Binghamton Thoughts

[General20]

While watching this game, one thought kept popping up. Coaches are really smart, and fans don't give them nearly enough credit.


If you remember back to Maui, Cal and Baylor are two zone teams who refused to play zone against Syracuse. At the time, lot of fans questioned why those teams would abandon their best defense, especially considering how many points Syracuse scored. Well, in this game we got the answer to that question.


Binghamton plays a 2-3 zone that looks exactly like ours, in fact, you may have noticed Lazarus Sims on their bench. Sims was the point guard on SU's '96 team that was Boeheim's first primarily zone team, and he was also one of the best zone defenders we have ever had.


Like us, Binghamton sticks to their 2-3 zone no matter what (Syracuse torching it for 93 points didn't even pull them out of it). Though scoring 93 points is impressive, it does not tell us why Baylor and Cal refused to zone Syracuse. To figure that out, a deeper look into the numbers is necessary.


Syracuse put up 93 points on 46% shooting from the floor and 36% shooting from three. Pretty good numbers, but hardly terrifying considering the opponent. However, when you take away Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson's numbers (who did not play against Cal or Baylor), and when you take away the walk-ons numbers as well, you see that our regular rotation guys went 11-21 from three against Binghamton's zone. That's over 52%!


To put that in perspective, teams almost never lose when they shoot 52% from two. If you can shoot that well from three (and I don't care what caliber player you are shooting over) then you are pretty much unbeatable.


You may not like Montgomery (Cal's coach) or Drew (Baylor's coach) but looking back you have to admit its pretty obvious they knew Syracuse had the potential to drop this kind of bomb against a zone even though to that point in the season Syracuse had not done so in a game. Remember, the only tapes those coaches had were of Syracuse struggling to beat Cornell, Fordham, Colgate, and St. Francis. I can only guess at what they saw on those tapes, but both coaches came to the same (correct) conclusion that Syracuse should not be zoned despite the fact that Syracuse wasn't making anything in the games those coaches watched. That's amazing when you think about it.


So the number one take away from this game is, not too many teams are going to zone Syracuse this year. In fact, this might be the last zone we see.


For the record, Syracuse's normal rotation players also shot over 58% from the field, but I am going to dismiss this stat because Binghamton has zero size and I don't think this number translates to major competition as well as the three point numbers do.


Would you have guessed going into this (or any other) game that Syracuse's opponent would play about 60% more zone than Syracuse did? That is exactly what happened here, because Binghamton stayed in zone while Syracuse spent the vast majority of the game pressing.


I found this to be an interesting decision by Boeheim considering Syracuse needs to work on and improve its zone defense. Binghamton's familiarity with zone meant they should have been able to move the ball smartly and allow Syracuse a learning opportunity, but Syracuse chose to limit the number of times it would face Binghamton's offense by pressing and stealing the ball several times before it crossed half court.


Binghamton got out to an early 11-3 lead (by making some crazy shots) and Boeheim immediately put the press on. An understandable move, especially considering the fact that Binghamton did not handle pressure well at all. At first I thought Boeheim was trying to establish a big lead so he could get the freshmen into the game early, and sure enough Roberson and Patterson came on in the first ten minutes. But then something strange happened . . . Boeheim kept the press on. He kept the press on when the starters were on the court and he kept the press on when the back ups the were playing. He kept the press on when Ennis picked up his fourth foul. He even kept the press on as the lead neared forty points.


Syracuse is not a good pressing team. They are built to play zone. Admittedly the press worked against Binghamton, but they start four freshmen and a sophomore. Against ACC teams, Syracuse won't be pressing much. So why did Boeheim choose to stick with it for essentially the entire game?



Going back to my “coaches are really smart” statement, I think its fair to assume Boeheim had a pretty logical reason for doing this. I can tell you for certain that Boeheim intended to use this game as a teaching tool, because he was far more engaged on the sideline than normal. Normally, Boeheim wants good results, but in this game the results didn't matter as much as the lessons Boeheim was trying to teach.


So what exactly was Boeheim trying to teach (and or learn) by pressing a hapless young team for almost forty minutes? I can only guess, but my guess is he was trying to allow his players to get a handle on the new hand checking rules, and possibly even figure some of them out himself.


Observation number one, Binghamton was not afraid to use dribble penetration against our zone. It almost never worked because they are so small and unathletic, but against equal competition, dribble penetration is death to a zone.


Observation number two, all defense eventually comes down to man on man defending. If you don't know how to cover your man (or the man in your zone), and don't know how to keep him in front of you, then you are not going to be good defensively no matter your scheme.


Observation number three, the freshmen struggle the most with the new hand checking rules.


Observation number four, Boeheim now has tons of tape on the freshmen (and everybody else) pressuring the ball (and picking up tons of fouls) in isolation that he can break down with them in the film room to show them exactly what they are doing that works, and what they are doing that doesn't work.


Observation number five, if Boeheim did not want his guys to pick up a bunch of fouls as a learning tool, why would he press when Ennis (his only point guard) was in the game with four fouls?


My guess is, if you watched the Binghamton game you saw an exercise in the most basic and fundamental aspects of defense taught very actively and aggressively by a hall of famer.


He has done this many times in the past during the exhibition season, but did not do it this year, so this Binghamton game might have been a fill in.


Player evaluations:


Lets start with the freshmen, since this is the first time in a while we have gotten to see the fruits of what is undoubtedly tons of hard work going on behind the scenes in practice. In general, I'm seeing a big divide between the rotation players and the bench players, and I don't expect any of the bench players to crack the rotation in the near future.


Patterson – Put together a very respectable line of 10-4-2-1 in 15 minutes of play. The problem is, Binghamton simply did not guard him, and for most of the game Patterson looked like a kid with cooties on the playground (nobody would go within ten feet of him). Despite being pretty well ignored by Binghamton, Patterson was inefficient, going 4-12 from the field. Right now Patterson is the fourth guard in a three guard rotation and he has a lot of work to do to change that. The good news is, he has a lot of raw ability. He is quick and energetic, I like the look of his shot, he had the best pass of this game feeding Coleman in the post, and (I know its redundant) but he has really freaking long arms. At one point Patterson drove to the basket and missed the layup, got the rebound, missed that layup, got the rebound again, and put it back in for a score, all while surrounded by Binghamton bigs. I know Binghamton is a short team, but when is the last time you saw a guard do that? His length really gives other teams fits on both sides of the ball.


Johnson – Couldn't hit a shot, going 0-5 from three (all good looks) against Binghamton's zone. Now for the good news. What do Shumpert, Nichols, and Southerland all have in common? (1) They are all 6'6-6'8 forwards. (2) They are three of the best shooters Syracuse has ever had. (3) None of them could hit the broad side of a barn as a freshmen. In a couple years we will be adding Johnson's name to this distinguished list. All he needs is time.


Roberson – This kid can really rebound. He has a nice looking stroke too. He hit all his free throws but missed all his jump shots. The light has not turned on yet, but when it does he's going to get really good really fast. If you think of this game as an open audition, Roberson is the only freshman (not counting Ennis of course) auditioning for a role that has not been filled. Right now Gbnije is playing minutes at the 1,2, and 3. And Christmas is playing a lot of minutes at the 4. Roberson could possibly take some of Gbinije's and Christmas's forward minutes. There is certainly no guarantee that he will, but of the three freshman, he is the only one with a realistic chance to crack the rotation.


One last note on the freshmen. This is one of the best national freshman classes in memory, and I'm glad Boeheim got his share. He got one of the elites in Ennis, and four other guys who are underrated only because of the vast talent they were compared to. In a normal year Roberson would have been a top 20 recruit instead of a top thirty, and so on with all the others. Boeheim is a hall of famer for a reason, and in this case he picked the perfect year to bring in a large class.


Lets move on to the bigs. A clear pattern has emerged. Each big is going to get at least 10 minutes of PT in every game. Expect this to stay the same through February, and maybe even into March. Only then, when the games mean the most, might Boeheim tighten things up a little if a true frontrunner emerges (right now we don't have one).


All three get an equal opportunity early, and the best of them play the most late, with only one exception. Coleman is not a shot blocker, so he will not be on the floor late in games where we have a lead we need to protect. In that situation, Boeheim will go with the better of Keita or Christmas.


In this game Coleman clearly played the best and that showed in his PT.


Coleman – 22 minutes of PT at center. Coleman has shown all year that he is our best rebounder and this game was no exception. He hit three of four free throws, and again got himself in good positions before getting the ball, which lead to easy lay ups. A really impressive effort overall, especially considering we pressed a lot, which does not play towards his strength.


Keita – 13 minutes of PT at center. Was pretty anonymous in the game, putting up zeros pretty much across the board. Of course, Keita's biggest contributions do not come on the stat sheet, but are found in good positional defense.


Christmas – 4ish minutes of PT at center (Roberson played about a minute at center with the walk ons). Boeheim was really pissed at Christmas in this game for a lack of aggression. To be exact, he blocked a shot, then half-assed grabbing the rebound allowing Binghamton to snag it. This earned him a long stretch on the bench in the first half. Then he followed that mistake up with a similar one in the second half and sat most of the rest of the game as punishment. Its pretty clear Boeheim is looking for aggression out of Christmas. Hopefully the lesson stuck.


Ennis – Only played 19 disjointed minutes because of foul trouble. Besides going 0-3 after getting fouled on a three point attempt, I thought Ennis looked fine during the time he played.


Cooney – When 17 points, 5-9 from three, and 4 steals feels expected you know something special is going on. My evaluations of Cooney are starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day, and that's probably the highest praise I can give him.


Fair – No turnovers in this one. He attacked Binghamton's zone aggressively, but smartly, and scored 19 efficient points. Couldn't have asked for anything more.


Gbinije – Hit two nice threes, and handeled the point for about half of this game, but I don't think anybody is worried about Gbinije's ability play against a zone. Its his play against pressure that needs to improve.


Grant – Had a good game that included a little of everything. 14 points (on only 7 shots!), 5 rebounds, 5 assists. 4-5 from the free throw line. But I refuse to get excited about Grant until he single-handedly dominates a game on defense. He has that kind of ability. I know its coming. I'm trying to be patient.

 

[Delmar]

Greatly enjoyed the post and your informed perspective.

You know a heck of a lot more about Syracuse bb than I do, but I remember Shumpert lighting it up from the 3 right from the start. I have this vague memory of him scoring in double figures in Maui. I could be wrong.

 

[General20]

Greatly enjoyed the post and your informed perspective.

You know a heck of a lot more about Syracuse bb than I do, but I remember Shumpert lighting it up from the 3 right from the start. I have this vague memory of him scoring in double figures in Maui. I could be wrong.

I didn't go back and look at stats so you may be right about Shumpert. My memory is of him coming off the bench for relatively limited minutes and not shooting very well . . . like a three point percentage in the 20's bad . . . then making a big jump as a sophomre. But I definitely might be wrong.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

While watching this game, one thought kept popping up. Coaches are really smart, and fans don't give them nearly enough credit.

If you remember back to Maui, Cal and Baylor are two zone teams who refused to play zone against Syracuse. At the time, lot of fans questioned why those teams would abandon their best defense, especially considering how many points Syracuse scored. Well, in this game we got the answer to that question.

Binghamton plays a 2-3 zone that looks exactly like ours, in fact, you may have noticed Lazarus Sims on their bench. Sims was the point guard on SU's '96 team that was Boeheim's first primarily zone team, and he was also one of the best zone defenders we have ever had.

Like us, Binghamton sticks to their 2-3 zone no matter what (Syracuse torching it for 93 points didn't even pull them out of it). Though scoring 93 points is impressive, it does not tell us why Baylor and Cal refused to zone Syracuse. To figure that out, a deeper look into the numbers is necessary.

Syracuse put up 93 points on 46% shooting from the floor and 36% shooting from three. Pretty good numbers, but hardly terrifying considering the opponent. However, when you take away Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson's numbers (who did not play against Cal or Baylor), and when you take away the walk-ons numbers as well, you see that our regular rotation guys went 11-21 from three against Binghamton's zone. That's over 52%!

To put that in perspective, teams almost never lose when they shoot 52% from two. If you can shoot that well from three (and I don't care what caliber player you are shooting over) then you are pretty much unbeatable.

You may not like Montgomery (Cal's coach) or Drew (Baylor's coach) but looking back you have to admit its pretty obvious they knew Syracuse had the potential to drop this kind of bomb against a zone even though to that point in the season Syracuse had not done so in a game. Remember, the only tapes those coaches had were of Syracuse struggling to beat Cornell, Fordham, Colgate, and St. Francis. I can only guess at what they saw on those tapes, but both coaches came to the same (correct) conclusion that Syracuse should not be zoned despite the fact that Syracuse wasn't making anything in the games those coaches watched. That's amazing when you think about it.

So the number one take away from this game is, not too many teams are going to zone Syracuse this year. In fact, this might be the last zone we see.

For the record, Syracuse's normal rotation players also shot over 58% from the field, but I am going to dismiss this stat because Binghamton has zero size and I don't think this number translates to major competition as well as the three point numbers do.

Would you have guessed going into this (or any other) game that Syracuse's opponent would play about 60% more zone than Syracuse did? That is exactly what happened here, because Binghamton stayed in zone while Syracuse spent the vast majority of the game pressing.

I found this to be an interesting decision by Boeheim considering Syracuse needs to work on and improve its zone defense. Binghamton's familiarity with zone meant they should have been able to move the ball smartly and allow Syracuse a learning opportunity, but Syracuse chose to limit the number of times it would face Binghamton's offense by pressing and stealing the ball several times before it crossed half court.

Binghamton got out to an early 11-3 lead (by making some crazy shots) and Boeheim immediately put the press on. An understandable move, especially considering the fact that Binghamton did not handle pressure well at all. At first I thought Boeheim was trying to establish a big lead so he could get the freshmen into the game early, and sure enough Roberson and Patterson came on in the first ten minutes. But then something strange happened . . . Boeheim kept the press on. He kept the press on when the starters were on the court and he kept the press on when the back ups the were playing. He kept the press on when Ennis picked up his fourth foul. He even kept the press on as the lead neared forty points.

Syracuse is not a good pressing team. They are built to play zone. Admittedly the press worked against Binghamton, but they start four freshmen and a sophomore. Against ACC teams, Syracuse won't be pressing much. So why did Boeheim choose to stick with it for essentially the entire game?

Going back to my “coaches are really smart” statement, I think its fair to assume Boeheim had a pretty logical reason for doing this. I can tell you for certain that Boeheim intended to use this game as a teaching tool, because he was far more engaged on the sideline than normal. Normally, Boeheim wants good results, but in this game the results didn't matter as much as the lessons Boeheim was trying to teach.

So what exactly was Boeheim trying to teach (and or learn) by pressing a hapless young team for almost forty minutes? I can only guess, but my guess is he was trying to allow his players to get a handle on the new hand checking rules, and possibly even figure some of them out himself.

Observation number one, Binghamton was not afraid to use dribble penetration against our zone. It almost never worked because they are so small and unathletic, but against equal competition, dribble penetration is death to a zone.

Observation number two, all defense eventually comes down to man on man defending. If you don't know how to cover your man (or the man in your zone), and don't know how to keep him in front of you, then you are not going to be good defensively no matter your scheme.

Observation number three, the freshmen struggle the most with the new hand checking rules.

Observation number four, Boeheim now has tons of tape on the freshmen (and everybody else) pressuring the ball (and picking up tons of fouls) in isolation that he can break down with them in the film room to show them exactly what they are doing that works, and what they are doing that doesn't work.

Observation number five, if Boeheim did not want his guys to pick up a bunch of fouls as a learning tool, why would he press when Ennis (his only point guard) was in the game with four fouls?

My guess is, if you watched the Binghamton game you saw an exercise in the most basic and fundamental aspects of defense taught very actively and aggressively by a hall of famer.

He has done this many times in the past during the exhibition season, but did not do it this year, so this Binghamton game might have been a fill in.

Player evaluations:

Lets start with the freshmen, since this is the first time in a while we have gotten to see the fruits of what is undoubtedly tons of hard work going on behind the scenes in practice. In general, I'm seeing a big divide between the rotation players and the bench players, and I don't expect any of the bench players to crack the rotation in the near future.

Patterson – Put together a very respectable line of 10-4-2-1 in 15 minutes of play. The problem is, Binghamton simply did not guard him, and for most of the game Patterson looked like a kid with cooties on the playground (nobody would go within ten feet of him). Despite being pretty well ignored by Binghamton, Patterson was inefficient, going 4-12 from the field. Right now Patterson is the fourth guard in a three guard rotation and he has a lot of work to do to change that. The good news is, he has a lot of raw ability. He is quick and energetic, I like the look of his shot, he had the best pass of this game feeding Coleman in the post, and (I know its redundant) but he has really freaking long arms. At one point Patterson drove to the basket and missed the layup, got the rebound, missed that layup, got the rebound again, and put it back in for a score, all while surrounded by Binghamton bigs. I know Binghamton is a short team, but when is the last time you saw a guard do that? His length really gives other teams fits on both sides of the ball.

Johnson – Couldn't hit a shot, going 0-5 from three (all good looks) against Binghamton's zone. Now for the good news. What do Shumpert, Nichols, and Southerland all have in common? (1) They are all 6'6-6'8 forwards. (2) They are three of the best shooters Syracuse has ever had. (3) None of them could hit the broad side of a barn as a freshmen. In a couple years we will be adding Johnson's name to this distinguished list. All he needs is time.

Roberson – This kid can really rebound. He has a nice looking stroke too. He hit all his free throws but missed all his jump shots. The light has not turned on yet, but when it does he's going to get really good really fast. If you think of this game as an open audition, Roberson is the only freshman (not counting Ennis of course) auditioning for a role that has not been filled. Right now Gbnije is playing minutes at the 1,2, and 3. And Christmas is playing a lot of minutes at the 4. Roberson could possibly take some of Gbinije's and Christmas's forward minutes. There is certainly no guarantee that he will, but of the three freshman, he is the only one with a realistic chance to crack the rotation.

One last note on the freshmen. This is one of the best national freshman classes in memory, and I'm glad Boeheim got his share. He got one of the elites in Ennis, and four other guys who are underrated only because of the vast talent they were compared to. In a normal year Roberson would have been a top 20 recruit instead of a top thirty, and so on with all the others. Boeheim is a hall of famer for a reason, and in this case he picked the perfect year to bring in a large class.

Lets move on to the bigs. A clear pattern has emerged. Each big is going to get at least 10 minutes of PT in every game. Expect this to stay the same through February, and maybe even into March. Only then, when the games mean the most, might Boeheim tighten things up a little if a true frontrunner emerges (right now we don't have one).

All three get an equal opportunity early, and the best of them play the most late, with only one exception. Coleman is not a shot blocker, so he will not be on the floor late in games where we have a lead we need to protect. In that situation, Boeheim will go with the better of Keita or Christmas.

In this game Coleman clearly played the best and that showed in his PT.

Coleman – 22 minutes of PT at center. Coleman has shown all year that he is our best rebounder and this game was no exception. He hit three of four free throws, and again got himself in good positions before getting the ball, which lead to easy lay ups. A really impressive effort overall, especially considering we pressed a lot, which does not play towards his strength.

Keita – 13 minutes of PT at center. Was pretty anonymous in the game, putting up zeros pretty much across the board. Of course, Keita's biggest contributions do not come on the stat sheet, but are found in good positional defense.

Christmas – 4ish minutes of PT at center (Roberson played about a minute at center with the walk ons). Boeheim was really pissed at Christmas in this game for a lack of aggression. To be exact, he blocked a shot, then half-assed grabbing the rebound allowing Binghamton to snag it. This earned him a long stretch on the bench in the first half. Then he followed that mistake up with a similar one in the second half and sat most of the rest of the game as punishment. Its pretty clear Boeheim is looking for aggression out of Christmas. Hopefully the lesson stuck.

Ennis – Only played 19 disjointed minutes because of foul trouble. Besides going 0-3 after getting fouled on a three point attempt, I thought Ennis looked fine during the time he played.

Cooney – When 17 points, 5-9 from three, and 4 steals feels expected you know something special is going on. My evaluations of Cooney are starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day, and that's probably the highest praise I can give him.

Fair – No turnovers in this one. He attacked Binghamton's zone aggressively, but smartly, and scored 19 efficient points. Couldn't have asked for anything more.

Gbinije – Hit two nice threes, and handeled the point for about half of this game, but I don't think anybody is worried about Gbinije's ability play against a zone. Its his play against pressure that needs to improve.

Grant – Had a good game that included a little of everything. 14 points (on only 7 shots!), 5 rebounds, 5 assists. 4-5 from the free throw line. But I refuse to get excited about Grant until he single-handedly dominates a game on defense. He has that kind of ability. I know its coming. I'm trying to be patient.

One thing I bring up at least once a year is how Cuse is the only team that I have ever seen that sits coach, player, coach, player, coach, player, coach, player on the bench. I think it's ingenious but no one else that I am aware of does it. Lots of teaching going on.

 

[General20]

One thing I bring up at least once a year is how Cuse is the only team that I have ever seen that sits coach, player, coach, player, coach, player, coach, player on the bench. I think it's ingenious but no one else that I am aware of does it. Lots of teaching going on.

That's a really interesting point. I don't think Ive ever taken the time to look at how other teams do it, but I'm definitely going to from now on. Certainly the Syracuse way seems like the logical choice.

 

[TheRoyalIveyFund]

While watching this game, one thought kept popping up. Coaches are really smart, and fans don't give them nearly enough credit.So what exactly was Boeheim trying to teach (and or learn) by pressing a hapless young team for almost forty minutes? I can only guess, but my guess is he was trying to allow his players to get a handle on the new hand checking rules, and possibly even figure some of them out himself.

Player evaluations:

e has a nice looking stroke too. He hit all his free throws but missed all his jump shots. The light has not turned on yet, but when it does he's going to get really good really fast. If you think of this game as an open audition, Roberson is the only freshman (not counting Ennis of course) auditioning for a role that has not been filled. Right now Gbnije is playing minutes at the 1,2, and 3. tion.


Grant – Had a good game that included a little of everything. 14 points (on only 7 shots!), 5 rebounds, 5 assists. 4-5 from the free throw line. But I refuse to get excited about Grant until he single-handedly dominates a game on defense. He has that kind of ability. I know its coming. I'm trying to be patient.

Some good nuggets in there.

-JB was clearly on his A game regarding teaching. He called a TO at one point and my son asked why he was doing that when up 30 or whatever and the game almost over. I talked about a great teaching moment.

-Roberson. He had two boards that were melo-esque, the kind we haven't seen in a while and as you said, his stroke looks great. I remember seeing the link someone had of his annoucement to cuse and he was real nervous. I think his play so far is a case of nerves. I hope he understand what will happen if he just listens to JB and waits his term. I hope CJ talks to him...

-Spot on re Grant. Last year, he struggled from the bench but as soon as he started (nova?) when James was out, he became a diff person. I wonder if he is the type that needs to start? I just don't see a top 15 pick this season and hope that we see him next year. A junior Grant with the best BC in the country will be something.

 

[Lawrinson14]

once again, great post general. Lovin' the new avatar too

 

[Cheriehoop]

I've been wondering if BJ's best bet to be a real impact player is to redshirt next year. I'm not as worried about his missing shots as his confusion in how to be effective in other areas to compensate when he's not hitting - defense, rebounding etc. A year off focusing on working his tail off without losing eligibility ala Cooney, Wes Johnson, Scoop, and even Mike Hopkins - seems to be a good option for his future at least to me. It will also give him an extra year after Cooney leaves to contribute and shine.

Enjoy your analyses, thank you.

 

[TBCuse11]

Some good nuggets in there.

-JB was clearly on his A game regarding teaching. He called a TO at one point and my son asked why he was doing that when up 30 or whatever and the game almost over. I talked about a great teaching moment.

-Roberson. He had two boards that were melo-esque, the kind we haven't seen in a while and as you said, his stroke looks great. I remember seeing the link someone had of his annoucement to cuse and he was real nervous. I think his play so far is a case of nerves. I hope he understand what will happen if he just listens to JB and waits his term. I hope CJ talks to him...

-Spot on re Grant. Last year, he struggled from the bench but as soon as he started (nova?) when James was out, he became a diff person. I wonder if he is the type that needs to start? I just don't see a top 15 pick this season and hope that we see him next year. A junior Grant with the best BC in the country will be something.

If everyone but Fair comes back, we could EASILY be preseason #1 next year. That would be something.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I didn't go back and look at stats so you may be right about Shumpert. My memory is of him coming off the bench for relatively limited minutes and not shooting very well . . . like a three point percentage in the 20's bad . . . then making a big jump as a sophomre. But I definitely might be wrong.

Good memory General. Shump shot a poor 29% in his frosh year. In my thread on 3pt% it is Shump's season over season improvement (for those over 50 attempts) that Cooney is trying to overtake (13.9%).

 

[Delmar]

I didn't go back and look at stats so you may be right about Shumpert. My memory is of him coming off the bench for relatively limited minutes and not shooting very well . . . like a three point percentage in the 20's bad . . . then making a big jump as a sophomre. But I definitely might be wrong.

"Preston Shumpert doesn't play like a backup guard. He doesn't play like a freshman, either.
Shumpert keyed two runs Wednesday night, leading No. 19 Syracuse over 17th-ranked Indiana 76-63 in the championship of the Maui Invitational … Shumpert had 19 points, nine on 3-pointers, and seven rebounds for the Orangemen (5-0), and Jason Hart added 17 points and five assists." Shumpert must have cooled off, but he started well.

 

[OttoMets]

Good post, as always.

Boeheim was in rare form - really active on the bench, focused more on the guys in seats than on the action on the court for stretches. Kept coming back to Christmas to berate him for not grabbing that ball, then did the same to Patterson after the same thing happened in about the same spot. Saw a lot of animated teaching.

Roberson is very talented. As far as rebounding goes, I think of two names: Carmelo and Rick Jackson (only as a senior, of course). He goes after the ball with real desire. Didn't have much offensive touch on Saturday night, but he's a well-rounded player on that end, too. The more he plays, the better we'll be.

 

[jordoo]

Great as usual. I also wondered about the press. I mean it made sense to get us some easy scores and speed up the game. And then it made sense because it was so wildly effective (not a surprise against a young, less talented undersized Binghamton squad) then on and on it went. At first I wondered if it was just to waist time on the shot clock since Binghamton also struggled to find good looks against the 2-3 and then I was just kind of baffled by it and wondered if it was because we got off to a poor start and was punishment even though at the start they just made long tough shots while we just missed open good looks. I think you answer makes much more sense, thanks because I stopped trying to figure it out.

Spot on about Rak and I think its an important message for Rak to get. If you aren't going to play with aggression and effort the whole time I've got two other guys that will.

I was really glad to see the 3 freshman not named Ennis get some extended run but I agree none are at the point where they will play in important games just yet although those were meaningful minutes for them and the staff to look at them.
Roberson is the closest but defense and figuring out how to play offense within the flow plus hitting his jumper is what is holding him back right now.
One thing I love about BJ is that he is shooting if he's open. That is a great sign that he has confidence and thinks of himself as a shooter/scorer. There is no hesitation he's a shooter in there to shoot. I think we will all enjoy watching him develop over time.
Patterson is going to be one of those guys that drives other teams crazy as he matures. He's really all over the place right now but showing flashes of being able to do a bit of everything.

 

[General20]

If everyone but Fair comes back, we could EASILY be preseason #1 next year. That would be something.

I'm not afraid to say I am really looking forward to next year. I always assume everybody is coming back, unless its obvious they are not going to (like with Wes Johnson).

Got to think Ennis and Cooney make up the best back court in the country next year. With Gbinije and Patterson improving and Joseph adding a second true point if needed.

Grant, McCullough, and Roberson will certainly make up the most talented forward trio in the country, and if any of them live up to their potential they will be the best forward combo in the country as well. Plus Johnson.

Christmas and Coleman might not be the best in the country, but they will give rebounding, shot blocking, offense, defense. Everything we might need. Plus Obokoh.

That teem has the feel of a team that could be number one from start to finish.

 

[Syracusian]

Great writeup! Thanks a lot for taking the time out to do this G20!

 

[Francis03]

Great stuff as always General.

 

[jordoo]

Great stuff as always General.

He is after all the General for a reason I suppose.

 

[SoBristol]

Great post, but two points which I doubt.

SU will not see zones, because of how well they shot against Binghamton? Just as SU's zone is not like an average zone, there are lots of teams who will feel they can push the zone out and keep a hand up on Cooney & Fair. They will not worry that Binghamton could not play an effective zone.

SU is not a good pressing team? I wonder. Ennis & Cooney are a tad better defensively than expected. We have back-ups at guard who might be better than those two in the press. Fair & Grant cover a lot of ground. Keita is the ideal deep guy. We are going to need to press at some points to change games; JB was getting a look at how his guys could do. Sure, it was a very young Binghamton team.

 

[TheRoyalIveyFund]

I'm not afraid to say I am really looking forward to next year. I always assume everybody is coming back, unless its obvious they are not going to (like with Wes Johnson).

Got to think Ennis and Cooney make up the best back court in the country next year. With Gbinije and Patterson improving and Joseph adding a second true point if needed.

Grant, McCullough, and Roberson will certainly make up the most talented forward trio in the country, and if any of them live up to their potential they will be the best forward combo in the country as well. Plus Johnson.

Christmas and Coleman might not be the best in the country, but they will give rebounding, shot blocking, offense, defense. Everything we might need. Plus Obokoh.

That teem has the feel of a team that could be number one from start to finish.

With just modest growth, TE and TC will literally be the best backcourt, I definitely agree. Then the depth is icing on the cake.

Assuming JG stays, I'm confident that either Roberson or McCullough will be fantastic. The law of averages says at least one will. So, the F tandem should be great. My concern is that neither DC or Rak continue to expand their games.

It would be interesting to see if we need a few buckets, if we could go Grant, Roberson and McCullough? Does McCullough have enough size to play an Anthony Davis type 5? That would be one long, quick set of forwards on the backline. Ok, ok, I'm way ahead of myself.

 

[General20]

Great post, but two points which I doubt.

SU will not see zones, because of how well they shot against Binghamton? Just as SU's zone is not like an average zone, there are lots of teams who will feel they can push the zone out and keep a hand up on Cooney & Fair. They will not worry that Binghamton could not play an effective zone.

SU is not a good pressing team? I wonder. Ennis & Cooney are a tad better defensively than expected. We have back-ups at guard who might be better than those two in the press. Fair & Grant cover a lot of ground. Keita is the ideal deep guy. We are going to need to press at some points to change games; JB was getting a look at how his guys could do. Sure, it was a very young Binghamton team.

You missed my point on the zones. Teams don't want to zone Syracuse because of Syracuse, their performance against Binghamton had nothing to do with it. Cal and Baylor play zone most of the time and they were reluctant to zone Syracuse even before Syracuse started shooting well. That is why I gave their coaches all the credit, for evaluating SU's talent early before they had proven anything. The Binghamton game just showed us average joe's what the coaches knew all along.

 

[General20]

With just modest growth, TE and TC will literally be the best backcourt, I definitely agree. Then the depth is icing on the cake.

Assuming JG stays, I'm confident that either Roberson or McCullough will be fantastic. The law of averages says at least one will. So, the F tandem should be great. My concern is that neither DC or Rak continue to expand their games.

It would be interesting to see if we need a few buckets, if we could go Grant, Roberson and McCullough? Is McCullough have enough size to play an Anthony Davis type 5? That would be one long, quick set of forwards on the backline. Ok, ok, I'm way ahead of myself.

Ive also been wondering about McCullough playing center. He has the rep of a more finesse guy, but the bulk of the rebounding has always fallen to the forwards in Syracuse's zone and Grant and Roberson will be two of the best rebounders in the country.

There are very few teams with big bruising centers, and against them we would obviously use Christmas and Coleman exclusively. But how many teams will able to bully a front line of Grant, Roberson and McCullough? On the other side of the floor, the idea of a center trying to guard McCullough is borderline ridiculous.

I'd call it a long shot, but a very interesting thought none the less.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Great post, but two points which I doubt.

SU will not see zones, because of how well they shot against Binghamton? Just as SU's zone is not like an average zone, there are lots of teams who will feel they can push the zone out and keep a hand up on Cooney & Fair. They will not worry that Binghamton could not play an effective zone.

I think Cooney and Fair have made their games much more difficult to defend since they are become more versatile. Cooney has now proven he can drive and pass when defenders overplay him and closely defend him for the 3 while Fair has developed a 3 point shot for those defenders who slough off him on the perimeter to stop him from driving or popping the short jumper. I'm hoping Fair becomes a better passer too when he is overplayed and defended closely. Being multifaceted and having the ability to take advantage of what the defense gives you , makes their games special. If Grant develops , most teams have only one lock down defender, if lucky then two. Guys like Cooney, Fair, Ennis should require help to contain and if Grant develops, the only defense that could contain them is SU's own failure to consistently execute and take advantage.

 

[moqui]

I refuse to get excited about Grant until he single-handedly dominates a game on defense. He has that kind of ability. I know its coming. I'm trying to be patient.

he should be able to do it for more than one game, too. In his one season, Wes averaged a combined 3.5 steals and blocks per game; Jerami is not even half way to that average.

 

[Francis03]

With just modest growth, TE and TC will literally be the best backcourt, I definitely agree. Then the depth is icing on the cake.

Assuming JG stays, I'm confident that either Roberson or McCullough will be fantastic. The law of averages says at least one will. So, the F tandem should be great. My concern is that neither DC or Rak continue to expand their games.

It would be interesting to see if we need a few buckets, if we could go Grant, Roberson and McCullough? Does McCullough have enough size to play an Anthony Davis type 5? That would be one long, quick set of forwards on the backline. Ok, ok, I'm way ahead of myself.

I doubt it. One of the negatives when I watched him over the summer was how easily he would get moved and boxed out of plays. He's great in one on one situations when he can just out jump somebody for a rebound.

 

[billsin01]

While watching this game, one thought kept popping up. Coaches are really smart, and fans don't give them nearly enough credit.


If you remember back to Maui, Cal and Baylor are two zone teams who refused to play zone against Syracuse. At the time, lot of fans questioned why those teams would abandon their best defense, especially considering how many points Syracuse scored. Well, in this game we got the answer to that question.


Binghamton plays a 2-3 zone that looks exactly like ours, in fact, you may have noticed Lazarus Sims on their bench. Sims was the point guard on SU's '96 team that was Boeheim's first primarily zone team, and he was also one of the best zone defenders we have ever had.


Like us, Binghamton sticks to their 2-3 zone no matter what (Syracuse torching it for 93 points didn't even pull them out of it). Though scoring 93 points is impressive, it does not tell us why Baylor and Cal refused to zone Syracuse. To figure that out, a deeper look into the numbers is necessary.


Syracuse put up 93 points on 46% shooting from the floor and 36% shooting from three. Pretty good numbers, but hardly terrifying considering the opponent. However, when you take away Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson's numbers (who did not play against Cal or Baylor), and when you take away the walk-ons numbers as well, you see that our regular rotation guys went 11-21 from three against Binghamton's zone. That's over 52%!


To put that in perspective, teams almost never lose when they shoot 52% from two. If you can shoot that well from three (and I don't care what caliber player you are shooting over) then you are pretty much unbeatable.


You may not like Montgomery (Cal's coach) or Drew (Baylor's coach) but looking back you have to admit its pretty obvious they knew Syracuse had the potential to drop this kind of bomb against a zone even though to that point in the season Syracuse had not done so in a game. Remember, the only tapes those coaches had were of Syracuse struggling to beat Cornell, Fordham, Colgate, and St. Francis. I can only guess at what they saw on those tapes, but both coaches came to the same (correct) conclusion that Syracuse should not be zoned despite the fact that Syracuse wasn't making anything in the games those coaches watched. That's amazing when you think about it.


So the number one take away from this game is, not too many teams are going to zone Syracuse this year. In fact, this might be the last zone we see.


For the record, Syracuse's normal rotation players also shot over 58% from the field, but I am going to dismiss this stat because Binghamton has zero size and I don't think this number translates to major competition as well as the three point numbers do.


Would you have guessed going into this (or any other) game that Syracuse's opponent would play about 60% more zone than Syracuse did? That is exactly what happened here, because Binghamton stayed in zone while Syracuse spent the vast majority of the game pressing.


I found this to be an interesting decision by Boeheim considering Syracuse needs to work on and improve its zone defense. Binghamton's familiarity with zone meant they should have been able to move the ball smartly and allow Syracuse a learning opportunity, but Syracuse chose to limit the number of times it would face Binghamton's offense by pressing and stealing the ball several times before it crossed half court.


Binghamton got out to an early 11-3 lead (by making some crazy shots) and Boeheim immediately put the press on. An understandable move, especially considering the fact that Binghamton did not handle pressure well at all. At first I thought Boeheim was trying to establish a big lead so he could get the freshmen into the game early, and sure enough Roberson and Patterson came on in the first ten minutes. But then something strange happened . . . Boeheim kept the press on. He kept the press on when the starters were on the court and he kept the press on when the back ups the were playing. He kept the press on when Ennis picked up his fourth foul. He even kept the press on as the lead neared forty points.


Syracuse is not a good pressing team. They are built to play zone. Admittedly the press worked against Binghamton, but they start four freshmen and a sophomore. Against ACC teams, Syracuse won't be pressing much. So why did Boeheim choose to stick with it for essentially the entire game?



Going back to my “coaches are really smart” statement, I think its fair to assume Boeheim had a pretty logical reason for doing this. I can tell you for certain that Boeheim intended to use this game as a teaching tool, because he was far more engaged on the sideline than normal. Normally, Boeheim wants good results, but in this game the results didn't matter as much as the lessons Boeheim was trying to teach.


So what exactly was Boeheim trying to teach (and or learn) by pressing a hapless young team for almost forty minutes? I can only guess, but my guess is he was trying to allow his players to get a handle on the new hand checking rules, and possibly even figure some of them out himself.


Observation number one, Binghamton was not afraid to use dribble penetration against our zone. It almost never worked because they are so small and unathletic, but against equal competition, dribble penetration is death to a zone.


Observation number two, all defense eventually comes down to man on man defending. If you don't know how to cover your man (or the man in your zone), and don't know how to keep him in front of you, then you are not going to be good defensively no matter your scheme.


Observation number three, the freshmen struggle the most with the new hand checking rules.


Observation number four, Boeheim now has tons of tape on the freshmen (and everybody else) pressuring the ball (and picking up tons of fouls) in isolation that he can break down with them in the film room to show them exactly what they are doing that works, and what they are doing that doesn't work.


Observation number five, if Boeheim did not want his guys to pick up a bunch of fouls as a learning tool, why would he press when Ennis (his only point guard) was in the game with four fouls?


My guess is, if you watched the Binghamton game you saw an exercise in the most basic and fundamental aspects of defense taught very actively and aggressively by a hall of famer.


He has done this many times in the past during the exhibition season, but did not do it this year, so this Binghamton game might have been a fill in.


Player evaluations:


Lets start with the freshmen, since this is the first time in a while we have gotten to see the fruits of what is undoubtedly tons of hard work going on behind the scenes in practice. In general, I'm seeing a big divide between the rotation players and the bench players, and I don't expect any of the bench players to crack the rotation in the near future.


Patterson – Put together a very respectable line of 10-4-2-1 in 15 minutes of play. The problem is, Binghamton simply did not guard him, and for most of the game Patterson looked like a kid with cooties on the playground (nobody would go within ten feet of him). Despite being pretty well ignored by Binghamton, Patterson was inefficient, going 4-12 from the field. Right now Patterson is the fourth guard in a three guard rotation and he has a lot of work to do to change that. The good news is, he has a lot of raw ability. He is quick and energetic, I like the look of his shot, he had the best pass of this game feeding Coleman in the post, and (I know its redundant) but he has really freaking long arms. At one point Patterson drove to the basket and missed the layup, got the rebound, missed that layup, got the rebound again, and put it back in for a score, all while surrounded by Binghamton bigs. I know Binghamton is a short team, but when is the last time you saw a guard do that? His length really gives other teams fits on both sides of the ball.


Johnson – Couldn't hit a shot, going 0-5 from three (all good looks) against Binghamton's zone. Now for the good news. What do Shumpert, Nichols, and Southerland all have in common? (1) They are all 6'6-6'8 forwards. (2) They are three of the best shooters Syracuse has ever had. (3) None of them could hit the broad side of a barn as a freshmen. In a couple years we will be adding Johnson's name to this distinguished list. All he needs is time.


Roberson – This kid can really rebound. He has a nice looking stroke too. He hit all his free throws but missed all his jump shots. The light has not turned on yet, but when it does he's going to get really good really fast. If you think of this game as an open audition, Roberson is the only freshman (not counting Ennis of course) auditioning for a role that has not been filled. Right now Gbnije is playing minutes at the 1,2, and 3. And Christmas is playing a lot of minutes at the 4. Roberson could possibly take some of Gbinije's and Christmas's forward minutes. There is certainly no guarantee that he will, but of the three freshman, he is the only one with a realistic chance to crack the rotation.


One last note on the freshmen. This is one of the best national freshman classes in memory, and I'm glad Boeheim got his share. He got one of the elites in Ennis, and four other guys who are underrated only because of the vast talent they were compared to. In a normal year Roberson would have been a top 20 recruit instead of a top thirty, and so on with all the others. Boeheim is a hall of famer for a reason, and in this case he picked the perfect year to bring in a large class.


Lets move on to the bigs. A clear pattern has emerged. Each big is going to get at least 10 minutes of PT in every game. Expect this to stay the same through February, and maybe even into March. Only then, when the games mean the most, might Boeheim tighten things up a little if a true frontrunner emerges (right now we don't have one).


All three get an equal opportunity early, and the best of them play the most late, with only one exception. Coleman is not a shot blocker, so he will not be on the floor late in games where we have a lead we need to protect. In that situation, Boeheim will go with the better of Keita or Christmas.


In this game Coleman clearly played the best and that showed in his PT.


Coleman – 22 minutes of PT at center. Coleman has shown all year that he is our best rebounder and this game was no exception. He hit three of four free throws, and again got himself in good positions before getting the ball, which lead to easy lay ups. A really impressive effort overall, especially considering we pressed a lot, which does not play towards his strength.


Keita – 13 minutes of PT at center. Was pretty anonymous in the game, putting up zeros pretty much across the board. Of course, Keita's biggest contributions do not come on the stat sheet, but are found in good positional defense.


Christmas – 4ish minutes of PT at center (Roberson played about a minute at center with the walk ons). Boeheim was really pissed at Christmas in this game for a lack of aggression. To be exact, he blocked a shot, then half-assed grabbing the rebound allowing Binghamton to snag it. This earned him a long stretch on the bench in the first half. Then he followed that mistake up with a similar one in the second half and sat most of the rest of the game as punishment. Its pretty clear Boeheim is looking for aggression out of Christmas. Hopefully the lesson stuck.


Ennis – Only played 19 disjointed minutes because of foul trouble. Besides going 0-3 after getting fouled on a three point attempt, I thought Ennis looked fine during the time he played.


Cooney – When 17 points, 5-9 from three, and 4 steals feels expected you know something special is going on. My evaluations of Cooney are starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day, and that's probably the highest praise I can give him.


Fair – No turnovers in this one. He attacked Binghamton's zone aggressively, but smartly, and scored 19 efficient points. Couldn't have asked for anything more.


Gbinije – Hit two nice threes, and handeled the point for about half of this game, but I don't think anybody is worried about Gbinije's ability play against a zone. Its his play against pressure that needs to improve.


Grant – Had a good game that included a little of everything. 14 points (on only 7 shots!), 5 rebounds, 5 assists. 4-5 from the free throw line. But I refuse to get excited about Grant until he single-handedly dominates a game on defense. He has that kind of ability. I know its coming. I'm trying to be patient.

Nice summary -- a couple notes to add:

-- Your point on playing zone is valid and I am one of those who was shocked that those teams weren't zoning us. I'm still somewhat surprised b/c I don't think we generally show a lot of offensive creativity vs. zones, but with Cooney and Ennis making plays and Fair and Grant roaming the mid-range area, this is a tough group to defend.

-- I remain in wait and see mode on Rak b/c games like that against that kind of opponent just don't make any sense. Conversely, it's a really nice sign and a nice game for DC. A double-double vs. Binghamton isn't quite enough to erect a statue for the guy and I'm still a little leery of what extended minutes for DC vs. tougher competition is going to yield, but we don't generally have big men skilled and talented enough to put up double-doubles very often. It's not a coming out party per se, but certainly a nice performance for DC, who has had a few of those this year. Should definitely help the ol' confidence meter.

-- I can't help but wonder what MCW might have done here if either A) his scoring game was a bit more polished and/or B) he played with a 2 as dangerous as Cooney (or Waiters, for that matter). Before everyone accuses me of trying to pile on Triche, I'm simply stating that triche had trouble shooting basically all year and had many games where he struggled to do much of anything offensively. Cooney being white hot opens up the whole floor and allows Ennis to operate in space. I can't help but feel MCW would have benefited from that as well.

 

[billsin01]

Roberson is very talented. As far as rebounding goes, I think of two names: Carmelo and Rick Jackson (only as a senior, of course). He goes after the ball with real desire. Didn't have much offensive touch on Saturday night, but he's a well-rounded player on that end, too. The more he plays, the better we'll be.

I'm still waiting for an extended look at Roberson but I'd point out that you don't have to slap an 'only as a senior' qualifier on RJ. He grabbed 6 boards in 22 mpg as a soph., and then 7 in 26 mpg as a junior. really a pretty solid rebounder throughout and, of course, outstanding as a senior. I also liked Onuaku a lot as a rebounder early pre-injury troubles.