I revised my previous comment, so I’ll repeat what I said again. Game after game, the analysts show the stats and discuss how points off turnovers and scoring in transition is the strength of this year’s team, and that’s clear to anyone who watches the games. Outside shooting is not. We try to get steals and create turnovers and get out in transition. That’s how Red wants to play. Is it elite yet? No. But that is this team’s clear stength. A previous poster showed how we’re in the top 50 in the country in pace of play per KenPom, when we’ve been mostly a slow paced team for almost decade now.
You said: “Nobody was walking away from those games thinking we did well in transition.”
Is this an elite transition team or one of the vintage run and gun Syracuse teams from the 80s, 90s and 2000s? No. But it doesn’t need to be. My original point is that Joe isn’t a great player in the fast break. That’s not his game.
You commented that pace of play wouldn’t be an issue for Joe and that we don’t fast break much or that well. Which isn’t true.
If you missed the Pitt game, then you missed how well this team can excel in transition. We also proved that against Oregon, Gtown, LSU and others.
We also haven’t played any “bad” teams aside from maybe Niagara. It sounds like maybe you only watch the games against top 25 teams and Virginia. No wonder you have a skewed opinion of this team.
I watch the games I get without cable. That takes many early games against bad teams/mid majors out of the equation for me. It’s not by choice, but you could have guessed that. You just wanted to insinuate I’m a casual observer to bolster the point you’re trying to make. Not how I’d go about it, but you do you.
Nobody argued we aren’t trying to play faster. We are. Because we rebound poorly and our Forwards aren’t good finishers, our transition game struggles to get moving. What we end up with a lot of times are early offense drives to the basket and plays made off of that. It’s not the transition offense you’re implying it is. Red’s intent would factor into whether he’d want Girard in this offense, which would be markedly different than whether Girard could operate in the offense we actually have.
Joe’s defensive shortcomings are known. Nobody will argue tight man defense is something he’d do particularly well. He was better at causing turnovers than he ever got credit for, but still short of good there.
Now, to the ultimate point about Joe fitting our pace of play; he would be a hell of a weapon spotting up at the 3 point line in transition or early offense (call it quasi-transition if you’d like). Transition 3’s are a big piece of the game nowadays and considered high percentage looks. JJ handles the ball better than Joe but it’s not like Joe was tripping over himself trying to dribble. He couldn’t handle pressure defense, but that’s not what you’d face in transition. Instead, you usually have a lot more space to operate, but you need to know where to get and how to get there decisively. Well, Joe’s transition role would be very clearly defined. He’d know where he had to get.
I suspect the belief that he couldn’t do well in transition is related to his foot speed. I don’t buy that argument. His straight line speed is more than adequate. His lateral quickness/agility is where he looks ‘slow.’ That’s not coming into play much in a traditional transition break, like you’re referring to. Think about Scoop Jardine in regard to athleticism and transition ability and how the two are not always intertwined. Scoop’s game and Joe’s are not in the same ballpark. But, nobody would ever accuse Scoop of being fast or agile. His handle could be shaky at times. Yet, he was one of the best transition guards I’ve ever watched because he knew what to do. Joe could handle, ‘get the ball up the court, pass to whoever is open and get your behind to the three point line.’ Spotting up to shoot threes is not strictly a halfcourt offense thing.
Which brings us to JJ. Before any of my words get twisted, like what happened with KR, I like Starling’s potential and look forward to him developing here. Since he’s in Joe’s spot, this is the comparison we have to make. Is JJ more likely to beat his guy to the rim on a fast break than Joe Girard? Yes. Is JJ more likely to initiate a fast break and feed a Forward for a dunk than Joe Girard? Stats seem to point to no or maybe. JJ is not much of an assist man but perhaps he’s been racking up ‘hockey assists.’ Is JJ’s defense better, leading to more steals and more transition opportunities? Again, stats aren’t painting that picture. The eye test says he’s a tougher matchup for the guys he’s guarding. The eye test rarely tells the whole story, as we know. I’m looking for the numbers that would indicate Starling is currently giving us more overall or just in transition and I’m not getting there. The closest stat that would point to that is Starling’s rebounding which is hit or miss game-to-game.
Edit: Scratch the rebound thing. Joe straight up gets boards. To the point an argument could be made he’d help the transition offense by getting us the dang ball.
