|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 12, 2019 7:33:05 GMT -6
So, Persons makes third team and that’s it. Probably the only snub might be Teague who could’ve been honorable mention I suppose but given our colossal flop in the league I guess I’m not surprised. So based on this, we have one player on our roster among the best twenty in the league. Don’t necessarily agree with that but we got what we earned I suppose. Let’s hope Taj uses that the rest of the way starting at BG.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 12, 2019 7:49:33 GMT -6
So much for future Hall of famers.
Yes, it’s the bill to pay for totally flopping. But yeah Teague should at least be honorable mention but you don’t get rewarded for tanking like we did. If those guys were good enough we’d not have collapsed like we did. And if their coach was good enough he’d not have allowed it.
|
|
|
All Mac
Mar 12, 2019 11:25:11 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Mar 12, 2019 11:25:11 GMT -6
One problem is that Teague was sometimes very good on defense and that gains less recognition.
Also, no doubt the teams overall performance hurt. Players of equal ability on a winning team get that little extra push. Everyone remembers the guy who hit shots down the stretch and beat you. Same guy, same shots, same level performance but in a losing a effort, they don't remember as well... Person making a good pass to an open man who bricks the shot and he didn't get an assist, Teague or Moses or KJ playing tough on defense but in a losing effort, meh, who notices it?
There are guys on the list whose coach would trade them for Teague.
Of course who wants guys who just don't hit shots? That was the story of this season. Even if the sins were often small, or even if only occasional, poor shooting demands awfully good play everywhere else, and it adds up to not actually winning most of those close games. Even mediocre shooting would have made a huge difference in the conference.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 12, 2019 12:25:58 GMT -6
Of course who wants guys who just don't hit shots? That was the story of this season.
I thought the combination of being ranked 308th in turnovers and 322nd in opponent offensive rebounds had something to do with it. The issues go way beyond poor three point shooting.
|
|
|
All Mac
Mar 12, 2019 13:44:57 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Mar 12, 2019 13:44:57 GMT -6
Of course who wants guys who just don't hit shots? That was the story of this season.
I thought the combination of being ranked 308th in turnovers and 322nd in opponent offensive rebounds had something to do with it. The issues go way beyond poor three point shooting. I get that. Agree about turnovers, not so upset about offensive rebounding. Except we missed so many shots, we had a lot of chances for offensive rebounds! We shoot better I don't mind getting back and setting up D rather than going to the boards. Turnovers not so bad if we are forcing the pace, and scoring a lot...we just weren't scoring enough.
But both those things are in the "awfully good play everywhere else" category. Shooting is the thing I expected. If we were mediocre in shooting, we'd have been pretty good in conference. The other categories give up a possession it is true, just like a missed shot. But a missed shot means missing 2 points. Giving up a possession is maybe worth 1 point and we missed a lot of shots...we had enough possessions to win. Also those missed shots were so acute at the end of a game, with so few possessions left to make a difference in a close game.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 12, 2019 13:59:31 GMT -6
No, gave up far too many offensive rebounds. Not ours, theirs. More shots for them less possessions for us.
|
|
|
All Mac
Mar 12, 2019 14:41:32 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 12, 2019 14:41:32 GMT -6
No, gave up far too many offensive rebounds. Not ours, theirs. More shots for them less possessions for us. Two factors, how many possessions each team gets, how efficient each is. Everything counts but missing good shots the key. Sometimes offensive rebound does mean easy shot.
|
|
|
Post by redfeather on Mar 12, 2019 17:31:18 GMT -6
I thought the combination of being ranked 308th in turnovers and 322nd in opponent offensive rebounds had something to do with it. The issues go way beyond poor three point shooting. I get that. Agree about turnovers, not so upset about offensive rebounding. Except we missed so many shots, we had a lot of chances for offensive rebounds! We shoot better I don't mind getting back and setting up D rather than going to the boards. Turnovers not so bad if we are forcing the pace, and scoring a lot...we just weren't scoring enough.
But both those things are in the "awfully good play everywhere else" category. Shooting is the thing I expected. If we were mediocre in shooting, we'd have been pretty good in conference. The other categories give up a possession it is true, just like a missed shot. But a missed shot means missing 2 points. Giving up a possession is maybe worth 1 point and we missed a lot of shots...we had enough possessions to win. Also those missed shots were so acute at the end of a game, with so few possessions left to make a difference in a close game. You've got to include turnovers here also. A turnover is a lost possession and a lost possession is potential lost points. You combine that with poor shooting percentages and you typically end up losing, which we did. It still blows me away at how our turnovers "went up" as the season progressed? That is nothing other than piss poor coaching to me.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 12, 2019 17:33:39 GMT -6
No, gave up far too many offensive rebounds. Not ours, theirs. More shots for them less possessions for us. Two factors, how many possessions each team gets, how efficient each is. Everything counts but missing good shots the key. Sometimes offensive rebound does mean easy shot. What the hell does this even mean?
|
|
|
All Mac
Mar 12, 2019 18:45:22 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Mar 12, 2019 18:45:22 GMT -6
I get that. Agree about turnovers, not so upset about offensive rebounding. Except we missed so many shots, we had a lot of chances for offensive rebounds! We shoot better I don't mind getting back and setting up D rather than going to the boards. Turnovers not so bad if we are forcing the pace, and scoring a lot...we just weren't scoring enough.
But both those things are in the "awfully good play everywhere else" category. Shooting is the thing I expected. If we were mediocre in shooting, we'd have been pretty good in conference. The other categories give up a possession it is true, just like a missed shot. But a missed shot means missing 2 points. Giving up a possession is maybe worth 1 point and we missed a lot of shots...we had enough possessions to win. Also those missed shots were so acute at the end of a game, with so few possessions left to make a difference in a close game. You've got to include turnovers here also. A turnover is a lost possession and a lost possession is potential lost points. You combine that with poor shooting percentages and you typically end up losing, which we did. It still blows me away at how our turnovers "went up" as the season progressed? That is nothing other than piss poor coaching to me. That's included. I agree. But.
First off, giving up a possession occurs more often by missing shots than by turnovers. And.
Which would be easier going from 20 turnovers down to 10, to gain 10 points, or making 5 extra 2pfga? Or 3 more 3pfga? VERY hard to get much below 12-15 TO.
I do know we really sucked shooting the ball when they could pack inside and ignore our 3 pt game. We were missing shots that were not contested outside, had to stop shooting them and go inside for fiercely contested harder inside shots...
|
|
|
All Mac
Mar 12, 2019 19:06:21 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Mar 12, 2019 19:06:21 GMT -6
No, gave up far too many offensive rebounds. Not ours, theirs. More shots for them less possessions for us. Yes. But when we expected a much better team, we did not expect a great rebounding team. We did expect better than terrible shooting. Where did we fall most short?
I am all for improving in all areas. The one I expected was in shooting. This group was not going to be a great 3pfg shooting team, but we surely expected more than we got. Ish's injury hurt that (anybody who thinks it didn't really matter need only look at the first half last night he really helped), Persons' shooting decline hurt (look at the difference it made to see him shoot normally at the end), and Mallers' slump in conference season was a disaster.
Turnovers extra, disappointing as they were, did not have the same impact. Rebounds lost extra not that much.
We had enough possessions despite those things. More or less normal shooting would have produced maybe 12-6 instead of 6-12. EVEN with BOTH the TO and rebounding issues.
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Mar 12, 2019 19:11:04 GMT -6
You've got to include turnovers here also. A turnover is a lost possession and a lost possession is potential lost points. You combine that with poor shooting percentages and you typically end up losing, which we did. It still blows me away at how our turnovers "went up" as the season progressed? That is nothing other than piss poor coaching to me.
We were missing shots that were not contested outside, had to stop shooting them and go inside for fiercely contested harder inside shots...
Gee they must not have been too fiercely contested because we rank 63rd in two point field goal percentage. You are so lost in your own world of bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 12, 2019 19:39:19 GMT -6
Doesn't it seem like we've had an odd string of players who go from good three point shooting to bad three point shooting later in their careers? I'm thinking of Scaife, Jeremiah Davis, Kiapway, Persons.
|
|
|
Post by reevo on Mar 12, 2019 20:01:55 GMT -6
Horrible offense and personnel that does not fit. It really is as simple as that. The only way this offense works is to have 5 bonefide scorers on the floor that can beat you off the dribble and shoot the jumper. When you are missing parts, it all breaks down and you find teams taking away individual strengths such as sluffing off of Persons and Walton,etc. Persons is the closest guy we have that fits but he has the ball so often he can’t take a breath. All of those guys Sherm mentioned all saw their shooting percentages go down and the big reason for that was fatigue and lack of other options to take away the defensive pressure these guys face. We simply can’t sustain long term success playing this way and it is obvious as a black eye.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 12, 2019 20:50:51 GMT -6
No, gave up far too many offensive rebounds. Not ours, theirs. More shots for them less possessions for us. Yes. But when we expected a much better team, we did not expect a great rebounding team. We did expect better than terrible shooting. Where did we fall most short?
I am all for improving in all areas. The one I expected was in shooting. This group was not going to be a great 3pfg shooting team, but we surely expected more than we got. Ish's injury hurt that (anybody who thinks it didn't really matter need only look at the first half last night he really helped), Persons' shooting decline hurt (look at the difference it made to see him shoot normally at the end), and Mallers' slump in conference season was a disaster.
Turnovers extra, disappointing as they were, did not have the same impact. Rebounds lost extra not that much.
We had enough possessions despite those things. More or less normal shooting would have produced maybe 12-6 instead of 6-12. EVEN with BOTH the TO and rebounding issues.
So, what point is it you’re trying to make and more importantly does anyone give a shit? If your contention is our lousy 3 pt shooting was the worst of all, ok fine by me. I’d contend that the turnovers and their timing was even worse and the soul-sapping demoralizing aspect of giving up double digit offensive rebounds is equally bad. Very few seem to disagree we’ve been poorly coached or motivated either. There won’t be a special asterisk next to our conference record for style points or metrics. It will just say 6-12. The ONLY saving grace is to run the table period. Semi finals or even finals doesn’t mean anything long-term given our roster and scheme issues and lousy coaching. Whitford said after last nights win that “it doesn’t matter so much what you do but how well you do it”. That is classic trust the process bullshit at its finest.
|
|