cheeseman Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I don't get your constant worries about SLU's interior defense. We ranked 47th in the country in adjusted defensive efficiency. Defense (interior or otherwise) wasn't the problem last season. The problem was the ofense which ranked 242nd in adjusted offensive efficiency. Bingo!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnkielBreakers Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Well, I should have stated a concern for our lack of post up "O" down low, too, thanks, I did not mean to highlight around-the-hoop "D" as the only issue, though it is more important than the "O" in our situation, we will get pts from guards and Evans slashing and CE & RL "outside". Front line scoring inside of 6-8 feet is an issue as it stands now, but the inside "D" issue is much more significant. So, do you think we'll win 26 or so? NCAA bound? ("adjusted defensive efficiency"? We slowed the games down, we kept scores low because we held the ball) It is not just down low that our bigs apparently have issues. Tyson Hinz, 6'6", power forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Bingo!!! +1. Brian, you're probably right. Interior defense has not and probably will not be our biggest problem. And I know you are not blaming everything upon "tired legs" but that certainly is a major factor. A few more comments: 1. Not trying to interfere with the bashing and finger pointing at our big men, but before we moan anymore about how bad our bigs were/are, can anyone confirm that it was all their fault? I seriously doubt it. Instead, seems like we just assume that the guards (b/c they scored well in box scores of our 3 wins) also ran the offense like RM wanted, looked to the get the ball inside to the bigs, made great interior passes, did a good job of reversing the ball to the other low block, were effective with dribble penetration... But what if the guards simply got impatient, didn't look to get the ball inside enough, weren't in sync with the bigs who were setting up for a pass when, unexpectedly, should have been crashing for rebound? What if the guards, instead, were simply quick to take the outside shot themselves? Would this change anyone's minds? 2. So our guards have been bad at shooting these past several years, they were quite good in the first 3 games (blowout exhibition wins) and then were ineffective/hurt/didn't play in the last 2 games (both losses). When did our guards did THAT good?? Yes, KM is a proven player, he looks to back and better than ever but if he is that much ahead of the other guards, then maybe the other guards aren't as good as we make them out to be. 3. I sure like CE, and expect big things from his this year, but we will lose most games in which he plays pg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The stat is adjusted for the pace we played at. Hence, the term adjusted defensive efficiency. OK, then what % of pts by our opponents were in the paint by 4 & 5, and what is the national average? What was the % for top A-10 teams? NCAA Sweet 16? (ie what does it take?) How many blocks per game in the paint by 4 & 5? What is national average? What was A-10 top teams? Sweet 16's numbers in the paint? U.Conns? ETC And offense, what % of our offense was in the paint by 4 & 5, and what is the national average? What was A-10 top teams? Sweet 16 teams? And so on. And so on. Stats can tell a big part of the story, but your "adjusted defensive efficiency" is just one ???? stat. Most everyone knows we were light up front last yr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 OK, then what % of pts by our opponents were in the paint by 4 & 5, and what is the national average? What was the % for top A-10 teams? NCAA Sweet 16? (ie what does it take?) How many blocks per game in the paint by 4 & 5? What is national average? What was A-10 top teams? Sweet 16's numbers in the paint? U.Conns? ETC And offense, what % of our offense was in the paint by 4 & 5, and what is the national average? What was A-10 top teams? Sweet 16 teams? And so on. And so on. Stats can tell a big part of the story, but your "adjusted defensive efficiency" is just one ???? stat. Most everyone knows we were light up front last yr. Theoretically, wouldn't all of these granular stats feed into the adjusted defensive efficiency stat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Theoretically, wouldn't all of these granular stats feed into the adjusted defensive efficiency stat? If that's what you think, fine. I, myself, in business, do not ever use the word "theoretically", ever. Or "coincidence". In basketball, I bet on U Conn against Butler in the Final, because, amoung other things, the incredible depth of their bigs, I did not look up "adjusted defensive efficiency" before I placed the wager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If that's what you think, fine. I, myself, in business, do not ever use the word "theoretically", ever. Or "coincidence". In basketball, I bet on U Conn against Butler in the Final, because, amoung other things, the incredible depth of their bigs, I did not look up "adjusted defensive efficiency" before I placed the wager. Having good big men is important but we're in the A-10 here. It's not like our big men can't compete with these other teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If that's what you think, fine. I, myself, in business, do not ever use the word "theoretically", ever. Or "coincidence". In basketball, I bet on U Conn against Butler in the Final, because, amoung other things, the incredible depth of their bigs, I did not look up "adjusted defensive efficiency" before I placed the wager. Butler lost because of their poor outside shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Speculating on theoreticals is a useless yet time-consuming exercise ...... if you're wrong you forget it real fast and if you're right, no one tends to remember anyway .... Is this team light up front? I'd say yes. Does it matter? Can't really say. Uconn did not win the national title based on the depth of their bigs ... I'd say they won it on Walker and Lamb being the best athletes on the floor and Butler's contribution of horrid outside shooting. I think the Billikens have promise to be one of the four teams getting an A10 tournament bye this year. I think Xavier is definitely still the class of the league and Temple knows how to win, always does and has a swagger that is earned not learned. They will likely play (w/o even looking at their schedule right now) a challenging OOC slate that prepares them tremendously for the league season. The third team I like is the Bonnies. Nicholson, Cook and Davenport appear, on paper, to be a formidable senior trio. Who will get them the ball? Ah, there's the rub. I still believe the college game is a guards' game. That's why I like us with KM, MM, KC, JB and JJ. Will a top four finish get us into the post-season, any post-season? I don't know. As my legal counsel tell sme on every "yes or no" question I ask ... it depends. If we have some impressive OOC wins, that would help. Key games to me in this part of the domino thepory include @ SIU, Washington, Boston College, maybe Nova, and New Mexico while defending the home fires against the likes of Murray State and Vermont. A win at Loyola would help immensely. Lose all these AND go undefeated in the A10 would still make (in my mind) winning the A10 suto-bid a MUST. Some combination would allow for easier breathing on selection Sunday but you get my drift. Only the autobid takes the guesswork out of March. Win on the boards in March makes it WHERE and not IF we go. No autobid, and then the domino includes other BCS schools and other league tournament upsets and drawdowns. Again, it depends. Can we win with the current roster? To a certain degree, again, it depends. I think we can because we have a nice guard stable and the game is a guards' game. But KM is coming back maybe a little rusty and could be beaten to a pulp, KC is not a shooting star, MM is a sophomore and we all have heard of the "sophomore slump" (not saying its a given and WILL happen to him, just saying), JB has a year's rust on him and did play at Toledo, not exactly your hotbed of college hoops, and everyone knows I believe JJ doesn't have a mid-range game. In addition, two of our big men are what I would call international/non-traditional/soft bigs in CE and RL. They tend to shoot, not bang. Our interior bigs are, as someone said, light in BC, CR and two freshmen in GG and JM. DE could be a small 4 and is an experiment at the 3. But it could come together --- it just depends. If we get decent production out of BC and DE at the 4, it would open up looks for the exterior gunners. Conventional wisdom says its easier to drop shots with looser defensive coverage. A threat on the inside causes help defense, meaning CE, RL, JB, MM and KM are more open than covered. Do more shots go down? It depends. If they do, the domino is help coverage cannot occur as routinely and BC and DE are rewarded with easier internal options and chances. A defender flying off JJ at MM allows for one extra pass and could result in JJ attacking the hoop and playing to his strength rather than his (mine) perceived weakness --- the mid-range. Down the stretch, he --- and the others --- have to convert free throws. This could work but agian it all depends. Injuries tend to disrupt flows --- like legal and eligibility problems. Avoid those and you're all the stronger. It depends. If CR AVERAGES 6 and 4 over 22 as someone suggests, I will gladly eat crow and lay off him. I would say our 3-4-5 combo needs to average X and Y and Z aggregately but that is another "it depends" ---- because if our external forces are ON, the needs from the inside will be less about numbers and more about intangible contributions like producing options that enhance the outside game. Problem with the outside game is good/great shooting percentages and the Billikens are rarely used in the same sentence. This season should open with tons of promise, assuming and speculating at this point, given one out-of-country trip against relatively unknown competition with less than a full boat of a team, is really dumb. Kshoe and I are still bunkies in AC at this point, right kshoe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Speculating on theoreticals is a useless yet time-consuming exercise ...... if you're wrong you forget it real fast and if you're right, no one tends to remember anyway .... Is this team light up front? I'd say yes. Does it matter? Can't really say. Uconn did not win the national title based on the depth of their bigs ... I'd say they won it on Walker and Lamb being the best athletes on the floor and Butler's contribution of horrid outside shooting. I think the Billikens have promise to be one of the four teams getting an A10 tournament bye this year. I think Xavier is definitely still the class of the league and Temple knows how to win, always does and has a swagger that is earned not learned. They will likely play (w/o even looking at their schedule right now) a challenging OOC slate that prepares them tremendously for the league season. The third team I like is the Bonnies. Nicholson, Cook and Davenport appear, on paper, to be a formidable senior trio. Who will get them the ball? Ah, there's the rub. I still believe the college game is a guards' game. That's why I like us with KM, MM, KC, JB and JJ. Will a top four finish get us into the post-season, any post-season? I don't know. As my legal counsel tell sme on every "yes or no" question I ask ... it depends. If we have some impressive OOC wins, that would help. Key games to me in this part of the domino thepory include @ SIU, Washington, Boston College, maybe Nova, and New Mexico while defending the home fires against the likes of Murray State and Vermont. A win at Loyola would help immensely. Lose all these AND go undefeated in the A10 would still make (in my mind) winning the A10 suto-bid a MUST. Some combination would allow for easier breathing on selection Sunday but you get my drift. Only the autobid takes the guesswork out of March. Win on the boards in March makes it WHERE and not IF we go. No autobid, and then the domino includes other BCS schools and other league tournament upsets and drawdowns. Again, it depends. Can we win with the current roster? To a certain degree, again, it depends. I think we can because we have a nice guard stable and the game is a guards' game. But KM is coming back maybe a little rusty and could be beaten to a pulp, KC is not a shooting star, MM is a sophomore and we all have heard of the "sophomore slump" (not saying its a given and WILL happen to him, just saying), JB has a year's rust on him and did play at Toledo, not exactly your hotbed of college hoops, and everyone knows I believe JJ doesn't have a mid-range game. In addition, two of our big men are what I would call international/non-traditional/soft bigs in CE and RL. They tend to shoot, not bang. Our interior bigs are, as someone said, light in BC, CR and two freshmen in GG and JM. DE could be a small 4 and is an experiment at the 3. But it could come together --- it just depends. If we get decent production out of BC and DE at the 4, it would open up looks for the exterior gunners. Conventional wisdom says its easier to drop shots with looser defensive coverage. A threat on the inside causes help defense, meaning CE, RL, JB, MM and KM are more open than covered. Do more shots go down? It depends. If they do, the domino is help coverage cannot occur as routinely and BC and DE are rewarded with easier internal options and chances. A defender flying off JJ at MM allows for one extra pass and could result in JJ attacking the hoop and playing to his strength rather than his (mine) perceived weakness --- the mid-range. Down the stretch, he --- and the others --- have to convert free throws. This could work but agian it all depends. Injuries tend to disrupt flows --- like legal and eligibility problems. Avoid those and you're all the stronger. It depends. If CR AVERAGES 6 and 4 over 22 as someone suggests, I will gladly eat crow and lay off him. I would say our 3-4-5 combo needs to average X and Y and Z aggregately but that is another "it depends" ---- because if our external forces are ON, the needs from the inside will be less about numbers and more about intangible contributions like producing options that enhance the outside game. Problem with the outside game is good/great shooting percentages and the Billikens are rarely used in the same sentence. This season should open with tons of promise, assuming and speculating at this point, given one out-of-country trip against relatively unknown competition with less than a full boat of a team, is really dumb. Kshoe and I are still bunkies in AC at this point, right kshoe? Way to say everything and leave virtually nothing open for discussion, AGAIN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Way to say everything and leave virtually nothing open for discussion, AGAIN. This could be our first in a long time where it is not necessary for freshmen to save us. If we get improvement because KM is back. If KC continues to add 8-10 points with very few misses because he now has the luxury of being a picky shooter. if RL, CE, JB make 40 plus percent of their shots because we know they are going to average 9-10 shots per game even if they pay 15 minutes. if somebody rebounds question still remains do we barely make 20-21 wins and be a bubble team for everything and not get the call because we have no recent history? Or do we come out hot with RL and CE excited because they are quicker and stronger and we run the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HusakAttack Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 If we still had Porter Moser I bet we would have won those games. I also think we would be a tournament team this year if he had not left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Way to say everything and leave virtually nothing open for discussion, AGAIN. Taj, I believe, works for the DOD. I think they pay 'em by the word. If so, he must have a hell of a pension coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 If we still had Porter Moser I bet we would have won those games. I also think we would be a tournament team this year if he had not left. And your reasons behind these claims are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Taj, I believe, works for the DOD. I think they pay 'em by the word. If so, he must have a hell of a pension coming. If you can't dazzle'em with knowledge, baffle'em with bull shiite.......my favorite axiom from the defense industry..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 And your reasons behind these claims are? The myth of "The Porter" is a running joke at poster NH's expense...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry christmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 If we still had Porter Moser I bet we would have won those games. I also think we would be a tournament team this year if he had not left. Actually, believe that Whitesell has 3 more Billiken wins (before his first official season begins) than Porter had in the whole 4 years he was here. Clearly, Whitesell is better than Porter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For-DaLove Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Actually, believe that Whitesell has 3 more Billiken wins (before his first official season begins) than Porter had in the whole 4 years he was here. Clearly, Whitesell is better than Porter. Oh really?! I don't see Whitesell bringing in 5 star recruits like Porter did! Oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 The myth of "The Porter" is a running joke at poster NH's expense...... Rich, getting harder on here to differentiate a satirical post from an actual post with all these newbies. My bad if Husak's post was indeed sarcasm. But you have to admit a lot of folks on here think PM's the next Coach K. PS: Any chance you have any more of those round Billiken decals with the Billiken in the center. If so, let me know where to send the check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.