a tale of two seasons

[moqui]

Once it got through the relatively easy first 20 games of the schedule, and began facing well coached and talented teams that had the Orange well scouted, the easy transition buckets became scarce and the sputtering half court offense became more exposed.

I think it is a testament to the heart of these players and to the skill of the coaching staff that they were still able to win so many of those late season games - a typical SU squad would have lost half a dozen of them and failed to make the 2nd weekend of the tournament.

 

[Brian Orange]

That's why I think this team was better than the 2010 team -- they won games other Syracuse teams of the past never could (at LOU, Sweet 16, at UConn, etc).

 

[TinyManInside]

Once it got through the relatively easy first 20 games of the schedule, and began facing well coached and talented teams that had the Orange well scouted, the easy transition buckets became scarce and the sputtering half court offense became more exposed.

I think it is a testament to the heart of these players and to the skill of the coaching staff that they were still able to win so many of those late season games - a typical SU squad would have lost half a dozen of them and failed to make the 2nd weekend of the tournament.

Nice post. Steveholt and I were talking the other day about how it seems like every season our offensive production falls in the second half of the BE schedule. I'd like to see the numbers over the last decade or so, I suspect that this data set isn't exactly anomalous.

It was a great season nonetheless, and these numbers bear out that our players really performed well in clutch situations time and time again --- to go 14-3 during a stretch when the team's best skills were shown to be in decline is a great accomplishment.

 

[BlueCurtain]

No matter how good you might be in a 40 minute contest, if a game is decided on 1 possession then pretty much anything can happen. Just because we were on the right side of the coin in all of those affairs does not necessarily mean the players had magical panache in end-of-game situations. Keita not being called for goaltending? Siva having a brainfart and throwing the ball away? Jordan Taylor deciding not pass to an open teammate? You can credit the players only to an extent, because some of it is just good fortune.

 

[Marsh01]

No matter how good you might be in a 40 minute contest, if a game is decided on 1 possession then pretty much anything can happen. Just because we were on the right side of the coin in all of those affairs does not necessarily mean the players had magical panache in end-of-game situations. Keita not being called for goaltending? Siva having a brainfart and throwing the ball away? Jordan Taylor deciding not pass to an open teammate? You can credit the players only to an extent, because some of it is just good fortune.

Its not good fortune. You more than anyone would spin in the other way had we lost all these games and if people tried ot defend how close we were in games. Try again. I love how people bring up Keita's goaltend yet it would only have tied the game.

Jesus. I cant believe you pulled out the good fortune card. Just shows what a tool you really are.

 

[BlueCurtain]

Any team that goes 34-3 and makes a living squeaking out wins in the last 2 months of the season needs a little luck. Keep telling yourself otherwise. Turning Stone would love your business.

 

[Knicks411]

Its not good fortune. You more than anyone would spin in the other way had we lost all these games and if people tried ot defend how close we were in games. Try again. I love how people bring up Keita's goaltend yet it would only have tied the game.

Jesus. I cant believe you pulled out the goof fortune card. Just shows what a tool you really are.

I think to a certain extent he is right; there aren't a lot of teams that have the magical ability to win lots of close games. (Actually, I know this is true in pro sports for sure; I haven't seen as much research on college sports, to be fair).

 

[chlywtr]

those fast break points and points off turnover splits are crazy

 

[44cuse]

Once it got through the relatively easy first 20 games of the schedule, and began facing well coached and talented teams that had the Orange well scouted, the easy transition buckets became scarce and the sputtering half court offense became more exposed.

I think it is a testament to the heart of these players and to the skill of the coaching staff that they were still able to win so many of those late season games - a typical SU squad would have lost half a dozen of them and failed to make the 2nd weekend of the tournament.

100%.

44cuse

 

[arbitragegls]

of course having beaten Florida and North Carolina State...two teams into the Sweet 16 and further...in our earlier games; but just say how much we really did suck fjinishing the season # 4th in RPI vs. KY 18th and behind UNC Asheville, Colorado State and VCU...I would say the team played very well the whole season and the ability to win close games is as much heart as talent. Winning is winning...doesnt matter by how much. In fact, JB with his rotation and stall at end of games make it much closer wins that other coaches would have done.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm going to be optimistic and say that our first two or three seasons in the ACC are going to be very good for us, because our tendencies won't yet be as well known by ACC competition in those early years.

 

[djcon57]

Once it got through the relatively easy first 20 games of the schedule, and began facing well coached and talented teams that had the Orange well scouted, the easy transition buckets became scarce and the sputtering half court offense became more exposed.

I think it is a testament to the heart of these players and to the skill of the coaching staff that they were still able to win so many of those late season games - a typical SU squad would have lost half a dozen of them and failed to make the 2nd weekend of the tournament.

Also shows that MAYBE the hated experts were right about our half court offense.

 

[EastCoast2]

That's why I think this team was better than the 2010 team -- they won games other Syracuse teams of the past never could (at LOU, Sweet 16, at UConn, etc).

Pitt

 

[ar inj]

I am not surprised by the numbers based on what my eyes told me. Those stats along w/ nothing having a "dude" made the results for this past season quite amazing.

I also suspect a comparison of historical stats would show similar declines in most seasons, after all we all know about the usual late Jan/early Feb swoon. What woud the stats look like for other teams? I suspect for all but the great teams that are out there almost every team had worse stats in conference than out of conference.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Any team that goes 34-3 and makes a living squeaking out wins in the last 2 months of the season needs a little luck. Keep telling yourself otherwise. Turning Stone
would love your business.

But if they lose by three in ot in the NCAAT, THAT loss in on Boeheim. Got it.

 

[br801]

Once it got through the relatively easy first 20 games of the schedule, and began facing well coached and talented teams that had the Orange well scouted, the easy transition buckets became scarce and the sputtering half court offense became more exposed.

I think it is a testament to the heart of these players and to the skill of the coaching staff that they were still able to win so many of those late season games - a typical SU squad would have lost half a dozen of them and failed to make the 2nd weekend of the tournament.

It would be interesting to see how those numbers would look for past SU teams. Intuitively, you would expect to see declines as you reach the tougher part of the schedule, but were the declines in those metrics as steep in past seasons? Also, how do the numbers for other top tier teams change as they start to play better competition?

 

[Henny & Coke]

I have this urge to want to blame a part of the mid/late season drop in SU dominance to playing the "bench" players less minutes as the schedule got tougher at the end.

I keep thinking about how well the team was playing when the minutes were more evenly spread out, and when guys like Carter-Williams, RAK and Baye would see the court regularly. And honestly, it does make sense to me that by playing more guys you gain certain advantages, including JB having the option to play the "hot hand" and sit the "cold hand", players would be less fatigued & more likely to play with energy if not logging heavy minutes each game, more players playing larger roles means everyone is engaged throughout the season, seeing the "bench" players get run led to smiles from the vets & fostered a team concept, fewer minutes per player could serve to focus the players to make the playing time they did get count, ect.

But then my rational side thinks that we just started to play better competition, and our strenghts were being negated in opposing teams gameplans, and that if playing more guys really was the answer, then JB would obviously know that and have done it, ect.

So it leaves me conflicted.

 

[moqui]

It would be interesting to see how those numbers would look for past SU teams. Intuitively, you would expect to see declines as you reach the tougher part of the schedule, but were the declines in those metrics as steep in past seasons? Also, how do the numbers for other top tier teams change as they start to play better competition?

I think we will see declines across most seasons and for most other teams as well, but this season for SU was a little different because (a) the schedule this year particularly was backloaded with good teams and (b) the offense that got Syracuse to the #1 ranking was so heavily dependent on points off turnovers.

I might extend this analysis to other seasons in the coming weeks/months, but I won't do it for other teams

 

[suttree]

Once it got through the relatively easy first 20 games of the schedule, and began facing well coached and talented teams that had the Orange well scouted, the easy transition buckets became scarce and the sputtering half court offense became more exposed.

I think it is a testament to the heart of these players and to the skill of the coaching staff that they were still able to win so many of those late season games - a typical SU squad would have lost half a dozen of them and failed to make the 2nd weekend of the tournament.

Thanks for posting this.

The team's ability to withstand an utterly incredible barrage of threes from Wisconsin will go down in my memory as one of the best performances under pressure that I've ever seen from an SU squad.

Now, sadly, begins the long, dry summer without college hoops. October can't get here fast enough.

GO ORANGE

 

[moqui]

The team's ability to withstand an utterly incredible barrage of threes from Wisconsin will go down in my memory as one of the best performances under pressure that I've ever seen from an SU squad.

I could not agree more heartily . . . that was an epic performance, answering with a bucket each time and then coming back and stoning the Badgers over the final 7 plus minutes

 

[Knicks411]

I could not agree more heartily . . . that was an epic performance, answering with a bucket each time and then coming back and stoning the Badgers over the final 7 plus minutes

Yeah, that win was quite the accomplishment. Wisconsin may not have been int he top 5 like Pomeroy had them, but they were a really tough 4 seed who shot lights out and we still beat them.

 

[br801]

I think we will see declines across most seasons and for most other teams as well, but this season for SU was a little different because (a) the schedule this year particularly was backloaded with good teams and (b) the offense that got Syracuse to the #1 ranking was so heavily dependent on points off turnovers.

I might extend this analysis to other seasons in the coming weeks/months, but I won't do it for other teams

I wasn't giving you an assignment, but would be interested in seeing what you come up with down the line. Thanks.

 

[CorduroyG]

Also shows that MAYBE the hated experts were right about our half court offense.

but half court offense wasnt our downfall in the tournament. we lost to ohio state cuz we got killed on the boards (thanx fab melo), and the refs took us out of our game. we shot better from the field and from 3 than ohio st. our offense wasnt great in that game, but certainly not the reason we lost. although that stretch late in the 1st half where we took 4 or 5 straight contested jumpers still annoys the hell outta me.

 

[Madbiker]

I'm going to be optimistic and say that our first two or three seasons in the ACC are going to be very good for us, because our tendencies won't yet be as well known by ACC competition in those early years.

But we won't know the tendencies of our ACC opponents by the same token.

 

[OttoMets]

I have this urge to want to blame a part of the mid/late season drop in SU dominance to playing the "bench" players less minutes as the schedule got tougher at the end.

I keep thinking about how well the team was playing when the minutes were more evenly spread out, and when guys like Carter-Williams, RAK and Baye would see the court regularly. And honestly, it does make sense to me that by playing more guys you gain certain advantages, including JB having the option to play the "hot hand" and sit the "cold hand", players would be less fatigued & more likely to play with energy if not logging heavy minutes each game, more players playing larger roles means everyone is engaged throughout the season, seeing the "bench" players get run led to smiles from the vets & fostered a team concept, fewer minutes per player could serve to focus the players to make the playing time they did get count, ect..

No doubt it was one factor. Maybe not determinative but, as you said, guys were able to play harder and more effectively when their minutes were limited. And the team was better when the starters could push out to a lead and the opponent would then have to contend with Southerland, Fair, and Waiters checking in.