Game Thread - UVA, 1/18/2020

[GTbball2016]

I agree recruiting needs to improve big time. It looks like we are set to see a step in the right direction next season.

On the issue of the depth of the bench, I think the current problem is a Pastner problem as much or more than a talent problem. I don't think CJP will go deeper than 7 on a regular basis no matter who he has on the bench. Cole and Moore have each started more than 10 games, and yet they can barely sniff the court right now. I would prefer to see Parham, Cole, Moore, and Price all getting some time off the bench pretty much night in and night out, maybe even Phillips.

We have an offensive strategy issue. You need to be able to make 3 point shots in today’s era. We get outscored from the perimeter nearly every game the last few years.

 

[gte447f]

We have an offensive strategy issue. You need to be able to make 3 point shots in today’s era. We get outscored from the perimeter nearly every game the last few years.

Yep. I'm well aware that we shoot under 30% from 3 as a team.

 

[lv20gt]

On the issue of the depth of the bench, I think the current problem is a Pastner problem as much or more than a talent problem. I don't think CJP will go deeper than 7 on a regular basis no matter who he has on the bench. Cole and Moore have each started more than 10 games, and yet they can barely sniff the court right now. I would prefer to see Parham, Cole, Moore, and Price all getting some time off the bench pretty much night in and night out, maybe even Phillips.

It's easy to say more people should be getting time but who should be getting less?

One of the issues is that if we take out any of Jose, Mike, Moses, or James, we have a significant downgrade in the replacement and that hurts when pretty much all of our games are close for most of the game. Ideally Bubba would be able to spell Jose/Mike longer but he hasn't shown that. We've seen what the team looks like with Jose on the bench and it isn't good. At the 2 spot Mike is a better driver, facilitator, defender, and as good a shooter as Bubba even if Bubba were shooting like he was last year. Same applies to Price. So both Bubba and Price then move on to competing for time at the 3 spot along with Usher and Moore. Cole is in a similar position with not being able to really play for Banks and replace his defense nor does he replace Moses who is just playing better in most ways. Cole hustles and has a knack for making the occasional flashy plays but he also has a tendency to stand and watch. He's worse on both ends than Moses this year by a good margin, and he hasn't proven to be a consistent 3 point shooter to even argue him standing on the perimeter adds value as space creating for drives. Phillips just isn't worth arguing at this point.

So that leaves 5 guys, Usher, Parham, Cole, Moore, and Price vying for the third spot. And because none of them have really stepped up and provided a consistent contribution from that spot, that means when we look to replace someone it's almost always more beneficial to replace the 3. If Usher or Moore were giving us a solid consistent performance we could probably eat the downsides of Cole playing over Wright or Banks, or Bubba playing over Devoe/Alverado, but we aren't getting that. And if we were able to build bigger leads we could use the lead as a bugger to buy some time for those same line ups but we aren't.

 

[MiracleWhips]

It's easy to say more people should be getting time but who should be getting less?

One of the issues is that if we take out any of Jose, Mike, Moses, or James, we have a significant downgrade in the replacement and that hurts when pretty much all of our games are close for most of the game. Ideally Bubba would be able to spell Jose/Mike longer but he hasn't shown that. We've seen what the team looks like with Jose on the bench and it isn't good. At the 2 spot Mike is a better driver, facilitator, defender, and as good a shooter as Bubba even if Bubba were shooting like he was last year. Same applies to Price. So both Bubba and Price then move on to competing for time at the 3 spot along with Usher and Moore. Cole is in a similar position with not being able to really play for Banks and replace his defense nor does he replace Moses who is just playing better in most ways. Cole hustles and has a knack for making the occasional flashy plays but he also has a tendency to stand and watch. He's worse on both ends than Moses this year by a good margin, and he hasn't proven to be a consistent 3 point shooter to even argue him standing on the perimeter adds value as space creating for drives. Phillips just isn't worth arguing at this point.

So that leaves 5 guys, Usher, Parham, Cole, Moore, and Price vying for the third spot. And because none of them have really stepped up and provided a consistent contribution from that spot, that means when we look to replace someone it's almost always more beneficial to replace the 3. If Usher or Moore were giving us a solid consistent performance we could probably eat the downsides of Cole playing over Wright or Banks, or Bubba playing over Devoe/Alverado, but we aren't getting that. And if we were able to build bigger leads we could use the lead as a bugger to buy some time for those same line ups but we aren't.

I have to disagree. I really feel like Cole should be getting minutes at the three. One could argue ‘we wouldn’t have shooting’ but response would be look who we have in the three spot currently and are they shooting the ball any better. The lineup would solve our rebounding problems almost immediately and not to mention our defense would be tremendously better. I really hope we see a lineup of

Alvarado
Bubba
Cole
Wright
Banks

 

[gte447f]

It's easy to say more people should be getting time but who should be getting less?

One of the issues is that if we take out any of Jose, Mike, Moses, or James, we have a significant downgrade in the replacement and that hurts when pretty much all of our games are close for most of the game. Ideally Bubba would be able to spell Jose/Mike longer but he hasn't shown that. We've seen what the team looks like with Jose on the bench and it isn't good. At the 2 spot Mike is a better driver, facilitator, defender, and as good a shooter as Bubba even if Bubba were shooting like he was last year. Same applies to Price. So both Bubba and Price then move on to competing for time at the 3 spot along with Usher and Moore. Cole is in a similar position with not being able to really play for Banks and replace his defense nor does he replace Moses who is just playing better in most ways. Cole hustles and has a knack for making the occasional flashy plays but he also has a tendency to stand and watch. He's worse on both ends than Moses this year by a good margin, and he hasn't proven to be a consistent 3 point shooter to even argue him standing on the perimeter adds value as space creating for drives. Phillips just isn't worth arguing at this point.

So that leaves 5 guys, Usher, Parham, Cole, Moore, and Price vying for the third spot. And because none of them have really stepped up and provided a consistent contribution from that spot, that means when we look to replace someone it's almost always more beneficial to replace the 3. If Usher or Moore were giving us a solid consistent performance we could probably eat the downsides of Cole playing over Wright or Banks, or Bubba playing over Devoe/Alverado, but we aren't getting that. And if we were able to build bigger leads we could use the lead as a bugger to buy some time for those same line ups but we aren't.

It's easy to go position by position and make a talent evaluation and say x is better than y, so x plays and y doesn't, but you can't just play 5 guys 40 minutes each. Cole doesn't have to be as good as Banks and Wright, but he can play the 3/4/5 for 10-20 minutes per game. Bubba doesn't have to be as good as Jose and Mike, but he can play the 1/2/3 for 10-20 minutes per game (he is already playing 20+ routinely). Moore and Price don't have to be as good as Devoe, but they can both play the 2/3 for 10 minutes per game. All 4 of these bench players should be able to come close to matching what Usher is providing at the 3.

The point would be to get Jose and Mike to 30-35 minutes and Moses and James to around 30 minutes, so that we can get more productive minutes out of these starters down the stretch in close games. Mix and match the 3 spot with no one getting more than 20-25 minutes unless someone steps up and starts producing.

With more subs in the game at various times there might be some drop off and there might not be. Devoe played 34+ minutes last game and only took 3 shots and had 5 turnovers. Cole has played very well in sparing minutes the last handful of games. Price was aggressive and got to the free throw line once and scored once on a nice pull up jumper in just 3 or 4 minutes in the last game. Granted, Moore wasn't producing offensively prior to being benched , but he has been a starter, many have said he has a lot of promise, and early in the season he was touted as our best on ball defender.

 

[alagold]

So when does Pastner's time run out? I agree this team is talented enough to make the tournament. How do we make the rotations deeper? Players like Jose, James, and Devoe battle almost every game without rest. That just isn't a formula for success. If one goes down, we are in trouble. Honestly, it's not fair to the players, and they aren't able to really put their best tape out there. Tired legs lead to sloppy play including all the turnovers we have seen. I love the effort the players play with every night, and I don't understand why other players are not given more of a chance to play. Regardless of what happens, I will always support this team. I just want the players and team to be the best it can be.

You are right about playing the guys too much.EVERY yr it seems JA goes out with an injury and we DIE.Its pretty obvious he plays hard and TOO MUCH.

 

[ESPNjacket]

So when does Pastner's time run out? I agree this team is talented enough to make the tournament. How do we make the rotations deeper? Players like Jose, James, and Devoe battle almost every game without rest. That just isn't a formula for success. If one goes down, we are in trouble. Honestly, it's not fair to the players, and they aren't able to really put their best tape out there. Tired legs lead to sloppy play including all the turnovers we have seen. I love the effort the players play with every night, and I don't understand why other players are not given more of a chance to play. Regardless of what happens, I will always support this team. I just want the players and team to be the best it can be.

I stated that I believe the contract was set up to give him 5 years. I don't know how else to answer that.

One makes their rotations deeper by playing more players. Moore and Price have been playing few minutes. They can play more. Cole should play more. Maybe someone else. At that point you are about as deep as anyone gets.

We start turning it over at the opening tip. The turnovers aren't a product of the rotation.

 

[gte447f]

We start turning it over at the opening tip.

I think we can probably all agree to agree on this point.

 

[lv20gt]

I have to disagree. I really feel like Cole should be getting minutes at the three. One could argue ‘we wouldn’t have shooting’ but response would be look who we have in the three spot currently and are they shooting the ball any better. The lineup would solve our rebounding problems almost immediately and not to mention our defense would be tremendously better. I really hope we see a lineup of

Alvarado
Bubba
Cole
Wright
Banks

Sitting Devoe for Cole makes no sense which is basically the line up you suggested. We would be significantly worse off on offense, and we'd be worse off defensively because of Cole having to guard the 3. That'd be true even with Devoe instead of Bubba, but it just is made worse considering Bubba has been a target on defense. But even if Cole is the one getting minuets at the 3, that doesn't really change the issue. It'd just be playing him more than Bubba or Usher and we'd still have issues with depth. Also, offensively, because Cole isn't a threat at all from the outside, either shot or off the dribble, and we'd have Banks and Moses already down inside trying to get position. I also disagree with defense being better at all much less tremendously. Cole is not an overly strong defender, and certainly moreso at the 3. Even in zones he is slow on his rotations when put on the wing,

And in general I have never quite understood a lot of the hype surrounding Cole. He was touted as being more polished than Moses but that wasn't really the case and he's pretty much the same player he was as a freshman.

It's easy to go position by position and make a talent evaluation and say x is better than y, so x plays and y doesn't, but you can't just play 5 guys 40 minutes each. Cole doesn't have to be as good as Banks and Wright, but he can play the 3/4/5 for 10-20 minutes per game. Bubba doesn't have to be as good as Jose and Mike, but he can play the 1/2/3 for 10-20 minutes per game (he is already playing 20+ routinely). Moore and Price don't have to be as good as Devoe, but they can both play the 2/3 for 10 minutes per game. All 4 of these bench players should be able to come close to matching what Usher is providing at the 3.

But giving us what Usher gives us isn't a good thing unless they are replacing Usher. Because replacing any of the other starters with Usher level production is a serious downgrade. And what you're suggesting is either having multiple of those 4 out at a time, or basically keeping one on the bench most of the time. Sure that will lead to being fresher at the end of games, and it'll mean we are behind more unless we magically don't get worse when playing worse players. What is easy is making vague comments about players being able to play x minutes and not having to actually account of the loss of who comes out when they come in. Saying Cole/Moore can give us 10 minutes a game is fine. But there is a large difference between them getting 10 minutes at the 3 in exchange of Bubba/Usher, and 10 minutes in exchange for Banks/Wright/Devoe.

To put it another way, anytime Jose, Mike, Moses, or James comes off the court we are fielding a significantly worse line up. And since we aren't building leads that we can use as buffer we can't really afford to put out lineups that are significantly worse.

 

[MiracleWhips]

Sitting Devoe for Cole makes no sense which is basically the line up you suggested. We would be significantly worse off on offense, and we'd be worse off defensively because of Cole having to guard the 3. That'd be true even with Devoe instead of Bubba, but it just is made worse considering Bubba has been a target on defense. But even if Cole is the one getting minuets at the 3, that doesn't really change the issue. It'd just be playing him more than Bubba or Usher and we'd still have issues with depth. Also, offensively, because Cole isn't a threat at all from the outside, either shot or off the dribble, and we'd have Banks and Moses already down inside trying to get position. I also disagree with defense being better at all much less tremendously. Cole is not an overly strong defender, and certainly moreso at the 3. Even in zones he is slow on his rotations when put on the wing,

And in general I have never quite understood a lot of the hype surrounding Cole. He was touted as being more polished than Moses but that wasn't really the case and he's pretty much the same player he was as a freshman.



But giving us what Usher gives us isn't a good thing unless they are replacing Usher. Because replacing any of the other starters with Usher level production is a serious downgrade. And what you're suggesting is either having multiple of those 4 out at a time, or basically keeping one on the bench most of the time. Sure that will lead to being fresher at the end of games, and it'll mean we are behind more unless we magically don't get worse when playing worse players. What is easy is making vague comments about players being able to play x minutes and not having to actually account of the loss of who comes out when they come in. Saying Cole/Moore can give us 10 minutes a game is fine. But there is a large difference between them getting 10 minutes at the 3 in exchange of Bubba/Usher, and 10 minutes in exchange for Banks/Wright/Devoe.

To put it another way, anytime Jose, Mike, Moses, or James comes off the court we are fielding a significantly worse line up. And since we aren't building leads that we can use as buffer we can't really afford to put out lineups that are significantly worse.

Sorry I was giving the lineup with the notion that devoe was already hurt.

When all are healthy I think it should be
Alvarado
Devoe
Cole
Wright
Banks.


As far as a step down offensively how? Usher and Cole pretty much get their buckets off cuts. We’ve seen usher try to create off the dribble and that tends to end up in forced shots or TOs.
If you are worried about guarding a ‘3’ in man to man defense that’s fine. Stick Wright out there. One problem that pastner has addressed is our ability to defensive rebound. If you put Cole out there I’m sure we wouldn’t be bringing that issue up anymore

 

[gte447f]

To put it another way, anytime Jose, Mike, Moses, or James comes off the court we are fielding a significantly worse line up. And since we aren't building leads that we can use as buffer we can't really afford to put out lineups that are significantly worse.

OK, just so we all understand, your position is specifically that Jose, Mike, Moses and James should never come off of the court and should each play 40 minutes per game, and more generally that no player should ever be substituted for another player unless they are a 1:1 replacement talent wise.

I don’t think even you believe that, and so I don’t understand why you keep arguing it so fervently. If you do believe that then you don’t understand the concept of substitutions. The whole point of substitutions, aside from managing foul trouble or offense for defense or other special situations, is to manage player fatigue. Very few teams have 1:1 talent substitutions on their bench.

 

[lv20gt]

Sorry I was giving the lineup with the notion that devoe was already hurt.

When all are healthy I think it should be
Alvarado
Devoe
Cole
Wright
Banks.


As far as a step down offensively how? Usher and Cole pretty much get their buckets off cuts. We’ve seen usher try to create off the dribble and that tends to end up in forced shots or TOs.
If you are worried about guarding a ‘3’ in man to man defense that’s fine. Stick Wright out there. One problem that pastner has addressed is our ability to defensive rebound. If you put Cole out there I’m sure we wouldn’t be bringing that issue up anymore

I'm all for trying basically anyone at the three. That doesn't address the depth issues though. Cole for Usher is at a zero sum substitution. Trading strengths. I think Usher is better offensively because he is a threat to drive and better suited for guarding most wings, but Cole is a better rebounder and won't turn the ball over as much. Defensively, I think forcing Moses outside during man is also a downgrade. So I don't have a problem with that suggestion overall but it doesn't really solve the issue.

OK, just so we all understand, your position is specifically that Jose, Mike, Moses and James should never come off of the court and should each play 40 minutes per game, and more generally that no player should ever be substituted for another player unless they are a 1:1 replacement talent wise.

No, my position is that we can't afford to have long stretches with any of those 4 off the court being replaced by players none of whom have taken control over the wide open 3 spot. If Cole/Bubba/Usher/Moore had stepped up like Moses has at the 4 then we could afford a drop off when one of the 4 mentioned comes out. As it stands we can't. If we were getting 10+ point leads then we could afford to. If there were just slight drop offs we could. If we had someone playing at an all american level able to take over the game for stretches we could do it. But none of that is true. Instead we are in dogfights where if we try and go 10 minute stretches with one of those 4 out we run a really big risk of getting into a hole. And it doesn't help to keep the players fresh for the end if they don't have a chance at the end due to getting further behind.

So I agree we need to fix our depth issues. I don't agree that the fix is simply just to play worse players more. We have to get better play from those players and that would show itself in someone taking firm control of the 3 spot like Moses did earlier in the year at the 4. If that happens then the drop off when one of the others came out wouldn't have as large an impact because we'd still have 4 ACC quality starters. We'd also likely build more double digit leads which then could be used to buy time for rest. But it starts with improved play from the bench, not with just arbitrarily giving them more minutes.

 

[awbuzz]

We have an offensive strategy issue. You need to be able to make 3 point shots in today’s era. We get outscored from the perimeter nearly every game the last few years.

Also need to be a little better the 33% from the FT line. Go 6/9 and we probably win the game.

 

[tsrich]

Not defending our loss, but I still expect UVa to make the NCAAs. They are a good/great defensive team, and should win enough games in a bad ACC to make the tournament.
I would not bet much on them reaching the second weekend.

Ok, I now take back the part about them winning enough games to make the NCAAs. I still won't bet on them making the second weekend

 

[Buzzbomb]

Va. lost at home tonight to NC St.

 

[gtpi]

Va. lost at home tonight to NC St.

not looking like good loss i guess

 

[YlJacket]

Not a bad loss by any stretch. Just a missed opportunity for a badly needed good win.
FWIW I think both UVA and NCSU get in the tourney with a 25% or less chance of seeing the second weekend.

 

[first&ten]

I don’t think we dominated an opponent when we gave up 56 points in a half and let one guy score 35 points. We played about even in every statistical category except shooting percentage because they missed 15 shots in a row to start the game, but I’m not trying to argue about your opinion of 1 game. I’m glad we won the game, but I think it’s telling that our best win of the season so far is against what appears to be the worst team in the conference. They are after all the only other team with a losing record. It doesn’t really help to point to a victory over the worst team in the conference as an example of playing good basketball. That should be the expected outcome unless our team is also terrible. Through 60% of the season we have basically no quality wins, losses in almost every game of consequence plus several games that are supposedly of no consequence (e.g. uga), and a bunch of moral victories. I just don’t think we are on the verge of being a tourney team. I think we were basically out of it before conference play even started because if we finished .500 in conference play, which is looking unlikely at this point, we still would have had only 16 wins without the Acc tourney. We’re looking like a bottom tier Acc team again. I think, but I’m not sure, that our talent level has finally risen above that level, so I’m left thinking that it is probably coaching that is holding us back. This is just my disappointed opinion of the status of the team at this point in the season. Call it weak if you want.

Good post, right on point. If Tech loses the appeal McCamish is going to be a ghost town next season.

 

[Connell62]

Good post, right on point. If Tech loses the appeal McCamish is going to be a ghost town next season.

I'll be there either way.

 

[ESPNjacket]

Good post, right on point. If Tech loses the appeal McCamish is going to be a ghost town next season.

I don't think one person with season tickets this year bought them because of the possibility of going to the NCAAT.

We are at the loyal core at this point.