The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(12-11-2018 07:37 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 06:03 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 08:27 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 09:43 PM)ZCat Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 09:16 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  We were one of the best defenses of the modern era last season. We can be great on defense that good would be insane.

Serious Q

How does this defensive metric take into account our level of competition. It was a solid D, but I did not meet the eye test of top 3 D IMHO.

That said, I am enjoying the season (after the first game). We'll know more after 2 games.

The metrics I look at always adjust for competition level. Uc was second behind UVA last year in adjusted defense but their actual number was one of the best in the kenpom era.

It's easy to see why when looking at other metrics. They were second in the country in 2 point percentage defense. They were 7th in 3 point percentage defense. They were 5th in block rate. They were 25th in steal percentage and 20th in forced turnover percentage. So they were aggressive at forcing turnovers and blocking shots but didn't foul and didn't leave themselves exposed for easy shots. It was a pretty incredible combination last year.

I might get along with your assessment except I will never get over the fact that we blew a 22 point lead to Nevada and pretty much all of your sexy stats were thrown back in our face.

We forced only two turnovers. Nevada shot 50%. They were 5/10 from 3 in the 2nd half of that game. You can dress our defense up all you want from last year, but you can't say we had one of the best defenses in the modern era and then look at what happened in the Nevada game with a straight face. Our schedule played a pretty big factor in this. We had a very good defense made to look great because of our schedule.

"OUR DEFENSE WAS SO AWESOME EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE TIME WE BLEW A 22 POINT LEAD AND WE JUST DIDN'T PLAY DEFENSE THAT 1 TIME!!!!"

Dude, give it a rest. It's getting old.

Do you think every other post on Virginia boards references UMBC? I doubt it.

I'm sorry. Last year's loss was quite possibly the worst loss of modern UC era for a lot of reasons hence the reason I cannot stand Mick. Huggs had a lot of bad losses, but this one will forever burn. We had everything set up perfectly for us and we absolutely choked it. So to keep trying to justify that our defense last year was one for the ages is, in my opinion, a ridiculous statement.

(12-11-2018 09:27 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  All I'm saying is the stats are quite skewed. We had a 'good' defense. But I believe saying that we had a GREAT or even 'one of the best defenses in the modern era' is an outlandish statement. Had we played in the BE or some other major conference, there'd be more meat to the argument but we didn't.

It's hard to take you seriously... again I repeatedly cite stats that adjust for competition level. I do that for a reason, because frankly it matters. It's the same reason I think people overrated UC's passing game this year in football, which when you adjust for competition level was pretty bad, but did pile up numbers against bad teams.

But you're argument for the defense not being great, despite the numbers to the contrary, was one 11 minute stretch in one game. That's silly when you have an entire season of evidence, but even that stretch I think was less about defensive issues and more about how UC approached the game from an offensive perspective for a 5-6 minute stretch.

I love numbers as many know, when you are looking at large sample sizes...a season worth of data being a great sample size, but for individual stretches of games there is no substitute for watching and understanding the game. First, we should stress that Nevada was one of the best offensive teams in the country. They finished 7th in kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency. What made them particularly challenging to defend was they were a team that did a lot of isolation and had many guys who could make difficult, contested shots. That means even when they were defended perfectly, they would usually be difficult to stop.

What UC did for 29 minutes in that game was incredible from a defensive perspective, but it was also set up by an offense that played controlled, smart and deliberate. The offense repeatedly moved the ball, moved the defense and then got the ball into the paint either by passing or penetration. By doing this they made it a half court game and forced Nevada to play against UC's set defense. Nevada had a couple runs during those 29 minutes, but even those were runs where they had to work hard to get looks and often hit difficult contested shots. They were a great offensive team, that was to be expected.

The game was lost because for about 5-6 minutes from the 11 minute mark to about the 5 minute mark, UC let Nevada turn it into street ball. Nevada extended the floor with their defense. They sent traps at every ball handler, they kept guys at the rim and they gave UC two point looks early in the clock in scramble situations. UC took those shots and because they missed them and the floor was so scattered Nevada was able to turn those decisions into quick looks on the other end. By the time UC had settled down the lead was down to 6-8 and Nevada's players had gotten hot.

I wouldn't recommend watching the last 5 minutes of that game, but what I notice is UC again playing really good defense, but Nevada hitting some crazy difficult shots. UC could have survived a few of those if it weren't for that prior stretch, but I'd argue it was going away from the offensive gameplan and letting Nevada tempt us to speed up by giving us very specific open looks, that changed the game. I am mostly a Mick defender but I'd also agree that he waited too long to remedy this and then by the time he did our offense seemed to get nervous, missing shots they should have made and Nevada hit really tough shots.

Despite all that Nevada was below their averages on offense for the game because of just how dominant UC was for 29 minutes. I'm as frustrated as anyone by those last 11 minutes, but to say UC did not have an elite defense is just silly. They were elite by any measure. They were the best defense I've seen at UC and one of the best defenses in modern college basketball. Go watch what they do to Wichita (number 4 in kenpom adjusted offense) at Wichita. It's an absolute clinic in team defense against a top flight offense. Nevada should have been the same, but a lack of offensive discpline for 5 or 6 minutes against a streaky hot team with difficult shot makers let it get away. It's no surprise Nevada as a top 5-10 team this year. They have dudes.

(12-11-2018 09:30 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 07:37 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 06:03 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 08:27 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 09:43 PM)ZCat Wrote:  Serious Q

How does this defensive metric take into account our level of competition. It was a solid D, but I did not meet the eye test of top 3 D IMHO.

That said, I am enjoying the season (after the first game). We'll know more after 2 games.

The metrics I look at always adjust for competition level. Uc was second behind UVA last year in adjusted defense but their actual number was one of the best in the kenpom era.

It's easy to see why when looking at other metrics. They were second in the country in 2 point percentage defense. They were 7th in 3 point percentage defense. They were 5th in block rate. They were 25th in steal percentage and 20th in forced turnover percentage. So they were aggressive at forcing turnovers and blocking shots but didn't foul and didn't leave themselves exposed for easy shots. It was a pretty incredible combination last year.

I might get along with your assessment except I will never get over the fact that we blew a 22 point lead to Nevada and pretty much all of your sexy stats were thrown back in our face.

We forced only two turnovers. Nevada shot 50%. They were 5/10 from 3 in the 2nd half of that game. You can dress our defense up all you want from last year, but you can't say we had one of the best defenses in the modern era and then look at what happened in the Nevada game with a straight face. Our schedule played a pretty big factor in this. We had a very good defense made to look great because of our schedule.

"OUR DEFENSE WAS SO AWESOME EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE TIME WE BLEW A 22 POINT LEAD AND WE JUST DIDN'T PLAY DEFENSE THAT 1 TIME!!!!"

Dude, give it a rest. It's getting old.

Do you think every other post on Virginia boards references UMBC? I doubt it.

I'm sorry. Last year's loss was quite possibly the worst loss of modern UC era for a lot of reasons hence the reason I cannot stand Mick. Huggs had a lot of bad losses, but this one will forever burn. We had everything set up perfectly for us and we absolutely choked it. So to keep trying to justify that our defense last year was one for the ages is, in my opinion, a ridiculous statement.

Not Duane....is that you?

(12-11-2018 06:51 AM)skyblade Wrote:  Last years defense was great, but also had a major weakness. Namely Washington and his poor perimeter defense. Good teams (Nevada, Wichita State, Houston) could get guys switched onto him on the perimeter and then beat him 1v1. Even Clark wasn't great at perimeter D and could get beat at times. Cronin's D requires bigs who can move and defend smaller perimter guys.

In spite of that we did very well. But Nevada was a bad matchup and combine that with us getting lazy because we thought the game was over and you see the result.

This years team is not as good at D as last years team initially. But we don't have a glaring weakness like last years team did. Scott and Nsoseme are better 1v1 perimeter defenders then Clark was and Brooks is about on the level as Clark at perimeter D and far better then Washington on the defensive end.

Last year's defense really didn't have any major weaknesses. I know people want to rag on Kyle Washington's defense, but by in large even he was a plus defender by the end of his career and the guys surrounding him were so top flight it didn't matter that much. Washington had some liabilities but the team defense made up for them and he had more strengths that people gave him credit for.

I'd love to see this defense get to that level, but considering I never saw a UC defense get to that level my entire life (and I've been watching great UC defenses my entire life), consider me skeptical. I think people really underappreciate what we saw on defense last year, because of an 11 minute stretch of the Nevada game.

(12-11-2018 10:36 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 06:51 AM)skyblade Wrote:  Last years defense was great, but also had a major weakness. Namely Washington and his poor perimeter defense. Good teams (Nevada, Wichita State, Houston) could get guys switched onto him on the perimeter and then beat him 1v1. Even Clark wasn't great at perimeter D and could get beat at times. Cronin's D requires bigs who can move and defend smaller perimter guys.

In spite of that we did very well. But Nevada was a bad matchup and combine that with us getting lazy because we thought the game was over and you see the result.

This years team is not as good at D as last years team initially. But we don't have a glaring weakness like last years team did. Scott and Nsoseme are better 1v1 perimeter defenders then Clark was and Brooks is about on the level as Clark at perimeter D and far better then Washington on the defensive end.

Last year's defense really didn't have any major weaknesses. I know people want to rag on Kyle Washington's defense, but by in large even he was a plus defender by the end of his career and the guys surrounding him were so top flight it didn't matter that much. Washington had some liabilities but the team defense made up for them and he had more strengths that people gave him credit for.

I'd love to see this defense get to that level, but considering I never saw a UC defense get to that level my entire life (and I've been watching great UC defenses my entire life), consider me skeptical. I think people really underappreciate what we saw on defense last year, because of an 11 minute stretch of the Nevada game.

Kyle couldn’t guard guys out of the paint and teams switched to exploit him. The first game against the Shockers was a master class in beating UC.

What I like this season is the roles seemed defined and the team knows who it is. Last year we had two elite role players playing the role of team superstar. I continue to believe that neither Clark nor Evans were suited for that role the way Cumberland is now and guys like SK and Logan before were back in the day.

(12-11-2018 09:27 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 07:46 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 06:03 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 08:27 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 09:43 PM)ZCat Wrote:  Serious Q

How does this defensive metric take into account our level of competition. It was a solid D, but I did not meet the eye test of top 3 D IMHO.

That said, I am enjoying the season (after the first game). We'll know more after 2 games.

The metrics I look at always adjust for competition level. Uc was second behind UVA last year in adjusted defense but their actual number was one of the best in the kenpom era.

It's easy to see why when looking at other metrics. They were second in the country in 2 point percentage defense. They were 7th in 3 point percentage defense. They were 5th in block rate. They were 25th in steal percentage and 20th in forced turnover percentage. So they were aggressive at forcing turnovers and blocking shots but didn't foul and didn't leave themselves exposed for easy shots. It was a pretty incredible combination last year.

I might get along with your assessment except I will never get over the fact that we blew a 22 point lead to Nevada and pretty much all of your sexy stats were thrown back in our face.

We forced only two turnovers. Nevada shot 50%. They were 5/10 from 3 in the 2nd half of that game. You can dress our defense up all you want from last year, but you can't say we had one of the best defenses in the modern era and then look at what happened in the Nevada game with a straight face. Our schedule played a pretty big factor in this. We had a very good defense made to look great because of our schedule.

"OUR DEFENSE WAS SO AWESOME EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE TIME WE BLEW A 22 POINT LEAD AND WE JUST DIDN'T PLAY DEFENSE THAT 1 TIME!!!!"

This statement just shows that you don't understand statistics, or advanced metrics. You can have the 2nd best defense in the country and still give up a 22 point lead. Those things are not mutually exclusive, much like a batter can be hitting .322 on the season and go 0-5 in a game.

All I'm saying is the stats are quite skewed. We had a 'good' defense. But I believe saying that we had a GREAT or even 'one of the best defenses in the modern era' is an outlandish statement. Had we played in the BE or some other major conference, there'd be more meat to the argument but we didn't.

I agree completely with this. The Nevada debacle absolutely put a massive black eye on our "historic defense" last year. Losing the way we did should never happen under any circumstances. What makes it worse is we had a freaking cakewalk to the Final Four. Definitely the worst loss in UC history IMO.

(12-11-2018 11:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:27 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 07:46 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 06:03 AM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 08:27 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The metrics I look at always adjust for competition level. Uc was second behind UVA last year in adjusted defense but their actual number was one of the best in the kenpom era.

It's easy to see why when looking at other metrics. They were second in the country in 2 point percentage defense. They were 7th in 3 point percentage defense. They were 5th in block rate. They were 25th in steal percentage and 20th in forced turnover percentage. So they were aggressive at forcing turnovers and blocking shots but didn't foul and didn't leave themselves exposed for easy shots. It was a pretty incredible combination last year.

I might get along with your assessment except I will never get over the fact that we blew a 22 point lead to Nevada and pretty much all of your sexy stats were thrown back in our face.

We forced only two turnovers. Nevada shot 50%. They were 5/10 from 3 in the 2nd half of that game. You can dress our defense up all you want from last year, but you can't say we had one of the best defenses in the modern era and then look at what happened in the Nevada game with a straight face. Our schedule played a pretty big factor in this. We had a very good defense made to look great because of our schedule.

"OUR DEFENSE WAS SO AWESOME EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE TIME WE BLEW A 22 POINT LEAD AND WE JUST DIDN'T PLAY DEFENSE THAT 1 TIME!!!!"

This statement just shows that you don't understand statistics, or advanced metrics. You can have the 2nd best defense in the country and still give up a 22 point lead. Those things are not mutually exclusive, much like a batter can be hitting .322 on the season and go 0-5 in a game.

All I'm saying is the stats are quite skewed. We had a 'good' defense. But I believe saying that we had a GREAT or even 'one of the best defenses in the modern era' is an outlandish statement. Had we played in the BE or some other major conference, there'd be more meat to the argument but we didn't.

I agree completely with this. The Nevada debacle absolutely put a massive black eye on our "historic defense" last year. Losing the way we did should never happen under any circumstances. What makes it worse is we had a freaking cakewalk to the Final Four. Definitely the worst loss in UC history IMO.

When they gave up 89 points at X and 76 points at home to Wichita they didn't look like that great of a defense either.

Nevada scored less than 75 points 6 times last year.
Wichata State scored less than 76 points 8 times (one of those times was UC holding them to 61)
Xavier was their only truly bad performance of the season.

The idea that being an elite defense means you hold every team to their season low seems absurd. Villanova's offense must not be elite because Northern Iowa held them to 64 last year and it took OT to get them to 69 against Seton Hall.

This debate is why statistics are so incomprehensible to so many. Humans love to cite anecdotal evidence to prove their point all the time instead of looking at the vast majority of the evidence.

I get that it always comes down to "what have you done for me lately" but let me give you a wider perspective on the loss to Nevada...it can always be worse circumstances or a bigger disappointment. When Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament all hope with that team went up in smoke in an instant. I realize that was a fluke injury and not a loss based on performance, but you're talking about the best team in the last however many decades that was a LEGIT FINAL FOUR team, if not also, a favorite to win the title that year. It hurt and it was SHOCKING. Nothing compares to that moment for me in terms of of low (hell, a canyon) in Bearcats sports history and I'll wager for some other guys here on Banter too. Life goes on though and so will the Bearcats.

(12-11-2018 12:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I get that it always comes down to "what have you done for me lately" but let me give you a wider perspective on the loss to Nevada...it can always be worse circumstances or a bigger disappointment. When Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament all hope with that team went up in smoke in an instant. I realize that was a fluke injury and not a loss based on performance, but you're talking about the best team in the last however many decades that was a LEGIT FINAL FOUR team, if not also, a favorite to win the title that year. It hurt and it was SHOCKING. Nothing compares to that moment for me in terms of of low (hell, a canyon) in Bearcats sports history and I'll wager for some other guys here on Banter too. Life goes on though and so will the Bearcats.

I would rank UC v. Nevada number 1 on my list of disappointing UC basketball games, especially given the way it happened. Had UC stuck to the gameplan and not let Nevada speed them up on offense, leading to an open court, hectic stretch of the game, UC wins it going away. It was a lack of discipline that team had avoided nearly all season. Then given the way things opened around them it made it even worse. UC had a legitimate top 5 team, in the most wide open bracket possible. It truly was a devastating loss.

I'd have UCLA v. UC at number 2. But that one at least I thought both teams played really well throughout and did not really think we blew the game. Just two talented teams going head to head with a talented but inconsistent UCLA team (Steven Lavin everyone) playing to its talent level.

The Kenyon thing is obviously the biggest what if moment, but because it was the first round of the conference tournament doesn't quite feel the same...even though if I could change one thing in UC history it would be Kenyon not getting hurt.

We gotta stop talking about it. I believe it's as unforgivable as anything that's happened during Cronin's tenure but we can't let it hang over the program. There is no good reason to. It can only hurt us. Philosophy/coaching isn't changing anytime soon. This is our reality, we need to make the best of it.

(12-11-2018 12:20 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I get that it always comes down to "what have you done for me lately" but let me give you a wider perspective on the loss to Nevada...it can always be worse circumstances or a bigger disappointment. When Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament all hope with that team went up in smoke in an instant. I realize that was a fluke injury and not a loss based on performance, but you're talking about the best team in the last however many decades that was a LEGIT FINAL FOUR team, if not also, a favorite to win the title that year. It hurt and it was SHOCKING. Nothing compares to that moment for me in terms of of low (hell, a canyon) in Bearcats sports history and I'll wager for some other guys here on Banter too. Life goes on though and so will the Bearcats.

I would rank UC v. Nevada number 1 on my list of disappointing UC basketball games, especially given the way it happened. Had UC stuck to the gameplan and not let Nevada speed them up on offense, leading to an open court, hectic stretch of the game, UC wins it going away. It was a lack of discipline that team had avoided nearly all season. Then given the way things opened around them it made it even worse. UC had a legitimate top 5 team, in the most wide open bracket possible. It truly was a devastating loss.

I'd have UCLA v. UC at number 2. But that one at least I thought both teams played really well throughout and did not really think we blew the game. Just two talented teams going head to head with a talented but inconsistent UCLA team (Steven Lavin everyone) playing to its talent level.

The Kenyon thing is obviously the biggest what if moment, but because it was the first round of the conference tournament doesn't quite feel the same...even though if I could change one thing in UC history it would be Kenyon not getting hurt.

Ranking disappointments coming from a numbers guy? LOL. I kid Mark, but it comes down to what is relative to your personal perspective. Face it, there's been a lot of disappointments in both football and basketball but there's also been a lot of awesome moments too. Such is life as a sports fan of any team. For me, yes the Nevada loss hurt but not to the point of the Kenyon Martin injury. Everything can be a "what if" unless you reach your ultimate goal. Not saying there's a right or wrong but it's how I perceive it anyway.

(12-11-2018 12:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I get that it always comes down to "what have you done for me lately" but let me give you a wider perspective on the loss to Nevada...it can always be worse circumstances or a bigger disappointment. When Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament all hope with that team went up in smoke in an instant. I realize that was a fluke injury and not a loss based on performance, but you're talking about the best team in the last however many decades that was a LEGIT FINAL FOUR team, if not also, a favorite to win the title that year. It hurt and it was SHOCKING. Nothing compares to that moment for me in terms of of low (hell, a canyon) in Bearcats sports history and I'll wager for some other guys here on Banter too. Life goes on though and so will the Bearcats.

I cried when Kenyon broke his leg. I was a youngin' but that one hurt. It was out of our control. Last year was brutal. Absolutely brutal. As a grown adult who has kids, a very steady and great job, and an overall busy life, I haven't cared or been 'devastated' by that type of loss since Palmer tore his ACL in '06 when I was in college. Still remember feeling depressed about that one for weeks. But I was still relatively immature in life and was just starting 'on my own' with not many responsibilities so sports still ruled my life.

Last year's loss brought me very close to that feeling I had back in '06. After going through the upset with X in '96, Miles Simon, Iowa State, Northern Arizona, Kenyon, etc, Nevada takes the cake. It was embarrassing to be a UC fan after giving up that type of lead. It was brutal. Mick just doesn't have the ability to calm team down.

(12-11-2018 01:51 PM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  I cried when Kenyon broke his leg. I was a youngin' but that one hurt. It was out of our control. Last year was brutal. Absolutely brutal. As a grown adult who has kids, a very steady and great job, and an overall busy life, I haven't cared or been 'devastated' by that type of loss since Palmer tore his ACL in '06 when I was in college. Still remember feeling depressed about that one for weeks. But I was still relatively immature in life and was just starting 'on my own' with not many responsibilities so sports still ruled my life.

Last year's loss brought me very close to that feeling I had back in '06. After going through the upset with X in '96, Miles Simon, Iowa State, Northern Arizona, Kenyon, etc, Nevada takes the cake. It was embarrassing to be a UC fan after giving up that type of lead. It was brutal. Mick just doesn't have the ability to calm team down.

I actually laughed after the Nevada game. Basically chuckled and though "UC screwed it up again."

I watch and root and cheer and hope for great things from UC athletics. I do not, however, expect them anymore.

This is priceless. UC beats X and the Crosstown Shootout thread turns into a lamentation of the Nevada game with a bit of Kenyon-breaking-his-leg thrown in there. Can we get an old timer to recount Jucker blowing that 3rd straight title to Loyola Chicago?

(12-11-2018 01:51 PM)OldenburgCat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:14 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I get that it always comes down to "what have you done for me lately" but let me give you a wider perspective on the loss to Nevada...it can always be worse circumstances or a bigger disappointment. When Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament all hope with that team went up in smoke in an instant. I realize that was a fluke injury and not a loss based on performance, but you're talking about the best team in the last however many decades that was a LEGIT FINAL FOUR team, if not also, a favorite to win the title that year. It hurt and it was SHOCKING. Nothing compares to that moment for me in terms of of low (hell, a canyon) in Bearcats sports history and I'll wager for some other guys here on Banter too. Life goes on though and so will the Bearcats.

I cried when Kenyon broke his leg. I was a youngin' but that one hurt. It was out of our control. Last year was brutal. Absolutely brutal. As a grown adult who has kids, a very steady and great job, and an overall busy life, I haven't cared or been 'devastated' by that type of loss since Palmer tore his ACL in '06 when I was in college. Still remember feeling depressed about that one for weeks. But I was still relatively immature in life and was just starting 'on my own' with not many responsibilities so sports still ruled my life.

Last year's loss brought me very close to that feeling I had back in '06. After going through the upset with X in '96, Miles Simon, Iowa State, Northern Arizona, Kenyon, etc, Nevada takes the cake. It was embarrassing to be a UC fan after giving up that type of lead. It was brutal. Mick just doesn't have the ability to calm team down.

If you were just flat-out embarrassed to be a UC fan after the Nevada game, I'm not sure anyone on this board can help you, man. When the Bearcats lose, it makes me want to wear the C-Paw even more to show that I support my university no matter what happens. If being a fan is supposed to be a "convenience", then you're not doing it right (especially in Cincinnati).

I still maintain that the advanced stats (taking into account competition and pace) still can be skewed. UCs defense simply didnt impress against elite competition, and I realize these teams aren't going to be held in the 50's, but we have gotten torched by some teams. Which is more reason for Mick not to scoff at the need to be able to score and shoot in 2018.

(12-11-2018 06:43 PM)jarr Wrote:  I still maintain that the advanced stats (taking into account competition and pace) still can be skewed. UCs defense simply didnt impress against elite competition, and I realize these teams aren't going to be held in the 50's, but we have gotten torched by some teams. Which is more reason for Mick not to scoff at the need to be able to score and shoot in 2018.

but what defense doesn't get torched from time to time? michigan finished 3rd in adjusted defense last year and gave up 1.2 PPP or worse in 4 times. 1.10 PPP or worse 8 times. Texas Tech finished 4th in adjusted defense last year and gave up 1.2 PPP or worse 4 times and 1.10 PPP or worse 6 times.



You know the only team to put up over 1.2 PPP on us last year? Tulsa.

(12-11-2018 04:21 PM)levydl Wrote:  This is priceless. UC beats X and the Crosstown Shootout thread turns into a lamentation of the Nevada game with a bit of Kenyon-breaking-his-leg thrown in there. Can we get an old timer to recount Jucker blowing that 3rd straight title to Loyola Chicago?

He went into slow down way too early. That said the shot that beat us should have been waved off as the shooter traveled.

(12-11-2018 07:11 PM)CallMeSlim Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 06:43 PM)jarr Wrote:  I still maintain that the advanced stats (taking into account competition and pace) still can be skewed. UCs defense simply didnt impress against elite competition, and I realize these teams aren't going to be held in the 50's, but we have gotten torched by some teams. Which is more reason for Mick not to scoff at the need to be able to score and shoot in 2018.

but what defense doesn't get torched from time to time? michigan finished 3rd in adjusted defense last year and gave up 1.2 PPP or worse in 4 times. 1.10 PPP or worse 8 times. Texas Tech finished 4th in adjusted defense last year and gave up 1.2 PPP or worse 4 times and 1.10 PPP or worse 6 times.



You know the only team to put up over 1.2 PPP on us last year? Tulsa.

What he said.