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

[rico]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

I just want sports for entertainment and to me some just is 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 get it man...at the end of the day I care about one thing..."Did we win the game?".  

[NCHoosier32]

15 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.

somehow i totally missed that.  that would be understandable, but still a problem if he is letting it make him a bad teammate.  

[NCHoosier32]

my response to all of the stats stuff is that last year's team just didn't look good to the eye test.  we looked flat out ugly.  really underachieved.  seemed like guys took bad shots and made the wrong passes way too frequently.  seemed like poor chemistry.  is that on the coach?  maybe?  at least partially.  i thought from the things i heard and saw that a lot of that was Green and Smith, but if CAM is having them both back, i guess i was wrong.  now if they were the behind the scenes problems and he is having them back, then i lose faith in CAM real quick.  i don't care how good they are if that's the case.  i just feel like there was something much deeper than X's and O's that made us look so bad.  

[hoosierhoosier]

17 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

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.

 

Archie was my first choice after watching his teams play in the tourney.  Those Dayton teams did not play like this IU team.....so that tells you Archie forgot how to coach or these players are not "his" guys.  Archie is a fundamentals guy, Crean's players obviously were not (e.g. turnovers, defense).

As far as Justin Smith...why would you stay if you are that unhappy?  Go play for Crean, i cannot imagine Archie getting in your way

[ArchieBall13]

19 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

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.

 

After reading the back and forth, I think the main point I can see legitimacy in what you are trying to say is Archie doesn't let the open shot fly early in the shot clock on principle more so than our competition allows (more specifically an open 3 early and then we settle for a low percentage 2 later on). Seems like you and @IU Scott are on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding the degree to which we can use analytics to support a decision.

I agree with Scott that we lost 12/13 games primarily based on injuries/chemistry issues/players not giving a damn. But, I also agree with your concern on letting it fly @JWoolsey...reverting back to more basic stats, if we don't let the player shoot the early open/made 3 and settle for a contested missed 2, that possession is a 3 point swing right there. It all adds up and is definitely a concern. 

[IU Scott]

17 minutes ago, rico said:

I get it man...at the end of the day I care about one thing..."Did we win the game?".  

Totally agree

[Proud2BAHoosier]

11 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

my response to all of the stats stuff is that last year's team just didn't look good to the eye test.  we looked flat out ugly.  really underachieved.  seemed like guys took bad shots and made the wrong passes way too frequently.  seemed like poor chemistry.  is that on the coach?  maybe?  at least partially.  i thought from the things i heard and saw that a lot of that was Green and Smith, but if CAM is having them both back, i guess i was wrong.  now if they were the behind the scenes problems and he is having them back, then i lose faith in CAM real quick.  i don't care how good they are if that's the case.  i just feel like there was something much deeper than X's and O's that made us look so bad.  

Injuries is all it was.....

[NCHoosier32]

4 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

Injuries is all it was.....

man, personally i don't think so.  sure we had a lot of different guys out here and there, but doesn't everyone?  our top 8 guys all played 28 or more games and Green is the one at 28 and that's due to suspension not injury.  we had 5 guys start 29 or more games.  i guess Thompson and Hunter would be the ones who missed significant time and a case can be made that Hunter would have made a big difference, but when we were healthy and on the floor we just looked like we had no chemistry.  seemed like they were reluctant to let Juwan and Romeo be the men at times.  

[PhinithreeMagic]

53 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

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.

 

 

I didn't see a spreadsheet so I apologize if I missed it. I only saw a table without an explanation of what defines an "A" vs. "B" game. I'd be interested in seeing what records other notable Top 60-80 programs had against that "A" bracket. If there's no baseline, how are we to judge whether 23-51 at Dayton is below average vs. average? I concede it's not a good record. But if that's against Top 25 teams as a bubble program (as Top 75 would indicate), I'm not overly concerned about it. This is especially the case given at least half of the years Archie has been coaching have been with rosters predominantly inherited from other coaches.

To clarify, are you claiming that Indiana is a bad shooting team (which we all know) or that Archie made Indiana a bad shooting team? This roster would have been in the 200's for 3pt % regardless of who was coaching the past two years. My point in my first response is that I don't believe he has personally caused regression of players on the roster. I will admit I have no clue what happened with Fitzner this year but I don't think that's a large enough sample size to make any kind of claim. Sometimes players just lose confidence in their shot. As for the others, McRoberts was injured and Rob/Damezi were freshmen trying to figure out the college game. Yogi wasn't a world beater from 3 his freshman year either and he had a lot of guys drawing attention away from him that year.

To your last point, I think that's a reasonable opinion to hold. I personally just fell it's still TBD. What I disagree with is that Archie has somehow made these players worse in 2 years. I think there are a lot of factors at play that drove struggles this year and as others have pointed out, this team did not play the way the majority of Archie's Dayton teams played. 

[Leathernecks]

My biggest issue with our offense is the lack of confidence.  It seemed like there wasn't a single guy on our team who actually wanted to take a 3.  Green towards the end of the year seemed to say screw it and started to finally shoot the ball with confidence.

I remember a couple inbounds plays where we ran a play for Phinisee and he caught it on the move and shot it with confidence.  Way more elevation, better looking shot, and drained them.

Other than than, our guys just stand.  No moving to open spots, no screening for shooters, no plays to get guys open shots.  It looks pretty obvious that shooting 3s is not high on our priority list.  A lot of times wide open guys don't even have their hands and feet ready for passes.  And I think that lack of emphasis on the 3 hurts some kids attitudes.  Trying to pound the ball inside without Zion Williamson in the post can kill a shooters passion and confidence real quick.

[BGleas]

There is so much more at play here than, "the numbers went down, see Archie's offense is terrible." Context matters a ton in these discussions and stats are great, but they only tell part of the story. Yes, our 3-pt shooting numbers are down under Archie. There's no denying that. There's also no denying that a Crean-coached team is going to have a lot more freedom to shoot 3's than an Archie-coached team. That alone can cause some shooting numbers to drop for the guys that played for both coaches. 

With that said, there's also context in the fact that the roster has worse shooters and not as much talent. Take Robert Johnson, he's naturally a streaky shooter, not a pure lights-out shooter like JBJ.  He shot a career high 44.7% from 3 as a sophomore. That was a talented team he was on where he was about the 4th or 5th option (Yogi, Bryant, JBJ, Troy), and with the shooters around him (Yogi, JBJ, Zeisloft, Hartman, Bryant, Beilfeldt) there was a lot of space. So, he got a lot of open catch/shoot looks. 

His last two years his 3-pt percentage fell to 37% (big drop with Crean as his coach) and 37.3% (notice it actually went up under Archie). Part of the big drop from his sophomore year was less talent around him and a larger load for him to carry. His junior year, gone were Yogi, Ziesloft, Bryant, Williams and Beilfeldt, all good, to great shooters. So for RoJo his last two years, not as many open catch/shoot 3's in rhythm and more contested, off-the-dribble 3's. That's why his percentages went down, and remember the percentage went down under Crean. 

That's just one example, but the point is the context matters. Stats tell a piece of the story, but the context completes it. What I see with Archie is definitely a coach that wants his team to take good shots and value the ball. He definitely does not emphasize the 3 as much as Crean, but with that said, Archie isn't the reason IU missed a TON of wide open shots, and a lot of wide open 3's, this season. I also don't think we've seen enough to yet determine if passing up open 3's is by design or because this roster simply doesn't have a singe pure shooter. 

My actual biggest worry about the 3's isn't the system, it's more the recruiting. I don't see IU recruiting many shooters. UVA just won a championship with a system that values the ball and doesn't take many shots early in the shot clock, but they had good shooters taking those shots. IU doesn't have good shooters yet.

[jv1972iu]

51 minutes ago, NCHoosier32 said:

man, personally i don't think so.  sure we had a lot of different guys out here and there, but doesn't everyone?  our top 8 guys all played 28 or more games and Green is the one at 28 and that's due to suspension not injury.  we had 5 guys start 29 or more games.  i guess Thompson and Hunter would be the ones who missed significant time and a case can be made that Hunter would have made a big difference, but when we were healthy and on the floor we just looked like we had no chemistry.  seemed like they were reluctant to let Juwan and Romeo be the men at times.  

Let's not forget Phinisee's concussion and Langford's wrist.  Those had long-term effects, I believe.

[ArchieBall13]

22 minutes ago, BGleas said:

There is so much more at play here than, "the numbers went down, see Archie's offense is terrible." Context matters a ton in these discussions and stats are great, but they only tell part of the story. Yes, our 3-pt shooting numbers are down under Archie. There's no denying that. There's also no denying that a Crean-coached team is going to have a lot more freedom to shoot 3's than an Archie-coached team. That alone can cause some shooting numbers to drop for the guys that played for both coaches. 

With that said, there's also context in the fact that the roster has worse shooters and not as much talent. Take Robert Johnson, he's naturally a streaky shooter, not a pure lights-out shooter like JBJ.  He shot a career high 44.7% from 3 as a sophomore. That was a talented team he was on where he was about the 4th or 5th option (Yogi, Bryant, JBJ, Troy), and with the shooters around him (Yogi, JBJ, Zeisloft, Hartman, Bryant, Beilfeldt) there was a lot of space. So, he got a lot of open catch/shoot looks. 

His last two years his 3-pt percentage fell to 37% (big drop with Crean as his coach) and 37.3% (notice it actually went up under Archie). Part of the big drop from his sophomore year was less talent around him and a larger load for him to carry. His junior year, gone were Yogi, Ziesloft, Bryant, Williams and Beilfeldt, all good, to great shooters. So for RoJo his last two years, not as many open catch/shoot 3's in rhythm and more contested, off-the-dribble 3's. That's why his percentages went down, and remember the percentage went down under Crean. 

That's just one example, but the point is the context matters. Stats tell a piece of the story, but the context completes it. What I see with Archie is definitely a coach that wants his team to take good shots and value the ball. He definitely does not emphasize the 3 as much as Crean, but with that said, Archie isn't the reason IU missed a TON of wide open shots, and a lot of wide open 3's, this season. I also don't think we've seen enough to yet determine if passing up open 3's is by design or because this roster simply doesn't have a singe pure shooter. 

My actual biggest worry about the 3's isn't the system, it's more the recruiting. I don't see IU recruiting many shooters. UVA just won a championship with a system that values the ball and doesn't take many shots early in the shot clock, but they had good shooters taking those shots. IU doesn't have good shooters yet.

Good points and I agree with your concerns being more about recruiting shooters than systems issues once the players are signed up. We don't need a ton, but having 1-2 on the roster at all times would be huge and we haven't exactly seen Archie buy into this thought...yet.

I agree using the "eye test" I have never felt there was a lack of open looks from 3 this past year. I know one poster went back from the game against PU @ Mackey this past year and demonstrably showed shot by shot these were most REALLY good looks the players got. They just didn't knock them down. 

One other separate point, hopefully Damezi can find his mojo from the 3 point line, but the kid got a TON of open looks from 3 when he was in and it was dreadful the output. Not much Archie can do on that if he had in his head when recruiting him "ok this is my dead-eye shooter" and he can has the potential to defend at a higher level than a Zeisloft/Hulls on top of that. Hopefully Damezi can find his stroke/confidence when it matters in game flow. 

[BGleas]

2 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

One other separate point, hopefully Damezi can find his mojo from the 3 point line, but the kid got a TON of open looks from 3 when he was in and it was dreadful the output. Not much Archie can do on that if he had in his head when recruiting him "ok this is my dead-eye shooter" and he can has the potential to defend at a higher level than a Zeisloft/Hulls on top of that. Hopefully Damezi can find his stroke/confidence when it matters in game flow. 

I think Damezi is one of the more interesting guys on the roster. I don't really know what to make of him yet, but I think the upside is there for him to surprise us. Maybe not next season, but as an upperclassmen, if he sticks with it. 

I saw a kid that played hard, had some swagger, but was also a little in over his head. I think he has the skill to be a valuable player and I love that he brings some of the passion and emotion, but only concern is if he has the BBall IQ to get there. He's got a ton of potential, but if he can't learn the system then it will be for naught. 

In my opinion, he's really an interesting wild card on the roster. 

[Zlinedavid]

I love statistics and statistical modelling.  I do it for a living, and I'll even break down stuff that I'm just interested in. 

To do it effectively and accurately, your focus shouldn't be on what the model is telling you or what is being included.  I'm constantly asking "What ISN'T being represented?" or "What ISN'T the model showing me?" Statistics are useless and can be dangerous if they're used without fully understanding the underlying cause/effect relationships. 

We've discussed a lot about the impact injuries had this past year.  Did they or didn't they? Well, here's a combined statistical/practical way to look at it. 

What happens when a player is injured? Obviously, they can't play.  What impact does that have on the team? Well, that means that the burden of 200 minutes per game is now spread across one fewer player, and other players' minutes will increase incrementally.  Now, here's something we can measure. 

I'm not going to look at individual minutes per game, because that has variance built in, because each player may have played in a different number of games.  I'm wanting to know how having fewer players impacted the team as a whole, so I'll look at percent of total team minutes.  Last year, our top 6 players in terms of minutes played made up 73% of total minutes.  This year, it was 78%.  What does that mean in terms of impact? Somewhere between 2-3 additional minutes per player per game. 

And keep in mind, that's the seasonal average.  There may have been 4-5 games in a row where 6 players played 95% of the minutes. That wears on guys after awhile.  Feet get heavier.  Arms get heavier.  Guys can't get shots off as quickly or as cleanly.  What does that impact? Field goal percentage.  In this case, doing what a model is telling you (ie "shoot more 3's"), may not work.  If a model is calibrated at a 3point make rate of 40%, but your shooters are physically exhausted and may only be capable of 30%, there's a 10% deficit that the model isn't accounting for. 

Cliffs Notes: Injuries caused more minutes to be spread over the same number of players, which leads to fatigue, which impacts any offense's effectiveness. 

[IUFLA]

5 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I think Damezi is one of the more interesting guys on the roster. I don't really know what to make of him yet, but I think the upside is there for him to surprise us. Maybe not next season, but as an upperclassmen, if he sticks with it. 

I saw a kid that played hard, had some swagger, but was also a little in over his head. I think he has the skill to be a valuable player and I love that he brings some of the passion and emotion, but only concern is if he has the BBall IQ to get there. He's got a ton of potential, but if he can't learn the system then it will be for naught. 

In my opinion, he's really an interesting wild card on the roster. 

I went back and looked at some video of Damezi playing in high school and playing last year for IU. Two things stood out. His shot looked different (seemed to me he didn't jump as high on his jump shot in college) and you could see the confidence in high school was, of course, much higher.

[Hoosierhoopster]

22 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

Good points and I agree with your concerns being more about recruiting shooters than systems issues once the players are signed up. We don't need a ton, but having 1-2 on the roster at all times would be huge and we haven't exactly seen Archie buy into this thought...yet.

I agree using the "eye test" I have never felt there was a lack of open looks from 3 this past year. I know one poster went back from the game against PU @ Mackey this past year and demonstrably showed shot by shot these were most REALLY good looks the players got. They just didn't knock them down. 

One other separate point, hopefully Damezi can find his mojo from the 3 point line, but the kid got a TON of open looks from 3 when he was in and it was dreadful the output. Not much Archie can do on that if he had in his head when recruiting him "ok this is my dead-eye shooter" and he can has the potential to defend at a higher level than a Zeisloft/Hulls on top of that. Hopefully Damezi can find his stroke/confidence when it matters in game flow. 

CAM has been going for bigs, but while Fitz did not work out the way he was expected to, CAM specifically went out searching for an elite 3-point shooter to fill that hole. That is recruiting a 3-point shooter. Do hope he starts adding more, but let's not forget we expect to have Hunter back (and CAM knows more there) to add to out perimeter game.

I am hoping we see another addition, but Hunter, Green and hopefully Damezi making a frosh-to-soph jump, with more room to work with courtesy of, hopefully, a more effective front line, does fit in here.

[Hoosierhoopster]

8 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I went back and looked at some video of Damezi playing in high school and playing last year for IU. Two things stood out. His shot looked different (seemed to me he didn't jump as high on his jump shot in college) and you could see the confidence in high school was, of course, much higher.

Damez came in as a shooter. He absolutely has the tools.

[Hoosier987]

I said it once and got flack but I will say it again. Smith needs to go, regardless if it's actually not him saying it. I'm sorry for Justin as his father is putting him in a very difficult situation but this can't continue. It should NEVER happen. If the father doesn't get with the program - and that's any highly rated D1 program - and is vocal about it and putting the program in bad light, then his son needs to go...regardless of who is saying it. This has been a theme now with Edward Smith for 5 months...unacceptable. 

[BobSaccamanno]

42 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I think Damezi is one of the more interesting guys on the roster. I don't really know what to make of him yet, but I think the upside is there for him to surprise us. Maybe not next season, but as an upperclassmen, if he sticks with it. 

I saw a kid that played hard, had some swagger, but was also a little in over his head. I think he has the skill to be a valuable player and I love that he brings some of the passion and emotion, but only concern is if he has the BBall IQ to get there. He's got a ton of potential, but if he can't learn the system then it will be for naught. 

In my opinion, he's really an interesting wild card on the roster. 

Agree completely.  He had a ton of wide open shots that it would be ridiculous to blame anyone else for.  Just straight up wide open shots.  

I bet if we strapped a heart monitor to him his heart beat was racing off the charts.  IMO he rushed his shot and was too anxious, but more than anything, the speed of the game got him.  It’s like anybody playing up a level where you’re not comfortable at the pace.  Heck, we’ve probably all experienced it.  

I recall very well people writing off the likes of Collin Hartman and even Tommy Coverdale too. Heck Collin and Tom admit the adjustment they underwent.  

Hopefully Damezi progresses as well. I think he can play at this level. I also agree with your point that he’s got some scrap and fight in him.  

The ball is all in Damezi’s hands as to how handles it and develops from here.  Hopefully we will have a far more competitive roster with better positional battles where everyone benefits.  

[dgambill]

Until I hear it from Justin or I see Justin arguing with the coach etc this is a non-issue for me. You can't control someone from speaking their opinion. So his dad liked Crean better than Archie....maybe he wasn't happy that Justin decided to recommit to IU....whatever it is it shouldn't affect the team. If players are out there reading twitter and worrying about it...or Archie is up late at night crying over his twitter feed instead of watching game tape then there is a bigger problem. Justin is not his dad...he can't stop him from posting his opinion. It even looks like his dad went private with his account so really what this is...is a person with an axe to grind against Archie and the program dragging up private messages and posting them all over the internet in a smear campaign. This is not an isolated thing....I imagine every program in the country has a parent or two that isn't in agreement with the staff on how to handle their child...and it goes public all the time. You didn't see Painter kick Eastern out of the program did you?? You didn't see Coach K kick out Wendall Carter when his mom was ticked Bagley was getting most of the offense run through him? If it is the kid doing the back talking and complaining that is one thing...but the rest of the world...well people better get some thicker skin. I hope Justin comes back with a jumper and a focus...because when he was locked in like the MSU game and others...he was a lock down defender when he wanted to be and he really can open up the offense for the team. I support Justin....I don't need to support his dad.

[Leathernecks]

1 hour ago, ArchieBall13 said:

I agree using the "eye test" I have never felt there was a lack of open looks from 3 this past year. I know one poster went back from the game against PU @ Mackey this past year and demonstrably showed shot by shot these were most REALLY good looks the players got. They just didn't knock them down. 

 

 

[JWoolsey]

Lots of stuff to get into here. I guess I'll number it and hopefully clarify a little better the points that I was making all along.

1) @Zlinedavid you're obviously many many levels ahead of me when dealing with this analytics stuff. I was forced into figuring out how to analyze this stuff through poker via trial and error. I played millions of hands of poker and could directly tweak my style frequently based on 'the obvious mistakes' the numbers were telling me. I'm not a math guy. It's mostly instinctual but I've got a good radar when it goes off. I'm pretty flexible so over time I'm adjusting the errors that are obvious, keeping the obvious improvements, and making slight adjustments until I get a stronger feel. Poker / Sports are extremely similar so it's applicable here as well and I've basically been doing the same thing with basketball instinctively for a decade now. It comes off sloppy and erratic in explanation but there's a method to the madness. I fiddle with stuff here, fiddle with it there, and essentially get to a place without knowing exactly how I got there. There's countless ways to win in poker and in sports so the obvious and clear path that I see vividly obviously differs from what Archie sees. We both could be right and that's just another reason why the game is so awesome. The fun is in the contrast and that's what I've always tried to offer. 

2) I've always looked at the totality of his work and formed opinions with that very much in mind. I think people are getting way too caught up focusing on this season and the last when the points that I'm really trying to make are broader in spectrum. I don't care about the clean looks or the injuries or how unlucky we've gotten. The whole premise behind my frustration is that there's a huge wall that should be hit if the numbers that he put up at Dayton are replicated here. I'm looking at a long term total picture here. The poor shooting this year, the injuries, the chemistry, all of it isn't a concern to me. I'm convinced that you cannot win big playing in a style that's 26% 3, 55% two, 19% FT that turns the ball over like his teams do with the poor FT shooting on top. <------------- that's the key to everything I've been trying to convey. There's obviously exceptions to that like if you can recruit like Roy or Cal. Then well yeah of course your athleticism and talent will cover up the mistakes. The points I've made here and there are tidbits and examples of me trying to explain why that's wrong playing the way he does. 

3) The entire point of me bringing up the poor record is because that inside out approach is heavily exploited by better and more athletic teams. They're going to be bigger, faster, better coached, and less prone to giving up easy shots. The purpose of the system is to work towards getting great shots. When you're working on getting the great shot you're turning down good ones and you just can't do that anymore. I think the shooting is so poor because it's been hammered into their heads that every shot needs to be a great one...hesitancy, self doubt, fear, and shooting 'only when the situation is right' means there's added pressure to the shots that they take and helps explain why it may be so poor all aroun.

4) His approach is genuinely wholesome and represents how basketball should be played but players are too skilled and too athletic to be dominated and picked apart the way that he wants to do it. Everyone will bring up Tony Bennett and yeah the SOB actually pulled it off but let's take a look at how. A) He ran the slowest tempo in the game. B) He adapted and started shooting a lot more 3's. C) He had a player that could bang home 3's at over 40% and let him shoot over 7 three's a game. D) In the tournament they had a 55% chance v Oregon with 15 minutes left, 9% chance with a few minutes left vs Purdue, had a 4% chance with a minute left vs Auburn, and had an 11% chance vs TT with a few minutes left. Incredible skill / composure but insanely lucky on top. 

5) He's a good to very good coach and he'll be fine. That style isn't as bad as I'm selling it off as but I strongly feel that it A) Is set up to destroy bad/mediocre teams (I mentioned the 114-19 record vs non A+B teams) B) Keep you in the game with chances to win vs good to very good teams. C) Will constantly get exploited and destroyed by top 10 teams. D) Doesn't allow you much room to Dominate the A level teams but does allows you to go through droughts and get dominated yourself by good to decent ones.

6) Proof for D from above vs A level teams last season. Victories vs Penn state by 2, UL by 1, MSU by 3, WISC by 2, MSU by 1. In 2018 a victory vs ND by 3. That's all 6 A level wins. Losses vs MSU by 30, Duke by 21, Purdue by 15, MSU by 23, Minnesota by 21. Dayton victories in 2017...Bama by 5, Rhode Island by 1. 2016...Iowa by 5, Xavier Loss by 29, Vandy win by 5, Rhode Island win by 2, Saint Joe's L by 9, Syracuse by 19. You get the point....in his tournament run 1 point win, 2 point win, 10 point win. 

I can't make it any more clear than that. Good luck finding bias or agenda in any of what I said. Those A level losses at Dayton were vs the VCU's, Saint Joe's, Baylor, Rhode Island, Missisippi, La Salle, Colorado. There wasn't an ounce of me trying to cherry pick anything or ever have I attacked the coach or the team for personal agenda or bias. 

 

 

[ArchieBall13]

28 minutes ago, JWoolsey said:

Lots of stuff to get into here. I guess I'll number it and hopefully clarify a little better the points that I was making all along.

1) @Zlinedavid you're obviously many many levels ahead of me when dealing with this analytics stuff. I was forced into figuring out how to analyze this stuff through poker via trial and error. I played millions of hands of poker and could directly tweak my style frequently based on 'the obvious mistakes' the numbers were telling me. I'm not a math guy. It's mostly instinctual but I've got a good radar when it goes off. I'm pretty flexible so over time I'm adjusting the errors that are obvious, keeping the obvious improvements, and making slight adjustments until I get a stronger feel. Poker / Sports are extremely similar so it's applicable here as well and I've basically been doing the same thing with basketball instinctively for a decade now. It comes off sloppy and erratic in explanation but there's a method to the madness. I fiddle with stuff here, fiddle with it there, and essentially get to a place without knowing exactly how I got there. There's countless ways to win in poker and in sports so the obvious and clear path that I see vividly obviously differs from what Archie sees. We both could be right and that's just another reason why the game is so awesome. The fun is in the contrast and that's what I've always tried to offer. 

2) I've always looked at the totality of his work and formed opinions with that very much in mind. I think people are getting way too caught up focusing on this season and the last when the points that I'm really trying to make are broader in spectrum. I don't care about the clean looks or the injuries or how unlucky we've gotten. The whole premise behind my frustration is that there's a huge wall that should be hit if the numbers that he put up at Dayton are replicated here. I'm looking at a long term total picture here. The poor shooting this year, the injuries, the chemistry, all of it isn't a concern to me. I'm convinced that you cannot win big playing in a style that's 26% 3, 55% two, 19% FT that turns the ball over like his teams do with the poor FT shooting on top. <------------- that's the key to everything I've been trying to convey. There's obviously exceptions to that like if you can recruit like Roy or Cal. Then well yeah of course your athleticism and talent will cover up the mistakes. The points I've made here and there are tidbits and examples of me trying to explain why that's wrong playing the way he does. 

3) The entire point of me bringing up the poor record is because that inside out approach is heavily exploited by better and more athletic teams. They're going to be bigger, faster, better coached, and less prone to giving up easy shots. The purpose of the system is to work towards getting great shots. When you're working on getting the great shot you're turning down good ones and you just can't do that anymore. I think the shooting is so poor because it's been hammered into their heads that every shot needs to be a great one...hesitancy, self doubt, fear, and shooting 'only when the situation is right' means there's added pressure to the shots that they take and helps explain why it may be so poor all aroun.

4) His approach is genuinely wholesome and represents how basketball should be played but players are too skilled and too athletic to be dominated and picked apart the way that he wants to do it. Everyone will bring up Tony Bennett and yeah the SOB actually pulled it off but let's take a look at how. A) He ran the slowest tempo in the game. B) He adapted and started shooting a lot more 3's. C) He had a player that could bang home 3's at over 40% and let him shoot over 7 three's a game. D) In the tournament they had a 55% chance v Oregon with 15 minutes left, 9% chance with a few minutes left vs Purdue, had a 4% chance with a minute left vs Auburn, and had an 11% chance vs TT with a few minutes left. Incredible skill / composure but insanely lucky on top. 

5) He's a good to very good coach and he'll be fine. That style isn't as bad as I'm selling it off as but I strongly feel that it A) Is set up to destroy bad/mediocre teams (I mentioned the 114-19 record vs non A+B teams) B) Keep you in the game with chances to win vs good to very good teams. C) Will constantly get exploited and destroyed by top 10 teams. D) Doesn't allow you much room to Dominate the A level teams but does allows you to go through droughts and get dominated yourself by good to decent ones.

6) Proof for D from above vs A level teams last season. Victories vs Penn state by 2, UL by 1, MSU by 3, WISC by 2, MSU by 1. In 2018 a victory vs ND by 3. That's all 6 A level wins. Losses vs MSU by 30, Duke by 21, Purdue by 15, MSU by 23, Minnesota by 21. Dayton victories in 2017...Bama by 5, Rhode Island by 1. 2016...Iowa by 5, Xavier Loss by 29, Vandy win by 5, Rhode Island win by 2, Saint Joe's L by 9, Syracuse by 19. You get the point....in his tournament run 1 point win, 2 point win, 10 point win. 

I can't make it any more clear than that. Good luck finding bias or agenda in any of what I said. Those A level losses at Dayton were vs the VCU's, Saint Joe's, Baylor, Rhode Island, Missisippi, La Salle, Colorado. There wasn't an ounce of me trying to cherry pick anything or ever have I attacked the coach or the team for personal agenda or bias. 

 

 

I tracked you until around Point 5-6. This season we showed we could knock off Top 10 teams (beat MSU twice) and then we hung our hat on potentially making the tourney based on our 6 quad 1 wins (more "high level" wins than the average mediocre teams on the bubble). It was the volume of losses that hurt us this year more than anything (getting back to that 12/13 losses stretch where the locker room/effort level were crumbling).  

I should add I personally put less weight on the category of quality wins/losses during his time at Dayton. I think he's at a new level of competition when comparing BIG vs. A10 (although A10 is one of the best "mid major" conferences today). Also, I do believe his Elite 8 team knocked off quite a few high profile teams on his way there, but could be mistaken. 

 

[JWoolsey]

16 minutes ago, ArchieBall13 said:

I tracked you until around Point 5-6. This season we showed we could knock off Top 10 teams (beat MSU twice) and then we hung our hat on potentially making the tourney based on our 6 quad 1 wins (more "high level" wins than the average mediocre teams on the bubble). It was the volume of losses that hurt us this year more than anything (getting back to that 12/13 losses stretch where the locker room/effort level were crumbling).  

We weren't some punk team and he's not some punk coach. I don't want him fired or anything like that I just don't have an ounce of respect for the offense and the way he wants to play it. He's 2-12 vs teams ranked in the top 10. We're definitely going to be good enough to get our fair share but I find it ironic that crean supposedly can't coach and archie can meanwhile Crean was 42-44 or something vs Level A teams. Archie wasn't playing the MSU or Duke type teams either it was the Rhode Islands, St Bonn, St Joe, Colorado, and similar teams yet Crean handled it and Archie didn't......Archie was poor in the conf tournament as well. So, let's maybe pump the breaks here and place a little accountability where it's deserved.

Ironically enough I think he's a much better coach than I ever realized. Picture an all-star hitter who's been cold forever. He just needs his swing adjusted. I'm sure most will still disagree with me but the swing I see is OFF in a big way. This isn't the A-10 where there's quite a few bogus teams. Every game here is an A or B game.