SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 01:10 AM - Post#4711
In response to SomeGuy
Exactly, Oz isn't Begley. Numerous times, Begley has quiet first halves and then breaks out with outstanding second halves. More times than not, when Oz has a quiet first half, he has a quiet second half. Begley is the team leader, and also the team's best passer, so he can do more to contribute even when he isn't getting shots.
It's not a knock on Oz, I've become a much bigger fan of him as the year's gone on. But he was clearly not himself this weekend. On top of that, when he came out, the answer was not in any way to put Jan at the 3 guarding Draughan. Can anyone rationalize why that was a good move?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 01:10 AM - Post#4712
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard -- here's a question for you. The radio guys were suggesting Friday night that things have gotten more difficult for the Quakers offensively b/c everybody has been copying Princeton's approach from the game at the Palestra. While they weren't too clear on exactly what that approach was, they seemed to be saying that the result has been a lot more drives to the basket and efforts to beat your man 1 on 1. At best, that's led to a lot of trips to the line, as it did against Columbia; at worst, it's led to a lot of those troubling plays where we get to the rim (or in Zoller's case, the net) and fail to put it in, as against Yale and Cornell in the first half.
First, I'm curious if this makes any sense at all to you. Second, I'm curious whether, if it is true, we might see the offense work a little better in the NCAAs than it has in the Ivies if we face a #4 seed that doesn't get too deep into the film and just plays us straight up. Or maybe we'll just end up at home watching Yale.
Anyway, I agree we can win a tournament game. I will say this, though. If we'd won a game with U and Co., we'd probably be hearing that we were actually the more talented team anyway and Dunphy still can't coach. If we win one this year, there will be no question it was an upset.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 01:22 AM - Post#4713
In response to SomeGuy
See, that last paragraph will just lead to a circular argument. The point is (to us Dunphys skeptics)that we did not win because we didn't have a coach to lead us to victory. What ifs don't really do much if you don't think those what ifs are realistically possible.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 01:47 AM - Post#4714
In response to SomeGuy
One thing teams seem to be doing (that Princeton did well) is not allowing Begley to reverse with the ball - that move where he starts on one side with his back to his defender and tries to get to the lane. He's had his pocket picked a few times recently.
Other than that, I don't see that much difference. We're usually easier to defend the second time through the League because everyone knows what we do so well so execution becomes that much more important, and it's hard for the guys to stay motivated week after week - look what's happened to Brown and Columbia - especially when they're under the weather. But except for Zoller's offense, the team was just awful last night and I'm willing to write it off as a one-shot deal.
Every team has ups and downs throughout the season - they're shooting well, they're defending well, they're doing both well, they're doing neither well. Many nights Penn has won merely by defending well. Last night they did neither well. Some of that was due to Yale. Some of it wasn't. There have been numerous nights this season when the opposition couldn't get a good shot possession after possession. Last night, Yale had open looks all over the place. Penn got beat in transition, got beat to loose balls, gave up post position, lost rebounds out of bounds, missed layups and gave those half-assed double-teams in which they guarded neither the man down low or the kickout man. It was a total team effort of lousiness. So much so that during the three-plus hour ride back, my not-so-merry trio mostly listened to the radio because there wasn't all that much to say about the game.
I do think the offense could work better against a team not used to playing against it and I also think the perimeter defense could cause problems for a team that takes it for granted. Regardless of what the anti-Oz faction says, he's been playing some serious D. If Penn can get through the next two weekends re-energized and unscathed it would be great to draw a team that's not too-well coached (no Eddie Sutton again, please) that has only one top big man and is a little shaky at the point. A team that likes to score in transition and struggles in the set offense. There are teams like that in the Top 25. Then the team would have to play well and guys would have to make the shots when they're open and Fran would have to use the bench when matchups allow it or when poor play dictates it. But more on this when the team accomplishes its goal.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 02:01 AM - Post#4715
In response to SFlaQuaker
I'm not quite following you. I certainly agree that victory in all of our tournament appearances under Dunphy was realistically possible; I just don't think that failing to attain victory under the circumstances was an indictment of the coach (ie, we were overmatched, to a degree, in each instance). It's possible that the odds say we should've won 2 out of 7 instead of one. Anyway, this is probably exactly the circular argument you alluded to, so I'm happy to drop it (with me getting the last word!).
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 02:10 AM - Post#4716
In response to SomeGuy
Fair enough, we could probably go on for about 40 posts.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 02:34 AM - Post#4717
In response to SomeGuy
Quote:
The more you're in, the more likely you knock somebody off. Do you really see these guys as having the talent to be favored in a first round game?
Answer: Yes! Remember, that might take nothing more than being able to garner an 8 or 9 seed...hardly an impossibility.
Quote:
Given that he'll probably be our best outside shooter and our best technical perimeter defender last year, as well as the returning PG, I just don't see how pushing this guy aside for younger players makes any sense
A couple of thoughts...if Oz is the 'best' outside shooter on next year's team it could be a long season. Moreover, I'm not sure that 'pushing' him aside is the issue. He's obviously got to play. The real question is does he have to play the 35-40 minutes that's probably going to happen or could 10-12 minutes of his court time be better used developing somebody?
Quote:
I probably wouldn't be nearly as big a fan if we were a bigger program on the national scale
As long as Penn is in the Ivies and the Ivies are structured the way they are there's no danger of Penn becoming a power program. However, I think that every now and then Penn actually has enough talent to compete with 'national' programs. Unfortunately, the way Dunph handles his players, especially the young ones, the people with the talent to make Penn competitive every few years don't get a chance to actually develop together. Dunph's system like a Japanese corporation...seniority matters more than talent.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 04:40 AM - Post#4718
In response to
Quote:
A couple of thoughts...if Oz is the 'best' outside shooter on next year's team it could be a long season.
...
Dunph's system like a Japanese corporation...seniority matters more than talent.
Come on Chuckster. In 23 games Osmundson is shooting an even 40% from three. That's 3/100th of a percentage point less than Begley. Despite your repeated and ridiculous public trashing of the kid's perimeter shooting skills this year, you can't change the facts: he's been excellent from beyond the arc. What he did or didn't do in particular games, or even a brief stretch of games, pales next to what he's done over the whole season. When in doubt, go with the larger sample size - every player in competitive athletics has slumps, gets sick, or has some other struggle at some point in a season.
And the Japanese corporation line is yet another cheap shot. You've been given plenty of examples over the years where Dunphy gives talented young players court time over experienced players. Even this year, the sophomores Jaaber and Zoller and Danley have gotten the bulk of the time ahead of older, more experienced players who can play the same position (Ebede, Fikiel, Heil before he got hurt ). If Dunphy were really making every decision the way you pretend he does, Fikiel would be on the floor all the time, as a senior who has started at various times in his Penn career.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 05:16 AM - Post#4719
In response to
"The real question is does he have to play the 35-40 minutes that's probably going to happen or could 10-12 minutes of his court time be better used developing somebody?"
Here we agree. But not for the same reason. Nobody on Penn needs to play 40 minutes a game. Ever. There's no player who's better playing 40 than he would be 35. If every game for the season saw Oz and Ibby playing 32 and Begley playing 35 and Ebede and Whitehurst dividing up the other 21, I would guarantee you you would get more production out of the three perimeter spots than you would if Oz and Ibby play 37 and Begley plays 39.
Even if a close game dictates you play your best player(s) for almost the entire second half, no one on Penn's roster is so inadequate that they can't play a few first half minutes and certainly Ebede and Whitehurst have proven repeatedly they can play 10 minutes a game with nothing bad happening (au contraire, every game it's happened Penn has won). The fact that they don't play 10 a game has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the coach's comfort level. He likes a short bench. Always has. He likes to sub in a particular first half pattern. Always has. He likes to sub less in the second half if the game is close. Always has. He frequently has taken guys unable to log 10 minutes a game one year and turned them into 30+ minute a game players the next year. Always has. And every year my friends and I talk about the depth of talent on the team and how this is the year he HAS TO play 10. Never has.
Seven titles and maybe an eighth on the way. I can't argue that his way doesn't work. I just think my way would work better - although it's possible it wouldn't work better for him because he would be uncomfortable doing it.
But tying back to Chuck's point about the tournament, I think if after 27 games one had confidence in Ebede and Whitehurst as bench players, it would make Penn tougher in the tournament because it allows Penn to offer a lot of different offensive and defensive looks and match up with more athletic perimeter players. If one of the three starting perimeter players gets in foul trouble in a tournament game you would like to have the option of bringing in Ebede or Whitehurst and not be forced to go to Fikiel as a wing because you've not developed enough confidence in the other two.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 05:22 AM - Post#4720
In response to Chip Bayers
Quote:
Despite your repeated and ridiculous public trashing of the kid's perimeter shooting skills this year, you can't change the facts: he's been excellent from beyond the arc. What he did or didn't do in particular games, or even a brief stretch of games, pales next to what he's done over the whole season. When in doubt, go with the larger sample size
I don't think I've engaged in any kind of 'trashing'...what I've done is try to bring a little realism to the Oz bandwagon that some people seem to have jumped on (without good reason in MHO). You want to talk about a larger sample size? How about this: in 20 games (excluding Temple, Siena and LC) Oz has shot 32% from 3. That's OK...but, when combined with his overall shooting percentage of under 40% it doesn't seem like the 'larger sample size' indicates that he's a great shooter!! Add to that last year and his year at Utah and you've got a lifetime shooting % (excluding those three games of under 30%!! Chip, your the one that's being mislead by the small sample...14-22 in those three games...two of which were against absolutely terrible opponents. Lastly, there are seven guys that have appeared in all 23 games...seven guys that have consistently gotten some minutes...of those seven who has the lowest (by far) shooting %???????
As far as my comparison of the Dunphy system with Japanese corporations goes, I think you know what I was saying...Dunph is so risk adverse that he always prefers the predictable to the risky...even if in the long run taking some of those risks have a higher payoff (no, Jake that's not about betting!!).
Look, Oz is fine for what he is...but, he simply has not brought so much to the table that it wasn't/isn't worth giving some more opportunity to other kids that have less experience. That's not trashing anybody, that's simply stating an opinion based upon watching him and analyzing stats from all the games and not being thrown off by what happened in a handful of games against mostly really bad teams.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 06:45 AM - Post#4721
In response to
There is no Oz "bandwagon." That's your invention.
And nobody's getting "thrown off" by a handful of games. If your best answer to an argument based on the largest sample size possible from this year is to invent a smaller sample size which conveniently excludes the most troublesome data, I think it's pretty clear who's doing the misleading.
And trying to use last year's stats or the Utah stats to stretch your case is also ridiculous; college kids have a tendency to do a lot of improving from year-to-year, particularly when it comes to perimeter shooting. Look at Jason Forte between sophomore and junior years, for just one example. We're not supposed to judge Ebede or Whitehurst negatively when they take poor shots or make dumb mistakes, because they're not getting enough time as bench players to develop their games; why the double standard about Oz's performance as a bench player when he was being given only limited minutes?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 07:41 AM - Post#4722
In response to
The Oz bandwagon? You made negative comments on the guy, and a couple of us came to his defense. All that appears to me to have happened is that a couple of us didn't want to hop on your bandwagon.
We can cut Begley's outside shooting the same way if you want. Ultimately, in terms of consistency, Oz had hit a 3 in 18 straight games before coming up empty against Yale.
Anyway, how does it make any sense at all to say that you want to play younger players early at the expense of results, and then drag out Oz's performance in limited time as a freshman and sophomore (and an injured one) to say he can't play?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 03:19 PM - Post#4723
In response to Chip Bayers
Quote:
What he did or didn't do in particular games, or even a brief stretch of games, pales next to what he's done over the whole season
Chip, you were the one saying that results in a a few games shouldn't cloud the overall results and implying that I was relying on what he'd done the past few. I was using your methodology to demonstrate what I was talking about.
Also, Jason Forte shot 36% from 3 as a freshman...now shooting 40%. He's improved a bit...but, obviously could hit that shot back then. His sophomore year was probably more a result of taking poor shots than any lack of shooting ability. Fact is, Oz's shooting % as a freshman was 39% and its 39% this year. I guess that's consistency.
I've never suggested that Oz shouldn't play this year or next. What I've said is that I think its worthwhile to give some younger, potentially more talented players a more consistent chance to develop their games by actually playing in games and that this is particularly true when you have players (Oz, Fik) that haven't shown themselves to be outstanding.
Moreover, my comments to you and others about Oz haven't been a trashing...its been a response to folks who think that Oz as PG next year will work out just fine. I don't...I think Oz is a 2 or a 3 and that without Begley Penn needs someone who can get assists and direct the offense. I haven't seen Oz do either. Thus, I have believed that trying to develop some of the bench talent should get a higher priority.
I know that Howard thinks Penn doesn't necessarily need a traditional PG. That's probably true if you've got a guy like Begley around who can find the open guy, hit the jumper and rebound, too. In a backcourt lineup of Oz, Ibby and a freshman who's going to play that role?
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 05:34 PM - Post#4724
In response to
You worry too much about next year before this year is even done. Guys improve, or get more confidence as roles change. Same as it ever was. Oz shoots the ball fine now from the perimeter, plays excellent defense, and is obviously able to penetrate. He hasn't been asked to show much of a mid-range game this year, because he doesn't get many of those kinds of shots, and he doesn't finish strongly enough. But you can say the same thing about Pettinella and Ebede when it comes to the latter. Pettinella doesn't take a single shot more than 5 feet from the basket, and with the skills he has should be shooting 60%. He doesn't, but I expect he'll get better. Same as Oz for next year.
There were people here who didn't want Begley in the lineup when he was an underclassman. Now he's a POY candidate.
And as Howard has already pointed out, it's not going to be just "Oz, and Ibby, and a freshman" as candidates for the backcourt rotation. It's going to be Oz, and Ibby, and Whitehurst, perhaps Grandieri, and then the freshmen perimeter players who will be competing for roles. And depending on how the 3-guard vs. 2-guard sets work out, Ebede and Gill could also be factors in the rotation.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 06:24 PM - Post#4725
In response to
My guess is that the most likely Death March combinations for next year are either Oz/Whitehurst/Ibby or McMahon/Ibby/Oz. My problem with all this is that when I look at who is most likely to step up to lead guard status next year, Oz is right there with Ibby as the guys who could do it.
Don't get me wrong -- Begley will leave a huge hole, and he covers over a number of our most glaring weaknesses (even with him, our suspect outside shooting and lack of a play-maker peek out now and again). But most years, the new guy Fran picks to play 30 turns out to do fine, regardless of how many minutes he played the year before. With 5 of our top 7 returning, the transition should be unusually smooth for whoever steps up.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 07:37 PM - Post#4726
In response to SomeGuy
Regarding your theory about the "new guy". There has usually been a fairly reliable source or two of offense for that individual to rely on. Who's that gonna be next year? Ibby? Maybe. Danley? Hmmm. Oz? Why would you think so? There may be five of seven returning but they've all been pretty inconsistent this year.
My guess is Fran does what he always does. Picks seven guys regardless of talent of ability and plays them to death regardless of the situation.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 08:26 PM - Post#4727
In response to
This is probably a good time to point out that you argued that we wouldn't be able to score each of the last two years b/c Schiffner and Begley couldn't create. And we've done fine both years.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 11:00 PM - Post#4728
In response to SomeGuy
Guess I've got one more strike huh? Unless your gauge of what is "fine" is winning the league. Last I checked, Penn didn't do that last year. So they must not have scored enough. And that's with 80% of the offense running through Mssrs. Schiffner and Begley.
BTW, it was nights like Saturday that I feared. Fortunately, they've been few and far between.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Reality bites...redux...or reliable mediocrity
02-21-05 11:31 PM - Post#4729
In response to
Well to tie this all back in to original issue....a little more Danley and Ibby and a little less Chubb and Copp and things might have been different.
|
Anonymous
|
Difference is...
02-22-05 04:59 AM - Post#4730
In response to Howard Gensler
Quote:
In the seven trips Penn has made to the NCAAs in the Dunphy era, they've never been blown out. So they've basically been in tourney every game for a good chunk of the game. Given that the League is actually stronger this year top-to-bottom than it was when Penn made those other trips, there's no reason to think the next trip will be any different.
A couple of thoughts on this...first, being 'in the game a good chunk' is a long way from winning a game; second, in most of those games (with one exception) Penn had at least one or two guys that would have been starting on almost all the teams in the tournament (Ugonna, Maloney, Allen) and those guys frequently came up big (do you think the Okla. game would have been close for a 'chunk' if Ugonna hadn't gone off like he did or Penn beat Neb., go into OT with 'Bama if not for Maloney/Allen???). Who on this team is in that category? There is an excellent chance that there will not be a single team in the NCAA's that Penn has beaten...what game that Penn won this year gives you a feeling that they can beat a Top 20 team? Moreover, what game away from the Palestra has Penn won that makes you think that an away game against a top team is realistically winnable? Third, I'm confused as to what an improvement in the bottom half of the Ivies (the league improving has been at the bottom, not the top) has to do with beating a #3-4 seed. Does beating 4 teams that were in the 300 RPI range and are now in the 250 RPI range in any way indicate that Penn should beat a Top 20 team? If so, why?
There's nothing I'd like more than to see this group beat a power team. But, the only evidence that this is possible seems to come from wins over weak or imploding teams. Staying close with USF and UIC and beating SJU and Bucknell doesn't tell me that a rematch with Wisc. or a game with Florida, Gonzaga, Pitt or Okla. offers much realistic hope of an upset.
|
|
