Over, Under, or on Par performances

#26
#26
BruinVol said:
We gave up less than 1pt per Possession which I think it a pretty good indicator of how well a defense plays against an equal or superior team

Also our rebounding was extremely solid which I lump into the defensive side of things.
Click to expand...

I don't care about points per possession. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Watching with my eyes:
1) Our transition defense is bad. We aren't sprinting to the paint and matching up.
2) We play behind the post which allows bigger guys to dominate us. I was expecting more double teams on post players to make them give it up.
3) We gave up a lot of easy drives to the basket against a team with not many shooters.
 
#27
#27
CAVol said:
I don't care about points per possession. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Watching with my eyes:
1) Our transition defense is bad. We aren't sprinting to the paint and matching up.
2) We play behind the post which allows bigger guys to dominate us. I was expecting more double teams on post players to make them give it up.
3) We gave up a lot of easy drives to the basket against a team with not many shooters.
Click to expand...


No doubt there were disappointing times last night but bottom line they shot 39% from the field and only 10% from 3.

I will take that everytime
 
#28
#28
BruinVol said:
No doubt there were disappointing times last night but bottom line they shot 39% from the field and only 10% from 3.

I will take that everytime
Click to expand...

Like I said, they didn't have good shooters. If we had doubled down on the post players that ate us up a few more times that might have been the difference. At the end of the day, we were better than I expected so that's good. Need more from Ray and Kyle.
 
#29
#29
They played hard last night and that's really all that you can ask tbh. Some nights shots just don't fall. We don't have the post game to help if we have off nights shooting the ball. Last night was slighty above par imo...man do we need Turner.

Question though - If Punter wasn't cramping up and made both FT's and we would have went into OT would that one play have changed everyone's opinion to "over"?
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
Stoked said:
They played hard last night and that's really all that you can ask tbh. Some nights shots just don't fall. We don't have the post game to help if we have off nights shooting the ball. Last night was slighty above par imo...man do we need Turner.

Question though - If Punter wasn't cramping up and made both FT's and we would have went into OT would that one play have changed everyone's opinon to "over"?
Click to expand...

To "over"??

I don't follow

Nevermind. Forgot the thread


Not for me
 
#31
#31
This is a team that is going to live and die by the three. We just have to accept that some games are going to be lost to poor shooting and very few, if any games will be won in the paint.

It's a dangerous proposition for sure, but it will also keep us in some games that we should probably lose based on talent.
 
#32
#32
cncchris33 said:
This is a team that is going to live and die by the three. We just have to accept that some games are going to be lost to poor shooting and very few, if any games will be won in the paint.

It's a dangerous proposition for sure, but it will also keep us in some games that we should probably lose based on talent.
Click to expand...


I would have thought that was going to correct but we didn't shoot that many last night really. I was surprised we didn't shoot well into the 20s
 
#33
#33
Barnes said we took 3 too many 3-point shots after the Asheville game. I think cncchris was saying our success will depend on the shots falling, not by shear amount of shots.

We have been playing inside-out very regularly so far, which is what you want IMO, so I doubt they will make a concentrated effort to get more 3 pointers off.
 
Last edited:
#34
#34
BruinVol said:
I would have thought that was going to correct but we didn't shoot that many last night really. I was surprised we didn't shoot well into the 20s
Click to expand...

This team just isn't going to win games in the paint. They will have to shoot well from 3 to beat the majority of the teams they play. We may not have to shoot 30 ahots from there, but we need to make more than 26% of them.

Also, as a sidenote, if Armani Moore is going to effectively be our PF, he needs to shoot better than 5-20. He has to be more efficient than that.

I wasn't able to watch the game last night (thus no postgame report), but just judging off of TOs, blocks and assist numbers, we didn't pass the ball enough. We had 12 shots blocked, only 9 assts on 27 made baskets, and we missed 8 FTs. I'll take a guess and say that we were likely doing a lot of reckless driving into traffic instead of kicking it to the open man.
 
#35
#35
cncchris33 said:
This team just isn't going to win games in the paint. They will have to shoot well from 3 to beat the majority of the teams they play. We may not have to shoot 30 ahots from there, but we need to make more than 26% of them.

Also, as a sidenote, if Armani Moore is going to effectively be our PF, he needs to shoot better than 5-20. He has to be more efficient than that.

I wasn't able to watch the game last night (thus no postgame report), but just judging off of TOs, blocks and assist numbers, we didn't pass the ball enough. We had 12 shots blocked, only 9 assts on 27 made baskets, and we missed 8 FTs. I'll take a guess and say that we were likely doing a lot of reckless driving into traffic instead of kicking it to the open man.
Click to expand...

We didn't pass at all really. Very little plan


But I will surprise you here. We scored more points than the did in the paint for most of the game. One on one drives and offensive boards but we really got into the paint
 
#36
#36
cncchris33 said:
This team just isn't going to win games in the paint. They will have to shoot well from 3 to beat the majority of the teams they play. We may not have to shoot 30 ahots from there, but we need to make more than 26% of them.

Also, as a sidenote, if Armani Moore is going to effectively be our PF, he needs to shoot better than 5-20. He has to be more efficient than that.

I wasn't able to watch the game last night (thus no postgame report), but just judging off of TOs, blocks and assist numbers, we didn't pass the ball enough. We had 12 shots blocked, only 9 assts on 27 made baskets, and we missed 8 FTs. I'll take a guess and say that we were likely doing a lot of reckless driving into traffic instead of kicking it to the open man.
Click to expand...

you mean 9 assists to 10 turnovers isn't a good ratio? :)

To your last point, we were. And not just off drives but even off offensive rebounds we'd try to force it over a defender. Not sure how many blocks tech had last night but it felt like a hundred.
 
#37
#37
Par for sure. GT let us hang around after playing horrible, and we had Punter shooting 2 FTs to tie it up and force OT. Gotta work on that
 
#38
#38
Lefteye said:
you mean 9 assists to 10 turnovers isn't a good ratio? :)

To your last point, we were. And not just off drives but even off offensive rebounds we'd try to force it over a defender. Not sure how many blocks tech had last night but it felt like a hundred.
Click to expand...

GT had 12 blks and we only had 9 assts to 16 TOs. The absence of a true PG seemed to really show up.
 
#39
#39
BruinVol said:
We didn't pass at all really. Very little plan


But I will surprise you here. We scored more points than the did in the paint for most of the game. One on one drives and offensive boards but we really got into the paint
Click to expand...

Looking at Tech's roster, they didn't have a heavily decisive size advantage over us. McGhee's numbers looked promising, and I'll assume those all came in the paint. Reese rebounded well.
 
#42
#42
I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but I see it more toward par. Not quite par but pretty close, poor start and all.

Parity is real and present in college bball. The talent isn't as far apart from a power 5 school to mid major. Ive read here from some that Marshall is poorly coached. But the players still want to pull an upset against a power 5. So with the personnel and lack of that knowledgeable basketvol fans know we have right now, any win is a good one. Jmo
 
#43
#43
I think Barnes was using the Marshall game as an opportunity to play different combinations early. All 11 players saw time in the first half. Once they settled in to the rhythm in the 2nd half they were on par.
 
#46
#46
LittleCat said:
Slightly under. Once UT got it together they were clearly the better team though.
Click to expand...

A lot of times we will see the lesser team command the game for 10 even 15 minutes but this game was dominated for well over half.

Sorry I don't think there is anyway to look at trailing by 16 in the second half vs a team that was 11-21 last year but with anything but disappointment.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
If you listen to the Barnes pressers after the games he can give you a pretty good explanation of what went on.
What I got from this evenings was that KP didn't really start doing his job of running the team until after the time out around the 15 minute mark of the second half.
 
#48
#48
Lefteye said:
I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but I see it more toward par. Not quite par but pretty close, poor start and all.

Parity is real and present in college bball. The talent isn't as far apart from a power 5 school to mid major. Ive read here from some that Marshall is poorly coached. But the players still want to pull an upset against a power 5. So with the personnel and lack of that knowledgeable basketvol fans know we have right now, any win is a good one. Jmo
Click to expand...

I agree with you on par, at the end of the day we won and came very close to hitting the spread, I would go with par.
 
#50
#50
bleedingTNorange said:
Sounds like majority thinks "par" is the appropriate answer to the OP for the Marshall game
Click to expand...

There you go again letting facts get in the way.


We had a

1) way way way under par

2) not quiet par

3) just under par

4) once we got into a rhythm in the 2nd half par

5) par

6) par



That's 4 under pars to 2 pars unless of course you prefer making up responses again
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top