TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-13-12 10:49 AM - Post#120514
I didn't see the game but looking at the box score it seems that Harvard faded down the stretch. It also seems that Princeton was pretty intent in pounding the ball inside in the second half vs. settling for 3-pointers.
Was it a bit of a letdown or fatigue setting in after an emotional and hard-played game the night before? Was it tough to have to prepare for two different types of teams in back-to-back nights? Did Princeton come up with a good offensive strategy? All of the above? None of the above?
And congrats on the win on Friday. Harvard brought it that night. I've seen real good teams taken down at the Palestra, it is a tough place to play when it's packed.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Question on Harvard v. Princeton
02-13-12 10:57 AM - Post#120515
In response to TheLine
Harvard was very surprised to see backdoor cuts. And that was the difference in the game.
As for why Harvard was surprised to see a backdoor offense, your guess is as good as mine. I hear Princeton does those with some frequency.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Question on Harvard v. Princeton
02-13-12 10:58 AM - Post#120516
In response to mrjames
To be fair, it was primarily freshmen getting beat - which I've seen often in my history of watching Princeton's first meeting with an Ivy opponent each season. But still, it can't happen, especially when you know it's coming.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2275
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Question on Harvard v. Princeton
02-13-12 10:59 AM - Post#120517
In response to mrjames
It was a surprise since very few backdoor cuts have been successful in the Hummer era. Princeton took Hummer away from the low post and set him up on the perimeter; then Hummer hit an early 3-pointer as well as a short range jumper, so he had to be guarded. When Connolly moved to the high post, the entire lane was empty.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
Re: Question on Harvard v. Princeton
02-13-12 11:12 AM - Post#120518
In response to mrjames
To be fair, it was primarily freshmen getting beat...
Not unexpected. Trying to get Freshmen prepared for that weekend against two tough teams with completely different styles must have been a chore.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3777
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: Question on Harvard v. Princeton
02-13-12 11:15 AM - Post#120519
In response to mrjames
Harvard was very surprised to see backdoor cuts. And that was the difference in the game.
As for why Harvard was surprised to see a backdoor offense, your guess is as good as mine. I hear Princeton does those with some frequency.
As I recall, there was a UCLA team some years back that spent most of an NCAA tournament game watching, flatfooted, with stunned looks on their faces, as Princeton executed backdoor after backdoor. You had to wonder about that as well.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2275
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Question on Harvard v. Princeton
02-13-12 11:23 AM - Post#120522
In response to Silver Maple
I was literally stunned to see it work so well. Quite ironic.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-12 11:49 AM - Post#120526
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
I haven't watched many Harvard games this year but their defense appears to be outstanding at forcing teams to play half court offense and denying three point shots. That is a solid strategy against almost everyone except Princeton. Princeton wants teams to overplay the perimeter and double the high post opening up passes to cutters.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2275
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-12 11:57 AM - Post#120527
In response to Brian Martin
This is the first time I have seen Princeton move Hummer out beyond the three point line on a consistent basis. I watched almost the entire first half over again, primarily to see if it was my imagination, but he never set up down low. He typically received the ball beyond the 3-point line, or just inside near the elbow. He then had to drive to get ouside the lane near the low block or into the paint.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-13-12 03:09 PM - Post#120546
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
I'm not a huge fan of plus/minus but it does help pinpoint who was on the court during good and bad runs so I checked the stats to see if there was anything interesting.
Harvard played 3 Freshmen. Travis played 4 minutes and was a +3. Miller played 24 and was a +4. I can't see either of them as being a major problem, though I could be wrong about that. Mondou-Missi was a -7 in 7 minutes of action... but was it his responsibility to read the backdoor cuts? I would've assumed he would have responsibility to cover the high post.
McNally : -10; Webster -7; Curry : -7; Wright : -9.
It seems wrong to blame the Freshmen entirely for what happened.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-12 03:17 PM - Post#120547
In response to TheLine
Miller and Moundou-Missi were the ones I remember getting beaten a ton. Miller specifically looked really bad a couple times.
Miller scored well until he drew Hummer in the 2nd half, which freed up other folks, which might be why he was still a net positive (because of the offensive contribution). Defensively, though, he got beat a bunch, and when he didn't get beat, they isolated a bigger guard on him in the post, who ate his lunch.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2275
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-12 03:35 PM - Post#120550
In response to mrjames
Travis came in at the end of the first half, with Harvard up by 6, I believe, and starting to build some "mo". (I question the decision to sub out at that time. I think Wright was taken out.) Travis immediately got a charging call against him, and then missed an assignment on a switch, leading to a wide open dunk by Connelly. And then gets a +something because he was on the floor during a net positive. His own personal contributions were negative. Forgive me if I have the players wrong, as I don't know the Harvard players well.
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
02-13-12 05:26 PM - Post#120561
In response to Brian Martin
I haven't watched many Harvard games this year but their defense appears to be outstanding at forcing teams to play half court offense and denying three point shots. That is a solid strategy against almost everyone except Princeton. Princeton wants teams to overplay the perimeter and double the high post opening up passes to cutters.
Harvard's defense seemed to work in the 1st Half, not so much in the 2nd half.
Here are Princeton's stats, split by halves.
TOTAL FG%...... 1st Half: 10-26 38.5%...... 2nd Half: 15-24 62.5%...... Game: 50.0%
3-Pt. FG%......... 1st Half: 1-7 14.3%.......... 2nd Half: 2-4 50.0%......... Game: 27.3%
F Throw %........ 1st Half: 1-2 50.0%.......... 2nd Half: 16-22 72.7%...... Game: 70.8%
Also, if you look at the stats for the last 10 minutes, well, 10:01, from the play-by-play, the stats are more telling:
TOTAL FG%...... Harvard: 8-15 53%........ Princeton: 8-10 80%
3-Pt. FG%......... Harvard: 1-7 14%.......... Princeton: 0-0 N/A
F Throw %........ Harvard: 3-7 43%.......... Princeton: 14-19 74%
Rebounds.......... Harvard: 3..................... Princeton: 11
I realize these are raw stats, but when you get out-rebounded 11-3 (zero Offensive Rebounds for H, 2 for P), and your opponent shoots 80%, that's a tough advantage to overcome, particularly when you're shooting 1-7 from 3-Pt. range, and you hit 43% of your FTs.
Does anyone have another take on this?
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-12 05:43 PM - Post#120567
In response to H78
Princeton's 15 2nd half made field goals were 10 layups/dunks, 3 2-point jumpers, and 2 3-point jumpers. So a big difference in the 2nd half was being able to get to the rim. That also drew more fouls even before the end-game fouling.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-13-12 05:53 PM - Post#120571
In response to Brian Martin
Thanks, all - this helped a lot.
Once again plus/minus proves to be inferior to observation. Observation kicks the butt of any defensive stat IMHO.
And it looks like the Princeton coaching staff did a very nice job adjusting at halftime. They saw something to exploit and the players executed.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-13-12 06:06 PM - Post#120575
In response to TheLine
ummm... didn't they just provide you with stats, just not the one that everyone says don't use in college ball +/-?
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
02-13-12 06:08 PM - Post#120576
In response to Brian Martin
Princeton's 15 2nd half made field goals were 10 layups/dunks, 3 2-point jumpers, and 2 3-point jumpers. So a big difference in the 2nd half was being able to get to the rim. That also drew more fouls even before the end-game fouling.
Agreed. Really nice separating out the made baskets, in particular. And during that last 10 minutes, 6 of 8 made baskets were lay-ups/dunks.
And then, when you hit 80% of your FT's on the fouls you draw, even better for your team.
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
02-13-12 06:13 PM - Post#120577
In response to TheLine
Thanks, all - this helped a lot.
Once again plus/minus proves to be inferior to observation. Observation kicks the butt of any defensive stat IMHO.
And it looks like the Princeton coaching staff did a very nice job adjusting at halftime. They saw something to exploit and the players executed.
Brian's observations were better than mine. I was too busy yelling at the TV.
Right about the adjustments, not only getting to the hoop, but also Princeton's considerable rebounding advantage in the last 10 minutes. This denied Harvard the 2nd chance shot opportunities which are an important part of Harvard's game. Princeton really rebounded well when it counted.
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
02-13-12 06:21 PM - Post#120581
In response to Jeff2sf
ummm... didn't they just provide you with stats, just not the one that everyone says don't use in college ball +/-?
Being a neophyte to a lot of this (note, SM, I used "a lot" as 2 words, having read my oatmeal), I'm not clear why +/- is a stat many people like to refer to. I get that it shows what team results are when a player is on the court, just not sure about the causal relationship between the player and the +/- number.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-12 06:26 PM - Post#120583
In response to H78
You need a ton of data to make +/- work. There are some good sites for Adjusted Defensive and Offensive Plus-Minus data that has some real value.
Segments of one game would be on the opposite end of that sample size spectrum, so you probably won't get much from that.
|
