Some 23-24 Basketball stats

[lv20gt]

PS, have you changed anyone's mind banging you drum on this topic yet?

This topic? You mean the topic of margin of victory and how "close" we are to a better record? Pretty sure I've made just this one post about that so I wouldn't really call that banging the drum. Do people really think that we are 9-10 just because the ball has bounced the wrong way in close games? I don't get the feeling most people feel that, even if they don't agree with me on the why we're losing.

If you're talking more generally, then I doubt it. Most posters seem to be just deadset on putting absolutely no responsibility for this year at the feet of the head coach no matter what happens so there really isn't changing anyone's mind on it.

We are clearly a lower tier ACC team again this year. We were a bottom level ACC team the past 2 years. Expecting this year's team to dramatically jump in the ACC standings was way too optimistic.

So rather than go through the full reasoning at the start since that seems to bother some posters, let me just ask this and we'll take it in steps. Do you think it was way too optimistic to expect an improvement over where we ended last year?

 

[Root4GT]

This topic? You mean the topic of margin of victory and how "close" we are to a better record? Pretty sure I've made just this one post about that so I wouldn't really call that banging the drum. Do people really think that we are 9-10 just because the ball has bounced the wrong way in close games? I don't get the feeling most people feel that, even if they don't agree with me on the why we're losing.

If you're talking more generally, then I doubt it. Most posters seem to be just deadset on putting absolutely no responsibility for this year at the feet of the head coach no matter what happens so there really isn't changing anyone's mind on it.



So rather than go through the full reasoning at the start since that seems to bother some posters, let me just ask this and we'll take it in steps. Do you think it was way too optimistic to expect an improvement over where we ended last year?

I expected this team to have a losing ACC record and a sub .500 overall record.

We were a very bad team the past 2 years. We really didn’t have many impact players returning. We had giant roster holes at PG and on the interior be it a center or for dark.

So no I didn’t expect much improvement as far as won/loss record.

I thought we would bring in better players with higher upsides. Clearly George and Ndongo have higher upsides as freshmen than anyone since Jose. That was a long time ago.

I thought our HS recruiting would Pick up and it has significantly.

We play lots of close games. We lose more than we win. Not a surprise.

I had zero expectation we would beat Duke or play a very competitive game against them at CIS.

I am encouraged about GT BB for only the 2nd time in 15 years. The ACCT team was great but CJP failed to capitalize on that opportunity.

 

[57jacket]

I expected this team to have a losing ACC record and a sub .500 overall record.

We were a very bad team the past 2 years. We really didn’t have many impact players returning. We had giant roster holes at PG and on the interior be it a center or for dark.

So no I didn’t expect much improvement as far as won/loss record.

I thought we would bring in better players with higher upsides. Clearly George and Ndongo have higher upsides as freshmen than anyone since Jose. That was a long time ago.

I thought our HS recruiting would Pick up and it has significantly.

We play lots of close games. We lose more than we win. Not a surprise.

I had zero expectation we would beat Duke or play a very competitive game against them at CIS.

I am encouraged about GT BB for only the 2nd time in 15 years. The ACCT team was great but CJP failed to capitalize on that opportunity.

Good post Root

 

[MtnWasp]

Good on you of being aware of your own limitations. Must say, I wasn't expecting someone who struggles with 6th grade math to be on a GT forum.

Wow, the dial on your "Snark Meter" goes to eleven.

 

[lv20gt]

So no I didn’t expect much improvement as far as won/loss record.

So you didn't really answer the question of whether it was too optimistic to expect improvement over where we ended last year. I guess I should clarify I don't necessarily mean record wise as winning 60% of our games doesn't reflect where the team was at the end of last year when you extrapolate it out to a full schedule. This comment seems to be the closest you got but still doesn't really answer the question.

Anyways, I ask to get some sort of actual baseline over what you think was reasonable to expect because otherwise posters here have a tendency to be fluid with their expectations to set the bar at just the right spot to allow them to right off criticism.

To I guess I'll give my take, and let you point out wherever you disagree.

At the end of last year we had a roster where we were set to lose one player to loss of eligibility, Franklin. Everyone else could have returned. Now obviously it was likely some would leave in the portal because that's the norm. Maxwell and Meka being the two most obvious candidates. Regardless, we were very reasonably expecting to return 7 of our top 8 players. So at the end of last year, meaning on march 9th, it was reasonable to expect improvement from where we ended the year based on returning most the roster. And just to be clear, I'm not saying to expect to win the ACC, but to be improved from where we were. And we can get into the whole coaching change, roster turnover that did happen, as well as what exactly that level we were at to end the year, but just to set a baseline do you agree that it was reasonable to expect us to improve from where we ended last year based on being scheduled to return 7 of our top 8 players?

And since I'm asking you to address a specific point, I'll respond to one you made.

I thought we would bring in better players with higher upsides. Clearly George and Ndongo have higher upsides as freshmen than anyone since Jose. That was a long time ago.

I thought our HS recruiting would Pick up and it has significantly.

Recruiting has looked real good. I'm not sure I would agree that George has more upside than several players we've brought in since Jose but that's tangential to the main point. Recruiting has looked better with three top 150 recruits, as someone described to me elsewhere. I usually use 247 composite that has Kirouac at 182 but I'll give it to them. That's great and if it is proven to be consistent then our roster will have increased talent in t he long run which has been needed. So yeah, recruiting has been very good. So I doubt there will be a whole lot of discussion because there isn't a whole lot of disagreement. But I don't think the recruiting is to the level to allow us to just out talent teams to get to where we want to be, so then the obvious follow up question is what do we expect to get out of the better recruiting? Are we expecting our current staff to get the most out of it? Any answer at this point is speculative and I doubt there will even be agreement on what to even look at for support of trying to answer that question. To me I'd look at how much is the current staff getting out of what we have currently.

So to that end here are some player now that I would put in a similar boat based on their 247 composite rankings coming out of HS.

Coleman - 67th
Kelly - 125th
Abram - 109th
Sturidvant - 140th
Ndongo - 126th
Reeves - 42nd
Gapare - 123rd

To me the recruiting has obviously been better, but we will also need the staff to do a better job of utilizing the talent than what we are seeing this year for the improved talent to have the impact we want. Others will probably point to more nebulous concepts like being a better fit, better mentality, being tougher, buying in more, as reasons why the new recruits will have a better impact than the old top 150 recruits. I'll be skeptical of the basis for such beliefs but it's also possible that they will turn out better because recruiting isn't an exact science. Time will provide the definitive answer.

 

[gte447f]

Coleman - 67th
recruiting isn't an exact science.

Wow.

 

[Root4GT]

So you didn't really answer the question of whether it was too optimistic to expect improvement over where we ended last year. I guess I should clarify I don't necessarily mean record wise as winning 60% of our games doesn't reflect where the team was at the end of last year when you extrapolate it out to a full schedule. This comment seems to be the closest you got but still doesn't really answer the question.

Anyways, I ask to get some sort of actual baseline over what you think was reasonable to expect because otherwise posters here have a tendency to be fluid with their expectations to set the bar at just the right spot to allow them to right off criticism.

To I guess I'll give my take, and let you point out wherever you disagree.

At the end of last year we had a roster where we were set to lose one player to loss of eligibility, Franklin. Everyone else could have returned. Now obviously it was likely some would leave in the portal because that's the norm. Maxwell and Meka being the two most obvious candidates. Regardless, we were very reasonably expecting to return 7 of our top 8 players. So at the end of last year, meaning on march 9th, it was reasonable to expect improvement from where we ended the year based on returning most the roster. And just to be clear, I'm not saying to expect to win the ACC, but to be improved from where we were. And we can get into the whole coaching change, roster turnover that did happen, as well as what exactly that level we were at to end the year, but just to set a baseline do you agree that it was reasonable to expect us to improve from where we ended last year based on being scheduled to return 7 of our top 8 players?

And since I'm asking you to address a specific point, I'll respond to one you made.



Recruiting has looked real good. I'm not sure I would agree that George has more upside than several players we've brought in since Jose but that's tangential to the main point. Recruiting has looked better with three top 150 recruits, as someone described to me elsewhere. I usually use 247 composite that has Kirouac at 182 but I'll give it to them. That's great and if it is proven to be consistent then our roster will have increased talent in t he long run which has been needed. So yeah, recruiting has been very good. So I doubt there will be a whole lot of discussion because there isn't a whole lot of disagreement. But I don't think the recruiting is to the level to allow us to just out talent teams to get to where we want to be, so then the obvious follow up question is what do we expect to get out of the better recruiting? Are we expecting our current staff to get the most out of it? Any answer at this point is speculative and I doubt there will even be agreement on what to even look at for support of trying to answer that question. To me I'd look at how much is the current staff getting out of what we have currently.

So to that end here are some player now that I would put in a similar boat based on their 247 composite rankings coming out of HS.

Coleman - 67th
Kelly - 125th
Abram - 109th
Sturidvant - 140th
Ndongo - 126th
Reeves - 42nd
Gapare - 123rd

To me the recruiting has obviously been better, but we will also need the staff to do a better job of utilizing the talent than what we are seeing this year for the improved talent to have the impact we want. Others will probably point to more nebulous concepts like being a better fit, better mentality, being tougher, buying in more, as reasons why the new recruits will have a better impact than the old top 150 recruits. I'll be skeptical of the basis for such beliefs but it's also possible that they will turn out better because recruiting isn't an exact science. Time will provide the definitive answer.

Franklin was our best player at the end of last season. Terry has not played this season so 2 of the top players are gone from last year.

The returning group of Kyle, Kelly and Debo are a mixed bag. I believe Kyle is in his best role this year coming off the bench for around 20 or so minutes. I don’t believe he is capable of being a starting PG on a winning ACC team. I also believe Debo is a nice player off the bench but again not a starter for an above .500 ACC team.

Kelly is capable of being a quality ACC player in my opinion. He has struggled shooting this year. A major disappointment and a regression in that area.

Moore would have been a nice player to keep. He isn’t a good shooter so I get why he transferred. He will fit better elsewhere. He would have helped this team rebounding and on defense.

Abram being a non factor is a surprise to me and a big reason we haven’t won more games. Guess he was overrated or some unknown issue is ongoing with him. We struck out there.

Right now I think this team is as good as last year’s team was at the end of the season. We were a bad team last year that got great play from Franklin late last season.

If you think GT was a good team at the end of last year we disagree. We were a bad team that didn’t beat any good teams. Had CJP returned I believe we would be much worse a team this year. He simply was not a good recruiter and we badly lacked the talent to truly compete in the ACC.

We were 6-14 in ACC play last year and 5-15 the year before.

My guess was top end 7-8 ACC wins but likely 5-6 wins.

I think next year if Ndongo, George, Teeves and Terry are a core group with the incoming HS players we can get to 8+ conference wins. If we get an ACC quality big man via the Portal then we could be a .500 ACC team next year.

 

[lv20gt]

Again, the question was at the end of last year, on march 9th, was it reasonable to expect the team to improve from where it was based on the then outlook that we were likely returning 7 of our top 8 players. So that is before Terry's injury, before the transfers for out, and even before the coaching change.

We were a bad team last year that got great play from Franklin late last season.

We were 6-14 in ACC play last year and 5-15 the year before.

My guess was top end 7-8 ACC wins but likely 5-6 wins.

So this seems to address it for the most part.

Franklin was a big part of the late season wins. Over the last 11, chosen because it makes him look as good as he can, he averaged 14.2 points on 62% shooting, 12.8 rebounds, 3.6 assists to 2 turnovers with 2.27 blocks. So yeah, he was great. But it wasn't just him.

Kelly over his last 12, chosen for the same reason as Franklin above, averaged 17 points on 44.6 shooting from the field and 40.3% from the three.
Sturdivant over his last 12 averaged 12.6 points on 41.6% shooting from the field, 35% from three, 4.4 assists to 1.58 turnovers.
Terry over his last 10 averaged 13.6 on 43.4% from the field, 44.6% from 3,

So while Franklin was great for us no doubt during that stretch, Kelly, Sturdy, and Terry were also very good over pretty much the same stretch. I think it's disingenuous to act like it was just Franklin playing better. He was the only interior player playing at that level so that did allow him more opportunities on the boards where the other three had more overlapping roles.

In general it should be expected that players improve over time. Obviously that's not guaranteed, but we're talking about expectations. Would the loss of Franklin outweigh the, reasonable, expected improvements of Kelly, Kyle, Terry, Coleman, Moore, and Smith? Obviously there is no definitive answer to a hypothetical that won't ever happen. If it was just that with nothing else, probably not because the hole inside would be too much. However, I would say it would also be reasonable to expect some sort of addition out of the portal that might be a step back from Franklin, but provide enough that along with expected improvement from returning players would lead to being better. I certainly don't see the reason to have expected regression unless you just want to not consider the portal at all at that point. Most teams are losing their best player in college. It's the nature of college sports.

Anyways what would being better look like?

If you think GT was a good team at the end of last year we disagree. We were a bad team that didn’t beat any good teams.

Last year over the last third of our schedule we went 7-4. One of those games was FIT and isn't really worth considering. The other 10 were all against ACC teams that we went 6-4 against. To some degree it was a matter of beating bad teams. We went 4-0 against teams in the bottom third of the conference. We went 2-2 against teams in the middle third of the conference. And we went 0-2 against teams in the upper third. Obviously that schedules is slanted to the easier side as you would expect to have the same number of games against all three groups, and since we were a part of the lower third you'd actually expect that to be the least. So no, even in the last third of the year I don't think we were a 60% winning team. But I do think we were clearly better than the worst teams in the ACC, again just at the end of the year, and competitive with the middle of the road teams. So to me, that would put us at the back half of the middle third, still not what I would call a good team, especially with how the ACC was last year, and still a good ways off from the NCAAT.

So from where we were we could improve and still not be an NCAAT team. But I would say it is at least reasonable to have expected us to be clearly in the cellar of the ACC.

Right now I think this team is as good as last year’s team was at the end of the season.

This is getting ahead of the conversation a bit but I wanted to ask based on what though? Honestly, what's the metric you are using to reach that conclusion. Because we've lost three games, at home, to teams in the bottom third of the conference, which are the same games we were winning last year that you were dismissive of.

 

[cpf2001]

For me - and I don't have advanced stats to back this up or anything - the team since the calendar turned to 2024, while they've lost a lot of games I wish they'd pulled out, hasn't had any games where they looked as bad as calendar-year-2023 last season against Duke or even FIT. And even when beating most of those other ACC teams the ceiling seemed pretty low.

 

[gte447f]

@Root4GT, @Iv20gt is clearly trying to overwhelm you, by his superior logic and reasoning, into admitting that there was no logical reason to consider a coaching change at the end of last season, and therefore it was a terrible mistake to replace CJP with CDS.

You, however, have hit on an excellent point, and that is the loss of Franklin, who was obviously the most impactful player on the team at the end of last season. His statistical numbers were very, very good, but even more importantly, he was the only player on the roster capable of sorta kinda running CJP’s high post Princeton offense. The loss of Franklin would have devastated that CJP team. Even if he could have been replaced by an equally or more capable big from the portal, which would have been unlikely in my opinion, it would most likely have taken CJP and his staff another half a season to have gotten a replacement center to become competent in the that high post Princeton offense. So, at best, depending on the unlikely recruitment of an above average center from the portal, it might have been reasonable to expect the typical Pastner pattern of several bad or very bad losses early in the nonconference schedule followed by bad to average play in the first half of the ACC schedule and then a strong late season run that made you think, “too bad they couldn’t have played like this all season”.

 

[Peacone36]

when someone claims that CJP should still be the basketball coach at Georgia Tech, you can smile and walk away. You've obtained victory.

 

[spdrama]

when someone claims that CJP should still be the basketball coach at Georgia Tech, you can smile and walk away. You've obtained victory.

And many thanks to you & dtm1997 for the “ignore button” tip on an account you’ve spared yourself from being subjected to since you were a young man.

 

[spdrama]

Franklin was our best player at the end of last season. Terry has not played this season so 2 of the top players are gone from last year.

The returning group of Kyle, Kelly and Debo are a mixed bag. I believe Kyle is in his best role this year coming off the bench for around 20 or so minutes. I don’t believe he is capable of being a starting PG on a winning ACC team. I also believe Debo is a nice player off the bench but again not a starter for an above .500 ACC team.

Kelly is capable of being a quality ACC player in my opinion. He has struggled shooting this year. A major disappointment and a regression in that area.

Moore would have been a nice player to keep. He isn’t a good shooter so I get why he transferred. He will fit better elsewhere. He would have helped this team rebounding and on defense.

Abram being a non factor is a surprise to me and a big reason we haven’t won more games. Guess he was overrated or some unknown issue is ongoing with him. We struck out there.

Right now I think this team is as good as last year’s team was at the end of the season. We were a bad team last year that got great play from Franklin late last season.

If you think GT was a good team at the end of last year we disagree. We were a bad team that didn’t beat any good teams. Had CJP returned I believe we would be much worse a team this year. He simply was not a good recruiter and we badly lacked the talent to truly compete in the ACC.

We were 6-14 in ACC play last year and 5-15 the year before.

My guess was top end 7-8 ACC wins but likely 5-6 wins.

I think next year if Ndongo, George, Teeves and Terry are a core group with the incoming HS players we can get to 8+ conference wins. If we get an ACC quality big man via the Portal then we could be a .500 ACC team next year.

Ya gotta let the rude, condescending, haters rant with the same “crickets” they hide with after great Tech wins. “Ignore button” is a wonderful forum tool.

 

[LargeFO]

when someone claims that CJP should still be the basketball coach at Georgia Tech, you can smile and walk away. You've obtained victory.

He's always had a interesting bias there. But can't stand Key. Go figure.

 

[Root4GT]

Again, the question was at the end of last year, on march 9th, was it reasonable to expect the team to improve from where it was based on the then outlook that we were likely returning 7 of our top 8 players. So that is before Terry's injury, before the transfers for out, and even before the coaching change.



So this seems to address it for the most part.

Franklin was a big part of the late season wins. Over the last 11, chosen because it makes him look as good as he can, he averaged 14.2 points on 62% shooting, 12.8 rebounds, 3.6 assists to 2 turnovers with 2.27 blocks. So yeah, he was great. But it wasn't just him.

Kelly over his last 12, chosen for the same reason as Franklin above, averaged 17 points on 44.6 shooting from the field and 40.3% from the three.
Sturdivant over his last 12 averaged 12.6 points on 41.6% shooting from the field, 35% from three, 4.4 assists to 1.58 turnovers.
Terry over his last 10 averaged 13.6 on 43.4% from the field, 44.6% from 3,

So while Franklin was great for us no doubt during that stretch, Kelly, Sturdy, and Terry were also very good over pretty much the same stretch. I think it's disingenuous to act like it was just Franklin playing better. He was the only interior player playing at that level so that did allow him more opportunities on the boards where the other three had more overlapping roles.

In general it should be expected that players improve over time. Obviously that's not guaranteed, but we're talking about expectations. Would the loss of Franklin outweigh the, reasonable, expected improvements of Kelly, Kyle, Terry, Coleman, Moore, and Smith? Obviously there is no definitive answer to a hypothetical that won't ever happen. If it was just that with nothing else, probably not because the hole inside would be too much. However, I would say it would also be reasonable to expect some sort of addition out of the portal that might be a step back from Franklin, but provide enough that along with expected improvement from returning players would lead to being better. I certainly don't see the reason to have expected regression unless you just want to not consider the portal at all at that point. Most teams are losing their best player in college. It's the nature of college sports.

Anyways what would being better look like?



Last year over the last third of our schedule we went 7-4. One of those games was FIT and isn't really worth considering. The other 10 were all against ACC teams that we went 6-4 against. To some degree it was a matter of beating bad teams. We went 4-0 against teams in the bottom third of the conference. We went 2-2 against teams in the middle third of the conference. And we went 0-2 against teams in the upper third. Obviously that schedules is slanted to the easier side as you would expect to have the same number of games against all three groups, and since we were a part of the lower third you'd actually expect that to be the least. So no, even in the last third of the year I don't think we were a 60% winning team. But I do think we were clearly better than the worst teams in the ACC, again just at the end of the year, and competitive with the middle of the road teams. So to me, that would put us at the back half of the middle third, still not what I would call a good team, especially with how the ACC was last year, and still a good ways off from the NCAAT.

So from where we were we could improve and still not be an NCAAT team. But I would say it is at least reasonable to have expected us to be clearly in the cellar of the ACC.



This is getting ahead of the conversation a bit but I wanted to ask based on what though? Honestly, what's the metric you are using to reach that conclusion. Because we've lost three games, at home, to teams in the bottom third of the conference, which are the same games we were winning last year that you were dismissive of.

You spend a lot of time and never really make a point. What is you point?
- We would be a better team if Pastner was still coach? - my answer - NO
- We would have a better record at this point with CJP as coach? - my answer - NO
- The future of GT basketball would be better with CJP as coach? - my answer - NO
- We would be a better team if Terry wasn't hurt? - my answer - YES
- You think CDS is a bad coach? - my answer - NO

Just answer the questions, they aren't difficult.

 

[57jacket]

You spend a lot of time and never really make a point. What is you point?
- We would be a better team if Pastner was still coach? - my answer - NO
- We would have a better record at this point with CJP as coach? - my answer - NO
- The future of GT basketball would be better with CJP as coach? - my answer - NO
- We would be a better team if Terry wasn't hurt? - my answer - YES
- You think CDS is a bad coach? - my answer - NO

Just answer the questions, they aren't difficult.

Good post root. His answer will be 10 pages long and say nothing meaningful. LOL

 

[lv20gt]

You spend a lot of time and never really make a point. What is you point?
- We would be a better team if Pastner was still coach? - my answer - NO
- We would have a better record at this point with CJP as coach? - my answer - NO
- The future of GT basketball would be better with CJP as coach? - my answer - NO
- We would be a better team if Terry wasn't hurt? - my answer - YES
- You think CDS is a bad coach? - my answer - NO

Just answer the questions, they aren't difficult.

Pastner isn't our coach, won't be our coach, and there is no real way to support either a yes or no to the first three answers in an concrete way. None of my points had anything to do with Pastner. The only reason I go back to the end of last year is to establish where we were at when CDS took over.

But to answer them.

Would we be a better team if Pastner was still our coach? It would depend on his success in the portal and in general who else transferred out. But based on what he was able to pull from the portal previously, I would say yes. You say know. But it doesn't really matter and isn't what is important.

Would we have a better record with CJP? Same as above.

Would the future of Gt basketball be better with CJP as a coach? I don't know. Right now it looks like CDS is a better recruiter. The 2012 class had Brian Gregory looking great. We saw what happened after. The 2021 class saw us add 2 four stars from the recruits, and a 4 star from the portal. But Pastner couldn't replicate that. CDS has a great first class. Will he replicate that? I don't know. And even if he has an improved roster, will he utilize it effectively? I don't know. I don't think either had really proven anything to give any real reason to be sure the future is better one way or the other.

Would we be better if Terry wasn't hurt? I see no reason to believe we'd be worse. It's just another option. Do I think he is an obvious huge upgrade over anyone he'd be taking minutes from? No.

Do I think CDS is a bad coach? I think he is very inexperienced as a head coach having never even made the NCAAT and only having one year of any real notable success. I think he is inexperienced as a coach at a power 5 conference having only 2 years as an assistant at Arizona. I think his approach is much more suited for the NBA than college. And I think based on his interviews that he doesn't have the self introspection to recognize his faults as a coach and address them. I think he is a good recruiter, and just like when we hired Pastner there is potential from him to learn from his mistakes. Whether he will or not remains to be seen.

But none of those things are really relevant. What any of us think of CDS isn't going to change any wins to losses or losses to wins. I can think he is the worst coach in the conference, but if we win something like 10 of 14 to close the year I'm going to judge based on what actually happens. You can think he's the next coach K but if we go 4-16 you don't have a leg to stand on to say he has done a good job this year. And even if he does a terrible job this year it doesn't mean he can't do a great job next year and find success.

But my overall point is as follows.

At the end of last year we were, based on play, around a middle of the road team in the ACC, likely on the back end of the middle.

Given we were set to return 7 of our top 8 and bring in a 4star in the back court, it was reasonable to believe the team would improve from that state which could be what I outlined above as a solid middle of the road conference team. That includes an expectation of addressing needs through the portal. Whether Pastner would have failed to meet the expectations, met them, or exceeded them is unknowable and irrelevant at this point. Realistically Pastner would have also had expectations to make the NCAAT that was more based on it being year 8 than the roster, but that isn't a factor for CDS.

When we changed coaches I don't see any reason to suddenly think those expectations should be lowered (meaning the ones based on the state of the roster). We lost Blue Cain as a recruit but were already returning a lot in the back court so the impact immediately shouldn't have been that big an issue. He was also hired with enough time to put a staff together to take advantage of the portal.

When the new staff came in they went through a roster overhaul that, to me, seemed coach driven. So I don't see why that would reduce expectations because that means the staffs decision to go through that overhaul was a bad one.

Even after the roster overhaul the roster seemed to at least be in a similar state if not better. We lost Smith but added Abram. Lost Moore but added Reeves. Lost Howard but added Dowuona. And he went into the portal and got Claude who had a similar profile to that of Franklin comin in last last year. And he even went beyond what I would have expected at the end of last year and added a freshman that had a relatively good chance of being able to contribute right away (Ndongo). So even after the overhaul I don't see a reason to have really lowered expectations.

Then we lose Terry. Sure that hurt. He'd be another option. It's possible he'd have been a huge difference maker this year. It's also possible he'd be a huge disappointment as well. No real way to support either stance. But he'd be taking minutes from Kelly/Coleman/Reeves, and I don't think there is much basis to think it is likely he was a significant upgrade over any of them. If he was the same caliber of player as a 6-10 center? Yeah. I'd put more stock in that argument, because then he'd be taking away minutes from people that were clear downgrades.

So where do we actually stand? We have a great win against Duke which looks like an outlier similar to Miami last year. The MSU win doesn't look as strong as it did at the time given they are 2-4 in conference but still solid. A road win against Clemson is also a nice and the NET still likes them despite being 3-4 in conference. By the end of the year that could look like a better win. After that our best win is probably against UMass who is currently 3-4 in the A10. Of our losses, I don't really read much into the FSU, UVA, @Duke, or @UGA games due to the quality of the opponent. Although UVA was so bad on the road previously, being 0-4 with the closest loss being by 16 points, that it should probably be viewed as a big missed opportunity.

However we are 2-6 in conference overall putting us clearly in the bottom third by record, and, more importantly imo, we have three home losses to the other members of that group so I don't see an argument currently for us being anything better than the second worst team in the ACC at the moment. We also have OOC losses to UMassL from a one bid conference, Nevada who is currently middle of the road in the mountain west, and a 35 point loss to a bottom of the big 12 Cinci team. Now obviously records aren't final so that can change at the end of the year, but I can only go by what they are now. So to me we clearly aren't performing at a higher level than we were to end last year, and we aren't even winning the games against the bad teams of the conference like we did to end last year. And you can put some of the losses on the roster, but we are stacking up losses to the very same type of teams that we were beating to end last year. To me that is not getting what we should out of our roster, and that falls on the head coach.

 

[Root4GT]

Pastner isn't our coach, won't be our coach, and there is no real way to support either a yes or no to the first three answers in an concrete way. None of my points had anything to do with Pastner. The only reason I go back to the end of last year is to establish where we were at when CDS took over.

But to answer them.

Would we be a better team if Pastner was still our coach? It would depend on his success in the portal and in general who else transferred out. But based on what he was able to pull from the portal previously, I would say yes. You say know. But it doesn't really matter and isn't what is important.

Would we have a better record with CJP? Same as above.

Would the future of Gt basketball be better with CJP as a coach? I don't know. Right now it looks like CDS is a better recruiter. The 2012 class had Brian Gregory looking great. We saw what happened after. The 2021 class saw us add 2 four stars from the recruits, and a 4 star from the portal. But Pastner couldn't replicate that. CDS has a great first class. Will he replicate that? I don't know. And even if he has an improved roster, will he utilize it effectively? I don't know. I don't think either had really proven anything to give any real reason to be sure the future is better one way or the other.

Would we be better if Terry wasn't hurt? I see no reason to believe we'd be worse. It's just another option. Do I think he is an obvious huge upgrade over anyone he'd be taking minutes from? No.

Do I think CDS is a bad coach? I think he is very inexperienced as a head coach having never even made the NCAAT and only having one year of any real notable success. I think he is inexperienced as a coach at a power 5 conference having only 2 years as an assistant at Arizona. I think his approach is much more suited for the NBA than college. And I think based on his interviews that he doesn't have the self introspection to recognize his faults as a coach and address them. I think he is a good recruiter, and just like when we hired Pastner there is potential from him to learn from his mistakes. Whether he will or not remains to be seen.

But none of those things are really relevant. What any of us think of CDS isn't going to change any wins to losses or losses to wins. I can think he is the worst coach in the conference, but if we win something like 10 of 14 to close the year I'm going to judge based on what actually happens. You can think he's the next coach K but if we go 4-16 you don't have a leg to stand on to say he has done a good job this year. And even if he does a terrible job this year it doesn't mean he can't do a great job next year and find success.

But my overall point is as follows.

At the end of last year we were, based on play, around a middle of the road team in the ACC, likely on the back end of the middle.

Given we were set to return 7 of our top 8 and bring in a 4star in the back court, it was reasonable to believe the team would improve from that state which could be what I outlined above as a solid middle of the road conference team. That includes an expectation of addressing needs through the portal. Whether Pastner would have failed to meet the expectations, met them, or exceeded them is unknowable and irrelevant at this point. Realistically Pastner would have also had expectations to make the NCAAT that was more based on it being year 8 than the roster, but that isn't a factor for CDS.

When we changed coaches I don't see any reason to suddenly think those expectations should be lowered (meaning the ones based on the state of the roster). We lost Blue Cain as a recruit but were already returning a lot in the back court so the impact immediately shouldn't have been that big an issue. He was also hired with enough time to put a staff together to take advantage of the portal.

When the new staff came in they went through a roster overhaul that, to me, seemed coach driven. So I don't see why that would reduce expectations because that means the staffs decision to go through that overhaul was a bad one.

Even after the roster overhaul the roster seemed to at least be in a similar state if not better. We lost Smith but added Abram. Lost Moore but added Reeves. Lost Howard but added Dowuona. And he went into the portal and got Claude who had a similar profile to that of Franklin comin in last last year. And he even went beyond what I would have expected at the end of last year and added a freshman that had a relatively good chance of being able to contribute right away (Ndongo). So even after the overhaul I don't see a reason to have really lowered expectations.

Then we lose Terry. Sure that hurt. He'd be another option. It's possible he'd have been a huge difference maker this year. It's also possible he'd be a huge disappointment as well. No real way to support either stance. But he'd be taking minutes from Kelly/Coleman/Reeves, and I don't think there is much basis to think it is likely he was a significant upgrade over any of them. If he was the same caliber of player as a 6-10 center? Yeah. I'd put more stock in that argument, because then he'd be taking away minutes from people that were clear downgrades.

So where do we actually stand? We have a great win against Duke which looks like an outlier similar to Miami last year. The MSU win doesn't look as strong as it did at the time given they are 2-4 in conference but still solid. A road win against Clemson is also a nice and the NET still likes them despite being 3-4 in conference. By the end of the year that could look like a better win. After that our best win is probably against UMass who is currently 3-4 in the A10. Of our losses, I don't really read much into the FSU, UVA, @Duke, or @UGA games due to the quality of the opponent. Although UVA was so bad on the road previously, being 0-4 with the closest loss being by 16 points, that it should probably be viewed as a big missed opportunity.

However we are 2-6 in conference overall putting us clearly in the bottom third by record, and, more importantly imo, we have three home losses to the other members of that group so I don't see an argument currently for us being anything better than the second worst team in the ACC at the moment. We also have OOC losses to UMassL from a one bid conference, Nevada who is currently middle of the road in the mountain west, and a 35 point loss to a bottom of the big 12 Cinci team. Now obviously records aren't final so that can change at the end of the year, but I can only go by what they are now. So to me we clearly aren't performing at a higher level than we were to end last year, and we aren't even winning the games against the bad teams of the conference like we did to end last year. And you can put some of the losses on the roster, but we are stacking up losses to the very same type of teams that we were beating to end last year. To me that is not getting what we should out of our roster, and that falls on the head coach.

I give you props for working very hard to express an opinion based on fantasy. Believing last year’s team was better than the 6-14 conference record is simply a selective false narrative. Believing last year’s team was better than 15-18 is also a false narrative.

You are what your record is. We are currently a losing team in the ACC and overall. We likely will have a losing ACC and overall record again this year.

This is a new team as next year will be a new team. Setting expectations on the composition of a team in March is fools gold.

Clearly you are living in what you think GT BB SHOULD BE , not what it is or has been. This year the team is not a good team. They are competitive and entertaining but at this point they are not a good team. The prior two years GT BB teams were bad teams.

How you think the team should play is not important except to you. I hope you enjoy watching GT BB this year.

 

[lv20gt]

I give you props for working very hard to express an opinion based on fantasy. Believing last year’s team was better than the 6-14 conference record is simply a selective false narrative. Believing last year’s team was better than 15-18 is also a false narrative.

Over the course of the year yes. We were a bottom of the conference team overall. For a large portion we were arguably the worst team in conference. If all you are doing is analyzing how last year went then that is absolutely true.

But in terms of projecting for the next year the more recent games will always be more relevant. February and March games will be a better indicators of the state of the program going into the next year (while obviously accounting for players graduating).

And that's true for this year. Let's say we lose the next several but finish the year something like winning 5 of our last 7. Then you can bet people here will point to that as building momentum leading into next year and justification for off-season hype. And it would be justified.

It's true for individuals as well. If, for example, Gapare average 11 points on decent shooting over his last 10 that will be pointed to as reasons for higher expectations for next year.

 

[Root4GT]

Over the course of the year yes. We were a bottom of the conference team overall. For a large portion we were arguably the worst team in conference. If all you are doing is analyzing how last year went then that is absolutely true.

But in terms of projecting for the next year the more recent games will always be more relevant. February and March games will be a better indicators of the state of the program going into the next year (while obviously accounting for players graduating).

And that's true for this year. Let's say we lose the next several but finish the year something like winning 5 of our last 7. Then you can bet people here will point to that as building momentum leading into next year and justification for off-season hype. And it would be justified.

It's true for individuals as well. If, for example, Gapare average 11 points on decent shooting over his last 10 that will be pointed to as reasons for higher expectations for next year.

That’s just crap on teams. In current college Basketball teams rarely resemble the same team from year to year.

You should hop over the The Hive message board. There is a poster Thea goes by “noexcusejackets” that would have a love fest reading your posts. Like minds, you fist take 400 hundred words more to make a similar point.

I responded to one of his posts to link up with you on this board.

As to GT BB we really don’t have a clue as to next year’s team and won’t in March regardless how this season and the individuals finish the season.

Currently GT BB is not a good team. The 2023 GTBB team wasn’t any good either. Nor was the 2022 GTBB team. College basketball has become a season to season sport with the Portal and NIL.