player development

1,768 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by oskidunker
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:50p, 3/25/25
Madsen is a great developer of talent. As a college and NBA player he knows what success looks like, and what it takes to get there.

He took a role player, changed his role by putting the ball in his hands, developed his pick n roll game, and got Tyson into the First Round of the NBA draft.

He's did the same thing for Wilkinson by featuring him in an offense to showcase his skills.

Ditto for Andrej who missed some games due to injury, and took a few games to get back to where he was. His NBA dad and NBA player developer basically endorsed Madsen as a coach to get Andrej to the NBA too.

But Cal needs to add to their player development coaching. Shocky talks a lot about Theo who was one of the top Cal 3 point shooters in our history.

That's not today.

So I think the best person to bring into for player development (and also overseas recruiting) is Jerome Randle. I understand Madsen asked him last season but he couldn't leave his current situation. But with an expansion of the allowable number of coaches, how about have him coach part time where he can remain where he lives, but comes to Cal multiple times a year.

Yes, shooting is critical, but I'd argue Jerome is a better shooter than Theo who is a catch and shoot player. Jerome can score from 3 with step backs, pull ups, tear drops, and finish at the basket.

And although shooting is critical, I think ball handling is undervalued by many people. Watch Steph Curry. He is SUPER ELITE shooter, but also a SUPER ELITE ball handler. Randle is close to his level with ball handling. Also, we probably aren't often be able to sign a 6-4 PG so Randle can help undersized players to get to their spots and score when defended by longer defenders.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHohIamyycm/





Reply Quote
5
eastcoastcal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:53p, 3/25/25
Great post. The other area I'd like to see addressed (not necessarily with a coach but just a point of emphasis) is the ability to make quicker passes and let the ball be less sticky. We would often encounter double teams on the ball but be unable to swing it quick enough to the open man
Reply Quote
2
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 2:49p, 3/25/25
"Madsen is a great developer of talent…"

….and the teams at the receiving end of The Portal are very appreciative of that.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
3
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 3:00p, 3/25/25
HoopDreams said:
Madsen is a great developer of talent. As a college and NBA player he knows what success looks like, and what it takes to get there.

He took a role player, changed his role by putting the ball in his hands, developed his pick n roll game, and got Tyson into the First Round of the NBA draft.

He's did the same thing for Wilkinson by featuring him in an offense to showcase his skills.

Ditto for Andrej who missed some games due to injury, and took a few games to get back to where he was. His NBA dad and NBA player developer basically endorsed Madsen as a coach to get Andrej to the NBA too.

But Cal needs to add to their player development coaching. Shocky talks a lot about Theo who was one of the top Cal 3 point shooters in our history.

That's not today.

So I think the best person to bring into for player development (and also overseas recruiting) is Jerome Randle. I understand Madsen asked him last season but he couldn't leave his current situation. But with an expansion of the allowable number of coaches, how about have him coach part time where he can remain where he lives, but comes to Cal multiple times a year.

Yes, shooting is critical, but I'd argue Jerome is a better shooter than Theo who is a catch and shoot player. Jerome can score from 3 with step backs, pull ups, tear drops, and finish at the basket.

And although shooting is critical, I think ball handling is undervalued by many people. Watch Steph Curry. He is SUPER ELITE shooter, but also a SUPER ELITE ball handler. Randle is close to his level with ball handling. Also, we probably aren't often be able to sign a 6-4 PG so Randle can help undersized players to get to their spots and score when defended by longer defenders.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHohIamyycm/





I think player development is important. But right now Cal needs players that can win games today. No time to atempt to develop players. What I think Madsen did with Tyson and now Andrej and Wilkinson is recognize talent and then allow them to utilize those talents in his offense.

Cal needs to find some older experienced players with certain skillsets that can help the program win games.

So lets see if Madsen has good enough evaluations and enough of an NIL budget to move Cal to being a post season team.

Program building in this era is going to be very hard. You need to understand what you want and need and then go find it. And then very likely do it again the following season. Andrej is staying apparently. I am sure Madsen has an offseason plan for him. Likely approved by Andrej's father the former NBA all star Peja Stojakovic.
Reply Quote
2
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:08p, 3/25/25

How about the back end of the scholarship roster? Devin Curtis? Spencer Mahoney? Lee Dort? Legitimately asking...
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 3:50p, 3/25/25
Big C said:

How about the back end of the scholarship roster? Devin Curtis? Spencer Mahoney? Lee Dort? Legitimately asking...
Coaches are allowed only so much time with the players. So sure you will do some individual work with players, but the majority of the time is needed for the team. The players need to take an active role in their own development.

Each player will get an offseason plan. What they need to work on etc. This is where not having a dedicated practice facility hurts. Players that want to put up shots etc need a place to do it.
Reply Quote
1
sluggo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 6956bear • 4:12p, 3/25/25
6956bear said:
HoopDreams said:
Madsen is a great developer of talent. As a college and NBA player he knows what success looks like, and what it takes to get there.

He took a role player, changed his role by putting the ball in his hands, developed his pick n roll game, and got Tyson into the First Round of the NBA draft.

He's did the same thing for Wilkinson by featuring him in an offense to showcase his skills.

Ditto for Andrej who missed some games due to injury, and took a few games to get back to where he was. His NBA dad and NBA player developer basically endorsed Madsen as a coach to get Andrej to the NBA too.

But Cal needs to add to their player development coaching. Shocky talks a lot about Theo who was one of the top Cal 3 point shooters in our history.

That's not today.

So I think the best person to bring into for player development (and also overseas recruiting) is Jerome Randle. I understand Madsen asked him last season but he couldn't leave his current situation. But with an expansion of the allowable number of coaches, how about have him coach part time where he can remain where he lives, but comes to Cal multiple times a year.

Yes, shooting is critical, but I'd argue Jerome is a better shooter than Theo who is a catch and shoot player. Jerome can score from 3 with step backs, pull ups, tear drops, and finish at the basket.

And although shooting is critical, I think ball handling is undervalued by many people. Watch Steph Curry. He is SUPER ELITE shooter, but also a SUPER ELITE ball handler. Randle is close to his level with ball handling. Also, we probably aren't often be able to sign a 6-4 PG so Randle can help undersized players to get to their spots and score when defended by longer defenders.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHohIamyycm/





I think player development is important. But right now Cal needs players that can win games today. No time to atempt to develop players. What I think Madsen did with Tyson and now Andrej and Wilkinson is recognize talent and then allow them to utilize those talents in his offense.

Cal needs to find some older experienced players with certain skillsets that can help the program win games.

So lets see if Madsen has good enough evaluations and enough of an NIL budget to move Cal to being a post season team.

Program building in this era is going to be very hard. You need to understand what you want and need and then go find it. And then very likely do it again the following season. Andrej is staying apparently. I am sure Madsen has an offseason plan for him. Likely approved by Andrej's father the former NBA all star Peja Stojakovic.
Serious high school players have their own personal workout coaches. It seems impossible that Stojakovic does not have one or many basketball tutors outside Cal, probably including his father. I doubt Stojakovic is looking to Madsen for his development other than putting the ball in his hand in games and letting him do whatever he wants. Sure it would be good to have someone to teach skills in season, but that is a secondary problem. The biggest problem is the roster is almost non-existent.
Reply Quote
2
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 6956bear • 5:19p, 3/25/25
6956bear said:

Program building in this era is going to be very hard. You need to understand what you want and need and then go find it. And then very likely do it again the following season.


I like what Iowa's new coach said about that:
Quote:
"Tough kids win," McCollum said when asked about what he learned from having to rebuild Drake's roster last offseason. "Connected groups win. Kids that work with a level of humility win. That hasn't changed. So with the portal, you have to make sure you have to identify those intangibles. The physical gifts are pretty easy to identify."

Reply Quote
2
HongKong_Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29p, 3/25/25
To me it's a bit surprising the majority of people focus on offense. In the few games I watched on sling this season it seemed to me the Bears played a fundamentally poor defense. I don't know which coach was responsible for the defense scouting, schemes, and assignments. But I thought the Bears seemed okay in their half court offense, but struggled to shut down opponents on defense. I want to remember we did fine on rebounding in general, but didn't get a lot of steals and opponents always seemed to shoot a very high field goal percentage against us. We didn't seem to know how to stop opposing players from getting to their preferred spots in the half court, and at times turnovers on offense gave up a ton of easy transition baskets, which we didn't seem to get much in return. So I hope either Madsen brings in a coach who can make our overall defense better, or the current coaches responsible can improve on recent results.
Reply Quote
2
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HongKong_Bear • 12:18a, 3/26/25
HongKong_Bear said:
To me it's a bit surprising the majority of people focus on offense. In the few games I watched on sling this season it seemed to me the Bears played a fundamentally poor defense. I don't know which coach was responsible for the defense scouting, schemes, and assignments. But I thought the Bears seemed okay in their half court offense, but struggled to shut down opponents on defense. I want to remember we did fine on rebounding in general, but didn't get a lot of steals and opponents always seemed to shoot a very high field goal percentage against us. We didn't seem to know how to stop opposing players from getting to their preferred spots in the half court, and at times turnovers on offense gave up a ton of easy transition baskets, which we didn't seem to get much in return. So I hope either Madsen brings in a coach who can make our overall defense better, or the current coaches responsible can improve on recent results.
I agree with you. Everyone is hating on our offense, but we had a reasonable offensive efficiency rating, but I've said all year our biggest problem is defense. I've written a few posts of why I think that was, but one factor was lack of size and athleticism on the perimeter, especially at guard.
Reply Quote
2
4thGenCal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 10:32a, 3/26/25
HoopDreams said:
HongKong_Bear said:
To me it's a bit surprising the majority of people focus on offense. In the few games I watched on sling this season it seemed to me the Bears played a fundamentally poor defense. I don't know which coach was responsible for the defense scouting, schemes, and assignments. But I thought the Bears seemed okay in their half court offense, but struggled to shut down opponents on defense. I want to remember we did fine on rebounding in general, but didn't get a lot of steals and opponents always seemed to shoot a very high field goal percentage against us. We didn't seem to know how to stop opposing players from getting to their preferred spots in the half court, and at times turnovers on offense gave up a ton of easy transition baskets, which we didn't seem to get much in return. So I hope either Madsen brings in a coach who can make our overall defense better, or the current coaches responsible can improve on recent results.
I agree with you. Everyone is hating on our offense, but we had a reasonable offensive efficiency rating, but I've said all year our biggest problem is defense. I've written a few posts of why I think that was, but one factor was lack of size and athleticism on the perimeter, especially at guard.
Thanks Hoop Dreams - Synergy is a highly used team analysis app by for all key areas of a team's efficiency (as compared to all D1 teams) based on PPP (points per possession - The Cal offense Surprsingly was literally in the middle of all teams. (rated average) this encompasses vs man, zone, out of bounds, side out, transition etc (2800 total possessions over season). Definitely can and should be better, but the PPP was decent. The failing clearly was on the defensive end and the metrics showed that as the team was below average in many categories. I believe the HC is very focused on rectifying the past poor defensive performance.
Reply Quote
3
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:56a, 3/26/25
^ great to hear randy, DEFENSE wins basketball games~~
Reply Quote
2
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4thGenCal • 12:17p, 3/26/25
4thGenCal said:
HoopDreams said:
HongKong_Bear said:
To me it's a bit surprising the majority of people focus on offense. In the few games I watched on sling this season it seemed to me the Bears played a fundamentally poor defense. I don't know which coach was responsible for the defense scouting, schemes, and assignments. But I thought the Bears seemed okay in their half court offense, but struggled to shut down opponents on defense. I want to remember we did fine on rebounding in general, but didn't get a lot of steals and opponents always seemed to shoot a very high field goal percentage against us. We didn't seem to know how to stop opposing players from getting to their preferred spots in the half court, and at times turnovers on offense gave up a ton of easy transition baskets, which we didn't seem to get much in return. So I hope either Madsen brings in a coach who can make our overall defense better, or the current coaches responsible can improve on recent results.
I agree with you. Everyone is hating on our offense, but we had a reasonable offensive efficiency rating, but I've said all year our biggest problem is defense. I've written a few posts of why I think that was, but one factor was lack of size and athleticism on the perimeter, especially at guard.
Thanks Hoop Dreams - Synergy is a highly used team analysis app by for all key areas of a team's efficiency (as compared to all D1 teams) based on PPP (points per possession - The Cal offense Surprsingly was literally in the middle of all teams. (rated average) this encompasses vs man, zone, out of bounds, side out, transition etc (2800 total possessions over season). Definitely can and should be better, but the PPP was decent. The failing clearly was on the defensive end and the metrics showed that as the team was below average in many categories. I believe the HC is very focused on rectifying the past poor defensive performance.
We are average if you look at us nationally, but that takes in a lot of teams that have to play opponents out of conference that they frankly can't compete with. Lipscomb and Incarnate Word are not our peers. Among the power conferences we are 53 out of 80 (worse than 52, better than 27) in offensive efficiency. We are 76 out of 80 in effective field goal percentage. (I think you can do the math on that one).

And if you look at our conference statistics, (so compare ourselves to conference opponents playing only conference games - a more even playing field), we were last in field goal percentage, last in 3 pt field goal percentage, last in effective field goal percentage, last in assists. (they don't track efficiency on the ACC website). We are in first place by a large margin in offensive rebounds which would definitely help our offensive efficiency, but as others have pointed out, crashing the offensive boards has a significant detrimental impact on defensive efficiency. With our inability to get an open shot and make it, we've had to take measures that have significantly hurt our defense.

And we lost our best offensive weapon and our best 3 point shooters. We have 2 guys who shot better than 24% from three in conference coming back next year, one of whom made 5 out of 10 so really didn't have enough shots to qualify in the category. (and he is the only one that shot better than 29%)

That is not a healthy offense.

Reply Quote
7
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:59p, 3/26/25
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

Reply Quote
2
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 8:19a, 3/27/25
HoopDreams said:
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

Modern stats effectively measure performance and these numbers don't lie. But in accusing Cal's basketball team of substandard performance, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography comes to mind: "I know it when I see it".
Reply Quote
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:25a, 3/27/25
Sub-standard?

Yes, offense is below average and defense is way below average

That is sub-standard and not good, and needs to improve



Reply Quote
1
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 8:37a, 3/27/25
HoopDreams said:
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

I didn't use Kenpom but I used another offensive efficiency rating which had us rated similarly for all D1 and I noted our ranking among power conference teams. I appreciate the stats, but 10th sucks. It seems that we are arguing over does the offense suck or really suck.

And with all due respect to Kenpom and any other offensive efficiency stats, if your shooting percentage is at the bottom I don't think free throw rate dragging it up that high is valid.

Beyond that, comparatively speaking, our offense got dramatically worse against good competition. Our rankings compared to ACC teams drop significantly when you take only conference play vs. overall.

Beyond that, as the other poster alludes to, when you watch a game you flat out know the offense sucks. You can go back and parse statistics and overanalyze it to get to "they are merely bad", if you wish, but when you are last in shooting percentage, three point shooting percentage and assists, you have a really bad offense.

If you shoot well, you can clean up your offensive efficiency and improve. If you shoot last and you are relying on freethrow rate to improve your efficiency, you have hit your ceiling. Bottom line is, this is as good as the offense gets until they get better shots, make more shots, and start creating assists.
Reply Quote
2
6956bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 8:54a, 3/27/25
HoopDreams said:
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

I am very concerned regarding their standing within the ACC. The offensive rating overall is in the top 1/3 of D1. But in the lower half of the ACC. The defensive rating is much worse. Hard to win when your overall rating is in the bottom half of the league.

The path to becoming an NCAA tournament team is done via the conference. Not by posting halfway decent numbers vs Mercyhurst, Cal Poly, CSU Bakersfield etc.

The talent and coaching vs peer teams (ACC teams and P4 OOC) is not anywhere near good enough.
Reply Quote
3
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 6956bear • 9:02a, 3/27/25
6956bear said:
HoopDreams said:
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

I am very concerned regarding their standing within the ACC. The offensive rating overall is in the top 1/3 of D1. But in the lower half of the ACC. The defensive rating is much worse. Hard to win when your overall rating is in the bottom half of the league.

The path to becoming an NCAA tournament team is done via the conference. Not by posting halfway decent numbers vs Mercyhurst, Cal Poly, CSU Bakersfield etc.

The talent and coaching vs peer teams (ACC teams and P4 OOC) is not anywhere near good enough.
There's a guy who gets it and puts it far more succinctly and eloquently than I can.
Reply Quote
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 10:41a, 3/27/25
Yep, this was the type of data ignored by folks who thought we never should have fired Sonny Dykes because his teams were such offensive powerhouses. The teams racked up their numbers against mediocre/inferior competition but very rarely against the top Pac-12 teams.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HearstMining • 10:57a, 3/27/25
HearstMining said:
Yep, this was the type of data ignored by folks who thought we never should have fired Sonny Dykes because his teams were such offensive powerhouses. The teams racked up their numbers against mediocre/inferior competition but very rarely against the top Pac-12 teams.
We good now.
Reply Quote
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 3:27p, 3/27/25
Those ratings factor in strength of schedule, home vs away, scoring margin, etc

Not just who you beat

And those rankings aren't all world… they are below average so not sure what you're seeing that's so dramatically worse


BearlyCareAnymore said:
6956bear said:
HoopDreams said:
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

I am very concerned regarding their standing within the ACC. The offensive rating overall is in the top 1/3 of D1. But in the lower half of the ACC. The defensive rating is much worse. Hard to win when your overall rating is in the bottom half of the league.

The path to becoming an NCAA tournament team is done via the conference. Not by posting halfway decent numbers vs Mercyhurst, Cal Poly, CSU Bakersfield etc.

The talent and coaching vs peer teams (ACC teams and P4 OOC) is not anywhere near good enough.
There's a guy who gets it and puts it far more succinctly and eloquently than I can.
Reply Quote
1
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 3:56p, 3/27/25
HoopDreams said:
Those ratings factor in strength of schedule, home vs away, scoring margin, etc

Not just who you beat

And those rankings aren't all world… they are below average so not sure what you're seeing that's so dramatically worse


BearlyCareAnymore said:
6956bear said:
HoopDreams said:
Per Kenpom has several ratings that incorporate multiple stats and provides a more whole picture of a team's offense and defense. For example, it includes eFG, but also includes free throw rate, a stat that is included in all 3 ratings below. Kenpom thinks these are better measures of a teams offense and defense:

Four Factor: 161 All D1, 10th in ACC
(4 factors is an efficiency rating incorporating offense and defensive)

Offensive Rating: 95 All D1, 10th in ACC

Defensive Rating: 175 All D1, 16th in ACC

I am very concerned regarding their standing within the ACC. The offensive rating overall is in the top 1/3 of D1. But in the lower half of the ACC. The defensive rating is much worse. Hard to win when your overall rating is in the bottom half of the league.

The path to becoming an NCAA tournament team is done via the conference. Not by posting halfway decent numbers vs Mercyhurst, Cal Poly, CSU Bakersfield etc.

The talent and coaching vs peer teams (ACC teams and P4 OOC) is not anywhere near good enough.
There's a guy who gets it and puts it far more succinctly and eloquently than I can.


Maybe football will be better.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.