A lot of strange posts

[rrlbees]

1. 3. G's been good lately.

G has played better in some ways, but what is considered good? He made 1 basket last night. He played his best all year the 1st half of Duke, but didn't score in the 2nd half. He didn't score vs BC. He didn't make a basket vs NCSt. He made 1 basket vs Pitt. Didn't make a basket vs Clemson. Made 1 basket vs ND and didn't score vs Duke in the Dome.

I know scoring isn't everything but I'm not seeing where this screams he's playing so good and should get more minutes. He's part of the rotation and is contributing. He's a solid player. But all this G vs Cooney stuff is silly and JB would disagree.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

60 points per game or less is also more indicative of how other teams are milking the clock when they are on offense. I can't remember an SU team that had so many 35 seconds shot violations by their opponents and so many last second desperation shots. You can't score without the ball. Someone showed the metrics lately on points per possession. That is a far more accurate measure than total points per game.We aren't great but we are quite good most of the time. I know it doesn't seem so but that is also a function of so few possessions per game. Each time down court gets a much higher value.

Bingo!!

The inability to control/dictate tempo has always been my biggest concern with playing zone exclusively. He11, even Duke ran clock on Saturday.[/quote]
It's not how many points are scored. Its who has the most at the end of the game. It just gives us fans nightmares and heart failure. It also isn't as much fun to watch. I fell better with the all the wins though than I would with all the highlight reel fast break dunks and an L in the loss column. The fact of so many 35 second shot clock violations vs SU is a good thing for us. The other team doesn't score and we get the ball.

 

[TheCusian]

1. I'm tired of this myth that Cooney gets adverse attention. He's guarded just like any other elite college shooter. However, he's missing open shots, it's not like people are dinging him for missing contested 3's. 2. Not everyone here takes JB's actions as gospel, and had their own beliefs in terms of the use of freshman like Roberson 3. G's been good lately.

Coach K, is that you? I didn't think you'd take the time to chime in given your job. Congrats on being the only person alive with the credentials to truly second guess Jimmy on a freshman's playing time.

Good luck the rest of the way. Can't wait to beat the tar out of you guys in the ACC tourney!

 

[SWC75]

You really think that was a "real good road win"? I don't think many people would see it that way. I'm all for the reasonable attitude you've brought to the board with this post, but let's not sugarcoat things too much.

Wins are bronze. Conference wins are silver. Conference road wins are gold.

 

[moqui]

Someone showed the metrics lately on points per possession. That is a far more accurate measure than total points per game.We aren't great but we are quite good most of the time. I know it doesn't seem so but that is also a function of so few possessions per game. Each time down court gets a much higher value.

that may have been me, as it is something that I harp on. points per possession is offensive efficiency.

for most of the year, SU has been an elite team in offensive efficiency. Two weeks ago Syracuse was ranked 5th nationally in OE. But the offense has really stagnated over the past five games, and the team is now ranked 22nd. Twenty-two overall is pretty good, but take that steep a decline after just five games, we probably rank in the bottom half of the nation for the last two weeks.

 

[SWC75]

that may have been me, as it is something that I harp on. points per possession is offensive efficiency.

for most of the year, SU has been an elite team in offensive efficiency. Two weeks ago Syracuse was ranked 5th nationally in OE. But the offense has really stagnated over the past five games, and the team is now ranked 22nd. Twenty-two overall is pretty good, but take that steep a decline after just five games, we probably rank in the bottom half of the nation for the last two weeks.

Here is the data I've complied for my "Net Points, etc. posts:

Efficiency

Syracuse 82 in 67 (1.223) Cornell 60 in 68 (0.882) Total Possessions: 136
Syracuse 89 in 74 (1.203) Fordham 74 in 74 (1.000) Total Possessions: 148
Syracuse 69 in 65 (1.062) Colgate 50 in 66 (0.758) Total Possessions: 131
Syracuse 56 in 54 (1.037) St. Francis 50 in 54 (0.926) Total Possessions: 108
Syracuse 75 in 65 (1.154) Minnesota 67 in 65 (1.031) Total Possessions: 130
Syracuse 92 in 69 (1.333) California 81 in 69 (1.174) Total Possessions: 138
Syracuse 74 in 62 (1.194) Baylor 67 in 61 (1.098) Total Possessions: 123
Syracuse 69 in 58 (1.190) Indiana 52 in 57 (0.912) Total Possessions: 141
Syracuse 93 in 71 (1.310) Binghamton 65 in 70 (0.929) Total Possessions: 129
Syracuse 68 in 64 (1.063) St, John’s 63 in 65 (0.969) Total Possessions: 123
Syracuse 75 in 62 (1.210) High Point 54 in 61 (0.885) Total Possessions: 127
Syracuse 78 in 64 (1.219) Villanova 62 in 63 (0.984) Total Possessions: 127
Syracuse 70 in 68 (1.029) E. Michigan 48 in 69 (0.696) Total Possessions: 137
Syracuse 49 in 49 (1.000) Miami 44 in 50 (0.880) Total Possessions: 99
Syracuse 72 in 56 (1.286) Virginia Tech 52 in 55 (0.945) Total Possessions: 111
Syracuse 57 in 60 (0.950) North Carolina 45 in 59 (0.763) Total Possessions: 119
Syracuse 69 in 57 (1.211) Boston College 59 in 56 (1.054) Total Possessions: 113
Syracuse 59 in 54 (1.093) Pittsburgh 54 in 53 (1.019) Total possessions: 107
Syracuse 64 in 51 (1.255) Miami 52 in 51 (1.020) Total possessions: 102
Syracuse 67 in 64 (1.047) Wake Forest 57 in 65 (0.877) Total possessions: 129
Syracuse 91 in 67 (1.358) Duke 89 in 68 (1.309) Total possessions: 135
Syracuse 61 in 54 (1.130) Notre Dame 55 in 55 (1.000) Total possessions: 109
Syracuse 57 in 49 (1.163) Clemson 44 in 48 (0.917) Total possessions: 97
Syracuse 58 in 53 (1.094) Pittsburgh 56 in 54 (1.037) Total Possessions: 107
Syracuse 56 in 60 (0.933) NC State 55 in 61 (0.902) Total Possessions: 121
Syracuse 59 in 63 (0.937) Boston College 62 in 62 (1.000) Total Possessions: 125
Syracuse 60 in 61 (0.984) Duke 66 in 60 (1.100) Total Possessions: 121
Syracuse 57 in 64 (0.891) Maryland 55 in 65 (0.846) Total possessions 129

Season Totals: Syracuse 1926 in 1705 (1.130) Opposition: 1638 in 1704 (0.961) Total Possessions:3419 (122)

In the last 7 games we are averaging 1.010 points per possession, compared to 1.167 in the 21 games before that. 1.167 x 61 possessions is 71 points. 1.010 x 61 = 62 points.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

that may have been me, as it is something that I harp on. points per possession is offensive efficiency.

for most of the year, SU has been an elite team in offensive efficiency. Two weeks ago Syracuse was ranked 5th nationally in OE. But the offense has really stagnated over the past five games, and the team is now ranked 22nd. Twenty-two overall is pretty good, but take that steep a decline after just five games, we probably rank in the bottom half of the nation for the last two weeks.

Damn. I give someone credit and they nuke me . Thanks though. I do like that metric as it is a far better me sure of a teams ability to score. You just need to post it more often and I have to pay more attention to it. Put that on your to-do list and I'll just lay around and wait for it .

 

[moqui]

Season Totals: Syracuse 1926 in 1705 (1.130) Opposition: 1638 in 1704 (0.961) Total Possessions:3419 (122)

slightly different numbers but similar results:

There are two different standard formulas for estimating possessions; Pomeroy uses the one that has more variables and that currently has Syracuse at 114.4 per 100 possessions on offense (1.144 the way you render it) and 92.6 per 100 on defense. Prior to the Pitt game, we were at 118.6 on offense which as noted was 5th in the nation. I know the defense has improved at the same time, but I don't have a record of the exact number or ranking.

 

[Ghost]

-Roberson - for the love of god, JB sees these guys every day in practice. If he felt he could impact the game more, he'd play him more. It's real simple. JB had three quality guards and was able to play Dion 30 mins, so we know he's open to opening the bench, as long as he trusts them. The drop off from CJ to Roberson is huge. So, 40 mins it is. Why not trust JB when he says CJ at 80% at certain stretches is better than other options? Stuff happens on the court, stuff happens off the court, etc..all that impacts who plays and how much.

-G. Right now, JB is comfortable with a 3rd year guy vs a frosh (with much more upside) to understand where to be in the zone. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. Just look to a few possessions last night when G was quickly getting out to the 3 pt line but had the quickness, and understanding, to quickly get back and help down low. It resulted in good d on one possession and a TO by Md. on the next.

Roberson - Eh, I don't think it's crazy for people to want to see more Roberson. We didn't really develop a replacement for Onuaku in 2010, and it bit us in the ass (not that any amount of time would have helped Riley tbh). We didn't develop Cooney last year, and you could argue it hurt us against Michigan on the final play. We didn't play Grant last year, then when he got big minutes for a short stretch he did pretty well - which I think reinforces the argument that some of these guys may be ready to play, but don't.

I think everyone understands why JB does it, but I think some people disagree. I also don't think anyone has ever argued that the drop off from CJ to Roberson isn't huge - nobody is asking for him to get 20 minutes a night. I think the argument is, should he get some of those minutes that are going to G in the forward spot.

I guess if you think the D is noticeably better when G is in the forward spot (as you suggest), you have your answer. I'm not sure it is. Plus, outside of the last two games G has been relatively useless on offense (and in 27 minutes had zero rebounds against MD).

In ACC play in 5 of the 7 games Roberson played in we outscored opponents with him on the floor. He averages 1 rebound every 4 minutes on the season.

In ACC play 6 out of 13 games when G is on the floor we have outscored opponents. He averages 1 rebound every 7 minutes (a lot of that time spent at guard obviously).

 

[TheRoyalIveyFund]

Roberson - Eh, I don't think it's crazy for people to want to see more Roberson. We didn't really develop a replacement for Onuaku in 2010, and it bit us in the ass (not that any amount of time would have helped Riley tbh). We didn't develop Cooney last year, and you could argue it hurt us against Michigan on the final play. We didn't play Grant last year, then when he got big minutes for a short stretch he did pretty well - which I think reinforces the argument that some of these guys may be ready to play, but don't.

I think everyone understands why JB does it, but I think some people disagree. I also don't think anyone has ever argued that the drop off from CJ to Roberson isn't huge - nobody is asking for him to get 20 minutes a night. I think the argument is, should he get some of those minutes that are going to G in the forward spot.

I guess if you think the D is noticeably better when G is in the forward spot (as you suggest), you have your answer. I'm not sure it is. Plus, outside of the last two games G has been relatively useless on offense (and in 27 minutes had zero rebounds against MD).

In ACC play in 5 of the 7 games Roberson played in we outscored opponents with him on the floor. He averages 1 rebound every 4 minutes on the season.

In ACC play 6 out of 13 games when G is on the floor we have outscored opponents. He averages 1 rebound every 7 minutes (a lot of that time spent at guard obviously).

I think my overall point is, at this point in the season, it is a bit crazy to continue to talk about it only because JB has 5-6 months of seeing Roberson in practice and games. At this point in the season, he know what he can do. So, if he thinks 78% of Fair, or a fully rested G are better than 100% Roberson, then it's good enough for me.

Also, I don't think people realize there's more to PT than just straight basketball skills. The kids have to perform well in the team concept, understand the zone well, do well off the court, etc. Most of us don't see Roberson like JB and if he's not playing, I don't get why everyone is as stubborn as don quixote in debating Roberson.

It's like me telling my surgeon he should be focusing more on cutting one way, instead of how he's been trained to do...or something like that.

 

[CaliCuse]

Been away from the board for a few days and checking in today, it is as if I've landed on another planet. We just had a real good road win to set up Sat's game vs Va and yet:

-Many posts about TC's value, or lack thereof. Yes, I get it, he's not hitting like he should. But, for those begging for less TC and more G at the 2, I wonder if you've watched basketball before? Seriously. TC is attracting so much attention that it opens lanes for Ennis, Fair and Grant. Without the threat of TC, and with G there, those lanes close. There is a reason why G gets "cleaner" looks...it's because he's not hounded, or having everyone switch on him.

-Roberson - for the love of god, JB sees these guys every day in practice. If he felt he could impact the game more, he'd play him more. It's real simple. JB had three quality guards and was able to play Dion 30 mins, so we know he's open to opening the bench, as long as he trusts them. The drop off from CJ to Roberson is huge. So, 40 mins it is. Why not trust JB when he says CJ at 80% at certain stretches is better than other options? Stuff happens on the court, stuff happens off the court, etc..all that impacts who plays and how much.

-G. Right now, JB is comfortable with a 3rd year guy vs a frosh (with much more upside) to understand where to be in the zone. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. Just look to a few possessions last night when G was quickly getting out to the 3 pt line but had the quickness, and understanding, to quickly get back and help down low. It resulted in good d on one possession and a TO by Md. on the next.

-Stall ball. Over almost 40 years, it's cost us just a handful of games. The one possession last night we didn't stall, TC jacked up a 3 with 28 on the shot clock. Take those 28 seconds off the clock and maybe Maryland doesn't even get to within 1. The offense was not cooking late last night, why would you want more of it? The D won the game, it's simple.

-We beat Maryland on the road, with no JG, with a hurt Baye (knee banged again), Rak in foul trouble and many other issues...it's a great win.

Its hardly "a great win"when you lead the opposing team by double digits for most of the game and the game is decided with a last second shot that easily could have won the game for Maryland. Sure they didn't make that shot but the Orange should not have allowed the game come down to that shot ,good or bad its not a good sign when the Orange consistently allow games to be decided in the last minute of a game. They can't wait for a bailout shot from Tyler at mid court.

 

[LennX6]

...don't get why everyone is as stubborn as don quixote in debating Roberson.

Thing is, the last few players I have said "we need more, now", when it came their time, they were , wow!
Waiters, I wanted more after his frosh year, MCW same way, Grant this year,
On the flip never did I think that about Rak or DC2.
I put Roberson in the first group.
One down side I see, is he looks like a perfect fit for a transition team, and transition team , we ain't.
I almost think the few plays Tyler R has made were mainly from feeds from G.

 

[Ghost]

I think my overall point is, at this point in the season, it is a bit crazy to continue to talk about it only because JB has 5-6 months of seeing Roberson in practice and games. At this point in the season, he know what he can do. So, if he thinks 78% of Fair, or a fully rested G are better than 100% Roberson, then it's good enough for me.

Also, I don't think people realize there's more to PT than just straight basketball skills. The kids have to perform well in the team concept, understand the zone well, do well off the court, etc. Most of us don't see Roberson like JB and if he's not playing, I don't get why everyone is as stubborn as don quixote in debating Roberson.

It's like me telling my surgeon he should be focusing more on cutting one way, instead of how he's been trained to do...or something like that.

I know - I'm not arguing that JB will change his mind - just that maybe he should. Grant being a good example last year - JB had decided 15-20 games into the year that Jerami was not ready to play - but then it turned out he was. He had plenty of time to see him in practice, yet there he was with 13 point and 5 boards when he got big minutes in a meaningful game (i.e. non-blowout non-conference chump, or Rutgers).

The kid played two minutes against Providence, then a week later logged 35 going for 10/5 in an upset of #1 UL. Were the people arguing Grant should be getting more time then wasting their time (in a sense yes, since we have no real-world impact on these decisions), or were they validated??? I get that you're saying a 100% G is better, but I'm not sure I've seen anything to indicate that other than he's played a lot more.

Well, most people aren't trained to be surgeons, or have watched a lot of surgeries, etc...kind of different. We see the kids plays, most of us have probably played ball on some level and understand it. I just don't see what people are seeing from G's limited time down low that makes him seem like a better option than Roberson. That he finally had a semi-decent half of basketball against Duke?

To each his own though!

 

[TheRoyalIveyFund]

I know - I'm not arguing that JB will change his mind - just that maybe he should. Grant being a good example last year - JB had decided 15-20 games into the year that Jerami was not ready to play - but then it turned out he was. He had plenty of time to see him in practice, yet there he was with 13 point and 5 boards when he got big minutes in a meaningful game (i.e. non-blowout non-conference chump, or Rutgers).

The kid played two minutes against Providence, then a week later logged 35 going for 10/5 in an upset of #1 UL. Were the people arguing Grant should be getting more time then wasting their time (in a sense yes, since we have no real-world impact on these decisions), or were they validated??? I get that you're saying a 100% G is better, but I'm not sure I've seen anything to indicate that other than he's played a lot more.

Well, most people aren't trained to be surgeons, or have watched a lot of surgeries, etc...kind of different. We see the kids plays, most of us have probably played ball on some level and understand it. I just don't see what people are seeing from G's limited time down low that makes him seem like a better option than Roberson. That he finally had a semi-decent half of basketball against Duke?

To each his own though!

You have a lot of good points in there, esp. the one I bolded. If I were solely basing my decisions/feelings on what G was bringing this year, and his somewhat limited upside, to what Roberson is displaying, and knowing his upside, I'd wholeheartedly agree. However, when it comes to certain players, some things that happen outside of what we can see impacts how much JB will play them. Dion was a great example. So, when I don't see Roberson for 38 or even 40 mins, I'm not surprised.

 

[realorange]

Last year when Grant had a chance to play, he showed some signs of understanding what needed to be done. This year Roberson has looked lost at times when he's had the chance and he's had several. JB would love to have Roberson ready to play meaningful minutes and has said as much. Obviously he doesn't think he is ready.
In case you hadn't noticed, JB plays the percentages and does it pretty well.