Random Thoughts on the Season So Far

[IthacaMatt]

Back to the original post. Where the heck is "our" swagger and desire? Haven't seen much of it this year to be honest. We cannot continue to go on the premise that "We Are Syracuse" and expect to win simply based on that. I feel we have decent talent, but just need to play with a little more "umph". Just my thoughts.

Yes, part of what has been lost with all the early departures is the "know-how to win". This group of guys do not have "it" right now. Hoping they develop it as we go on, but without adequate guard play to balance the floor, this is going to be a very difficult season.

 

[Quazzum69]

Why do you think giving guys like Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson, a few minutes a game last year would have helped their development in any meaningful way? I'd love to hear this argument.

They were playing the likes of Ennis, Grant, Fair, etc. in practice every single day last year for hours a day. Why will a few game minutes against mostly inferior players help so much?

Will these game minutes put more muscle on Johnson?

I just don't understand this logic at all.

Not all players are ready to contribute by their sophomore year. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them or the coaches. You want some guys who will take a few years to develop, but be leaders and big contributors as upperclassmen. It would not surprise me at all if Roberson and Johnson lead SU to a national championship their senior year. You have to look at the big picture here.

There's a difference between playing in front of an audience (several tens of thousands) and practicing in front of a few dozen people.

You can be the best player in the world in a gym with no one watching but once the cameras and lights are on, you play much differently.

Throw in Twitter, fan forums, ESPN, local media, students on campus commenting on your every play and you could see how a youngster could play with some nerves and not up to their potential. There are very few people (I would guess) that thrive in that atmosphere. It takes getting used to.

Everyone can agree that the mental aspect is just as important as the physical aspect so tell me how having zero experience in a high-pressure, stressful situation helps you play in those exact situations in the future? If practicing shooting (because you shoot in games) makes you shoot better, why wouldn't playing in front of people (because you play in front of people) make you play better at that?

(I still think if Rak got more EXPERIENCE and ENCOURAGEMENT in 2011-12 things would have turned out differently that year. I bet his career has a whole different trajectory and we beat Michigan and Dayton, too).

 

[Cowtown]

Here's a thought: some teams are just better than us this year. :noidea:

 

[RF2044]

Why do you think giving guys like Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson, a few minutes a game last year would have helped their development in any meaningful way? I'd love to hear this argument.

They were playing the likes of Ennis, Grant, Fair, etc. in practice every single day last year for hours a day. Why will a few game minutes against mostly inferior players help so much?

Will these game minutes put more muscle on Johnson?

I just don't understand this logic at all.

Not all players are ready to contribute by their sophomore year. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them or the coaches. You want some guys who will take a few years to develop, but be leaders and big contributors as upperclassmen. It would not surprise me at all if Roberson and Johnson lead SU to a national championship their senior year. You have to look at the big picture here.

It's a truism--one that is frequently expressed on this forum as fact.

Good post.

 

[billsin01]

Did you read my first post? We lost a couple games in December, who cares? I promise you I do not have a 25-0 shirt in my giant drawer of SU stuff.

But it's a straw man argument to some degree. That team going 23-2 and getting an extra chunk of minutes doesn't necessarily mean you're X% better and a bigger threat in March. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that using a deeper bench is a pretty solid idea, but I don't agree at all that merely forcefeeding some minutes guarantees a player develops significantly over the course of the season.

 

[billsin01]

Why do you think giving guys like Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson, a few minutes a game last year would have helped their development in any meaningful way? I'd love to hear this argument.

They were playing the likes of Ennis, Grant, Fair, etc. in practice every single day last year for hours a day. Why will a few game minutes against mostly inferior players help so much?

Will these game minutes put more muscle on Johnson?

I just don't understand this logic at all.

Not all players are ready to contribute by their sophomore year. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them or the coaches. You want some guys who will take a few years to develop, but be leaders and big contributors as upperclassmen. It would not surprise me at all if Roberson and Johnson lead SU to a national championship their senior year. You have to look at the big picture here.

Excellent post.

 

[billsin01]

There's a difference between playing in front of an audience (several tens of thousands) and practicing in front of a few dozen people.

You can be the best player in the world in a gym with no one watching but once the cameras and lights are on, you play much differently.

Throw in Twitter, fan forums, ESPN, local media, students on campus commenting on your every play and you could see how a youngster could play with some nerves and not up to their potential. There are very few people (I would guess) that thrive in that atmosphere. It takes getting used to.

Everyone can agree that the mental aspect is just as important as the physical aspect so tell me how having zero experience in a high-pressure, stressful situation helps you play in those exact situations in the future? If practicing shooting (because you shoot in games) makes you shoot better, why wouldn't playing in front of people (because you play in front of people) make you play better at that?

(I still think if Rak got more EXPERIENCE and ENCOURAGEMENT in 2011-12 things would have turned out differently that year. I bet his career has a whole different trajectory and we beat Michigan and Dayton, too).

What you're missing, from my perspective anyway, is the fine line between the value of getting minutes and the notion that those minutes unequivocally make you a better player a month or two months or three months later. The vast majority of development for these kids takes place over off-seasons and over years (one year to the next) not in weeks and chunks of minutes. I don't think anyone here would argue that getting adjusted to game speed and the talent level and everything else you gain from experience is valuable, I just don't think you can look at extended minutes -- especially at the expense of winning games -- and simply state that those minutes will transform a player to a key contributor in a matter of months.

 

[dollarbill44]

You need to groom your team so it is collectively playing its best basketball in March while managing the record so that you don't miss out on the opportunity for an at-large bid. Many of us would argue that by playing a deeper bench we believe the team would be in a position to collectively play better in March.

It seems to work for Pitino and Izzo.

 

[billsin01]

It seems to work for Pitino and Izzo.

So Pitino and Izzo's secret is substituting more liberally early in the season?

 

[IthacaMatt]

So Pitino and Izzo's secret is substituting more liberally early in the season?

That, and scheduling challenging opponents, sometimes on the road. If you think playing in practice is all a player needs to excel in front of the TV cameras, I'll give you one name: Ethan Cole.

 

[dollarbill44]

So Pitino and Izzo's secret is substituting more liberally early in the season?

It's not a secret. By substituting freely from the beginning of the season, you may take some hits to your record, but come February and March, you have a team of 9-10 guys who have all seen regular minutes. They're all used to playing with different combinations of players so there isn't as much of a drop-off in team play when you rotate players later in the season. Everyone has real minutes and has gained valuable experience in "real" games. It's not a coincidence to me that JB's teams typically have a February swoon.

There is also less of a drop-off from year to year because no one is starting from scratch as a sophomore since they all log minutes against legit competition.

Listen, I love JB and everything he's done for SU, but I have always bemoaned his lack of bench usage. His response is always along the lines of, "you can only play 5 guys at a time, so it only makes sense to play your best 5". But, I am a firm believer that your best 5 can be better at the end of a game and season if they are occasionally subbed out. It also acts as a mitigant to losing a player to injury or academics in March (hmm, where have we seen that?).

 

[General20]

There's a difference between playing in front of an audience (several tens of thousands) and practicing in front of a few dozen people.

You can be the best player in the world in a gym with no one watching but once the cameras and lights are on, you play much differently.

Throw in Twitter, fan forums, ESPN, local media, students on campus commenting on your every play and you could see how a youngster could play with some nerves and not up to their potential. There are very few people (I would guess) that thrive in that atmosphere. It takes getting used to.

Everyone can agree that the mental aspect is just as important as the physical aspect so tell me how having zero experience in a high-pressure, stressful situation helps you play in those exact situations in the future? If practicing shooting (because you shoot in games) makes you shoot better, why wouldn't playing in front of people (because you play in front of people) make you play better at that?

(I still think if Rak got more EXPERIENCE and ENCOURAGEMENT in 2011-12 things would have turned out differently that year. I bet his career has a whole different trajectory and we beat Michigan and Dayton, too).

So your argument is that the reason our sophomores are playing bad is because they are nervous, and if Boeheim had played them a few more minutes per game last year, they wouldn't be nervous now, and thus would be playing a lot better right now?

I'm sorry but no part of that is rational.

Becoming a better basketball player is simply not as easy as you are making it seem. There is no magic pill, and if there was everybody would use it.

 

[General20]

It's not a secret. By substituting freely from the beginning of the season, you may take some hits to your record, but come February and March, you have a team of 9-10 guys who have all seen regular minutes. They're all used to playing with different combinations of players so there isn't as much of a drop-off in team play when you rotate players later in the season. Everyone has real minutes and has gained valuable experience in "real" games. It's not a coincidence to me that JB's teams typically have a February swoon.

There is also less of a drop-off from year to year because no one is starting from scratch as a sophomore since they all log minutes against legit competition.

Listen, I love JB and everything he's done for SU, but I have always bemoaned his lack of bench usage. His response is always along the lines of, "you can only play 5 guys at a time, so it only makes sense to play your best 5". But, I am a firm believer that your best 5 can be better at the end of a game and season if they are occasionally subbed out. It also acts as a mitigant to losing a player to injury or academics in March (hmm, where have we seen that?).

There is ZERO evidence that substituting freely at the beginning of the season leads more late season success.

Pitino uses a long bench because he wants to press which takes more energy and generates more foul trouble. It has NOTHING to do with developing players, and anyway its silly to pick one successful head coach with a long bench and try use his success as some sort of evidence. Coach K has had more success in March than Pitino and uses a short bench like Boeheim, how do you explain that?

 

[MikeSU02]

There is ZERO evidence that substituting freely at the beginning of the season leads more late season success.

Pitino uses a long bench because he wants to press which takes more energy and generates more foul trouble. It has NOTHING to do with developing players, and anyway its silly to pick one successful head coach with a long bench and try use his success as some sort of evidence. Coach K has had more success in March than Pitino and uses a short bench like Boeheim, how do you explain that?

He is a better coach and has better talent on the floor.

 

[jordoo]

It's a truism--one that is frequently expressed on this forum as fact.

Good post.

Because its an easy cop out to find an answer in retrospect, but as you and General20 point out simply playing bench players doesn't magically guarantee that they will develop with that PT.

 

[MikeSU02]

So your argument is that the reason our sophomores are playing bad is because they are nervous, and if Boeheim had played them a few more minutes per game last year, they wouldn't be nervous now, and thus would be playing a lot better right now?

I'm sorry but no part of that is rational.

Becoming a better basketball player is simply not as easy as you are making it seem. There is no magic pill, and if there was everybody would use it.

The argument is that in-game experience cannot be duplicated and, especially for young players, getting even a few minutes is very beneficial for same-season progress and long-term progress because of that fact.

Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but why isn't that rational?

Is your argument that JB has been playing the young guys around the correct amount of time and they wouldn't have been any better had they played more minutes last year?

 

[RF2044]

The argument is that in-game experience cannot be duplicated and, especially for young players, getting even a few minutes is very beneficial for same-season progress and long-term progress because of that fact.

Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but why isn't that rational?

Is your argument that JB has been playing the young guys around the correct amount of time and they wouldn't have been any better had they played more minutes last year?

If I may presume to speak for the General, I believe what he's saying is that all players have a developmental curve, and merely infusing a player with PT isn't necessarily going to accelerate that developmental curve. It may accelerate PARTS of it [such as, more game experieince would make a player less nervous about playing], but more PT last year wasn't going to make Buss knock down more threes this year, wasn't going to make BJ get physically stronger, wasn't going to make Dashonte Riley a better player more capable of helping the team in 2010, etc. Some guys just develop slower, even though later in their careers they end up being solid contributors--some of whom even end up being above average.

For every Pitino example of 9+ rotation, there is a K or JB or others with a 7 player rotation. There is no right one way to coach, and no one-size-fits all approach that guarantees no brainer results. Playing players who aren't ready doesn't magically transform them. In some cases, PT can drive short term improvement. In other cases, it won't have that effect--although it benefit the player in the longer term. It's this distinction that seems to be lost on many.

 

[MikeSU02]

If I may presume to speak for the General, I believe what he's saying is that all players have a developmental curve, and merely infusing a player with PT isn't necessarily going to accelerate that developmental curve. It may accelerate PARTS of it [such as, more game experieince would make a player less nervous about playing], but more PT last year wasn't going to make Buss knock down more threes this year, wasn't going to make BJ get physically stronger, wasn't going to make Dashonte Riley a better player more capable of helping the team in 2010, etc.

For every Pitino example of 9+ rotation, there is a K or JB or others with a 7 player rotation. There is no right one way to coach, and no one-size-fits all approach that guarantees no brainer results. Playing players who aren't ready doesn't magically transform them. In some cases, PT can drive short term improvement. In other cases, it won't have that effect--although it benefit the player in the longer term. It's this distinction that seems to be lost on many.

I'm perfectly ok with that explanation that you talk to. But my question is still why the initial comment was considered to be irrational?

All of this is speculative on all parties. But it still was a rational take on the topic.

 

[jordoo]

If I may presume to speak for the General, I believe what he's saying is that all players have a developmental curve, and merely infusing a player with PT isn't necessarily going to accelerate that developmental curve. It may accelerate PARTS of it [such as, more game experieince would make a player less nervous about playing], but more PT last year wasn't going to make Buss knock down more threes this year, wasn't going to make BJ get physically stronger, wasn't going to make Dashonte Riley a better player more capable of helping the team in 2010, etc.

For every Pitino example of 9+ rotation, there is a K or JB or others with a 7 player rotation. There is no right one way to coach, and no one-size-fits all approach that guarantees no brainer results. Playing players who aren't ready doesn't magically transform them. In some cases, it can help them improve short term. In other cases, it won't have that effect--although it may be beneficial in the longer term. It's this distinction that seems to be lost on many.

My thought is that if a guy is good enough where say 12min a game is going to help him develop enough to be a big help the next season then would he not be good enough to also develop in practice while playing against the better players that he is sitting behind? Wouldn't 2 exhibitions and 4 bunnies be enough to get him to game speed the following year and really help the team? It sure seemed to work fine with MCW. Of course with the crowd calling for bench players to play more we will be told that this is because MCW was much better than Brandon and Scoop and should have played as a freshman. There is no winning in some arguments. I am willing to admit that it can work both ways but I think its much more specific from player to player.

 

[General20]

If I may presume to speak for the General, I believe what he's saying is that all players have a developmental curve, and merely infusing a player with PT isn't necessarily going to accelerate that developmental curve. It may accelerate PARTS of it [such as, more game experieince would make a player less nervous about playing], but more PT last year wasn't going to make Buss knock down more threes this year, wasn't going to make BJ get physically stronger, wasn't going to make Dashonte Riley a better player more capable of helping the team in 2010, etc.

For every Pitino example of 9+ rotation, there is a K or JB or others with a 7 player rotation. There is no right one way to coach, and no one-size-fits all approach that guarantees no brainer results. Playing players who aren't ready doesn't magically transform them. In some cases, PT can drive short term improvement. In other cases, it won't have that effect--although it benefit the player in the longer term. It's this distinction that seems to be lost on many.

This is basically it.

The distinction most people don't get is, there is a difference between a McCullough who has the physical ability and the skills necessary to compete and a Johnson who is not physically ready to compete or a Buss who is not skilled enough.

LOTS of PT will help McCullough get better. LOTS of PT won't help either Johnson or Buss get better, because they need hundreds of hours of practice and work in the weight room . . . essentially they need more time.

A few minutes of PT a game will never help anybody get any better.

Then, finally, the thing most people don't want to hear, there is probably nothing Boeheim can do in the short term to make Johnson or Buss any better. Their development is going to take longer than that. This does not mean recruiting them was a mistake (in my opinion). In a couple years Syracuse is going to be VERY talented, and their experience might just be what pushes us over the top.

 

[pearl31]

there is probably nothing Boeheim can do in the short term to make Johnson or Buss any better.

agree about Buss, but I still believe BJ will end up being a solid contributor by some point this season - which is why (I feel) it's important for him to get as much run as possible in as many games as possible

 

[Cusetime]

Why do you think giving guys like Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson, a few minutes a game last year would have helped their development in any meaningful way? I'd love to hear this argument.

They were playing the likes of Ennis, Grant, Fair, etc. in practice every single day last year for hours a day. Why will a few game minutes against mostly inferior players help so much?

Will these game minutes put more muscle on Johnson?

I just don't understand this logic at all.

Not all players are ready to contribute by their sophomore year. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them or the coaches. You want some guys who will take a few years to develop, but be leaders and big contributors as upperclassmen. It would not surprise me at all if Roberson and Johnson lead SU to a national championship their senior year. You have to look at the big picture here.

Practice is where you develop and game minutes are the reward. But I do think JB should play an 8-9 man rotation.

 

[CuseCPT]

Why do you think giving guys like Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson, a few minutes a game last year would have helped their development in any meaningful way? I'd love to hear this argument.

They were playing the likes of Ennis, Grant, Fair, etc. in practice every single day last year for hours a day. Why will a few game minutes against mostly inferior players help so much?

Will these game minutes put more muscle on Johnson?

I just don't understand this logic at all.

Not all players are ready to contribute by their sophomore year. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them or the coaches. You want some guys who will take a few years to develop, but be leaders and big contributors as upperclassmen. It would not surprise me at all if Roberson and Johnson lead SU to a national championship their senior year. You have to look at the big picture here.

As others have pointed out in later posts, you just can't replicate some aspects of playing the game in practice. Namely the psychological aspect. Hell, maybe you're right, maybe it is irrational that playing in front of 25,000 people is different then playing in a practice gym. Irrational or not, it is different.

Yeah a steady stream of minutes throughout the season is not going to put muscle on a guy, or fix a mechanical issue in a jump shot but it is going to get them used to performing in the situation they were ultimately recruited to perform in; a basketball court in the middle of a sea of screaming people and TV cameras.

 

[tbonezone]

ask anyone you know to run a lap and record the time. then have them run 4 laps and record the average lap time. that difference is called fatigue. and it's a basic human reality. muscles and tires wear down the more miles you put on them w/o a pit stop.

 

[dollarbill44]

There is ZERO evidence that substituting freely at the beginning of the season leads more late season success.

Pitino uses a long bench because he wants to press which takes more energy and generates more foul trouble. It has NOTHING to do with developing players, and anyway its silly to pick one successful head coach with a long bench and try use his success as some sort of evidence. Coach K has had more success in March than Pitino and uses a short bench like Boeheim, how do you explain that?

As for success in March, K vs Pitino vs Boeheim, etc, Pitino has been extremely successful (in 23 years, 7 FFs and 2 NCs, 42-16 overall NCAAT). In fact, if he sticks around as long as K, he may very well come close to his NCAAT numbers (34 years, 11 FFs, 4 NCs and 82-26 NCAAT record). JB has a better overall winning percentage than Pitino, but Pitino has been more successful than JB in March, by a fair margin.

Incidentally, JBs best teams since 2003 (inclusive) have gone 8 deep or more (avg >10 mpg):
2003 - 8 deep (Anthony, Duany, McNamara, Edelin, Pace, Forth, McNeil, Warrick)
2010 - 8 deep (Triche, Rautins, Jardine, Johnson, Jackson, Onuaku, Joseph, Jones)
2012 - 9-10 deep (Jardine, Triche, Joseph, Christmas, Melo, Fair, Waiters, Southerland, Keita, Carter-Williams)
2013 - 9 deep (MCW, Triche, Fair, Christmas, Coleman, Southerland, Keita, Grant, Cooney)