SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-04-24 10:59 PM - Post#362791
In response to Penn90
I think so, at least compared to the prior two. Allen’s regime had an almost shocking level of disorganization, perhaps best evidenced by the botched trip to Europe. Now everything runs on time. That is a fairly low bar of course — most basketball teams are well run in this sense. But our prior two coaches were not doing a good job in this sense (for two very different reasons).
|
91Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1126
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-05-24 09:11 AM - Post#362794
In response to SomeGuy
I understand what you are saying but clearly well run does not include winning games. This is managerial malpractice if we continue down this path and nothing changes after the season. The clear message would be nothing to see here, don't waste your time and/or money rooting for this team.
|
1st UP
Sophomore
Posts: 185
Loc: Denver
Reg: 11-11-09
|
Re: Yale
02-05-24 09:24 AM - Post#362796
In response to Penndemonium
Amen! Amen!
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-05-24 01:50 PM - Post#362808
In response to 91Quake
Well, to be fair, it does include winning games. Just not enough games for most fans tastes. He’s actually got a .535 winning percentage at Penn, so he wins more than he loses. So a lot better than the prior two coaches. For whatever that’s worth.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32840
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-05-24 02:10 PM - Post#362809
In response to SomeGuy
Over the last 3 years since the pandemic, Penn is 38-41, and 5 of those wins are against D-3 teams and Hartford, which was dropping to D-3. And that was the team with Dingle, Slajcert, Martz, Monroe, Spinoso, Jelani, Lorca-Lloyd, Holland, etc. It's probably the deepest and best overall collection of talent Penn has had since Dunphy and his record is unacceptable with those guys.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
Re: Yale
02-05-24 02:48 PM - Post#362815
In response to Penndemonium
Since I feel like this is directed at me all I will say is good for you but I disagree. I spend good money every year on this team and it has always been a passion of mine. Not all of us are in the same place as you on college athletics so the idea that those of us who do care should stay silent is just so condescending. The coach gets paid a pretty good amount to do this, does he not? For talking about “better things to do” you sure have a lot to say on it.
If we say nothing then the program dies. We are almost there now. To some that may be fine but to others it’s not. If you think our complaints are a feeble effort that’s fine, but we have no other options.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21214
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Yale
02-05-24 07:34 PM - Post#362818
In response to palestra38
If this were Brown or Columbia or Dartmouth, this would be seen as a relative success.
But these are all schools that haven't won an Ivy title in, well, forever.
I could never see Princeton willing to leave things go this badly for anywhere near this long. Joe Scott was the rare failure (although they did come in 2nd during one of his seasons), but he only lasted 3 seasons.
While Ivy League basketball will probably never be dominated by the Penn-Princeton tandem anymore, expectations should nonetheless be higher for a school that for most of its history has been in its upper echelon.
Over the last 3 years since the pandemic, Penn is 38-41, and 5 of those wins are against D-3 teams and Hartford, which was dropping to D-3. And that was the team with Dingle, Slajcert, Martz, Monroe, Spinoso, Jelani, Lorca-Lloyd, Holland, etc. It's probably the deepest and best overall collection of talent Penn has had since Dunphy and his record is unacceptable with those guys.
Edited by penn nation on 02-05-24 07:35 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Re: Yale
02-05-24 09:18 PM - Post#362825
In response to Quakers03
I realize not everyone is in the same place on athletics and you're free to disagree. Keep in mind, I was a Penn athlete myself and care a ton about student-athletes. I just want to let them be student athletes who grow from their experiences, and I'm fed up with what the sports machine and militant fans have led us to.
Some examples of things that are crazy in university athletics right now... Pac10 (a perfectly fine athletics conference) being disbanded. Power 3 athletes (such as women's volleyball) flying cross country because of football. Florida State threatening to leave the ACC (the very conference that started the conference carnage), Schools being investigated for NIL violations right now when it is the complete Wild West. All coaches now begging their alumni for NIL money. College admissions and access at such ridiculously low levels. Colleges valuing TV contracts more than student experience and professor quality. Kids being groomed from elementary school to focus on one sport to get into colleges. The fact that Ivy athletes will essentially be Division II or III for practical purposes instead of having a broad playing field of schools. The list goes on. Who knows what Dartmouth's Athlete's Union will mean for sports.
You can call it condescending, but you can't say I care about athletics less than anyone else. My measures of success have changed. Your point of view is far more prevalent on this board and nationally than mine. Donahue can stay or go in my book. I'd rather he go in terms of competitiveness, but I'm fine with him staying if he runs a great program internally. I am not close enough to the program to know. Miller and Allen had to go.
Since I feel like this is directed at me all I will say is good for you but I disagree. I spend good money every year on this team and it has always been a passion of mine. Not all of us are in the same place as you on college athletics so the idea that those of us who do care should stay silent is just so condescending. The coach gets paid a pretty good amount to do this, does he not? For talking about “better things to do” you sure have a lot to say on it.
If we say nothing then the program dies. We are almost there now. To some that may be fine but to others it’s not. If you think our complaints are a feeble effort that’s fine, but we have no other options.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1121
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
02-05-24 10:40 PM - Post#362829
In response to Penndemonium
I have checked the KP O and D ratings for Penn and Yale, All commers and Ivy only, since Steves's arrival. Both programs play better d in the ivies lowing the KP efficiency score, Penn by 2.4 and Yale by 2.9.
On offense Penn's score worsens by 4.4 while Yale's score improves by 2.4, a net difference of 6.8. That is significant evidence that better scouting by Yale solves Penn's offense while it doesn't at Yale. Could be talent of coaching. Either way it is a indictment of the Penn program.
Watching the games I seems to me the Ivies take away Penn's threes without Penn making them pay by going to the hoop. And Penn is unable to take away Yale's approach. Coaching and talent again.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
02-06-24 12:52 AM - Post#362832
In response to UPIA1968
Nice work.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-06-24 06:46 PM - Post#362847
In response to UPIA1968
Interesting. My impression is that Steve tends to get the better of Jones head-to-head, at least in comparison to the overall talent level of the teams. Agreed though that teams in conference make it tougher on us. Harvard and Brown both struck me as extremely well prepared to defend us. They were doubling and seemed prepared for exactly where we would go with the ball when they did so.
Some of the Brown issue may have been the choice to go with the “Holland” offense, which seemed to coincide with a complete lack of assisted baskets. But some of it was Brown’s defense taking passes away.
Over the years under Steve we seem to fall into patterns where teams know we will do the high percentage reaction to how they defend us, which, while playing the percentages, makes us predictable.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Yale
02-06-24 07:31 PM - Post#362851
In response to SomeGuy
Let's see. Our offensive involves
1). high and loose picks by our guards and a lazy roll by our big men which does not really pull away a defender from the dribbler or create a threat of a break to the hoop. Why not tighter picks, more explosive cuts and rolls, and hard screens for the ball handler to shoot off of?
2. Getting a high entry to Spinoso, who will half-heartedly fake a pass to a near cutter, hoping for a backdoor cut from the corners. If he doesn't get it, he'll back down and throw his not so good looking baby hook into the hands of his defender and hope adding muscle will make it go in. He will neither lean in decisively enough to muscle the basket in or generate a clean shot by minimizing contact. He'll make a few, but not at high efficiency. His free throw shooting will allow the defender to play very aggressively.
3. If all fails, the ball will pop back out to Brown or Perkins who will take a step and launch a 3. They aren't bad shooters, though it isn't their perfect comfort zone.
Slajchert is the one player who could give our offense variety and an element of surprise. He is capable of slicing through the offense, pulling out, making mid-range pull-ups, leaning layups, or fading jumpers. These are difficult shots, but he was hitting them this year when he was in rhythm. A bit of unpredictability creates more open looks for other players. Players like Perkins and Brown are very promising, but don't have enough conviction yet to make their drives a high efficiency shot.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Yale
02-06-24 09:35 PM - Post#362855
In response to Penndemonium
The one thing I’ll add is that Clark is/was passing a lot better this year. So in addition to all the things he can do to shoot it, he was finding other guys as well. Hopefully we get that back soon.
|
