Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 9 of 9 « First<6789
Username Post: Crickets        (Topic#23800)
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 22921

Reg: 11-21-04
01-16-20 04:45 PM - Post#296844    
    In response to Tiger69

Are you still sitting on the edge of the Sea of Cortez, waiting for death to roll in?

 
Tiger69 
Postdoc
Posts: 2401

Reg: 11-23-04
01-16-20 05:55 PM - Post#296847    
    In response to palestra38

Si. Just dug myself out of the snow in Silverton and made the three day trip South (one day layover in Tucson to have breakfast at my very favorite am eatery, Frank’s by Day, Francisco’s por la Noche. Salud from San Carlos.

 
Penndemonium 
Masters Student
Posts: 965

Reg: 11-29-04
01-16-20 07:36 PM - Post#296850    
    In response to Tiger69

I love Steve D and what he has done for our program. He has installed a system which broadly has made our players better than the sum of its parts. When they play teams that underestimate us, we can pick them apart with our passing and ball movement.

Our players are not multi-dimensional, however. We don't actually have too many great shooters (just Betley and Martz) and neither creates their own shot. We don't have very many great slashers (Dingle and Goodman sometimes), and we aren't lock-down on defense. AJ is our lone multi-tool player on both sides of the court.. When we win, it is through the subtle balance of OK team metrics coming together. When we lose, opponents reduce our team to the individual parts - and those parts are not dominant one-on-one and do not create separation from our opponents.

I hope Steve D figures it out. My recommendation is KEEP THE BALL MOVING!



 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4982

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Crickets
01-16-20 08:31 PM - Post#296851    
    In response to palestra38

The interesting thing is that I think our gameplan presumed that we were more talented than Princeton. Princeton wanted to cut off the passes and the 3s and make us play them one on one, and I think our assumption coming into the first game was that that was fine. We assumed Dingle and Goodman could drive and score (and get a few assists), and that even Betley would drive more. I don’t think that was a bad plan/assumption — it fit with the available information coming in. It just wasn’t right, at least for those two games.



 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 22921

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 08:58 AM - Post#296868    
    In response to SomeGuy

It wasn't right because we were exposed as pretenders. I don't know how anyone seeing those games would think that we will get back to the tournament except in the same manner we did last year---with a .500 league record and by the skin of our teeth. We all expected Betley to return at his pre-injury level, and that Wang would be a force....also that Washington would come back to at least close to his early season performance last year. Instead, none of that has happened and we are essentially the same team as last year but lost Woods, Silpe, Rothschild and Donahue, who totalled over 23 ppg, 13 rpg and 7 apg. I have to take some responsibility myself for thinking they could replace this production. But it's obvious that they lost too much to replace with freshmen and if they are getting essentially nothing from the sophs and juniors, we are screwed.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4982

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 09:33 AM - Post#296871    
    In response to palestra38

I tend to agree with Penndemonium here. My point is that against Princeton we went away from what works for us because we thought they were playing into our hands by reducing the game to one on one matchups, and therefore let it happen. The key is to find ways to play our game, rather than accepting being drawn into playing one on one.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 22921

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 09:35 AM - Post#296872    
    In response to SomeGuy

Our game is too easily defensible and we don't have enough experienced talent to go to a Plan B

 
weinhauers_ghost 
PhD Student
Posts: 1610

Age: 60
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 12:05 PM - Post#296883    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
I tend to agree with Penndemonium here. My point is that against Princeton we went away from what works for us because we thought they were playing into our hands by reducing the game to one on one matchups, and therefore let it happen. The key is to find ways to play our game, rather than accepting being drawn into playing one on one.



My take is that it was less a case of our going away from what we do best and more one of Princeton taking those opportunities away from us. Note how they defend cutters. Total ball denial, to the point where the passing lanes are invisible. Then they run us off the three point line. From the high post, AJ had opportunities to shoot, but that was about it. They figured Aririguzoh could make his life difficult in the low post, but they weren't afraid to give him the three point shot from the top of the arc.

And then we couldn't stop turning the ball over, either.



 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4982

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 12:43 PM - Post#296885    
    In response to weinhauers_ghost

Agreed that they were taking that stuff away, but our response was not to cut and instead to try to drive. My point is that you have to keep cutting. Make them defend it for the full 30.

To make a silly comparison to youth basketball, every year I have a kid refuse to cut “because they know where I’m going.” They still have to defend you doing it, and making them defend you doing it (over and over) eventually leads to opportunities. Don’t just say they’re taking Ryan away and leave floating out on the perimeter with a defender to create space for Dingle to drive. Have him keep cutting, and make them do the work to take him away.

I think we made a choice to let them take things away because we thought we still had an advantage. Turns out we didn’t. So play our game, and make them keep working to take what we do away. Despite the last 4 games against them, I don’t think Princeton defends well enough to keep doing it — we just have to keep doing it. It’s not about plan B. It’s about using Plan A.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 3999

Reg: 11-22-04
01-17-20 03:58 PM - Post#296894    
    In response to SomeGuy

what you say is plausible some guy. not sure it happened that way but i can buy it.

While that could be acceptable for game 1, to come in with the same strategy for game 2 is, um, not wise.

 
weinhauers_ghost 
PhD Student
Posts: 1610

Age: 60
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
01-17-20 04:10 PM - Post#296897    
    In response to SomeGuy

One thing was obvious: we didn't have the one-on-one defenders to stop them from getting what they wanted in the paint in the first game. Schwieger abused everyone who guarded him other than Simmons.

If you'd looked at Princeton's out of conference performance, you would have seen a team that wasn't shooting well from three point range, and you could have anticipated that they would change up their offense in order to mask that weakness. It seems we didn't game plan for such a change.

They looked a lot more like Princeton in the second game.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4982

Reg: 11-22-04
01-17-20 04:45 PM - Post#296903    
    In response to Jeff2sf

I would argue that we didn’t use the same strategy in game 2. In game 2, we went to plan F, where we start Simmons, try to use him in the low post for the first time all year until Princeton figured out we were doing it, tried to run Betley off screens until they figured that out, and then had AJ play one on one. Again, the problem was that our response to getting away from our game the first time was to get even further from our game the second time.

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4982

Reg: 11-22-04
01-17-20 05:24 PM - Post#296910    
    In response to weinhauers_ghost

I know I’m defending what didn’t work, but . . .. I think the staff views backing off the 3 point line, even against a bad shooting team, as unnecessarily playing roulette. If you engage in. 3 point shooting contest, you open yourself up to random results. So I think coming in we thought that we would get twos at the rim and 3s, and we would force Princeton to take tough 2s further from the basket. And that would be a winning recipe. We changed it up in game 2 (allowing 3s). Didn’t work either.

 
 Page 9 of 9 « First<6789
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

3082 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: 0.081 seconds.   Total Queries: 17   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 06:11 PM
Top