Okoro Dude
Senior
Posts: 309
Loc: Glen Mills, PA
Reg: 11-24-04
|
07-20-16 12:54 PM - Post#208690
In response to mrjames
Agree that it is hard to imagine that real talent gets buried, even as a freshman, on a bottom 25% team like Penn. That said, there is something to the old Al McGuire adage that the best thing about freshmen is that next year they are sophomores. While it falls out of the statistical analysis, anecdotally there was big growth in guys like Langel, Koko, Schiffner, Begley, Ibby, Zoller, Rosen from freshman to sophomore years. They all got decent playing time as freshman, showed skills, but were inconsistent or less complete players and emerged in their sophomore years. If I had to make a bet on anyone at Penn making a reasonable leap forward based on that anecdotal model, my money would be on Silpe. Unless and until Woods returns (and learns to shoot a little bit), Silpe is the only real PG candidate on the team. All of the others will fight out minutes at the 2,3,4 spots based on who is shooting well and making the right decisions in Donahue's system.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
07-20-16 01:21 PM - Post#208694
In response to Okoro Dude
The one thing about the guys you mention is that i think only Schiffner was a low ORAT player as a freshman (in some cases, it's hard to tell because the ORATs don't go back that far and I'm not smart enough to calculate it myself). So everyone made jumps to varying degrees, but i think Silpe will be coming from a lower point than everybody but Schiff.
Again, not impossible, but the odds are lower.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
07-20-16 01:25 PM - Post#208695
In response to SomeGuy
Silpe's Freshman ORAT isn't too far off from Lin's and Rosen's.
Though Penn's team ORAT last year might have been higher than the teams that Lin and Rosen played on.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
07-20-16 03:01 PM - Post#208715
In response to TheLine
Agreed on Lin -- he's a guy who made a huge jump as a soph from a low ORAT.
College basketball reference doesn't seem to go back that far, but my memory is that Rosen was around a 95 ORAT as a freshman (the high FT rate and % partially overcame the poor shooting). That's in the range where guys sometimes develop into stars. Silpe is probably closer to the floor for such players, but still above the floor. Lin and Schiff came from below the floor!
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
07-20-16 03:16 PM - Post#208717
In response to SomeGuy
Your memory is the same as mine.
Rosen had a bad shooting percentage from inside the arc and also a moderately high turnover rate from what I recall. Was slightly below average as a 3 point shooter and made his free throws.
As a sophomore it all clicked. He developed a strong move to the hoop to keep defenders honest, hit his open outside shots and learned to send more of his passes Eggleston's way as too many of the other players weren't as good receiving the ball.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
07-20-16 03:35 PM - Post#208719
In response to TheLine
my recollection was that Rosen was 89-91. I could be wrong, and I feel like I've written about this before, but I am having the hardest time searching the archives.
Off topic, can someone please explain to me how to use either "Normal" or "Boolean". I would have thought Boolean would mean that you could type the word "and" and not have it search for things but when I search "Rosen and ORAT", I get a bunch of highlights of the word "and" as well as ORAT. When I type "Rosen ORAT", I get Rosen or ORAT.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
07-20-16 04:37 PM - Post#208729
In response to Jeff2sf
CBB doesn't go back far enough. KenPom does (or did), unfortunately I'm no longer a subscriber.
But gosh, his shooting percentage from the floor was more brutal than I remembered.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3589
Reg: 02-15-15
|
07-20-16 04:38 PM - Post#208730
In response to SomeGuy
Here is some data, the significance of which is open for debate:
The bad news is that Penn's 3pt % (30.4%) this past season is the second lowest season shooting from the arc in Steve Donahue's coaching career (His first year at Cornell was worse at 29.6%). The good news is everywhere he has gone his teams 3pt % has gotten better every year. At Cornell it climbed to the mid 30's and his last 4 years there were 39.6%, 40.1%, 41.1%, 43%
At BC his team of mostly Sr's shot 38% the first year (they shot 34% the year before he arrived). His largely frosh lineup of year two shot 33.9% and steadily improved shooting 38.4% his last year there.
In terms of number of 3pt shots taken I found it interesting that for 9 years at Cornell his teams shot between 486-587 3pters a season and his sweet 16 team shot 759. At BC his teams took 802, 664, 662, and 702 3pt shots. Last years Penn team took 657
Another way to look at it is Penn ranked 322nd in 3pt% last year so there is really nowhere to go but up.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
07-20-16 04:41 PM - Post#208732
In response to TheLine
Yeah but at some point I referenced historical orats from statsheet who did have it. Shed a tear for them.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4366
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-21-16 11:15 AM - Post#208757
In response to Jeff2sf
Hard to figure out who gets PT with the unbalanced line-up we have - too many guards; not enough 4 and 5's.
I'm thinking Caleb Wood would not have been brought in if he wasn't thought of as an immediate contributor. Looking at his film, it might be at the point.
One thing is for sure - you can use all the analytics in the world, but a team that shoots 30% from 3 will struggle under this coach. As a result I'd look for some possible surprises in the fall.
Speaking of 3 point shots, I saw on TV that the perfect entry degree for a 3 point shot is 45 degrees. Seth Curry's ball enter at 46 degrees. My conclusion - Sam Jones will never be a lights out shooter unless he changes his shot. He'll have his moments, but that shot is way too flat to go in night in and night out.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-21-16 01:12 PM - Post#208760
In response to AsiaSunset
My bigger concern is on the defensive end due to personnel and mean regression.
Let's start with the latter first. Penn yielded a 34.8% 3PTFG% to opponents, which was better than every year he had at BC. It also "held" opponents to 67.4% shooting from the free throw line, better than expectation. Had both of those been at StevieD's historical average and the national average, respectively, that would have made the defense look a little worse than it's already No. 220 ranking.
Then there's the personnel issues. Penn already allowed an above average make rate at the rim and blocked a well-below-average rate of those shots. It also allowed an above average rate of opponent offensive rebounding. And Penn lost a guy who finished top ten in the league in blocked shots and defensive rebounding.
My point is merely that there's a two-fold process here: 1) Install the system and improve the offense. 2) Try to find pieces that can maintain a high-functioning offense while not being total disasters defensively.
I bring this up, because even if last year's Penn team had maintained the same defensive efficiency with the offensive efficiency of StevieD's first two title teams (somewhere in the 50-100 range nationally), Penn would have been about as good as last year's Columbia team, well behind Yale and Princeton. In other words - being a title contender will require more than just getting the offense right.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
07-21-16 02:54 PM - Post#208773
In response to mrjames
Interesting point and numbers. I think it was pretty obvious that Donahue had the guys playing his offense regardless of whether he had the personnel for it last year.
On defense, it was a little harder to tell. I don't know if the same sort of square peg issue was going on or not.
We got better on both sides of the ball, FWIW. College basketball reference suggests the defense improved more dramatically, while kenpom has it closer to even.
I was never enamored with DNH's defense. My guess is that the rebounding and interior defense will get better, not worse, despite the lack of size, but we'll see. My eyes have been wrong before.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3589
Reg: 02-15-15
|
07-21-16 05:03 PM - Post#208800
In response to SomeGuy
What we lose with DNH on size (2-3 inches) we get back dramatically with athleticism, defense and passing. (Max and AJ are far superior to DNH athletically and defensively). Max's per 40 min rebounding number is the same as DNH. AJ will add to that as well. DNH was good for one thing, he could score one on one when you needed a bucket against most teams. I am not worried about losing DNH.
Perimeter defense and ability to score at the end of the clock are my biggest concerns (among many)
|
