Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Some 23-24 Basketball stats
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 996108" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So this seems to address it for the most part.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p>Terry over his last 10 averaged 13.6 on 43.4% from the field, 44.6% from 3, </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Anyways what would being better look like?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 996108, member: 2299"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who made "The Leap" to defeat u(sic)GA in COFH 2016?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Some 23-24 Basketball stats
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top