joe nassau
Sophomore
Posts: 150
Reg: 02-13-05
|
 11-21-09 05:18 PM - Post#68377
The Tigers are off to a good start sorta (excluding today's loss to Army, which featured poor shooting and Zach Finley going scoreless, deja vu all over again, which furthers my feeling that PU has NO idea of how to play around the basket. And with a team that finally has a lot of size), but I'm am the only one to feel that they should push the tempo more. They have all those bodies now, and have a couple of guards who are fast with the ball, so why not run more? No other Ivy League team has as much depth, and starting a game with easy layups and dunks, would make the threes fall more easily?
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
11-21-09 09:13 PM - Post#68382
In response to joe nassau
I definitely agree with you, Joe Nassau. The Tigers would do well to pick up their pace. They've definitely got many of the personnel pieces. They're still a bit thin in the backcourt, but now would be the time to start learning to up the tempo.
However, even with Hummer and Barrett working their way into this year's rotation, IMO, Princeton is not yet quite as deep as Cornell. Next year is shaping up to be another story.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-22-09 09:36 PM - Post#68486
In response to IvyBballFan
I think this is a transition year. The seniors, especially the two bigs, are much better suited to a half-court game than an open court game. The sophs and frosh Johnson has brought in are more athletic and better suited to a faster pace on offense and more pressure on defense. Over the course of the season, I suspect we will see more of the young guns opening it up as a change of pace, but the basic offense and defense are still going to take advantage of Finley and Buczak in half court sets.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
11-24-09 03:11 AM - Post#68584
In response to Brian Martin
As far as change of pace goes, I don't ever expect to see Ivy Teams sweeping the defensive boards and getting some guards out on the break.
There's much more to upping the pace than running the court, though. Within playing the typical half court set, there is a lot Princeton could do. The Tigers often seem content to just about get over the 10-second line and into their half court set with 22-23 seconds left on the shot clock. Then, all too often, they seem to be aiming to put up their first shot with 6-8 seconds left. The glacial pace not only leaves them taking an undesirable shot an unacceptable amount of time, but also gives the opposition a better chance to catch their breath. With the Tigers' superior depth this year, this kind of gift to the opposition seems really counterproductive.
IMO, they could easily get into their half-court offense at 27-28 seconds and start a realistic attack on the basket with 18-20 seconds left on the shot clock, with more opportunities for faking, deking, and dishing, and even an extra OBoard here and there for that legion of tall front-liners to retrieve. That could make up to 10-12 more shots per game without "running the court."
I'd like to see it. I think this bunch could do it and improve their effectiveness.
|
Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-24-09 12:39 PM - Post#68633
In response to IvyBballFan
That's not the way the system is run. We always eat up the shot clock then heave a 3.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-24-09 07:02 PM - Post#68660
In response to Kit
You guys obviously did not watch the Central Michigan game. This team does not hold the ball but they do not take a quick shot unless it is a very good one.
|
joe nassau
Sophomore
Posts: 150
Reg: 02-13-05
|
Re: Broken Record
11-25-09 11:08 AM - Post#68782
In response to joe nassau
Unfortunately for the Tigers, the stats don't lie. In the loss to George Washington, they took 52 shots of which 26 were threes. They made 5 threes out of 26, for 19%. On the other hand, they made half of their twos.
To me the math is obvious. If the threes aren't dropping, do you just say " oh jeez, the threes aren't going in, I guess that we should keep shooting them until they do"? Or do you go for the twos that you are making and allow your good three shooters to get possibly easier and better looks?
Lastly George Washington has four players 6-10 or taller- none of whom had an impact on the game. GW won the game on their guard play. So if you have size and don't use it ( Pavel Buzcak took four shots in the game, two of them threes), coupled with your poor outside shooting, is a formula for certain defeat, and I don't see how that is acceptable at ANY level of competitive basketball...
Edited by joe nassau on 11-25-09 11:10 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6417
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Broken Record
11-25-09 11:12 AM - Post#68785
In response to joe nassau
Unless there were injuries I'm unaware of, it looks like playing small was a conscious decision by Johnson based on the matchup. This game had a lot less of Buczak and Finley on the floor, in favor of playing Saunders and Barrett. It looks to me like they thought that GW's speed was going to beat Princeton's size if they played both big men.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2280
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Broken Record
11-25-09 11:49 AM - Post#68799
In response to SomeGuy
I think the "problem" is that this is just NOT a good defensive team around the perimeter (look at the shooting percentage of the teams that we have played). Also, we have been unable to involve the big men in the offense. If I were scouting Princeton, I would tell my team to mark Davis and Mavraides on the perimeter, and guard everyone else straight up. Let Davis and Mavraides drive-- they will not beat you by doing so. Deny the bigs the ball. Hummer and Barrett have not yet found their shooting strokes and really don't need to be guarded closely.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-25-09 01:44 PM - Post#68821
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
Most of the threes were open. We just missed them. Going in, if you could get a jump shooting contest with GW you probably would take it. We did and they outshot us.
GW pressed and trapped the whole game. Schroeder and Davis handled the pressure very well but we needed both in the game for almost all 40 minutes while GW was subbing in fresh guards.
Buczak and Finley were trapped up high or doubled down low into turnovers or forced to break the offense and throw the ball out to Schroeder or Davis to reset. The two bigs were too slow for this game.
When we beat their press and traps we did not make them pay by getting easy baskets.
Our most effective lineup was Schroeder, Davis, Saunders, Barrett, and Hummer - 2 sophs & 2 frosh. Mavraides played well also, but he missed makeable shots that we really needed him to make.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2280
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-25-09 02:39 PM - Post#68830
In response to Brian Martin
I assume you were at the game. I was under the weather and couldn't make it. Did some post-graduate education at GW and played lots of pick-up ball in the Smith Center.
I was however at the Army game.
Many of those shots "looked" open, but to me the question is more complex. How much effort did it take to get open? Is the shooter in rhythm? Is he at a spot he likes? Does he feel pressure to make the shot because he has had a hard time getting open and doesn't know if he will get open again for another shot anytime soon?
As a rule of thumb I always attribute poor shooting to good defense, even if it isn't immediately evident at the time of the shot.
Just my two cents. I am probably wrong. 
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-25-09 06:16 PM - Post#68873
In response to 1LotteryPick1969
Yes, I was there last night and I watched parts of the three previous games on the bad low resolution feed at goprincetontigers.com. Princeton played much better at GW than against Army. The shots we took were briefly open with defenders closing, but so were most of the shots made by GW. We were not getting layups and not getting many offensive rebounds, but we were getting threes and mid-range jumpers that were good enough shots to expect 35% on threes and 50% overall.
|
1LotteryPick1969
Postdoc
Posts: 2280
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-25-09 06:22 PM - Post#68875
In response to Brian Martin
Against Army things went better when Coach went with the small lineup. I think Hummer is the best defender on the team. Barrett is also excellent. It is particularly frustrating that we have two senior big men who are unable to participate offensively. And I don't necessarily refer to shooting. Just be a part of the ball rotation and find the open man when the defense collapses on you.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
11-25-09 08:11 PM - Post#68896
In response to Brian Martin
In 2008-9, the average .500 NCAA D-1 basketball team had 55 FG attempts (18 3's and 37 2's) per game.
Check the CMich and Manhattan games, both wins. The Tigers put up 41FGAs (17 and 14) against CMich and 48 (13 and 35) against Manhattan. CMich was arguably Princeton's best effort thus far, in that they hit a very high percentage of their shots.
Nonetheless, the Tigers' pace of attempting to score still appears to be way below the NCAA D-1 average. No matter how it looked on the court, the stats seem to say that there is plenty of room for them to pick up the tempo.
As you noticed against GW (a very hot team so far this year!), Princeton's lack of depth at guard is going to hurt them this year, when their bigs are not getting the job done.
|
