UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1121
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
03-01-24 11:50 PM - Post#364246
How does Penn lose to Cornell at home while hitting 44% from three against 33% for Cornell + leading by 14 in the second half? The answer is a litany of small things: (Cornell first - Penn Second)
2 shooting % 64-48
O reb: 10-7
Assists 17-16
Steals 9-7
Turnovers 10-12
Blocks 2-1
FT 17-12
Note that in all but blocks and maybe free throws Penn's stats were competent. It is just that a good Ivy team was better in all but the three percent shooting.
Others have commented on Penn's poor play with the game on the line. In this game they tied the score with 2:51 to go. From that point Penn was 0-3 from 3 and 1-2 from the line = one point. Cornell was 1-2 from three, 1-1 from two; with an offensive board and 2-4 from the line = 7 points. Result a six point win.
One concludes that this team, even when it shoots well cannot beat a good Ivy team at home. The 2-10 record shows what happens when it doesn't shoot over 40% from three. Against the five dwarves, they topped 40% only against Dartmouth for the two lonely wins, they were below 40% and 0-5 otherwise.
We are left then only with curiosity about why they are so bad and sadly why they may be worse next year. I am afraid this is the worst of possible worlds: bad to mediocre play, but not bad enough to prompt a coaching change. At least with Allen we could hope for his departure. I'll also acknowledge that the critiques on this board of the Donahue hire have come true in spades.
Edited by UPIA1968 on 03-02-24 12:07 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
Its the small things
03-02-24 12:16 AM - Post#364249
In response to UPIA1968
I don’t know how anyone would expect anything different at this point. Just another choke job. One post of a game thread and nothing while the game was actually playing. Congrats to the school for killing what was once a very proud part of the university. Pretty impressive.
Where's Eddie…
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-02-24 01:49 AM - Post#364256
In response to Quakers03
The causes of the defeat.
1. Penn's "defense" surrendered 22 points on the first 11 possessions of the second half, giving away the 12 point halftime lead in 5 minutes and 26 seconds.
2. Penn's "defense" surrendered 50 points in the first 31 possessions of the second half.
3. Penn forced 8 turnovers in Cornell's first 16 possessions of the game, then 2 turnovers over the next 14 possessions. In the remaining 41 possessions of the game, Penn's "defense" forced ZERO turnovers.
There are 362 teams playing Division 1 basketball. As of 12:45 am on Saturday morning . . .
a. Penn's defensive efficiency is ranked 303.
b. Penn's effective FG% defense is ranked 325.
c. In forcing the opponent to turn the ball over, Penn is ranked 330.
d. 44.2% of all field goal attempts surrendered by Penn are three pointers. That national ranking is 347th out of 362 teams.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
03-02-24 07:06 AM - Post#364258
In response to Stuart Suss
Maybe they can run some more meaningless double teams! It’s almost like they’re surprised seeing them result in 3s. It’s not even like these 3s are being made in our faces. Time after time they are WIDE open. That zone worked a few times against unfamiliar opponents and bad coaches but it certainly won’t work in the Ivy’s. It makes for just a brutal and deflating game to watch night after night. Two wins. Against Dartmouth. And it’s not even a question that the coach will be back. But hey, they fight!! 4 more years!
|
nychoops
Junior
Posts: 242
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-02-24 11:31 AM - Post#364270
In response to Quakers03
Stu's numbers as always are telling, thank you. What they say is a failure to match Cornell's half time adjustments, a trend all season. Saw an earlier post this week i had a hard time ignoring blaming Jordan and Martz for bailing on team and it was their fault for this season. The ignorance of that from SO many levels is disturbing unfortunate and ignorant beyond comprehension. This team is so poorly coached it's actually was used against them in a the recruitment of a kid i help. Don't know what else i can say that i haven't already... the kids are good kids, hard working kids, but they, and all future Penn players are not being put in a situation to succeed...these are absolute facts.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-02-24 11:49 AM - Post#364272
In response to Quakers03
Against Yale, we did a good job of disguising what we were doing defensively in the first half. Some setting up in what looked like a zone and then matching up after the first pass, which enabled us to mess with them some as to what matchup Wolf would get. If we can’t do anything particularly well on defense, at least we can do more of that sort of thing.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-02-24 11:59 AM - Post#364274
In response to nychoops
I don’t think it was adjustments Cornell made so much as the fact that they come at you in waves and wear you down. They simply have a lot more depth right now. So I think what we saw was one team better suited to going 40 minutes. We’re good enough to punch them in the mouth. Not good enough to keep doing it when they keep getting back up.
While I’m continually sunnier about the staff than everyone else (sorry!), a frustration for me strategically was our failure to take advantage of Harvard’s lack of depth last week. Against Harvard, we have more division one depth, which is why we were able to play well in the second halves against them. But at Harvard, I think we could have pressured them even more in the second half to take advantage.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Its the small things
03-02-24 03:56 PM - Post#364281
In response to nychoops
Stu's numbers as always are telling, thank you. What they say is a failure to match Cornell's half time adjustments, a trend all season. Saw an earlier post this week i had a hard time ignoring blaming Jordan and Martz for bailing on team and it was their fault for this season. The ignorance of that from SO many levels is disturbing unfortunate and ignorant beyond comprehension. This team is so poorly coached it's actually was used against them in a the recruitment of a kid i help. Don't know what else i can say that i haven't already... the kids are good kids, hard working kids, but they, and all future Penn players are not being put in a situation to succeed...these are absolute facts.
NYCHoops-With respect Stu's numbers are not about halftime adjustments against Cornell, they are about a team that ranks 300+ over a season (and multiple seasons) on defense. They lost to Cornell because they gave up 87 points (53 in the second half).
You have consistently criticized this coaching staff, much of which is warranted given the results, but this post is more based on your inherent (and understandable) bias against Steve Donahue and his staff.
To be clear, Donahue has not done a good job recruiting new players and keeping old ones and that's the ultimate source of these issues. But your criticisms, which started with recruiting deficiency, have morphed to bad in game coaching, which I don't think is a majority view among experts who know Donahue. Bruce Pearl offered Donahue the associate HC role at Auburn at the same time Donahue was offered the HC job at Penn. He spoke glowingly about SD in the press before their game this year. He is not alone, I have spoken to a number of college coaches and I consistently hear high praise for Donahue as an in game coach and strategist. So my data doesn't support your view of him as a coach, but we are certainly in agreement of him as a recruiter. The problem is when you don't recruit well, it can look like your strategy is deficient.
And I would argue recruiting is the biggest part of the current issues in the program. We don't have players that can defend straight line drives or protect the rim. That's about athleticism and lateral quickness more than strategy.
My view is, and has been, that the Penn staff are not aggressive enough on the recruiting trail but Steve is actually a pretty highly regarded in game coach.
Edited by PennFan10 on 03-02-24 03:58 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
91Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1126
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-02-24 04:01 PM - Post#364282
In response to PennFan10
When other teams consistently come from behind in the second half AND we consistently lose close games, that is the definition of poor in game coaching. This has been a consistent pattern over the last few years. Other teams make adjustments and then we fail to respond with our own. Bad in game coaching.
Last night showed these players have talent but for many reasons, it is not being properly utilized.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Its the small things
03-02-24 05:45 PM - Post#364287
In response to 91Quake
Hmmm. So by that definition, Rick Pitino is a poor in game coach? St Johns has consistently given up double digit 2nd half leads this year and lost.
I am not trying to defend the state of Penn basketball right now, I am as disappointed as anyone. I am just telling you that, despite the expertise on here, Donahue is pretty highly regarded as a strategist and in game coach among the coaching ranks. That's on the public record and also a result of many personal conversations.
I don't remember anyone saying publicly or privately he is a great recruiter.
Edited by PennFan10 on 03-02-24 05:45 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Its the small things
03-02-24 06:13 PM - Post#364291
In response to PennFan10
I agree with you about recruiting. Recruiting needs a total staff effort and a bit of luck, especially with the state of D1 basketball today.
Just a couple observations - both Tosan and Xaverian Lee were only offered by Princeton. Hard work by their staff? Maybe - but it just as well might be a bit of luck.
When Fran Dunphy was our coach, I used to hear from a few people very close to the program that he would only make an effort if Penn was at or near the top of a potential recruit’s list. Fran didn’t think Earl Hunt was a guy that could help Penn. He also failed to recruit Louis Dale who had sent him his tape. Is there a lesson here? - perhaps it’s that anecdotal evidence doesn’t tell a very complete story - about Fran or about Steve.
What we know is that this season was a misery and that results the past few years aren’t consistent with what we’ve come to expect. I think at a minimum all of us think certain things need to be tweaked. Others think more radical changes are in order. I’m sort on the fence right now.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3777
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-03-24 07:53 AM - Post#364364
In response to AsiaSunset
I'd say that recruiting requires more than just a total staff effort (which it obviously does). It requires a lot of effort across the institution. The athletic department staff, the admissions office, the financial aid office, even the president's office on occasion all must play a role. For a long time, I've gotten the impression that Penn's most visible varsity programs aren't getting the kind of support they need from the institution to be able to recruit effectively.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-03-24 01:17 PM - Post#364397
In response to Silver Maple
Yes, there are certainly signs of this. The charge that the staff gets outworked in recruiting is obviously possible, but it is a little strange in the sense that the coaches are competitive people who obviously want to succeed for any number of reasons. Everyone knows that recruiting is a huge part of that. It seems unlikely that they are just passing on guys who want to come to Penn and can play. So I suspect that there are other factors at play, including that the program getting kids through admissions is likely harder than it was before the Allen fiasco.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32830
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-03-24 01:26 PM - Post#364400
In response to SomeGuy
The Allen fiasco only involved fringe players, not the star recruits. I can't believe Donahue is having any problems getting his desired recruits in--getting them to choose Penn appears to be the main problem.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21204
Reg: 12-02-04
|
03-03-24 01:32 PM - Post#364403
In response to palestra38
Well, of late he's not exactly batting 1.000 in terms of getting his star recruits to stick with the program for 4 years.
|
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4481
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
03-03-24 03:06 PM - Post#364413
In response to penn nation
Not for nothing, but recruiting is a results-oriented world. Effort doesn't matter if the results aren't there.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
 Its the small things
03-03-24 05:46 PM - Post#364422
In response to Silver Maple
I'd say that recruiting requires more than just a total staff effort (which it obviously does). It requires a lot of effort across the institution. The athletic department staff, the admissions office, the financial aid office, even the president's office on occasion all must play a role. For a long time, I've gotten the impression that Penn's most visible varsity programs aren't getting the kind of support they need from the institution to be able to recruit effectively.
No excuses. Full stop. The last thing we need is more excuses. Unless you have information of this from a trusted source, I’m going to pass, thanks.
We have heard from reliable sources here on this board that this staff does a bad job recruiting. nychoops has been here long, long before Donahue was even coach at Penn. I was told years ago by a well connected person with connections across the league that other coaches didn’t think much of this staffs ability to recruit (I’m saying a very nice version of what was actually articulated to me).
We’ve seen the recruiting results and it hasn’t just been HYP we’ve been losing recruits under this staff. It’s been 9 years, two full recruiting classes, the results are in and they are mediocre! I don’t know who possible needs to hear it at this point, but outside of a very short window at Cornell where the stars aligned, the results have been consistent at Cornell, at Boston College, at Penn (and the results are not good).
I think Coach Donahue seems like a good guy and brought the team back to respectability and thank him for that, but this isn’t a summer youth basketball league. It at least still pretends to be NCAA Division 1 team.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-03-24 05:47 PM - Post#364423
In response to SomeGuy
Yes, there are certainly signs of this. The charge that the staff gets outworked in recruiting is obviously possible, but it is a little strange in the sense that the coaches are competitive people who obviously want to succeed for any number of reasons. Everyone knows that recruiting is a huge part of that. It seems unlikely that they are just passing on guys who want to come to Penn and can play. So I suspect that there are other factors at play, including that the program getting kids through admissions is likely harder than it was before the Allen fiasco.
See above. Thanks.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Its the small things
03-03-24 06:17 PM - Post#364425
In response to AsiaSunset
I agree with you about recruiting. Recruiting needs a total staff effort and a bit of luck, especially with the state of D1 basketball today.
Just a couple observations - both Tosan and Xaverian Lee were only offered by Princeton. Hard work by their staff? Maybe - but it just as well might be a bit of luck.
When Fran Dunphy was our coach, I used to hear from a few people very close to the program that he would only make an effort if Penn was at or near the top of a potential recruit’s list. Fran didn’t think Earl Hunt was a guy that could help Penn. He also failed to recruit Louis Dale who had sent him his tape. Is there a lesson here? - perhaps it’s that anecdotal evidence doesn’t tell a very complete story - about Fran or about Steve.
What we know is that this season was a misery and that results the past few years aren’t consistent with what we’ve come to expect. I think at a minimum all of us think certain things need to be tweaked. Others think more radical changes are in order. I’m sort on the fence right now.
Hi Asia - always respect your opinions and insights and we’ve chatted for a long time (hope you and family are well).
I think Coach Donahue is a good guy, had history at Penn, and I really wanted it to work because I thought he could be here long term (though my concern from day 1 was recruiting).
I was in favor of tweaking some things (ideally mixing up assistants) a few years ago for recruiting, but despite poor results, Coach Donahue made no changes on his own.
Really curious to understand what has you on the fence? Have you seen something that makes you believe a switch can be flipped in year 10 and this staff can drive Penn back to a consistent top 3 team that also performs well out of league? For me, any continuation of this is just delaying the inevitable.
Here’s what I see when I try to break it down:
- 9 years and not a single top 100 team despite 2 full recruiting cycles
- 1 Ivy Championship (ranked 125) when the rest of the league was down and key players were holdovers from previous staff
- Downward trend since championship (6 years ago)
- Continually underperforming in Ivy’s (look back to even AJ’s Junior and Senior years)
- The last time we beat Princeton was before my 6 year old daughter was born, 0 for 10.
- Believe we already confirmed the worst ever performance by Penn in Ivy League season (if I’m remembering right) even before we play and likely lose, again, to Princeton to close the season
I think the results are the results, and we’ve seen what we are going to get, no?
I’m genuinely struggling to understand those who think we should keep on the staff at this point. Is it believe it can be turned around against the results seen to date? Fear of the unknown that we’ll go back to the void?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Its the small things
03-04-24 10:16 AM - Post#364458
In response to Mike Porter
My reasoning probably isn’t all that compelling. First up, I don’t think there’s any chance he’ll be fired this off-season, so I don’t put too much thought or energy into whether he should be. Second, kind of like with the players, I’m a Penn fan through and through. I don’t look at it and say I want some other players or coaches who would be more competitive. I want to win with these players, and these coaches. I know most fans don’t relate that way, and I’m not saying that somehow makes me a bigger or better fan (maybe just a dumber fan). I know (almost) everyone here wants them to succeed.
I do think (as you acknowledge) that bringing the program back from where it was mattered a lot and was hard — I think Steve should get lots of credit for that. I do think backsliding is a very real possibility with a new coach, given we had 2 straight bad ones before Steve. Those aren’t reasons to live with mediocrity, necessarily, but they matter. I also think that we get a little too binary in our thinking when we say “the team will never succeed with Steve,” etc. I’m sure there are other coaches out there who would increase our odds, but it could happen with Steve too, as it did at Cornell.
|
