RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
In conference play of 2019-2020 season. Temple averaged just 66.7 points, opponents 70.9 point.
Reflecting on Temple’s season, it’s clear that Temple’s problem was it’s lack of scoring caused by it’s poor 44.7 two-point shooting percentage which ranked 335 out of 350 teams in the nation. Mckie deliberately thrust both Rose and NPL as the focal point of Temple’s offense even though in conference play Rose shot a woeful 38.8 percent on 2’s and 30 percent on three’s , and NPL shot 41 percent on two’s, 31.1 percent on 3’s. Adding to Temple’s scoring problems was Temple’s starting PF averaging just 6.2 ppg.
Can’t have a winning record when a teams most prolific shooters are shooting so poorly, and conference opponents are shooting 47.6 percent on 2’s
when they played Temple. Mckie should have known better especial since he had far better shooters on the team.
Temple’s defense was good as it held teams to shooting just 39.8 percent, which was 30th best in the nation. Temple held teams to shooting 46.3 percent on two’s which ranked 76th in the nation, and held opponents to shooting 31.1 percent on 3’s. which ranked Temple 67th in the nation.
As a result of Temple’s poor shooting, Temple wound up with a 14-17 overall record, and 5-13 conference record.
But Temple jetted out to a 6-1 non-conference record. They had success, as at times, they played a pressure defense that led to forced opponent turnovers that led to easy Temple hoops. Temple was ranked 12th in the nation in steals. But as soon as conference play Temple stopped trying to force opponent turnovers, and losses mounted up.
Temple played an 18-game conference schedule. Temple was 3-10 in conference play primarily due to starters Rose and NPL poor shooting, and Moorman’s low scoring.But, while Rose and NPL both shot awful in half court sets, but shot well when Temple forced opponent turnovers.
Temple could have solved it’s scoring problem by removing Moorman as Temple’s starting PF, sliding 6’8 “ Rose from wing to the PF position, and inserting Scott as Temple’s new wing. Such would have provided Temple with so much more scoring.
It was only when Temple found itself with a 3-10 conference record, and Moorman became injured, that Mckie was forced to go to insert Scott line-up. and played small ball with 4-guards, and Temple had success.
One can readily see that as in Temple’s victory over SMU, Tulane, and UConn, when in the second halves of the SMU and Tulane games, and the entire UConn game. Mckie decided only to go to a small line-up is because in the first half of the SMU and Tulane, Mckie had played a tall line-up and found itself trailing by large margins.
So Mckie moved Rose to PF, and Scott came off the bench early on to play significant minutes on the wing. Scott went off- scoring 22 points, 16-points, and 25-point respectively in those games, and Temple won all three-games.
Scott had transferred to Temple the season before from Kennesaw State where he had averaged 17.3 ppg his sophomore. He had scored very well against some of the best teams in the nation including Butler and Texas Tech. Against Butler, he scored 26-points, 22 of those coming in the 2nd half, the most points scored against in a half that season. He also shot 42.5 percent on three’s, his last seven conference games.
In transferring he had offers from top-flight teams Maryland, Virginia Tech and Nevada. He chose Temple.
Under NCAA he had to sit-out for a year. During that time he led Temple’s second unit more wins over the first unit than they lost. Players indicated in interviews that Scott was Temple’s best offensive player saying he could shoot from anywhere, and was hardest ll yer to defend.
Scott only averaged 14-mpg in conference play prior to the SMU game, as he was shuttled in and out games making it difficult to find a rhythm.
Clear, that Scott was Temple’s best player and was the straw that stirred the drink in Temple’s wins over SMU, Tulane and UConn, and made Temple’s 4-guard line-up work as well as it did.
In those three games, Scott shot a whopping 81 percent (18-22) on two’s, unheard for a guard.
Scott has that rare and unique ability to hit 2’s and be fouled and then shoot free-throws. That happened three times in this three conference games. Should be reflected in box score. Is not.
The small line-up consisted of four guards-Alani Moore, NPL, Scott and Rose. They played with either Forrester, Moorman or D. Moore at the center position.
In those three games, led by Scott. Temple shot 54.9 percent (50-91), and shot 45.7 percent ( 16-35) on three’s in those three conference wins. These shooting percentages cried out for Temple to have played small ball all season so Temple could drastically have increased their scoring. Prior to those games, Temple’s 2-point shooting was in the 43 percent.
Temple’s small ball pressure defense also caused SMU, Tulane, and UConn, to shooting but 41 percent (43-104) on two’s, and 28.6 percent (14-49) on three’s, well below what Temple held teams when Temple played with a traditional Center and
It’s my opinion, Temple’s most productive line-up would have been Alani Moore, NPL, Scott. Perry and Rose. I say this as Perry was Temple’s best overall shooter. They never played together.
Coupled with playing small ball with 4-guards required that Temple play aggressively and force turnovers, and as such raised the shooting percentages of Temple’s players particularly Rose and Nate who both shot awful when Temple limited itself to playing in slow half-court sets.
For some unfathomable reason after the UConn game, in Temple’s last conference games, Temple lost all five conference games because it did not pressure the ball. Temple saw it’s national ranking making steals drop from 12th in the nation to 54th when the season ended.
A separate mistake the HC made was underutilizing his best shooters, not only Scott, but Alani Moore and Dre Perry as well. One would think the HC would want his best shooters both to play and shoot often, when they played. But that didn’t happen.
Mckie underutilized Alani Moore, by far Temple’s best three point shooter arc 42.5 percent on three’s in conference play; Scott, Temple’s best two point shooter, 54.7 percent on two’s in conference play; and Dre Perry, Temple’s best overall shooter (56.7 percent on two’s, 41.3 percent on three’s)
Scott averaged 30 mpg in Temple’s last 8 conference games. In 7 of 8 Temple’s last 8 conference games Scott shot 69.85 percent ( 32–46) shooting two’s.
Scott finished conference play shooting 54.7 percent overall on two’s in conference play, the highest percentage of any guard in the AAC conference.
McKie should have known earlier in the season that shuffling Scott in and out of games earlier in the season, would hurt Scott’s offensive production, and when Scott got the chance to play significant minutes he excelled.
A.Moore, Temple’s best 3-point shooter, played 30 plus minutes, took few shoots and thus he averaged but 7.6 ppg in conference play. If Mckie. had created more plays for him, he would have scored far more points per game.
Perry averaged but 17.6 ppg for the season even though he shot 56.7 on two’s and 41.3 percent on three’s, and was one of Temple’s better defenders.
Instead of relying on the above three for Temple’s offense Mckie’s made both Rose and NPL the focal point of the offense and having them take Temple’s most fga’s when instead Scott, A.Moore, Dre Perry should have.
If Scott and Perry had been taking Temple’s most two’s, and Alani Moore more 3’s, Temple would have had a far higher shooting preventing shooting two’s, and would have had a far better win-loss record.
Due to Rose, NPL, and Moorman leading Temple’s offensive attack, Temple only averaged 65 ppg in regulation.
One can only attribute McKie making both Rose and NPL the focal point of Temple’s offense as being unwarranted favoritism.
Temple wouldn’t have lost a beat on both sides of the ball if Perry came off the bench, not Moorman, with Perry subbing in for Rose, NPL and Scott.
Temple would have been better off with Moorman hardly ever playing the PF position, but instead had shared the Center position with Forrester, and Rose.
If Alani, Rose, NPL and Scott all played 30 minutes per game, Temple would have been a far better team, and Temple would have averaged in the mid or upper 70’s, and not the 65-ppg the averaged in regulation of conference play.
Mckie failing to have his players pressure the ball often, insured that Temple would force fewer opponent turnovers, Temple scoring fewer points, and opponents more points.
If Scott had played more with both Rose and NPL, and Temple would have forced more opponent turnovers, both Rose’s and NPL’s would have seen their 2-point shooting percentages. As Rose’s shooting percentage on 2’s reached 50 percent in the SMU and Tulane wins, and when NPL shot 54 percent (6-11) on two’s in Temple’s win over UConn.
Both Rose and NPL playing in mostly half-court offense sets in other conference games exposed their weaknesses shooting the ball.
If Temple played small ball in other conference games, and coupled that with pressure defense thus causing forced opponents turnovers, opponents would have averaged far less than the 69 ppg they did in conferenc play. Temple not pressuring the ball in Temple’s last five conference games resulted in 5-straight losses as Temple committed more more turnovers than their opponents, and shot a lower 2-point shooting percentage.
In Temple’s last five conference games, Mckie continued to rely on Rose, and he shot a woeful 32 percent (16-50) percent on 2’s, and 27 percent (9-39) on three’s. NPL shot even worse as he shot 23 percent (6-27) on two’s, and 27 percent (2-7) on three’s. Given house bad both players performed, it’s surprising that the scores in four of those games were as close as they were. But Mckie let that happen in most of Temple’s conference games.
Temple should have had a winning season and conference record.what could have been!
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2021 07:35 AM by Miggy.)
|
