Big Ten Offseason Evaluation: Rutgers Scarlet Knights

[Tango Two]

Big Ten Offseason Evaluation: Rutgers Scarlet Knights

Coming off a 13th place finish in the Big Ten, coach Steve Pikiell made significant roster changes, headlined by two five-star recruits and a group of high-scor

www.si.com

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Big Ten Offseason Evaluation: Rutgers Scarlet Knights

Coming off a 13th place finish in the Big Ten, coach Steve Pikiell made significant roster changes, headlined by two five-star recruits and a group of high-scor

www.si.com

This tells you all you need to know:
Jack Ankony is a Sports Illustrated/FanNation writer for HoosiersNow.com. He graduated from Indiana University's Media School with a degree in journalism. Follow on Twitter @ankony_jack.

A little salty? Perhaps, but clearly, IU can't shake the Rutgers flu. Living rent-free in the Loosiers head.

 

[lion1983]

Not so unfair - there ARE questions.

But he did get one thing wrong: RU will NOT have to play a smaller than normal line-up than their past teams:

Center: Ogbole is 6'10" to 6'11", Somerville is 6'8" to 6'9". Thise are way okay sizes. True, Martini will get some play at Center, we suspect, and he just 6'7"

Forward: Bailey is ^'9" to 6'10" and Martini is 6'7"+ ... and off the bench Derkack is 6'6" and Hayes is 6'6" ... and Dortch is 6'8" to 6'10".

Guard: Harper is 6'6" (maybe even taller), Williams is 6'4" ... and off the bench Acuff is 6'4" ish, though Davis is 6'2"

RU is actually TALLER than last year, pretty much across the board, getting back to its penchant for length at all positions.

Also ... he emphasizes the 3-point shooting weaknesses of Derkack and Acuff, and essentially dismisses the 3-point shooting of Hayes, saying that Hayes is going to have to match last season's 3-point shooting percentage or RU has a problem ... true, to a certain extent.

But he ignores Martini, as a 38% 3-point shooter. He ignores that Acuff shot 34.4% (vs 30%) 2 years ago, and over 39% as a sophomore, having a career 3-point FG% of 33%.

In fact, I think Acuff's shooting percentages should be closer to 2 years ago than last season - last year he was an extremely high volume FG attempt player (19 FG attempts per game), because that was his role. He will have a very different role for RU this year ... as a Junior at E. Mich he took just 11 shots per game - shooting almost 46% from FG, 34%+ from 3-point range, as E. Michigan's #2 or #3 option. He will not be more than RU's #4 to #6 option, coming off the bench, a much different role - which might lead to more judicious shot-taking (i.e. better shots) - FYI, he averages more than 50% FG from 2-point range, which is not bad for a guard I think - I could be wrong. ...

Notes on 2-pt FG%: Williams shot about 49% from 2 for his career - 50% last year in his 12 games, Derkack in 2 years averages 55% from 2; Martini shot 72% from 2 last season; Ron Harper was over 50% from 2 for his career (though it fluctuated); Baker averaged 44% for his career, but was just below 50% his last 3 seasons; Mulcahy averaged 49% from 2 - but was at 47% and 43% his last 2 seasons at RU; Mag averaged 51% from 2 - but with WILD fluctuations year to year; Omoruyi was interesting: His career 2 pt FG% average was 55% ... BUT ... he shot just 51% from 2 point range his last 2 seasons with RU (over 60% his 1st 2 seasons); Hyatt - who I think Acuff might resemble, as a 6th man offensive spark - was a poor shooter, averaging just 45% from 2-pt range ... problematic.

So ... Last season Davis shot a poor 41% from 2 ... Simpson was truly awful, shooting just 31% from 2 (he had shot 42% the prior year) - that is bat-sh*t crazy bad ... Griffiths shot 37% from 2 point range ... Fernandes was also below 40% from 2 ... as a team, RU shot just 43.7% from 2 point range ... had to be amongst the lowest in the country!

And, the writer also ignores the potential for at least decent 3-point shooting from Harper and Bailey.

 

[Degaz-RU]

Overall, not a bad summary for an outsider (especially one who graduated from Indiana). He does make a few critical errors in analyzing the team, though. Among them is this:

• "The four transfers he added will all contribute at the guard and wing positions in an effort to replace starters Aundre Hyatt and Derek Simpson, and backups Derek Simpson and Noah Fernandes. And each one, coming from mid-major programs, is a bit of a gamble."

I think it's time for people to stop thinking that "mid-major transfer" is a bad thing. Over the past five years, mid-major transfers have proven that their skills can and do translate to P4. And if you're analyzing our team, it's easy to see that the departures of Hyatt, Simpson, Fernandes, and A. Williams (not to mention Griffiths) will basically be addition by subtraction with how inefficient they all were. It can't possibly be worse with our new players, and based on their respective numbers at their prior schools, it's highly likely that it will be better (and markedly so).

 

[lion1983]

Overall, not a bad summary for an outsider (especially one who graduated from Indiana). He does make a few critical errors in analyzing the team, though. Among them is this:

• "The four transfers he added will all contribute at the guard and wing positions in an effort to replace starters Aundre Hyatt and Derek Simpson, and backups Derek Simpson and Noah Fernandes. And each one, coming from mid-major programs, is a bit of a gamble."

I think it's time for people to stop thinking that "mid-major transfer" is a bad thing. Over the past five years, mid-major transfers have proven that their skills can and do translate to P4. And if you're analyzing our team, it's easy to see that the departures of Hyatt, Simpson, Fernandes, and A. Williams (not to mention Griffiths) will basically be addition by subtraction with how inefficient they all were. It can't possibly be worse with our new players, and based on their respective numbers at their prior schools, it's highly likely that it will be better (and markedly so).

This. You are so much more succinct than I, LOL!

Now I ramble a bit, also LOL!

Hyatt was misplaced as a starter, and as a player who was supposed to be an offensive focus ... but RU was forced to have Hyatt play that role when Spencer, then Mulcahy (Mulcahy also cannot be a focus) left the team so late in the process that RU could not find adequate replacements. Hyatt's best use would have been as a 6th or 7th man, as offensive spark who could also rebound, off the bench. Simpson was forced to be a starter - many of us hoped he would develop and improve to be a breakout player and earn that status, but he did NOT.
And each of the 4 had to start a substantial chunk of games, which as it turns out was not a good thing for either their performances or the team.
Even with the uncertainties, you could make a very strong case that all 4 of RU's incoming transfers are each individually better than Hyatt, Simpson, A. Williams and Fernandes, based solely on performance ... Not better than Omoruyi, though. It will help that none of the new transfers will have to play as many minutes as any of those departing 4 players, so reduced roles, as complementary players, not starting players.

 

[seansherm]

Overall, not a bad summary for an outsider (especially one who graduated from Indiana). He does make a few critical errors in analyzing the team, though. Among them is this:

• "The four transfers he added will all contribute at the guard and wing positions in an effort to replace starters Aundre Hyatt and Derek Simpson, and backups Derek Simpson and Noah Fernandes. And each one, coming from mid-major programs, is a bit of a gamble."

I think it's time for people to stop thinking that "mid-major transfer" is a bad thing. Over the past five years, mid-major transfers have proven that their skills can and do translate to P4. And if you're analyzing our team, it's easy to see that the departures of Hyatt, Simpson, Fernandes, and A. Williams (not to mention Griffiths) will basically be addition by subtraction with how inefficient they all were. It can't possibly be worse with our new players, and based on their respective numbers at their prior schools, it's highly likely that it will be better (and markedly so).

Agree, mid major isn't a negative. The only think I'd say is we aren't replacing whatever a Mag, Cliff, or Simpson gave us last year, it's what he would have given this year, since they still had eligibilty. The graduates, yes.

 

[robjknight]

What's also missing is the amount of points we score in transition will be the highest in years.