Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 3 of 10 « First<3456>» Last
Username Post: 2021 Recruiting        (Topic#24270)
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

  • SomeGuy Said:
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
Streamers
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
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
05-01-20 12:15 PM - Post#306871    
    In response to Quaker75

  • Quaker75 Said:
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
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
05-01-20 12:20 PM - Post#306873    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
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

  • Streamers Said:
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.

  • mrjames Said:
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.

 
 Page 3 of 10 « First<3456>» Last
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

39021 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: 0.625 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 03:40 PM
Top