Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 03-05-17 08:22 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: 247
Age: 38
Reg: 11-15-11
|
Looking ahead
03-05-17 08:53 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 09:02 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1537
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-05-17 09:11 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
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
03-05-17 09:37 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: 3400
Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-05-17 01:05 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.
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2203
Reg: 10-09-09
|
Re: Looking ahead
03-05-17 01:49 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 01:51 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Looking ahead
03-05-17 04:16 PM - Post#225068
In response to cc66
Princeton had better be worse next year!
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2203
Reg: 10-09-09
|
Looking ahead
03-05-17 04:33 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 04:56 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Looking ahead
03-05-17 08:36 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
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-05-17 09:19 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
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 03-05-17 10:04 PM - Post#225166
In response to mrjames
We have had that debate before. We are very high on Faulds, Hanson and Stefanini.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-05-17 10:26 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: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-05-17 10:55 PM - Post#225179
In response to mrjames
Based on what you're hearing how would the different classes rank?
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-05-17 11:05 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: 626
Age: 63
Reg: 09-13-11
|
Looking ahead
03-06-17 08:01 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
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-06-17 01:38 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: 3992
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-06-17 03:56 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
Postdoc
Posts: 2203
Reg: 10-09-09
|
Looking ahead
03-06-17 05:00 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 05:01 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-06-17 05:26 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
Postdoc
Posts: 2967
Reg: 03-02-08
|
03-06-17 05:34 PM - Post#225287
In response to mrjames
Buzz around the league is impossible to quantify, or to evaluate.
|
