A template for success.

Talk XU Men's basketball here...
Anti-Homer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:53 pm
Contact:

A template for success.

Postby Anti-Homer » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:12 pm

I watched much of the Rutgers-Minn cbb game today, and really like the way Rutgers plays. They won 64-56, holding Minn to 20 points under their ppg. Avg. Their top three scorers are 2 guards and a Dez Wells like wing. They don’t have a dominant low post scorer, but of the few games I’ve seen (partial, never have seen one of their games in full), they seem to drive into, and take a lot of shots in the paint. Minn has mixed in zone, as I suspect many teams do against them, due to their poor outside shooting. Sound familiar? This hasn’t deterred them. An offensive statistical comparison shows:

- Rutgers (R) - Shoot 18 treys per game. X:21.
- R -29% from 3 as a team. X: 29%
- R - Leading scorer 23% from 3; 2nd leading scorer 29% from 3. Both are guards. X’s leading scorers ( Marshall & Scruggs) shoot over 30% from 3, thanks to Scruggs.
- R - 46% fg % as a team. X: 43%. This despite the fact that X has a dominant low post scorer in Jones, who avgs 14 ppg; along with FreeM, they score about 20 ppg from the post .Minn’s two 6’9” post players avg. only 13 ppg.
- R - 63% free throw shooting. X: 68%.
- R - A/T.O. 1:1 X 1:1

If the teams were blinded, one would probably think X’s resume is the superior one. Sadly, that’s not the case. It’s also easy to see from a pure talent standpoint, that X has better, “”physical personnel. However, Rutger’s plays with a much higher bball I.Q. (low bar). Currently, Rutgers has 4 quad one wins. They beat Wisky and Seton Hall by 20, and 20th ranked PSU by 11. They do have one comparably bas loss to Wake, with their loss to St. Bonaventure. Their NET is 22. X’s is 68 (UC is 64, for depressing perspective).

I think the obvious difference between the two teams is Rutger’s much more disciplined offense, including their commitment to score in the paint. Taking both fewer, and much better threes is critical as well. Many of X’s are early in the shot clock, and a high volume from their two worst shooting three point shooters. Taking 3 more treys a game may not seem like a lot, but considering many of X’s long threes result in run-outs, they are significantly detrimental to their low margin for error. I would bet X’s opponents have a lot of more fast break points than Rutgers. Instead of watching game film of their own, X should watch game film of Rutgers. A free Moderator’s Koozie (surplus from the 15 we made last year) goes out to the poster who makes this suggestion during Coach Steele’s show tomorrow.
xavier71
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: A template for success.

Postby xavier71 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:50 pm

Great points! Although I didn't see the game, I'd be willing to bet that the Rutgers players didn't dribble excessively with no thought as to where they're going. I'll bet Rutgers, at times, reversed the ball without dribbling. I'll bet they threw the ball to the low post when he was open, and had the defender on his hip. I'll bet that sometimes the ball came back out from the low post and was followed by a reversal to the other side for a drive or open shot. I'll bet they didn't run two or three weave/hand offs at the top of the circle, followed by a high ball screen, followed by a drive into traffic as time expires. Too bad our coaches don't see some of what you pointed out.
PiAlphaPhi83
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: A template for success.

Postby PiAlphaPhi83 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:09 pm

I have a good friend who lives in NJ (I'll call him Jersey Mike") who is a Rutgers grad and huge RU basketball fan. Needless to say, he is ecstatic over the recent success of RU Hoops. To his credit he has rooted for the success of Xavier over the past 20 + years while suffering through some tough times for the Scarlet Knights. He was in Cincy one summer and I showed him the new Cintas Center. While we were checking it out he met Coach Prosser while he was giving Will Caudle and his family a tour.

I shared this post with him and he asked that I share his reply. I tend to agree with him but would add that their coach (Success at Stony Brook) seems to have a handle on the team and the game situation over coach Steele for now. Time will tell if that changes. Here is "Jersey Mike's" reply...


I disagree that X’s talent is superior. That is not the case.

Where we differ is that we go 10 deep and we play as a team. We have any one of 5 or 6 guys that could average 15 if they wanted, but we play as a team and do what is asked. The egos are checked at the door. We have a superior smothering defense. Look at our last 10 games and no one scores over 60 except for Michigan St at home. Lastly, we outrebound just about every team we play, especially on the offensive boards. Vs Minn we had 2 guards with 12 and 9 rebounds apiece and our center also had 9 boards.
Anti-Homer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:53 pm
Contact:

Re: A template for success.

Postby Anti-Homer » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:16 pm

PiAlphaPhi83 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:09 pm
I have a good friend who lives in NJ (I'll call him Jersey Mike") who is a Rutgers grad and huge RU basketball fan. Needless to say, he is ecstatic over the recent success of RU Hoops. To his credit he has rooted for the success of Xavier over the past 20 + years while suffering through some tough times for the Scarlet Knights. He was in Cincy one summer and I showed him the new Cintas Center. While we were checking it out he met Coach Prosser while he was giving Will Caudle and his family a tour.

I shared this post with him and he asked that I share his reply. I tend to agree with him but would add that their coach (Success at Stony Brook) seems to have a handle on the team and the game situation over coach Steele for now. Time will tell if that changes. Here is "Jersey Mike's" reply...


I disagree that X’s talent is superior. That is not the case.

Where we differ is that we go 10 deep and we play as a team. We have any one of 5 or 6 guys that could average 15 if they wanted, but we play as a team and do what is asked. The egos are checked at the door. We have a superior smothering defense. Look at our last 10 games and no one scores over 60 except for Michigan St at home. Lastly, we outrebound just about every team we play, especially on the offensive boards. Vs Minn we had 2 guards with 12 and 9 rebounds apiece and our center also had 9 boards.
I appreciate his *****. I haven’t checked, but I’d venture to say the h.s. rankings of our top 8 are considerably higher than their top 8. This isn’t the only metric that matters, but it’s a very good predictor of team performance and outcomes. Usually. When you look at the top 25 teams annually versus the rest of the field, I KNOW the teams with players of the highest collective average h.s. rankings populate the Top 25 for the most part. Obviously, there will be anomalies (Dayton, Butler vastly overachieving this year, and North Carolina underachieving). Virginia breaks this trend almost annually, though last year's core players produced a lottery, and two 2nd round NBA-ers , and won the NC. Kyle Guy was a top 100 guy, but I have no idea where Hunter and Jerome were ranked. Despite that, I’ll bet his kid’s rankings still weren’t in the top 5 in the ACC. It also doesn’t hurt that he’s the best coach in the game, today’s version of Brad Stevens.

I’ve also conceded I haven’t seen a lot of their games, but believe if you let Tony Bennett coach X, and Jay Wright (2nd best coach) coach Rutgers, X wins 8 of 10 games. This looks improbable on paper now, but I’m basing it solely of what I believe the individual talent of the top 8 players on each team is, absent of how they play as a team. I fully agree with him that Rutgers plays as a team, plays high IQ bball, plays good defense, and rebounds the ball well. However, their top two players and highest volume shooters (Baker was out a few games, but he still has shot the 2nd most attempts on the team) shoot 27% from 3. The fact that they collectively shoot 46% from 2’s, 20 points higher than 3’s, shows that is where they are most effective, and where they score the lion’s share of their points, at an efficient clip. That’s my whole point. Get into the lane for a short jumper or lab, instead of chucking up early shot clock treys. You can get into the lane against a zone. It takes more crisp passing and movement, something X doesn't excel at. Half part player execution, and half part coach's design.

Also, one observation that doesn’t seem to be true is that they go 10 deep. Eight players average 19-27 minutes per game, and the 9th plays 11 minutes a game (our Bishop). He averages 3.7 pts and 2.5 rebounds per game. Hardly an impact player. They remind me of some of Miller’s best teams, as the top 5 players average 9-12 points per game. Baker seems to be the alpha male, and he is a defensive hawk, and drives to the hole. He is a poor three point shooter, which is his Achilles heel. However, me really likes the way they play. Tell him to rest easy tonight, b/c AH is a fan.
Anti-Homer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:53 pm
Contact:

Re: A template for success.

Postby Anti-Homer » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:16 pm

Anti-Homer wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:16 pm
PiAlphaPhi83 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:09 pm
I have a good friend who lives in NJ (I'll call him Jersey Mike") who is a Rutgers grad and huge RU basketball fan. Needless to say, he is ecstatic over the recent success of RU Hoops. To his credit he has rooted for the success of Xavier over the past 20 + years while suffering through some tough times for the Scarlet Knights. He was in Cincy one summer and I showed him the new Cintas Center. While we were checking it out he met Coach Prosser while he was giving Will Caudle and his family a tour.

I shared this post with him and he asked that I share his reply. I tend to agree with him but would add that their coach (Success at Stony Brook) seems to have a handle on the team and the game situation over coach Steele for now. Time will tell if that changes. Here is "Jersey Mike's" reply...


I disagree that X’s talent is superior. That is not the case.

Where we differ is that we go 10 deep and we play as a team. We have any one of 5 or 6 guys that could average 15 if they wanted, but we play as a team and do what is asked. The egos are checked at the door. We have a superior smothering defense. Look at our last 10 games and no one scores over 60 except for Michigan St at home. Lastly, we outrebound just about every team we play, especially on the offensive boards. Vs Minn we had 2 guards with 12 and 9 rebounds apiece and our center also had 9 boards.
I appreciate his *****. I haven’t checked, but I’d venture to say the h.s. rankings of our top 8 are considerably higher than their top 8. This isn’t the only metric that matters, but it’s a very good predictor of team performance and outcomes. Usually. When you look at the top 25 teams annually versus the rest of the field, I KNOW the teams with players of the highest collective average h.s. rankings populate the Top 25 for the most part. Obviously, there will be anomalies (Dayton, Butler vastly overachieving this year, and North Carolina underachieving). Virginia breaks this trend almost annually, though last year's core players produced a lottery, and two 2nd round NBA-ers , and won the NC. Kyle Guy was a top 100 guy, but I have no idea where Hunter and Jerome were ranked. Despite that, I’ll bet his kid’s rankings still weren’t in the top 5 in the ACC. It also doesn’t hurt that he’s the best coach in the game, today’s version of Brad Stevens.

I’ve also conceded I haven’t seen a lot of their games, but believe if you let Tony Bennett coach X, and Jay Wright (2nd best coach) coach Rutgers, X wins 8 of 10 games. This looks improbable on paper now, but I’m basing it solely of what I believe the individual talent of the top 8 players on each team is, absent of how they play as a team. I fully agree with him that Rutgers plays as a team, plays high IQ bball, plays good defense, and rebounds the ball well. However, their top two players and highest volume shooters (Baker was out a few games, but he still has shot the 2nd most attempts on the team) shoot 27% from 3. The fact that they collectively shoot 46% from 2’s, 20 points higher than 3’s, shows that is where they are most effective, and where they score the lion’s share of their points, at an efficient clip. That’s my whole point. Get into the lane for a short jumper or lab, instead of chucking up early shot clock treys. You can get into the lane against a zone. It takes more crisp passing and movement, something X doesn't excel at. Half part player execution, and half part coach's design.

Also, one observation that doesn’t seem to be true is that they go 10 deep. Eight players average 19-27 minutes per game, and the 9th plays 11 minutes a game (our Bishop). He averages 3.7 pts and 2.5 rebounds per game. Hardly an impact player. They remind me of some of Miller’s best teams, as the top 5 players average 9-12 points per game. Baker seems to be the alpha male, and he is a defensive hawk, and drives to the hole. He is a poor three point shooter, which is his Achilles heel. However, me really likes the way they play. Tell him to rest easy tonight, b/c AH is a fan.

Return to “Xavier Men's Basketball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests