Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
02-03-24 08:53 AM - Post#362645
In response to UPIA1968
Nice to see Holland play well, although 0-5 from three didn't help. 7-7 from the field with 11 boards.
Guess maybe he can do a little more than only score off a good pass? In case anyone forgets, here is the list of Holland’s minutes this year:
16, 16, 14, 19, 17, 12, 11, 15, 6, 7, 9 (vs Houston…lol), 13, 8, 5, 7, 15, 30.
Anyone want to defend him here? How could we all see it but the coach couldn’t?!
|
nychoops
Junior
Posts: 243
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-03-24 09:49 AM - Post#362649
In response to Quakers03
Would have been nice is staff picked up phone for Nana and offered ..as i mentioned since his HS days all he wanted was Penn.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3619
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-03-24 01:29 PM - Post#362663
In response to nychoops
Would have been nice is staff picked up phone for Nana and offered ..as i mentioned since his HS days all he wanted was Penn.
Thanks for the insight as also nyc! Funny, I remember being incredulous when you told us that earlier in the season. That’s for me one of the most annoying parts of this loss. We got worked by a really good kid/player who wanted Penn but we chose to ignore. #%$@ brilliant. I still remember following his recruitment (back when I cared enough to follow recruitment closely) and was really hoping Penn would land him, but offer never materialized. I thought we were out recruited but per your insight it turned out it was just recruiting malpractice.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2140
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
@Brown
02-03-24 03:17 PM - Post#362672
In response to Mike Porter
Would have been nice is staff picked up phone for Nana and offered ..as i mentioned since his HS days all he wanted was Penn.
Thanks for the insight as also nyc! Funny, I remember being incredulous when you told us that earlier in the season. That’s for me one of the most annoying parts of this loss. We got worked by a really good kid/player who wanted Penn but we chose to ignore. #%$@ brilliant. I still remember following his recruitment (back when I cared enough to follow recruitment closely) and was really hoping Penn would land him, but offer never materialized. I thought we were out recruited but per your insight it turned out it was just recruiting malpractice.
Recruiting malpractice = "the player wasn't a system fit".
This is the thing that irritates me most about "system" coaches. They have an absolutely myopic inability to figure out how to adjust their system to accommodate good players who don't necessarily fit the system profile, but bring athleticism the team may be lacking.
Really good coaches find ways to tweak their systems.
Edited by weinhauers_ghost on 02-03-24 03:19 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
@Brown
02-03-24 03:21 PM - Post#362674
In response to nychoops
I can’t believe it’s come to this but good for him. I’m glad he got that moment last night. What a disgrace this program has turned into. Imagine not giving him a shot. You know, since we have a plethora of bigs.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
@Brown
02-03-24 06:26 PM - Post#362678
In response to Quakers03
Quakers03, you are naturally free to judge the coach by this, but I have spent some of the early season games focused on watching players one at a time on replay, so I can focus on what they do on and off the ball and on defense. I was trying to be more observant about players and our schemes. Personally, I think using Ed Holland as a litmus test of the coach is flat out wrong. He has had some games where he has been the perfect role playing complement to our team. He's had some games where he's really been disappointing in his choices, situational awareness, and motor. There are certain games (mostly against physical teams) where he disappears. I'm not saying this to criticize the young man, who is clearly playing his heart out and giving his all to the team. Each of the other players (Laz, Polonowski, Smith, McMullen, Brown, etc.) has had some good games too. If you use just a few games for any of them, you could make the case they are just as deserving. Sometimes it's subtle unless you just focus on them. For example Smith isn't always great, but he creates room for other players on his screens and with defensive rebounding. He almost always holds his ground physically, and is hard to back down. He doesn't cause a collapse of spacing on defense. These are areas where I haven't always liked what I saw from Holland. His screens, box outs, and positioning were not solid enough for the role he is playing. He does make some really good opportunistic plays, though not quite with the frequency of Laz.
He did look long and athletic against Brown, which was great. Maybe that's a sign he is deserving of PT now, but it definitely wasn't the case all season. Try watching games with singular focus on a player, and I think you'll see very different things. Watch whether they are creating space and positioining all game. Whether they are frustrating and distracting their opponent so teammates have more space. Sometimes you don't see why a defensive rebound is lost or why the opponent's great play could have been avoided when you watch the game normally as a fan. Holland often relied on sneaking around his opponents for positioning on a given play instead of establishing himself. I realize he's sometimes playing against stronger players, but there's an inherent positional advantage of a defensive rebounder - and I saw him not using fundamental positioning and getting pushed away much too often. You can't get the defensive rebound when you get pushed right under the rim or behind the backboard. That will occasionally set you up for the great looking putback, but it is mostly a liability. Some other players such as Laz were providing net better positioning for themselves and the team, despite lesser athleticism or ability.
I am really rooting for Holland to emerge, as I've always had high hopes for him. I've also loved his team attitude even during some doldrums periods. I think many players would be surprised to be characterized as having insufficient motor. They would point out that we don't realize how hard they are working. That is true. I think they don't realize the bits of effort that other players are providing throughout a game, even when it appears to have no immediate impact.
This is also why I have been supportive of more McMullen minutes over Thrower. Thrower has far more upside, but McMullen was contributing more overall, since neither was a scoring machine. Both could hit an open outside shot. Thrower's ability to hit contested threes is better, but that wasn't enough in my mind to compensate for his confusion in how to initiate the offense and make a difference defensively.
We're all splitting hairs, though. The only player capable of consistently imposing himself is Slajchert. The only other player we need out there at all times is Spinoso. Even with his shaky shooting touch, no other player rebounds with remote effectiveness.
It’s awful to watch and dictated by their inability to play man.
Imagine deciding to cut the minutes of Ed Holland this year. That alone is grounds for a coaching change discussion. Unless we’re not privy to something.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
@Brown
02-03-24 06:45 PM - Post#362679
In response to Penndemonium
BTW, I am not defending the coach. There are plenty of reasons to have issues with the coach. Ed Holland is just not remotely one of them for me.
If I were coaching him, I would try to teach him the fundamentals of football blocking. He needs to create leverage with his lower body, to love contact off-the-ball, and to drive his opponent with his feet. He needs to work his opponent below their center of gravity. Speed rushing his opponent will work once in a while, but he needs to use it as a surprise move instead of relying on it. He needs to use his arms to block his opponents spins. He uses his hands shoulders for his fundamental positioning instead of his butt, and that just won't get the job done against good opponents. I rarely see him get boards as a result of proper execution of these fundamentals. He gets the odd carom or the ones where he guesses right.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
02-03-24 07:14 PM - Post#362680
In response to Penndemonium
Appreciate the thoughts but you act like the team is playing such great defense and hitting the boards so well without him. Sorry, but in a stale offensive system I’d rather see a guy playing who can actually do something on offense. We’re going to give up wide open 3s again and again on defense anyway.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
@Brown
02-03-24 08:49 PM - Post#362688
In response to Quakers03
Fine, but.Holland is a negligible footnote in much broader issues. He was a starter this season and had a few games and showed a lot of nothing differentiated from the broader cast. He has been a mix of upside and downside relative to the rest. I'm fully acknowledging that he was a solid contributor yesterday, as he has been in a few other games - with similar consistency to the rest. You are free to blame the coach for his playing time and/or performance. I'll focus on his recruiting and team defensive approach.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
02-03-24 11:16 PM - Post#362725
In response to Penndemonium
It’s all of it combined. Who has gotten appreciably better over their 4 years?
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
02-04-24 06:22 AM - Post#362729
In response to Quakers03
Slajchert and Spinoso, in my opinion. Dingle. Brodeur. Rothschild. Foreman.
It’s not that I disagree with your feelings about Donahue. The part I’m arguing is that your bitterness towards him is making you take illogical positions. No improved players? Tell me those players above didn’t improve. Holland not starting is the final reason he’s a bad coach? Well, Holland was statistically one of Penn’s least efficient players tonight. He shot the lowest percentage, took too many shots, and had 4 fouls in minimal time. He took himself out of the game. You point to his overall efficiency over the season, but Laz has been more efficient in nearly every category. There certainly isn’t a clear and favorable efficiency gap in his favor versus others taking his time. He has a good 2fg%, but players like Brown or Polonowski have a good true percentage.
There are plenty of reasons to have issues with Donahue, but your logic weakens your cause. You just don’t have a leg to stand on in your logic.
The actual test of Donahue is that we’re losing. I actually like how our teams compete and I like our team culture. I don’t like the recruiting or defense. I can back those statements up. You don’t have to love all of his personnel choices, but we also hated many of Dunphy’s rotation choices too - and he was a clear winner. I trust Donahue‘a judgment on rotations far more than yours, based on the arguments I’ve seen so far.
Holland is no better than interchangeable with our other players. The only ones he clearly outshines are guys like Walter, but he already gets more minutes than Walter. I really hope Holland gets more playing time, but I really hope he earns it with differentiated actual results..
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
02-05-24 02:34 PM - Post#362813
In response to Penndemonium
As I have said all along, this is just one of many reasons we have to move on. My overall point with Eddie is that when you see flashes of talent that good, why isn’t it developing and why did his minutes completely dwindle for 2 months. You say he’s better than Walter and coach puts Walter in with the game on the line.
The systems overall are more concerning. All we do is give up open looks from 3 and it’s seemingly because we’re unable to play man. If that is indeed the case, why don’t we have the players who can play man? As for the offense, even if you don’t have the talent to make all the shots, you’d at least hope you'd get some good looks. I’m not seeing any of that right now.
The Nana stuff alone should be enough.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
02-05-24 08:43 PM - Post#362823
In response to Quakers03
Now THOSE are legit arguments. So was the Nana stuff. I didn't want to judge the program by a single recruit, but it certainly wasn't a positive signal.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
02-05-24 08:48 PM - Post#362824
In response to Penndemonium
Oh man, I'm just realizing. I was watching the game and didn't realize who Nana was. We definitely could have used him. I was noting that Brown's big men seemed really good. We could certainly use Nana's 15 points and 8.8 rebounds per game. We could even find a lot of time for him just for the rebounds.
I won't call it malpractice, as I don't know what happened. Still, it was a bad miss. It's not like he was a complete surprise bloomer of a player. NYC was very clear at the time how clearly he could contribute.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2140
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
02-05-24 11:09 PM - Post#362830
In response to Penndemonium
In a similar vein, a friend of mine and I pulled on our hair shirts and went to the Yale game. Watching Ubochi warm up, we opined that had he gone to Brown, he'd probably be in the rotation and have developed at least a rudimentary post game by now.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-06-24 11:00 AM - Post#362837
In response to Penndemonium
No idea what the story is/was, but there could be lots of things. One is admissions. Could be some reason in the mix of basketball admits why Brown had a slot that fit for him and Penn did not. Sometimes that happens.
Basketball-wise, they may have thought Larson and Spinoso were better fits. That decision looks better if Larson stays in the program and contributes. Seems like a big miss now, because we are thin up front and obviously have room for another guy (before you even get to the fact that one would make room for a 15/9 guy). It’s a big miss, but not necessarily malpractice when you think of it in the context of having to make a choice between Spinoso/Nana/Larson rather than just ignoring a kid who could play and wanted to come to Penn.
Also, on the rebounding — that’s one thing we do pretty well this year. We outrebounded Brown. We’ve got a lot of other things to improve upon before we worry much about rebounding.
|
91Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1126
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-06-24 11:29 AM - Post#362838
In response to SomeGuy
There are always excuses to be made. But we have been short big men for some time, so it seems we could have taken all three. Our defensive shortcomings alone are a reason we could use such a player.
Again, good coaches and programs get good players and figure out how to put them in positions to be successful. Part of that is coaching them up so they improve over time. Competitors are doing all of these things better than the Penn program and this has been reflected on the court.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-06-24 06:36 PM - Post#362846
In response to 91Quake
Some competitors are — absolutely. I get the “take all 3” idea in a vacuum, but we have a finite number of spots (though more than a scholarship program). So I’m not sure how realistic it is. I’m really just arguing against the “malpractice” idea that we left a kid sitting out there when we had a spot to fill. We filled the slots that year with a big class. My guess is we made a choice. The wrong choice, but a choice. Not a failure to do anything, which is how it seemed to be characterized.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3619
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
@Brown
02-06-24 07:12 PM - Post#362848
In response to SomeGuy
I'm the one who called it recruiting malpractice. It was mostly hyperbole to drive home the point, but if all you have left is to dispute the terminology, I think you've already lost the "high ground" in my view.
That said, if we want to get literal here... I think I will stand by my hyperbolic point.
"The courts define malpractice as the failure of a professional person to act in accordance with the prevailing professional standards."
If your argument is that the coaching staff chose Larson, a known project with nearly no real offers except for Penn's, instead of Nana...
Who if you believe nychoops at his word (and I do), the coaching staff ignored/didn't pursue, despite his interest (we didn't offer him) and despite him having a much better selection of college offers (a number of mid majors from the northeast) than Larson. Surely sounds like malpractice as defined above to me.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: @Brown
02-06-24 09:32 PM - Post#362854
In response to Mike Porter
You know Larson is a rotation player at Cal right now, right?
|
