SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
01-07-17 09:54 PM - Post#217661
In response to rbg
Princeton takes my advice and punches out a new 8-point lead with under 3 to play. Stephens blocks Howard, Cannady makes a great underhand layup, then Howard gets a fourth foul on Miller to go to the line.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3050
Reg: 10-20-14
|
01-07-17 09:55 PM - Post#217662
In response to rbg
Under 4 timeout (2:20 to go), 47-55.
Princeton on an 11-3 run (7-0 after 44-44). Princeton finally hit a three. Cook with 4 and Cannady with 2 during that time.
Brodeur missed another two free throws, 4-10 on the night. Howard will be shooting 2 after the break.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
01-07-17 10:17 PM - Post#217683
In response to rbg
Solid 9-point win; the gamblers were close to the spread again. A bunch of stops at the end, combined with much better FT shooting than Penn, ices it for the Tigers. Cannady big down the stretch, and the rebounding was great all the way through--no cheap second chances for Penn.
So much for the theory that Princeton had to out-trey Penn to win. 3-19 vs. 7-16 isn't pretty, but 24-28 vs. 11-20 from the FT line eases the pain a lot. Two-point FGs were 14-30 vs. 10-26.
This was a game where the defenses dominated, in the sense that assists were very, very low at 5 for Princeton and 4 for Penn. FGs were coming off individual moves and mismatches rather than out of the flow of the offense, for the most part.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3050
Reg: 10-20-14
|
01-07-17 10:24 PM - Post#217684
In response to rbg
52-61 Final
Tigers went 17-8 over the last 7 minutes.
Penn did a great job on three pointers in the second half (7-9, 7-16 overall). They did a poor job at the FT line 11-20 overall and 7-16 for Brodeur (4-10) and Howard (3-6).
Penn improved on the turnovers in the second half, 2 over the first 13+ minutes. Unfortunately, they had 4 in the last 6+ minutes after the game was tied.
Foreman was really good, 17 points and 7 rebounds. Donahue and Betley both ended with 11 points after strong 2nd halves.
Three starters (Brodeur, Howard and MacDonald) combined for 9 points. They did, though, have 17 rebounds between them.
Outstanding three point defense all night (Tigers went 3-19) and very good rim protection for almost all of the second half.
For Princeton, Cook had an off night, but came through late, after the game was tied. Also, Cannady did a great job taking charge, especially late. I guess this is what SD means when he talked about Princeton competing better than Penn over the last 3 meetings when the game is on the line.
While Penn may not be ready to challenge for the top of the league at this time, there are certainly positives going forward. Nothing in tonight's game seems to shake the idea that Penn is a top 4 team and can hold its own with anyone in the league.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3050
Reg: 10-20-14
|
01-07-17 10:27 PM - Post#217685
In response to rbg
Congrats on the win. Let's do it again in another month down in Philly and then in another month!
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
01-07-17 10:46 PM - Post#217690
In response to rbg
Agreed!
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2272
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-07-17 11:10 PM - Post#217694
In response to SRP
5 points from Cook and 8 from Weisz, yet we win!
Penn really defended the 3-ball well; we did a great job against their bigs, doubling on the entry pass.
Not sure why the 1-3-1 bothered us so much. Why couldn't Miller do what Gladson did, catching at the elbow and dishing to the corner?
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Penn
01-07-17 11:41 PM - Post#217702
In response to bradley
"If Tigers lose, Coach H will be criticized by some and if Penn loses, it will probably be the result of bad calls by the refs by some. Life is sometimes so predictable. In all likelihood, it will be competitive and unpredictable like most Penn/Prin games and it will come down to a few critical possessions during the second half."
Even though there is chaos at times in the universe, the Penn/Princeton game is a constant. After reading some of the comments on the Penn Board regarding the zebras, there is confirmation that life is somewhat predictable. Penn is on their way back up after several dismal years and the Tigers may see them not once but two more times this year.
It is good to know that Princeton could win, albeit at home, shooting for 19 on 3 pointers.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
01-08-17 10:34 AM - Post#217712
In response to SRP
Always good to get off to a 1-0 start at home against Penn. Quakers are much improved on defense and Tigers had trouble with 1-3-1 until the score got tied at 44-44 and finally, they started to kick the ball out to the corner(s) for open shots. Foreman gave Cannady all kinds of problems in attacking the rim. Miller took Brodeur out of his game and Bell came to life. Brennan had his first bad game in some time.
Princeton did not play great and they won even with shooting 3 for 19 from 3s' and having their best player, Cook, play only 18 minutes. Hopefully, lesson learned is that Coach should not slow down the offense which the Tigers did after having a 21 pt lead -- keep the ball moving! They are at their best when the ball moves. Give Penn credit for their defense but if you keep moving the ball, there will be open shots. Penn did not lose because of the refs who let the players play on both sides.
Princeton does appear to be more talented and experienced although Penn will close the gap on experience over time.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2272
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-08-17 12:37 PM - Post#217717
In response to bradley
Foreman gave Cannady all kinds of problems in attacking the rim. Miller took Brodeur out of his game and Bell came to life. Brennan had his first bad game in some time.
I thought Miller had a great game, and I was especially happy to see him make his foul shots. Interesting to see him hug the opposing bigs in the handshake line after the game. I think he is realizing this is is last year.
Bell had a GREAT game. That step back 3 off the dribble was timely. He sliced to the rim fluidly, and none of those cheap push off fouls of the past. He just isn't a great shooter off the pass when stationary.
I didn't think Brennan had a bad game, just an OK one. His baseline 2-point jump shot was an important basket.
Miles Stephens is a talent. I kept asking myself if we felt the loss of Caruso at all. Perhaps a bit. But Stephens is more talented overall, and this chance to start will pay dividends down the road this year and next.
Cannady showed his defensive limitations, and a bit of impatience looking for 3 point shots that were not available. But like Bell, he can definitely go to the hoop--Cook, Cannady, Bell and Stephens can all go to the hoop. Love it.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
01-08-17 01:56 PM - Post#217724
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
Stephens is talented, but maybe the loss of a player (Caruso, Brase, Mason) should not be analyzed solely in terms of whether a suitable replacement exists. The dropoff often comes further down the line. For example, Weisz (38 min), Cannaday (37) and Stephens (34) appear to have had to play almost the entire game. Only Bell (24) and Brennan (11) contributed off the bench. Yale has a recent history of having talented teams limited by a lack of depth and based on last night's game Princeton displayed similar usage tendencies. In fact, had Cook not been in foul trouble, I suspect he would have played 35 minutes or so instead of 18. Thus, the real issue is that instead of Stephens backing up Caruso, last night Princeton had Bell/Young/Leblanc spelling all of the guards and forwards.
It's a long season with games on consecutive nights and a tournament with a final within 24 hours of the semifinals. No more margin for injuries either, unless you want to rely on the freshmen.
Nice win though.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2272
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-08-17 03:03 PM - Post#217736
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Agreed--I was thinking of addressing the depth issue, but I wanted to focus on the positives.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
01-08-17 03:17 PM - Post#217739
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
While I generally agree the refs did not decide the game and there were many good and bad efforts that ultimately determined the outcome the sequence in the final minute unfortunately had a disproportionate impact on the outcome.
At the :50 second mark Matt Howard gets called for a touch foul against Spencer Weisz with the score 55-50. Ok, fine it could have not been called but it was called. I have no problem with that. Weisz misses the front end and the Quakers run up and Foreman gives it Betley, who had just hit 3 three's and as he rises up to shoot Weisz clearly (and there is no question) hacks him on the forearm (he did not get any part of the ball) and there is no call. Weisz is credited with his 5th steal and Cannaday, after running another 15 seconds off the clock, is fouled and sinks 2 FT.
So instead of a chance to cut the game to 1 possession with 40 seconds to go, an obvious foul, which would have resulted in 3 FT's, isn't called and it's a 7 point game with 37 seconds.
Again, it's unfortunate that sequence happens in the final minute because there were probably several other fouls and non-calls throughout the game that can be debated but the timing of a non call that ultimately changes possession of a tight game down the stretch was disappointing took away from the players deciding the game on the floor in my view.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
01-08-17 04:00 PM - Post#217744
In response to PennFan10
A couple of Cook's fouls seemed highly questionable to me, and numerous Tiger close-in shots were disrupted by heavy body contact from Penn defenders without getting a call. So I have little concern about that one non-call near the end.
On depth, I agree that that could be an issue going forward for the three and four spots, but I'm pretty comfortable with Young and Rayner as pure guard depth. And Princeton now has three bigs with reasonable playing experience since Gladson's non-conference run.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2272
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-08-17 04:28 PM - Post#217752
In response to SRP
On depth, I agree that that could be an issue going forward for the three and four spots, but I'm pretty comfortable with Young and Rayner as pure guard depth.
And Princeton now has three bigs with reasonable playing experience since Gladson's non-conference run.
Agreed; OK at guard, OK with bigs. Now we are short where we thought we had a logjam to start the season.
I guess in a pinch we go big with Miller or Gladson on the floor with Brennan, although when this was tried earlier, ball movement stalled.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
01-08-17 08:13 PM - Post#217775
In response to SRP
A couple of Cook's fouls seemed highly questionable to me, and numerous Tiger close-in shots were disrupted by heavy body contact from Penn defenders without getting a call. So I have little concern about that one non-call near the end.
It's not as if these events are equal. Cook not getting calls "a couple of times" does not make it ok to miss a game changing foul in the final minute. Of course there were fouls both ways that were missed. My point is if we are gonna "let em play" at the end then lets do that. Don't call a touch foul on Howard that puts Weisz at the line (he missed), miss the clear hack on Betley and then almost immediately call a foul on Foreman that could just have easily been a jump ball. If we are gonna let em play none of those three should have been called, which I am fine with, but the timing (in the last minute) of the inconsistency changed the game in Princeton's favor.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
01-08-17 08:43 PM - Post#217778
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Assuming no further injuries - always a big if, it does not appear that the Tigers have an issue with minutes as they normally get 30 to 35 minutes from Cannady, Weisz, Cook and Stephens with 20 to 25 minutes from Bell. Between Miller, Brennan and Gladson, they get 25 to 35 minutes dependent on the opponent with Young getting 5 minutes. If need be LeBlanc, Morales and Arirguzoh can come off the bench and play competitively.
Stephens is a better defender and rebounder than Caruso and his skill set probably better complements Cook, Weisz and Cannady but what Caruso brought to the table was instant offense especially during the first 10 minutes of a game and being fearless plus he has been through the wars. If Bell or anyone else played badly, they would get less minutes. Different but similar issues with losing Brase. At the end of the day, there was simply not enough minutes for Tiger players with Brase and Caruso and Coach was going to have to make tough decisions and put the best performers on the floor with plenty of choices. The good thing was that Stephens and now Brennan, to a lesser degree have stepped up.
Henderson found Stephens who was a local kid prior to transferring in high school but he kind of fits the mold of Cook and Caruso who were athletic kids but not heavily recruited. Either Henderson finds these guys and/or knows how to develop them. Stephens and Cannady will be major contributors for the next two years.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-09-17 10:51 AM - Post#217799
In response to PennFan10
Note that the touch foul on Weisz helped Penn (though only b/c he missed the front end). It stopped the clock and gave us the ball.
Overall, I thought the fact that they let them play worked in Penn's favor (I always think the best strategy against Princeton is to be physical with them). Yes, the missed call on Betley was lousy, but it also looked to me in real time like he was out of control and got himself in an awkward position. Sometimes, that can impact whether you get the call. I'd be more inclined to bellyache if it happened in a 1 point game. When you're down 55-50, you've created a hole where I have trouble casting blame on the refs. If you don't want to be in a position where you absolutely have to get that call, don't get that far behind.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-09-17 02:40 PM - Post#217824
In response to SomeGuy
Agreed. We had the chance to win it on our own. Once tied, the refereeing did not make the difference.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1345
Reg: 12-08-04
|
01-09-17 03:00 PM - Post#217829
In response to PennFan10
"the timing (in the last minute) of the inconsistency changed the game in Princeton's favor."
I did not see the game and I am not opining as to which, if any, of the calls or non-calls were right. It would be a rare ivy game to have had no reffing errors and we all see calls go against our teams.
But speaking generically, while a last second call obviously has a dramatic impact on outcome, the problem with your argument is that a wrong call/non-call earlier in the game could mean the score would have been different later, such that the late call/non-call would not have had the same crucial effect you describe.
|
