Temple

[L-T]

Gold jacket, green jacket, regression, flat line, who gives a shit?? So maybe regression isn't the right word but he certainly it isn't getting better. His IQ remains low and he still fails to show improvement in the most coachable of areas. Like how to create space in the post, not putting the ball on the floor every time you catch it, and the simple fundamentals of defensive positioning. Considering the fact that he was a preseason all conference player it would be nice if we saw significant improvements in his play from last season to this season.

Do you have some results from 2014 and 2015 IQ tests to prove your statement?

 

[waterhead]

Gold jacket, green jacket, regression, flat line, who gives a shit?? So maybe regression isn't the right word but he certainly it isn't getting better. His IQ remains low and he still fails to show improvement in the most coachable of areas. Like how to create space in the post, not putting the ball on the floor every time you catch it, and the simple fundamentals of defensive positioning. Considering the fact that he was a preseason all conference player it would be nice if we saw significant improvements in his play from last season to this season.

Ok something I can finally agree with

All the exaggeration and hyperbole on this forum was really starting to get to me. Because none of it made any sense

 

[UCBearcats]

Do you have some results from 2014 and 2015 IQ tests to prove your statement?

I figured the fact I meant basketball IQ was implied here but you never know with this group.

 

[waterhead]

Do you have some results from 2014 and 2015 IQ tests to prove your statement?

Probably best to latch on to something which can't be tracked as opposed to things that can.

 

[Doogle]

I envision a group of former players - T-Nel, Logan, Bobby Brannen, Tarrice Gibson, et al - showing up at practice one day for a scrimmage and pissing all over this current group. A bunch of 35-45 year old dudes walloping them up and down the court, or at least giving them a lesson in intensity and toughness.

Unrealistic? Probably. But I wouldn't bet against a group of those guys, at any age. They might get smoked by the youngsters but there would be blood on the floor.

 

[waterhead]

Probably best to latch on to something which can't be tracked as opposed to things that can.

He's much dumber but he's scoring and rebounding better...so what do we do now?

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Could not have said this any better. So I'll re-state it in a different way:
I've seen this at the NBA level (from an insider's perspective) and I've seen it at the college level: I'd rather have a team that can score than a team that plays D in the regular season (both would be nice though!), because in the NCAA tournament everyone will play hard and play tougher D. You have to have guys that can score in the dance. That's not to say I think UC has enough shooters/scorers, or that a team suddenly becomes a defensive juggernaut in the tourney...but for years, we saw Bearcat teams overachieve by out-working and out-toughing teams in the regular season, only to lose in the NCAA tournament because they didn't have enough scoring talent or their margin for error talent wise was too thin. Iowa State, West Virginia, UCLA (they of the 3 NBA players), etc.

This team has enough talent. What they don't have is a burning desire to be great. There is still time to get this team back on track defensively. They can still have a very special season. A lot of teams look like road kill in December and January become great. It's up to them.

All that said: today was unacceptable and embarrassing. No sense in point-by-point bitching because we'd be here all night. They were thoroughly out-played, out-coached, out-efforted. Temple deserved to win.

Spitballing from a layman's perspective? I'd like to see more man to man defense. SOOOOO sick of watching a lazy zone double team beaten easily for a parking-lot-open 3 pointer or a ridiculously easy entry pass lead to a layup. Man to man might actually wake these guys up and speed up tempo. Just a thought.

The analogy I've used in the past in the Chicago Bulls under Thibodeau. At the NBA level, teams will probably win 60% of their games just by being solid defensively, giving maximum effort all season. That corresponds to around a 50 win season. Given a few offensive outbursts, you can probably win an addition 3-5 games. At the college level, it is probably closer to 70% because the skill level is significantly worse. In other words, those types of teams have a high floor but a low ceiling.

Those Bulls teams, despite overachieving in the regular season, always ran into the same problem in the playoffs. When the other team ramps up their defense too, they couldn't score consistently enough.

Cincinnati has struggled with the same issue at the college level. They've shown they can grind out games over the course of a season, but when the other team is also in do or die mode defensively, the Bearcats simply didn't have enough offensive playmakers to make winning plays offensively.

When it comes down to the NCAA Tournament, the teams with offensive playmakers are the ones who win while successful regular season teams like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Villanova find themselves sitting at home.

 

[waterhead]

The analogy I've used in the past in the Chicago Bulls under Thibodeau. At the NBA level, teams will probably win 60% of their games just by being solid defensively, giving maximum effort all season. That corresponds to around a 50 win season. Given a few offensive outbursts, you can probably win an addition 3-5 games. At the college level, it is probably closer to 70% because the skill level is significantly worse. In other words, those types of teams have a high floor but a low ceiling.

Those Bulls teams, despite overachieving in the regular season, always ran into the same problem in the playoffs. When the other team ramps up their defense too, they couldn't score consistently enough.

Cincinnati has struggled with the same issue at the college level. They've shown they can grind out games over the course of a season, but when the other team is also in do or die mode defensively, the Bearcats simply didn't have enough offensive playmakers to make winning plays offensively.

When it comes down to the NCAA Tournament, the teams with offensive playmakers are the ones who win while successful regular season teams like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Villanova find themselves sitting at home.

I couldn't agree more...which is why I am hoping our new offensive success will help us when we decide to play MAX D!!!

 

[Doogle]

The analogy I've used in the past in the Chicago Bulls under Thibodeau. At the NBA level, teams will probably win 60% of their games just by being solid defensively, giving maximum effort all season. That corresponds to around a 50 win season. Given a few offensive outbursts, you can probably win an addition 3-5 games. At the college level, it is probably closer to 70% because the skill level is significantly worse. In other words, those types of teams have a high floor but a low ceiling.

Those Bulls teams, despite overachieving in the regular season, always ran into the same problem in the playoffs. When the other team ramps up their defense too, they couldn't score consistently enough.

Cincinnati has struggled with the same issue at the college level. They've shown they can grind out games over the course of a season, but when the other team is also in do or die mode defensively, the Bearcats simply didn't have enough offensive playmakers to make winning plays offensively.

When it comes down to the NCAA Tournament, the teams with offensive playmakers are the ones who win while successful regular season teams like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Villanova find themselves sitting at home.

I'd put the Mike Brown Cavs from about 2005-2010 into this category as well. Never understood why people felt like Huggs' teams "underachieved" because they lost in the NCAAs. They didn't underachieve, they overachieved.

 

[L-T]

Ok something I can finally agree with

All the exaggeration and hyperbole on this forum was really starting to get to me. Because none of it made any sense

His FT%, Blocks, Turnover volume, personal fouls have all regressed. His eyetest factor has definitely regressed. Many intangibles have regressed. He isn't playing with the same fire, etc.

 

[TheLongHaul]

At what is he regressing? His points are up per 40 minutes more than anyone but Cobb and his rebounds are up more than any other big per 40 minutes.

How do you define regression other than what you think you are seeing? His blocks are down slightly but not much. I'm not sure on steals or assists because I haven't checked.

I expect more from him...but until someone can show me the regression in stats I don't care too much for "it seems like".

Waterhead, I know you love your stats, and I think they are valuable too, but they aren't everything. Stats are like skirts: they look good but they hide the essentials. Stats are much better in other sports like baseball where it isn't as much a team sport. They are still very good in basketball but not everything.

Example: On the play I described earlier where Ellis simply let the guy score on him, that doesn't show up in the stat sheet. You cite rebounds often but if a player gets 50% of his rebounds from a missed FT, that does nothing to show that he did or did not do a good job on the glass or provided good effort. Hopefully you understand how stats don't tell the whole story.

Stats can also be manipulated very easily to make a point. Yes Shaq was 2-4 from 3 today but his career averages are terrible and if he was 2-2 at that point then there is high probably that his next shots will be misses to bring him closer to his averages. I wonder if Shaq has ever made three 3 pointers in a game?

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Waterhead, I know you love your stats, and I think they are valuable too, but they aren't everything. Stats are like skirts: they look good but they hide the essentials. Stats are much better in other sports like baseball where it isn't as much a team sport. They are still very good in basketball but not everything.

Example: On the play I described earlier where Ellis simply let the guy score on him, that doesn't show up in the stat sheet. You cite rebounds often but if a player gets 50% of his rebounds from a missed FT, that does nothing to show that he did or did not do a good job on the glass or provided good effort. Hopefully you understand how stats don't tell the whole story.

Stats can also be manipulated very easily to make a point. Yes Shaq was 2-4 from 3 today but his career averages are terrible and if he was 2-2 at that point then there is high probably that his next shots will be misses to bring him closer to his averages. I wonder if Shaq has ever made three 3 pointers in a game?

Shaq Thomas has only 3 games in his career where he is made multiple (2) three pointers and two of them are this season. He has never made more than two in a game.

 

[waterhead]

Waterhead, I know you love your stats, and I think they are valuable too, but they aren't everything. Stats are like skirts: they look good but they hide the essentials. Stats are much better in other sports like baseball where it isn't as much a team sport. They are still very good in basketball but not everything.

Example: On the play I described earlier where Ellis simply let the guy score on him, that doesn't show up in the stat sheet. You cite rebounds often but if a player gets 50% of his rebounds from a missed FT, that does nothing to show that he did or did not do a good job on the glass or provided good effort. Hopefully you understand how stats don't tell the whole story.

Stats can also be manipulated very easily to make a point. Yes Shaq was 2-4 from 3 today but his career averages are terrible and if he was 2-2 at that point then there is high probably that his next shots will be misses to bring him closer to his averages. I wonder if Shaq has ever made three 3 pointers in a game?

I am not arguing that a stat can explain one play or two. That's not what I would ever use stats for. Hopefully when they are used right they explain longer term trends. We have played 14 games now.

 

[waterhead]

Shaq Thomas has only 3 games in his career where he is made multiple (2) three pointers and two of them are this season. He has never made more than two in a game.

Right...and ST has NEVER had as high of an arc on his shot than this season

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Right...and ST has NEVER had as high of an arc on his shot than this season

Also, to be fair, he has only attempted 3 or more three pointers 4 times in his career and he's never attempted more than 4 a game. It's not like he's Dion Dixon, chucking up three's every game.

 

[L-T]

I think all things considered, we should be fairly happy with what we have gotten out of Shaq this year. He actually has passed the eye test, nothing spectacular, but a definite improvement.

 

[waterhead]

Also, to be fair, he has only attempted 3 or more three pointers 4 times in his career and he's never attempted more than 4 a game. It's not like he's Dion Dixon, chucking up three's every game.

So far I am completely OK with both his selection and his % as a whole

 

[waterhead]

I think all things considered, we should be fairly happy with what we have gotten out of Shaq this year. He actually has passed the eye test, nothing spectacular, but a definite improvement.

Agreed 100%! He's a better shooter this year from long range. His arc is much better and it shows

 

[waterhead]

Also, to be fair, he has only attempted 3 or more three pointers 4 times in his career and he's never attempted more than 4 a game. It's not like he's Dion Dixon, chucking up three's every game.

He's been very selective and has chucked up some late 3's late in the clock. All in all I would call that good BB IQ!! His shot is better this year also which will probably not go down as a "progression" in terms of player development.

 

[Bulldog01]

Shaq bust his ass off every game