Second half Northwestern is the Blueprint for the Gauntlet

[goru7]

As bad as the first half against NW was, and as bad as our opening half starts have been (6 of the Big 10 games) , what got lost in the disappointing frustrating loss , was how many great to really good things happened in that second half that showed that this team can be good and stop the inconsistency and play great basketball against the upcoming 8 game Quad 1 gauntlet . I counted at least 10 things I think were significant and hopefully carry forward. Others might have found more and we know a few negatives as well but chime in with any additions. Here goes;
1) Paul was finally the shooting , scoring , passing , no hesitation , point guard that we were clamoring to see for the last 3 years. The triple double machine for those who watched him in high school was finally revealed. Now I am not delusional and know he will not get us 31 again , but hopefully he doesn’t give us 0 like the preceding Maryland game or 7 or 9 like his normal output , but if he can get us 12-15 points that will be huge going forward. Clearly , NW does not have the athletic guards that a lot of the upcoming Big 10 has and he has trouble with , but he can use his height , he can use his craftiness , he can knock down threes without hestitation , he can look to score when in close again without hesitation , and he can continue to pass like a wizard to Cliff and Dean. Confidence has to be at a season high.

2) Cliff- A season high 22 and a lot of it gift wrapped from Paul but less fumbling of the ball and no hesitation shooting a 10-12 foot shot going forward. He defensive and shot blocking is getter better and his offensive rebounding , which had been missing slightly , and explosion into a dunk has returned. He also stayed out of foul trouble which is huge going forward.

3) Defense/ The full court press, the immediate traps as they crossed half court , the double teams when a guard was on the sideline and then stopped the dribble , the use of our length to cause numerous steals and 15-20 deflections , the use of the high zone not letting the guards use their ball screens , pushing the offense further out , eliminating the 3 point makes for the last 16 minutes in the zone with only about 3-4 threes that were slightly open that NW missed because they were stressed or harassed. This is the blueprint to go to for Pike to eliminate our slow first half starts. If the man to man defense is struggling , either because we are not intense , not closing out and on top of shooters early , then switch to the press/ trap/zone. It speeds up a team which benefits us as well. Our defense energizes our offense as well.

4) Dean- He is really coming along nicely and for the first time all year ,I felt their would be no drop off when Cliff was subbed out. He hit that nice baseline jumper from 12 feet on Ron ‘s penetration and dish and got the flush from Paul’s assist. Now I really thought Pike had an opportunity here to play Cliff and Dean together . Understandable he cannot do it early in case Cliff is in foul trouble but this was the second half last 10 minutes and Cliff wasn’t in foul trouble. He kept on subbing Cliff for Dean but bacause we were in the zone and using our length , I thought he was going to leave Dean in and take Oscar out as Dean is superior to Oscar and can shoot and dominant the boards . Cliff and Dean in the zone with their length and shot blocking and quickness on the defensive end and on the offensive glass at that end.

5)Mag- I think it is time to insert him into the starting lineup as his defense and intensity is almost as good as Caleb and his likelihood of scoring 8-10 points increases by starting both halves. Plus we get immediate intensity to combat the slow starts. He also crashes the boards and his offensive tap drill yesterday was unfortunate it didn’t result in points but was a great effort which we need more of on the offensive glass.

6) Offensive crashing of the boards- IT has been noticeably absent the last couple of years but especially this year. The bad news was we did not convert but the great news was Ron off the Paul foul shot miss, Mag and Cliff with the tap drills really was great to see and if it continues it is likely the shots will fall. This will also help when our shots are not falling and we are 1 shot and done in some of our scoring droughts. Cliff, Dean Mag and Ron can impact the offensive glass and should be doing it more down the stretch.

7)Offensively efficiency - I do not have the stat number , chime in guys , but that had to be one of our most efficient halves of the year. Paul pushing the pace and getting into his high ball screen set and a shot going up in 15-20 seconds or less with no wasteful dribbling was a thing of beauty , not a ton of thinking and hesitating which I think led to few turnovers 4-5 at most after 11 in the first half which were almost all unforced. No late shot clocks or forced shots. The empty trips with the taps on the glass will affect the actual efficiency # but I loved the pace we played with and would like it to continue.

8). Fewer turnovers- After 11 in the first half only 4-5 in the second half which helps the offensive efficiency number as well. We have to cut down on the turnovers as most have been unforced and because of charges called and I think the pace helped . Our guys look more comfortable at this pace.

9) Ron- After a difficult first half , he did almost everything we would want in the second half. He hit his jumper , he drove to the basket with some great baseline finishes and got fouled , penetrated 2x deep and dished to Dean for the baseline jumper and to Paul for the corner 3 so he was plenty unselfish but smart. He crashed the offensive glass and how his rebound of Paul’s only miss of the second half on the offensive rebound did not go down with 42 seconds to go is still baffling . Plus he was getting fouled and hitting 100% of his foul shots. He has become almost automatic . Now if he can put 2 halves together like the second half we will have another monster 30 point game. He left a couple of shots short in the OT but they were great shots.

10) Foul shooting - We shot 81% from the line , 21-27 and everyone was good and Paul who was 9-11 had Ron rebound one of his misses . Dean and Cliff are good foul shooters probably the best big men foul shooters we have had in a long time. Mag was 2-2 and solid and we aren’t even mentioning Geo and Caleb who did not score but are good 70% foul shooters. Our problem has been getting to the line but if we can hit 70% or more as a team that will win us games down the stretch.

 

[RU_kidding_me]

Not too confident they can carry this forward considering they couldn’t carry it from 2nd half into OT

 

[rudad02]

As bad as the first half against NW was, and as bad as our opening half starts have been (6 of the Big 10 games) , what got lost in the disappointing frustrating loss , was how many great to really good things happened in that second half that showed that this team can be good and stop the inconsistency and play great basketball against the upcoming 8 game Quad 1 gauntlet . I counted at least 10 things I think were significant and hopefully carry forward. Others might have found more and we know a few negatives as well but chime in with any additions. Here goes;
1) Paul was finally the shooting , scoring , passing , no hesitation , point guard that we were clamoring to see for the last 3 years. The triple double machine for those who watched him in high school was finally revealed. Now I am not delusional and know he will not get us 31 again , but hopefully he doesn’t give us 0 like the preceding Maryland game or 7 or 9 like his normal output , but if he can get us 12-15 points that will be huge going forward. Clearly , NW does not have the athletic guards that a lot of the upcoming Big 10 has and he has trouble with , but he can use his height , he can use his craftiness , he can knock down threes without hestitation , he can look to score when in close again without hesitation , and he can continue to pass like a wizard to Cliff and Dean. Confidence has to be at a season high.

2) Cliff- A season high 22 and a lot of it gift wrapped from Paul but less fumbling of the ball and no hesitation shooting a 10-12 foot shot going forward. He defensive and shot blocking is getter better and his offensive rebounding , which had been missing slightly , and explosion into a dunk has returned. He also stayed out of foul trouble which is huge going forward.

3) Defense/ The full court press, the immediate traps as they crossed half court , the double teams when a guard was on the sideline and then stopped the dribble , the use of our length to cause numerous steals and 15-20 deflections , the use of the high zone not letting the guards use their ball screens , pushing the offense further out , eliminating the 3 point makes for the last 16 minutes in the zone with only about 3-4 threes that were slightly open that NW missed because they were stressed or harassed. This is the blueprint to go to for Pike to eliminate our slow first half starts. If the man to man defense is struggling , either because we are not intense , not closing out and on top of shooters early , then switch to the press/ trap/zone. It speeds up a team which benefits us as well. Our defense energizes our offense as well.

4) Dean- He is really coming along nicely and for the first time all year ,I felt their would be no drop off when Cliff was subbed out. He hit that nice baseline jumper from 12 feet on Ron ‘s penetration and dish and got the flush from Paul’s assist. Now I really thought Pike had an opportunity here to play Cliff and Dean together . Understandable he cannot do it early in case Cliff is in foul trouble but this was the second half last 10 minutes and Cliff wasn’t in foul trouble. He kept on subbing Cliff for Dean but bacause we were in the zone and using our length , I thought he was going to leave Dean in and take Oscar out as Dean is superior to Oscar and can shoot and dominant the boards . Cliff and Dean in the zone with their length and shot blocking and quickness on the defensive end and on the offensive glass at that end.

5)Mag- I think it is time to insert him into the starting lineup as his defense and intensity is almost as good as Caleb and his likelihood of scoring 8-10 points increases by starting both halves. Plus we get immediate intensity to combat the slow starts. He also crashes the boards and his offensive tap drill yesterday was unfortunate it didn’t result in points but was a great effort which we need more of on the offensive glass.

6) Offensive crashing of the boards- IT has been noticeably absent the last couple of years but especially this year. The bad news was we did not convert but the great news was Ron off the Paul foul shot miss, Mag and Cliff with the tap drills really was great to see and if it continues it is likely the shots will fall. This will also help when our shots are not falling and we are 1 shot and done in some of our scoring droughts. Cliff, Dean Mag and Ron can impact the offensive glass and should be doing it more down the stretch.

7)Offensively efficiency - I do not have the stat number , chime in guys , but that had to be one of our most efficient halves of the year. Paul pushing the pace and getting into his high ball screen set and a shot going up in 15-20 seconds or less with no wasteful dribbling was a thing of beauty , not a ton of thinking and hesitating which I think led to few turnovers 4-5 at most after 11 in the first half which were almost all unforced. No late shot clocks or forced shots. The empty trips with the taps on the glass will affect the actual efficiency # but I loved the pace we played with and would like it to continue.

8). Fewer turnovers- After 11 in the first half only 4-5 in the second half which helps the offensive efficiency number as well. We have to cut down on the turnovers as most have been unforced and because of charges called and I think the pace helped . Our guys look more comfortable at this pace.

9) Ron- After a difficult first half , he did almost everything we would want in the second half. He hit his jumper , he drove to the basket with some great baseline finishes and got fouled , penetrated 2x deep and dished to Dean for the baseline jumper and to Paul for the corner 3 so he was plenty unselfish but smart. He crashed the offensive glass and how his rebound of Paul’s only miss of the second half on the offensive rebound did not go down with 42 seconds to go is still baffling . Plus he was getting fouled and hitting 100% of his foul shots. He has become almost automatic . Now if he can put 2 halves together like the second half we will have another monster 30 point game. He left a couple of shots short in the OT but they were great shots.

10) Foul shooting - We shot 81% from the line , 21-27 and everyone was good and Paul who was 9-11 had Ron rebound one of his misses . Dean and Cliff are good foul shooters probably the best big men foul shooters we have had in a long time. Mag was 2-2 and solid and we aren’t even mentioning Geo and Caleb who did not score but are good 70% foul shooters. Our problem has been getting to the line but if we can hit 70% or more as a team that will win us games down the stretch.

Very good & fair analysis. I'm glass half full guy.

 

[YoucancallmeRay]

As bad as the first half against NW was, and as bad as our opening half starts have been (6 of the Big 10 games) , what got lost in the disappointing frustrating loss , was how many great to really good things happened in that second half that showed that this team can be good and stop the inconsistency and play great basketball against the upcoming 8 game Quad 1 gauntlet . I counted at least 10 things I think were significant and hopefully carry forward. Others might have found more and we know a few negatives as well but chime in with any additions. Here goes;
1) Paul was finally the shooting , scoring , passing , no hesitation , point guard that we were clamoring to see for the last 3 years. The triple double machine for those who watched him in high school was finally revealed. Now I am not delusional and know he will not get us 31 again , but hopefully he doesn’t give us 0 like the preceding Maryland game or 7 or 9 like his normal output , but if he can get us 12-15 points that will be huge going forward. Clearly , NW does not have the athletic guards that a lot of the upcoming Big 10 has and he has trouble with , but he can use his height , he can use his craftiness , he can knock down threes without hestitation , he can look to score when in close again without hesitation , and he can continue to pass like a wizard to Cliff and Dean. Confidence has to be at a season high.

2) Cliff- A season high 22 and a lot of it gift wrapped from Paul but less fumbling of the ball and no hesitation shooting a 10-12 foot shot going forward. He defensive and shot blocking is getter better and his offensive rebounding , which had been missing slightly , and explosion into a dunk has returned. He also stayed out of foul trouble which is huge going forward.

3) Defense/ The full court press, the immediate traps as they crossed half court , the double teams when a guard was on the sideline and then stopped the dribble , the use of our length to cause numerous steals and 15-20 deflections , the use of the high zone not letting the guards use their ball screens , pushing the offense further out , eliminating the 3 point makes for the last 16 minutes in the zone with only about 3-4 threes that were slightly open that NW missed because they were stressed or harassed. This is the blueprint to go to for Pike to eliminate our slow first half starts. If the man to man defense is struggling , either because we are not intense , not closing out and on top of shooters early , then switch to the press/ trap/zone. It speeds up a team which benefits us as well. Our defense energizes our offense as well.

4) Dean- He is really coming along nicely and for the first time all year ,I felt their would be no drop off when Cliff was subbed out. He hit that nice baseline jumper from 12 feet on Ron ‘s penetration and dish and got the flush from Paul’s assist. Now I really thought Pike had an opportunity here to play Cliff and Dean together . Understandable he cannot do it early in case Cliff is in foul trouble but this was the second half last 10 minutes and Cliff wasn’t in foul trouble. He kept on subbing Cliff for Dean but bacause we were in the zone and using our length , I thought he was going to leave Dean in and take Oscar out as Dean is superior to Oscar and can shoot and dominant the boards . Cliff and Dean in the zone with their length and shot blocking and quickness on the defensive end and on the offensive glass at that end.

5)Mag- I think it is time to insert him into the starting lineup as his defense and intensity is almost as good as Caleb and his likelihood of scoring 8-10 points increases by starting both halves. Plus we get immediate intensity to combat the slow starts. He also crashes the boards and his offensive tap drill yesterday was unfortunate it didn’t result in points but was a great effort which we need more of on the offensive glass.

6) Offensive crashing of the boards- IT has been noticeably absent the last couple of years but especially this year. The bad news was we did not convert but the great news was Ron off the Paul foul shot miss, Mag and Cliff with the tap drills really was great to see and if it continues it is likely the shots will fall. This will also help when our shots are not falling and we are 1 shot and done in some of our scoring droughts. Cliff, Dean Mag and Ron can impact the offensive glass and should be doing it more down the stretch.

7)Offensively efficiency - I do not have the stat number , chime in guys , but that had to be one of our most efficient halves of the year. Paul pushing the pace and getting into his high ball screen set and a shot going up in 15-20 seconds or less with no wasteful dribbling was a thing of beauty , not a ton of thinking and hesitating which I think led to few turnovers 4-5 at most after 11 in the first half which were almost all unforced. No late shot clocks or forced shots. The empty trips with the taps on the glass will affect the actual efficiency # but I loved the pace we played with and would like it to continue.

8). Fewer turnovers- After 11 in the first half only 4-5 in the second half which helps the offensive efficiency number as well. We have to cut down on the turnovers as most have been unforced and because of charges called and I think the pace helped . Our guys look more comfortable at this pace.

9) Ron- After a difficult first half , he did almost everything we would want in the second half. He hit his jumper , he drove to the basket with some great baseline finishes and got fouled , penetrated 2x deep and dished to Dean for the baseline jumper and to Paul for the corner 3 so he was plenty unselfish but smart. He crashed the offensive glass and how his rebound of Paul’s only miss of the second half on the offensive rebound did not go down with 42 seconds to go is still baffling . Plus he was getting fouled and hitting 100% of his foul shots. He has become almost automatic . Now if he can put 2 halves together like the second half we will have another monster 30 point game. He left a couple of shots short in the OT but they were great shots.

10) Foul shooting - We shot 81% from the line , 21-27 and everyone was good and Paul who was 9-11 had Ron rebound one of his misses . Dean and Cliff are good foul shooters probably the best big men foul shooters we have had in a long time. Mag was 2-2 and solid and we aren’t even mentioning Geo and Caleb who did not score but are good 70% foul shooters. Our problem has been getting to the line but if we can hit 70% or more as a team that will win us games down the stretch.

Fun post to read with lots of optimism. The one caveat I'd add (not trying to be Debbie Downer) is that we've had problems scoring the ball almost all season. It'd be nice if Paul averaged 10-12 going forward, but we need other guys to provide some offense. Geo, Ron, Caleb, and Hyatt each have to contribute more. It seems that when we miss shots, we let the defense suffer. Also, I would keep Caleb in the starting line-up and use Mag as an energy boost off the bench.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Northwestern was playing the NCAA version of prevent defense on offense.

we have an almost 90 game sample of size of what Paul Mulcahy is. I am pretending the NW game didn’t exist.

I like the optimism, but we are still a terrible offensive team that against some opponents have to become an even worse offensive team because of the defensive lineups we have to play.

The key to RU success is Geo and Ron hitting shots. Unfortunately that is basically it.

 

[bac2therac]

Northwestern was playing the NCAA version of prevent defense on offense.

we have an almost 90 game sample of size of what Paul Mulcahy is. I am pretending the NW game didn’t exist.

I like the optimism, but we are still a terrible offensive team that against some opponents have to become an even worse offensive team because of the defensive lineups we have to play.

The key to RU success is Geo and Ron hitting shots. Unfortunately that is basically it.

this, I get the OP is trying to be optimistic but I really do not think its a realistic take, the blueprint for success come from Geo and Ron locked in on both ends.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The 4 statistical numbers for offense

1. Turnovers...17.7% of possessions. 98th in country
2. effective FG% 47.7%. 266th in country
3. foul rate 26.7. 274th in country
4. OREB 30.4% 118th in country

1 and 4 need to be improved, but 2 and 3 are the sore thumb (actually sore entire body)

The foul rate is going to be tough to move based on Geo not getting to the rim and his move is a step back shot. Is Ron quick enough off the dribble to draw fouls against the B1G best defenders?

effective FG% is tough because of the amount of 2s we take relative to 3s and really only having Ron and Geo as capable 3 point shooters. Paul can knock them down wide open.

I really think success comes down with hoping Ron and Geo are on. Unfortunately hope is not the best strategy. Almost feels like it is a roll of the dice. Doesn't seem to be any pattern when Ron and Geo are on.

 

[Loyal_2RU]

Last year and this we have liked best when we played a bit but up tempo and less grind it out, with the tempo being generated by defensive pressure, not offensive pace.

Like to see us start the game ( or Shriner in first 4 minutes) with some pressure.

 

[RUChoppin]

effective FG% is tough because of the amount of 2s we take relative to 3s and really only having Ron and Geo as capable 3 point shooters. Paul can knock them down wide open.

Mulcahy had a slump earlier in the year, but his career 3P% is solid. I'd trust him with a 3 more than Baker most nights.

Looking at the 3P% for the last 3 seasons (after the line got moved back):
.355 (128/361) - Harper
.299 (104/248) - Baker
.250 (34/136) - McConnell
.346 (46/133) - Mulcahy
.260 (32/123) - Hyatt

Since the post-covid reset on 12/30 (only players with more than 15 attempts)
.319 (22/69) - Baker
.444 (24/54) - Harper
.387 (12/31) - Mulcahy
.368 (7/19) - McConnell
.316 (6/19) - Hyatt

Edit: Totally messed up that second set and looked at the full season, not just since the covid reset.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

That is a real significant sample size for Geo. If you really want to be honest with his game what are his strengths in the 1st 39 minutes of a game. To shoot 29.9% from 3 and never get to the paint and never get to the line and be an under average defender.......

Tough to win with those numbers and attributes as your 2 guard.

 

[Degaz-RU]

Northwestern was playing the NCAA version of prevent defense on offense.

we have an almost 90 game sample of size of what Paul Mulcahy is. I am pretending the NW game didn’t exist.

I like the optimism, but we are still a terrible offensive team that against some opponents have to become an even worse offensive team because of the defensive lineups we have to play.

The key to RU success is Geo and Ron hitting shots. Unfortunately that is basically it.

Unfortunately, I must (somewhat) agree with this. Yes, Paul had an UNBELIEVABLE game, but part of that was the fact that the guys guarding him were not terribly athletic, so he was able to make plays after dribbling around Cliff's high screen.

As well, the 3/4-court press/trap we used will not work against more athletic teams.

We will still need to get over the yips that we have encountered in the first 10 minutes of games, both the TOs and the awful shooting. In that regard, I agree that we need to insert Mag into the starting lineup for Caleb.

 

[goru7]

That is a real significant sample size for Geo. If you really want to be honest with his game what are his strengths in the 1st 39 minutes of a game. To shoot 29.9% from 3 and never get to the paint and never get to the line and be an under average defender.......

Tough to win with those numbers and attributes as your 2 guard.

Amazing that I did not mention Geo in my 10 positive developments in the second half of NW and you go right to Geo and deal with the negatives. I get it you are normally a negative half empty guy that has to see decent defense being played to impress you. I tried to lay out a bunch of positive developments that can make us a better team . The reason I did not mention Geo was that he had his most negative night ever. We get anything from him we win. You already called Rutgers a bad Big 10 team in that other thread . Do you think Geo will score 0 down the stretch and that Paul will revert to scoring zero like he did the game before against Maryland ? There were a bunch of positives that I guessed you just ignored and decided it is Geo and Ron or bust. I agree having Ron and Geo go off together gives us a better chance to win but all of the other positives will make us win more easily , more efficiently , with a much nicer pace and compete against anyone home or away and not just eke out a win. Plus it is better , smarter basketball to watch with less turnovers , sharing the ball, crashing the boards , playing great defense with deflections galore . The things done in the second half were not once a year things but positive things that can be done now to deal with the gauntlet. If followed , we have a better chance at winning than when Ron and Geo just score some.

 

[bac2therac]

if you cannot shoot, these are the things you have to do, win the rebounding battle and win the turnover battle and scoring points after turnovers in transition

 

[RUChoppin]

Do you think Geo will score 0 down the stretch and that Paul will revert to scoring zero like he did the game before against Maryland ?

I fully expect we will have games down the stretch where Baker and/or Mulcahy struggle to put up points.

In his last 2 seasons of conference play (31 games), Baker has scored 5 or fewer points 6 times (about 19% of the time).

In his last 2 seasons of conference play (33 games), Mulcahy has scored 3 or fewer points 6 times (about 18% of the time).

We're an inconsistent team... getting all the pieces clicking at the same time on a night is rare.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I am sorry but I am rejecting any premise that the 2nd half of that game has any relevance to what we will see in the next 8.

I agree with the blueprint

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

We're an inconsistent team... getting all the pieces clicking at the same time on a night is rare.

It is hard for that to ever happen when our 2nd best offensive player is more comfortable shooting off a dribble yet doesn’t break down defenses with the dribble.

 

[Scangg]

I'd like to see Paul more aggressive looking to score. It will open up the passes. He may not be quick enough in most matchups to do what he did against NW but he can learn to use his size and strength to power through the quicker guards. More post ups.

Offensive rebounding. We can't shoot so crash the boards. We have the players who can all be good offensive rebounders. The team gets more energized when we are crashing the O boards. It's more the style of play we want too

 

[goru7]

I fully expect we will have games down the stretch where Baker and/or Mulcahy struggle to put up points.

In his last 2 seasons of conference play (31 games), Baker has scored 5 or fewer points 6 times (about 19% of the time).

In his last 2 seasons of conference play (33 games), Mulcahy has scored 3 or fewer points 6 times (about 18% of the time).

We're an inconsistent team... getting all the pieces clicking at the same time on a night is rare.

Northwestern was playing the NCAA version of prevent defense on offense.

we have an almost 90 game sample of size of what Paul Mulcahy is. I am pretending the NW game didn’t exist.

I like the optimism, but we are still a terrible offensive team that against some opponents have to become an even worse offensive team because of the defensive lineups we have to play.

The key to RU success is Geo and Ron hitting shots. Unfortunately that is basically it.

You call it prevent defense and I say we imposed our will and forced them into their confusion. We didn’t just sit back in a 2 /3 zone. We pressed to make them take almost 10 seconds off the 30 second clock to get across half court , then we trapped or did an immediate double and used our length for steals. We played the zone really high and forced them towards half court so that they were never in attack mode. Remember what we saw is suggested to get us out of our slow starts where we are not intense on defense and gets everybody engaged . Plus it is pretty evident by now turning up our defense energizes and jump starts our offense where we play at a better pace which suits us better than a pure half court game and This will also increase our offensive efficiency
To totally throw out what you saw from Paul is just foolish. You have never seen Paul be this aggressive , the high school triple double machine guy, for 2 and a half years . He was just not shooting without hesitation , he became a scorer , which he never has shown and that is different. He did that without compromising his craftiness or his elite passing to the bigs for dunks . That game has the potential to be a big confidence boost for him and increase our point scoring to get us to 70 a game as a team, one of the keys to winning games this year.
Changing the pace and letting our defense energize our offense and Paul’s assertiveness alone will increase our offensive efficiency so that we are not in your words “a terrible offensive team”.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

So sorry, but we are screwed if the game plan on offense resembles anything like what worked in the 2nd half vs. NW.

we are also screwed if a zone where Geo is 30 feet from the basket is going to work. MSU will carve it to pieces. If NW was in attack mode they would have too.

Now what we need to see from the 2nd half is playing hard on offense. Crashing the offensive boards. Moving off the ball. Playing with Paul players should know if they work hard off the ball and get open they will score. Don’t need a dribble.

 

[goru7]

I fully expect we will have games down the stretch where Baker and/or Mulcahy struggle to put up points.

In his last 2 seasons of conference play (31 games), Baker has scored 5 or fewer points 6 times (about 19% of the time).

In his last 2 seasons of conference play (33 games), Mulcahy has scored 3 or fewer points 6 times (about 18% of the time).

We're an inconsistent team... getting all the pieces clicking at the same time on a night is rare.

I will totally agree we are a very inconsistent team not just from game to game but even half to half as we are something like -20 or -30 in the first half and + 85-100 in the second half. But I will say it again that we play to the name on the Jersey. We get up for the top of the conference so I think we will be less inconsistent during the gauntlet. Highly doubt Geo or Paul will give you 0-5 and 0-3 points against the top of the conference. We tend to throw in clunkers against teams we perceive we are better than ( Nebraska away last year) (Nebraska this year on the road) Maryland home game after an 11 point road game. We hardly ever lay a clunker against Purdue ,, Iowa, Wisconsin , Illinois (with exception of this year, but I predict a different result in 2 weeks ) Indiana , Michigan State. We have beaten Ohio State a number of times but we never seem to play well against them. But 6-7 of the top teams , we do. We compete hard, we shoot a little better, we rebound a little better , we play defense usually a lot better . It is time for the inconsistency to stop and the second half of the NW game might have started the momentum.

 

[RUChoppin]

Highly doubt Geo or Paul will give you 0-5 and 0-3 points against the top of the conference. We tend to throw in clunkers against teams we perceive we are better than ( Nebraska away last year) (Nebraska this year on the road) Maryland home game after an 11 point road game. We hardly ever lay a clunker against Purdue ,, Iowa, Wisconsin , Illinois (with exception of this year, but I predict a different result in 2 weeks ) Indiana , Michigan State. We have beaten Ohio State a number of times but we never seem to play well against them. But 6-7 of the top teams , we do. We compete hard, we shoot a little better, we rebound a little better , we play defense usually a lot better . It s time for the inconsistency to start and the second half of the NW game might have started the momentum.

Baker and Mulcahy have had several clunkers against name teams the past couple of years, too.

We have Michigan State coming in tomorrow. Over the past 3 games against MSU, Baker has averaged 6.7 pts (8/23 FG, 2/11 3P) and Mulcahy has averaged 3.3 (5/16 FG, 0/3 3P). Harper has averaged 10.3 pts (12/39 FG, 2/14 3P).

 

[goru7]

this, I get the OP is trying to be optimistic but I really do not think its a realistic take, the blueprint for success come from Geo and Ron locked in on both ends.

Geo and Ron locked in when they are #1 and # 2 on the other team’s scouting report on who you have to stop , might not be enough to get you to 70 points and a good chance to win. You need to do the other things and need more options who can score to help and put pressure on our opponents.

 

[goru7]

Baker and Mulcahy have had several clunkers against name teams the past couple of years, too.

We have Michigan State coming in tomorrow. Over the past 3 games against MSU, Baker has averaged 6.7 pts (8/23 FG, 2/11 3P) and Mulcahy has averaged 3.3 (5/16 FG, 0/3 3P). Harper has averaged 10.3 pts (12/39 FG, 2/14 3P).

We played Michigan State once last year and we beat them by 30 and played them twice in 2 close games 2 years ago when Paul was a freshman and not starting. That was Cassius Winston , Xavier Tillman’s top team. This is not that MSU team and frankly they are not anywhere near the defensive team that that version or earlier versions were like. In fact , the entire BIG 10 is not as good as the last 2-3 years and does not have a lot of Senior or upperclassman dominated teams. The rising stars in the league are sophomores and centers. Paul is exactly in a position to up that 3.3 average against MSU and the rest of the BiG 10 because he is older , more experienced and hopefully after NW more confident

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Baker and Mulcahy have had several clunkers against name teams the past couple of years, too.

We have Michigan State coming in tomorrow. Over the past 3 games against MSU, Baker has averaged 6.7 pts (8/23 FG, 2/11 3P) and Mulcahy has averaged 3.3 (5/16 FG, 0/3 3P). Harper has averaged 10.3 pts (12/39 FG, 2/14 3P).

Oh no

 

[RUChoppin]

We played Michigan State once last year and we beat them by 30 and played them twice in 2 close games 2 years ago when Paul was a freshman and not starting.

We played Michigan State twice last year. We beat them by 30 about 3 weeks after we lost by 23.... and averaged 61 points across the two contests.

The prior year we played them once, losing by 12 on the road, 77-65.

Looking at our current roster's averages against Michigan State over the last 3 games:

Harper: 3 games, 30.7 min, 10.3 pts (.308 FG%, 0.143 3P%), 4.3 rb, 1.7 ast, 1.0 stl, 3.0 pf
Baker: 3 games, 28.3 min, 6.7 pts (.348 FG%, 0.182 3P%), 3.7 rb, 4.0 ast, 2.3 stl, 1.7 pf
Mulcahy: 3 games, 23.7 min, 3.3 pts (.313 FG%, 0.000 3P%), 2.7 rb, 3.0 ast, 1.0 stl, 1.7 pf
McConnell: 3 games, 22.7 min, 4.7 pts (.294 FG%, 0.000 3P%), 2.7 rb, 0.7 ast, 2.0 stl, 1.7 pf

Meanwhile:
Johnson: 3 games, 24.0 min, 5.7 pts (.533 FG), 8.0 rb, 2.7 blk, 2.7 pf
Young: 3 games, 22.0 min, 11.0 pts (.324 FG, .500 3P%), 3.0 rb, 2.0 ast, 1.7 pf
Mathis: 3 games, 21.3 min, 6.7 pts (.438 FG, .667 3P%), 2.3 rb, 2.0 pf

Going to need some guys to step up tomorrow.

 

[fluoxetine]

That is a real significant sample size for Geo.

Honestly it’s not. I had a discussion in an earlier thread (not sure if you were involved) where I computed a bunch of confidence intervals and even a full college career of reasonable volume 3 point shooting is not enough to really know how good someone is. We probably have enough of a sample to know with reasonable confidence that he’s not a *great* three point shooter.

 

[fluoxetine]

Oh no

But how have they played on Saturdays at 4pm?

 

[Scangg]

Honestly it’s not. I had a discussion in an earlier thread (not sure if you were involved) where I computed a bunch of confidence intervals and even a full college career of reasonable volume 3 point shooting is not enough to really know how good someone is. We probably have enough of a sample to know with reasonable confidence that he’s not a *great* three point shooter.

Then why ever look at the stat? Ever? Lol

You don't think that after four years you have a reasonably good idea of how good of a shooter someone is?

 

[RUChoppin]

Honestly it’s not. I had a discussion in an earlier thread (not sure if you were involved) where I computed a bunch of confidence intervals and even a full college career of reasonable volume 3 point shooting is not enough to really know how good someone is. We probably have enough of a sample to know with reasonable confidence that he’s not a *great* three point shooter.

There's plenty large enough sample size to talk about the player Baker has been to this point - just not necessarily enough to reliably predict "what he will do in the next game or games".

A full college career will tell you how good someone is, because that's all you get, and everyone gets roughly the same window of time to make a mark. If you can't evaluate someone based on a full college career, then there's no way to evaluate how good any college player has ever been in the history of the sport.

 

[fluoxetine]

You don't think that after four years you have a reasonably good idea of how good of a shooter someone is?

Sure. But not nearly as good an idea as almost everyone thinks (including me btw, I was very surprised how wide those confidence intervals were)

We have enough data on Geo to be very confident he’s not a super good three point shooter.

 

[fluoxetine]

There's plenty large enough sample size to talk about the player Baker has been to this point - just not necessarily enough to reliably predict "what he will do in the next game or games".

A full college career will tell you how good someone is, because that's all you get, and everyone gets roughly the same window of time to make a mark. If you can't evaluate someone based on a full college career, then there's no way to evaluate how good any college player has ever been in the history of the sport.

The post I replied to is clearly trying to use the stat to gauge what to expect in the future, not just describe the past.

It’s not my fault that a college career’s worth of three point shots, or a thirty game season for a team, or whatever else people want to be significant is actually not. Luck and variance plays a gigantic role in the outcomes you observe. Shoot the messenger if you want, it won’t make it any less true.

(Note this is not all directed at you individually)

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Then why ever look at the stat? Ever? Lol

You don't think that after four years you have a reasonably good idea of how good of a shooter someone is?

How about 5?

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

So baker has 248 attempts and has made 30% of them. What would be the standard deviation for his next 60 attempts around the expected rate of 30%?

how confident are we that his next 60 attempts he will make 20 or less?

 

[fluoxetine]

So baker has 248 attempts and has made 30% of them. What would be the standard deviation for his next 60 attempts around the expected rate of 30%?

how confident are we that his next 60 attempts he will make 20 or less?

Where are these numbers coming from? As far as I can see he is 104/342 (30.4%) since the line was moved back.

Let's assume we know nothing about what to expect for a 3-point shooting rate except what we've seen Baker do. Then we have a sample of 342 with a success rate of .304.

So our estimate of the true rate is .304. The standard error of this estimate is sqrt(.304*(1-.304)/342) = 0.024873.

So we will run a Monte Carlo simulation. For each simulation we will randomly generate Geo's "true" 3-point percentage from a normal distribution with mean 30.4% and standard deviation 2.5%. Then we will simulate 60 independent 3-point attempts using that true rate.

I ran 10,000 of these.

Average made (out of 60): 18.32
Standard deviation: 3.865
# under 20: 7,179 (71.79%)

 

[fluoxetine]

A 32% "true" shooter would make <= 104 out of 342 28.5% of the time.
A 34% "true" shooter would make <= 104 out of 342 8.8% of the time.
A 35% "true" shooter would make <= 104 out of 342 4.1% of the time.

The 95% confidence interval for Baker's "true" shooting percentage is [25.77%, 35.48%]
The 90% confidence interval for Baker's "true" shooting percentage is [26.48%, 34.64%]

 

[RUChoppin]

The post I replied to is clearly trying to use the stat to gauge what to expect in the future, not just describe the past.

It’s not my fault that a college career’s worth of three point shots, or a thirty game season for a team, or whatever else people want to be significant is actually not. Luck and variance plays a gigantic role in the outcomes you observe. Shoot the messenger if you want, it won’t make it any less true.

(Note this is not all directed at you individually)

At a certain point, looking purely at mathematical models divorces itself from reality.... and saying things like "you can't judge how good a player is based on their body of work" is past that particular event horizon.

As far as gauging what to expect in the future, people do that based on second-hand anecdotes, let alone sample sizes that wouldn't be considered statistically significant in a peer reviewed journal.

One can say "Mulcahy has been a better 3P shooter than Omoruyi, and I'd be more comfortable with him taking a shot from behind the arc".... without having to pedantically hedge and talk about small sample sizes. People make opinions based on all sorts of inputs, and preferring Mulcahy to take a three over Omoruyi (or whoever) is a perfectly valid one... not all opinions have to be rooted in sound statistical analysis on a fan message board.

Reminds me of the scene from Groundhog Day when Bill Murray says "did you really want to talk about the weather, or were you just making chit chat?" lol

 

[fluoxetine]

At a certain point, looking purely at mathematical models divorces itself from reality.... and saying things like "you can't judge how good a player is based on their body of work" is past that particular event horizon.

"You can't judge how good a player is based on their body of work" is a gross misunderstanding of the point.

The 90% confidence interval for Baker's "true" shooting percentage is [26.48%, 34.64%] (post line moving back). You can claim I am "divorcing myself from reality" by uh.. understanding math.. if you want.

One can say "Mulcahy has been a better 3P shooter than Omoruyi, and I'd be more comfortable with him taking a shot from behind the arc".... without having to pedantically hedge and talk about small sample sizes.

Ok. Now what if literally the only information you had on Omoruyi was that he was 0/4 on three point shots? Still comfortable with that statement?

People make opinions based on all sorts of inputs, and preferring Mulcahy to take a three over Omoruyi (or whoever) is a perfectly valid one... not all opinions have to be rooted in sound statistical analysis on a fan message board.

This is completely unresponsive to anything in my post, but ok.

 

[RUChoppin]

"You can't judge how good a player is based on their body of work" is a gross misunderstanding of the point.

The 90% confidence interval for Baker's "true" shooting percentage is [26.48%, 34.64%] (post line moving back). You can claim I am "divorcing myself from reality" by uh.. understanding math.. if you want.


Ok. Now what if literally the only information you had on Omoruyi was that he was 0/4 on three point shots? Still comfortable with that statement?


This is completely unresponsive to anything in my post, but ok.

Divorced from reality in the sense that in the "real world" people don't talk about how good a player is by using statistical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations. Is that how you determine what you consider a good restaurant, or a good song, or a good book? The whole concept of "good" is a subjective one.

"Was the pasta good tonight?"
"That's impossible to say without my lab equipment and far more data"

It's like reading a scene with Sheldon from a Big Bang Theory script.

 

[fluoxetine]

Divorced from reality in the sense that in the "real world" people don't talk about how good a player is by using statistical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations.

I mean, if they are trying to predict the future and are any good at it that is exactly how they do it. If you want to describe the past, there is no need, though it can really help put that in perspective as well.

I'm certainly aware that "real world" or "average" people don't use or understand these tools. Those people have a lot of terrible and stupid opinions because of that lack of understanding. Telling me I am not like them is not an insult.

Is that how you determine what you consider a good restaurant, or a good song, or a good book? The whole concept of "good" is a subjective one.

"Was the pasta good tonight?"
"That's impossible to say without my lab equipment and far more data"

It's like reading a scene with Sheldon from a Big Bang Theory script.

Are you on drugs? You think deciding whether a basketball player is good is similar to deciding whether you like a restaurant? And you say I've crossed the event horizon, good lord.

 

[RUChoppin]

I mean, if they are trying to predict the future and are any good at it that is exactly how they do it. If you want to describe the past, there is no need, though it can really help put that in perspective as well.

Predicting the future in college basketball is impossible with anything approaching being "any good" at it. If there were a model out there that could tell you how well a player/team would perform on any given future game, someone would become a billionaire on sports betting and the entire betting industry would shut down.

So there is no "how they do it" because no one can actually do it.

As you've said, the sample sizes are too small for such analytics - there's no sense even bringing them into the discussion.

I'm certainly aware that "real world" or "average" people don't use or understand these tools. Those people have a lot of terrible and stupid opinions because of that lack of understanding. Telling me I am not like them is not an insult.

Who said it was an insult?

The word "good" is a subjective one. There's no mathematical definition of a "good" shooter or "good" basketball player. You can use your analytics to try to inform your own subjective opinion... but at the end of the day, it's still subjective. If you set a specific set of criteria to empirically define "good", it'd still just be your own subjective set of criteria that isn't universally accepted.

It's like someone saying it's "chilly" outside.... that means different things to different people. Arguing about whether 49.3 degrees Fahrenheit should technically be referred to as "chilly" or not is just being pedantic.

You said "a full college career of reasonable volume 3 point shooting is not enough to really know how good someone is".... that's bonkers. You've set your own mathematical threshold of determining of "good" outside the data set.

Even if you had 10K games by a specific player, you'd still need to set some threshold above which would be "good" and below which would be some other subjective label... and people could rationally disagree with where you set the line.

Are you on drugs? You think deciding whether a basketball player is good is similar to deciding whether you like a restaurant? And you say I've crossed the event horizon, good lord.

Again, though, "good" is subjective. One person can say that Baker is a "good" player, and another can say he's a "mediocre" player, or a "poor" player, or whatever.... choose your adjective. Because each person is using their own definition, and the English language isn't empirical... there's no universally recognized definition of a "good" player in this context that can be mathematically calculated.

And any empirical definition of "good" would rely on countless other variables, a great many of which aren't tracked or even measurable.

So, while stats and analytics are fun to look at and talk about in relation to basketball players - and can spawn fascinating and interesting (and worthwhile) discussions - forcing everything into that context isn't always a good fit. I generally agree with most of what you post, and frequently take things away that I continue to read about and learn something.... but saying a full college career isn't enough to know how good someone is was just a bridge too far.