I went on a tweetstorm... reposting here. It's funny that I've been a bit of a brake-pumper around here (like in the NCAA tournament thread) because I do actually like this team. Anyway, this was inspired by a throwaway Rutgers take on a podcast.
I'm probably one of the most pessimistic sports fans when it comes to my own teams but I'm intrigued by this year's Rutgers basketball squad. Incoming tweetstorm that nobody asked for inspired by the Rutgers take from
@BFQuinn and
@umhoops on their (mostly very good!) podcast...
They made the point that Rutgers is what it is and will be the same until the end of time. Which is crazy because this is only year three for Steve Pikiell! This isn't Ernie Kent going into year six at Washington State.
Moreover, the roster has way more turnover this season. Corey Sanders, Mike Williams, and DeShawn Freeman combined to shoot 20% on 200 three-pointers. They did other stuff well that will be missed but you can't overstate how bad that is.
I don't see Pikiell as a newcomer miracle worker but it's worth noting that Geo Baker outplayed his recruiting ranking, and it's undeniable that Ron Harper, Myles Johnson bring skills that last year's team lacked, while Montez Mathis and Peter Kiss replace the lost athleticism.
The offense the past two seasons was painful to watch. But almost all of that personnel is gone. Baker and Issa Thiam both shot 37% from 3 last year. The new guys will be better shooters than the departed trio because *they were the worst 3-point trio in the country.*
They made another point: "Rutgers has to compete with Seton Hall." Which sounds rough, but they were basically just about even in the Big East. SHU made a good hire and had institutional support. Rutgers cycled through Fred Hill, Mike Rice, Eddie Jordan, and a circus of ADs.
Point is, Seton Hall being better than Rutgers was not handed down on stone tablets. Also Rutgers does have the #7 player in NJ committed for 2019 while "Seton Hall and the New York schools" don't have any, but that's mostly an aside.
The Mike Rice fiasco and the Eddie Jordan era buried the program to a degree few other programs have experienced, and the school lacked the history or fanbase to bounce back quickly. (Those factors also limit the program's ceiling, to be fair).
Anyway, we haven't seen what Pikiell can do with players who can actually shoot the ball. What we have seen is that he's found other ways to compete. With the worst personnel in the Big Ten, RU ranked 4th in OR% and 3rd in defensive TO%.
Basketball is a game of making shots (h/t
@clubtrillion) so a team will never really be *good* if they're #347 at it. Even Cincinnati, the poster child of a good team without an offense, has at least cracked the top 200 the past four years.
So the fact that the coaching staff was able to identify areas where they could get an edge is encouraging, and I hope it continues with very different personnel. Certainly not a given, but if you're looking for a sign of life, there it is.
Last point: The 2007 Devil Rays finished 66-96, their 10th year (out of 10) with more than 90 losses. A directionless franchise had changed ownership and management in 2006 but the losses persisted. Except... the 2007 team wasn't THAT far away from being respectable.
They were above average in runs scored. Their starting pitchers ranked 17th in WAR and that was with Casey Fossum and Jae Seo making 10 starts apiece.
However, their bullpen was an abject disaster. It was the era before super-bullpens, but still: ONE GUY had a FIP under 4.00. They ranked comfortably last in bullpen WAR. Brian Stokes and Shawn Camp each had ERAs over 7.00 yet combined for over 100 IP.
And then... the team went 92-70 and went to the World Series the very next year. The offense was a little better and the young starting pitching took a step forward, but the real key was the bullpen moved from 30th... to 5th. That's what fixing a historically-awful flaw can do.
Basketball isn't baseball, and bullpens are a smaller part of the game than shooting. Rutgers isn't going to go from worst to first. But expecting "same old Rutgers" this season is going to turn out to be wrong. The team will look a LOT different, and I think for the better.
It's 100% possible that the new pieces are better shooters but not by enough to offset what they give back on the defensive side, and they go something like 11-19 (4-16). That'd be a letdown but it's very much in the range of outcomes.
If you look through my tweet history. you'll see I am never Mr. Blue Sky about my team's chances. It actually surprises me how many Rutgers fans have rosy outlooks in both FB and BB given that the last decade happened.
Maybe this changes once I see them actually take the court and play on Friday. Maybe they still can't throw a beach ball in the ocean, only this year they add more turnovers with a young roster. But right now? I like this team. Fin.
@BFQuinn @umhoops