- Messages
- 5,902
I'm not going to try to look forward as right now no one knows what things will look like in the fall, so I am only going to look back at the prior season.
Two weeks ago I would probably have given the season at that point a C- grade, but looking back on the totality of the season I am going with a B-. There are some areas where expectations for me were not met, but there are other areas where they were exceeded.
Let's start with the biggest, most important piece. My goal for this year's team was to be a bubble NCAA team. It failed to be that. it failed to be that not because it was not talented enough (it was), nor was it about not playing well enough - at the end of the year this team was clearly playing at least at an NCAA bubble level. The reason it was not an NCAA bubble team is that it lost too many games early in the season. I said before the season if this team could muddle through at .500 until the home game against NCST in late Jan, that the schedule changes in its favor to make a run in February. That is what happened, but instead of being .500 it was 8-11. Two more wins would have made the difference. That means the gut punch loss to ARK and any of the close losses in early Jan they failed to pull out killed it. (As well as not showing up for the Ball St game).
They played the type of schedule that you needed to play for the committee - it was the 2nd toughest OOC SOS in the ACC behind UNC's and one of the 10-12 most difficult OOC schedules played by Power 6 conference teams (Most of the top 50 OOC SoS are by low to mid majors that play a whole bunch of power 6 teams to make money for their programs). They would have likely been selected for the NIT, but the NCAA was out of reach.
That was the biggest negative for this year's team. On the positive side is this. 5 conference road wins ties for the most ever for a GT basketball team with the 85-86 squad and the 95-96 squad. They both obviously played fewer ACC road games. Only 4 other GT teams have won 50% of their road contests - the 92-93 team with Forrest and Best, the 01-02 team with Akins and the FR that would make up the FF squad, 03-04 FF squad and the 07-08 team that had Smith, Lawal, Morrow, Miller and Bell as starters.
This team also was the first team since the 03-04 team to win over 50% of its ACC games. That is something that Cremins did 6 times in his 19 seasons and Hewitt once in his 11 seasons. Even in a down year in the ACC, that is something to be proud of. Especially when you are just one of 8 teams in over 40 years at GT to do it.
The 17 regular season wins ties with Pastner's 1st season for 3rd best over the last 13 years behind only the 18 win regular season of Gregory's final year and the 19 win regular season of our last NCAA Tourney team in 2009-2010. if you want to go back 15 seasons it ties for 4th with the 20 win regular season of 06-07 also being ahead of it (that's the Young/Crittenton team).
Also, its KenPom and Sagarin ratings are the third highest over the last 13 years as well behind only the 09-10 NCAA Tourney team and Gregory's last team. This year's KenPom and Sagarin are higher than Pastner's first team. 4th highest if you go back 15 years.
Given the solid forward movement this year a B- seemed a fair grade. Short of where I think they could have been, but better than they have been over most of the last 13-15 years.
Now every team has strengths and weaknesses, so lets look at that in terms of GT's performance. I look only at the 20 ACC games for this compared to the other 14 ACC teams. Let's look at where it struggled first.
GT was last in TO in ACC games, 13th in A:TO ratio, last in opponent steals allowed (that goes hand in hand with the TO), 12th in FT% and finally they were 14th in Personal fouls committed. Basically they turned the ball over too much, fouled too much and missed too many FT. But they also did alot of things well so lets look at those.
GT was 2nd in the ACC in FG%, tied for 5th in 3FG%, tied for 3rd in opponents FG%, 3rd in opponents 3FG%, 4th in assists, 6th in opponents A:TO ratio, 6th in blocks, 6th in steals, 5th in rebound margin and 6th in PPG margin. Basically GT was good at shooting the ball both in the lane and from 3-pt range and good at defending opponents both in the lane and from the 3-pt range. GT was also in the top third of the league in rebound margin and almost top 3rd in blocks and steals. They were also a top third team in terms of assists (they just turned the ball over too much as well).
In conclusion the team was good at shooting (other than FT) - only Duke shot better from the field overall and only L'ville, FSU, Duke and Wake were betting shooting threes. Defensively they were very good at defending, only UVA and FSU held opponents to lower shooting percentages and only UVA and Duke held opponents to lower 3FG% (UVA .288, Duke .290, GT .292). GT was basically top third or close to it in every defensive category and in offensive shooting. Their weakness was in turning the ball over too much and getting beat at the FT line where they missed too many FT's and fouled opponents too much.
Looking at players here are how my rankings topped out. My rankings are based on ACC stats only and a player has to have either played in a minimum of 15 ACC games or a minimum of 10 mpg. This year that meant 129 players. That is typical as most years it has been between 128-132 players.
Alvarado was #6 overall
Devoe #13
Wright #36
Banks #39
Usher #63
Parham #93
Cole #100
Moore #115
I tend to think of the rankings like this. 1-25 are potential All-ACC level performers. 26-50 are solid ACC starters. 51-75 are low level ACC starters or high level backups. 76-95 are solid backups. Below 95 are deep reserves.
Looking at GT. The starting 5 is pretty good. But the depth was definitely lacking.
Devoe and Alvarado were both good 3-pt shooters. For those making at least one three pointer per game Devoe was 6th in the league in 3FG% and Alvarado was 25th. The top 5 were Gibbs (ND), Hemenway (Clem), Vassell (FSU), Cone (VT), McMahan (L'ville).
Banks and Wright were good shooters close to the basket with Banks being 12th and Wright being 20th among those who made at least 2 shots per game. Devoe was 31st in this category and alvarado 40th.
Banks was 7th in RPG and Wright was 14th.
Alvarado was 8th in APG and Devoe 12th.
Alvarado was 1st in SPG, Devoe 24th and Banks 28th.
Banks was 3rd in BPG and Wright 10th.
One last thought I have on players. it is hard to underestimate the impact Jose has on this team. He reminds me more of Mark Price than any player at GT since Mark. Jose is not the shooter Mark was, but both are undersized guards that are intensely competitive and are able to make their teammates and team better.
Harpring would be next on my list of GT players that are just intensely competitive and hate to lose so much.
I am cautiously optimistic about next year. Key word is cautiously. Every team is different, even ones that return most of their roster. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. Next year's squad will not be a carbon copy of this one. But the raw material is there to be an NCAA team. it's up to the coaches and the players to make it happen. They also will have to do it in a conference that should be stronger than this year. Alot of teams had mini rebuilding years. But the majority of teams are losing fewer players this offseason compared to last year.
Two weeks ago I would probably have given the season at that point a C- grade, but looking back on the totality of the season I am going with a B-. There are some areas where expectations for me were not met, but there are other areas where they were exceeded.
Let's start with the biggest, most important piece. My goal for this year's team was to be a bubble NCAA team. It failed to be that. it failed to be that not because it was not talented enough (it was), nor was it about not playing well enough - at the end of the year this team was clearly playing at least at an NCAA bubble level. The reason it was not an NCAA bubble team is that it lost too many games early in the season. I said before the season if this team could muddle through at .500 until the home game against NCST in late Jan, that the schedule changes in its favor to make a run in February. That is what happened, but instead of being .500 it was 8-11. Two more wins would have made the difference. That means the gut punch loss to ARK and any of the close losses in early Jan they failed to pull out killed it. (As well as not showing up for the Ball St game).
They played the type of schedule that you needed to play for the committee - it was the 2nd toughest OOC SOS in the ACC behind UNC's and one of the 10-12 most difficult OOC schedules played by Power 6 conference teams (Most of the top 50 OOC SoS are by low to mid majors that play a whole bunch of power 6 teams to make money for their programs). They would have likely been selected for the NIT, but the NCAA was out of reach.
That was the biggest negative for this year's team. On the positive side is this. 5 conference road wins ties for the most ever for a GT basketball team with the 85-86 squad and the 95-96 squad. They both obviously played fewer ACC road games. Only 4 other GT teams have won 50% of their road contests - the 92-93 team with Forrest and Best, the 01-02 team with Akins and the FR that would make up the FF squad, 03-04 FF squad and the 07-08 team that had Smith, Lawal, Morrow, Miller and Bell as starters.
This team also was the first team since the 03-04 team to win over 50% of its ACC games. That is something that Cremins did 6 times in his 19 seasons and Hewitt once in his 11 seasons. Even in a down year in the ACC, that is something to be proud of. Especially when you are just one of 8 teams in over 40 years at GT to do it.
The 17 regular season wins ties with Pastner's 1st season for 3rd best over the last 13 years behind only the 18 win regular season of Gregory's final year and the 19 win regular season of our last NCAA Tourney team in 2009-2010. if you want to go back 15 seasons it ties for 4th with the 20 win regular season of 06-07 also being ahead of it (that's the Young/Crittenton team).
Also, its KenPom and Sagarin ratings are the third highest over the last 13 years as well behind only the 09-10 NCAA Tourney team and Gregory's last team. This year's KenPom and Sagarin are higher than Pastner's first team. 4th highest if you go back 15 years.
Given the solid forward movement this year a B- seemed a fair grade. Short of where I think they could have been, but better than they have been over most of the last 13-15 years.
Now every team has strengths and weaknesses, so lets look at that in terms of GT's performance. I look only at the 20 ACC games for this compared to the other 14 ACC teams. Let's look at where it struggled first.
GT was last in TO in ACC games, 13th in A:TO ratio, last in opponent steals allowed (that goes hand in hand with the TO), 12th in FT% and finally they were 14th in Personal fouls committed. Basically they turned the ball over too much, fouled too much and missed too many FT. But they also did alot of things well so lets look at those.
GT was 2nd in the ACC in FG%, tied for 5th in 3FG%, tied for 3rd in opponents FG%, 3rd in opponents 3FG%, 4th in assists, 6th in opponents A:TO ratio, 6th in blocks, 6th in steals, 5th in rebound margin and 6th in PPG margin. Basically GT was good at shooting the ball both in the lane and from 3-pt range and good at defending opponents both in the lane and from the 3-pt range. GT was also in the top third of the league in rebound margin and almost top 3rd in blocks and steals. They were also a top third team in terms of assists (they just turned the ball over too much as well).
In conclusion the team was good at shooting (other than FT) - only Duke shot better from the field overall and only L'ville, FSU, Duke and Wake were betting shooting threes. Defensively they were very good at defending, only UVA and FSU held opponents to lower shooting percentages and only UVA and Duke held opponents to lower 3FG% (UVA .288, Duke .290, GT .292). GT was basically top third or close to it in every defensive category and in offensive shooting. Their weakness was in turning the ball over too much and getting beat at the FT line where they missed too many FT's and fouled opponents too much.
Looking at players here are how my rankings topped out. My rankings are based on ACC stats only and a player has to have either played in a minimum of 15 ACC games or a minimum of 10 mpg. This year that meant 129 players. That is typical as most years it has been between 128-132 players.
Alvarado was #6 overall
Devoe #13
Wright #36
Banks #39
Usher #63
Parham #93
Cole #100
Moore #115
I tend to think of the rankings like this. 1-25 are potential All-ACC level performers. 26-50 are solid ACC starters. 51-75 are low level ACC starters or high level backups. 76-95 are solid backups. Below 95 are deep reserves.
Looking at GT. The starting 5 is pretty good. But the depth was definitely lacking.
Devoe and Alvarado were both good 3-pt shooters. For those making at least one three pointer per game Devoe was 6th in the league in 3FG% and Alvarado was 25th. The top 5 were Gibbs (ND), Hemenway (Clem), Vassell (FSU), Cone (VT), McMahan (L'ville).
Banks and Wright were good shooters close to the basket with Banks being 12th and Wright being 20th among those who made at least 2 shots per game. Devoe was 31st in this category and alvarado 40th.
Banks was 7th in RPG and Wright was 14th.
Alvarado was 8th in APG and Devoe 12th.
Alvarado was 1st in SPG, Devoe 24th and Banks 28th.
Banks was 3rd in BPG and Wright 10th.
One last thought I have on players. it is hard to underestimate the impact Jose has on this team. He reminds me more of Mark Price than any player at GT since Mark. Jose is not the shooter Mark was, but both are undersized guards that are intensely competitive and are able to make their teammates and team better.
Harpring would be next on my list of GT players that are just intensely competitive and hate to lose so much.
I am cautiously optimistic about next year. Key word is cautiously. Every team is different, even ones that return most of their roster. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. Next year's squad will not be a carbon copy of this one. But the raw material is there to be an NCAA team. it's up to the coaches and the players to make it happen. They also will have to do it in a conference that should be stronger than this year. Alot of teams had mini rebuilding years. But the majority of teams are losing fewer players this offseason compared to last year.