-4
Taylor Dunn 2.7 DJ Peterson 0 Most introspective for Garland is the concept that his shot % is 30.6 percent...This is FGA/(MIN% x TEAM.FGA). Third in the conference and numbers one and two belong to Jon Sever of Fordham and Kendall Anthony of Richmond, scoring 19.1 and 15.9 points per game respectively. Garland is also 4th in the conference in possession percentage at 27.3% (% of total possessions in which he led to bucket, assist or turnover) and 5th in field goals attempted, while being 25th in Field Goals made. He has the ball in his hands a lot, and I don't know if his lack of production is due to Steve Zack standing in his way. |
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 16, 2014 22:45:40 GMT -5
Good points about last year's perimeter passing. This team has always been a good passing team, but I think the issue is two fold - teams aren't honoring us from outside, allowing them to cheat and clog the lane, and we only have Garland that's a serious threat to drive the ball consistently. It becomes predictable like it was in DC. The Colonials' bigs were just waiting to swat away Tyrone's floaters.
|
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Feb 17, 2014 8:22:35 GMT -5
IMO our offensive woes are self-inflicted, but both our players and coaches don't see the obvious shortcomings and they think they are capable of doing what they did last year. I agree that the blocked shot stat is a product of having terrible shooting (41% overall, 12th/13 and 31% 3, 12th/13), which is happening due to teams packing it in and playing help defense on a far easier basis than last year, when we had teams extended out due to Ramon's range and accuracy. But the other shortcoming is that our guys continue to drive the lane and force 1 on 2 or 1 on 3 shots against taller players and are getting blocked or refs are not calling fouls if there is incidental or moderate contact and our guys are not in solid scoring position. You can't take bad shots and expect to win games -- it's about as bad as a turnover in most cases. As a result, we need to rethink and adjust our attack, but I haven't seen that happen --- it's just business as usual.
The reality is that we are not the same team as last year not only due to Ramon's departure but due to the fact that the teams we are playing are deep and are talented in the backcourt. As a result, we can't throw out a four guard lineup and attack with a philosophy that we will have matchup advantages and outplay the other team. How many teams' backcourts are we clearly better than? Maybe three (Duq, Fordham, and maybe Richmond with Lindsay out). For the rest we are a push at best (Bona, GW, URI, Dayton, Mason) or worse than (VCU, StL, SJU, Mass).
If you look at our record all year, it is just like the way we play. We get up a couple then we drop back to .500 or below. The in game performance is just like our record. We haven't been able to build a strong lead and maintain or improve on it. That is because we are playing defensively and are not playing to win! If we don't change that by dropping the d-first guard prominent philosophy and emphasize scoring and bigs (as I noted above), we will finish out below .500. If we don't adjust, we will not beat SJU, Mason, Dayton or Richmond, and will finish 6-10, maybe even 5-11 if Schmidt out-coaches G at home, which is a distinct possibility.
Bottom line, G needs to put 3 ball redlights on the non-productive players, put more scorers on the floor, school players on shot selection and build strong leads early. If he does this, he can bring in and play our defensive specialists and we can go 9 deep, which is better than many teams can do. But it has to be different, or we will be going back to a record that G had in most years when Ramon wasn't playing.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,489
Likes: 6,383
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 17, 2014 8:39:07 GMT -5
He has the ball in his hands a lot, and I don't know if his lack of production is due to Steve Zack standing in his way. |
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Feb 17, 2014 8:40:22 GMT -5
FWIW, the plus minus stats Joe provided support what I said previously based on gut - we have to go more with our productive offensive players with at least 4 on the floor until/unless we have a solid lead.
Emphasize 4 primary scorers
Jerrell Wright 7.9
Steve Zack 5.8
Tyreek Duren 4.3
Garland -2/Taylor Dunn 2.7
Pick one until lead is sizable and then sub 2 as necessary
Sam Mills -1
DJ Peterson 0
Rohan Brown -6
Khalid Lewis-4
I think we need Rohan as a big body, but he has got to give up the 3 ball. Not only do we lose 1 of 2 offensive rebounders with him outside the arc, but his 3 ball attempts have led to so many runouts, it is no wonder his minus is the worst.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 17, 2014 8:59:50 GMT -5
I think we need Rohan as a big body, but he has got to give up the 3 ball. Not only do we lose 1 of 2 offensive rebounders with him outside the arc, but his 3 ball attempts have led to so many runouts, it is no wonder his minus is the worst. Rohan has the highest minus rating, but it might not be his fault. He has five game with a Roland Rating worse than -26. (Three wins, a close SLU loss and SJU) Quinnipiac -28 GW (1.0) -38 Duquesne -26 SLU -28 Joes -29 Roland Rating is, again, +/- on the court minus +/- off the court. These numbers are unbelievably in the negative and truly highlight an inconsistency with using the concept. Rohan plays when one of the bigs get in foul trouble, which usually leads to a loss from lack of scoring. Take the SJU game. He was minus 20 while in the game, which isn't good, but 15 of those points came in a first half in which all of them had Jerrell Wright on the bench. The went from up four at that point, to down 10 at the buzzer. Probably not exclusively Rohan Brown's fault and highlights the importance of Wright more so than the struggles of Brown. There are other players, that play more consistent minutes, that show this not to be the case. |
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,489
Likes: 6,383
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 17, 2014 9:05:08 GMT -5
Right. We can't expect it because of sheer volume of calcs, but those +/- stats are always better when they adjust for expected production from the other 9 on the floor. Be the de facto 3rd big is going to lead to some rough numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by lasalle69bestever on Feb 17, 2014 10:05:03 GMT -5
Here is the belated key decision to our season:
Dr G. : "Steve and Jerrell's early foul trouble took us totally out of rhythm. These guys are really good and I may have to play them regardless of how many fouls they have".
Note my earlier post about 35ish minutes each using T/O's judiciously for breathers.
|
|
