The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-20-2018 07:29 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 05:37 PM)odu09 Wrote:  I see Haynes and Porter remain criminally underrated.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Porter likely. Haynes was not. Best wing defender but mediocre offensively.

Haynes was at times our best offensive threat, and for most of the season was our best shooter.

(08-21-2018 07:15 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:17 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 01:20 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  I just walked our schedule and counted the Wins I thought would be obvious and gave the 50/50 games half a point in my head. Literally no science but given how much we lost and all the new faces I'm not expecting NCAA's unless we run the tourney. I'm actually a bit more pessimistic than normal I think right now but figured 18 would be a good number to toss to the wolves and see what debate turns around it.

We should be significantly better in the backcourt and the wings. It's a matter of if Robinson can give us anything. (and if any of the freshman can contribute) Ezikpe at least has the body to play from day 1.

In order for this to be the case, Kithcart needs to be significantly better than Haynes. Is it your sense that this is the case? Hearing many conflicting reports on Kithcart. Either that or Caver or BJ needs to have made the jump from very good to exceptional, assuming reports verify that Green will continue to come off the bench.

Thats not true because Godwin, Caver, Green, and Stith should realistically be better than they were last year. Thats four guys improving over 1 guy leaving.

Just for evidence:

O-Rating:
Godwin 118
Caver 114
Stith 113
Haynes 104
Green 100

D-Rating:
Caver 95
Stith 96
Haynes 96
Green 98
Godwin 99

(08-21-2018 07:31 AM)T-Mac Wrote:  There are a number of very likely scenarios that allow us to easily make up for Haynes:
1) Godwin notably improves over his Freshman year. - Very likely
2) Green notably improves over his Freshman year - Very likely
3) Kithcart is a serviceable backup PG--allowing us the flexibility to move Caver to SG. - Very likely
4) BJ notably improves over his Junior year. - Moderate chance
5) Caver notably improves over his Junior year. - Moderate chance

If any two of these are true, we likely make up for Haynes's loss. If three of these are true, we improve over last year's backcourt. If four of these are true, we have an exceptional backcourt.

Those are all reasonable possibilities, although, the law of averages say that not all of them will work out as favorably as we hope. I would, however, say that I am not sure Caver at the 2 is going to be a great thing. He is a point guard, and he is very good at it, but he doesn't strike me as a great 2.

(08-21-2018 08:52 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 07:15 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:17 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 01:20 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  I just walked our schedule and counted the Wins I thought would be obvious and gave the 50/50 games half a point in my head. Literally no science but given how much we lost and all the new faces I'm not expecting NCAA's unless we run the tourney. I'm actually a bit more pessimistic than normal I think right now but figured 18 would be a good number to toss to the wolves and see what debate turns around it.

We should be significantly better in the backcourt and the wings. It's a matter of if Robinson can give us anything. (and if any of the freshman can contribute) Ezikpe at least has the body to play from day 1.

In order for this to be the case, Kithcart needs to be significantly better than Haynes. Is it your sense that this is the case? Hearing many conflicting reports on Kithcart. Either that or Caver or BJ needs to have made the jump from very good to exceptional, assuming reports verify that Green will continue to come off the bench.

Thats not true because Godwin, Caver, Green, and Stith should realistically be better than they were last year. Thats four guys improving over 1 guy leaving.

Just for evidence:

O-Rating:
Godwin 118
Caver 114
Stith 113
Haynes 104
Green 100

D-Rating:
Caver 95
Stith 96
Haynes 96
Green 98
Godwin 99

I don't believe Caver will be significantly better. He is already very good, maybe already maximizing his talent, and you don't often see huge leaps from Junior to Senior year.

As I mentioned, I was factoring in the rumors we are hearing about BJ playing a good amount of 4. By definition, that hurts us on the wings.

I think Kithcart will add something, but not as much as others think, because from what it sounds like, he is a 1 and not a great 2 (can't shoot). I also don't think Caver will be a great 2, so where does Kithcart give us a boost other than depth?

Green is the big question mark for me. He has the tools to be a very good offensive player. Can he make that leap this year? If, so that makes a huge difference. If he is just marginally better than last year, that is not enough, imo.

(08-21-2018 08:51 AM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:29 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Porter likely. Haynes was not. Best wing defender but mediocre offensively.

This is amazing. But I get it, for you, Randy Haynes was going to remain in the mediocre category no matter what he did. So the next question is who on the team was not mediocre offensively? Do you have one?

Mediocre? Just wow. And lol.

Randy had 4 games where he scored 20 or more points. Each of them were high scoring/high pace games. The only one where he "carried" us was against Dayton when he scored 25 in a low pace game and only Caver really contributed besides him.

I appreciate Randy for what he did for us, but I can critique him as well. He shot 39% from the floor. (32% from 3) He rarely got to the free throw line. Our offense with him in the lineup was marginally better than average. He was not efficient and did not rebound well. What he did well was pass without turning the ball over.

In terms of FG%, he was only ahead of freshman Godwin. In terms of 3 point percentage, he was only ahead of Pinckney (if he even counts). In efficiency, he was only ahead of Carver and Green. True shooting% only Green and Carver. Rebound %-only Caver and Green.

In strictly an offensive sense, he was only better than Green and Carver last year. Where he helped the team was defensively and passing/not turning the ball over. He was one of our worst shooters (better than Green and Carver). He didn't rebound.

I'm not sure where all the love came from? WHile the games against Dayton and Marshall were nice, he also score 5 total points in the conference tourney. 0 points in 29 minutes vs. LT and 5 points in 32 mins vs. Western Kentucky. Facts are facts, our offense will be better without Haynes. I do agree that defense will take a hit, it's a matter on how much Green and Godwin can improve defensively. Green has the athleticism to be better this year than Haynes was last year.

(08-21-2018 09:02 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 08:52 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 07:15 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:17 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 01:20 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  I just walked our schedule and counted the Wins I thought would be obvious and gave the 50/50 games half a point in my head. Literally no science but given how much we lost and all the new faces I'm not expecting NCAA's unless we run the tourney. I'm actually a bit more pessimistic than normal I think right now but figured 18 would be a good number to toss to the wolves and see what debate turns around it.

We should be significantly better in the backcourt and the wings. It's a matter of if Robinson can give us anything. (and if any of the freshman can contribute) Ezikpe at least has the body to play from day 1.

In order for this to be the case, Kithcart needs to be significantly better than Haynes. Is it your sense that this is the case? Hearing many conflicting reports on Kithcart. Either that or Caver or BJ needs to have made the jump from very good to exceptional, assuming reports verify that Green will continue to come off the bench.

Thats not true because Godwin, Caver, Green, and Stith should realistically be better than they were last year. Thats four guys improving over 1 guy leaving.

Just for evidence:

O-Rating:
Godwin 118
Caver 114
Stith 113
Haynes 104
Green 100

D-Rating:
Caver 95
Stith 96
Haynes 96
Green 98
Godwin 99

I don't believe Caver will be significantly better. He is already very good, maybe already maximizing his talent, and you don't often see huge leaps from Junior to Senior year.

As I mentioned, I was factoring in the rumors we are hearing about BJ playing a good amount of 4. By definition, that hurts us on the wings.

I think Kithcart will add something, but not as much as others think, because from what it sounds like, he is a 1 and not a great 2 (can't shoot). I also don't think Caver will be a great 2, so where does Kithcart give us a boost other than depth?

Green is the big question mark for me. He has the tools to be a very good offensive player. Can he make that leap this year? If, so that makes a huge difference. If he is just marginally better than last year, that is not enough, imo.

Caver doesn't need to make a huge jump. He will likely make steady improvement.

Even if you put BJ at the 4, he's still going to be playing on the wings, it's not like they are going to run post up offense through him.

Kithcart is a backup PG, something we haven't had or a few years. Even in limited duty, it's an upgrade over what we've had (Fields/Pinckney).

You didn't mention Godwin either. Godwin shot the ball well from 3 as a freshman. That is a good sign that he will help the team offensively.

(08-21-2018 09:16 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 08:51 AM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:29 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Porter likely. Haynes was not. Best wing defender but mediocre offensively.

This is amazing. But I get it, for you, Randy Haynes was going to remain in the mediocre category no matter what he did. So the next question is who on the team was not mediocre offensively? Do you have one?

Mediocre? Just wow. And lol.

Randy had 4 games where he scored 20 or more points. Each of them were high scoring/high pace games. The only one where he "carried" us was against Dayton when he scored 25 in a low pace game and only Caver really contributed besides him.

I appreciate Randy for what he did for us, but I can critique him as well. He shot 39% from the floor. (32% from 3) He rarely got to the free throw line. Our offense with him in the lineup was marginally better than average. He was not efficient and did not rebound well. What he did well was pass without turning the ball over.

In terms of FG%, he was only ahead of freshman Godwin. In terms of 3 point percentage, he was only ahead of Pinckney (if he even counts). In efficiency, he was only ahead of Carver and Green. True shooting% only Green and Carver. Rebound %-only Caver and Green.

In strictly an offensive sense, he was only better than Green and Carver last year. Where he helped the team was defensively and passing/not turning the ball over. He was one of our worst shooters (better than Green and Carver). He didn't rebound.

I'm not sure where all the love came from? WHile the games against Dayton and Marshall were nice, he also score 5 total points in the conference tourney. 0 points in 29 minutes vs. LT and 5 points in 32 mins vs. Western Kentucky. Facts are facts, our offense will be better without Haynes. I do agree that defense will take a hit, it's a matter on how much Green and Godwin can improve defensively. Green has the athleticism to be better this year than Haynes was last year.

Since you’re a stats guy, could you let us know what Haynes’ shooting percentage was if one were to subtract the end of the shot clock attempts that he (and Caver) often were forced to shoot?

(08-21-2018 10:00 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:16 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 08:51 AM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:29 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Porter likely. Haynes was not. Best wing defender but mediocre offensively.

This is amazing. But I get it, for you, Randy Haynes was going to remain in the mediocre category no matter what he did. So the next question is who on the team was not mediocre offensively? Do you have one?

Mediocre? Just wow. And lol.

Randy had 4 games where he scored 20 or more points. Each of them were high scoring/high pace games. The only one where he "carried" us was against Dayton when he scored 25 in a low pace game and only Caver really contributed besides him.

I appreciate Randy for what he did for us, but I can critique him as well. He shot 39% from the floor. (32% from 3) He rarely got to the free throw line. Our offense with him in the lineup was marginally better than average. He was not efficient and did not rebound well. What he did well was pass without turning the ball over.

In terms of FG%, he was only ahead of freshman Godwin. In terms of 3 point percentage, he was only ahead of Pinckney (if he even counts). In efficiency, he was only ahead of Carver and Green. True shooting% only Green and Carver. Rebound %-only Caver and Green.

In strictly an offensive sense, he was only better than Green and Carver last year. Where he helped the team was defensively and passing/not turning the ball over. He was one of our worst shooters (better than Green and Carver). He didn't rebound.

I'm not sure where all the love came from? WHile the games against Dayton and Marshall were nice, he also score 5 total points in the conference tourney. 0 points in 29 minutes vs. LT and 5 points in 32 mins vs. Western Kentucky. Facts are facts, our offense will be better without Haynes. I do agree that defense will take a hit, it's a matter on how much Green and Godwin can improve defensively. Green has the athleticism to be better this year than Haynes was last year.

Since you’re a stats guy, could you let us know what Haynes’ shooting percentage was if one were to subtract the end of the shot clock attempts that he (and Caver) often were forced to shoot?

Thank you. That has gone under the radar since Caver's sophomore year. Randy was the only other guy last year, that could create his own shot at the end of the shot clock.

I've never seen Kithcart play, but I've always been impressed with Caver's ability to get to the rim. I could see two penetrators on the floor opening up shots for Godwin, Stith, X, Wade. You get the idea.

(08-21-2018 10:00 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:16 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 08:51 AM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:29 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Porter likely. Haynes was not. Best wing defender but mediocre offensively.

This is amazing. But I get it, for you, Randy Haynes was going to remain in the mediocre category no matter what he did. So the next question is who on the team was not mediocre offensively? Do you have one?

Mediocre? Just wow. And lol.

Randy had 4 games where he scored 20 or more points. Each of them were high scoring/high pace games. The only one where he "carried" us was against Dayton when he scored 25 in a low pace game and only Caver really contributed besides him.

I appreciate Randy for what he did for us, but I can critique him as well. He shot 39% from the floor. (32% from 3) He rarely got to the free throw line. Our offense with him in the lineup was marginally better than average. He was not efficient and did not rebound well. What he did well was pass without turning the ball over.

In terms of FG%, he was only ahead of freshman Godwin. In terms of 3 point percentage, he was only ahead of Pinckney (if he even counts). In efficiency, he was only ahead of Carver and Green. True shooting% only Green and Carver. Rebound %-only Caver and Green.

In strictly an offensive sense, he was only better than Green and Carver last year. Where he helped the team was defensively and passing/not turning the ball over. He was one of our worst shooters (better than Green and Carver). He didn't rebound.

I'm not sure where all the love came from? WHile the games against Dayton and Marshall were nice, he also score 5 total points in the conference tourney. 0 points in 29 minutes vs. LT and 5 points in 32 mins vs. Western Kentucky. Facts are facts, our offense will be better without Haynes. I do agree that defense will take a hit, it's a matter on how much Green and Godwin can improve defensively. Green has the athleticism to be better this year than Haynes was last year.

Since you’re a stats guy, could you let us know what Haynes’ shooting percentage was if one were to subtract the end of the shot clock attempts that he (and Caver) often were forced to shoot?

I will have to dig around. The chances that it is materially different are slim.

No need to dig around. He was clearly mediocre offensively.

Using your own justification, I'd say that any player having 4 games above 20 points per game is probably not mediocre offensively. Certainly don't know why a player would need to ever "carry" us if his game is mediocre offensively. But it is just semantics. I save that word for a different category of performance in college basketball.

As far as "facts are facts, our offense will be better without Haynes"? I'm not sure I saw that last year and felt our offense was much better when he was willing to shoot it and bring teams out of that zone we struggled against two seasons ago. And I hope you're right about this year's group being better but unless they are a threat to shoot it, the offense cannot be better.

(08-21-2018 04:31 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  No need to dig around. He was clearly mediocre offensively.

Using your own justification, I'd say that any player having 4 games above 20 points per game is probably not mediocre offensively. Certainly don't know why a player would need to ever "carry" us if his game is mediocre offensively. But it is just semantics. I save that word for a different category of performance in college basketball.

As far as "facts are facts, our offense will be better without Haynes"? I'm not sure I saw that last year and felt our offense was much better when he was willing to shoot it and bring teams out of that zone we struggled against two seasons ago. And I hope you're right about this year's group being better but unless they are a threat to shoot it, the offense cannot be better.

Brandan had at least one game over 20 as well (i haven't check his game logs).

Green and Godwin are both likely better shooters than Haynes and seem willing to shoot, especially Godwin.

Of course Brandon had a game late in the season over 20. But the comment was Haynes was "mediocre offensively". I'm not even talking about Brandon, Green, or Godwin. If Haynes was mediocre offensively, almost everyone on team was mediocre offensively. And that may have been the case, but if so, I'm still not sure it was necessary to call his offensive game out.

He was one of the best offensive players we had, offensive rating or not. Situations dictated when he took shots and because he was a real threat, defenses reacted a LOT more than we saw in 2016. If he was mediocre offensively, they would have treated his shot like they treated Denzel Taylor or Stephen Vassor the year before when they didn't even come out and guard the offensive threat at times. But you stay with the offensive ratings and I'll focus on the situational basketball.

(08-21-2018 04:57 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  Of course Brandon had a game late in the season over 20. But the comment was Haynes was "mediocre offensively". I'm not even talking about Brandon, Green, or Godwin. If Haynes was mediocre offensively, almost everyone on team was mediocre offensively. And that may have been the case, but if so, I'm still not sure it was necessary to call his offensive game out.

He was one of the best offensive players we had, offensive rating or not. Situations dictated when he took shots and because he was a real threat, defenses reacted a LOT more than we saw in 2016. If he was mediocre offensively, they would have treated his shot like they treated Denzel Taylor or Stephen Vassor the year before when they didn't even come out and guard the offensive threat at times. But you stay with the offensive ratings and I'll focus on the situational basketball.

I showed why he was mediocre offensively. He was only better than a couple of guys; a freshman (Green) and a defender (Carver).

I dont think people realize how overstated his offense is on here. He was extremely inefficient and if he was a good offensive player, it would show up in ability to shoot/score in an efficient manner. You cannot be a good offensive player while not shooting well (38%/32%), having a low rating (and PER) and not have a positive adfect on the team scoring (on/off court differential).

(08-21-2018 06:39 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:57 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  Of course Brandon had a game late in the season over 20. But the comment was Haynes was "mediocre offensively". I'm not even talking about Brandon, Green, or Godwin. If Haynes was mediocre offensively, almost everyone on team was mediocre offensively. And that may have been the case, but if so, I'm still not sure it was necessary to call his offensive game out.

He was one of the best offensive players we had, offensive rating or not. Situations dictated when he took shots and because he was a real threat, defenses reacted a LOT more than we saw in 2016. If he was mediocre offensively, they would have treated his shot like they treated Denzel Taylor or Stephen Vassor the year before when they didn't even come out and guard the offensive threat at times. But you stay with the offensive ratings and I'll focus on the situational basketball.

I showed why he was mediocre offensively. He was only better than a couple of guys; a freshman (Green) and a defender (Carver).

I dont think people realize how overstated his offense is on here. He was extremely inefficient and if he was a good offensive player, it would show up in ability to shoot/score in an efficient manner. You cannot be a good offensive player while not shooting well (38%/32%), having a low rating (and PER) and not have a positive adfect on the team scoring (on/off court differential).

Still waiting on his shooting percentages minus shots taken with 5 or less seconds on the shot clock.

(08-21-2018 06:58 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 06:39 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:57 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  Of course Brandon had a game late in the season over 20. But the comment was Haynes was "mediocre offensively". I'm not even talking about Brandon, Green, or Godwin. If Haynes was mediocre offensively, almost everyone on team was mediocre offensively. And that may have been the case, but if so, I'm still not sure it was necessary to call his offensive game out.

He was one of the best offensive players we had, offensive rating or not. Situations dictated when he took shots and because he was a real threat, defenses reacted a LOT more than we saw in 2016. If he was mediocre offensively, they would have treated his shot like they treated Denzel Taylor or Stephen Vassor the year before when they didn't even come out and guard the offensive threat at times. But you stay with the offensive ratings and I'll focus on the situational basketball.

I showed why he was mediocre offensively. He was only better than a couple of guys; a freshman (Green) and a defender (Carver).

I dont think people realize how overstated his offense is on here. He was extremely inefficient and if he was a good offensive player, it would show up in ability to shoot/score in an efficient manner. You cannot be a good offensive player while not shooting well (38%/32%), having a low rating (and PER) and not have a positive adfect on the team scoring (on/off court differential).

Still waiting on his shooting percentages minus shots taken with 5 or less seconds on the shot clock.

Grasping

(08-21-2018 06:39 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I showed why he was mediocre offensively. He was only better than a couple of guys; a freshman (Green) and a defender (Carver).

I dont think people realize how overstated his offense is on here. He was extremely inefficient and if he was a good offensive player, it would show up in ability to shoot/score in an efficient manner. You cannot be a good offensive player while not shooting well (38%/32%), having a low rating (and PER) and not have a positive adfect on the team scoring (on/off court differential).

So I wish all these NBA coaches and GMs would stop raving over the offensive production that Kyle Kuzma and Terry Rozier had this year. They were clearly very mediocre offensive players.

And Devin Booker, Doug McDermott, and Kent Bazemore were all worse than mediocre offensive players this year. Who knew?

Your move, Scout.

Why in the world would you include Booker with those guys?

Yea that one doesn't fit at all. It was a late post for me.

Guess we won't need to worry about an 80 RPI...

https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/...ting-tool/

The NCAA announced on Wednesday that they have eliminated the RPI as the primary sorting tool to be used during the NCAA tournament selection process.

The new metric, which is called the NCAA Evaluation Tool (or NET), will rely on “game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.”