UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1117
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
12-31-18 06:30 PM - Post#270689
This is what the last two games have taught us:
Steve's playing of 7-8 players for much of the season was forced by the loss of his guard depth with the injuries to Betley and Williams. Now stripped of two additional first line players we are seeing more of the second echelon of talent. In two games the bench has contributed 8 and 9 points.
Prior to the loss of Wang, it looked like the improved play of Devon and Jake could make Penn a contender. In the two games since that loss, the two have turned back into pumpkins, contributing between them 8.5 points per game on 19% shooting, making only 6 of 12 free throws and having the same number of assists at turnovers. That is not what you expect from junior and senior guards. Let's hope that five days off will enable them to regain their composure.
Note also that the loss of Wang and Max, especially Wang, has dramatically degraded the offensive continuity which looked so marvelous prior. Again, one hopes that the return of Max and a week of practice will restore it.
To the good, the dramatic slump in performance that accompanied the loss of Wang is a strong testimony to his skill. It is unusual for a team to be so dependent on the contribution of a freshman.
On balance we see a good team with very little margin for error. When the top six are available and the threes are dropping they can beat almost anyone. When one or more parts are missing and the threes are not dropping they can lose to almost anyone. Such is the fate of a team with middle-of-the-road athleticism and limited depth. It means we will have to keep our fingers very crossed as we enter the Ivy season. Without Wang next weekend, beating the Tigers will be a stretch. Clearly, our most likely finish is a 3 or 4 seed in the tournament.
In a strong sense, we are forced to confront the negative reality of Williams's injury last summer and Ryan's departure from the first game. Without a solid point guard and a killer shooter Penn has to struggle to win. Of course, I hope that Devon and Jake revert to their pre-Toledo form and Mike and Max come back healthy. Another year of surprizing success remains possible. But the odds say that next year will be the start of a real top 100 team when Williams and Betley will join a terrific incoming class.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: How talented is this team? 12-31-18 08:06 PM - Post#270700
In response to UPIA1968
Well, I think a question all season that we’ve unfortunately been put in position to consider repeatedly is exactly where the tipping point is as you remove pieces. We wondered if losing Foreman and Wood was going to be enough to make us worse. And then Williams. I think just about everybody thought Betley would be a tipping point. And then we had to play some stretches without Woods, and still we seemed to be a strong, cohesive unit. And then we lost Max. Finally, without Wang, we seem to have found a tipping point.
Personally. with apologies to Jeff, I think we go right back to being among the favorites to win the league if we just get either Max or Wang back. However, part of that theory is that Dev is either in a brief slump or depends upon the better spacing and ball movement that Max and Wang provide. If Dev is going to pull a Nate Hickman and be awesome for one OOC and then disappear, then we’ll have problems. I don’t expect that.
Final point, while I think the issues we’ve seen in the last two games are very real, hitting a tipping point doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t win with the group who played today. It just means we haven’t figured out how to do so yet. Could be there is a way to make the four guards work, or some changes to the offense that allow Simmons and Scott to be more effective.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3580
Reg: 02-15-15
|
12-31-18 08:27 PM - Post#270702
In response to SomeGuy
With Max and/or Mike the ball moves much more fluidly and the guys get better shots. We had multiple end of the shot clock situations today and I dont' remember more than a handful in any previous game. All that said, we lost this game at the Free Throw line. Specifically AJ at the line. Count this game as a casualty of poor FT shooting.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1117
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
12-31-18 08:48 PM - Post#270703
In response to PennFan10
Better foul shooting would have prevailed against a 290 ranked team by a bucket or two, hardly the evidence of Ivy contention.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-31-18 08:53 PM - Post#270706
In response to PennFan10
I guess I take a little more of a macro view than that. We kind of are what we are at the line, and we do enough other things well that being a 63% Free throw shooting team normally doesn’t kill us. We shot 61% today, which is pretty much our season average.
Obviously, we needed a couple more points today to win, so a couple more makes really mattered. But I think the better ball movement of Max or Wang makes this a double digit win. Pinning the loss on a couple of free throws to me is kind of like saying Kuba or Dev lost the game for us because they missed a bunch of open 3s.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1117
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
12-31-18 10:32 PM - Post#270708
In response to SomeGuy
The Princeton game will be an interesting test of Steve's coaching ability. One can excuse the poor team play on Saturday and today due to the suddenness of Wang's departure. By Saturday, he and the staff will have had time to scheme better given what talent is available. For instance, Washington, the only player making threes today got very few looks at the basket with the game on the line, including none in OT. that will change I suspect. Incidently He went 5-10 in that pressure. A keeper clearly. Whatever, happens the rest of this year we can bank two significant freshmen contributors, a successful recruiting year in what was supposed by a weak class. Were Simmons and Eddie in the same bracket we would not be gnashing our teeth right now.
Let's hope that Max is back on the court. His passing and defense will surely help.
To that point, it is disappointing to find so little progress in Eddie's overall game and in Simmons' offensive game. it just goes to show that quickness and jumping ability are distinct from college BB offensive skills. Eye-hand coordination is the first arbiter of offensive BB skill. I give the great Larry Bird as the classic example. The pretenders lingering on Penn's bench remind me of the many such players in the Allen era. Thank god we have four clear successes on this squad and several more likely contributors next year.
|
pennsive
Junior
Posts: 200
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-01-19 09:54 AM - Post#270719
In response to UPIA1968
Earlier this season, I advocated for a few more two point jump shots and runners that were not 95% shots but were likely makes. My theory was, and is, that some players need those shots to gain the confidence shooting that would allow them to play freely and to expand their repertoire. Scott and Simmons could profit from this adjustment because they both look concerned about making the shots that Steve has available in his offense. This may lead to fall-off on defense and/or in attitude. That said, Dunphy never changed his offense to fit Ebede or a couple of other high flyers, nor did he do it to accommodate Pettinella. Since Steve had a very good thing going with Wang and Max, my guess is that he did not want to turn things upside down for two games OOC. However, in league play, everyone is going to see that you can beat us if you guard our three point shooters tightly and then run out when we miss our shots. Using foul line jumpers to offset tendencies that become too predictable will save us against second tier teams when we are playing like one ourselves, and will expand the depth on our roster by resuscitating Scott and Simmons, not to mention Silpe and Devon.
As for free throw shooting, it is the same as making four foot putts. To rid yourself of the yips, you need a simple, repeatable stroke, a lot of practice to keep it simple, comfortable, and confident, and read Golf is Not a Game of Perfect to understand the mental side of it and why short putts are analogous to free throw shooting. I still believe in Steve and the team. We will turn it around, but that may not happen this week or even next. I hope our team proves me wrong. Happy New Year.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8141
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-01-19 10:08 AM - Post#270721
In response to pennsive
Great post. We had another long look at Simmons and Scott yesterday and it’s obvious that they are not thinking about how to score when they get the ball. In fairness, both have improved defensively, but when they are on the floor, it’s clear to both teams that the other guys have to carry the scoring load. This is a real shame in Scott’s case, because we have seen him involved in the offense and know he is capable of it.
If Steve sticks to his scheme, we are going to see a bit more of Kuba iagainst PU and hope he drains a few of those 3s and gains confidence.
|
Penn7277
PhD Student
Posts: 1365
Loc: Lancaster, PA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
How talented is this team? 01-01-19 12:20 PM - Post#270729
In response to Streamers
Steve's strategy is to take layups (and maybe get fouled) and threes, instead of the twos from farther from the basket. Unfortunately, this team often misses the layups (and the resulting foul shots), especially on breakaways, and the threes often do not fall. Perhaps allowing some of the longer twos is not such a bad idea. Other teams use them effectively against us, including Monmouth. A somewhat uncontested longer-distance two might be better than a tightly-contested layup with this team. But, then again, what do I know?
Edited by Penn7277 on 01-01-19 12:20 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21086
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: How talented is this team? 01-01-19 12:37 PM - Post#270733
In response to Penn7277
This. The current team lacks both solid finishers and solid FT shooters. We do, however, have quite a few players who have the deer in the headlights look when they are midway through a drive and then look for something else to do for fear of being blocked.
Steve's strategy is to take layups (and maybe get fouled) and threes, instead of the twos from farther from the basket. Unfortunately, this team often misses the layups (and the resulting foul shots), especially on breakaways
|
Penn7277
PhD Student
Posts: 1365
Loc: Lancaster, PA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-01-19 12:47 PM - Post#270734
In response to penn nation
Just to be clear, I think Steve should encourage some of those longer two-point shots, especially when the other stuff is not working.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3580
Reg: 02-15-15
|
How talented is this team? 01-01-19 12:53 PM - Post#270737
In response to Penn7277
I am pretty sure the starters are free to take 2 point shots when that's what is being given. Having said that, as a coach, I can't imagine they would prefer a player taking an uncontested 2 from the FT line if the same player can take uncontested layup. And telling them to take the 2pt shot because they are missing the layups doesn't seem like a good strategy either.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12480
Reg: 12-07-04
|
01-01-19 01:09 PM - Post#270741
In response to PennFan10
I agree with that point. The only thing I'll say is that some players excel at certain mid-range shots (think Jan Fikiel from the baseline) and this philosophy, which as a whole I agree with, tamps that down.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21086
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: How talented is this team? 01-01-19 01:21 PM - Post#270742
In response to PennFan10
What is clear is that just about everyone has free reign to take open 3s. Simmons and Scott were the only 2 exceptions to that rule yesterday. I don't believe AJ took any, but he was rarely positioned completely outside the arc--and in his case he's obviously much more productive elsewhere.
I am pretty sure the starters are free to take 2 point shots when that's what is being given. Having said that, as a coach, I can't imagine they would prefer a player taking an uncontested 2 from the FT line if the same player can take uncontested layup. And telling them to take the 2pt shot because they are missing the layups doesn't seem like a good strategy either.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21086
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: How talented is this team? 01-01-19 01:21 PM - Post#270743
In response to PennFan10
What is clear is that just about everyone has free reign to take open 3s. Simmons and Scott were the only 2 exceptions to that rule yesterday. I don't believe AJ took any, but he was rarely positioned completely outside the arc--and in his case he's obviously much more productive elsewhere.
I am pretty sure the starters are free to take 2 point shots when that's what is being given. Having said that, as a coach, I can't imagine they would prefer a player taking an uncontested 2 from the FT line if the same player can take uncontested layup. And telling them to take the 2pt shot because they are missing the layups doesn't seem like a good strategy either.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-01-19 01:49 PM - Post#270744
In response to Quakers03
It tamps it down, but just to be clear about the math on this, even good two point jump shooters like Fikiel have lower percentages on two point shots than basically any of our current players. The only guys on our team who shoot under 50% on 2s this year are Woods and Washington. So to me, shooting more of those shots almost by definition is going to reduce our percentages, because the number is significantly lower than what we do now. I understand that the hope is that this improves our percentage on closer shots by drawing Defense to other areas of the floor. But I think defenses already are aware that they can’t leave the foul line area undefended — a lot of our points come when AJ or Max gets the ball around there. AJ takes that shot, Max does not, but both are dangerous from there. Moments played with Eddie Scott there to take a low percentage shot are moments when our best facilitators can’t be there.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12480
Reg: 12-07-04
|
01-01-19 01:54 PM - Post#270745
In response to SomeGuy
I agree. I have seen the light in regards to this style of play and until everyone else adapts, it remains an edge.
|
xrel
Freshman
Posts: 39
Age: 59
Reg: 03-19-08
|
01-01-19 05:22 PM - Post#270760
In response to Quakers03
Interesting statistic- Penn outscored Monmouth by 18 points on 3 point shots and by 2 points on FTs, but was outscored by 22 points on 2 point shots, whence the 2 point difference. They both had virtually the same number of total shots and offensive rebounds. Without having seen the game, this tells me that Monmouth had better shot selection. Even though Penn's 3 point percentage was a respectable 32.4%, you generally don't beat an inferior team by shooting a lot of 3 pointers. Stated another way, if Penn was forced to shoot so many 3 pointers perhaps, based on the talent on the floor in this particular game, Monmouth was in fact not inferior.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-01-19 05:52 PM - Post#270761
In response to xrel
This may be your point, but another interesting related stat is that Monmouth outshot Penn in every category — 2s, 3s, FTs. And outrebounded us to boot. So you could argue that the only reason we were in the game at all is because we took more 3s than they did. And you could argue that, rather than getting one more free throw, or one more Kuba 3, we might have won the game simply by taking a 3 in one possession during the game where we took a 2.
Not sure that really means that Monmouth either had better shot selection or was the superior team. Could just mean they had a better day than we did. But it’s interesting.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21086
Reg: 12-02-04
|
01-01-19 06:16 PM - Post#270764
In response to xrel
Having been at the game, Penn had superior shot selection. Virtually all of Penn's 2 point shots were close to the basket. We just could not finish, and this was compounded by our troubles at the line. Most of our 3 point shots were also uncontested.
Monmouth made some tough 2 point shots--it definitely won in the degree of difficulty category for made hoops.
Interesting statistic- Penn outscored Monmouth by 18 points on 3 point shots and by 2 points on FTs, but was outscored by 22 points on 2 point shots, whence the 2 point difference. They both had virtually the same number of total shots and offensive rebounds. Without having seen the game, this tells me that Monmouth had better shot selection. Even though Penn's 3 point percentage was a respectable 32.4%, you generally don't beat an inferior team by shooting a lot of 3 pointers. Stated another way, if Penn was forced to shoot so many 3 pointers perhaps, based on the talent on the floor in this particular game, Monmouth was in fact not inferior.
|