Mr. Smith (or should I say Mr. Ball?)

[Zuckerkorn]

1 hour ago, The Daily Hoosier said:

This might be a little outside the lines, but I know who he is (not personally, just recognize him) and saw him at most of the games.  I will just tell you that with that frame of reference, I don't read his tweets so much as crazy sports parent as I do a guy that you kind of worry about a little bit and hope they are okay.  Not trying to be too cryptic there, but I think it's fair to say that it is a sensitive topic.

Hmmmm.

[JWoolsey]

1 hour ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Went over this once before....

Lack of healthy bodies = kids playing more minutes both in games and in practices, as well as kids playing out of position = tired legs = poor shooting.

 

 

Yeah we did but the issue here is chemistry and morale. The point that I'm making here is that morale is low because of all the losses and mediocre individual play. There's regression individually and Archie has a poor record vs quality opposition. How's that on the players when it's happened for all the seasons he's coached? I just want some accountability to go both ways. It makes no sense at all to play so heavily inside out if you're not even effective taking the ball inside vs quality opposition. I've got the spreadsheet if you want to look at it. I'm sorry but it's poor strategy and poor results and there's no other way to look at it.

 

How do you plan on being successful when you can't shoot 50% from two, shoot twice as many 2's as 3's, and you get to the foul line less than your opponents? It's inside out that's not high level down low, doesn't create enough fouls, and ignores your most valuable shots. The whole premise and strategy is ridiculously flawed. Bully ball / tough-gritty offense / inside out doesn't work vs good teams. 

 

Here's 8 years and over 130 games but hey keep refusing to shoot the three and pounding it inside and see how that works out for you.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jBXSPzdbTfyGy-bmrfjz50A-D5w8CdV77eTEFkJ-K1M/edit#gid=0

 

 

[JWoolsey]

43 minutes ago, GoshenFan84 said:

Thanks for the inside info. I checked the coaching staff and I didn't see any coaches with the last name Woolsey. Give us some hints as to which coach you are. 

Also, does KenPom have a "happiness" or "chemistry" metric? Maybe that's over on Bart Torvik's site. 

Sorry to annoy you with facts and sound logic. You walk through life blindly without questioning things? I'm not even mad or trying to annoy people. I just think people should be aware of the facts and the problems. If you don't like that then that's your fault not mine. I just want to see winning basketball.

[NCHoosier32]

24 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Don't approve of the father lipping off publicly, but you all know how I feel about public criticism of current players...I just don't see anything positive coming from this.  With dad being publicly critical of the coaching staff though, I'd almost be surprised if Justin stays. I hope he does and I hope he takes a big leap forward, but I wish in the meantime, dad would SHUT THE HELL UP.  It's hard for me to believe that he is completely oblivious to the damage he's doing.  Butt out, dad...you are NOT helping.

Justin is intelligent and has potential.  If the rumor from last season is true, i give him a complete pass on his demeanor.  Whatever was wrong and whether he stays or not, I wish him nothing but the best.  Know this though...I really hope he comes roaring back next season and silences everyone who questioned him. 

I wish I were optimistic of that happening. 

i think i totally missed something.  what rumor from last season would give a pass on his demeanor?  

[Indykev]

1 hour ago, slojoe said:

One issue I don't see raised is the goal of "getting older".  Your team doesn't get older if you keep losing players to transfer.  We lost 2 scholarship front court players to transfer already.  There's going to be disappointed players on any team.  How the player, his family, his supporters, the coaching staff, the team, and the fans cope with the problem is important.  If they don't cope well, then the team will have problems "getting old".

Transfers have been a part of IU as long as I can remember. Its a non-issue. We have lost some very good players over the years and have been just fine. Losing Jake and Cliff is meaningless.

[Cutter]

1 minute ago, Indykev said:

Transfers have been a part of IU as long as I can remember. Its a non-issue. We have lost some very good players over the years and have been just fine. Losing Jake and Cliff is meaningless.

I agree, Brunk has as much experience as those two combined 

[GoshenFan84]

14 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

Sorry to annoy you with facts and sound logic. You walk through life blindly without questioning things? I'm not even mad or trying to annoy people. I just think people should be aware of the facts and the problems. If you don't like that then that's your fault not mine. I just want to see winning basketball.

Yep, you got me...I remember when I used to play basketball/football/baseball/track, I often thought to myself when I missed a shot, didn't make a catch, etc. it was the practice drills. I specifically remembering missing a free throw and I thought to myself "that drill we did the other day of practicing free throws wasn't good, that's why I missed the shot. Now I've lost all confidence in myself and it's all coach's fault". 

I understand where you are trying to get at with your data, but to jump to the conclusion that the practice drills are awful and the team lacks chemistry because of them is just mental gymnastics. 

[IU Scott]

19 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

Sorry to annoy you with facts and sound logic. You walk through life blindly without questioning things? I'm not even mad or trying to annoy people. I just think people should be aware of the facts and the problems. If you don't like that then that's your fault not mine. I just want to see winning basketball.

The chemistry problem had nothing to do with how Archie was coaching or what kind of offense they were implementing.  Try to get you nose out of the stat book and actually try to figure things out on your own without help from stats.  By just watching you can figure out why a team wins or loses and I don't have to have these new stats to tell me the same thing I already know.

[JWoolsey]

1 minute ago, GoshenFan84 said:

Yep, you got me...I remember when I used to play basketball/football/baseball/track, I often thought to myself when I missed a shot, didn't make a catch, etc. it was the practice drills. I specifically remembering missing a free throw and I thought to myself "that drill we did the other day of practicing free throws wasn't good, that's why I missed the shot. Now I've lost all confidence in myself and it's all coach's fault". 

I understand where you are trying to get at with your data, but to jump to the conclusion that the practice drills are awful and the team lacks chemistry because of them is just mental gymnastics. 

Maybe I worded it incorrectly but it's the gameplan and approach that I think is driving the poor shooting. They aren't allowed to take 'bad shots' early in the offense and first have to look to get the ball inside first. They collectively pass wide open looks earlier in the clock and because of that the looks they get aren't as clean so therefore the shooting plummets collectively and effectively for ever person on the roster.

That's my whole problem! You think Damezi is so poor that he misses 13 shots in a row to close the season out? Rob's a 30% shooter and Evan Fitzner too? Romeo in the 20's? Or Devonte in year one? Come on man, that's not on the players. 

[PhinithreeMagic]

2 hours ago, JWoolsey said:

McRoberts went from 39 to 21, Morgan was 14/51 for 37% under crean, and Devonte started at 44 under crean. Explain to me how 213 of our 676 3's by shooters shooting in the 20's is a good idea? 

A couple things:

- 14 out of 51 is 27%, not 37%. So Morgan improved his shot while also increasing his usage rate. I'm not going to claim 30% over his last 2 years is a good percentage, but there wasn't the regression you are implying.

- Yes, Devonte started at 44% on just 55 attempts. Devonte ended this year at 41% on 117 attempts. So he has 2 years 40%+, one at 34%, and a career avg of 39%. No one is going to argue he struggled his first year in a new system with Archie. This is fairly common. Let's see how he performs next year before trying to pin sophomore woes on a coach's development ability.

- McRoberts' injury situation was well documented this year. I'm not sure his performance is indicative of anything related to the staff's ability to develop talent.

- Lastly, you failed to mention that 676 attempts was 241st in the country while also playing between 2-4 more games than many other schools. For the most part, most of them were wide open shots that needed to be taken within the flow of the game. Al and Devonte can't put up all 600+ by themselves.

2 hours ago, JWoolsey said:

@IndySportsPartizanif Archie is such a great coach then why do his teams always perform so poorly in big games? 

Overall

174

94

64.93%

A Level Games	23-51	31.08%
B Level Games	37-24	60.66%
A+B	60-75	44.44%
Non A+B Games	114-19	85.71%

Conference tourn	nit	ncaa
5-8	2-2	5-4

 

Crean's Last  6 years.

A Level Games	42-44	48.84%
B Level Games	25-10	71.43%
A+B	67-54	55.37%

conf tourn	nit	ncaa
5-6	0-1	6-4

 

FWIW I'm open minded going into next year so let's see what happens. 

 

How are you identifying "A" and "B" level games? Also, what in your mind would be a realistic win percentage in "A" level games at a school like Dayton?

This whole thing feels very cherry picked. 

[IUFLA]

I can prove anything by statistics... 
except the truth.

[rico]

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

The chemistry problem had nothing to do with how Archie was coaching or what kind of offense they were implementing.  Try to get you nose out of the stat book and actually try to figure things out on your own without help from stats.  By just watching you can figure out why a team wins or loses and I don't have to have these new stats to tell me the same thing I already know.

Scott, I know you are "anti-metrics".  I am not, I do follow them...but you are dead on with this response.  The stats don't tell everything, sometimes they tell nothing.  Case in point is Marquette...evidently there was a chemistry issue of some sorts there.  Did it show up in the analytics?  Hell no it didn't. 

Justin is a fine talent...the eye tells me that.

[JWoolsey]

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

The chemistry problem had nothing to do with how Archie was coaching or what kind of offense they were implementing.  Try to get you nose out of the stat book and actually try to figure things out on your own without help from stats.  By just watching you can figure out why a team wins or loses and I don't have to have these new stats to tell me the same thing I already know.

How do you think I decide to find these things? Happenstance or wild guesses? I watched the games and the system looks broken to me. My gut says the offense is broken, my eyes tell me the offense is broken, the data tells me that it's broken, and the record too. That's pretty much everything, no? That's all I'm saying. You can take it or leave it as always.  

Blame the roster, the chemistry, the players, the luck, the injuries if you want but I don't make excuses like that. 

There's always another season. Let's go again and see what happens. 

[Madison22]

If Archie wishes, HE should take the responsibility of changing the father's actions.

If Archie:

1.  can't

2.  or won't

3.  or doesn't want to -

- then the issue ends there.  Placing the burden on Justin for something Archie can't do himself is unfair and cowardly.

PS:  to take the edge off this hot topic, here are some puppies!

 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

How do you think I decide to find these things? Happenstance or wild guesses? I watched the games and the system looks broken to me. My gut says the offense is broken, my eyes tell me the offense is broken, the data tells me that it's broken, and the record too. That's pretty much everything, no? That's all I'm saying. You can take it or leave it as always.  

Blame the roster, the chemistry, the players, the luck, the injuries if you want but I don't make excuses like that. 

There's always another season. Let's go again and see what happens. 

My eye shows me that we were getting a lot of wide open shots that we missed.  What I saw was a team that did not look like they liked each other and who came out flat a lot of games.  I saw a team that played with no emotion and to me that is solely on the players.  Injuries and team chemistry is not an excuse it is a fact and can be blamed for a lot of the problems.  To me you blaming Archie is only an opinion and is not based on anything else but your dislike for the coach.

[GoshenFan84]

Shall I dare offer a non-statistical response regarding Justin Smith? This is Lance Irvin, the head coach of Chicago State, who IU played on 11/6/18. He helped his brother, Nick Irvin, coach Justin Smith's AAU team (Mac Irvin Fire). It sounds to me like Justin has had some issues in his past with playing hard on a consistent basis. 

Let's not forget that Justin was only a sophomore. We were all expecting a bigger jump from Justin from freshman to sophomore, but maybe that jump will happen from sophomore to junior. 

And to think...I found this without one data source and some fancy filtering! 

 

 

[JWoolsey]

5 minutes ago, PhinithreeMagic said:

A couple things:

- 14 out of 51 is 27%, not 37%. So Morgan improved his shot while also increasing his usage rate. I'm not going to claim 30% over his last 2 years is a good percentage, but there wasn't the regression you are implying.

- Yes, Devonte started at 44% on just 55 attempts. Devonte ended this year at 41% on 117 attempts. So he has 2 years 40%+, one at 34%, and a career avg of 39%. No one is going to argue he struggled his first year in a new system with Archie. This is fairly common. Let's see how he performs next year before trying to pin sophomore woes on a coach's development ability.

- McRoberts' injury situation was well documented this year. I'm not sure his performance is indicative of anything related to the staff's ability to develop talent.

- Lastly, you failed to mention that 676 attempts was 241st in the country while also playing between 2-4 more games than many other schools. For the most part, most of them were wide open shots that needed to be taken within the flow of the game. Al and Devonte can't put up all 600+ by themselves.

How are you identifying "A" and "B" level games? Also, what in your mind would be a realistic win percentage in "A" level games at a school like Dayton?

This whole thing feels very cherry picked. 

It's not cherry picked. I posted the spread sheet and you can look at it for yourself. Look at Dayton's history, they're always a top 75 school. It's not some average program. Archie inherited a top 60 team. You don't like the rank vs A + B? That's fine. Go to the conference tournament and NCAA tournament records. Look at this season being underwhelming as well as last. The point is that he beats up on weak teams. I'm identifying terrible strategy as to why I think the results are the way they are. 

You brought up the FGA, here's a realistic one. 3pt FGA %. He averaged 150th in the nation at Dayton and is in the 275 range here. 

If we aren't taking many 3's and the ones that we were taking were open and in the flow of the offense then that just makes things even worse, no? You're telling me that Evan, Rob, Damezi, and McRoberts are that poor? That's 200 of our shots btw. I refuse to believe that they can't hit wide open shots or that it's some random fluke. I'm not buying it at all. 

I haven't even gotten into the TO's or the poor ASST rates. 

Let's see what happens. I think he's a very good coach with poor offensive ideology. If you disagree that's fine I'm sure almost everyone here does.

 

 

[3Ballin]

13 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

My eye shows me that we were getting a lot of wide open shots that we missed.  What I saw was a team that did not look like they liked each other and who came out flat a lot of games.  I saw a team that played with no emotion and to me that is solely on the players.  Injuries and team chemistry is not an excuse it is a fact and can be blamed for a lot of the problems.  To me you blaming Archie is only an opinion and is not based on anything else but your dislike for the coach.

Id have to agree.  Ive seen shots more contested in a game of horse than a lot we had last year.  Now, some of that comes from the offense, some from the likelyhood of catching poliosis (look it up) or seeing a 20ft tall singing cockroach at half-time at assembly hall as the guy had at hitting those open shots.

[IU Scott]

21 minutes ago, rico said:

Scott, I know you are "anti-metrics".  I am not, I do follow them...but you are dead on with this response.  The stats don't tell everything, sometimes they tell nothing.  Case in point is Marquette...evidently there was a chemistry issue of some sorts there.  Did it show up in the analytics?  Hell no it didn't. 

Justin is a fine talent...the eye tells me that.

I am not against stats but it is the advance metrics that I have no use for.  The name of the game is putting the ball in the hoop and keeping your opponents from scoring.  I care about points per game and point against per game.  I care about shooting percentage and defensive shooting percentage.  I care about turnovers and assist and rebs for and against.  What bothers me about these advance stats is why they put into the formula to get these percentages and what they don't put in them.

[GoshenFan84]

5 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

You brought up the FGA, here's a realistic one. 3pt FGA %. He averaged 150th in the nation at Dayton and is in the 275 range here. 

 

Oh, I get it now...Archie is still using his Dayton shooting drills. He hasn't learned the B1G shooting drills yet. This basically ruins your entire point. You are basically saying Archie forgot how to coach shooting. But, the data tells us that he had better percentages with (presumably) lesser talent at Dayton. 

[JWoolsey]

12 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

My eye shows me that we were getting a lot of wide open shots that we missed.  What I saw was a team that did not look like they liked each other and who came out flat a lot of games.  I saw a team that played with no emotion and to me that is solely on the players.  Injuries and team chemistry is not an excuse it is a fact and can be blamed for a lot of the problems.  To me you blaming Archie is only an opinion and is not based on anything else but your dislike for the coach.

That's partially true. Archie was my first choice hire btw (Billy and Sean were ahead but unrealistic). I wanted a young coach that had some solid success and that might be able to recruit and a high level. The thinking was that they would be able to adapt and evolve to the modern game and maybe even recruit at a very high level. I didn't know a lot about his offense but after looking into it just looked terrible to me before he even coached for us and it's terrible now. 

I still like Archie and I still want him to adapt and grow. I hope he will and I think we'll be fine moving forward but IMO we could much better than we were if things were different.  I've posted at least 5-10 times that I'm very optimistic and bullish for our team next year so I don't think I have much of an agenda really.

That's enough for me guys I've gotta get stuff done.

 

[5fouls]

47 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

i think i totally missed something.  what rumor from last season would give a pass on his demeanor?  

Various rumors about teammates enjoying the company of Justins girlfriend.  There was some inconsistency as to which teammate as well as how serious of a girlfriend she was.  Hard to know what to believe.

[rico]

2 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Various rumors about teammates enjoying the company of Justins girlfriend.  There was some inconsistency as to which teammate as well as how serious of a girlfriend she was.  Hard to know what to believe.

Wasn't that the Luke Recker thing?  I just can't keep up.  I wonder what Archie thinks about this thread?

[rico]

8 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I am not against stats but it is the advance metrics that I have no use for.  The name of the game is putting the ball in the hoop and keeping your opponents from scoring.  I care about points per game and point against per game.  I care about shooting percentage and defensive shooting percentage.  I care about turnovers and assist and rebs for and against.  What bothers me about these advance stats is why they put into the formula to get these percentages and what they don't put in them.

I understand Bro......wins and losses, that is the important one.  No more, no less.  We lost to "X", because we didn't do "Y", and that shows that we are totally inefficient with "Z".  

[IU Scott]

4 minutes ago, rico said:

I understand Bro......wins and losses, that is the important one.  No more, no less.  We lost to "X", because we didn't do "Y", and that shows that we are totally inefficient with "Z".  

I just want sports for entertainment and to me some just are making sports way more complicated than it really is.  I work with numbers all day so when it comes to me and sports I just want to relax and just enjoy the sport and competition.  I also don't mind people using metrics if that is what they enjoy but where I have a problem is when some act like that if you don't use metrics then you know less about the sport.  They act like they invented the game and anything before their time is not important or is worthy of discussion.