Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
09-21-16 09:14 AM - Post#210641
I dunno.
I just wanted to move it out of the 2017 Recruit Thread as I don't want any of that spoiling the big Jarrod Simmons announcement (or the post from besnoah that announces Whyte commits to Davidson).
It would make me very happy if we could sneak into the 4th spot of the playoff. I don't think it's impossible, but it's not necessarily likely either.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-21-16 09:56 AM - Post#210643
In response to Jeff2sf
4th place is wide open in the Ivies this year. A lot of things would have to come together for us to get it. We can hope.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-21-16 10:42 AM - Post#210645
In response to Jeff2sf
Forced to make a prediction, I'll say we finish 5th. I wouldn't be at all surprised to finish anywhere from 4th to 8th, and while I would be awesomely excited about 3rd (a finish that would have seemed like the end of the world and the program 10 years ago), I wouldn't be all that shocked by that either.
Some of my thinking: we finished ahead of Dartmouth, Cornell, and Brown last year, so that must mean something. I'm not sure we were really any better than any of them, but we finished ahead. I would guess that Cornell is trending up with a new coach, everybody back, and a star in Morgan. My guess is that Dartmouth goes backwards initially without Cormier (I don't know precisely what went on there behind the scenes, but it struck me as an odd move for a team that ought to be up and coming, and I'm guessing it bites them). I think Brown lost as much as we did (a good Ivy center).
I expect Yale and Columbia to come back to the pack significantly, but both were far enough in front that they may not come all the way back (particularly Yale). And Harvard, who was closer to the pack, should run away from the pack significantly with Chambers and lots of new talent.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
09-21-16 10:51 AM - Post#210648
In response to SomeGuy
8th would be really difficult to swallow. PennPal would most definitely need to not only not go to church but probably convert to another religion.
|
Okoro Dude
Senior
Posts: 309
Loc: Glen Mills, PA
Reg: 11-24-04
|
09-21-16 12:47 PM - Post#210654
In response to Jeff2sf
I agree that a step backward to 7th or 8th would be hard to take at this point.
I would suspect 4th-6th for many of the reasons people have said, but it really comes down to the newcomers - are Brodeur/MacDonald/Wood immediate impact players? If not, hard to imagine significant improvement from last year. Lots of returning young players who should still have room to develop plus having an experienced coach makes it hard to imagine a backslide in the 14 game Ivy season (though I could see non-conference being a slow start).
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
09-21-16 01:07 PM - Post#210657
In response to Okoro Dude
Somehow I can't stop myself from eternal optimism, even in the face of empirical data about how bad this team has been the last few years. I'll say 4th place. I guess I feel entitlement for the Penn program, based on my memories of what they were once.
I'll underwrite the Brodeur/MacDonald/Wood theory, plus a bit of improvement from the others to override our graduation losses. My basis is that we were an outside shooting team last year that couldn't shoot. Having a few more pieces should help.
Border looks great in his videos, and I think he will be a great Penn player. The problem is that it is harder for Freshmen to be impact players. In the past, a stud young recruit could be meaningfully more athletic than the upperclassmen on other teams. In this day, the other ivies are strong enough that it is a high bar for one of our Freshmen to stand out in the league. He can be accretive to our team on day 1, but expecting him to represent meaningful win shares seems misplaced. So I will hope for Wood to carry us.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-21-16 01:20 PM - Post#210659
In response to Penndemonium
I think Max and Dwyer along w Silpe and Donahue will be much much better and we will get more production from the bigs than we had at any point last season w DNH. Shooting will be markedly improved. Those things aren't speculative I think they are fairly empirical. There are other issues like defense and FT percentage that may change a bit so 4th is the stretch goal me thinks.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-21-16 02:47 PM - Post#210663
In response to PennFan10
If those 4 get the majority of minutes, 6th place is a stretch.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-21-16 03:18 PM - Post#210667
In response to palestra38
We finished just outside of 4th last year with that group. What exactly did we lose that will make us worse while making the teams behind us magically better? Add in the new guys and we will be more productive in the front court with better 3pt shooting.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-21-16 03:26 PM - Post#210668
In response to palestra38
If those four "much much improved" players get the majority of minutes I'll have to turn to Bahai.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-21-16 03:43 PM - Post#210670
In response to PennFan10
This is where Ivy record sorta obscures what's going on here. Penn finished 251st in KenPom last year with a defense that looks a little better than it should have due to strong FT defense.
Yes, Harvard only finished one game ahead in the standings, but it was over 70 spots ahead at KenPom and had it not suffered injuries and illnesses at key moments, probably would have finished more games ahead and more spots ahead at KP.
Moreover, from an efficiency differential perspective, Harvard and Dartmouth were close to tied for 4th and 5th, while Penn placed sixth, closer to Brown in seventh than Harvard and Dartmouth in 4th and 5th.
I do think that Penn will make a leap this year, but it's important to use the right baseline, lest you fail to credit the squad for progress that gets obscured by lucky outcomes last year. The appropriate baseline for Penn is calling it the sixth-best team in our league last year. Cornell could easily pass Penn. The Quakers might not make up all the ground on Dartmouth. There are very plausible paths to 7th for the Quakers this year, while actually being BETTER than last year.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-21-16 03:52 PM - Post#210671
In response to mrjames
Ok Mr J, I'll bite. I can buy an argument that says Penn could be better and finish worse. But what exactly is the formula that allows for the exact same Cornell team to be better than Penn. To whom they lost twice, will be better, and returns the same team? Deteriorating FT defense? And were there no unlucky outcomes last year?
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-21-16 03:53 PM - Post#210672
In response to Buckeye Quake
It would be much simpler if you just stopped posting.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12530
Reg: 12-07-04
|
09-21-16 03:57 PM - Post#210673
In response to PennFan10
I like it when we receive mrjames predictions like this as it takes me back to that awesome Tyler charge up at Cambridge and a shot to control our own destiny 5 years ago...Kind of says it all that this is the memory I hold onto, but it's all we have from the Jerome era.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
09-21-16 04:22 PM - Post#210675
In response to PennFan10
Empirical in what sense? That players tend to improve over time? Yes, that is true, but of the guys you name, only one had an ORAT above 93 last year (Donahue). So you really only had one who was playing above the level where your team will need to be in order to be competitive.
Yuu can make predictions about how much guys will improve (there is information out there as to how much ORATs tend to improve over time). That info would say that Dwyer was so low that the likelihood of him turning into an efficient player is pretty low, and for this year I assume the odds are even lower than that.
Silpe and Rothschild were in the realm where they could improve and make it, but they were well below average last year.
Another way to look at this -- we had four guys playing significantly operating at a reasonable offensive efficiency level: Donahue, Howard, DNH, and Sam Jones. Taking away DNH means lots more minutes for guys who were much, much (and in Dwyer's case, much, much, much, much) less efficient.
FWIW, I feel you on Cornell, where I think people (even people who usually focus on numbers) are making the Tony Hicks mistake of assuming Robert Hatter is really awesome because he shot the ball every time he came down the court and scored 25 against me one game. I think we have a decent chance to stay ahead of them standings-wise.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-21-16 05:17 PM - Post#210676
In response to PennFan10
Get over yourself. Not everyone is buying what you're selling.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-21-16 05:56 PM - Post#210678
In response to Buckeye Quake
So does this mean you are gonna keep posting?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-21-16 06:19 PM - Post#210682
In response to PennFan10
I also think Penn has a decent chance to stay ahead of Cornell in the standings as well. Most places are going to have it somewhere around 50/50. Bart Torvik has Penn marginally ahead. I have Penn a little bit behind. The reason why most models will end up there is that Cornell loses basically no one while Penn lost DNH. Now, what the models won't take into account is that Penn's freshmen are much better and that much of why Cornell was so bad last year was that the coaching and playing style probably didn't get the most out of Cornell's talent.
Neither of those things is going to change things dramatically, but they could be decisive in whether Cornell or Penn ends up higher in Pomeroy at year end.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
predictions for this year
09-21-16 06:22 PM - Post#210683
In response to SomeGuy
Some guy
Thanks for this. You highlight my point well. I beleive we will be more productive at the big than we were with DNH. Dan Dwyer is not the answer but I think he will play as a defensive role and a shot blocker. Max was very efficient when his role was to replace DNH and be a scorer. That wasn't his role most of the year. Stats don't usually account for a change in role. E.g. What was the Patriots qb, garrappolos stats last year and what are they now? Role change can make a massive difference. The bugs on this team will have different roles than DNH. He actually inhibited the growth of this team at times.
The other empirical evidence is the fact that Donahue's teams, at every school he has coached, have improved their 3pt shooting every year he was there. Penn will shoot the ball better this year and they will get more efficiency from their players. That's my contention. Now if Cornell is going to triple dog improve relative to us than Harvard and Princeton better watch out.
Edited by PennFan10 on 09-21-16 06:24 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-21-16 07:39 PM - Post#210686
In response to PennFan10
And miss a chance to respond to your cheerleading? Not a chance my man.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
predictions for this year
09-21-16 09:14 PM - Post#210688
In response to Buckeye Quake
I'm going to ask the obvious of PennFan10 and then be done here.
Who are these 'bigs' that are supposedly improved? You've discounted Dwyer yourself, Auger is gone and Jones is a nice three point shooter, but he appears to be a defensive liability with very low rbs/min for a forward. You seem enamored with the 6'8" Rothschild, but he only put up 5.0ppg and 3.6rbs. Rothschild didn't block a single shot the entire year! There is no rim protection here. All the other minutes went to guards. Are you considering the 6'4" Howard to be a big?
It seems that there is good reason for prognosticators (and your fellow posters) to wonder where the inside play comes from after the graduation of DNH.
I see Penn improving, but only because offensive efficiency and 3pt shooting should improve. I don't see defense or rebounding improving - yet.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 09-21-16 09:16 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-21-16 11:56 PM - Post#210694
In response to PennFan10
I assume it was clear to most, but I was not agreeing with you here. Quite the contrary. In basketball, the ORATs aren't a perfect indicator, but they are pretty good. It's why the emergence of, say, Makai Mason or Wes Saunders was fairly predictable. Those guys were efficient in limited roles as freshmen, and they remained efficient as focal points as sophs. The stats really don't support your contention that guys would be inefficient in more limited roles but then become efficient as starters. Logically, we can't possibly be better off without DNH -- we only had 4 guys playing above replacement level. Taking one of them away can't possibly be a good thing. I've argued that we are better off without Tony Hicks because his possessions can be more efficiently used by other players. That's not true of DNH.
Garoppolo may not be a very good example for your argument -- he has always been efficient in small sample sizes. His prior completion percentage was up around 70, and he'd never thrown an interception. Those are both still true after two starts this year (though he has been better as the starter).
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 12:51 AM - Post#210695
In response to Jeff2sf
My prediction? PAIN.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJJMa3y0ek
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 01:00 AM - Post#210696
In response to Mike Porter
Actually that's not how I really feel, but couldn't help myself.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-22-16 03:14 AM - Post#210697
In response to Buckeye Quake
Sigh. Ok. So on we go........
|
section110
Masters Student
Posts: 847
Loc: south jersey
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 10:35 AM - Post#210706
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Rothschild's frosh stats were far better than Coby"s frosh and better than Meisner's; clearly better than Downey's frosh & soph stats and clearly better than Miller & Brennan's frosh & soph stats.
I agree that Penn will be thin up front; but other than Harvard and maybe Columbia, because of Petrasek, I don't see a strong front court in the league. You can say Bruner will make Yale strong; but then you should say Brodeur will do the same at Penn.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-22-16 10:43 AM - Post#210708
In response to PennFan10
As we somehow managed to do long before you surfaced.
My opinions are merely that just as yours are. If you don't agree feel free to respond. Or not. But save your condescending suggestions for someone else son.
Now back to basketball.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 11:46 AM - Post#210714
In response to section110
In assessments like this, it's important to keep three things in mind:
1) When comparing players who play differing levels of minutes on different teams, it's definitely smart to use rate- and pace-adjusted stats, not counting stats.
2) One year of end-of-the-rotation minutes is a very small sample by which to judge. Overarching measures like offensive rating can be HIGHLY impacted by relatively small deviations in shooting percentage, for instance, so it's important to normalize those before taking the overarching measures at face value on small samples.
3) Offensive rating can be tricky in situations where the player is likely more of an efficiency "taker" than an efficiency "setter." Comparing Rothschild to Meisner, for instance, can be difficult in this way. Rothschild was involved in the offense to an average level and thus was probably decently responsible for Penn's offensive efficiency while on the floor. Meisner was a pretty consistently low usage player with the vast majority of his buckets being assisted. That makes me very skeptical that he earned his lofty offensive rating versus merely drafting off the rest of the quality options the Lions had.
I don't really have a lot to say on Rothschild for next year. Plenty of examples of guys with his frosh performance that have stepped up into bigger roles effectively as sophs. Plenty of examples of those that haven't. His turnover rate and FT rate scare me a bit, but there are plenty of examples of people getting better in those two areas over time. His non-existent block rate and good not great defensive rebounding numbers indicate a lack of presence on that end as well. It'll be interesting to see how he develops this year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 12:15 PM - Post#210717
In response to section110
How on earth were Rothschild's numbers better than Meisner's? Meisner was more efficient in more minutes (Meisner's ORAT was 112, Rothschild 92). Meisner had higher rebounding, assist, steal, and block percentages.
Coby also beat Rothschild in everything but assists as a freshman. His soph year was closer to what Rothschild did as a freshman.
Downey didn't play much as a freshman, but he's been a high ORAT player his entire career (including in his 22 minutes as a freshman).
Brennan and Miller may be better comps, because they were not efficient early on. I really don't think Miller became a good player until junior year, though. And as for Brennan, I guess I find that saying our likely starting center is comparable to what their junior 10th man was as a freshman doesn't give me a whole lot of comfort.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 12:41 PM - Post#210722
In response to SomeGuy
If we are improved this year, it will be because of Brodeur, Hamilton and the two transfers. We did not have guys who were 6'4" and 6'5" who could run the court and score last year (Hamilton only started the finale against Princeton and looked very good). If Brodeur, at 6'8" also can score, that allows Rothschild and Dwyer to concentrate on defense and rebounding, which is what we need from them. Forget offensive efficiency for those guys, I don't want them taking many shots. But we didn't have guys like Wood and MacDonald on the team last year, with a proven ability to score and hold their own in a crowd. I want to see what these guys can do early on, because playing the other holdovers (who have their talents, of course) is a recipe for a similar year to last year. We can and should have a very different team this year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 01:17 PM - Post#210724
In response to palestra38
I agree. My only caveat is on Hamilton -- like Dwyer, I think he operated at a low enough efficiency rate that he is unlikely to help. Yes, he looked pretty good in the Princeton game, and the sample size overall was small enough that maybe the shots just didn't fall for him. But I'm not bullish that he will be a fit. I suspect that the newcomers will determine whether we are much better. If we get a jump from one of the sophs, I expect it will be Silpe or Rothschild (Donahue is already contributing at a high level offensively).
|
section110
Masters Student
Posts: 847
Loc: south jersey
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 01:25 PM - Post#210725
In response to mrjames
Obviously, I don't do sabermetrics. Looked at rpg, ppg & mpg & Rothschild's numbers were better that the Columbians and Princetonians in the frosh years. I didn't say this means Rothschild will turn out to be the better player; but the Columbia board seems to be saying their team will continue to be in the mix because guys with those minimal numbers are clearly going to be big contributors this year. I think the projections for both Columbia & Yale are based on subs & deep subs replacing proven quality starters. That remains to be seen.
As I said, frontcourt is thin & not a projected strength for Penn. Agree that one of the transfers has to be a reliable three point shooter & Brodeur has to be what we hope he will be.
But I see Rothscild's possible upside to be as good as the people I compared him to.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 01:28 PM - Post#210727
In response to SomeGuy
I see us with the possibility of having a team similar to Columbia last year--loaded with scorers with some height, although not much in the way of quality Bigs. In the Ivies, you can win with superior athletes and scorers as long as you are not overwhelmed by having too many little guys who cannot defend.
I like Tyler a lot more than you apparently do, however. I don't think the sample we saw is enough to conclude he doesn't take a step up. It all depends on his development of a shot that complements his quickness.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
09-22-16 02:14 PM - Post#210728
In response to palestra38
Tyler actually had 2 good games - Princeton home and away he was really solid. But man his stats are abominable otherwise:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketba ll/player...
In only 3 games did he have more points than shots and in one of those it was because he had four points on 1 shot. One thing I like about Donahue here is that Tyler had a good game and he was rewarded with minutes (cough, FREE REMY COFIELD!!!!) to see if that was a fluke and... it was.
Now, maybe he just matches up really well with Princeton or maybe he just needs a lot of minutes based on how good the last game of the year was. But the numbers don't support him taking that leap.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 02:18 PM - Post#210729
In response to section110
Well, the Columbia fans are a pleasantly optimistic group. That said, I think Columbia is likely to be better than us, though that is more because of depth than anything else. In their frontcourt, I suspect Petrasek will be star as the focal point, and either Meisner or Coby could be very good as well. They have more guys who could be ready to step forward up front, which increases the odds that somebody does. We NEED Rothschild to be good (considerably better than last year). If Columbia's guys play the same or even a little worse this year while using up more possessions, they'll still be good.
Yale is thinner, but as I've said before, I think Downey is a player and has a big year this year.
On both of these things, though, the ORATs give you a decent headstart at guessing how guys will do playing more minutes. Yes, sometimes those numbers go down when you put more burden on a guy. The problem is that Columbia and Yale will be elevating guys who have high ORATs (comparable to the guys they replace -- Downey's ORAT was considerably higher than Sherrod or Sears, though of course his usage rate was much lower). Yes, they could get worse. But Rothschild has the double whammy that he needs to carry considerably more burden, AND he needs to get more efficient. That's a tough climb.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 02:24 PM - Post#210730
In response to SomeGuy
That's only if you ask him to assume a greater offensive burden, which I would not do. We can use our big men as bangers, we have at least on paper enough guys who can score.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2137
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 02:57 PM - Post#210733
In response to palestra38
From a tactical standpoint, I disagree with this thinking. You have five guys on the court at any given time. If two of those guys present no offensive threat whatsoever, that makes the defense's job that much easier.
I am far more comfortable with a team that has five offensive threats on the floor. Doesn't mean all five need to be major scoring threats, but if you're not going to expect the bigs to be a major part of the offense, then they need to be able to set screens for the shooters, consistently get garbage points off the offensive boards and pass out of the post and find open shooters reliably.
Edited by weinhauers_ghost on 09-22-16 02:58 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2203
Reg: 10-09-09
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 03:08 PM - Post#210735
In response to SomeGuy
[Well, the Columbia fans are a pleasantly optimistic group.... They have more guys who could be ready to step forward up front, which increases the odds that somebody does]
I am not sure which we should take more to heart--SG's compliment or SG's apparent subscription to our analysis.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 03:12 PM - Post#210736
In response to weinhauers_ghost
From a tactical standpoint, I disagree with this thinking. You have five guys on the court at any given time. If two of those guys present no offensive threat whatsoever, that makes the defense's job that much easier.
I am far more comfortable with a team that has five offensive threats on the floor. Doesn't mean all five need to be major scoring threats, but if you're not going to expect the bigs to be a major part of the offense, then they need to be able to set screens for the shooters, consistently get garbage points off the offensive boards and pass out of the post and find open shooters reliably.
That's a fair point, and it refines the question about Rothschild. Rather than asking whether he can be a major offensive threat, perhaps we should ask whether his offensive abilities are sufficient that opposing defenses cannot afford to ignore him. Based on what we saw last year, I suspect the answer to that question is 'yes.'
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2137
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 03:25 PM - Post#210739
In response to Silver Maple
That's a fair point, and it refines the question about Rothschild. Rather than asking whether he can be a major offensive threat, perhaps we should ask whether his offensive abilities are sufficient that opposing defenses cannot afford to ignore him. Based on what we saw last year, I suspect the answer to that question is 'yes.'
Contrast what we saw from Rothschild with what we saw from Dwyer. I didn't see the team play much last year, but it was clear that any time Dwyer got the ball, his first and only thought was "let me get rid of this thing before something bad happens".
You can't play at this level if that's where your confidence is. I hope the kid gets better, but I'm not optimistic.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 03:31 PM - Post#210740
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Who has the two of them(Rothschild and Dwyer) playing at the same time? I have one of them with 3 of Howard, Brodeur, Wood, MacDonald, Sam Jones and Hamilton and 1 of Silpe or Donahue.
That's not necessarily such a bad team.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 03:37 PM - Post#210741
In response to palestra38
Yes, it will be interesting to see how the offense changes without DNH, and with better shooters. Last year, he was a huge focal point in terms of how the ball moved, and it often seemed that it didn't move as well without him (or when teams got focused at knocking him off his spots). Donahue seemed bound and determined to bang the players into his offense, which suggests that he wants the 5 to do the things DNH did. That said, it could be that the approach was actually driven by DNH's skillset, and that he will do something different with Rothschild and Brodeur.
One thing to keep in mind -- that ORAT hopefully would go up if it really works the way you suggest. If he's only banging and finishing around the basket, his percentages ought to go up. Got to figure out the free throws, though, as they could scuttle his efficiency even if he's just getting dunks and layups.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 03:43 PM - Post#210742
In response to palestra38
I think PennFan10 has Rothschild and Dwyer playing together.
My guess continues to be similar to your guess. Only difference is that I think Donahue will be the one small guard in the 2-4 mix, rather than a PG. So I'd stick him in your group there (and take out Hamilton, unfortunately) and say that Silpe and Foreman are the PGs.
I do agree that Donahue at PG would help with our defensive size issue (just in the sense that it would leave one little guy in the lineup rather than 2 or 3), and help immensely with our shooting issue at that spot (where Silpe, Foreman, and Woods all need to get much better to play the way I think the Coach wants to). I'm just not sure that Donahue has the quickness, handle, and vision for it. He seems to me to be a 2 guard in a point guard body (something we've had a lot of over the last 10 years).
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 04:13 PM - Post#210746
In response to SomeGuy
Maybe we have someone else who can play PG, but with exception of teams that themselves play 2 small guards, we cannot have Jackson and Silpe playing together for major minutes.
|
coins
Sophomore
Posts: 195
Reg: 01-16-07
|
Re: predictions for this year
09-22-16 05:15 PM - Post#210751
In response to palestra38
P38:
Apart from Gaines, I've generally been in agreement with your posts. Here too. I have no idea how good we will be or the minutes guys will play. Nor do I know how coach's vision will play out. I am pretty sure his vision has Caleb with a ton of minutes or he wouldn't have bought him here as a junior. I think his vision has McD with a a lot of playing time. There is not much room for Jackson D and Silpe on the floor at the same time.
Personally, Dwyer does not impress me. I expect Howard at thge 4 a lot and Jones at 3/4. If ready Brodeur will be the 5 with prayers beyond.
|
DJ Jazzy Jeff
Freshman
Posts: 58
Reg: 07-22-16
|
09-22-16 07:48 PM - Post#210763
In response to coins
Ok, I'll take a stab at it... Keep in mind I'm not going to use stats that nobody understands, rather I'll use the good old fashioned eye test (mine of course). My guess that AJ or Max (probably AJ) will start at the 5 and then there will be 4 guards with him. AJ, Matt Howard, Matt MacDonald, Jackson Donahue and Jake Silpe (until Antonio returns). Subs would be Max Rothschild, Sam Jones, Tyler Hamilton, Ray Jerome, Ryan Betley and Caleb Wood. The 1 inside player and 4 guards is what Steve likes to run and more teams are going to this type of offense (ala the GS Warriors). This creates huge mismatches, the opportunity to push the ball, and of course more opportunities to shoot the 3. I think Darnell and Jake's (and sometimes Tyler) lack of 3 point ability will hinder them in the offense however Tyler makes up more than the other 2 with his size, athleticism and defensive ability. Collin is probably the next big off the bench as well.
Penn more than likely battles Columbia for the 4th spot and with the new coach there, I'm not sure if that's a plus or minus for their program/players. I do however feel that Brown, Dartmouth and Cornell are still behind Penn.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
09-22-16 07:50 PM - Post#210764
In response to coins
Great discussion. To be clear, I don't think Dwyer and Max play much together. I just think they will both be better versions of themselves with more defined and expanded roles so last year's efficiency stats could be misleading. Dwyer is a good defensive big who can block shots but he was really ineffective offensively last year.
SD will sometimes play w 2 bigs but usually only when the other team has size (George Mason, Yale, Dartmouth last year). I also agree MacDonald and Wood take up major minutes.
Besides Brodeur I think Goodman and Betley have the best chance to contribute as Freshmen. Goodman could be the defensive point guard we need and Betley is a lights out shooter who has more defensive ability than SAM Jones.
( sidebar: Penn Pal, apologies if I was condescending. I was mainly just messing with you. I appreciate your contributions and will use more discretion going forward)
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
09-23-16 02:53 PM - Post#210791
In response to PennFan10
Hey you think it's easy being the board curmudgeon? Lol! Not a problem my friend. We all have the same passion here and we all want the same thing. The difference lies in how we express it. I gotta admit a little positivity on my part wouldn't hurt. Although all bets are off it we miss on Whyte and or Simmons.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
10-28-16 12:45 PM - Post#212052
In response to Buckeye Quake
This pretty much confirms Matt MacDonald as a major contributor of minutes this year:
http://www.pennathletics.com/news/howard-macdonald ...
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-28-16 12:50 PM - Post#212053
In response to PennFan10
Not necessarily. Past Penn teams have had captains who spent their entire careers way down at the end of the bench.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-16 01:03 PM - Post#212055
In response to Silver Maple
But do you actually think a transfer would be named a captain if he weren't going to play? That honor belongs to 4 year bench guys with great attitudes.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
10-28-16 04:57 PM - Post#212071
In response to palestra38
Agree with this
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-28-16 05:03 PM - Post#212072
In response to PennFan10
Yes, that would probably be unlikely. So let's hope Mcdonald starts, pays a lot of minutes, and is a total killer.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-16 05:04 PM - Post#212073
In response to Silver Maple
Our only chance to make the Ivy tournament this year is if the two transfers and the hot-shot freshman are all that. Otherwise, we look like what KenPom thinks we are---terrible.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-16 07:16 PM - Post#212075
In response to palestra38
And the coach shows that he can coach. Sorry, I'm just not a believer.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-16 08:14 PM - Post#212077
In response to Buckeye Quake
Guy won 3 straight Ivy titles and was an assistant on another team that won 3 straight. He can coach. He also had better results with less talent than the coach he replaced, having lost by far his best player. Can he recruit to the level necessary in 2016? Only time will tell.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-16 11:16 PM - Post#212082
In response to palestra38
I guess you'll be on his Christmas card list. 
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
10-29-16 10:14 AM - Post#212086
In response to Buckeye Quake
When P38 is the positive one that means we have a new low on the optimism meter!
|
