mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 514
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
01-08-12 04:42 PM - Post#116160
Wow is it quiet on this part of the board!
I posted this on the Cornell sports board (elynah) and figured it may jump start a litte conversation here.
KenPom now says Cornell is the 188th best basketball team in the nation and sixth best in the Ivies. Cornell is now a slightly above average defensive team. In the last decade only the 2010 team was better rated on that end. Unfortunately, the offense is regressing and has its worst offensive ranking since 2006 when the team was also 4-9 heading into league play. Some other numbers/observations based in the order they drive me insane and should be fixable.
1) This team takes too many threes. I think we all know that, but the numbers are astounding. Only seven teams take more threes as a percentage of all shots, which would be high even for the Coach D years. Here's why that's a big problem: for the first time in years, this is not an elite three point shooting team. In fact, it is approximately 200th in the nation. And that number is bouyed by Drew shooting at a 43% clip. In the past, Cornell could get lucky with a hot shooting night and pull of an upset; the numbers say we cannot expect that to happen this year. In fact, Cornell has shot better than 40% from the behind the arc twice this season, the Binghamton win and the Illinois loss. In comparison, the three Ivy Champs all shot over 40% from behind the arc for the season. Cornell needs to get the ball down low to Eitan and Josh, get Miller to stop relying on long-range jumpers, and get more dribble penetration from its guards. If the Big Red can do that, and they should be able to, that offensive rating should rise significantly. If they continue to pass the ball around the outside and chuck up a three, it won't.
2) The foul line does us no favors. Cornell is in the bottom quarter at getting to the line and slightly below average at hitting what foul shots they get. (Those numbers include Wroblewski's 86%. Take him out of the equation and the rest of the team would be ranked about #300. And, yes, there is no excuse for that.) The Big Red is even worse at sending the other team to the line where opponents continue to hit at a ridiculous 75%; only nine teams have a worse FT "defense." (Weird note, you would think FT defense is largely random, right? I would, at least. Cornell has been horrible in that category every year since 2003. That team finished 6-14. If anyone has an explanation, I would love to hear it.) Too many of our fouls are 30 feet away from the bucket, which should be avoidable. Our guards are doing a better job on trying to penetrate and draw fouls, so maybe this stat will even out a bit.
3) This team gives up too many offsensive rebounds. Offsensive rebounding remains dreadful (#337 of 345) and defensive rebounding has fallen off to decidedly below average. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to change this season. We play with a lot of three guard sets and our post players are poor rebounders. Rebounding average doesn't tell the whole story, but Josh is fourth on the team (behind two guards) and Eitan sixth. This could be a real impediment to pulling off an upset over Harvard or Yale (and perhaps Princeton and Columbia who are both good keeping teams off the offensive glass).
On the bright side, the defensive numbers are looking good. Top 100 in turning the other team over and top 30 in three point defense. That can keep a team in games (and has this season). The regular FG defense is below average, but that's largely a function of giving up too many shots off offensive rebounds. Bunce and Harmon have minutes waiting for them when they arrive in Ithaca next year.
I like to think this is a young team, but KenPom disagrees and says its about average (the same as Harvard) as there are lots of minutes being given to Seniors (Chris and Drew are always on the court) and Juniors (Josh, Eitan, Miles and Johnathan). Personally, I would be maximizing the minutes of Cancer, Miller, Cherry and to a lesser extent Tarwater, LaMore and Giddens. This team isn't winning the league or playing in the post-season. I'd rather build for the future, even if it means finishing in the second division.
This collection of players would probably be a 10 win Ivy League team five or six years ago; not good enough to win the leauge, but competitive. The League is a lot better and these guys have the feel of a 7-7 squad. Maybe nine wins if things fall into place, but just as likely only five and a solid 6th place.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3998
Reg: 11-23-04
|
01-08-12 06:17 PM - Post#116170
In response to mountainred
Thanks for the post. Nice to hear from the red.
|
cornellfan4
Masters Student
Posts: 543
Reg: 12-09-09
|
01-09-12 02:30 AM - Post#116216
In response to Old Bear
Yeah unfortunately all the Cornell posters are over at BRF's forum, http://cornellbball.proboards.com/index.cgi? , and dont come over here.
1. Yeah I dont understand why Courtney allows them to take as many 3's as they do. Ferry is the only consistent 3pt shooter and Wrobo used to be, the rest of the team shouldnt be shooting 3's unless it is a wide open look. And even if it is a wide open look would rather not see Cancer, Miller, etc taking 3's because these guys arent good 3pt shooters and instead should be getting to the basket and drawing fouls.
3. Yes Bunce and Harmon could not get here soon enough. I just hope they are as good as advertised because we really need help rebounding as seen by them getting outrebounded by 11 against D3 Albright
Yeah I think 5th or 6th sounds about right. I just hope to see Cancer, Cherry, Miller get a lot of minutes and improve as they are the future. Peck's injury will turn out to being a blessing as we will get him for 2 more years on much more competitive teams plus Miller was able to use Peck's minutes to play a lot more than he would have
|
|
