internetter
Postdoc
Posts: 3400
Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-07-17 09:46 PM - Post#217654
66-48; Coby 13 pts, 13 RBs; no Meisner
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 01-07-17 11:33 PM - Post#217698
In response to internetter
We will have to shoot better than we did tonight. Our shooting percentages were pretty bad.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2173
Reg: 02-14-06
|
01-08-17 01:14 AM - Post#217705
In response to Chet Forte
Solid performances tonight from Coby, Davis and Hunter. It's difficult to comprehend some of the things the coaches are doing, but now I'm beginning to get it. Somewhat confusing, but very cleaver..
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1537
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-08-17 12:50 PM - Post#217718
In response to Columbia 37P6
Sometimes the shots fall, and sometimes they don't. We shoot pretty well, see the court well and share the ball, so we'll be OK on O. What's remarkable is that the coaches have managed to rework our D and to make us a decent D team from having been an awful one. If I'm not mistaken, we play two zones, a 2/3 and a 1/3/1, and we seem to be growing into them.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2173
Reg: 02-14-06
|
01-08-17 04:25 PM - Post#217750
In response to Dr. V
I would also give credit to the Columbia coaching staff for very creatively developing the frontcourt offense in pre-conference play by trying out various player combinations in a manner that maximizes the team's height. For example, against Howard last night, Coach Engles used numerous frontcourt combinations including Petrask & Coby, Petrasek & Voss, Petrasek & Tape, Petrasek & McComber, Tape & McComber, and several others involving Hunter. Engles is also allowing Petrasek, Coby, McComber and even Voss to play some on the perimeter because they shot and pass so well, but only as long as they realize that their principal responsibility is to pound the boards. As we saw last night, when Hunter is on the floor the Lions are even stronger up front because of his size and agility. Of course, the Lions are using a three-guard starting line-up with Killingsworth as the third guard, which makes sense if Killingsworth or Adlesh can match up with say Cornell's three or four guard offense. If they have difficulty, or Engles wants more height, rebounding, scoring and defense then Hunter comes in for certain.
|
Murph
Masters Student
Posts: 626
Age: 63
Reg: 09-13-11
|
01-09-17 12:34 PM - Post#217808
In response to Columbia 37P6
Is it just me, or does this team play better with Coby in the starting lineup replacing Meisner? Now that Coby appears to have knocked off the rust, he's providing a better defensive presence in the paint and outstanding rebounding.
The big test will be next week. It's now or never for the Lions.
Oh and btw, why is Killingsworth starting?
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
01-09-17 09:03 PM - Post#217881
In response to Murph
Killingsworth has a very high basketball IQ and will eventually be a very good player. While he starts, his minutes are generally in the 12-15 minute range. His minutes wind up going to Hunter or Adlesh. He has a nice shot when he gets open, is usually in the right place at the right time, and understands what the coachs are trying to do. While he has taken a number of horse collars, he has had a few pretty good games and should improve as he gets bigger and stronger. If Castlin were playing, Killingsworth would have had very few minutes. As far as Coby, he is playing well but doesn't have Meisner's offensive skills. I like Coby's game but think we also need Meisner.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2173
Reg: 02-14-06
|
Howard
01-10-17 10:52 AM - Post#217898
In response to Chet Forte
No question that Jeff Coby has improved dramatically and plays very well together with Luke Petrasek in the frontcourt. They are going to be very difficult for Cornell to handle the next two weekends. Look for Coby to have an outstanding senior season. As for Meisner, he is obviously a great athlete with multiple skills who should become a dominant player eventually in the Ivy League and beyond. He just hasn't developed his interior game yet, opting instead to play outside too much. Fortunately, in Engles' new offense, our bigs are required to play both inside and outside so watch for Meisner to become a much better all-around player in the near future. As to the question why Killingsworth is starting, and without being too repetitive in my commentary, my belief is that Engles is someone I would describe as a "combination coach," at least this year at Columbia; i.e. he starts and substitutes players in multiple combinations. Killingsworth has started every game this season simply because that is Combination #1.
Edited by Columbia 37P6 on 01-10-17 10:53 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
01-10-17 11:26 AM - Post#217900
In response to Columbia 37P6
When Killingsworth was at the Kyle Smith basketball camp before his senior year in high school he was the best player in camp and the Smith staff recruited him hard. While he hasn't scored much to date, the new coaches obviously agree with that assessment. I think he will eventually be a very good and well rounded player. He was pressed into more minutes when Castlin went down.
|
Columbia Alum
Junior
Posts: 247
Age: 38
Reg: 11-15-11
|
01-10-17 01:12 PM - Post#217910
In response to Chet Forte
I think it was very hard-headed of the coaches to not experiment with other starters (such as Adlesh or Hunter) in out of conference play, with Killingsworth struggling in many games.
This was the single best time to experiment with different starters because:
1) new coach and new system would require testing for best personnel
2) many new players and almost all with limited past college playing time, so bigger uncertainties on their talent and potential
3) Team could not be good enough this year to qualify for a post season tourney so better to take risks and risk losing some winnable games to figure out optimal lineups
Not going to dwell on a lost opportunity further, but in ivy play if we struggle, I hope the coaches are more open minded than they seem to have been and put in different starters / give more minutes to different players.
The goal here is not to try to come 5th instead of 7th this year, it is to firmly be top 4 next year and to compete for the ivy and beyond after that.
|
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts: 806
Age: 52
Reg: 05-19-16
|
01-10-17 02:37 PM - Post#217914
In response to Columbia Alum
We are having a similar discussion over on the Dartmouth thread. Link I'm sure the coaches have their reasons that we aren't privy to. However, there are things we see as general fans that seem obvious to us that they seemingly miss.
In The Big Green's case it was turnovers at the beginning of the season. Watching the game you could see turnovers were killing us. After the game the box scores bore the evidence. After a couple of games of the same results you're left scratching your head wondering if we are all watching the same thing. We eventually addressed that issue and got a couple three wins! As a fan you see the losses mounting and want immediate changes.
I agree when you have new coaches it should provide an opportunity to experiment. But coaches have programs and processes that they are trying to implement and are based on their coaching philosophies. So one or two losses don't necessary trigger changes we feel are obvious. I understand that intuitively but part of coaching is being a tactician you hate to see your team succumbing to the same addressable issue.
| "...no excuses - only results!†|
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-11-17 08:25 AM - Post#217974
In response to Columbia Alum
While it's fun to debate who should be starting, and these are often close decisions where you can make arguments either way, keep in mind that the idea of experimenting with lineups in games may be a fan perspective more than a coach's perspective. Jeremy Lin notwithstanding, there is seldom a magic bullet in the bench that will turn into an immediate star if he just gets in the game. Certainly for this year, starting Adlesh instead of Killingsworth (or Barry over Fleming) isn't going to make a huge difference. Particularly when all of the possibilities are getting minutes anyway. As fans, there is a tendency to say "we need to see more of this combination," but it is quite likely that the coaches have seen that combination in practice and have very good reasons for not using it in games. They have a lot more to go on. It's like saying we should give the 3rd string QB a chance because we don't know what he can do in a game -- the coaches usually know exactly what he would do in a game.
Admittedly, Amaker, Henderson, and Donahue are experimenting a lot with combinations and rotations, and Moving guys in and out of both the starting lineup and the rotation. While Jones has been fairly consistent about who plays, he's fiddled with the starting lineup some (tough choice as to whether Copeland or Phils starts). So the teams that are playing well are experimenting more. Maybe that's why they're playing well. But my guess is that it doesn't make a lot of difference -- I think Harvard beats Dartmouth pretty much any way you slice it right now.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1537
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-11-17 10:06 AM - Post#217979
In response to SomeGuy
SomeGuy is clearly right. The coaches not only watch what players are doing in practice every day, they chart various performance factors and then also watch some tape of practice and, obviously, games. They have much more information on which to base decisions than we do.
|
Columbia Alum
Junior
Posts: 247
Age: 38
Reg: 11-15-11
|
01-11-17 11:10 AM - Post#217985
In response to Dr. V
"Admittedly, Amaker, Henderson, and Donahue are experimenting a lot with combinations and rotations, and Moving guys in and out of both the starting lineup and the rotation. While Jones has been fairly consistent about who plays, he's fiddled with the starting lineup some (tough choice as to whether Copeland or Phils starts). So the teams that are playing well are experimenting more. Maybe that's why they're playing well. But my guess is that it doesn't make a lot of difference -- I think Harvard beats Dartmouth pretty much any way you slice it right now. "
You say it doesn't make a difference, and then you say all the top 4 teams are tinkering and experimenting, so it does not add up. Whatever the coaches see in practice they are not always right and there can often be a disconnect between performance in practice on the court in live action.
My argument is: there is value in experimenting with different starters, and not taking this risk early is especially close minded, because what's the downside? Losing badly to some bottom half kenpom teams out of conference? Revealing some bench player's deficiencies? None of these things significantly hinder progress, or cost our program.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-11-17 11:49 AM - Post#217986
In response to Columbia Alum
Well, that all presumes that there is a payoff later if those things happen.
Personally, I think a lot of coaches/teams/programs lose games they don't have to because they don't stick to a plan. Starting Killingsworth may well be the right move for the future -- why is it necessary to mess with other things?
Also, is Engles really failing to look at all the possible combinations? It seems like, while the starters have stayed the same, there has been a lot of experimentation around them -- Hunter in particular has seen a lot of ups and downs in terms of playing time and what groups he plays with.
|
Columbia Alum
Junior
Posts: 247
Age: 38
Reg: 11-15-11
|
01-11-17 01:01 PM - Post#217992
In response to SomeGuy
Another thing I wished the coaches did was give Tape more playing time, even if he's raw and fouls often, I think he has the characteristics of making a great post player down the line and would have benefited from more playing time. There were some games when he got 2-3 mins all game.
Tape has close to the highest points/minute played. Has shot 65% from the field, and by far has the highest Rebounds/minute, nearly double all our starters. Obviously these statistics would diminish with more minutes played, but it's blatantly obvious looking at the stats and seeing him in action a few times, that he should get more time on the court. Whatever the coaches are looking at, I think they are wrong and time will tell who's right.
|
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts: 806
Age: 52
Reg: 05-19-16
|
01-11-17 02:05 PM - Post#217998
In response to SomeGuy
Jeremy Lin notwithstanding, there is seldom a magic bullet in the bench that will turn into an immediate star if he just gets in the game. Certainly for this year, starting Adlesh instead of Killingsworth (or Barry over Fleming) isn't going to make a huge difference. Particularly when all of the possibilities are getting minutes anyway.
I strongly disagree. It is clear that from a PER standpoint Barry is superior. Development is the key. The major difference is that Barry has 4 years to improve in the system and Fleming is graduating. Through 14 games of which Fleming has played all and Barry played 9. Barry shoots it better at .486 vs .357. Barry has 61 total points and Fleming has 52! Thats a material difference when consider you've lost games by 4 & 6 points! Barry scores about 2 more points a game in 15 mins/game versus Flemings 24 mins per game. Now flip those minutes or consolidate those minute under Barry then you probably win one of those close games. But if you don't see the difference there, you can just look at the UNH game where Barry hits the game winning bucket. Watching Barry's high school games you can see his skill set is solid.
I've see Tape play in high school and he's a mobile athletic big who needs some skill development but he can play. That kind of player with enough PT will pay big dividends similar to what Dartmouth has in Emery. I haven't watched a lot of Columbia games but I have a good sense of what type of player Tape is.
In as much as magic bullets go the same can be said for players that you have 3 years of stats for. It's even more unlikely that a player who averaged 1.2 pts a year is going to breakout and average 8, 9, or more points in their senior year.
| "...no excuses - only results!†|
|
Murph
Masters Student
Posts: 626
Age: 63
Reg: 09-13-11
|
Howard
01-11-17 03:15 PM - Post#218005
In response to GoBigGreenBasketball
I don't disagree on Tape. He's been a pleasant surprise, and deserves more playing time. But with Petrasek, Coby, Meisner and McComber ahead of Tape on the depth chart, I don't think that will happen this season.
Once Petrasek, Coby and McComber graduate, Tape should receive much more playing time next season. Although I doubt he'll start until his senior year, once Meisner has moved on.
Columbia will most likely start Meisner and Faulds in the front court the next two seasons.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-11-17 03:17 PM - Post#218006
In response to Columbia Alum
Well, time may or may not tell who is right. If Tape is a stud player as a junior, you could say that Engles should have been playing him all along. However, I could also argue that bringing him along slowly is exactly why he developed. So I'm not sure the debate ever really gets resolved.
One thing on Tape -- sometimes raw guys can put up good rebounding and efficiency numbers while having no clue where they are supposed to be in the context of what the team is doing. That can make the raw player look pretty good, but it may be detracting from what the team does as a whole. I haven't seen enough to be sure that's Tape, but it's a thought.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-11-17 03:20 PM - Post#218007
In response to GoBigGreenBasketball
One question on Barry -- does he do most of his scoring when paired with Fleming? I've seen some Dartmouth games, but not all of them. It seems like they like playing them together, and Barry functions more as a shooting guard when they do.
|
