PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3578
Reg: 02-15-15
|
01-05-17 12:55 PM - Post#217352
Any reports from the game? From the Box Zena played only 16 minutes and Tommy McCarthy had more rebounds than Z? VT outrebounded the Crimson by 13?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-05-17 04:40 PM - Post#217367
In response to PennFan10
It was a luck fest. Not much you can take from it.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3578
Reg: 02-15-15
|
01-05-17 06:11 PM - Post#217382
In response to mrjames
Well that's not very helpful.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-05-17 07:20 PM - Post#217389
In response to PennFan10
I mean, here were the confounding factors in breaking the game down:
1) Harvard turnovers. This game looks to be another exhibit in the mounting evidence that this offense will never reduce its gaudy turnover rate. 14 turnovers on 62 possessions (23%) is right about at Harvard's terrible season average. That being said, six of the turnovers were on (very questionable) offensive fouls. In a normal game, you might expect a couple, maybe three max. Reduce the offensive fouls to that number and the TO Rate looks reasonable or even good at 16-18%.
2) Harvard's defensive rebounding. Also, not an area the Crimson has excelled this season, so it wasn't surprising to see them struggle here. But a 48% offensive rebound rate allowed is pretty abnormal, and if you watched the game, so many OREBs were weird bounces that could have easily bounced the other way.
3) 2 PT jumper % allowed: I had Vermont at 10-for-17 on two-point jumpers (59%). They actually shot worse around the rim (16-for-33). And Harvard getting UVM to take ~30% of shots as 2 PT Js is better than UVM's season average, as was Harvard getting Vermont only to take 8-of-58 shots (14%) from three. If Vermont shot about average on jumpers, it would have ceded 9 points right there.
4) Harvard itself outperformed on a luck basis. It shot 5-for-10 on 2pt Js (a great, low rate of 2pt Js!!!, but better than it should shoot). It also shot 7-for-14 from three. So Harvard also outperformed on jumpers by about 9 pts.
5) Harvard's offensive shot selection was great. Roughly 20% 2pt Js, 30% threes and 50% at rim (where it shot 16-for-25). For the season, roughly 60% of Harvard's baskets at the rim are assisted and 86% of its threes are as well. Vermont is decent at stopping assisted baskets, but not amazing at it. There's no reason Harvard's assist rate should have been 32%.
There were still really concerning things that probably weren't luck: Harvard got lost a LOT on defense and gave up easy buckets. It failed to win a lot of one-on-one battles defensively in the post. Corey Johnson is now 1-for-12 in his past four games from three and worse seems reticent to shoot out of the slump. Z continues to struggle to be a force offensively, and when he doesn't rebound in droves defensively, his value is limited. Harvard is still struggling to find any consistent contributions from non-freshmen other than Siyani.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
01-06-17 06:11 PM - Post#217504
In response to mrjames
I can see Tommy McCarthy raising his hand and saying "ooh, ooh, call on me!" after reading mrjames's last sentence.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3578
Reg: 02-15-15
|
01-06-17 06:36 PM - Post#217507
In response to SRP
Thanks Mr J for the color.
|