Review of the season

[RamblinRed]

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.

 

[orientalnc]

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.

This is good. Very good.

 

[Jacket Forever]

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.

Excellente' and better than anything else available. Outstanding, Rambling Red! I too am (very) cautiously optimistic about 2020-2021. We HAVE to find some team depth though. We have very little. When Jose goes down so do we, mostly. Generally, in most sports, a team generally goes only so far is only as it's back-ups can take them for at least a short spell. CJP also needs to find a way to get more offensive production from Moore and Parham. Very nice article and post. Jacket Forever!

 

[Novajacket]

Nice write up as always. One thing that I haven’t seen discussed is the offensive system changes. I think that was one of the reasons for the high TO rate. Hopefully if we stay in the same system next year, we will be more careful with the ball. Looking forward to seeing the team next year.

 

[slugboy]

When you ranked Alavardo #6 and Devoe #13, what’s the ranking you’re using? Points? Plus/Minus?
I read a few times, and I couldn’t tell what you were using for the ranking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[YlJacket]

Red as always has a very nice summary of the stats for the season. We were an above average defensive team and a so/so offensive team. To complete the picture I would add one more stat and a bit of eyeball test to say why my optimism for next year is very cautious indeed.

We shoot a decent percentage from 3 point land but turn the ball over a ton. I will add that we shot the least number of 3's in conference play by a fairly wide margin. We were dead last at 323 three point shots taken for the conference season. The mid point was over a 100 more and ND shot over 230 more just in conference games. Net effect is that while we were not bad on a percentage basis we were really not a threat from 3. So now to the eyeball test. We switched to a guard centric dribble drive offense after Hawaii that fit our 2 guards a lot better. High ball screen and see if Jose or DeVoe can penetrate. The eyeballs told me we didn't move the ball much before setting a single high screen so defenses really didn't move and we didn't kick the ball out for 3 point shots much so defenses never really had to rotate and were able to help a ton on penetration in the lane. So Jose and Devoe were trying to get to the rim with 2 or 3 defenders in the lane. No wonder we turned it over a bunch driving into the teeth of the defense the way we did.

Next year we have to get movement into our offense to get defenses moving and at least occupied by movement to lessen the amount of help when Jose or DeVoe (or Usher) drive to the rim. We also have to be able to kick and make 3's on a routine basis or the spacing is still going to suck for trying to get to the rim.

At a higher level of strategery, it is really hard to run a dribble drive offense with a double post set without a lot more movement than we have and without a legit 3 point threat at the 3 spot. The lane is just too crowded. That is why I am not too worried about having Moses at the 5 and Usher at the 4 next year. Yes we will not be as good defensively but I believe it will open up the lane - IF we can find a 3 who can make 3 point shots.

One other stat I have looked for and wish I had was points in transition for GT and opponents - my expectation is we were crushed on that stat. Right now my eyeballs tell me everything we do is hard on the offensive end. We come down against set defenses and rarely get anything easy. Outside of UVA - the normal coaching adage is he who gets the easier baskets wins. And that ain't us. If we can play decent/acceptable defense (including rebounding) with Moses and Usher at the 5/4, I hope we can really look to run next year or at minimum push the ball to see if we can get some mismatches in transition D we can exploit.

Too early to get overly dogmatic about next year and I am really curious to see who may come walking through the grad transfer portal door, but regardless I do think we have to look to improve on offense next year if we want to make the tourney - even if it means we take a quarter step back on D which I think we will.

 

[orientalnc]

I mostly agree with these posts. Turnovers and fouls came in clusters at times. Wright and Devoe were frequent culprits. That needs to change.

 

[SecretAgentBuzz]

Great write-up, Red! Always look forward to your posts. I agree--the core is there to have a good season next year, but it has been one excuse after another. I'm hoping next year is the year that the excuses go away and we play up to our potential. We could certainly use another 3-point shooter and a defensive big man. Any ideas on who those guys might be? Maxwell and Saba? Grad transfers?

Go Jackets!

 

[RamblinRed]

The ranking is my own. I have a formula that takes every piece of information provided on a stat sheet, weights them and comes up with final per minute and per game numbers.

It's somewhat similar to PER, but not exactly the same. It's not perfect by any means, but i'm pretty comfortable with it as having used it for about 5 years now i think it does a solid job of ranking players.

 

[RamblinRed]

As far as next season that is sort of hard to think about but here it goes.

Personally I would play more 3 guard offense with a rotation of Jose, Mike, Bubba and Tristan. It's pretty easy to see a path where those 4 play 100-110 min at the 1-3. Then you could use Usher or Moore if you wanted to more traditional SF type at the 3. I agree that it would be nice to have one more consistent 3-pt shooter to go with Jose and Mike. My hope is that either Bubba (who shot almost 40% from three befor arriving at McCamish) or Tristan (who is a very strong scorer at all 3 levels) can provide that. That would help with the more dribble drive intensive offense we installed. As YI posted we need more movement off the ball off the single and double screens we set for Jose and Mike and even Usher.

ironically, both Jose and Mike are really crafty penetrators. They are not straight line speed guys to the basket, rather they are more change of speed and both are good (especially Jose) at keeping their dribble alive - which with better off ball movement should lead to alot of good looks for teammates. Usher is the opposite. He is a straight line speed and stength guy barreling toward the hoop. That leaves less time for teammates to move, but when they do they tend to have really good looks as defenders collapse on him.

Right now I would start a lineup of Jose, Mike, one of Bubba/Tristan, Usher, Moses. I like the idea of playing Usher solid min at the 4. He is well built and athletic and skilled enough to force a 4 to move out to guard him, which would create more space in the paint area for Moses and for penetration. Now that lineup would obviously be weaker defensively than this year, but hopefully you make it up with better offense.

I would not expect any grad transfer we got at the 5 to play as much as Banks did. That is unrealistic. A more realistic idea is if you can get a top tier grad transfer big who is a good rim protector, they might play 20 min or a little more.

There is alot of guards and forwards in transfer portal right now, not very many centers. The only center i've seen in the portal that i would have much interest in right now is the one for Loyola Marymount. 7'2, 250 Swedish native. Was a 2 yr starter until taking this year off after his mother passed away.

 

[MtnWasp]

I see three big questions for next season:

1. Can Alvarado and Devoe stay healthy for an entire season? Both players have been fragile thus far. While it is nice in theory to say we should have depth, there is no way that we realistically can expect that there would be no drop-off with them not on the court. We need them both to make the NCAAT.

2. How do we defend the post? Yl and I will go back and forth on this all off-season, I suppose. I just don't see Moses Wright as an adequate strong side post defender. He looks out of place bellying-up players establishing post position. I think Wright is a natural face-up player and that if we try to develop him as a back to the basket player then we will be pushing rocks up hill and it will be a step backward. We'll have to see what kind of post roster additions we add this Spring. But even if the only thing we ask Gigiberia is to stand in the middle of the paint with his arms strait up my be an option for no other reason than it allows Wright to play his more natural position.

3. Depth. Can the Freshmen play? Can the staff upgrade the talent level over last year via the Freshmen and Spring roster acquisitions? I know there is some banter about landing a transfer PG with more than one year of eligibility remaining for this Spring. I think this could hurt our chances of landing a high school pG from the class of 2021. Leaning heavily on transfers can be a self-perpetuating strategy. I don't think we need to be looking to be turning over the PG position every couple of years so, I prefer to land a high school player at that position for 2021. If you need to bring in a transfer to babysit the Freshman PG for a year, I would bring one in next Spring, not this Spring. Whether or not Maxwell projects to be a lead guard is another wild-card on this topic. I like Maxwell's scoring ability but he will need some major work on conditioning to defend on the ball in the ACC.

We need to land at least two 4-star players from the class of 2021 this Fall.

 

[glandon1960]

Reds posts are spot on as usual.

I noticed that late in the season, teams began to clog the middle on the drives (causing turnovers or difficult shots), or having the big jump out so strong the guard had no real option (Pitt did this .... and we eventually countered by driving with no big setting the screen or having the guard set the screen). More movement from the SF position and someone there that is strong threat from three are how to counter that.

My eyes told me (and Red's metrics backed it up) - we became a good to very good offensive team - WHEN - we did not turn it over.
We did not shoot a lot of threes, which is fine if you're shooting good percentage inside which is what we were doing.
I am curious how the coaches will work to limit turnovers (some things you can teach, some you can not easily teach). FT shooting hurt us at times - you can work on that .. and we fouled more than most teams do especially in man defense (need to work on that).

I am not comfortable with Moses playing 30 minutes as the '5'. I expect either Saba or a GT will need to play 20+ minutes at the center (scoring a bonus,need to rebound and play post defense). We may also need to adjusts how we play interior defense (more guards doubling down?).

 

[YlJacket]

I see three big questions for next season:

2. How do we defend the post? Yl and I will go back and forth on this all off-season, I suppose. I just don't see Moses Wright as an adequate strong side post defender. He looks out of place bellying-up players establishing post position. I think Wright is a natural face-up player and that if we try to develop him as a back to the basket player then we will be pushing rocks up hill and it will be a step backward. We'll have to see what kind of post roster additions we add this Spring. But even if the only thing we ask Gigiberia is to stand in the middle of the paint with his arms strait up my be an option for no other reason than it allows Wright to play his more natural position.

Your position on Moses is not unreasonable but I think you are mixing things up in the way you are expressing it. No question Moses is not a classic 5 as far as a strong side post defender. If/when he plays the 5 on defense we are either going to have to play zone or change the way we play defense and double the post routinely - whether from guards or the backside forward (aka UVA).

What I don't think this means is that we have to or want to play Moses as a grind it out on the block old school 5 on offense. Moses can and should be a great modern big looking to set ball screens and make rim runs. Or get the ball around the foul line and go to work. In fact if we keep the dribble drive offense and have folks trying to get to the rim routinely, the last thing I want is Moses (or any 5 really) thinking they need to camp out on the block with their defender there to help on the drive. If he were matched on a 5, I could even see us playing some 5 out offense to really open things up. My 2 keys on offense next year are opening up the lane (spacing) and pushing the ball. That plays to our strength but it is a totally (well mostly totally) different way of playing than the double post or Moses in the corner as a 4 offense we have played. With Moses at the 5 I think we can improve more on offense than we will admittedly lose on defense.

 

[MtnWasp]

In my eyes, Moses Wright is a pivotal player for next year because he is a player that could really push through and be an NBA prospect or could stagnate. He does some things very well but he is still not polished and versatile enough to be a star (who can produce while being the focus of the defense). I don't think his upside on defense is nearly as good as on the offensive side of the ball, where he has a tall ceiling.

He struggled at the end of the year as ACC coaches played to his limitations. The book on him was obviously to be physical with him and to force him baseline and keep him away from the elbow where his quickness caused all kinds of headaches. So, they just started to muscle him to pin him baseline where he didn't have room to operate. When Banks got into foul trouble and Pastner stuck Moses at the five, the opposition relentlessly posted-up on him and beat the snot out of him.

This will likely be controversial: Because I think that Wright has the size and athleticism to be an NBA face-up forward, and that he has put in the time and stuck with the program, I think it would send the wrong message to recruits to stick him down in the post I think Wright deserves to be developed at his best prospective position and that we should not sacrifice the pro aspirations of a Senior player.

As a face-up player, when Moses is guarded by a big, he has the handles to win that match-up, but when he is guarded by a wing, his handle has been a negative match-up. The staff has focused on Moses backing defenders down and using the standard back-to-the-basket moves to get a shot-up. But against physical post defenders Wright is either prone to offensive fouls or getting stoned on double teams. If he gets the ball at the elbow, he usually has the room to out-quick man defense.

But I would be working to develop a turn-around jumper at the elbow with him. I think he could successfully take on double teams with that shot and avoid having to turn his back to the basket, which is not his best thing. Improve his handle on the drive and develop the mid-range game is where the focus should be. Do that and he has a chance to earn a lot of money playing the game after GT.

As you say, we could play him at the five and change our style of play to protect him. But the opposition will work hard to be physical with him and ACC coaches are way too good to hide weaknesses for long.

 

[YlJacket]

If Moses can survive on D and we open the lane for Jose/DeVoe/Usher to drive I will take Moses being muscled a bit In reality I agree with 98% of what you typed - I just think we can keep him in space on the offensive end against a big (not a wing) and use that more to our advantage than we get hurt on D - especially if he can bulk up 5 maybe 10 lbs. But I am expecting we can change our D to having the backside forward come double (my preferred alternative) routinely enough to keep him out of foul trouble.

As for the NBA, Moses is never going to be a wing as he can't spread the floor from 3. So the difference between a pick/rim runner and a face up forward ain't that much. A few 15 to 18 foot jumpers. Neither is a back to the basket player. And I don't expect him to be next year either.

 

[lv20gt]

I think we could get away with Moses at the 5 but I think people are twisting themselves into knots trying to avoid the simplest answer. We are graduating are only real center. We're bringing in a 4* ~100 ranked center. The simple answer is play the only center you have.

IMO the path for success next year is fairly simple. Try to land Kai Sotto. If not try to land a grad transfer big. Let's say we whiff on Sotto but land Markusson. Do that and we have a very natural line up of

PG - Alvarado - Parham
SG - Devoe - Maxwell
SF - Usher - Moore
PF - Wright - Meka
C - Gigiberia - Markusson (or flipped)

Obviously it doesn't have to be 1 to 1 replacements as I would expect Parham to be the first off the bench for whoever comes out of the first 3. I would expect Moses to still slide to the 5 some and Usher to the 4 some but it would be based more on matchups than as a general base.

Now, maybe Saba isn't ready to start. But I don't think playing 3 players out of position is a better prospect to me. To me, that really only makes sense if Parham/Moore/Maxwell steps up and plays at a level similar to Devoe.

 

[YlJacket]

The con is playing a center who doesn't make the travel team at his high school in the ACC before he is ready. And FWIW we played Bubba with Jose and DeVoe a ton this year so not sure it is out of position going forward.

On the other side IMHO this really isn't about Moses it is about Jose and DeVoe. Especially Jose. The strength of our offense is Jose's penetration - and DeVoe's to a lesser extent. I don't know why we want to play a double post offense with 2 guys in or around the paint right where Jose is going to try to penetrate and do something with the ball - besides turn it over. We need to be thinking about ways to open the floor and the best idea out there is to space the floor and give Jose room to operate freely. We are not doing that with a base offense of Moses at the 4 - it will be the same as last year only not as good.

One final thought - in today's game playing Moses at the 5 and Usher at the 4 is not really "out of position". I am as old school as anyone on this board and played/ coached double post offenses for years but the modern game is a spacing game with guys like Moses at the 5 and "undersized" but athletic guys like Usher at the 4. In the ACC there are a lot more teams with a smaller stretch 4 type of player than there are UNC's still playing a classic double post.

IMHO we desperately need another 3 point threat on the court next year and that is going to be at the 3. If Usher ramps his 3 point shooting up and Saba comes in as the second coming of Shaq then by all means put Moses at the 4 and see what happens. I just don't expect both of those 2 things to happen.

 

[Fatmike91]

IMHO we desperately need another 3 point threat on the court next year and that is going to be at the 3. If Usher ramps his 3 point shooting up and Saba comes in as the second coming of Shaq then by all means put Moses at the 4 and see what happens. I just don't expect both of those 2 things to happen.

This is spot on. We need more handles and 3 point shooting from Usher/Moore if we are going to take the next step as a program. I expect to see 3 guards a lot.


BTW - I'll review the season: It was good enough to get RamblinRed to post about hoops again.

/

 

[lv20gt]

One final thought - in today's game playing Moses at the 5 and Usher at the 4 is not really "out of position". I am as old school as anyone on this board and played/ coached double post offenses for years but the modern game is a spacing game with guys like Moses at the 5 and "undersized" but athletic guys like Usher at the 4. In the ACC there are a lot more teams with a smaller stretch 4 type of player than there are UNC's still playing a classic double post.

Moses was a beneficiary of going up against those smaller guys at the 4. He has a combination of size and athleticism that created a match up problem that just doesn't exist with him at the 5. He doesn't have that shot or ball handling skills to take advantage of the match up against opposing centers. Furthermore, Usher at the 4 doesn't space the floor out. He shot 20% from 3. Lastly Bubba didn't demonstrate the ability to score to warrant the tradeoff in rebounding/defense that comes with going small. We also don't have the depth at any of the positions as as soon as we go to the bench for Usher, who we'll be lucky to get 25 mpg from in ACC play at the 4, we have to go two post unless we want to go straight midgetball with Moore at the 4.

IMHO we desperately need another 3 point threat on the court next year and that is going to be at the 3.

We should not be goings mall if we are in desperate need of three point threats. We should go small if we have an abundance of three point threats that make the trade off in rebounding and defense worth it.

 

[YlJacket]

It's obvious you don't agree with my logic but I really don't understand yours. Moses had size and athleticism to take a 4 off the dribble but doesn't have the ability to do that against a 5? Again, recognize I don't want to put Moses on the block but have him around the FT line or doing rim runs. The idea is to keep the lane clear and space the floor. I don't know how Moses couldn't operate against a 5 from 15 to 18 feet out.

If Usher shoots 20% from 3 again why put him at the 3 spot? We would then have Saba, Moses and Usher on the floor with their defenders sitting in the lane. I know I would. That makes life really hard for Jose. If Bubba or Maxwell (or Moore) can't hold down the 3 then fine but I want to space the floor as best we can.