|
Post by reevo on Mar 31, 2020 12:54:23 GMT -6
His Philosophy cannot and will not work here if you want to be consistently good. He cannot recruit enough quality athletes to play this way. If you haven't figured that out after 7 years I cannot help you. I have been saying this since he arrived. If you like mediocre basketball and inconsistent play, he is the coach for you.
|
|
|
Post by realitycheck on Mar 31, 2020 12:59:05 GMT -6
The three point philosophy worked pretty well this year in terms of attempts and makes. We led the league in attempts and were 2nd in makes. However, our percentage was 9th overall and we lost our best two shooters in Ish & Mallers.
The "take it to the rim" strategy not so much. We were 9th of 12 teams in FT's attempted and next to last in offensive rebounds. We were also below 70% as a team in FT percentage, good enough for 8th.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 31, 2020 13:05:29 GMT -6
Kids rejecting the way Whit wants them to play could be interpreted as those kids "not wanting to be coached." It could also be kids rejecting limiting their game, being put into a box. Teague is the only player I can think of recently who's seemingly had the freedom to expand his game and that was, at times, clearly detrimental to the team. I would think that guys like Hazen and Mallers would have benefitted from the freedom to work in the 10-12-foot range. And I really fear that Bum is going to toe the line and become nothing more than a spot-up three-point specialist, which is really going to short-change him in the long run. He can be more than that. I can't see at all how Walton fits into Whit's philosophy. Guys like Walton (and any legitimate big man) have no role on a Whit-coached team except to play defense and rebound. It's no wonder he keeps whiffing on bigs; his game plan rejects their potential in the offense, utilizing them primarily as passers and rebounders. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 31, 2020 14:37:28 GMT -6
Can't have a coach coaching you...changing anything. Need a Mr Rogers coaching philosophy. You are perfect just the way you are. If a coach feels a kid doesn’t fit his philosophy why recruit him in the first place? Now I better understand the parents tweeting about players and parents being sure to fully understand what a coach wants/don’t get lied to, etc. (not that I think they were totally correct or shoo-in have been doing it). But I now can see some possible reasoning now. So you take Kroft's assessment of his skills and his best potential as a college player over the coach?
You assume the kid doesn't fit because HE says so?
He sat this year in all likelihood because he played on the wing and was behind Mallers and Acree and Coleman and KJ, and perhaps also simply because he wasn't ready to play as a freshman.
Yes, he likely should have red shirted in somewhat the same situation as Coleman last year, but that was partly his decision, and allowing that may have been the coach's error. But in today's era, it is probably par for the course, not out of bounds off the tee.
I am not surprised at this thread, but will protest mildly. A few days ago, Kroft was a spoiled brat who was probably listening to smoke from advisors. NOW he is victim of poor coaching because he IS right and the coach is WRONG. This group wants to interpret every event as the result of bad coaching decisions. And then go on about it. It is perhaps unclear what happened here, but in that uncertainty going that route of blaming the coach isn't warranted.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 31, 2020 14:49:57 GMT -6
The player isn’t absolved. His family history is one of always being on the move. However, I don’t think the coach should be either. How many kids these days lament not being able to play their midrange game? I’d say none because most want to just jack 3’s or “take it to the rack” (quite often recklessly). I’m going to give the kid some slack now because he straight up used Whitspeak and I can hear Whitford telling the kid it’s been statistically proven the mid range game is dead. Now go ahead and tell us why a kid wanting to play a midrange type game is a bad thing rather than bomb away from 25 feet is a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Mar 31, 2020 14:58:11 GMT -6
Kroft didn't fit and that's okay...I think the kid signed from Tulsa will give us more next year than Kroft.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 31, 2020 15:06:45 GMT -6
His Philosophy cannot and will not work here if you want to be consistently good. He cannot recruit enough quality athletes to play this way. If you haven't figured that out after 7 years I cannot help you. I have been saying this since he arrived. If you like mediocre basketball and inconsistent play, he is the coach for you. The philosophy is used at every level, it will beat teams at our level. It will not consistently win against higher level teams if it relies on better athletes. OTOH if the you rely on 3 pfga and have a good game you can beat those teams. The 3 point game by definition is a risky strategy that is less consistent. But overall, today's rules, is better. I hate that that is true, but am not in denial about it.
It is doubtful any philosophy will win consistently against higher level teams.
Our very best teams playing black and blue ball did beat good teams by playing very well but also by usually not getting their "A game" by a better opponent overconfident against lil old BSU.
And those better teams we had were recruited in a different era where we could much easier put together a very talented roster. If BSU today could recruit the same caliber of players, we could win with this philosophy.
Your statement that we can't recruit the talent needed to win this way is only partially true, We can recruit the talent to beat MAC teams, probably not the talent to play up. Well unless we are hitting 3's.
Looking at Billy Butz, Chandler, McCurdy, you see 3 all MAC 1st or second team players in today's game. That talent may have been recruited for a different game, but put those kids out on the floor this year and we'd have been best in the MAC. Let's take Bonzi and TSmith and put them on this years team. Mid majors have a tougher time getting that kind of NBA talent today. It was a different era recruiting.
I will be surprised for you to argue about that, can you say there is a MAC player from this year who had that talent Bonzi or Smith talent? I see several that might be at the Majerus era talent level, but no MAC team with that core. Something is different today, don't you think?
The flip side of the philosophy debate is that those Majerus philosopy teams would be beat way too often today by teams playing the "new" way.
Rules are different and the 3 point shot is huge. Inside play would not "surprise" anyone or give us an edge against better teams today. For god's sake even our best team playing that way, and playing well that way, had to have multiple upsets to be a sweet 16 team.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 31, 2020 15:09:17 GMT -6
The player isn’t absolved. His family history is one of always being on the move. However, I don’t think the coach should be either. How many kids these days lament not being able to play their midrange game? I’d say none because most want to just jack 3’s or “take it to the rack” (quite often recklessly). I’m going to give the kid some slack now because he straight up used Whitspeak and I can hear Whitford telling the kid it’s been statistically proven the mid range game is dead. Now go ahead and tell us why a kid wanting to play a midrange type game is a bad thing rather than bomb away from 25 feet is a bad thing. If you are saying a coach should not teach and change a kid's mind. I disagree. THIS kid if he had given it year or so, who knows. Sure that would be hard for him. Maybe he would have done it without outside influence.
HE wanted an architecture degree. VERY hard. He wanted to play HIS way. Neither made that much sense unless he was prepared to do the hard thing.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 31, 2020 15:12:02 GMT -6
Kroft didn't fit and that's okay...I think the kid signed from Tulsa will give us more next year than Kroft. The question is whether he gives us as much as Ish.
Kroft was going to play next year if he stayed and got with the program. He apparently was not willing. Fine for him to move on. I want the coach to be in charge, not the player.
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Mar 31, 2020 15:20:05 GMT -6
His Philosophy cannot and will not work here if you want to be consistently good. He cannot recruit enough quality athletes to play this way. If you haven't figured that out after 7 years I cannot help you. I have been saying this since he arrived. If you like mediocre basketball and inconsistent play, he is the coach for you. The philosophy is used at every level, it will beat teams at our level. It will not consistently win against higher level teams if it relies on better athletes. OTOH if the you rely on 3 pfga and have a good game you can beat those teams. The 3 point game by definition is a risky strategy that is less consistent. But overall, today's rules, is better. I hate that that is true, but am not in denial about it.
It is doubtful any philosophy will win consistently against higher level teams.
Our very best teams playing black and blue ball did beat good teams by playing very well but also by usually not getting their "A game" by a better opponent overconfident against lil old BSU.
And those better teams we had were recruited in a different era where we could much easier put together a very talented roster. If BSU today could recruit the same caliber of players, we could win with this philosophy.
Your statement that we can't recruit the talent needed to win this way is only partially true, We can recruit the talent to beat MAC teams, probably not the talent to play up. Well unless we are hitting 3's.
Looking at Billy Butz, Chandler, McCurdy, you see 3 all MAC 1st or second team players in today's game. That talent may have been recruited for a different game, but put those kids out on the floor this year and we'd have been best in the MAC. Let's take Bonzi and TSmith and put them on this years team. Mid majors have a tougher time getting that kind of NBA talent today. It was a different era recruiting.
I will be surprised for you to argue about that, can you say there is a MAC player from this year who had that talent Bonzi or Smith talent? I see several that might be at the Majerus era talent level, but no MAC team with that core. Something is different today, don't you think?
The flip side of the philosophy debate is that those Majerus philosopy teams would be beat way too often today by teams playing the "new" way.
Rules are different and the 3 point shot is huge. Inside play would not "surprise" anyone or give us an edge against better teams today. For god's sake even our best team playing that way, and playing well that way, had to have multiple upsets to be a sweet 16 team.
I have been watching games from the Great Years of Ball State basketball. The shot from the three point line, or what would have been the three point line, or they powered the ball inside - very few mid-range shoots. They had the players who could play inside as well as the players who could loft the threes. The two most famous shots in Ball State history was the two point shot under the basket by McCurdy followed by the winning free throw and Chandler’s dunk in the UNLV game. Our best teams played inside out and not relying on the mid-range jump shot. The problem is we don’t have the muscle for the inside game!
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 31, 2020 15:20:55 GMT -6
Just because Kroft fits into some "malcontent transfer" category doesn't mean he doesn't make valid points about the way Whitford coaches his teams to play. There is no mid-range game in our offense, despite the fact that several of our players, past and present, might have benefitted from such offensive opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by reevo on Mar 31, 2020 15:51:15 GMT -6
His Philosophy cannot and will not work here if you want to be consistently good. He cannot recruit enough quality athletes to play this way. If you haven't figured that out after 7 years I cannot help you. I have been saying this since he arrived. If you like mediocre basketball and inconsistent play, he is the coach for you. The philosophy is used at every level, it will beat teams at our level. It will not consistently win against higher level teams if it relies on better athletes. OTOH if the you rely on 3 pfga and have a good game you can beat those teams. The 3 point game by definition is a risky strategy that is less consistent. But overall, today's rules, is better. I hate that that is true, but am not in denial about it.
It is doubtful any philosophy will win consistently against higher level teams.
Our very best teams playing black and blue ball did beat good teams by playing very well but also by usually not getting their "A game" by a better opponent overconfident against lil old BSU.
And those better teams we had were recruited in a different era where we could much easier put together a very talented roster. If BSU today could recruit the same caliber of players, we could win with this philosophy.
Your statement that we can't recruit the talent needed to win this way is only partially true, We can recruit the talent to beat MAC teams, probably not the talent to play up. Well unless we are hitting 3's.
Looking at Billy Butz, Chandler, McCurdy, you see 3 all MAC 1st or second team players in today's game. That talent may have been recruited for a different game, but put those kids out on the floor this year and we'd have been best in the MAC. Let's take Bonzi and TSmith and put them on this years team. Mid majors have a tougher time getting that kind of NBA talent today. It was a different era recruiting.
I will be surprised for you to argue about that, can you say there is a MAC player from this year who had that talent Bonzi or Smith talent? I see several that might be at the Majerus era talent level, but no MAC team with that core. Something is different today, don't you think?
The flip side of the philosophy debate is that those Majerus philosopy teams would be beat way too often today by teams playing the "new" way.
Rules are different and the 3 point shot is huge. Inside play would not "surprise" anyone or give us an edge against better teams today. For god's sake even our best team playing that way, and playing well that way, had to have multiple upsets to be a sweet 16 team.
My point is there is absolutely no consistency playing this way. Even by MAC standards, we are flat out mediocre. Everybody is recruiting the same type of player and we get the leftovers. You can shoot the 3 ball but it sure would be much easier to get better looks when you have an inside player who gets constant attention. I would much rather control the clock and get less possessions than cranking up 3's on every possession especially when you are not a great perimeter shooting team. We have not had a consistent inside threat in Whitford's era and that is why we have not been successful. I don't buy the "just because everybody is doing it" does not justify playing this way when you are not consistently winning. Again, 107-118; 52-74 and 2 wins in the MAC tournament in 7 years is proof enough. I don't think anyone who played the 29-3 and 26-7 teams would share the "we had to get upsets" to move on theory. We defended the 3 back than and we were an outstanding defensive rebounding team and we did not turn it over. We had 3-point shooters but we dominated the lane and we controlled both ends of the floor pretty much every night from 88-93. Philosophy and recruiting go hand in hand.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Mar 31, 2020 15:56:22 GMT -6
I will argue we were not mediocre in the MAC this season!!!
We were the # 3 seed and most betting services had us playing Akron in the final....so call it mediocre if you like but I'd say we were one of the top 2-3 teams in the MAC this year.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 31, 2020 16:01:58 GMT -6
Just because Kroft fits into some "malcontent transfer" category doesn't mean he doesn't make valid points about the way Whitford coaches his teams to play. There is no mid-range game in our offense, despite the fact that several of our players, past and present, might have benefitted from such offensive opportunities. That’s my main point. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Mar 31, 2020 16:06:47 GMT -6
This argument that we can recruit to play our current style successfully against MAC level teams but maybe not higher level teams is also flawed, and you only need to look as far back as this past season to see it.
Lets's look at how we fared against the top teams in the conference last year. Just using Kenpom's rankings, the top six teams ranged from No. 82 to No. 168. Ball State, at 116, was the second ranked MAC team, so 5 of these teams were supposedly worse than we were.
So, against the other top 6 teams (Akron, KSU, Buffalo, Toledo, Ohio and Bowling Green) we shot 28% from 3 this year. We shot 48% from 2. So in those games we scored more than a point more for every 10 shots from 2 than we did for every 10 shots from 3.
Oh, and our record was 4-5 in those games. Even if you take out the one loss to Akron, we were only 4-4 in games against the top 5 MAC teams ranked below us.
So, our style of play basically makes us a .500 team against the league's best. Some would call that competitive, some would call it mediocre. Probably most would not say that's championship level.
Not sure what stats Whitford is basing his decisions on but maybe they're the wrong ones.
|
|