Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



Username Post: Looking ahead        (Topic#20070)
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-05-17 07:22 AM - Post#224923    

We might as well start now. We are set at two positions with Smith at PG and Meisner at one forward. As far as other returnees, I think Hickman regressed or alternatively teams figured out his game. I expect a healthy Castlin to play ahead of him. I have high hopes in Faulds as a 4/5, Hanson as a swing man, and Stefanini as a legitimate backcourt shooting threat and playmaking sort of guy. I think Tape has huge potential. Adlesh will get his minutes off the bench. Killingsworth will need to get stronger but has potential. Davis also regressed, and Hunter showed no offense. Both are question marks. But the biggest question mark is in our coaching staff: I am told that Engles is a very good coach but I did not understand either his style or his personnel decisions this year.


 
Columbia Alum 
Junior
Posts: 225

Age: 31
Reg: 11-15-11
Looking ahead
03-05-17 07:53 AM - Post#224926    
    In response to Chet Forte

We're losing petrasek which will really hurt. We need to get everyone better. Tape, Meisner and Faulds need to be our 3 big guys with two starting. Even this year I felt both meisner and tape played better than voss and Coby, hopefully they get more minutes next year. We definitely need a healthy castlin back. Hopefully smith doesn't regress and is a lock for PG. depending on castlin's state that leaves 1-2 spots for Hickman, killingsworth, hunter, and recruits, so whoever shines through should get it. Hopefully hunter works on this shot and his confidence and becomes an offensive contributor, he has great athleticism.

What disappointed this year, was with very few returning minutes we started out ~KP 200 and then as our team got more playing time they regressed. It's the opposite of what should have happened. This falls squarely on the coaching staff. In my opinion some of it had to do with very poor personnel decisions, but also seeing players regress is a bad sign. We have a lot of work to do and I hope the coaching staff introspects after this year.

Edited by Columbia Alum on 03-05-17 08:02 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1361

Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-17 08:11 AM - Post#224927    
    In response to Chet Forte

We had major weaknesses. We were 8th in the Ivies in FG%, and we were 7th in rebounding margin. We were middle of the pack in defense, but with that kind of lousy shooting % and that kind of lousy rebounding, it's hard to win. We had our share of injuries, but every team had some. That said, our injuries, Castlin for the year and Meisner for a stretch towards the end, may have hurt us in those areas where we were weakest, rebounding, and thus hurt us a lot. Given all of that, the coaches did a good job. (Some on this board have a tendency to attribute whatever they may not understand to the coaches' mistakes. Thus, for example, Luke played 30 minutes last night after having playing 30 plus the night before. I presume Engles took him out for a spell so that he wouldn't run out of gas towards the end, and that seemed to have worked.)

The coaches have recruited well for next year. Hanson, Faulds and Stefanini are all quite good who may turn out to be even better than that IF all goes well, and not everything always goes well, as we all know . Voss's improvement this year was amazing. If only we had been able to redshirt him the first year. But anytway, the question, as always, is, who will want to work to improve his game? No one knows the answer to that. Smith is a keeper; Meisner, if healthy, is a good player; the frosh give me hope, but as Princeton has repeatedly demonstrated, you have to recruit at a high level and stockpile talent. We need more at this point.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-05-17 08:37 AM - Post#224935    
    In response to Dr. V

ReVoss: Kyle Smith famously said when he was a freshman, "he is a five year project but I only have four years with him." If he has a redshirt graduate transfer year maybe somebody takes him for next season. Re Meisner, you could see his confidence come back last night.


 
internetter 
Postdoc
Posts: 2788

Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-17 12:05 PM - Post#224996    
    In response to Chet Forte

If the coaches substitute liberally, sometimes quickly next year, Adlesh will be important. He's the only three shooter who averaged about 40% both in OOC and Ivy games.
west coast fan


 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1538

Reg: 10-09-09
Re: Looking ahead
03-05-17 12:49 PM - Post#225004    
    In response to Chet Forte

I agree with Chet's evaluation of our returning talent. Starting from the bottom and working up, I'm not sure what happened to Davis, who was a much ballyhooed NYC pg, but doesn't have Smith's speed, and seems to have lost his shot.

Hunter needs to spend the next 8 months in the gym practicing shooting, so we can harness his athleticism and not be put in the position on of playing 4 against 5.

Unless they are displaced by the new recruits, Killingsworth and Adlesh will be the 6th man, with the proviso that Adlesh's role as 3 point specialist seems more defined and developed than Killingsworth's as a younger version of Isaac Cohen.

I think opponents have figured out Hickman; his scoring average declined throughout the season, and he needs to spend March-November figuring out how to get his shot off under pressure. Although he will probably be in the starting lineup, there may be some pressure from Myles Hanson, who seems taller and more versatile.

As to the other starters, we know that Smith and Meisner will start, Castlin will probably be at SF, and Faulds will battle Tape for the starting center position, with whoever loses serving as backup. If everyone accomplishes their off-season tasks, and no one is injured, this lineup could be quite good. The problem is that next year, with the certain exception of Brown, and the possible exception of Princeton, everyone else in the IL will also be better.

Edited by cc66 on 03-05-17 12:51 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-05-17 03:16 PM - Post#225068    
    In response to cc66

Princeton had better be worse next year!

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1538

Reg: 10-09-09
Looking ahead
03-05-17 03:33 PM - Post#225074    
    In response to SomeGuy

It's true--they graduate 4 seniors and will presumably not have a two-year long, 28-0 streak in the IL. Nevertheless, Princeton seems to have a knack--which Columbia may well now be seeking--to get, or always have on hand, a bunch of 6'4-6'8" athletic guys who can do all the required things with a basketball. So while there will be a fall, I don't expect the fall to be steep...

Edited by cc66 on 03-05-17 03:56 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-05-17 07:36 PM - Post#225138    
    In response to cc66

Yes, I can see an argument for them staying the same. They kind of have 5 interchangeable parts, and they always have 4 of them on the court. They'll be down to 3 when Weisz and Cook leave. It is possible that those 3 can carry more burden, and still have the offense main equally efficient (kind of like how Columbia's offense didn't suffer as much as you might expect when Lo had to carry the load due to injury). So maybe Cannady, Stephens, and Bell can carry the load with right combination of support, or maybe there are a couple more parts in the pipeline. I don't think Princeton will go 14-0 next year, but I agree that they will likely still be pretty good.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-17 08:19 PM - Post#225150    
    In response to SomeGuy

FWIW, Princeton has the best incoming class. Deep and possibly the best Ivy recruit in Much.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-05-17 09:04 PM - Post#225166    
    In response to mrjames

We have had that debate before. We are very high on Faulds, Hanson and Stefanini.


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-17 09:26 PM - Post#225171    
    In response to Chet Forte

Not from me - what folks around the league are saying. I'd imagine my recruiting model probably would have the expected win shares for the Columbia class to be pretty high given that it would take Faulds' ratings at face value.

 
Mike Porter 
Postdoc
Posts: 2226
Mike Porter
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-17 09:55 PM - Post#225179    
    In response to mrjames

Based on what you're hearing how would the different classes rank?

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 3246

Reg: 02-04-06
03-05-17 10:05 PM - Post#225184    
    In response to Mike Porter

From whom Much has been given, much is expected. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 
Murph 
Masters Student
Posts: 584

Age: 57
Reg: 09-13-11
Looking ahead
03-06-17 07:01 AM - Post#225201    
    In response to SRP

My take on Hunter is a little different. I'm not sure he's ever going to be a proficient outside shooter. IMO, his best chance of playing expanded minutes and helping this team in the future is to become a defensive and rebounding specialist and energy guy. IMO he needs to try to develop into a poor man's Isaac Cohen.

I agree that our starting line-up next year should be Smith, Castlin, Hickman and Meisner, with either Faulds or Tape at center.

We really need Castlin to build on the potential he showed his freshman season, and to provide outside shooting and steady senior leadership, along with Hickman. IMO, Castlin will be the key to our success next year.

The back-up minutes at the wing positions will be hard to come by, and will be allocated through a brutal competition among Hanson, Killingworth and Hunter.

Similarly, it will be interesting to see who wins the lion's share of the reserve PG minutes, Adlesh or Stefani.

Brumant seems to be our most unknown entity. Our rotation will be one big man short next season, with minutes available at the reserve PF position. If at 6'7, Brumant can rebound and defend with energy and athleticism, and provide a little perimeter shooting, he could fight his way into the rotation.

Clearly, our roster will be very deep and talented next season. The question is, can Engles and his coaching staff to get them playing up to their potential?


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-06-17 12:38 PM - Post#225244    
    In response to Mike Porter

Sounds like:

1) Princeton
2) Yale
3-4) Harvard-Penn
5-6) Columbia-Brown
7) Dartmouth
8) Cornell

 
Old Bear 
Postdoc
Posts: 3305

Reg: 11-23-04
03-06-17 02:56 PM - Post#225267    
    In response to mrjames

How shocking! H,Y,P,P the top 4? Has this happened before? Is there a pattern here?

 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1538

Reg: 10-09-09
Looking ahead
03-06-17 04:00 PM - Post#225279    
    In response to Old Bear

This outcome is, shall we say, a bit overdetermined. It's like the lawyers say, "when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when the law is on your side, argue the law." Jaron Faulds is the highest ranked ESPN IL recruit at 80; Much is at 79. The consensus is the IL may be different--admittedly, no one knows who will develop, but it does seem, irrespective of what the numbers say, that the consensus always tilts in a somewhat predictable direction.

Just to confound matters a little more, look at the ESPN ratings for Weisz ((61), Cook (63), and Stephens (65). The first two are the two most popular nominees for the POY; the third for the DPOY. These numbers demonstrate two points: 1) once again, you can't predict who will grow into a dominant player, and 2) in the "no one else can win department," even when Princeton's recruits were more poorly ranked, were they still cited as having a much better incoming class???

Edited by cc66 on 03-06-17 04:01 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-06-17 04:26 PM - Post#225284    
    In response to cc66

There are four pieces of information one could look at to understand the possible impact of a recruit:

1) AAU Stats (particularly efficiency and translatable skills like rebounding)
2) Recruiting Rankings
3) Offers
4) What folks around the league are saying about different classes

Both 1 and 2 have some predictive power, but I'd classify it as low. I've actually quantified the predictive power of No. 2 and will have No. 1 as well, once we get enough data on Ivy players.

Offers have more predictive power - if they're honest offers. That point makes creating a database of offers tricky. It's pretty clear, though, that if a player has legit offers from power conference schools, you can throw out the recruiting rankings.

Obviously, the buzz around the league is closest to spot on. As much as I get boxed in as an "analytics" person, I have a deep respect for the intuitive scouting ability of coaching staffs. That information is gold - trumps all the other stuff.

Whether or not it pans out remains to be seen, but the two kids that generated the most buzz around the league were Much and Djuricic.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-06-17 04:34 PM - Post#225287    
    In response to mrjames

Buzz around the league is impossible to quantify, or to evaluate.


 
cc66 
PhD Student
Posts: 1538

Reg: 10-09-09
03-06-17 04:43 PM - Post#225288    
    In response to Chet Forte

Although it's just a N of 1, the Much vs.Faulds outcome will present a particularly stark outcome of this debate. I have no doubt that Much will be good; I guess like a lot of Columbia fans, I just bristle a bit when we get the numerically highest ranked IL recruit, and he is still downgraded.

 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-06-17 04:57 PM - Post#225290    
    In response to cc66

It's not personal. I mean, Boudreaux was the highest-rated recruit in 2015, and he was a top choice of mine for ROY that year along with Corey, TMac and Cannady. I also liked Fuller and Gettings, though those didn't look so great in year 1 and look a lot better now.

This year, I really, really liked Mike Smith. It's not an anti-Columbia thing. And I also don't think Faulds will be bad. He could end up being a very productive player. He's just not the TOP player in this incoming class. This year, you could have a really, really good rookie that wouldn't make an All-Rookie First Team, if the Ivy had one. We're just recruiting so, so much better than in years past - it's not at all a knock to say a player isn't the absolute top in the class.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
03-06-17 09:06 PM - Post#225331    
    In response to cc66

I agree that there is some extent that this is circular -- when we talk about offers, we are assigning greater weight to certain school's offers. That even happens within the Ivy. So there is a certain circularity where in a sense we are saying Princeton's recruits are better than Columbia's because they ended up at Princeton. That said, the Ivy recruiting heirarchy is evident here. Faulds seemingly chose Columbia over Cornell and some regional Midwestern schools (Oakland, for example). Much chose Princeton over Yale and a whole host of places, including some high majors. Now, it could be that the recruiting services know more than the coaches, but I doubt it.

The outcome doesn't necessarily prove the point, though. We all know that there are kids who are afterthoughts who turn into players, and high recruits who don't. Faulds obviously has size and ability. we'll see what happens.

There is a chance for both guys to play right away.


 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-06-17 09:20 PM - Post#225337    
    In response to SomeGuy

Faulds has an 80 rating, one four star rating, and a great senior year. He is 6'10" and 225. Much has a 78 and is either 6'7" or 6'8". Faulds is a top 5 recruit for the state of Michigan who took himself out of the recruiting sweepstakes this summer by committing to Columbia. Both are likely to be good players, probably even very good players, but one thing you can't teach is height. In any event, what I have been reading is that Hanson has had a monster senior year, has grown an inch or two, and is being called a "steal." I have also heard that Stefanini came on like gamgbusters this year, has the best shooting touch of all of the incoming freshmen in the IL, and should have an immediate impact.


 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
03-06-17 09:39 PM - Post#225339    
    In response to Chet Forte

Nothing wrong with being excited about Faulds. Perhaps he was destined for bigger offers if he stuck it out into the Fall. Nonetheless, past experience with these types of high rating recruits without high level offers (Penn has had enough of them) leaves me thinking I'd be a lot more confident if Columbia actually went toe to toe with Princeton, Yale, or Harvard, and won out.

I do agree that Hanson looks like a good get, though neither he nor Santinini looks top 10 in the league among incoming recruits to me. Both would be top 15. But I'm just guessing based on publicly available info -- Mike James knows more.



 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-07-17 10:05 AM - Post#225380    
    In response to SomeGuy

And looking back, NYC Buckets listed its POY, ROY, and first and second team all Ivy choices. We took a horse collar across the board. Mike Smith was one of four finalists for ROY, and Petrasek got some consideration for second team all Ivy. My guess is that the official all Ivy team will look a lot like this. Before the season, despite concerns about our overall record, I had expected Petrasek to have a monster senior year. That never materialized. And I can't really quarrel with these choices. This suggests as Bill Parcells once said, that you are what your record says you are. My only quarrel, and it is a minor one, is that I thought that Smith as a PG with all of the responsibilities that entails, made a good case for TOY.


 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-07-17 11:07 AM - Post#225391    
    In response to Chet Forte

Meant ROY.


 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1444

Reg: 02-14-06
03-07-17 12:17 PM - Post#225407    
    In response to Chet Forte

I agree with you. Mike Smith had a sensational freshman year and is a terrific all around player. He made some amazing clutch shots against Stony Brook, Penn and others teams. Obviously, Mike is already our best player and essentially the team "captain" and he is still a freshman. I think he has a great future ahead of him.

 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1444

Reg: 02-14-06
03-07-17 12:31 PM - Post#225410    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

Luke Petrasek may not have had the "monster year" we hoped for, but nevertheless he had an outstanding year and would have been a first team All-Ivy League selection if the Lions had won a few more games. Luke will be remembered at Columbia for his tremendous athleticism and hustle, and specially for his uncanny ability to play outside effectively as a 6'10" wing. Luke improved his game dramatically this year by adding to his offensive arsenal some great perimeter moves to the basket. Although Luke develop into a nice shot blocker, and became a good defender, he will need to add some brawn if he wishes to excel at the next level.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 16577

Reg: 11-21-04
03-07-17 12:43 PM - Post#225415    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

He's the real deal. Might have the largest upside of any of this year's freshmen, and that's saying something.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 3246

Reg: 02-04-06
03-07-17 06:25 PM - Post#225470    
    In response to palestra38

Concur on Smith. Great mentally and physically in every game I saw. Also, his solid build is remarkable. Mike (The Dorm Refrigerator) Smith.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-07-17 08:10 PM - Post#225484    
    In response to SRP

Program listed Smith at 5'11" and 196 lbs. I believe the 196 part.


 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-07-17 08:26 PM - Post#225491    
    In response to Columbia Alum

I don't think that the kenpom rating at the start should be used as either an indication of where Columbia was or where it should have been. It's just an educated guess coming into the season. I don't think the drop in Columbia's rating as the season went on was a result of playing worse, so much as it was a result of the preseason rating slowly dropping out of the numbers.

Part of Columbia's problem was just that Penn turned out to be quite a bit better than expected.

Losing all those front court minutes will hurt next year. Tape and Meisner will be the keys.


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-07-17 08:39 PM - Post#225494    
    In response to SomeGuy

We're going to have as many as four teams in or near the Top 100 next year. It's not gonna get any easier to make the Ivy Tourney.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 16577

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-08-17 08:49 AM - Post#225528    
    In response to SomeGuy

Penn was only much better than expected in terms of its recovery from 0-6. I would have expected a 6-8 +/- 1 game for Penn coming in. Notwithstanding Penn's final record, if you said that when CU was 4-2 in the League and Penn was 0-6 that the two teams would split their 2 games yet Penn would finish ahead of Columbia, people would have laughed at you.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-08-17 09:00 AM - Post#225533    
    In response to palestra38

Well, note that I did say that 6-8 would win the 4th spot while you were were torturing yourself over the Brown loss, and I was still confident in our chances when we were 0-4. I admit that when we hit 0-6, I didn't think we'd get there.

It did seem clear that Columbia would hit the skids, simply because their schedule was so much tougher in the 2nd half. They needed to start at least 4-2 to have a good chance. I'm still surprised (and pleased) that Brown was so up for that game last Friday -- I thought that the team that was playing for something would pull through, and I certainly didn't see Brown winning in a rout. That's an example of a game where, earlier in the season, I would expect Brown to win more often than not, but with the season on the line for Columbia, I thought the Lions would win.

 
Columbia Alum 
Junior
Posts: 225

Age: 31
Reg: 11-15-11
03-08-17 09:51 AM - Post#225554    
    In response to SomeGuy

The second Brown game made it very deserving that Columbia got kicked out of the top 4. We were unable to beat a KP 250 team that literally had only pride to play for, and we were not unlucky, we were thrashed by them.

Whether we made the top 4 or not, this season was poor (by both Columbia and Penn). There needs to be a lot of introspection by the coaching staff and commitment to improve by players and staff. Mr James is right, every season for the foreseeable future will have a higher hurdle to make the tourney.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-08-17 10:15 AM - Post#225565    
    In response to Columbia Alum

When your best player is a freshman PG, and he is also your toughest player, then you lack senior leadership. Mike probably led the team in minutes! We have debated the junior and senior classes ad nauseum. Luke was good, not great, and never reached his potential. Jeff was very inconsistent and his play deteriorated as the season went along, especially in the last few weekends. Nate was pretty ineffective going through the league the second time around. McComber and Voss played too limited a role to matter much. Losing Castlin, who probably would have been our best player, was huge, and we didn't have the depth to make up for his loss. Meisner' back problems were also a real problem. He play at the second Yale game reminded me that he and Tape both deserved more minutes. If this year was a learning experience I would have played both of them until they fouled out.


 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-08-17 07:43 PM - Post#225737    
    In response to Chet Forte

PS, Aiken got ROY, beating out a very strong class. Although I wasn't surprised I thought a case could have been made for Mike in light of what he meant to his team, plus his stats were certainly comparable to Aiken, but I suppose that Penn and Yale fans have their own case for their guy as well. In any event, it probably tak s more than 5 wins to get ROY.


 
mrjames 
Postdoc
Posts: 4896

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-08-17 08:28 PM - Post#225761    
    In response to Chet Forte

Mike's a very good player. Probably wins half of the ROY races over the past 10 years, if not more. Just a crazy year and a fantastic sign for the league that a kid like Mike didn't even get a ton of ROY buzz.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-09-17 08:44 AM - Post#225844    
    In response to mrjames

Smith led the team with 31.4 mpg, averaged 13.6 ppg, shot 40.1% and 38.2 from 3 pt range, 82.1 from the FT line, had 95 assists to 48 TOS, and had 29 steals. And he was the PG. He also started all 27 games.


 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
03-09-17 09:21 PM - Post#225989    
    In response to Columbia Alum

Well, for Penn I wouldn't call the season a disappointment. We improved over the prior year by more than I thought possible. Obviously there's always room for improvement and things that could have gone better -- while the improvement overall was more than seemed possible, the Ivy performance didn't fully reflect the overall performance. So that was disappointing in the micro sense, but overall I don't see much room for disappointment.

For Columbia, it is a little more complicated. You guys lost so many minutes from the prior year. To me, it is very hard to say whether or not the team underachieved (I recognize that the vocal Columbia contingent on here is always optimistic, which can then lead to disappointment). As an outside observer, this was a season where there was so much uncertainty for where Columbia would be that I was more curious to find out than anything else. So I'd call it a fine first season for Engles. The development of Smith is a big positive for the future of the program. I'm hard pressed to call the season a disappointment with that.

 
Columbia Alum 
Junior
Posts: 225

Age: 31
Reg: 11-15-11
Looking ahead
03-09-17 10:51 PM - Post#226003    
    In response to SomeGuy

It's disappointing after so many minutes lost and a new coach and new system that we started the year fine and then ended the year worse than we started. All those set backs were initial hurdles that we managed well early and overcame and then our play deteriorated. This is the biggest disappointment, I'm not confident that our coaching staff performed well this year. Decisions such as making way too many substitutions, being sticky with starting lineup, and sitting tape for the vast majority of the season are coaching failures in my book. I hope the coaching improves next year.

Edited by Columbia Alum on 03-09-17 10:51 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-10-17 06:48 AM - Post#226014    
    In response to Columbia Alum

I'm not so sure the play deteriorated over the course of the season. I think the level of play remained fairly stagnant, and the Ivy schedule was just backloaded for Columbia, which gave the false impression of deterioration, when in fact the results likely would have been about the same if the games had just been ordered differently.

And a player like Tape is always tough to interpret from the sidelines. All reports are that he came in extremely raw, having played no basketball at the level most recruits have played. There can be harm to throwing a guy like that out there in games too early, and even as it was, my untrained observation was that he was more or less playing outside the offense when he was in there during much of the season. The fact that you saw stuff that you liked may actually reflect positively on the way he was brought along.

I wasn't sure that the lineup was such a problem, either. It seemed to me that Columbia had issues at the 3 spot where whoever started tended to look overmatched, and whoever came off the bench tended to look better. Columbia just didn't have anyone at that spot who matched up particularly well with a fresh starter on other teams.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-10-17 09:30 AM - Post#226035    
    In response to SomeGuy

I was speaking last evening with a long time supporter of Harvard basketball who saw both of our Harvard games this year. He asked me what I thought happened. I gave him the usual explanations. He wasn't buying it. His opinion, and he is a very blunt and candid guy who doesn't pull his punches, is that we were actually a good team and showed it during both Harvard games. He thought that some of our losses were inexplicable, primarily the road losses to Dartmouth and Brown.


 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 16577

Reg: 11-21-04
03-10-17 09:40 AM - Post#226037    
    In response to Chet Forte

I agree with your friend. Despite the fact that anyone can lose on the road, what CU managed to do was fail to win any big games on the road. Hell, Penn lost to Brown and Dartmouth AT HOME, yet got the spot because it beat Yale on the road.

Both CU games I saw had me thinking they had more talent than Penn this year. Don't know if that will be the case next year.

 
Columbia Alum 
Junior
Posts: 225

Age: 31
Reg: 11-15-11
Re: Looking ahead
03-10-17 09:42 AM - Post#226038    
    In response to SomeGuy

I get the easy games front loaded, but we started off the season playing like a KenPom 200 team, and ended the season playing like a KP 250-275 team, this is independent of where easy games are clustered. Normally a team with minutes lost and a new coach should struggle initially and then find footing. So really our trajectory should have been KP 225 --> KP 175, but we started slightly better than expected and then went in reverse. Disappointing.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Looking ahead
03-10-17 09:59 AM - Post#226044    
    In response to Columbia Alum

I don't think Columbia started the season playing as a KenPom 200 team. That preseason rating is all based on the prior year. In Columbia's case, with so many minutes leaving, where they are is a prediction based on the standard replacement level of players in our league -- the system has no idea whether the replacements are actually at the standard level, etc. The preseason rating slowly becomes a smaller part of the calculation as the season progresses. So the dropping rating isn't a function of Columbia playing worse -- it's a function of the high initial guess slowly being removed.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4249

Reg: 11-22-04
03-10-17 10:05 AM - Post#226047    
    In response to palestra38

Right, but Columbia also basically won the games against comparable teams at home (with the exception of Cornell). It seems to me that they ended up about where you might expect. Both coming into the season and knowing what we know now, I think Columbia's most likely scenario with Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, and Penn was a split. More likely to win at home and lose on the road in each series, but sometimes it reverses. Penn was better than Columbia overall for the year and had a better chance to earn a sweep or knock off a top 3 team. Which is why they ended up a game better (and could have ended up more).

 
Columbia Alum 
Junior
Posts: 225

Age: 31
Reg: 11-15-11
Re: Looking ahead
03-10-17 10:15 AM - Post#226051    
    In response to SomeGuy

Our expectation was to improve as the season progressed, I think we deteriorated, you think we stagnated, both are disappointing.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 16577

Reg: 11-21-04
03-10-17 10:31 AM - Post#226058    
    In response to SomeGuy

Had Penn not sat the transfers and gone with the freshmen, it would not be in the playoff. It was only the 0-6 start that actually saved the season.

 
hoopsfan 
Masters Student
Posts: 518

Reg: 12-26-04
03-10-17 03:15 PM - Post#226139    
    In response to SomeGuy

I had Columbia winning 4-6 games given the loss of Lo, Mullins, Rosenberg and Super Glue Cohen - and that was before the season-long loss of Castlin and the loss of Meisner for a significant number of games.

I think they showed somewhat better in the beginning mostly for the reasons others have stated, and also in part because they enjoyed greater freedom under Engles's system than Kyle Smith's. Such a "contrast gain" can naturally lessen over time however. As they entered league play and had trouble practicing and playing everyone due to injuries and illness, this and the tighter scouting and back-loaded schedule did them in. Regarding wins on the road, they could have beaten Princeton there on a last second shot, and beaten Dartmouth away by avoiding a last second shot - in which case we'd be having a different conversation.

The team that lost to Yale in the last game played very hard and mostly well. No fan can have a problem with that loss beyond the frustration of letting another victory (and a spot in the first tourney) slip away.

The prior loss to Brown in which the Lions were listless and got smashed is the game I have been thinking the most about. Like many here having been an athlete long ago I can only guess that when you don't move your feet at all you're tight - and for some reason the pressure kept them from competing hard. The next night for whatever reason they moved their feet and played Yale even.

Some of the story-lines I took from this year were: 1. how totally nails Princeton was especially given their personnel losses 2. how much less Harvard (altho a good team) was than the sum of its parts, especially after years of superior recruiting and 3. and how much a season ending tourney added to the meaning of the entire season and nearly every match-up.

With regards to Columbia, they have some pieces. The coaches obviously know they need to quickly get more athletic and skilled. The class they are bringing in reflects that plus I wouldn't be shocked if they are not done yet.

 
Murph 
Masters Student
Posts: 584

Age: 57
Reg: 09-13-11
03-13-17 07:30 AM - Post#226698    
    In response to hoopsfan

Needless to say, basketball is a game of inches. If we had won that Dartmouth game, which we had in the bag, leading by 4 with 20 seconds left in OT, our perception of the season would have been very different. Had we won that game, we would have qualified for the Ivy Tournament, played up to or above our potential, Smith might have won ROY, and our perception of Petrasek, Hickman and Colby would have been much more positive.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-13-17 08:10 AM - Post#226705    
    In response to Murph

All true, but it is also true that really good, hard nosed teams usually find a way to win those close games. We didn't. We missed a three that would have won the first aprinceton game, blew a four point lead in the Dartmouth game with 29 seconds, had a lead at the end of the second Yale game and couldn't close it, and had a one point lead with three minutes to go in the second Harvard game. We blew the second Cornell game to a pretty weak Cornell team after having beaten them away. And the most unforgivable loss was failing to even show up for the second Brown game. Smith was a gamer who showed up every night and was our best player. The seniors were disappointing, and especially Petrasek, who had a decent year but never showed me that he wanted it badly enough to dive for loose balls, take charges, or drive to the basket when it mattered and to compound matters forgot how to make free throws. And the third member of the big three, Hickman, was basically ineffective in most of the Ivy games down the stretch. So we need a real infusion next year, hopefully from Meisner, Castlin and the first years, led by an even better Mike Smith, who carried a larger burden than any first year in the league as a PG.


 
Filippo2014 
Freshman
Posts: 79

Age: 69
Reg: 04-10-14
03-13-17 09:48 AM - Post#226728    
    In response to Chet Forte

I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. No mention of Quinton Adlesh in that particular assessment. Adlesh showed he was among the most reliable 3-point shooters, the best steal man, probably the best assist man in limited time. He seemed to hit a wall towards the end. Teams identified him as a shooter, and the critical 3-point shots disappeared, and he too, forgot how to make free throws. His charity stripe misses in crunch time cost Columbia a win at Dartmouth. But his all-around floor game is at a Mike Smith level.

John Sica. Forgotten man. 2015-16, proved he was the best defender among the underclassmen forecourt players, and that included Meisner and his matador D. Sica’s defense in a 10-minute stretch up at Harvard helped make Alex Rosenberg’s heroic shot mean something, although Harvard suckered John on one backdoor play. Sica has a strong offensive game—he can really shoot the 3—, but you will probably never see it because Meisner at this stage is offensively better. This season, Chris McComber took Meisner’s injury minutes. So, John Sica: forgotten man.

Maybe there will be a gem aside from Faulds in next year’s freshman class, but I would not count on it. The cupboard is already full with good players that are more experienced, such as Killingsworth and Rodney Hunter. Let’s see how C.J. Davis responds to his relegated role to backup SG/PG, now that Mike Smith has taken PG helm. Castlin and Hickman were gym rat friends, always working out together. As freshmen, the so-called “jewel of the class” was Castlin, Hickman an afterthought. As sophomores, Hickman started supplanting Castlin as Kyle Smith’s first guy off the bench. This year, Hickman emerged from all that work. Let us see Mr. Castlin emerge.

Rodney Hunter seemed to lack confidence in his overall offensive game, and if you play his position in the Ivy League at his size, you need to be a 3 point threat. Rodney can certainly hit that shot. One thing, though, his style is sort of Sean Marion-like. Kinda of an anomaly. But Sean Marion was deadly accurate with that shot, and Rodney is the kind of meticulous person who could be deadly accurate, too. If Rodney makes up his mind to put himself through a rigorous off-season 3 point clinic ala Rosenberg, Summer of '14, he can turn that corner and become a 3 point threat.

 
Chet Forte 
PhD Student
Posts: 1884

Reg: 03-02-08
03-13-17 10:09 AM - Post#226734    
    In response to Filippo2014

The "gem" in the recruiting class may we'll be Hanson, who has been on fire lately.


 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 3246

Reg: 02-04-06
03-13-17 01:36 PM - Post#226773    
    In response to Chet Forte

In the Penn game that Columbia won, Hickman made three consecutive great plays to turn the tide in the second half. Just saying.

 
Murph 
Masters Student
Posts: 584

Age: 57
Reg: 09-13-11
Looking ahead
03-15-17 06:41 AM - Post#227047    
    In response to Filippo2014

You make a good point in bringing up Sica.

We have several 6'7 players who could possibly compete for the reserve PF minutes next season, behind Meisner. They are Sica, Panayniotou and the already mentioned Brumant. (Unfortunately, they're all listed at only 198 lbs.) I brought up Brumant as the favorite, because he has the highest potential, and is the most athletic with the ability to play above the rim. But if the others work hard enough they could win those minutes.

It's even conceivable that Hunter could play stretches at PF next year in a four guard offense that might appeal to Engles and his staff.

 
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

4985 Views




Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.253 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 09:18 PM
Top