DP98
Freshman
Posts: 37
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-10-05 03:44 AM - Post#2138
I was looking forward to seeing Penn in person for the first time this year (just moved to Chicago, so season tickets at the Palestra no longer made sense). While I'm not pushing the panic button like some other fans, there were few encouraging signs from yesterdays game.
Here are some observations from the game:
Penn Defense:
If you had told me before the game that Penn would hold UIC under 40% from the field and outrebound them by 9 - I would have thought that Penn had a good chance to win the game. In fact, the only reason Penn had a chance to win the game was because of its defense.
UIC is not a good outside shooting team, and in the first half the Flames offense tried repeatedly to back down on Penn in the low post. The Quakers were very effective with double and even triple-teams in stopping UIC's big men down low. Penn forced some poor shots or passes from the post, and UIC was fortunate it's backup guard had a hot-hand in the first half (hitting 2 three-pointers). Most of UICs points did not come through its set offense - but rather second-chance points. In the second half, UIC became more aggressive on offense and was more succesful taking Penn off the dribble or hitting intermediate-range shots.
Overall, Penn's defense is good enough to keep it in most games and should help it win most Ivy games.
There were also some odd matchups defensively, as UIC started a 6'9" player at guard. - and Ibby occaisionally was forced to guard someone 7 inches taller (and even blocked his shot once). At one point Jan was guarding a UIC player who was 5'11" - fortunately Dunphy eventually realized this wasn't optimal and subbed for Jan.
Penn Offense:
When a team hits about 30% of its shots, a lot has to go wrong on offense. As can be expected from this Penn team, there was very little aggressiveness in driving to the hoop. Also, Penn had almost no low-post game (except for a few nice plays by Pettinella around the basket). Zoller looked lost - either forcing long jumpers or bad shots near the hoop while he is double-teamed. Begley's shooting slump has now reached 4 games - and while he still had 11 shots - he did look hesitant on the court and turned down a few open looks. Penn also had way too many unforced turnovers. There were crazy passes that were 5 feet from the nearest player and bounce passes into double teams. Penn lacks a player who demands the ball on offense, and it often ends up in the hands of players like Jan who have no idea what to do with it.
Penn was able to get plenty of open looks. Of the 25 three pointers that Penn attempted - probably 20 were good, open shots that came from the normal flow of the offense (even the 3's that Jan made to start the second half). The Quakers just couldn't hit the open looks that they have historically made through the year.
From this game a few things are clear about this team's offense. First, Penn does not have a true go-to player. There's no MJ to drive to the basket or U to post-up near the basket. When your best player can't create his own shot, as is the case with Penn, it often leads to situations where you have the wrong players taking the wrong types of shots in crucial possesions. Also, for the first time in a long time (maybe since 96-97?) Penn lacks the outside shooters who can consistently hit at least 40 - 50% of the open looks from 3. Oz and Ibby are just too inconsitent and can't take advantage of the open shots that the offense creates.
Officiating:
I hate to bring this up, because Penn played poorly and deserved to lose, but the officiating was pretty bad yesterday. It is hard to believe that UIC committted only ONE FOUL in the first 25 minutes of game time - and that one foul was so obvious that 99 out of 100 times it would be called. I know Penn's offense can contribute to the lack of fouls (tough to draw defensive fouls when you're just shooting from the perimeter) but how could their be no over-the-backs or illegal picks or any other type of foul that occurs throughout most games??!!! There were several glaring calls, including one where a UIC player dove for a loose ball and cut-out Pettinella's legs from underneath him. There was no call and UIC hit a 3 later that possesion. There were about 6 plays where it was a close call on blocking vs. charging - and UIC had the call go in there favor 5 of those times. Once again - I'm not saying that the officiating cost Penn the game - but it appeared one-sided (which is supported by the foul calls).
Overall, I think this year's team really isn't that different from last year's Penn squad. It will play hard, the defense will be solid, and it will win it's share of games when it hits the open 3's. However, when the shots are not falling, then Penn will struggle as it has during the last 4 games. Let's hope the team works out of its shooting slump before league play starts.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8304
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Penn vs. UIC thoughts from someone who was there
01-10-05 01:20 PM - Post#2139
In response to DP98
First of all, thanks for this eye-witness account.
The bad news is that, in some ways, you have confirmed our fears about the prospects for this team. Like you, I am not convinced Oz has taken any shooting pressure off of Begley, and the lack of go-to guy to bring the ball up in key possessions ala MJ or Toole is a serious issue. Both Oz and Ibby would be far more effective away from the ball and get to the hoop far more often.
I have to disagree with your assessment that this team is little different from last year's. The loss of Schiff and Zoller's problems more than offset Danley's improvement, Pettinella's points inside and Oz getting (almost) healthy. That, and the fact that the League is a bit stronger this year top to bottom really dampen the outlook from where I sit.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
Re: Penn vs. UIC thoughts from someone who was there
01-10-05 01:42 PM - Post#2140
In response to Streamers
What said it all for me is when I heard both Jan and Zoller take 3's in a 20 second span. That was all I needed to hear about this game.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21264
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Another brilliant job of reporting from the media
01-10-05 08:37 PM - Post#2141
In response to Quakers03
Major thrust of DP story:
"For the first time since Jan. 22, 1984, the Penn men's basketball team was in town."
Sounds nice, except he got the year wrong. I was listening to that game on the radio in the Quad, and I started Penn in the fall of 1984.
Probably the first time in my life I was rooting against a Chicago team, too.
:-)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Another brilliant job of reporting from the media
01-10-05 09:31 PM - Post#2142
In response to penn nation
I guess the information was gleaned from the Penn Game Notes, which not only got the return date wrong, but the return season wrong:
"The Flames lead the series 2-0 winning both contests which were played during the 1982-83 and 83-84 seasons. UIC won the first meeting, 76-74, on Jan. 22, 1983 and the second contests, 76-71, on Jan. 22, 1984."
According to the results in the Penn media guide (always have to worry about relying on that), the game was at UIC on December 1, 1984, which would make that the 1984-85 season.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Penn vs. UIC thoughts from someone who was there
01-10-05 10:36 PM - Post#2143
In response to Streamers
Bottom line is that through 10 games (not a small sample) this Penn team is shooting 39% from the field, 35% from 3-pt line and 65% from the free throw line while committing 16 turnovers per game. This team does not generate easy looks inside and cannot consistently hit open shots in the half-court flow. Most of their best shooting nights included a fair number of open transition looks. I think their defense has been very good this year with the exception of too much fouling. But their offense is simply not good enough right now to win consistently. They will have nights where they will get hot and beat a second division Ivy team by 30. But on other nights against the middle tier teams, too many of the long stretches without scoring are going to cost them close games. Until I see Princeton choke against anyone but Penn, I have to believe they are will be something like 11-1 against the rest of the league and I think we are more likely to be like 9-3 in those same games.
Form of the past is that Penn or Princeton dominates for 2-4 year stretches. Unfortunately, I think Princeton is in one of those runs where they are clearly better. Given the graduation of Wallace and Venable and the opportunity for some of Penn's younger players to get better, hopefully this will only be a two-year stint for Princeton.
|
|
