11-14-2014, 09:45 PM
On the Pac-12 networks in roughly 15 minutes. Wonder whether the TV or arena audience will be bigger...
MBB: Stanford/Wofford
On the Pac-12 networks in roughly 15 minutes. Wonder whether the TV or arena audience will be bigger...
11-14-2014, 09:51 PM
I suspect the free internet audience might be the biggest of all. Twitter tells me the game is streaming for free at http://pac-12.com/live
I suspect the free internet audience might be the biggest of all. Twitter tells me the game is streaming for free at http://pac-12.com/live
11-14-2014, 10:15 PM
I swear, sometimes our team has the memory of a ADHD kid. First few possessions: "Hey, Nastic easily out-sizes the opponent. What if we put him close to the basket?"
Next few: "Boring. Let's have Nastic screen and high-post it."
Next few: "Boring. Let's have Nastic screen and high-post it."
I swear, sometimes our team has the memory of a ADHD kid. First few possessions: "Hey, Nastic easily out-sizes the opponent. What if we put him close to the basket?"
Next few: "Boring. Let's have Nastic screen and high-post it."
Next few: "Boring. Let's have Nastic screen and high-post it."
11-14-2014, 10:23 PM
Lessons that haven't been learned from Dawkins: apparently he's still enamored of playing just about everybody on his bench, as well as not leaving enough scorers on the floor. And someone really needs to tell him about why midrange jumpers are ineffective.Â
Lessons that haven't been learned from Dawkins: apparently he's still enamored of playing just about everybody on his bench, as well as not leaving enough scorers on the floor. And someone really needs to tell him about why midrange jumpers are ineffective.Â
STAN 36 - WOF 27. So-so first half marked by mediocre coaching.
11-14-2014, 11:16 PM
(11-14-2014, 11:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:STAN 36 - WOF 27. So-so first half marked by mediocre coaching.
What's that you're saying? I can't quite hear you over the noise of all the axes you seem to be grinding... Wofford is a second round tourney team that is returning all five starters and 95% of its scoring and we're up by 9 at half!
(11-14-2014, 11:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:STAN 36 - WOF 27. So-so first half marked by mediocre coaching.
What's that you're saying? I can't quite hear you over the noise of all the axes you seem to be grinding... Wofford is a second round tourney team that is returning all five starters and 95% of its scoring and we're up by 9 at half!
11-14-2014, 11:24 PM
(11-14-2014, 11:16 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:What's that you're saying? I can't quite hear you over the noise of all the axes you seem to be grinding... Wofford is a second round tourney team that is returning all five starters and 95% of its scoring and we're up by 9 at half!
Look, well-coached teams don't take twice the number of midrange jumpers as three point shots. They don't ignore their best mismatch for stretches at a time, and their offense definitely flows better than what they trotted out in the first half. Well-coached teams have a rotation that keeps scorers on the floor at all times. None of those descriptions applied to the first-half performance.
The team looks a lot better in the second half, so credit to the players and coach for figuring stuff out.
(11-14-2014, 11:16 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:What's that you're saying? I can't quite hear you over the noise of all the axes you seem to be grinding... Wofford is a second round tourney team that is returning all five starters and 95% of its scoring and we're up by 9 at half!
Look, well-coached teams don't take twice the number of midrange jumpers as three point shots. They don't ignore their best mismatch for stretches at a time, and their offense definitely flows better than what they trotted out in the first half. Well-coached teams have a rotation that keeps scorers on the floor at all times. None of those descriptions applied to the first-half performance.
The team looks a lot better in the second half, so credit to the players and coach for figuring stuff out.
11-14-2014, 11:27 PM
Well, from 4:23 left in the first half and Stanford trailing 24-23, Stanford went on a 20-5 run to lead 44-29 3:30 into the second half. For those people for whom the performance around halftime as critical, we've done well.
BC
BC
Well, from 4:23 left in the first half and Stanford trailing 24-23, Stanford went on a 20-5 run to lead 44-29 3:30 into the second half. For those people for whom the performance around halftime as critical, we've done well.
BC
BC
11-14-2014, 11:29 PM
From my vantage point on the sideline it's not entirely clear which of our players - other than Brown - is likely to be more successful jacking up 3's...
11-14-2014, 11:30 PM
76--
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
76--
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
11-14-2014, 11:40 PM
(11-14-2014, 11:30 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:76--
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
Something doesn't sound right there. Was there supposed to be a "not" in there?
VC
(11-14-2014, 11:30 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:76--
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
Something doesn't sound right there. Was there supposed to be a "not" in there?
VC
11-14-2014, 11:40 PM
(11-14-2014, 11:30 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:76--
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
You're right...I forgot about "round inflation"
(11-14-2014, 11:30 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:76--
One other thing to remember - losing your first game, unless you're in a play-in game, means you are a second-round NCAA team. Wofford lost their first tournament game to Michigan by 17 points, and only got the lead under double-digits for a short time in the second half.
VG
You're right...I forgot about "round inflation"
11-14-2014, 11:43 PM
BC--
Nope. The NCAA INSISTS on calling the play-in games the first round of the NCAA tourney. The round of 64 is officially the second round. So if you are an automatic qualifier, as Wofford was by virtue of winning the Southern Conference tourney, and you aren't seeded into a play-in game, you can proudly claim to be a second-round team, no matter the outcome of your game.
VG
Nope. The NCAA INSISTS on calling the play-in games the first round of the NCAA tourney. The round of 64 is officially the second round. So if you are an automatic qualifier, as Wofford was by virtue of winning the Southern Conference tourney, and you aren't seeded into a play-in game, you can proudly claim to be a second-round team, no matter the outcome of your game.
VG
BC--
Nope. The NCAA INSISTS on calling the play-in games the first round of the NCAA tourney. The round of 64 is officially the second round. So if you are an automatic qualifier, as Wofford was by virtue of winning the Southern Conference tourney, and you aren't seeded into a play-in game, you can proudly claim to be a second-round team, no matter the outcome of your game.
VG
Nope. The NCAA INSISTS on calling the play-in games the first round of the NCAA tourney. The round of 64 is officially the second round. So if you are an automatic qualifier, as Wofford was by virtue of winning the Southern Conference tourney, and you aren't seeded into a play-in game, you can proudly claim to be a second-round team, no matter the outcome of your game.
VG
11-14-2014, 11:52 PM
OK, that makes more sense now that you explained it that way. So, we made the fourth round of the tournament las year, lol.
BC
BC
OK, that makes more sense now that you explained it that way. So, we made the fourth round of the tournament las year, lol.
BC
BC
11-14-2014, 11:56 PM
(11-14-2014, 11:29 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:From my vantage point on the sideline it's not entirely clear which of our players - other than Brown - is likely to be more successful jacking up 3's...
The point is to eliminate midrange jumpers, or come as close as you can, unless you're named Dirk Nowitzki or Steve Nash or something. Basically, if you think, "I'm a good midrange jumpshooter," really you should be shooting threes.
(Of course, Randle's also a fine shooter from outside. But even granting your point, if the team only has one trustworthy three point shooter, that is an awful indictment of coaching evaluation, recruitment, and skills-building.)
(11-14-2014, 11:29 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:From my vantage point on the sideline it's not entirely clear which of our players - other than Brown - is likely to be more successful jacking up 3's...
The point is to eliminate midrange jumpers, or come as close as you can, unless you're named Dirk Nowitzki or Steve Nash or something. Basically, if you think, "I'm a good midrange jumpshooter," really you should be shooting threes.
(Of course, Randle's also a fine shooter from outside. But even granting your point, if the team only has one trustworthy three point shooter, that is an awful indictment of coaching evaluation, recruitment, and skills-building.)
11-15-2014, 12:00 AM
I understand the theory, but those shots are available to Travis, at least tonight, because his defender is sagging big time on Nastic. If he could make them, that would help Nastic to be even more effective.
11-15-2014, 12:08 AM
(11-15-2014, 12:00 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:I understand the theory, but those shots are available to Travis, at least tonight, because his defender is sagging big time on Nastic. If he could make them, that would help Nastic to be even more effective.
They may be available, but they're available because Travis isn't a good shooter. Mathematically midrange jumpshots are bad shots. The dominant defensive strategies since the late aughts in the pros revolve around the idea that it's great to have your opponent taking lots of open or semi-open midrange jumpshots.
Let's put some numbers to it. Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash are, as far as we can tell, by far the best midrange jumpshooters in the past decade. They make midrange jumpshots at roughly a 50% clip. That means the expected value of their midrange jumpshot is 1 point. You only need to hit three-pointers 33% of the time to have the same expected value as the very best midrange jumpshooters of the past decade.
(Oversimplified, of course: there's fouls and offensive boards to account for. But still.)
And, of course, the numbers look worse at the college level. The three-point shot is (wrongly) closer to the rim, meaning it's easier than the pro level. That makes the tradeoff of taking more midrange shots than three-pointers even worse. If, over the long run, you're taking a lot more midrange jumpers than three pointers...you're almost certainly a putrid offensive team; i.e., you're poorly coached.
Of course, that's a relatively simple shortcut to describe what's going wrong with Dawkins's offense. The truth is it's simple, and not in a way that accentuates talent. There isn't a ton of misdirection or motion. There's rarely improvisation, unless Randle's mood seizes him. It's kind of blah, as if the group is deciding to follow a recipe or paint by numbers.
(11-15-2014, 12:00 AM)76lsjumb link Wrote:I understand the theory, but those shots are available to Travis, at least tonight, because his defender is sagging big time on Nastic. If he could make them, that would help Nastic to be even more effective.
They may be available, but they're available because Travis isn't a good shooter. Mathematically midrange jumpshots are bad shots. The dominant defensive strategies since the late aughts in the pros revolve around the idea that it's great to have your opponent taking lots of open or semi-open midrange jumpshots.
Let's put some numbers to it. Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash are, as far as we can tell, by far the best midrange jumpshooters in the past decade. They make midrange jumpshots at roughly a 50% clip. That means the expected value of their midrange jumpshot is 1 point. You only need to hit three-pointers 33% of the time to have the same expected value as the very best midrange jumpshooters of the past decade.
(Oversimplified, of course: there's fouls and offensive boards to account for. But still.)
And, of course, the numbers look worse at the college level. The three-point shot is (wrongly) closer to the rim, meaning it's easier than the pro level. That makes the tradeoff of taking more midrange shots than three-pointers even worse. If, over the long run, you're taking a lot more midrange jumpers than three pointers...you're almost certainly a putrid offensive team; i.e., you're poorly coached.
Of course, that's a relatively simple shortcut to describe what's going wrong with Dawkins's offense. The truth is it's simple, and not in a way that accentuates talent. There isn't a ton of misdirection or motion. There's rarely improvisation, unless Randle's mood seizes him. It's kind of blah, as if the group is deciding to follow a recipe or paint by numbers.
11-15-2014, 01:28 AM
That's predicated on being able to hit 33% of threes. Tonight we were 1/8. On the flip side, we were 27/45 from within the arc (60%), though of course not all of those were intermediate range. And, of course, this is just one game; over the course of the season our three point shooting won't be quite this bad, and our two-point shooting will be better.
BC
BC
That's predicated on being able to hit 33% of threes. Tonight we were 1/8. On the flip side, we were 27/45 from within the arc (60%), though of course not all of those were intermediate range. And, of course, this is just one game; over the course of the season our three point shooting won't be quite this bad, and our two-point shooting will be better.
BC
BC
11-15-2014, 06:02 AM
Saw a bit of the Ca.l game online and heard Mike Montgomery touting the importance of mid-range jumpers, as he lamented how most kids only want to dunk and shoot 3s.
Obviously 33% from three-point range is as good as 50% inside the arc, but the reality is most players don't shoot that well from three. The pull-up mid-range jumper is usually the least contested shot, so Montgomery doesn't understand why more players don't develop their mid-range game.Â
Obviously 33% from three-point range is as good as 50% inside the arc, but the reality is most players don't shoot that well from three. The pull-up mid-range jumper is usually the least contested shot, so Montgomery doesn't understand why more players don't develop their mid-range game.Â
Saw a bit of the Ca.l game online and heard Mike Montgomery touting the importance of mid-range jumpers, as he lamented how most kids only want to dunk and shoot 3s.
Obviously 33% from three-point range is as good as 50% inside the arc, but the reality is most players don't shoot that well from three. The pull-up mid-range jumper is usually the least contested shot, so Montgomery doesn't understand why more players don't develop their mid-range game.Â
Obviously 33% from three-point range is as good as 50% inside the arc, but the reality is most players don't shoot that well from three. The pull-up mid-range jumper is usually the least contested shot, so Montgomery doesn't understand why more players don't develop their mid-range game.Â
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-15-2014, 07:41 AM
(11-14-2014, 11:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:STAN 36 - WOF 27. So-so first half marked by mediocre coaching.
Was a two-point game either way until last 2 mins of the half.
Observations from the first half:
- Reid Travis is the real deal. If I didn't know he was a true frosh I wouldn't believe it. I hope he stays at least two years
- Other than Travis & the 3 returning starters, I don't see much on the roster. I know that some of them are true freshman and they will (should) get a lot better, but as it stands now it's those 4 and really nothing else
- I hope I'm proven wrong, but Rosco Allen looks like a bust
- Let's see how Nastic plays when he's not 3+ in and 30+ lbs bigger than everyone on the opponents' roster. Every P12 team can put at least one player on the floor who matches up with him size-wise.
Listening to the second half on the radio, sounded like they got their act together especially on defense. Good to hear. I'm still hoping/waiting to see the whole be greater than the sum of its parts for more than one or two games a season
(11-14-2014, 11:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:STAN 36 - WOF 27. So-so first half marked by mediocre coaching.
Was a two-point game either way until last 2 mins of the half.
Observations from the first half:
- Reid Travis is the real deal. If I didn't know he was a true frosh I wouldn't believe it. I hope he stays at least two years
- Other than Travis & the 3 returning starters, I don't see much on the roster. I know that some of them are true freshman and they will (should) get a lot better, but as it stands now it's those 4 and really nothing else
- I hope I'm proven wrong, but Rosco Allen looks like a bust
- Let's see how Nastic plays when he's not 3+ in and 30+ lbs bigger than everyone on the opponents' roster. Every P12 team can put at least one player on the floor who matches up with him size-wise.
Listening to the second half on the radio, sounded like they got their act together especially on defense. Good to hear. I'm still hoping/waiting to see the whole be greater than the sum of its parts for more than one or two games a season
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »