Another shot at Johnny Dawkins - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Another shot at Johnny Dawkins (/thread-2974.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Another shot at Johnny Dawkins (/thread-2974.html)
Re: Another shot at Johnny Dawkins - washingtonismoney - 02-15-2012
Not sure I'm convinced by the particular statistics used here. They need to be adjusted for pace--it seems to me we're playing slower this year than last.
Re: Another shot at Johnny Dawkins - burger - 02-15-2012
(02-15-2012, 09:24 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Not sure I'm convinced by the particular statistics used here. They need to be adjusted for pace--it seems to me we're playing slower this year than last.Nope: our average possessions per game is 69.2 this year versus 67.4 last year.
Also, our offense is actually slightly better this year than last. 2011-12: 1.008 points per possession; 2010-11: 0.984
Lots of good stats here: http://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/stats/
Re: Another shot at Johnny Dawkins - 76lsjumb - 02-15-2012
Indeed, it looks like the gloves are off regarding Dawkins' prospects. Apparently, I'm not the only one whose "doubt benefits" have expired.
There is, of course, at least one explanation for our offensive woes that hasn't gotten much currency [yet, at least]. Perhaps we have a lot of athletically-gifted players...who can't shoot. Or, at least, can't shoot in that pure, consistent way that identifies someone as a "shooter."
I didn't play or coach [other than intramurals or my kids' grade school teams, respectively], so my "expertise" only comes from having watched [mostly] Stanford basketball for 50+ years. Over that time, we have had a number of players who, the very first few times you saw them shoot the ball, you could just tell they had a shot that was consistent and would more often than not have a chance of going in, especially in the clutch. Conversely, we've also had a number of players who were just the opposite -- they might have an occasional "on" night, but, as a regular matter, when the ball left their hands, you really weren't convinced it was going to go in. Very few players, it seems to me, have moved from the latter group to the former over the course of their college career.Â
To my eyes, no one in this sophomore class is in the former group. I hope one or more makes the transition, but I'm not optimistic.