St. John's-Arizona game thread

Game threads are fun to read the next day for those in attendance.

Someone said Gift has no touch. And his FT's are bad. He just came out of 2 games where he missed 1 FT in like 15 attempts.

We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.

A team of 7 players, 6 newbies in their first MSG game went toe to toe with a Top 20 team that can field 2 teams and had some good players barely leave the bench. There should be zero to complain about last nights effort. Do Nuri and De have to refine their moves to avoid offensive fouls? Sure. Do we have to board a little better even though we were still respectably close? Sure. But by God this is just scratching the surface. Any recruit in their right mind had to be enjoying last night on TV. I'd like to think kids are reaching out wanting to be part of this. 
 
Game threads are fun to read the next day for those in attendance.

Someone said Gift has no touch. And his FT's are bad. He just came out of 2 games where he missed 1 FT in like 15 attempts.

We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.

A team of 7 players, 6 newbies in their first MSG game went toe to toe with a Top 20 team that can field 2 teams and had some good players barely leave the bench. There should be zero to complain about last nights effort. Do Nuri and De have to refine their moves to avoid offensive fouls? Sure. Do we have to board a little better even though we were still respectably close? Sure. But by God this is just scratching the surface. Any recruit in their right mind had to be enjoying last night on TV. I'd like to think kids are reaching out wanting to be part of this. 
Click to expand...
 


Totally agree with u Moose....I don't see what all the complaining is about.

Our boys are playing as well early in their freshman year as Norm's bunch played late in their Junior year......Remember all those close games against top teams where we would just come up short.

Let's just sit back and enjoy this!!!!
 
Game threads are fun to read the next day for those in attendance.

Someone said Gift has no touch. And his FT's are bad. He just came out of 2 games where he missed 1 FT in like 15 attempts.

We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.

A team of 7 players, 6 newbies in their first MSG game went toe to toe with a Top 20 team that can field 2 teams and had some good players barely leave the bench. There should be zero to complain about last nights effort. Do Nuri and De have to refine their moves to avoid offensive fouls? Sure. Do we have to board a little better even though we were still respectably close? Sure. But by God this is just scratching the surface. Any recruit in their right mind had to be enjoying last night on TV. I'd like to think kids are reaching out wanting to be part of this. 
Click to expand...
 


Totally agree with u Moose....I don't see what all the complaining is about.

Our boys are playing as well early in their freshman year as Norm's bunch played late in their Junior year......Remember all those close games against top teams where we would just come up short.

Let's just sit back and enjoy this!!!!
Click to expand...
 

Now if we lost this game next year......thats a different story.
 
We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.
Click to expand...
 

I don't think we zone because we're short players. We zoned last year when we had too many players. We zone because that's TGAPL's system. The zone gives up threes because the defense requires players chasing all over the court. It works when it forces tempo, TOs and discombobulation. But it also lends itself to exploitation by good coaches with good shooters.

Opponents are 39/106 from three (36%) vs SJ, shooting 13/50 (26%). That's a differential of 78 points, 39 field goals. SJ is shooting 61% from the field, excluding 3s. SJ would need about 35 extra possessions to break even. By any measure that's is a recipe for disaster.
 
We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.
Click to expand...
 

I don't think we zone because we're short players. We zoned last year when we had too many players. We zone because that's TGAPL's system. The zone gives up threes because the defense requires players chasing all over the court. It works when it forces tempo, TOs and discombobulation. But it also lends itself to exploitation by good coaches with good shooters.

Opponents are 39/106 from three (36%) vs SJ, shooting 13/50 (26%). That's a differential of 78 points, 39 field goals. SJ is shooting 61% from the field, excluding 3s. SJ would need about 35 extra possessions to break even. By any measure that's is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
 

We might have had more players last year but Lavin was still pretty tight in the rotation. Coker and Stith didnt see much burn.

Out of curiosity what was the percentage differences for last year? Because we know that W/L's turned out pretty good there. I thought this year our zone would be better as we have longer players but then again 3 of them aren't eligible.
 
Game threads are fun to read the next day for those in attendance.

Someone said Gift has no touch. And his FT's are bad. He just came out of 2 games where he missed 1 FT in like 15 attempts.

We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.

A team of 7 players, 6 newbies in their first MSG game went toe to toe with a Top 20 team that can field 2 teams and had some good players barely leave the bench. There should be zero to complain about last nights effort. Do Nuri and De have to refine their moves to avoid offensive fouls? Sure. Do we have to board a little better even though we were still respectably close? Sure. But by God this is just scratching the surface. Any recruit in their right mind had to be enjoying last night on TV. I'd like to think kids are reaching out wanting to be part of this. 
Click to expand...
 

Moose I totally agree!
 
We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.
Click to expand...
 

I don't think we zone because we're short players. We zoned last year when we had too many players. We zone because that's TGAPL's system. The zone gives up threes because the defense requires players chasing all over the court. It works when it forces tempo, TOs and discombobulation. But it also lends itself to exploitation by good coaches with good shooters.

Opponents are 39/106 from three (36%) vs SJ, shooting 13/50 (26%). That's a differential of 78 points, 39 field goals. SJ is shooting 61% from the field, excluding 3s. SJ would need about 35 extra possessions to break even. By any measure that's is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
 

Right on point Fun! Last night coach Miller's plan was simply to get a shooter open for a three....they took 29 THREES!
To date we have been burned by 3's by a Divsion 3 school with a savvy coach and Sean Miller that correctly figured it is the defense that SJ will live and die with in a game. Coach Carnesecca never ever played a zone and rarely played more than 7 or 8 players but there is no way his SJ's team would have ever given up 29 threes. Our zone, if Lav is going to stick with it, better be more fluid and flexible or a Uconn with Jeremy Lamb will go off for 49 points against it.
Yes, lack of depth and youth are factors but the 2-3 is not working and plan B needs to be more of an option.
 
 Think the % they shot the 3 was better that he will shot it in most of thir games It was just falling for them They are off a few % points we win , Thats basketball no complaints on the team or the staff
Click to expand...
 

Arizona nailed 14 3's and shot 48% from 3-- of the 14 do you remember any where a defender had a hand in the shooters face? Maybe 2 were contested shots
Click to expand...
 

They shot 11-31 from 2 point range.
I'd play the same defense again.
Click to expand...
 

Obviously with the foul trouble and limited bench they had no choice but to stay in the zone-- but they have to gamble less and rotate better or teams will be patient and get open 3 looks all night long.
Click to expand...
 

Last week I had suggested we tighten our zone, similar to Cuse. Still think we are extending the zone too far out beyond the top of the key.
 
When they've got sharpshooters and we're getting buried it's time to switch to man to man before we find ourselves in a hole too deep to climb out of.
 
 I'll ask again - does anyone remember if Harrison took any outside shots in the second half? It appeared Arizona was glued to him. Like to see some picks, could have used a few threes after we lost the lead.
 
 I'll ask again - does anyone remember if Harrison took any outside shots in the second half? It appeared Arizona was glued to him. Like to see some picks, could have used a few threes after we lost the lead.
Click to expand...
 

I agree we need to set more shots for him (ie picks and screens)

But I wouldnt say they were glued to him. From what I saw I just think we were trying to get easier shots as we have since Lavin has come on board. Ball movement looking for the better shot.
 
We zone because we don't have that many guys. Then we give up 3's and people wonder why. Also what is uncontested vs. contested. Any shot that is taken is usually because a defender is a half step slow and the shooter is 'open'. A hand always gets in the face but its a half second too slow. If it was a half second faster the shot wouldnt have been taken. I can't wrap my arms around comments about wide open three's. A couple will happen a game but you combine that with so many attempts and a high percentage and saying no hand in the face is implying they arent busting ass out there.
Click to expand...
 

I don't think we zone because we're short players. We zoned last year when we had too many players. We zone because that's TGAPL's system. The zone gives up threes because the defense requires players chasing all over the court. It works when it forces tempo, TOs and discombobulation. But it also lends itself to exploitation by good coaches with good shooters.

Opponents are 39/106 from three (36%) vs SJ, shooting 13/50 (26%). That's a differential of 78 points, 39 field goals. SJ is shooting 61% from the field, excluding 3s. SJ would need about 35 extra possessions to break even. By any measure that's is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
 

To point out a stat you seem to have forgotten in your analysis, we are 3-1 so I guess so far we have done better than break even. That doesn't mean disaster isn't right around the corner but like last year I believe we will improve on our use of the zone and get better. That's what practice is for and why the school hired one of the best staffs in the country.
 
To point out a stat you seem to have forgotten in your analysis, we are 3-1
Click to expand...
 

To point out a stat you seem to have forgotten, SJ is in Division 1. Another stat which might have escaped your notice is that SJ is 3-0 versus teams that are a combined 1-8 and winless against teams with a winning record. I agree though if SJ were in the America East giving up 3 times as many 3s as made would be less of a concern.
 
To point out a stat you seem to have forgotten in your analysis, we are 3-1
Click to expand...
 

To point out a stat you seem to have forgotten, SJ is in Division 1. Another stat which might have escaped your notice is that SJ is 3-0 versus teams that are a combined 1-8 and winless against teams with a winning record. I agree though if SJ were in the America East giving up 3 times as many 3s as made would be less of a concern.
Click to expand...
 

Except you didn't say "concern", you said "recipe for disaster" and yet we were consistently outscored from 3 last year and through the first 4 games this year (which were the stats you chose to use to try to prove your point) and have somehow mysteriously managed to avert "disaster" through that period. We didn't shoot well last year, we don't shoot well this year, ergo we got and will get consistently outscored from 3. The idea is to have more points at the end of the game than your opponent regardless of how you get them. Ironically, we went man to man quite a bit today, kept A&M from hitting 3's and yet wound up with a pretty disastrous result....go figure!
 
Except you didn't say "concern", you said "recipe for disaster"
Click to expand...
I'm aware of what I said, how I said it, and, putting me one up on you, what it meant. Recipe for disaster was hyperbole. Concern was understatement, and perhaps even litotes. These are common rhetorical devices. I'm sorry if they confused you but I can only dumb this stuff down so far without boring myself dead.

we were consistently outscored from 3 last year and through the first 4 games this year (which were the stats you chose to use to try to prove your point) and have somehow mysteriously managed to avert "disaster" through that period
Click to expand...
You dispute "concern" and "recipe for disaster" in quotation marks and then paraphrase when it suits you. I didn't say that being "outscored" from 3 was a recipe for disaster. I said that giving up 3 times as many threes as you make while shooting 25 percent a recipe for disaster. Which it is. You may not believe that and are of course free to argue that giving up three times as many threes as you make is a recipe for success, just as I am free to point at you and laugh when you say it.

The idea is to have more points at the end of the game than your opponent regardless of how you get them.
Click to expand...
And here I was thinking you didn't know too much about basketball.

Having mastered that bit, nuance: what I was discussing with my boon companion Moose was whether it was more or less likely that a team giving up the amount of threes to its opponent that SJ does would have more points than its opponent at the end of the game, considering the greater number of points the opponent is awarded for making a three point shot as opposed to a two point shot, to wit,one, since 3 2 point baskets is the equivalent of 2 three point baskets and that being the case whether playing a defense that lends itself to giving up 3 times as many threes as the opponent was the best choice requiring as it does three offensive possessions to every two of the opponents.

Ironically, we went man to man quite a bit today, kept A&M from hitting 3's and yet wound up with a pretty disastrous result....go figure!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call today's outcome a disaster, but then I'm not a drama queen. I thought it was a good and exciting game, albeit the result was something of a disappointment. Anyway, just because there is one recipe for disaster doesn't mean there isn't another. For example, suppose I say that pouring gasoline on yourself and lighting a match is a recipe for disaster. But then instead of pouring gasoline on yourself and lighting a match you instead drink the gasoline, mistaking it for a delicious Zima. Both courses of action are recipes for disasters and that one in fact leads to a disaster does not obviate the disasterositiness of what might transpire were the other to occur. Or to take a basketball example, suppose I said to my boon companion Moose that having every player on the team foul out versus Texas A&M would be a recipe for disaster, but then instead of all the players fouling out none of them committed a single foul but instead they missed every shot they took, losing 88-0. That that result was disasterous would not mean that all the players fouling out would be a recipe for success, although obviously you are free to believe the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top