royalfan

Is there a reason why you can't spill it? You don't owe White anything. That ship sailed, no?

So on The Drive yesterday, Washut said that White wants to go to a team where he will serve MORE as a three-point specialist like he would in the NBA... A better team where he'd have a specific role, versus here where'd he'd be asked to do a lot more. I ran into Gandolfo's in the middle of the segment, so I missed some of it, but that's the gist of what I heard. That would make a lot of sense, but think he could have done that here. Anyway, I was under impression by some comments here, that he wanted to handle the ball more.

We have the depth to handle this. We lose one less guy to develop the hot hand, and more importantly our best "spacer." As I mentioned in another thread, we should be a bit better the following season as a result of this unexpected situation.

White was a perfect college stretch 4 in my opinion if you have a paint protector at the 5, because of what you described here. But there is little doubt in my mind that our defense should be better if he is playing man against your typical wing.

He is pretty unlikely to be a complete NBA player. He simply doesn't have great lateral quickness. I can certainly see how he can play in the NBA though. It is as a one trick deadly 3 point shooter that will get nose dirty on the boards and will work to try to improve his defense. Trying to showcase his handles a bunch would be a detriment, not a positive for him. Us getting him a lot of looks from deep would have helped both him and us. Frustrating situation.

The Syracuse call makes a lot of sense to me. He is fairly long, so he could play in that zone. He is a good on the glass for a perimeter player, which is ideal for zone. Syracuse likes to play a limited rotation, which is good for him, and they like to cast up threes, which is good for him. It gets him in a league that plays more games in his hometown region. That being said, I have no idea why I wasted a minute worrying about it or typing this up.

Can graduate transfers transfer back to the place they left? It would fit the mold of guaranteed NCAA tourney team.

Well lets try and find the bright side here, as much as it sucks to have to do. In theory, it would seem that we are going to be better the following year than we otherwise would have been. Given our youth, there are a lot of minutes that will be played by people that will back the next season. There are few scenarios that lead to being better this year without White, but if he was going to be selfish and not all that committed then maybe it is best in the long run. Our young players are going to get a lot of minutes now. Time to grow up in a hurry.

What impresses me so much about Lue is how he adjusted during the course of the series. He got outchoached something fierce in the first couple games. It was ridiculous how he was not letting Irving and Bron operate with a court that was spread. He kept trying these idiotic post ups to Bron and Love from about 15-20 feet away. Warriors are so good at doubling it was resulting in rushed shots at the end of clocks. It was a great adjustment figuring out what he should have already known. But many don't make it. He did. And not a coincidence at all that Irving dominated the rest of the way. He went from getting outcoached to dominating Kerr by constantly finding ways to isolate Bron and Irving on guys that couldn't mark them on an Island. Truly amazing coaching job. Given the culture, I don't think there if much of a shot of Cavs winning if they didn't make the change.

Nolan Richardson probably thinks his jersey should be up. Not sure who else besides Lue turned 40 minutes of hell into hell for Arkansas. Unfortunately Nolan was able to outwit Nee and slow things down the 2nd half.

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense. Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. Steals. Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them. A whole entire steal a game more. This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats. Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively. We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category. However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse. And we allowed more attempts. We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game. When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th. However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes. And it was. A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year. We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. offensive boards. We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team Steal percentage. Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5. We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. Defensive points per 100 possessions. On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team. We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year. However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected. 73rd in the nation the tourney year. Dropped to 85th the following year. 3 point attempt rate against. Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year. Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier. This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. effective FG percentage This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year. We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. offensive rebound percentage allowed. Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent. Next year was up to 31.1. We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year. We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. You add all of this up and it is not particularly close. The tourney team was easily the superior defense. Simple eye test told me that though. Stats are stats, but it doesn't necessarily point to your "It's Molinari" theory. We had Leslee Smith that year, and a somewhat motivated Walt. Since then we've had no bigs. When you have to double the post, you will give up more 3s. The offensive rebounding discussion is also personnel based, IMO. I don't disagree that the tournament team defense was better. But there was going to be a fall off no matter who was coaching that D. I said for whatever reason our defenses haven't been as good under Moliari. That is a fact. They haven't been. You can decide for yourself why that is. But it isn't because we were thinner in terms of big men. Smith was on both teams and the 14-15 club also had Abraham. I don't particularly care why our defense has been worse. All that I care about is that it has been worse. We clearly need to get better in this regard or we are not going to get where we all want to get. I did decide for myself. By the way, if you think the second year shredded knee Smith was anything like the first year Smith your eye test brilliance let you down. Abraham might have been a rim defender if he hadn't broken a hand that could defend a rim. Agree we "need to get better in this regard", but if we do, it will be primarily personnel based. You can't just plug in stats across years without understanding the personnel of each team. I am very confident that I understand the personnel of each team. And I am also confident that we played way better defense with the tourney team than any time since. Not even all that close. Especially after Biggs got sent packing. I am not sure why people are trying to argue otherwise to be honest. It is ridiculous. And this isn't even considering the often horrific defense this year. Why is that not being considered? We let a mediocre true freshmen NW big man have a career day because we cannot defend a simple pick and roll. Not sure what everyone else is watching, but I was watching a flawed defensive scheme.

No they aren't. They are worse in most categories as shown above.

Boom!! Congrats Mr. Lue!!

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense. Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. Steals. Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them. A whole entire steal a game more. This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats. Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively. We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category. However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse. And we allowed more attempts. We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game. When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th. However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes. And it was. A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year. We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. offensive boards. We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team Steal percentage. Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5. We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. Defensive points per 100 possessions. On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team. We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year. However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected. 73rd in the nation the tourney year. Dropped to 85th the following year. 3 point attempt rate against. Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year. Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier. This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. effective FG percentage This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year. We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. offensive rebound percentage allowed. Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent. Next year was up to 31.1. We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year. We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. You add all of this up and it is not particularly close. The tourney team was easily the superior defense. Simple eye test told me that though. Stats are stats, but it doesn't necessarily point to your "It's Molinari" theory. We had Leslee Smith that year, and a somewhat motivated Walt. Since then we've had no bigs. When you have to double the post, you will give up more 3s. The offensive rebounding discussion is also personnel based, IMO. I don't disagree that the tournament team defense was better. But there was going to be a fall off no matter who was coaching that D. I said for whatever reason our defenses haven't been as good under Moliari. That is a fact. They haven't been. You can decide for yourself why that is. But it isn't because we were thinner in terms of big men. Smith was on both teams and the 14-15 club also had Abraham. I don't particularly care why our defense has been worse. All that I care about is that it has been worse. We clearly need to get better in this regard or we are not going to get where we all want to get.

I spent 5 minutes looking over stats before I posted. Here is what I'm looking at from KenPom. For those not familiar he charts the "Four Factors Concept" as percentage which removes Tempo from the equation. Our offensive rebounding % don't quite match but the tourney team was better at protecting the glass. Steals are a subset of turnovers and an indication of style. Some teams aggressively force turnovers that way, some don't. Our turnover % was higher in 2014-15 than 2013-14....that's the number that really matters. The 2pt/3pt stuff is all a subset of effective FG, which normalizes the values of the shots. Our eFG% was lower in 2014-15 than 2013-14. You can hem and haw over allowing more 3s and more 3s to go in but our strength on the 2pt shot negated it. You're right that overall the offensive numbers in all of college basketball went down from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and so you'd need to have a relatively lower defensive points per possession than the previous year. However when you look at the adjusted efficiency ( accounting for quality of offense, locations of the game, give more weight towards games towards the end of the year) both teams were top 25. Not included previously was the foul rate...we fouled more in 2013-14 than 2014-15. I think there is a good argument that the 2013-14 team was essentially two different teams...one with and one without Deverell Biggs and one that probably was overall a better defensive team at times. However, overall the notion that the two teams aren't particularly close over the course of the year and that the 2013-14 team is easily better is something I completely disagree about. I would concur that adding up all the things that support one's point of view is quite simple. If you want to tell yourself our defensive is as good or better the following year go ahead. I don't think it was, especially in the second half of the season. Sometimes you have to let your eyes be your guide. You are drastically undervaluing the importance of rebounding in your analysis IMO. And the free throw stats were greatly impacted by the rules changes. That UMASS game was so silly that it almost needs to be thrown out. Also, I completely disagree about "turnover percentage is what really matters". Steals are way more valuable that any other kind of turnover. They often lead to run outs. Other types of turnovers result in the opponent being able to set the defense up.

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense. Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. Steals. Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them. A whole entire steal a game more. This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats. Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively. We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category. However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse. And we allowed more attempts. We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game. When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th. However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes. And it was. A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year. We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. offensive boards. We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team Steal percentage. Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5. We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. Defensive points per 100 possessions. On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team. We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year. However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected. 73rd in the nation the tourney year. Dropped to 85th the following year. 3 point attempt rate against. Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year. Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier. This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. effective FG percentage This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year. We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. offensive rebound percentage allowed. Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent. Next year was up to 31.1. We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year. We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. You add all of this up and it is not particularly close. The tourney team was easily the superior defense. Simple eye test told me that though.

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense. Quite possible but I don't think that we have played anywhere near the type of D that team did during the later portion of the season. I am not sure I can be convinced otherwise. I am confident in my assessment.

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had. We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers. For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point.

It makes total sense. When football isn't in season, a portion of the Memorial stadium sellout crowds who are from Omaha attend Creighton basketball games and the ones from Lincoln watch the Husker hoopsters at PBA. It's like the migration of Sandhills Cranes. Next fall, our fine feathered friends from Omaha will be back to wearing red and migrating to Lincoln on Saturdays. A lot of Omaha residents only go to Husker hoops.... me included. This.

Most teams would look like they are on the rise when playing Phoenix:) But seriously, they are on the rise. And if they execute properly on rounding out the roster, it could be a poor mans OKC type situation down the road as they all grown. Lets not forget this club beat the Warriors on the road late in the year as Golden St. was trying to have the best record of all time. It wasn't like Golden St. was resting people etc. Lot of talent. KAT is ridiculously good on offense.

Perfect analysis of twolve situation. Petteway not really what they need. They need deadly shooter to help space court for the young scorers. Also think they could flip Rubio for a piece that fits better than he does, even though I like him. Fun up and coming team.

Agree, I want my shortstop to be one of my best athletes and hitters.

This probably could go in the main forum:)

We need to recruit bigger, stronger players IMO. Every recruit needs to have some pop or a lot of speed for his position. Too many "grinder" types being recruited. Teach the better athletes to be scrappy players, rather than recruit scrappy players. A bigger kid can play second base just fine, for example. Recruit bigger guys that are good athletes and then figure out how best to use them when they are here. It is sort of along the lines of when we got good in football. We basically were recruiting a level of speed up at each position. Safeties to be linebackers etc. Similar concept here. Time to recruit better, more threatening athletes. You can teach them to play baseball better. You cannot teach good high school baseball player to be a better athlete though.

Andrew needs to look at Danny Green's career arcRight now, AWIII reminds me of a different guy on those same UNC teams - Harrison Barnes.DG is one of my favorite Carolina players of all time. Sooo savy and has such a high basketball IQ. So gaining his comparison is tough for me. Ha! I almost posted in this thread the other day that I think White will be an NBA player, and that he reminds me very much of a poor mans Harrison Barnes.