weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2125
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
05-01-20 10:08 AM - Post#306860
In response to SomeGuy
Another key difference is that Houston has undersized rebounders/defenders in Covington and Tucker. Our undersized 4s don’t really rebound, with the exception of Monroe. And Westbrook is an otherworldly rebounder for his size. Our guards our rebound poorly, again, with the exception of Monroe.
Seriously. We don't have an Ivy-sized version of PJ Tucker on our roster.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8141
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 10:24 AM - Post#306861
In response to weinhauers_ghost
First of all, Martz proved to be on his way to becoming a decent rebounder over the course of the season. He will continue to improve. Monroe has proven to be adept at it, and I agree with P38 that Dingle could emerge as one much the way a smaller Goodman did. I have to think MLL is going to be a beast from that perspective; hope he learns how to outlet like Max R. did. One thing guys like Zoller and Grandieri showed us is that, at least in our league, technique can matter more than physical traits when it comes to rebounding.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 10:58 AM - Post#306864
In response to palestra38
What the "weeping match" folks are concerned about are the probabilities here. Players can have uncertainty around potential performance and potential injuries. Proven players have far less uncertainty around performance but some odds of injuries. Unproven players have uncertainty around both. Compare the stable of bigs coming back for other top teams:
Yale
Atkinson
Yess
Alausa
Basa-Ama
Harvard
Forbes
Djuricic
Ajogbor
Hemmings
Princeton
Myriad 6'7 dudes who could be Ivy fours
Plus Zach Martini, also 6'7
Hooks
Brown
Gainey
(We'll make an exception for Choh here)
DeWolf
Ndur
Moses
Then compare that to Penn:
Simmons
Myriad 6'6 dudes that maybe could be Ivy fours
MLL
Wang
Why did every other top Ivy - all of which were in a better spot than Penn to start (maybe except Princeton...) - bring in at least one big, if not multiple? You can't look at those lists above and tell me that you wouldn't set Penn's odds as the lowest out of those five given that it's relying on uncertainty both in a production and injury perspective... It just doesn't make sense.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 11:03 AM - Post#306865
In response to mrjames
Yale is a lock. Every other team is a pure question mark. Harvard in particular---you need guys who can shoot. We're getting here to you trying to provide mathematical probabilities to situations where it is not based on performance. And if you are basing your prediction on potential, Lorca-Lloyd has as much as any non-Yale big man. And Penn has 2 guys who can be very good at the 4, not including Wang. If Wang returns to his pre-injury level, Penn is a lock for the Tournament.
|
Quaker75
Freshman
Posts: 37
Age: 59
Reg: 12-29-13
|
05-01-20 11:20 AM - Post#306866
In response to palestra38
I think a good strategy is to play the games and see if we win. Go Quakers
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 11:34 AM - Post#306867
In response to palestra38
I mean, Danilo Djuricic has logged almost 50% of team mins over the past two years and has shot 35% from three. Mason Forbes played 25% of team minutes in Ivy play and about that for the year last year (and was twice a KenPom game MVP).
Also, Harvard has a bunch of "Ivy four" options in Kirkwood, Ledlum and Catchings.
While I like Atkinson plus anything over what the rest of the league has, the rest of the league has VERY different levels of question marks. Harvard's question marks are the smallest, and it could credibly get away with what it has.
Not all question marks are the same size and Penn's are friggin HUGE.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
05-01-20 11:55 AM - Post#306868
In response to Streamers
Did Goodman become a good rebounder? Statistically, he had the lowest rebounding percentage of any starter in the league last year. Dingle was only a little above him, and was also among the very weakest rebounders in the league.
Martz got better in conference, but he still got less than 10% of available rebounds. We need our 4 to get at least his share of available rebounds, particularly without AJ next year.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 11:56 AM - Post#306869
In response to mrjames
He's averaged only 6.1 where he did not have to be the big man....and you lose him after next year. You lost Lewis, Baker and Bassey, who played big. You can talk it up all you want, but Harvard is going to have to find guys who didn't do it this year to do it next year. And your one returning double digit scorer has some holes in his game, Kirkwood. Mike, here's where your objectivity always descends to a rooting interest. There is no way you can say Harvard is anything but a question mark after losing either its best or second best 5 man class ever with no returning player over 6' 8", no one who got more than 4 rebounds per game and one double digit scorer. Sounds very much like Penn. I'm sure they have talent---we'll see how that plays out. I like Penn has returning better than what Harvard has, but that's my rooting interest
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8141
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 12:15 PM - Post#306871
In response to Quaker75
I think a good strategy is to play the games and see if we win. Go Quakers
You are no fun; this is way better than watching the news.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 12:19 PM - Post#306872
In response to mrjames
Hmmm. Agree shooting isn’t the issue for Harvard’s returning bigs. Djuricic and Forbes are both highly efficient. However, they have extremely low usage rates (weren’t you saying this was Penn’s problem earlier)?
But I don’t necessarily see the certainty for Harvard. Harvard has lacked lineup consistency in recent years to my eye, and has benefited from Amaker having a lot of flexibility to play big or small, etc. Forbes functioned well as a change of pace to Lewis. But is he more than that? He isn’t as slight as Baker, but he is slight. Does he need Lewis bludgeoning guys for the rest of the game to be effective?
Similarly, Djuricic does some 4/5 things, but there are also aspects of his game that aren’t very big mannish at all. Harvard will be very different defensively (and probably not nearly as good) if they are playing Forbes and Djuricic together at 4 and 5 for the majority of games. And they will really struggle if they play Djuricic in the middle with a small lineup. So much so that I don’t think they will do either of these things. So I don’t see certainty as to what Harvard will do, and I see even less returning up front depth than Penn has (and I agree Penn lacks front court depth).
Finally, I don’t think Brown is the biggest threat to pass Penn. They lost too much at guard, and don’t have enough to replace it. The biggest threat is Dartmouth, which was statistically about the same as Brown last year, and should be better with Barry back.
Edited by SomeGuy on 05-01-20 12:21 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8141
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-01-20 12:20 PM - Post#306873
In response to SomeGuy
Did Goodman become a good rebounder? Statistically, he had the lowest rebounding percentage of any starter in the league last year. Dingle was only a little above him, and was also among the very weakest rebounders in the league.
I know the stats belie this a bit, but watching him for 4 years, especially the last 2, told me he was getting a surprising number of contested rebounds underneath for his size. As for Dingle, he certainly has the vertical and the strength to get rebounds over taller players, much like Woods did. It really depends on how the coaches want them positioned, especially with MLL on the floor.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
05-01-20 12:32 PM - Post#306876
In response to Streamers
I never get this. I don’t care a lot about offensive rebounds, where positioning and philosophy does determine whether you get them. But there is no positioning excuse for not getting defensive rebounds. Everyone needs to get them.
Woods wasn’t a strong statistical rebounder either, at any point. He never got more than 7.5% of available rebounds. It doesn’t matter how strong or athletic you look when you occasionally get a rebound. It matters whether you get them.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2685
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
05-01-20 12:45 PM - Post#306877
In response to Streamers
Agree that Harvard will be weaker inside at 4/5. Freshmen Justice Ajogbor (6'9") and Josh Hemming (6'8") will certainly help fill things out. Ajogbor has unusual size and strength for this league.
Harvard's strength is that the remaining starters are beasts. Ledlum, Kirkwood and Haskett may each be the among the best defenders and rebounders for their positions.
Don't underestimate Harvard's rebounding, as exemplified by last year's RPM stats:
9th in league - Ledlum
10th - Djuricic
20th - Forbes
43rd - Kirkwood
Haskett was much further down the list but he can come up big.
With roughly have the league's RPM leaders graduated, Harvard still has roughly 3 of the top 10 returnees, plus 2 big athletic freshmen. Teams like Yale, Brown and Dartmouth are looking tough under the boards this upcoming season, and Penn and Princeton will have depth hoping to step up, but Harvard has a squad of league leading rebounders per minute returning.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2125
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
05-01-20 01:20 PM - Post#306879
In response to Streamers
First of all, Martz proved to be on his way to becoming a decent rebounder over the course of the season. He will continue to improve. Monroe has proven to be adept at it, and I agree with P38 that Dingle could emerge as one much the way a smaller Goodman did. I have to think MLL is going to be a beast from that perspective; hope he learns how to outlet like Max R. did. One thing guys like Zoller and Grandieri showed us is that, at least in our league, technique can matter more than physical traits when it comes to rebounding.
I see Martz as a small ball 4 who can stretch the floor offensively and is willing to stick his nose in there and defend and rebound in the paint.
If MLL turns out to be the rim protector he showed flashes of in limited PT, that would be great. I like the fact that he seems to have a mean streak defensively. I just don't know what his strength is offensively. He's clearly not AJ (which is to be expected), and I think that was a huge contributing factor to his inability to crack the rotation this season.
Monroe could be something of a wild card. He's got a bit of the slasher to his offensive game, but he needs to iron the wrinkles out of his jump shot in order to make that slashing more effective. I'm curious as to whether the point guard skills he displayed in high school really translate to this level. If so, he's a credible secondary playmaker.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 02:38 PM - Post#306880
In response to palestra38
This has absolutely nothing to do with my rooting interest, though it's convenient to throw that around to dismiss what I have to say. I've proven on here through the years that I'd rather be right than be wrong pretending things are rosier than they actually are for partisan purposes.
There's a reason why Bart's 2021 projections have Harvard 40 spots ahead of Penn WITH Wang producing at a very high level. Why you can't see that comes down to my point about question marks...
EVERY Ivy has question marks heading into next season - even Yale. But the question marks are smaller when you are projecting more on performance than potential. A starting five of Haskett, Ledlum, Kirkwood, Djuricic and Forbes combined for about 40% of team minutes last year. And all played at least a quarter of minutes in Ivy play. So your base case can all be modeled based on actual performance, which is far more stable. From there, different folks will have different opinions on a step Tretout might take, if Kale can find his old game after finally recovering from injury, whether the freshmen can contribute, etc., but having real performance at five spots diminishes the size of the question marks.
Penn doesn't have that. If it gets Wang and Washington back, then it could, but those are question marks right now. Without them, the production you can model off of is Dingle, Martz, Simmons, Scott, Monroe. And as we discussed before, the usage doesn't really add up there. So those question marks are much bigger. That's why Penn isn't going to be projected as highly.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 02:44 PM - Post#306881
In response to SomeGuy
Djuricic has been in the 16-18% range on usage during his career and Forbes was at 17% last year. Those are low, but not extremely low. Penn has three guys in the 13-15% range, which is getting to extremely low, but not quite there. However, it is the COMPOUNDING effect of having multiple players in this range that makes it harder and harder to overcome.
The simplest way to see this is to add up the usage rates:
Harvard
Ledlum - 28%
Kirkwood - 24%
Haskett - 19%
Forbes - 17%
Djuricic - 16%
Total = 104% (works!)
Penn
Dingle - 25%
Simmons - 18%
Monroe - 15%
Martz - 14%
Scott - 13%
Total = 85% (doesn't work!)
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 04:02 PM - Post#306882
In response to mrjames
That's misleading. In conference games, Dingle,Martz and Scott played more minutes than any 3 returning Harvard players and Wang, before his injury the year before, was a 20+ minutes per game player. You are cherry picking the stats to come up with a very small advantage and declaring it signficant.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1877
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Re: 2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 04:44 PM - Post#306884
In response to mrjames
I do wish people would stop calling mrjames biased. He's right that everyone keeps throwing that out every time he posts something a bit critical of Penn. He may have some rooting interest, but he has clearly shown himself to be more balanced and less biased than the rest of us. For example, I don't know if I root for a strong conference the way he does. I only hope for good times for Penn. We may disagree with mrjames' points, but we don't have to question the motives anymore.
This has absolutely nothing to do with my rooting interest, though it's convenient to throw that around to dismiss what I have to say. I've proven on here through the years that I'd rather be right than be wrong pretending things are rosier than they actually are for partisan purposes.
There's a reason why Bart's 2021 projections have Harvard 40 spots ahead of Penn WITH Wang producing at a very high level. Why you can't see that comes down to my point about question marks...
EVERY Ivy has question marks heading into next season - even Yale. But the question marks are smaller when you are projecting more on performance than potential. A starting five of Haskett, Ledlum, Kirkwood, Djuricic and Forbes combined for about 40% of team minutes last year. And all played at least a quarter of minutes in Ivy play. So your base case can all be modeled based on actual performance, which is far more stable. From there, different folks will have different opinions on a step Tretout might take, if Kale can find his old game after finally recovering from injury, whether the freshmen can contribute, etc., but having real performance at five spots diminishes the size of the question marks.
Penn doesn't have that. If it gets Wang and Washington back, then it could, but those are question marks right now. Without them, the production you can model off of is Dingle, Martz, Simmons, Scott, Monroe. And as we discussed before, the usage doesn't really add up there. So those question marks are much bigger. That's why Penn isn't going to be projected as highly.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: 2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 04:47 PM - Post#306886
In response to mrjames
Usage rates aren’t necessarily a good thing if the ORAT isn’t good. In conference, Harvard had Ledlum and Kirkwood around 28% and Rio at 24%, but all with ORATs of 93 or lower. Among the returnees on both teams, Dingle is the highest conference ORAT among the high usage players. Both teams have high ORAT guys with low usage. For both teams, the key may be upping the usage of those guys. Penn may actually have a better chance of doing this, because they don’t have multiple high usage/low ORAT guys using up all the oxygen.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2021 Recruiting 05-01-20 04:52 PM - Post#306887
In response to Penndemonium
We're on a site where we all give our opinions. I stated my opinion---so did Mike. I think he was speaking as a fan in terms of his opinion of Harvard vs Penn, because even the numbers he uses gives Harvard a very slight advantage (and I think they are cherry picked) yet he concludes that Harvard is much better. It's fair to call him out on it. I think that these days, we can do a lot worse than call someone a fan. Hell, if I commented as he did in the Harvard Board (or especially in the Columbia one), I would be told to go back to my board as a Penn fan. I would never do that--I appreciate his contribution, I just do not think it is convincing.
|