So did we ever get a follow up on this from @ouchmyknee ?
Happy with what I saw (and heard) today!
- Thread starter ouchmyknee
- Start date
Wuh wait? Haven't you been saying all offseason that your not worried about the Defense - but instead are worried about the O and who will take the last shot?
While frustrated with your rather relentless negat—, um, realism, I do appreciate the statistical analysis. But a couple three points put the defensive performance in perspective.
1. Pike said in the post-game that he purposely didn’t show all his cards since it was just an exhibition, so we likely played a “vanilla” style on both ends of the floor. I think he said that he didn’t want to “show too much.”
2. Caleb did not play, and Miller only played 2 minutes. That’s two of our best defenders who otherwise would’ve been on the floor for a combined 40 minutes
3. Fairfield had an outlier type of night shooting threes, which exaggerated our defensive inefficiency.
So, yes, our defensive efficiency was only at 1.0, but the above greatly impacted that number.
weak sauce take my friend.
I'd be curious if there were breakdown defensively where and by whom. Caleb back definitely helps things. I'd like to think Paul, Cam/Derek, Caleb, Mag and Cliff will defend much better than any combination we had on the floor yesterday. Does that combination impact (negatively) scoring? We will find out I think
Every November and December OOC teams "look" better than they were supposed to be. When we look at their resumes in March almost always are they no where near how they "looked" vs us.
That dude from jackson State never made the NBA!
Is that why we didn't play his bench?
We played all 5 starters in a scrimmage vs MAAC team 30+ minutes while they played no one 30 minutes and we are comfortable saying our D wasn't good because we played our vanilla primary man defense.
Lol dude... you didn't even watch the game. Your takes are meaningless 🤣
The game isn't played on a spreadsheet and context matters. You wouldn't know what the defense looked like
Not really. Most of those games they didn't look good, we looked bad. Most of the time they had one player who got red hot and kept them in it.
Fairfield looked good. Well coached. Bigger and more athletic than you would expect from a team in their conference. Multiple players shot the 3 well it wasn't a one man show
Again, watch the game if you want to engage in an analysis of said game. Otherwise, maybe listen to the people who actually did watch?
We had a very respected poster say we had trouble getting over screens and defending the line. We got outrebounded by Fairfield. We played our starters all 30+ minutes they played 10 guys almost evenly.
1 game (good or bad) doesn't mean much. With that being said I can't see how this game would push any narrative forward that this team will surprise to the upside. Opening night from Columbia may, but not this one.
That's bc you didn't watch the game!
Analysis of stats is not the freaking point. It's an exhibition game.
My spreadsheets and boxscores tell me more. It works both ways. Over the past 3 years I can cite many examples of losses where we played better than the score indicates yet fans are fixated on the binary win or loss.
The fact that Pike played 6 guys has to put up a yellow flag.
This was an exhibition game not a real game. If you think stats and a box score in an exhibition game tells you more than actually watching the game, you're lost
Please stop citing Fairfield's 10-man rotation. In the post game, their coach stated that he will go 10 deep. This is their normal rotation.
Last edited:
Trust me if i were watching the game I'd have concrete negative reasons/plays to support a not good defensive effort.
Lol sure. Every single game there are poor defensive plays. It happens. You can harp on them if you want
If you actually watched, you would probably be pleasantly surprised
Woolfolk looked great defensively. Better than anyone would have thought prior to seeing him play. I thought he would be a good defender but he was soooo much better than expected. He moves extremely well and reads the game very well
Is any of that in your box score? Of course not.
As a data guy using a sample size of 1 in an exhibition game and pretending that is relevant is kind of ridiculous.
In an exhibition game the eye test is the only thing that actually matters
Spencer is excellent at reading the game as well. He plays the passing lanes at a top level. Very quick hands.
Simpson is lightning quick and a very willing defender. He gives Jacob Young vibes looking to pick up full court getting low and pounding the court. He also closed out on 3's pretty well for a freshman using text book form
Simpson is lightning quick and a very willing defender. He gives Jacob Young vibes looking to pick up full court getting low and pounding the court. He also closed out on 3's pretty well for a freshman using text book form
Only on this board would someone make multiple posts critiquing a game they did not watch.
Does Paul playing 36 minutes in a scrimmage against Fairfield at least make you pause?
What if that eye wants to see things that support his team being a top 35 team destined for the NCAA tournament?
Did your eye say we did a good enough job rebounding?
Fairfield got off 27 3 point shots. Did your eye think we did enough job closing out on shooters?
What do you really think Pike thinks about the performance? Was he pleased with his defense? What do you think Pike thinks about his bench? How many people does he feel comfortable playing in the 1st half vs. Columbia?
Why is Paul Mulcahy playing 36 minutes? Isn't the purpose of this game to see what the backup point guard can do without Paul in there? What was accomplished?
Fans need balance, especially when things aren't going well
We may be the 20-11 team people are expecting. Anyone who has concerns about a 14-17 team probably didn't feel any better after this one.
I will back FIG up here a bit as I don't think the stats are meaningless. Also if you go through the game recap thread, the posts from those who did actually watch the game were not particularly consistent on what they chose to comment on both positively and negatively. In fact some contradicted other posts which made it difficult to figure out what actually happened. (Was Fairfield doubling Cliff or not?) I guess the point is that even if you watched the game the resulting observations can certainly be subjective whereas the stats are what they are. You can interpret them however you wish.
Maybe Miller still has no offensive game and Simpson is taking his minutes and thus him playing only two minutes was a way of Pike sending him a message that this is how it going to be.
Defense is important but go to scorers is more important as seen with Baker and Harper winning games at crunch time which then resulted in NCAA bids.
Not really, Pike said he was treating it as a dress rehearsal and a real game. If that was his intent, it makes sense. All the starters played major minutes. Helps make sure they have the cardio and legs for a full real game so there is that
I probably wouldn't have approached it that way, but that's a different question
Exhibition games are for conditioning, experience and experimenting.
They are both extremely important.
66-66 15 seconds left and we get a stop in a B1G game. Pike calls a timeout. What next? Geo is in street clothes. I'd think pick and roll with Cliff and Paul, but the timing is so hard and it isn't that easy with a finite amount of clock.
So 1st half against Columbia Bo Borowski (out of retirement) calls Paul on a charge and a phantom reach in call at the 14 minute mark. Some player is taking the role as primary point guard for the 1st time at the RAC. Would have been nice to give whoever that person is a dress rehersal for 10 minutes.
Believe me not a big deal, but Paul playing 36 minutes tells me Pike played this game to win and it is concerning that this is what wasneeded.
Game conditioning is a bit different than practice/scrimmage. Specifically you are playing against a different player than you are used to guarding day in and day out.
It was still a scrimmage without a real crowd. That will impact defensive intensity. Paul and Cliff for example didn't really go all out IMO.
Caleb will help with defense and rebounding
Were there times we could have closed out quicker on 3's? Sure. Is it that concerning? Not at all. They took a lot of deep and contested 3's too.
Pike will want to see better defense and rebounding, always
If you watched the game, I can't imagine anyone being more concerned or thinking this is a sub .500 team. That would be an absolutely wild take
EVERYONE LOOKED BETTER FIG. EVERYONE.
The freshman Simpson and Woolfolk looked like they were ready to contribute immediately and better than expected
Spencer's all around game looked very good. He just had a poor shooting day which concerns me zero
You answered your own question. Paul and Cliff high ball screen. Cam spacing the floor. Mag diving to the rim for a put back
Everyone knows game conditioning is different. Come on man you know that too
Simpson ran the point when Paul was out
Miller is capable. Cam has very good handle. He is calm on the ball and an excellent passer. Caleb could also bring the ball up if needed
On the other hand, the frontcourt (Hyatt, Mag, Cliff )combined for 47 points. And when was the last time that ever happened in any game ?
Simpson was impressive, very athletic and quick, Chol will be a player later in the year needs to be more comfortable in the system.
Biggest concern was rebounding we were very inconsistent with position, squaring up and boxing out. We are long but not thick, so rebounding positioning is critical.
Biggest concern was rebounding we were very inconsistent with position, squaring up and boxing out. We are long but not thick, so rebounding positioning is critical.
Even if we agree this is weird (it is kind of weird) I’m not sure what it is supposed to tell us?
GRF is a funny dude. From his take, we should discount anything positive from yesterday’s scrimmage, but completely accentuate the negative instead.
Fairfield is going to be about a 13-15 point 'dog @Xavier who looks to be their toughest OOC opponent and a top 40 team preseason. We just beat them by that amount without the returning B1G DPOY. I am in the camp that replacing RHj and Geo is going to be tougher than folks expect. More B1G teams have that same challenge this season than most other seasons I can recall (Davis/Wisky, Murray/Iowa, Ivey and Williams/Purdue, Ayala/UMD, McGowens/Nebby, Kofi/Illiniois, Liddell and Branham/OSU). Whatever teams adjust best to losing their "stars" are going to have an edge this season. And I was more encouraged than discouraged in watching this game.
As for minutes in this exhibition: BECAUSE we are replacing our two leading scorers from a year ago I felt getting the "W" (without Caleb) actually mattered yesterday. This Fairfield team (imo) will be better than most of our OOC opponents. And Pike played to win. I have no issue with that.
Last edited:
I’d be doing the opposite if we lost by 1 and the board was in complete meltdown mode thinking we wouldn’t win a B1G game
What does it mean to "need" a W in an exhibition game? Do you need a W more in an exhibition game if you are not confident in your team?
Watched 1st half……
Positives
Cliff offensively
Mag and Hyatt being assertive
Simpson willing defender and capable both ends
Negatives
Hyatt too many defensive lapses
Cam passing up shots (could be jitters)
Chol no where near ready defensively
Positives
Cliff offensively
Mag and Hyatt being assertive
Simpson willing defender and capable both ends
Negatives
Hyatt too many defensive lapses
Cam passing up shots (could be jitters)
Chol no where near ready defensively
