Solid performance from Karnowski tonight

[jimbofive]

Solid as in not runny or free-flowing.  Solid also describes the relationship between almost all of his shots and all of the worst parts of both rims.

Compare to equally sized Shaquille O'Neal.  Does not compare favorably.  Mostly terrible.  That was so painful to watch.

And then he gave up.

[Taj79]

I think Karnowski, for the first time this year, encountered that proverbial "irresistible force meets the immovable object" scenario --- where his bulk and size met with equal bulk and size and the results speak for themselves.  Meeks was bodying him all over the place --- it was commendable ---- hands and arms straight up in the air but upper body doing the hard work on Karnowski's upper body.  I heard the pundits asking about Gonzaga's schedule and how weak the WCC was to truly test them.  I didn't put too much stock in it but the theory sure played well in Peoria if you related it to Karnowski's experience and not Gonzaga's. 

Going to be interesting to chart Karnowski's career from here.  He has the size and bulk for the rigorous pros and he is six more fouls to give.  If Tim Kempton had a career, why not Przemek?

[For-DaLove]

5 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

I think Karnowski, for the first time this year, encountered that proverbial "irresistible force meets the immovable object" scenario --- where his bulk and size met with equal bulk and size and the results speak for themselves.  Meeks was bodying him all over the place --- it was commendable ---- hands and arms straight up in the air but upper body doing the hard work on Karnowski's upper body.  I heard the pundits asking about Gonzaga's schedule and how weak the WCC was to truly test them.  I didn't put too much stock in it but the theory sure played well in Peoria if you related it to Karnowski's experience and not Gonzaga's. 

Going to be interesting to chart Karnowski's career from here.  He has the size and bulk for the rigorous pros and he is six more fouls to give.  If Tim Kempton had a career, why not Przemek?

Meeks played him well, but he also missed a bunch of "easy" shots he usually makes. The strength of schedule reasoning is a just a sorry excuse to bash Gonzaga.

[brianstl]

It would help if he figured out how to use the backboard.

[cheeseman]

13 minutes ago, brianstl said:

It would help if he figured out how to use the backboard.

I agree - that is one of my pet peeves about players who don't use it and miss bunnies.  The square on the backboard is there for a reason - hit and the ball goes in the hoop.

[3star_recruit]

15 minutes ago, For-DaLove said:

Meeks played him well, but he also missed a bunch of "easy" shots he usually makes. The strength of schedule reasoning is a just a sorry excuse to bash Gonzaga.

Bashing the pedigree mid-major conferences is what P5 apologists do best.  It's almost like they're threatened by the idea of a team from a mid-major conference winning the championship.

[slufan13]

Last night's game was horrible to watch. I think Gonzaga wins that game if Collins hadn't fouled out (if you want to call it that). I thought he was the best player on the floor.

[DoctorB]

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon:  like a Sir Charles wanna-be.

The athletic profile of the 10 starters was phenomenal, one of the best ever -- as athletes.  But skill levels have dropped off so much, and lousy shot-taking is like watching a pick up game down at Simon, at times.  Add to that horrible sight lines due to playing in a football stadium, and brutal fouling on nearly every play = just ugly.

I agree about Collins, by the way -- really terrific player.  And I agree that Karnowski, who I like a lot as a player, met up with an equally tough and physical kid in Meeks = problem.  He's gotta make some of those shots. 

I enjoyed the game, more or less.  But that UNC team, though very athletic, is just not that great as a basketball team.  Sad testimony about where the game has gone since taking a lot of ill-conceived 3-point shots became the norm (again, see crappy pick up games at Simon, where guys just stand around the line and wait to receive the ball, which they usually don't since whoever actually has the ball typically heaves up an ill-conceived 3-point shot)...  over and out.

[Pistol]

This Tournament was a really disappointing one overall. The officiating was poor from start to finish. There was as little first-round excitement as I can ever recall (although the second round was a big improvement). The deck was stacked in favor of the BCS conferences, yet again. Most close games ended on misses and turnovers instead of buzzer beaters, a reflection of what felt like overall poor shot selection in the final minutes. The final game challenged the 2011 and 2008 finals in sheer ugliness, and ended with a blueblood 1-seed winning it all, a result that just doesn't hold much interest unless you're a fan of that team.

[Pistol]

14 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

The athletic profile of the 10 starters was phenomenal, one of the best ever -- as athletes.  But skill levels have dropped off so much, and lousy shot-taking is like watching a pick up game down at Simon, at times.  Add to that horrible sight lines due to playing in a football stadium, and brutal fouling on nearly every play = just ugly.

This is pretty far from the truth. Your next point - that there was "lousy shot-taking" - has a lot of truth, though. Shot selection in crunch time was really poor. I need to see some final numbers on this Tournament before making a judgment, but having watched as many games as I could, I saw what I can only call the "Steph Curry effect" for now: that the player with the ball is going to take the final shot, no matter how contested, no matter how far away from the basket, and no matter how many teammates are open. Except that most college guards aren't Steph Curry, and these late shots were getting blocked at a higher rate than I can recall, if they were even getting them off in time at all. When you think of the ones that were actually hit, like UNC over Oregon, it was off a pass, not some guard dribbling into trouble and chucking up garbage.

As for skill levels themselves, I don't think there's a case that players are less skilled than before. Shooting percentages have been flat-to-increasing. I don't know if the whole season's stats have been aggregated yet, but the trendline for FT shooting is very steadily increasing over time, and I think this year once again should've broken the overall FT% record - which has been flirting with the 70% mark for quite some time but not hit it yet. As for 3-point shooting, it's been mostly flat since the early 1990s, when all teams had adjusted to the new-ish rule and integrated it into their offenses, rather than saving it for a specialist or two. This article has a nice chart toward the bottom that shows how flat the percentage has been as the three-point usage rate has increased dramatically over time. My suspicion is that the overall made-3FG percentage will start to rise gradually in the next couple years, as offenses are increasingly built around three-point shooting.

[RiseAndGrind]

I don't know how anyone can say skill levels have dropped off.

[billikenfan05]

Hot take: the refs called the game by the book and "letting the players decide the game" is a myth

[DoctorB]

28 minutes ago, Pistol said:

This is pretty far from the truth. Your next point - that there was "lousy shot-taking" - has a lot of truth, though. Shot selection in crunch time was really poor.

I disagree.  Actually lots of commentators who know tons more about it than me and you have been saying this for years.  It also depends on the meaning of "skills."  So it may be you are not hearing me on the term itself.  Certainly I'm trying to distinguish skills from simple athletic prowess, like vertical leap or something that is measurable.  40-yard dash speed is not a "skill," according to my language here.  Shot selection is a skill.  Protecting the ball is a skill.  So you are actually agreeing with me, in saying it was really poor.  that's my point exactly.

Skills (learned behaviors through practice and discipline) in basketball would include shot selection.  Passing.  Seeing the floor.  Not throwing the ball in a bad place and causing a turnover.  Free throw shooting; field goal shooting.  Playing as a team.  Basketball IQ.  Not fouling when you have 3 or 4 fouls.  Lousy shot-taking = one weakness among others.  I do think defensive skills have gone up a lot, since the old days of UCLA dominance; anyone can see that.  And much of it is due to simple athletic ability and size, among other reasons.  Look at Meeks stopping Karnowski; it was one of the stories of the game.  Remember that in general, defense is always ahead of offense, athletically.  Meaning, in most sports, it just takes a little more skill on offense than defense.  Some sports, a lot more skill on offense.  It's why quarterback is often considered the ultimate "skill" position in all of sports.  But those are very particular skills, of course.  Meanwhile, the Lawrence Taylors of the world simply take off with superhuman speed and try to kill the guy, purely on athletic prowess.  Some skills might seem to be on the increase, if by skills you mean simple brute athleticism (clearly on the increase).  But generally; no, not so much...

 

[Pistol]

25 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

Hot take: the refs called the game by the book and "letting the players decide the game" is a myth

Hot take supported:

[Pistol]

1 minute ago, DoctorB said:

I disagree.  Actually lots of commentators who know tons more about it than me and you have been saying this for years.  It also depends on the meaning of "skills."  So it may be you are not hearing me on the term itself.  Certainly I'm trying to distinguish skills from simple athletic prowess, like vertical leap or something that is measurable.  40-yard dash speed is not a "skill," according to my language here.  Shot selection is a skill.  Protecting the ball is a skill.  So you are actually agreeing with me, in saying it was really poor.  that's my point exactly.

Skills (learned behaviors through practice and discipline) in basketball would include shot selection.  Passing.  Seeing the floor.  Not throwing the ball in a bad place and causing a turnover.  Free throw shooting; field goal shooting.  Playing as a team.  Basketball IQ.  Not fouling when you have 3 or 4 fouls.  Lousy shot-taking = one weakness among others.  I do think defensive skills have gone up a lot, since the old days of UCLA dominance; anyone can see that.  And much of it is due to simple athletic ability and size, among other reasons.  Look at Meeks stopping Karnowski; it was one of the stories of the game.  Remember that in general, defense is always ahead of offense, athletically.  Meaning, in most sports, it just takes a little more skill on offense than defense.  Some sports, a lot more skill on offense.  It's why quarterback is often considered the ultimate "skill" position in all of sports.  But those are very particular skills, of course.  Meanwhile, the Lawrence Taylors of the world simply take off with superhuman speed and try to kill the guy, purely on athletic prowess.  Some skills might seem to be on the increase, if by skills you mean simple brute athleticism (clearly on the increase).  But generally; no, not so much...

Can you point me to some numbers on turnovers, to support your point about the diminishing skill of protecting the ball?

I guess shot selection could be considered skill, but it's difficult to measure without a huge data set for each individual player. It's not a skill you could necessarily pull out of a tryout, for instance. I agree that the crunch time shot selection was poor in this Tournament. The overall skill level of players, though, is so far beyond where it has been in the past. This is measurable, but I'd also encourage you to go back and actually watch basketball from 20, 30, 40 years ago. The skill gap is monumental.

You've got a grab-bag of actual, measurable skills and learned behaviors. If a player continuously makes a judgment error, is coached out of that behavior, and rarely makes the mistake after that, that's not a skill.

You just don't seem like you want to back up anything you're saying, and that's an old-guy-commentator, hot take-style approach. This is just typical "They don't play like they used to" nonsense, which is obvious and dull and almost always incorrect.

[hoppybeer]

It really comes down to UNC shouldn't have even been in the tournament if the NCAA had the balls to actually follow their own rules. When was the last time a school funneled so many "student" athletes through a non existent academic program and hadn't been punished. 

The refs sucked. There is no other way to put it. Until the NCAA decides it wants to hold them accountable for their actions, college basketball will continue to suffer. I'm sure all 70,000 people in the stands truly enjoyed the constant whistle fest that was last nights game. 

Karnowksi will have a long and lucrative career in Europe, his game doesn't match up with the current NBA game. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

29 minutes ago, Pistol said:

Can you point me to some numbers on turnovers, to support your point about the diminishing skill of protecting the ball?

I guess shot selection could be considered skill, but it's difficult to measure without a huge data set for each individual player. It's not a skill you could necessarily pull out of a tryout, for instance. I agree that the crunch time shot selection was poor in this Tournament. The overall skill level of players, though, is so far beyond where it has been in the past. This is measurable, but I'd also encourage you to go back and actually watch basketball from 20, 30, 40 years ago. The skill gap is monumental.

You've got a grab-bag of actual, measurable skills and learned behaviors. If a player continuously makes a judgment error, is coached out of that behavior, and rarely makes the mistake after that, that's not a skill.

You just don't seem like you want to back up anything you're saying, and that's an old-guy-commentator, hot take-style approach. This is just typical "They don't play like they used to" nonsense, which is obvious and dull and almost always incorrect.

I think some of what's being discussed here points to the difference between skill and ability.  However, I'm not prepared or willing to provide precise definitions.  But, in my opinion, skills in basketball include dribbling, passing, shooting, and footwork.  Basketball abilities including reading defenses, running plays, anticipation, moves, and "basketball IQ."  Also, I'm not including athletic ability or physical characteristics.

[majerus mojo]

48 minutes ago, hoppybeer said:

It really comes down to UNC shouldn't have even been in the tournament if the NCAA had the balls to actually follow their own rules. When was the last time a school funneled so many "student" athletes through a non existent academic program and hadn't been punished. 

The refs sucked. There is no other way to put it. Until the NCAA decides it wants to hold them accountable for their actions, college basketball will continue to suffer. I'm sure all 70,000 people in the stands truly enjoyed the constant whistle fest that was last nights game. 

Karnowksi will have a long and lucrative career in Europe, his game doesn't match up with the current NBA game. 

+3

[HoosierPal]

2 hours ago, DoctorB said:

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon:  like a Sir Charles wanna-be.

The athletic profile of the 10 starters was phenomenal, one of the best ever -- as athletes.  But skill levels have dropped off so much, and lousy shot-taking is like watching a pick up game down at Simon, at times.  Add to that horrible sight lines due to playing in a football stadium, and brutal fouling on nearly every play = just ugly.

I agree about Collins, by the way -- really terrific player.  And I agree that Karnowski, who I like a lot as a player, met up with an equally tough and physical kid in Meeks = problem.  He's gotta make some of those shots. 

I enjoyed the game, more or less.  But that UNC team, though very athletic, is just not that great as a basketball team.  Sad testimony about where the game has gone since taking a lot of ill-conceived 3-point shots became the norm (again, see crappy pick up games at Simon, where guys just stand around the line and wait to receive the ball, which they usually don't since whoever actually has the ball typically heaves up an ill-conceived 3-point shot)...  over and out.

I have been to 3 Dome Final Fours, two at the RCA Dome and one in St. Pete.  I was also at the Arena in 1978.  While the atmosphere is pretty cool at Domes, you are right, you can't see squat.  I remember all I looked at was the overhead score board to watch the game.  Occasionally I would look to see which set of cheer leaders was up and cheering, trying to figure out who made the play.  [I was extremely pleased to get FRONT ROW tickets at the Arena.  It turns out the ND band was right in front of us on the floor.  They stood on their folding chairs the entire game.  I got a great view of the tuba player's butt.]

Yes, Collins was the best on the floor IMO.  As with many other calls, a few of his called fouls were very mysterious. 

This was the worst played Championship Game since UConn v Butler, and that one was brutal.

[moytoy12]

I agree with Doc to the extent he is talking about basketball IQ, which is what I immediately thought when I read his first post. 

[Bizziken]

2 hours ago, Pistol said:

Can you point me to some numbers on turnovers, to support your point about the diminishing skill of protecting the ball?

I guess shot selection could be considered skill, but it's difficult to measure without a huge data set for each individual player. It's not a skill you could necessarily pull out of a tryout, for instance. I agree that the crunch time shot selection was poor in this Tournament. The overall skill level of players, though, is so far beyond where it has been in the past. This is measurable, but I'd also encourage you to go back and actually watch basketball from 20, 30, 40 years ago. The skill gap is monumental.

You've got a grab-bag of actual, measurable skills and learned behaviors. If a player continuously makes a judgment error, is coached out of that behavior, and rarely makes the mistake after that, that's not a skill.

You just don't seem like you want to back up anything you're saying, and that's an old-guy-commentator, hot take-style approach. This is just typical "They don't play like they used to" nonsense, which is obvious and dull and almost always incorrect.

I know it's anecdotal, but I think ball-handling (dribbling and passing) has become atrocious over the past 10-15 years. Some of that, I think, has to do with larger PGs (or a lack of a traditional PG). Some of that can be attributed to raw athleticism becoming a dominant skill/trait/whatever. I don't think the data supports that turnovers are on the rise, however, you can't touch anybody anymore without drawing a whistle. It would be interesting to see some analysis, especially now that analytics guys have split turnovers into 'live ball' and 'dead ball' categories. The skill level though, is through the roof. 

[3star_recruit]

Kids are confusing fancier ballhandling with better ballhandling. Most guards 30 years ago didn't have wicked crossovers but they did have the ability to finish with their left hand, advance the ball with their dribble instead of dribbling the ball between their legs multiple times and going nowhere. Most guards 30 years ago had a clue about creating angles to feed the post. It doesn't matter if you've got And1 handles if you can't get the ball where it needs to go.

There's a skinny 6'0 guard for the Eagles named Darius Garland who will be one of the most dominant players on this year's circuit largely because he has a brilliant basketball mind. He's quick but there are quicker guards in the EYBL. But they can't make the plays he makes because they don't have his understanding of the game.

[HoosierPal]

6 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Kids are confusing fancier ballhandling with better ballhandling. Most guards 30 years ago didn't have wicked crossovers but they did have the ability to finish with their left hand, advance the ball with their dribble instead of dribbling the ball between their legs multiple times and going nowhere. Most guards 30 years ago had a clue about creating angles to feed the post. It doesn't matter if you've got And1 handles if you can't get the ball where it needs to go.

There's a skinny 6'0 guard for the Eagles named Darius Garland who will be one of the most dominant players on this year's circuit largely because he has a brilliant basketball mind. He's quick but there are quicker guards in the EYBL. But they can't make the plays he makes because they don't have his understanding of the game.

Also the rules have been relaxed to 'encourage' this lack of talent.  When I played ball, there was no 'Euro Step'.  If you took two steps on a layup, that was traveling.  If you dribbled the ball with your hand underneath, that was palming the ball.  Now it is called breaking your opponents ankles.

[Taj79]

Hey da-Love --- for the record I wasn't bashing Gonzaga or making excuses for the P5 boys -- all I said is the pundits questioned Gonzaga and I thought the questions were only valid if applied directly at Karnowski, not Gonzaga.  Karnowski reminded me of the alligators on land at Hilton Head --- very fast and quick -- for two or three steps.  Then done. 

The main problem I have with referees is that perception is reality.  Guys yelling like they lost an arm on a blocked shot layup.  Guys throwing their heads back like the defensive thrusts hit them in the head.   Angles and sightlines have always made refereeing more like guidelines than hard and fast rules.  I agree there was no Euro-step.  I agree there used to be palming the ball, carrying the ball, and traveling that is now all breaking ankles.  Watch closely -- pivot foots now also move.  If I am a ref and I am watching a guy drive, elevate and shoot, how the hell am I supposed to see if it was a charge or a block.  Rely on one of my teammates in the officiating crew?  What the hell is he watching in the meantime? 

Back in CUSA, I had a chance to sneak down to press row and watch Lousiville and UAB play in the Birmignham-hosted CUSA tournament.  Front row.  My gawd those guys were huge!  A court 94 feet by 50 feet was too SMALL!  And there were no Kennedy Meeks or Przemek Karnownskis out there.  I thin Louisville's biggest guy went 6'9".  And skinny like th eusual UofL jumping jack.  AND STILL NO ROOM.  A job I would never want -- you can't get it right. 

And it is my belief skills went out the window with the advent of ESPN's Top Ten and posterizing. 

[RiseOfTheBillikens]

If you think the talent in today's game is less than what it was even 10 years ago. I have swampland in Florida to sell you.