A few things based on common traits I’ve seen in threads

[ThatadultfromHolland]

1.) The reasons nance and young don’t play much, if at all, together is because you lose too much if one of them isn’t on the floor. Nance is forced into the 5 role because we don’t have anyone else that can give quality enough min to back up Young.

Nance and young, at the 5, bring completely different offensive looks. That’s an advantage; as the other team starts to get comfortable defending a certain style you can switch it up on them.

Nance is a natural 4. We just don’t have the depth at the 5. It’s about comparative advantage in lineups, not absolute for you econ minds out there. So can we please put to rest the Nance young line up talk?

2.) Nance and Buie are easily our most important players. Nance, because of his ceiling and Buie, because of the position he plays and ability to breakdown a defense. Young might have better games and contribute more to the stat sheet at times than them, but we will win games when Nance and Buie play well.

3.) Lastly +\- for players/lineups mean absolutely nothing. Stats are what people use to try to explain basketball to people who can’t just watch and see what’s going on as easily. Being able to watch and see strengths, weakness, and how the offenses/denfeses work, as well as the players within those offenses/defenses, is a learned skill.

I can’t tell how good a person is off a stat sheet. Stats are fun, they’re nice, but truly good players can completely manipulate a stat sheet to what they want. A team can manipulate a stat sheet. The only stats that matter (besides winning and losing) are rebounds and turnovers. Those probably have the highest correlation in wins and loses. The rest of the stats have a lot of “they can be affected by ____.”

 

[CSCatFan1]

1.) The reasons nance and young don’t play much, if at all, together is because you lose too much if one of them isn’t on the floor. Nance is forced into the 5 role because we don’t have anyone else that can give quality enough min to back up Young.

Nance and young, at the 5, bring completely different offensive looks. That’s an advantage; as the other team starts to get comfortable defending a certain style you can switch it up on them.

Nance is a natural 4. We just don’t have the depth at the 5. It’s about comparative advantage in lineups, not absolute for you econ minds out there. So can we please put to rest the Nance young line up talk?

2.) Nance and Buie are easily our most important players. Nance, because of his ceiling and Buie, because of the position he plays and ability to breakdown a defense. Young might have better games and contribute more to the stat sheet at times than them, but we will win games when Nance and Buie play well.

3.) Lastly +\- for players/lineups mean absolutely nothing. Stats are what people use to try to explain basketball to people who can’t just watch and see what’s going on as easily. Being able to watch and see strengths, weakness, and how the offenses/denfeses work, as well as the players within those offenses/defenses, is a learned skill.

I can’t tell how good a person is off a stat sheet. Stats are fun, they’re nice, but truly good players can completely manipulate a stat sheet to what they want. A team can manipulate a stat sheet. The only stats that matter (besides winning and losing) are rebounds and turnovers. Those probably have the highest correlation in wins and loses. The rest of the stats have a lot of “they can be affected by ____.”

One of the best posts I’ve read on here in quite a while. Thank you for articulating what many others are thinking. The game isn’t played on a computer screen or in a vacuum. You’re spot on about the Nance/Young combo. Bonus points for not mentioning Matt Nicholson!

 

[GatoLouco]

1.) The reasons nance and young don’t play much, if at all, together is because you lose too much if one of them isn’t on the floor. Nance is forced into the 5 role because we don’t have anyone else that can give quality enough min to back up Young.

Nance and young, at the 5, bring completely different offensive looks. That’s an advantage; as the other team starts to get comfortable defending a certain style you can switch it up on them.

Nance is a natural 4. We just don’t have the depth at the 5. It’s about comparative advantage in lineups, not absolute for you econ minds out there. So can we please put to rest the Nance young line up talk?

2.) Nance and Buie are easily our most important players. Nance, because of his ceiling and Buie, because of the position he plays and ability to breakdown a defense. Young might have better games and contribute more to the stat sheet at times than them, but we will win games when Nance and Buie play well.

3.) Lastly +\- for players/lineups mean absolutely nothing. Stats are what people use to try to explain basketball to people who can’t just watch and see what’s going on as easily. Being able to watch and see strengths, weakness, and how the offenses/denfeses work, as well as the players within those offenses/defenses, is a learned skill.

I can’t tell how good a person is off a stat sheet. Stats are fun, they’re nice, but truly good players can completely manipulate a stat sheet to what they want. A team can manipulate a stat sheet. The only stats that matter (besides winning and losing) are rebounds and turnovers. Those probably have the highest correlation in wins and loses. The rest of the stats have a lot of “they can be affected by ____.”

1) Coaches, well at least good coaches, put their best players on the floor. What a weird logic you got there. No backup for Young, so let''s put him on the bench? Weird.

In college ball, with 40 minute game, you need 7 players to do well. Not that it's not good having more, injuries, flexibility and all. But 7 is all you need.

3) "They made it up because all these rich dudes who own these teams want to get their own son-in-law a job". While I do believe that statistics in sports are a bit overblown, they serve a purpose and should not be ignored. Not unlike statistics applied to any other field, they exist because so often human instincts suck. That simple. If you believe CC's instincts are solid, and above being checked, I suggest looking at our record post cinderella season.

 

[TheC]

1.) The reasons nance and young don’t play much, if at all, together is because you lose too much if one of them isn’t on the floor. Nance is forced into the 5 role because we don’t have anyone else that can give quality enough min to back up Young.

Nance and young, at the 5, bring completely different offensive looks. That’s an advantage; as the other team starts to get comfortable defending a certain style you can switch it up on them.

Nance is a natural 4. We just don’t have the depth at the 5. It’s about comparative advantage in lineups, not absolute for you econ minds out there. So can we please put to rest the Nance young line up talk?

2.) Nance and Buie are easily our most important players. Nance, because of his ceiling and Buie, because of the position he plays and ability to breakdown a defense. Young might have better games and contribute more to the stat sheet at times than them, but we will win games when Nance and Buie play well.

3.) Lastly +\- for players/lineups mean absolutely nothing. Stats are what people use to try to explain basketball to people who can’t just watch and see what’s going on as easily. Being able to watch and see strengths, weakness, and how the offenses/denfeses work, as well as the players within those offenses/defenses, is a learned skill.

I can’t tell how good a person is off a stat sheet. Stats are fun, they’re nice, but truly good players can completely manipulate a stat sheet to what they want. A team can manipulate a stat sheet. The only stats that matter (besides winning and losing) are rebounds and turnovers. Those probably have the highest correlation in wins and loses. The rest of the stats have a lot of “they can be affected by ____.”

I totally agree with 1 & 2. Your point on #3 sounds a bit too extreme in the other direction. The role of stats in sports is as intense a debate as any political issue. There is a middle ground in there for a lot of these things.

 

[SDakaGordie]

1) Coaches, well at least good coaches, put their best players on the floor. What a weird logic you got there. No backup for Young, so let''s put him on the bench? Weird.

In college ball, with 40 minute game, you need 7 players to do well. Not that it's not good having more, injuries, flexibility and all. But 7 is all you need.

3) "They made it up because all these rich dudes who own these teams want to get their own son-in-law a job". While I do believe that statistics in sports are a bit overblown, they serve a purpose and should not be ignored. Not unlike statistics applied to any other field, they exist because so often human instincts suck. That simple. If you believe CC's instincts are solid, and above being checked, I suggest looking at our record post cinderella season.

Having a gaping hole in your lineup at any time (due to fouls and/or fatigue) is to be avoided at all costs. We say we are deeper than we used to be, but we’re still not as deep as others. Nicholson would leave a gaping hole. Subbing is a delicate balancing act, especially with a team less talented and less deep, never mind managing the players’ egos. I don’t think Collins is unaware of this.

Totally agree stats are important but need to be reviewed and assessed closely.

 

[NUCat320]

1.) The reasons nance and young don’t play much, if at all, together is because you lose too much if one of them isn’t on the floor. Nance is forced into the 5 role because we don’t have anyone else that can give quality enough min to back up Young.

Nance and young, at the 5, bring completely different offensive looks. That’s an advantage; as the other team starts to get comfortable defending a certain style you can switch it up on them.

Nance is a natural 4. We just don’t have the depth at the 5. It’s about comparative advantage in lineups, not absolute for you econ minds out there. So can we please put to rest the Nance young line up talk?

2.) Nance and Buie are easily our most important players. Nance, because of his ceiling and Buie, because of the position he plays and ability to breakdown a defense. Young might have better games and contribute more to the stat sheet at times than them, but we will win games when Nance and Buie play well.

3.) Lastly +\- for players/lineups mean absolutely nothing. Stats are what people use to try to explain basketball to people who can’t just watch and see what’s going on as easily. Being able to watch and see strengths, weakness, and how the offenses/denfeses work, as well as the players within those offenses/defenses, is a learned skill.

I can’t tell how good a person is off a stat sheet. Stats are fun, they’re nice, but truly good players can completely manipulate a stat sheet to what they want. A team can manipulate a stat sheet. The only stats that matter (besides winning and losing) are rebounds and turnovers. Those probably have the highest correlation in wins and loses. The rest of the stats have a lot of “they can be affected by ____.”

I like “a team can manipulate the stat sheet.” NU must have spent a lot of time manipulating the stat sheet to lower its field goal percentage over the past ten years. Also, to lose the rebounding margin.

I also like that shooting doesn’t matter.

For what it’s worth, the Four Factors are:

Shooting (40%)
Turnovers (25%)
Rebounding (20%)
Getting to the line (15%)

Northwestern basketball: MAKE SHOTS is the truest t-shirt ever.

Some pencil-neck with a pocket protector came up with them. Probably never wore a jock strap or called anybody Pookie.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

‘I can’t play my third best player because he backs up my best player’ flies in the face of ‘positionless’ basketball.

Do you think NU would be better off if some of Beran’s ineffective minutes were traded for some of Young’s effective minutes? Comparative, I mean, on the margin.

I mean, I know what the stats say, but you’re saying the eye test tells you Beran is better? Or tells Collins that Beran is better.

(For what it’s worth, Young bests Beran on each of the factors, except for turnovers. Probably because Young touches the ball.)

Thanks for bringing a strong take!

 

[GatoLouco]

I like “a team can manipulate the stat sheet.” NU must have spent a lot of time manipulating the stat sheet to lower its field goal percentage over the past ten years. Also, to lose the rebounding margin.

I also like that shooting doesn’t matter.

For what it’s worth, the Four Factors are:

Shooting (40%)
Turnovers (25%)
Rebounding (20%)
Getting to the line (15%)

Northwestern basketball: MAKE SHOTS is the truest t-shirt ever.

Some pencil-neck with a pocket protector came up with them. Probably never wore a jock strap or called anybody Pookie.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

‘I can’t play my third best player because he backs up my best player’ flies in the face of ‘positionless’ basketball.

Do you think NU would be better off if some of Beran’s ineffective minutes were traded for some of Young’s effective minutes? Comparative, I mean, on the margin.

I mean, I know what the stats say, but you’re saying the eye test tells you Beran is better? Or tells Collins that Beran is better.

(For what it’s worth, Young bests Beran on each of the factors, except for turnovers. Probably because Young touches the ball.)

Thanks for bringing a strong take!

For me, our most important player is, without a doubt, Nance. I don't want to call it "best player" as that is more debatable. Most important means, to me, that without him, we lose the most in our chances to win. Without any hyperbole, I think if Nance gets hurt, we don't stand a chance of dreaming of post season.

Again, for me, second most important is a toss up between Buie and Young. It seems implied by TKFH that Young "forcing" Nance to the 4 position will leave the 5 position with too many minutes to fill. A statistic, that's why we do them, Young averaged 26 minutes a game as a FY (19 as a SY). No injuries while probably a bit heavier than now. Could probably play 30. Would leave an astounding 10 minutes to fill the 5 position.

Finally, I could not agree more with the comment about Beran. What eye test is telling anyone that he bests Young or, to be determined, even Williams? I don't think I recall one basket where Beran was able to finish around the rim without being wide open for a dunk.

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

1) Coaches, well at least good coaches, put their best players on the floor. What a weird logic you got there. No backup for Young, so let''s put him on the bench? Weird.

In college ball, with 40 minute game, you need 7 players to do well. Not that it's not good having more, injuries, flexibility and all. But 7 is all you need.

3) "They made it up because all these rich dudes who own these teams want to get their own son-in-law a job". While I do believe that statistics in sports are a bit overblown, they serve a purpose and should not be ignored. Not unlike statistics applied to any other field, they exist because so often human instincts suck. That simple. If you believe CC's instincts are solid, and above being checked, I suggest looking at our record post cinderella season.

You missed my explaination of 1. For 3 I’m not saying CC’s instincts are strong or not. I’m simply stating that using stats as an argument is a flawed logic as there are many holes. I might have gone extreme but so have some of these +\-. Obviously stats matter and bad players/teams can’t manipulate the stats as much. This wasn’t a post about Collins rather a post about a common trait in threads.

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

I like “a team can manipulate the stat sheet.” NU must have spent a lot of time manipulating the stat sheet to lower its field goal percentage over the past ten years. Also, to lose the rebounding margin.

I also like that shooting doesn’t matter.

For what it’s worth, the Four Factors are:

Shooting (40%)
Turnovers (25%)
Rebounding (20%)
Getting to the line (15%)

Northwestern basketball: MAKE SHOTS is the truest t-shirt ever.

Some pencil-neck with a pocket protector came up with them. Probably never wore a jock strap or called anybody Pookie.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

‘I can’t play my third best player because he backs up my best player’ flies in the face of ‘positionless’ basketball.

Do you think NU would be better off if some of Beran’s ineffective minutes were traded for some of Young’s effective minutes? Comparative, I mean, on the margin.

I mean, I know what the stats say, but you’re saying the eye test tells you Beran is better? Or tells Collins that Beran is better.

(For what it’s worth, Young bests Beran on each of the factors, except for turnovers. Probably because Young touches the ball.)

Thanks for bringing a strong take!

A team can manipulate the stat sheet by the tempo they play. Where they try to score the basketball and what type of defense they play. Obviously good teams can manipulate it more. Shooting can be changed so much by tempo I didn’t include it. Look at the NBA now so many players are averaging high numbers.

No coach sits his 3rd best player on the bench because he wants to. I understand positionless basketball but you lose way to much without young or nance on the court and you’d lose nance or young on the court if you played them together at some point.

Young is better than Beran and I wouldn’t mind seeing him more than Beran at all. I’m also not arguing CC is right just why you’re seeing what you’re seeing. The main question for that is Young as effective in 30 min as he is in is current min and I can’t answer that.

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

I’ll admit I had a strong take on stats. I should say that besides rebounds and turnovers there’s much more then numbers that affect a game. They just help explain what you’re seeing in a game but they don’t paint a full picture. Some paint better pictures than others.

 

[macarthur31]

I like “a team can manipulate the stat sheet.” NU must have spent a lot of time manipulating the stat sheet to lower its field goal percentage over the past ten years. Also, to lose the rebounding margin.

I also like that shooting doesn’t matter.

For what it’s worth, the Four Factors are:

Shooting (40%)
Turnovers (25%)
Rebounding (20%)
Getting to the line (15%)

Northwestern basketball: MAKE SHOTS is the truest t-shirt ever.

Some pencil-neck with a pocket protector came up with them. Probably never wore a jock strap or called anybody Pookie.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

‘I can’t play my third best player because he backs up my best player’ flies in the face of ‘positionless’ basketball.

Do you think NU would be better off if some of Beran’s ineffective minutes were traded for some of Young’s effective minutes? Comparative, I mean, on the margin.

I mean, I know what the stats say, but you’re saying the eye test tells you Beran is better? Or tells Collins that Beran is better.

(For what it’s worth, Young bests Beran on each of the factors, except for turnovers. Probably because Young touches the ball.)

Thanks for bringing a strong take!

I'm trying to understand - are you offering that that tracking the Four Factors isn't accurate?

For example: Shooting is 40% of the Four Factors, but it speaks to the truth that not all shots are worth the same. Which is why the stat is "Effective Field Goal Percentage" - Just cause you go 4 for 10, doesn't just mean 40%, but if half of those shots made were 3s you actually have a better FG%.

And Rebounding isn't about the margin of numbers of rebounds tallied, but rather, are you grabbing more offensive rebounds (as well as preventing the other side from getting OREB which are extra shots).

I'm not beholden that each factor is as worth as Oliver states, but generally, I align with Four Factors model because it assesses how a team is efficient: Can it put the ball in the hoop? Can it protect its scoring opportunities? Can it create more chances in the offensive set? Can it set itself up for easier scoring (as FTs generally have a higher accuracy rate than shots taken in the run of play)?

Anyway - I was just struck by why this seems set up to be either/or: shouldn't statistical analysis be balanced with the eye test?

 

[PURPLECAT88]

I understand positionless basketball but you lose way to much without young or nance on the court and you’d lose nance or young on the court if you played them together at some point.

You say this as if the reason is self-evident, but it's not. Why couldn't you play each of the 25-30 minutes with some overlap? Say 12 minutes with only Young, 13 minutes with only Nance, and 15 minutes with both on the floor.

 

[NUCat320]

I'm trying to understand - are you offering that that tracking the Four Factors isn't accurate?

For example: Shooting is 40% of the Four Factors, but it speaks to the truth that not all shots are worth the same. Which is why the stat is "Effective Field Goal Percentage" - Just cause you go 4 for 10, doesn't just mean 40%, but if half of those shots made were 3s you actually have a better FG%.

And Rebounding isn't about the margin of numbers of rebounds tallied, but rather, are you grabbing more offensive rebounds (as well as preventing the other side from getting OREB which are extra shots).

I'm not beholden that each factor is as worth as Oliver states, but generally, I align with Four Factors model because it assesses how a team is efficient: Can it put the ball in the hoop? Can it protect its scoring opportunities? Can it create more chances in the offensive set? Can it set itself up for easier scoring (as FTs generally have a higher accuracy rate than shots taken in the run of play)?

Anyway - I was just struck by why this seems set up to be either/or: shouldn't statistical analysis be balanced with the eye test?

I was just presenting the FF (which I learned about 3 minutes before posting) to suggest that OP’s argument that rebounding and turnovers are the only things that matter is stupid. Because four things matter.

I think he’s backed down from that stance.

A team can manipulate the stat sheet by the tempo they play. Where they try to score the basketball and what type of defense they play. Obviously good teams can manipulate it more. Shooting can be changed so much by tempo I didn’t include it. Look at the NBA now so many players are averaging high numbers.

You can manipulate the tempo, but you can’t manipulate the rates.

This is in fact why Collins’ goal last year to play in the 100s was so dumb. The other team had better players, and more possessions means more chances for true skill level to shine through.

NU’s best chance to win is to be more efficient than usual, while the other team is less efficient than usual. And that’s more likely to happen in a low-tempo game.

I love NBA games in the 120s. Just not ones that James Harden is playing in. (But I love Trae Young’s 18FT games, because he’s so tiny.)

 

[macarthur31]

I was just presenting the FF (which I learned about 3 minutes before posting) to suggest that OP’s argument that rebounding and turnovers are the only things that matter is stupid. Because four things matter.

I think he’s backed down from that stance.



You can manipulate the tempo, but you can’t manipulate the rates.

This is in fact why Collins’ goal last year to play in the 100s was so dumb. The other team had better players, and more possessions means more chances for true skill level to shine through.

NU’s best chance to win is to be more efficient than usual, while the other team is less efficient than usual. And that’s more likely to happen in a low-tempo game.

I love NBA games in the 120s. Just not ones that James Harden is playing in. (But I love Trae Young’s 18FT games, because he’s so tiny.)

Right on - thanks for clarifying. I really dig "tempo-free" stats (like Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Efficiency ratings) because it allows for apples to apples comparisons of teams.

I checked the kenpom stats and reconfirmed that the 'Cats played pretty fast last year in conference games, yet it appears to be part of a longer trend. Here's the last five years of 'Cats average possession length in B1G games (B1G rank) :

• 2021 - 17.0 seconds (5th)
• 2020 - 17.9 (6th)
• 2019 - 18.2 (7th)
• 2018 - 18.9 (11th)
• 2017 - 18.3 (10th)

Sometimes, quicker possessions are the result of forcing TOs and getting transition buckets. After all, last year, the 'Cats forced opponents to turnovers 18% of the time (which was good for 3rd overall). How was likely more because we tended to shoot quicker on the perimeter.

Vs. Eastern, the 'Cats averaged 14.6 seconds per possession, which suggests to me that Collins preference is to stay fast. (Note: EIU did turn it over 19 times, 26.4% of their poss ended in a TO, so maybe there were quick transition buckets.) However, barring us becoming a deflection machine and doing Showtime on the Lake, I expect more of the mindset of "first open look is the best look." And if that stays out on the arc, we're gonna have to hope that our snipers got more accurate (we were an OK 33.8%/7th in B1G from distance) cause we don't OREB well (last year only grabbed 19% of chances, 13th in B1G), and were dead last in getting to the FT line (14th in B1G in FTA/FGA).

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Wow I missed this thread.
I disagree with most of ThatKidFromHolland's points, obviously.
I agree with Gato (as usual) and PurpleCat88 and NUCat320.
No one is saying play Nance and Young 40 minutes and bench Beran.
The adept people are saying play Nance and Young together as much as you can without losing effectiveness, because you cannot SIT one of your 3 best performers for half of the game.

The "+/-" stats are my favorite because they tell you what lineups are working and which are not. The eye test is biased. The numbers really aren't.

Nance and Young are very different players and I think both are above average for the league. Young does a lot of things better than Nance, Nance is more versatile than Young and is a better scorer.

Young and Nance are effective together. That is undeniable.
Young and BERAN were effective together last year. Surprising, but true. When they were out there together, we outscored our opponents. Thats significant when your team goes 6-14.
Nance was effective when he was out there without Beran and Young. This was something Collins did that worked. Again surprising to me, but the stats state it clearly.

So thats three general lineups that worked for NU last year. You could run Nance and Young for 20 minutes, Young and Beran for 10 minutes, Nance and 4 guards for 10 minutes and have a great approach to the season. It is possible that with Kopp gone there will be some new lineup that consists of Beran and Nance that will be productive, but last year it was bad. Likewise, playing Young without either Beran or Nance was a disaster last year.

I don't really care too much about people's "eye tests" or self-proclaimed expertise on how basketball is played. I care about what works. Dismissing the "+/-" stats is the same as dismissing the score of the game. "Gaines is a great player, but we always seem to fall behind when he's playing" doesn't work for me.

Basketball is a team game and determining which collections of 5 guys work well together is crucial to success.

Even I know that.

I do apologize to the people who are on here frequently and see me posting versions of the same stuff over and over. Its the infrequent posters who spout nonsense and trigger me to re-post the lessons learned from the stats. I will try to rein it in. After all, its a new season!

 

[TheC]

Wow I missed this thread.
I disagree with most of ThatKidFromHolland's points, obviously.
I agree with Gato (as usual) and PurpleCat88 and NUCat320.
No one is saying play Nance and Young 40 minutes and bench Beran.
The adept people are saying play Nance and Young together as much as you can without losing effectiveness, because you cannot SIT one of your 3 best performers for half of the game.

The "+/-" stats are my favorite because they tell you what lineups are working and which are not. The eye test is biased. The numbers really aren't.

Nance and Young are very different players and I think both are above average for the league. Young does a lot of things better than Nance, Nance is more versatile than Young and is a better scorer.

Young and Nance are effective together. That is undeniable.
Young and BERAN were effective together last year. Surprising, but true. When they were out there together, we outscored our opponents. Thats significant when your team goes 6-14.
Nance was effective when he was out there without Beran and Young. This was something Collins did that worked. Again surprising to me, but the stats state it clearly.

So thats three general lineups that worked for NU last year. You could run Nance and Young for 20 minutes, Young and Beran for 10 minutes, Nance and 4 guards for 10 minutes and have a great approach to the season. It is possible that with Kopp gone there will be some new lineup that consists of Beran and Nance that will be productive, but last year it was bad. Likewise, playing Young without either Beran or Nance was a disaster last year.

I don't really care too much about people's "eye tests" or self-proclaimed expertise on how basketball is played. I care about what works. Dismissing the "+/-" stats is the same as dismissing the score of the game. "Gaines is a great player, but we always seem to fall behind when he's playing" doesn't work for me.

Basketball is a team game and determining which collections of 5 guys work well together is crucial to success.

Even I know that.

I do apologize to the people who are on here frequently and see me posting versions of the same stuff over and over. Its the infrequent posters who spout nonsense and trigger me to re-post the lessons learned from the stats. I will try to rein it in. After all, its a new season!

I think..... if I'm following this whole discussion... that it boils down to one simple point: Young's minutes need to increase. Nance is playing a ton already, so really people on here are arguing that Young should play more of Beran's minutes. We're getting fixated on whether Nance and Young are playing together and who's starting with whom, but if Young's minutes go up and Nance stays the same, then they will be on the court together more by definition.

So, that gets me to wondering if maybe they aren't doing that because Young doesn't have the stamina to play more? He may get into more foul trouble if you extend him? Maybe we'll find out!

 

[GatoLouco]

I think..... if I'm following this whole discussion... that it boils down to one simple point: Young's minutes need to increase. Nance is playing a ton already, so really people on here are arguing that Young should play more of Beran's minutes. We're getting fixated on whether Nance and Young are playing together and who's starting with whom, but if Young's minutes go up and Nance stays the same, then they will be on the court together more by definition.

So, that gets me to wondering if maybe they aren't doing that because Young doesn't have the stamina to play more? He may get into more foul trouble if you extend him? Maybe we'll find out!

Go back to Young's FY, when he started, and played 26 minutes a game. He can play more. Increasing Young's minutes means he will play more with Nance, regardless of starting or coming off the bench (assuming Nance's minutes remain the same, because decreasing them just sounds silly).

It's not unimportant to point out, again, something PWB alluded to: when Young is left out there with (almost only) bench players. If the EIU game is any indication, this will happen again. This time at least we have Williams there with him, instead of 4 guys who can't rebound. Young will not clean up the boards by himself. Will not carry the scoring load by himself. Williams might help the rebound aspect... scoring? TBD.

Don't bench more than two starters at a time.

 

[Smokejumper]

I've missed most of this thread, but i'll interject with this observation from last season and the EIU game. Both Young and Nance pick up sloppy fouls. a lazy reach-in when they lose defensive position and a player is blowing by them to the hoop. This isn't to say they aren't good defenders, but i would argue that it must be frustrating as hell to CCC that Nance or Young have to sit late in the first half to avoid fouling out. not only is there a loss of minutes, but then a loss of flow for the player and the rest of the team.

Is the not having both on the floor at the same time simply a means of conserving some big bodies to endure for the whole game, especially come conference play? If Beran AND Williams play aggressive and can contribute minutes, then maybe CCC will have the luxury of playing Nance and Young at the same time. dunno...

I'll just say that I hope Nance is able to avoid the silly ticky tak fouls this year so that he can comfortably play more aggressive minutes each game.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I've missed most of this thread, but i'll interject with this observation from last season and the EIU game. Both Young and Nance pick up sloppy fouls. a lazy reach-in when they lose defensive position and a player is blowing by them to the hoop. This isn't to say they aren't good defenders, but i would argue that it must be frustrating as hell to CCC that Nance or Young have to sit late in the first half to avoid fouling out. not only is there a loss of minutes, but then a loss of flow for the player and the rest of the team.

Is the not having both on the floor at the same time simply a means of conserving some big bodies to endure for the whole game, especially come conference play? If Beran AND Williams play aggressive and can contribute minutes, then maybe CCC will have the luxury of playing Nance and Young at the same time. dunno...

I'll just say that I hope Nance is able to avoid the silly ticky tak fouls this year so that he can comfortably play more aggressive minutes each game.

fwiw, Young didnt foul out in 20 Big Ten games last year, got up to 4 fouls in 4 games. As a freshman he fouled out once, against Luka Garza. Got to 4 fouls in three other games. He's a heady player in my opinion - the coach should trust him until Young proves otherwise.

Pete Nance did not foul out last year either. Had 4 fouls in 4 different Big Ten games.
The prior year he fouled out once and reached 4 fouls 4 other times vs Big Ten teams.
So he merits trust as well...

My message to Coach Collins is "Don't worry... be happy!"

 

[elgatoloco_rivals308553]

There are likely much better statistics that we don't have access to because they're about floor spacing and who is where on the court. But IMO we've been missing 1) PGs who can break down defenses and either finish efficiently or kick out to open 2) consistent knock-down shooters with a defense anchored by a 3) rim protector who allows defenders to stretch out and challenge 3s.

 

[NUCat320]

There are likely much better statistics that we don't have access to because they're about floor spacing and who is where on the court. But IMO we've been missing 1) PGs who can break down defenses and either finish efficiently or kick out to open 2) consistent knock-down shooters with a defense anchored by a 3) rim protector who allows defenders to stretch out and challenge 3s.

4) anybody that can get to the foul line ever

 

[Smokejumper]

fwiw, Young didnt foul out in 20 Big Ten games last year, got up to 4 fouls in 4 games. As a freshman he fouled out once, against Luka Garza. Got to 4 fouls in three other games. He's a heady player in my opinion - the coach should trust him until Young proves otherwise.

Pete Nance did not foul out last year either. Had 4 fouls in 4 different Big Ten games.
The prior year he fouled out once and reached 4 fouls 4 other times vs Big Ten teams.
So he merits trust as well...

My message to Coach Collins is "Don't worry... be happy!"

Stats are great, until they don’t tell the whole story. Not fouling out might simply mean that the player was largely ineffective while playing with four fouls. How many times have you seen this squad playing in rythym and aggression only to have a key player pickup a second or third foul in the first half.

Some players are able to continue to play within themselves and remain composed and aggressive, while others get in their head and all of a sudden we have a scoring drought for the rest of the half…

Just sayin…

 

[TheC]

fwiw, Young didnt foul out in 20 Big Ten games last year, got up to 4 fouls in 4 games. As a freshman he fouled out once, against Luka Garza. Got to 4 fouls in three other games. He's a heady player in my opinion - the coach should trust him until Young proves otherwise.

Pete Nance did not foul out last year either. Had 4 fouls in 4 different Big Ten games.
The prior year he fouled out once and reached 4 fouls 4 other times vs Big Ten teams.
So he merits trust as well...

My message to Coach Collins is "Don't worry... be happy!"

Interesting. But how many times did they pick up 2 fouls in the first half? Because we all know in college basketball that getting that second foul in the first half means a seat on the bench until the spinning plate lady is finished.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Stats are great, until they don’t tell the whole story. Not fouling out might simply mean that the player was largely ineffective while playing with four fouls. How many times have you seen this squad playing in rythym and aggression only to have a key player pickup a second or third foul in the first half.

Some players are able to continue to play within themselves and remain composed and aggressive, while others get in their head and all of a sudden we have a scoring drought for the rest of the half…

Just sayin…

I agree with that. All I did was report how many times Young and Nance fouled out.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Interesting. But how many times did they pick up 2 fouls in the first half? Because we all know in college basketball that getting that second foul in the first half means a seat on the bench until the spinning plate lady is finished.

Are referring to the incredible Red Panda? Personally, I don't really like "2 fouls gets you benched." as an unbreakable rule. If you are playing against Duke, then yeah. It depends on the opponent.