ESPN projects our ACC finish as...

[omniorange]

Gasaway is a Pomeroy stats type of guy. He lives for those stats. There is little he can tell you about what happens on the floor, but he can say what the stats tell him about the game(s).

It is what it is.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[cusetown1]

Of course part of our run was luck. You'd have to be an idiot to disagree with that.

I wouldn't call double digit victories on our way to the final 4 luck. I actually don't think any of the games we played we got lucky. Hell many here were pooping their pants with the thought of playing Indy.

 

[moqui]

Gasaway is a Pomeroy stats type of guy. He lives for those stats. There is little he can tell you about what happens on the floor, but he can say what the stats tell him about the game(s).

It is what it is.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't really agree with that. Gasaway watches a lot of basketball and if you hear him on a podcast, while he is not the guy who is going to diagram the best way to defend the pick and roll, he clearly knows a lot about the game and not just the numbers. It' s true that his writing is all stat-heavy, but that's just his niche.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I wouldn't call double digit victories on our way to the final 4 luck. I actually don't think any of the games we played we got lucky. Hell many here were pooping their pants with the thought of playing Indy.

We got VERY lucky with our draw.

 

[cusetown1]

We got VERY lucky with our draw.

I disagree

 

[HOFCeluck]

I disagree

Montana, cal instead of UNLV, and a tom Crean coached Indiana team is a pretty fortunate draw.

And iirc most were optimistic about that IU matchup. Easily the best one seed to face.

 

[pfister1]

Come on, "part of it was luck". Not all of it. The next words are "The length and athleticism of the Orange on defense no doubt helped those figures along "

But even that is a bit of a back handed compliment, funny thing is we often make it here ourselves. As if the great defense was a result of the length and athleticism. While being tall and athletic may be an advantage, that is generally the case in all aspects of the game.

The defensive results were in larger part the result of a well designed scheme, our guys buying into it and playing it well, and playing extemely hard. If all you had to do was put some tall athletic guys out there everyone would be doing it.

 

[cusetown1]

Montana, cal instead of UNLV, and a tom Crean coached Indiana team is a pretty fortunate draw.

And iirc most were optimistic about that IU matchup. Easily the best one seed to face.

Unlv might have been the most overrated team in the country.

 

[Knicks411]

But even that is a bit of a back handed compliment, funny thing is we often make it here ourselves. As if the great defense was a result of the length and athleticism. While being tall and athletic may be an advantage, that is generally the case in all aspects of the game.

The defensive results were in larger part the result of a well designed scheme, our guys buying into it and playing it well, and playing extemely hard. If all you had to do was put some tall athletic guys out there everyone would be doing it.

I get that, but I think we might be parsing the language too much here.

The point Gasaway was making is that if the other team shoots 14-91 from 3 against you over a 5 game stretch, a decent part of that is coming down to good luck for you. Sometimes teams miss open looks. Good schemes and good defense help for sure, (and historically we allow a low % from 3) but sometimes, the other team just misses shots, and 14-91 includes a lot of that. He's not saying the defense in general is lucky, more that the otherworldly defensive numbers we put up in the tournament were partially aided by terrible perimeter shooting from the opposition.

I also think Gasaway is missing the forest for the trees a bit as well. Montana shot 4-31 from 3, that number is essentially meaningless, they weren't beating us for a second. We pretty much controlled the other 3 games for the duration of the contests. We could have afforded to give up a few more points, making the defensive numbers not quite as crazy, and we still would have won.

One other thing to keep in mind; we didn't do a great job on the defensive glass in the tournament. (Surprise, surprise). So it really isn't as simple as saying something well if Cal makes 3 more 3's than they beat us 69-66, since they scored 60, you need to account for some of the offensive rebounds they don't get because they make 3's instead of miss them. The closest game in the run was Cal, who we beat by 6, and that was a 13 point game with 2:20 to go. We were never really in danger of losing that one, I can say with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[djcon57]

Montana, cal instead of UNLV, and a tom Crean coached Indiana team is a pretty fortunate draw.

And iirc most were optimistic about that IU matchup. Easily the best one seed to face.

To be fair, Cal IN San Jose wasn't great luck.

 

[tee1222]

This article. I laughed. I cried. Tears of laughter, that is. Then I laughed some more.

 

['CuseHoops]

Welcome to the ACC! It will be really rare if SU is ever picked by ESPN writers to be ahead of Duke an UNC to start a season. Maybe one but both in a single yr? Never. Just the way it's going to be for awhile. Just gotta go out an whip them. Don't wanna be paper champions anyways.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

...4th in the standings.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-col...h-every-conference-2013-14-college-basketball

Insider article, but...fourth? Really?

I didnt read the article but im generally ok with a prediction in the 4-6 range. Don't underestimate the toll that playing road games far from Syracuse (there will be no defacto home games like Providence, Seton Hall, Rutgers and St. Johns), against a bunch of teams that will really get up for us, in strange gymnasiums.

That and we are not going to get a single f_cking call for the next three years at least (maybe when we play Notre Dame).

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Come on, "part of it was luck". Not all of it. The next words are "The length and athleticism of the Orange on defense no doubt helped those figures along "

so basically our defensive prowess was a combination of luck and not luck...and its difficult to quantify which percentage to ascribe each..

at least that is what this genius is saying

 

[SaltLakeOrange]

I don't see us as fourth in league. This will be the first time these teams really see the zone (Pitt and ND not withstanding) which should play to our strength. Our forwards are as strong as any other team in the ACC. Our centers should be more than serviceable. If Rak can stay out of foul trouble, continue to play aggressive defense and take the ball strong to the hole he could have a breakout season. Frankly, the ceiling on Rak is all in his head. He could be great or he could be the same Rak we saw last year (which most teams would love to have). Either way, Keita is there to pick up any slack. Our guard play will be better than people expect. The SI writer had Mike starting at the 2. I'm not sure he's right there. I have Trevor starting...Either way, the 2 will be telling...Ennis will be just fine. I have us top 3...

 

[CaptainJ]

The way I look at it, if Gasaway is way off on any of his picks and continues to be, he will lose credibility to a degree. I'm not familiar with his work, but predictions aren't the best avenue to trash a team you don't like. On the other hand, some of his word choices certainly seemed to make it seem that he has a degree of bias, as do we(of course I didnt read his reviews of the others teams, which may have given me a more objective understanding of his style). I haven't followed offseason hoops as much as I used to, but for what it's worth nothing in the 1-4 range would shock me, although 2 or 3 seem to be safer picks. The article made some good points which were both for and against the Cuse. I generally respect folks who have the cahones to express how their thought processes differ from the herd rather than making safe predictions, as it makes life more interesting!

 

[Knicks411]

so basically our defensive prowess was a combination of luck and not luck...and its difficult to quantify which percentage to ascribe each..

at least that is what this genius is saying

Well it was really more specifically our incredible 3 point defense in the NCAA tournament he was referring to.

The way I look at it, if Gasaway is way off on any of his picks and continues to be, he will lose credibility to a degree. I'm not familiar with his work, but predictions aren't the best avenue to trash a team you don't like.

Predictions are hard, no one is perfect with all of their predictions. I don't see any reason to think Gasaway doesn't like us. (I've been reading him for what, probably 5 years at this point) He doesn't think we'll be as good as most of the board does. He could be right, he could be wrong. If he's wrong, I think it will be because it was a poor evaluation, not cause he has it out for us.

 

[73CAV]

It's pre-season. These prognostications are designed merely to generate buzz. Who'll remember these predictions in twelve weeks? Odds are pretty good the author won't want to be reminded of them. Over the last decade, the media covering the ACC rarely pick anyone other than Duke or UNC to finish first. There's some justification for that, but it ignores the changes that are taking place within the conference (see FSU in 2012 and Miami in 2013). Here's a link based solely on stats. It's SBNation, so take it with a grain of salt. Furthermore, it's an N C State site, so add lots of grains of salt. Nonetheless, it presents a very different way to look toward the coming season. It will probably annoy you, though.

http://www.backingthepack.com/2013/10/21/4863442/acc-college-basketball-win-shares-virginia-duke

 

[Hoo's That]

I didnt read the article but im generally ok with a prediction in the 4-6 range. Don't underestimate the toll that playing road games far from Syracuse (there will be no defacto home games like Providence, Seton Hall, Rutgers and St. Johns), against a bunch of teams that will really get up for us, in strange gymnasiums.

That and we are not going to get a single f_cking call for the next three years at least (maybe when we play Notre Dame).

Just 3? We've been in for 60 and we're still waiting for one.

 

[LPOrange]

Virginia is Wisconsin-lite. And we know how much the analytic guys love Wisconsin when they start plugging in the stats.

 

[edowd26]

Just 3? We've been in for 60 and we're still waiting for one.

Then this is your year. You'll get them against us at the very least. Probably not against a dirty putt team or "gods " team, notre dame

 

[nocoffee]

Montana, cal instead of UNLV, and a tom Crean coached Indiana team is a pretty fortunate draw.

And iirc most were optimistic about that IU matchup. Easily the best one seed to face.

Hey, Cal was still in that game!

 

[moqui]

The length and athleticism of the Orange on defense no doubt helped those figures along, but keep in mind, over the past five seasons a series of long and athletic Syracuse defenses have allowed the Big East to shoot 31 percent from beyond the arc. Roughly to the extent that 15 percent 3-point shooting is even worse than 31 percent shooting, the Orange might fairly be said to have caught a break.

You can quantify it even further than that. I looked at the 7 best 4-game runs of 3 pt percentage defense by the Orange last year (plus one 3 game run to expand the sample size), exclusive of the run to the Final Four (note - I did not double count games, so it is conceivable to come up with a few better 4 game runs by using low games in other combos)

SU had some terrific four game runs last year, holding opponents to below 28% from the arc in 8 of those runs and inducing them to hoist up over 80 threes in all of them (except of course the 3 game run). However, the very best the Orange managed in the regular season was the early season run of Arkansas, Easter Michigan, Long Beach State and Monmouth, who went a combined 19 for 87 or .21839. For all 8 of those runs, the mean was .28636 with a standard deviation of .05139. The run to the Final Four had the Orange hold four opponents to .15385 on 14 of 91 shooting. Not only is that number more than 2.5 standard deviations below the mean, it is more than a full standard deviation below the best four game run the Orange managed all year, and that run was against mostly bad competition. Given all that, I don't think it is remotely controversial to say that good fortune played some role in the Syracuse performance. But, as Branch Rickey pointed out ages ago, Luck is the Residue of Design, and the Orange have a coach who has built a system designed to lure that kind of lightning into the bottle. Gasaway himself believes this, in the section that followed his pointing out the luck factor:

Of course, deserving teams can catch some good breaks, and that's precisely what happened with the Syracuse defense. Boeheim's team held its first four tournament opponents to 39 percent 2-point shooting, and the most impressive thing about that figure is that it was recorded in a bracket that had held to form. The Orange recorded these incredible numbers against a No. 1 seed (the Hoosiers) and the Big East's No. 1-ranked offense during the regular season (the Golden Eagles). Boeheim's defense peaked at the perfect time.

 

[sutomcat]

It's pre-season. These prognostications are designed merely to generate buzz. Who'll remember these predictions in twelve weeks? Odds are pretty good the author won't want to be reminded of them. Over the last decade, the media covering the ACC rarely pick anyone other than Duke or UNC to finish first. There's some justification for that, but it ignores the changes that are taking place within the conference (see FSU in 2012 and Miami in 2013). Here's a link based solely on stats. It's SBNation, so take it with a grain of salt. Furthermore, it's an N C State site, so add lots of grains of salt. Nonetheless, it presents a very different way to look toward the coming season. It will probably annoy you, though.

http://www.backingthepack.com/2013/10/21/4863442/acc-college-basketball-win-shares-virginia-duke

Hard to compare achievements of returning players from different leagues with such significant differences in quality. Maybe all the ACC schools should be adjusted by a factor of .90 or so to get more realistic numbers. But this way of looking at teams just doesn't account for programs with superior depth. Someone like Jerami Grant is going to be better than 80% of the starters in the ACC this season and SU gets almost no credit for him using this methodology. And great incoming frosh like Tyler Ennis are just ignored.

That being said, I think UVa might well finish ahead of Syracuse. I don't generally watch the ACC and admittedly know little about the Cavs but no question, teams with a lot of returning experience and some level of talent tend to do well.

Plus I think your league schedule is a little easier. You don't have to play Duke twice and the game against Syracuse is in your place.

It will be an interesting season.

Question for you: how tough has it been to get tickets for the ACC tourney in recent years? From the little I have seen, it looks like the arena is half empty and dead for the early rounds. Is that fair? When do people start showing up? Does anyone care about it anymore?

 

[73CAV]

Question for you: how tough has it been to get tickets for the ACC tourney in recent years? From the little I have seen, it looks like the arena is half empty and dead for the early rounds. Is that fair? When do people start showing up? Does anyone care about it anymore?

Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Since the previous round of expansion, the first two days of the ACC Men's Basketball Tournament have featured four games each. The fans of the teams playing any particular game are nearly always in their seats. However, only the real die-hards will sit through four games each day. Additionally, during the first day, there are four teams which have byes. Their fans will attend the more attractive contests, but are not likely to sit through both sessions of the first day. Consequently, the noon game and the nine o'clock game are not always fully attended. One of the real beauties of the ACC Tournament, though, is that it is usually within easy driving distance of the majority of the conference's schools. Greensboro is very convenient to UNC, Duke, N C State, Wake, UVa, VT, & Clemson. It is still a reasonable drive from GT and Maryland. If you're a fan of those schools and didn't qualify for tournament tickets through the school, and if your team progresses in the tournament, it is not difficult to make the trip to the Coliseum and buy tickets from fans of those schools which have been eliminated. Among other things, I think this is one reason you will only see the occasional tournament played in the NYC area. In the past, both DC and Atlanta have both hosted the event, but not often. And, I am not aware of any public ticket sales to the tournament by the ACC or the tournament facility. All the tickets are distributed to the schools to use as they see fit. Typically, this means a small allocation for students and a significant block of seats for the AD's heavy donors.