+/- for the Pitt debacle

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I have to admit, I was not excited to go through the play by play for this one. I ignored the last 2:47 of garbage time.

Player	Mins	NU Pts	Pitt Pts	Raw +/-	Player +/- Adjust	Net +/-
Beran	25	37	58	-21	+4.4	-16.6
Buie	33	47	71	-24	+1.9	-22.1
Audige	31	44	72	-28	-1.0	-29.0
Verhoeven	13	18	25	-7	+1.0	-6.0
Barnhizer	20	28	45	-17	-3.8	-20.8
Berry	27	41	56	-15	-5.8	-20.8
Nicholson	14	17	33	-16	+1.2	-14.8
Martinelli	13	23	34	-11	+3.9	-7.1
Hunger	10	20	26	-6	-1.9	-7.9

Coming into the game, our most productive lineup had been Nicholson/Beran/Barnhizer/Audige/ anybody else.
Those 4 guys played a total of 29 seconds together against Pitt.

Also worth pointing out - the game was another rock fight for the first 11 minutes and the score was 13-13 when Collins shook things up and brought in Martinelli.
Martinelli showed some unorthodox potential, but 3 minutes later Pitt was ahead 21-16 and it was all downhill from there.
Notably, that 3 minute segment we had Martinelli out there with Verhoeven, Beran, Barnhizer and either Audige or Buie. One guard, 4 forwards.
Definitely something different for Collins, but in a troubling way. The game was tied midway through the first half and we went into "try anything" mode.
This may help to explain the confused look on everyone's faces.

I'm worried what comes next.

 

[bringbacktherantboard]

I think everybody gets failing grades, across the board.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I have to admit, I was not excited to go through the play by play for this one. I ignored the last 2:47 of garbage time.

Player	Mins	NU Pts	Pitt Pts	Raw +/-	Player +/- Adjust	Net +/-
Beran	25	37	58	-21	+4.4	-16.6
Buie	33	47	71	-24	+1.9	-22.1
Audige	31	44	72	-28	-1.0	-29.0
Verhoeven	13	18	25	-7	+1.0	-6.0
Barnhizer	20	28	45	-17	-3.8	-20.8
Berry	27	41	56	-15	-5.8	-20.8
Nicholson	14	17	33	-16	+1.2	-14.8
Martinelli	13	23	34	-11	+3.9	-7.1
Hunger	10	20	26	-6	-1.9	-7.9

Coming into the game, our most productive lineup had been Nicholson/Beran/Barnhizer/Audige/ anybody else.
Those 4 guys played a total of 29 seconds together against Pitt.

Also worth pointing out - the game was another rock fight for the first 11 minutes and the score was 13-13 when Collins shook things up and brought in Martinelli.
Martinelli showed some unorthodox potential, but 3 minutes later Pitt was ahead 21-16 and it was all downhill from there.
Notably, that 3 minute segment we had Martinelli out there with Verhoeven, Beran, Barnhizer and either Audige or Buie. One guard, 4 forwards.
Definitely something different for Collins, but in a troubling way. The game was tied midway through the first half and we went into "try anything" mode.
This may help to explain the confused look on everyone's faces.

I'm worried what comes next.

So when those 4 forwards went out on the court, Pitt starting getting open looks outside and the shots began to fall in droves, IIRC.

Not shocking. Two very inexperienced forwards and Beran is not a recipe for lockdown.

At least Hunger and Martinelli got some real minutes.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

So when those 4 forwards went out on the court, Pitt starting getting open looks outside and the shots began to fall in droves, IIRC.

Not shocking. Two very inexperienced forwards and Beran is not a recipe for lockdown.

At least Hunger and Martinelli got some real minutes.

and when Audige came in for Buie, Pitt's point guard pressured Audige in the backcourt and stole the ball.

 

[ballerog711]

Lot of practice time in the next couple of weeks, hopefully the can fix some of the highlighted topics.

 

[GatoLouco]

I can't blame any coach for, though being tied, making changes after only having scored 13 points in 11 minutes. Of course changes don't necessarily have to come in the form of a different lineup, it often is just adjustments on the way of playing.

I am curious if Sunday will be the day big Matt starts. I think there's a solid 5% chance.

 

[ballerog711]

I agree.

The one that drive me nuts is when boo makes a pass and just stands , he could cut and come back to the ball. When he stands, it's let's his man stay in help and prevents the ball handler from penetrating.

For me in sunday iterested on how theyplay Hauser. Do they keep the guard to guard switched or just assign a person. I would stick Chase on him with as little switching as possible.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I was watching the game between Indiana and North Carolina last night.
Jay Bilas was the analyst.

He was fairly adamant that you cannot routinely double the penetrating guard because he will kick it out to a shooter. This was a blanket statement. "If you do that the question you have to ask yourself is 'How do you feel about your opponent taking open shots?'"

He brought it up several times. "If a guy on the perimeter leaves a shooter to go double a guy who is near the basket, he won't be able to get back to his man in time to defend the shot."

He said it like it was a fact, not just his preference.

When UNC took Bacot out and switched Pete Nance to the 5, he immediately stated "Thats really asking a lot of Nance to guard Jackson-Davis in the low post." Made me smile sadly.

 

[ballerog711]

I agree with that, you should not leave the strong side guy to double low in the post. It's math, give 2 rather than 3.

However, the two weak side defenders should be in help as the man is at least two passes away. The would make the pass to the big inside a little harder.

Boo has been struggling this year on either side (strong or weak) which leads to players being out of position and open shots, this is where Roper is missed most.

What his rotations they are a slow.

 

[GatoLouco]

I was watching the game between Indiana and North Carolina last night.
Jay Bilas was the analyst.

He was fairly adamant that you cannot routinely double the penetrating guard because he will kick it out to a shooter. This was a blanket statement. "If you do that the question you have to ask yourself is 'How do you feel about your opponent taking open shots?'"

He brought it up several times. "If a guy on the perimeter leaves a shooter to go double a guy who is near the basket, he won't be able to get back to his man in time to defend the shot."

He said it like it was a fact, not just his preference.

When UNC took Bacot out and switched Pete Nance to the 5, he immediately stated "Thats really asking a lot of Nance to guard Jackson-Davis in the low post." Made me smile sadly.

Bilas has (for me) the annoying trait of speaking in certainties. Not much context around his personal takes.

I heard the same comments on doubling and also thought those were quite blanket statements. He also went on some opinion on how doubling the post with the player on the ball side was basically suicide.

While it is true that the moment you double you are increasing the probably of a (more) open shot, he completely ignored explaining why teams do it and how they mitigate it (rotation, keeping ball out of certain players' hands, having to double if the ball is in the paint, doubling with strong or weak side players, before or after dribbling, hard double or 1/2 way double, and so on).

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Bilas has (for me) the annoying trait of speaking in certainties. Not much context around his personal takes.

I heard the same comments on doubling and also thought those were quite blanket statements. He also went on some opinion on how doubling the post with the player on the ball side was basically suicide.

While it is true that the moment you double you are increasing the probably of a (more) open shot, he completely ignored explaining why teams do it and how they mitigate it (rotation, keeping ball out of certain players' hands, having to double if the ball is in the paint, doubling with strong or weak side players, before or after dribbling, hard double or 1/2 way double, and so on).

Thanks for that info. My own belief is that if you ALWAYS do something, it is really easy for your opponent to plan and execute against you. Doesn't even matter what sport you're playing! Still, its interesting that Bilas is (apparently) so opposed to ever doubling in the post. He may have qualified that with "against good shooting teams" which might explain why Iowa slaughters us every time we face them.

I know you hate zone defense, but NU should try it sometime when we are getting torched.

 

[GatoLouco]

I know you hate zone defense, but NU should try it sometime when we are getting torched.

Haha! I do. But no blanket statement that zone is always bad. It's worth trying sometimes. The worse the players the more it tends to work.

This was even a good CC moment: we probably don't win against Nebraska in the B1G tournament last year if we do not go to zone. Just like we probably don't win it if we did not drop the zone at a point.