Cincinnati Bearcats

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #181
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
After beating both SMU and Tulane, that Temple had previously lost to, next up was UConn that had at also beaten Temple in their first meeting by 15-points, 78-63. Temple had only scored 21 points in the first half, and Scott had playing only 10 minutes, had not scored, as he had not shot the ball.

Would Mckie play small ball that had been so successful in Temple’s two prior conference games? Would he play small ball in the first half so Temple would not find itself trailing at half-time?

Temple was facing off a UConn team that was arguably the best team in the AAC, having won three out of it’s last four conference games, including a 16-point victory over Tulsa that had beaten Temple by 26-points, had an overtime win over Cincinnati, and a 3-point victory over Memphis, the later two teams having also beaten Temple. After playing Temple in their second match-up, UConn went on to run the table, winning their last five conference games that included beating powerhouse Houston.

Moorman and Perry had recovered from their injuries, and both were now now prepared to play.

McKie decided he wanted both Forrester and undersized Moorman to man the center position, and for Rose to play the PF position, thus allowing hot shooting Scott to come off the bench and play significant minutes.

McKie recognized that Temple played best when Alani, NPL, Scott, and Rose played significant minutes together. All four players created fits UConn’s defense.

It still remained to be seen whether Temple playing small ball could keep UConn’s from scoring less than the 78-points UcConn had scored against Temple in it’s first match.

Both teams played mostly a man to man defense.

In both halves, Scott came off the bench and played till the end of each half. He was not shuttled in and out.

Temple started the game with both 6’10” Forrester and 6’11” Hamilton upfront along with A. Moore, NPL, and Rose. After three minutes of play, 6’7” Moorman and 6’7” Perry subbed in for Forrester and Hamilton.

Temple was now playing small ball with Alani, Nate, Rose, Perry, Moorman on the court. Moorman was Temple’s center.

Scott subbed in 6 minutes (14 minute mark) into the half with Temple trailing by 5-points. McKie had Scott sub-in for Alani Moore.

Three minutes later, at the 11 minute mark, Temple was trailing by 4-points, when Mckie subbed-in Alani along with Forrester and JPL, in place of Moorman, Perry, and Nate.

At the 9-minute mark, UConn had extended it’s lead to 10-points, 23-13. Temple had scored but 13-points in the first 11-minutes played, but it’s small ball defense was playing well as it gave up but 13-points. Scott had scored 4 of Temple’s 13-points.

Mckie then pulled Josh and Forrester, and inserted Moorman and Perry again. They were playing with Alani, Rose, and Scott.

Rose having started subbed out at the 8-minute mark. Less than two-minutes later, Rose subbed back in.

So, Temple’s line-up is now Alani, Nate, Scott, Rose and Forrester.

In 6 minutes of play, Temple’s small line-up had erased the 10-point deficit as at the 5-minute mark the score was tied 27-27.

Scott had scored 11 points in 9 minutes of playing time, shooting a torrid 5-6 on two’s, 0-1 on three’s, 1-1 at the foul line, having been fouled on one of his made 2’s.

The half ended with Temple up 36-33. Temple had scored 9-points in the last 5 minutes of the half to close out the half.

Nate had scored four points on foul shots.

Rose had scored 4-points in 18-minutes of play, shooting 0-3 on two’s, 0-1 on three’s, and shot 4-4 from the foul line, had one block, 1-assist, and
1 turnover.

In the second-half, Hamilton started upfront again with Forrester.

Three minutes into the second-half, Temple had extended it’s lead to 40-35 with Hamilton on the court. UConn had only scored 2-points in those three minutes. Mckie then subbed-in in Moorman for Hamilton, even though Temple had extended it’s lead and UConn had scored but 2-points.

Hamilton did not return. Forrester and Moorman’s were playing together upfront.

Scott subbed in for Forrester four minutes into the second-half when Temple was up 4-points.

During the next 3-minutes with Moorman playing center, Temple lost it’s lead and found itself down a point, 33-32, with 14:32 remaining in the half.

At the 14-minute mark Forrester subbed in for Moorman and he remained on the court for 10 minutes till the 4 minute mark. During those ten minutes, Scott shot 3-3 on two’s, and Temple regained the lead and was up six points, 63-57 with four minutes to play in the second half.

With four minutes to play, Moorman then subbed-in for Forrester. This was a huge mistake as Temple’s six point lead quickly vanished as Moorman did a terrible job of defending the paint.as UConn on five straight possessions scored on lay-ups. UConn scored 12-points in 4-minutes to close-out regulation with both teams tied at 69-69.

James Scott led Temple to scoring 16 more points than Temple did in the first game playing UConn, and holding UConn to scoring 7 fewer points than they had in it’s first game playing Temple.

During regulation, Temple’s bench led by Scott’s 17-points outscored UConn 24-14, a huge reversal from the first game when UConn’s bench outscored Temple by 14-points, 20-points to 6.

The game then moved into the the first 5-minute overtime.

Temple and UConn traded baskets in the first overtime. Temple trailed by three points with 25-seconds remaining in the first overtime, and Mckie called time-out. In the huddle, the team implored McKie to have Scott take a three even though he had missed two already. The HC agreed.

Alani Moore advanced the ball across the half-court line and passed the ball to Scott who was standing with his back to the basket beyond the three-point line. Scott was confronted by two UConn defenders, Scott pumped fake, whirled around, went up, put a nice arc on the ball and watched the ball slice thru them net tying the game, and sending into double overtime with the score tied 80-80.

In the first overtime, Scott scored 5 of Temple’s 11 first-overtime points, on 2-2 shooting, including his 3-point basket.

In the second overtime,Temple outscored UConn 13-9 and beat UConn 93-89 in double-overtime. Temple was led by Alani Moore who scored six of Temple’s 13-points as he made a lay-up, and shot 4-4 at the foul-line. Scott scored 3-points shooting 3-4 from the foul-line. Rose scored no points, on 0-1 fga’s, and had two turnovers.

In two 5-minute overtime periods, Temple scored 24-points. Scott had scored 8-points in 10 minutes of overtime.

In the first game, UConn outscored Temple by 16-points in the paint, In this game, Temple playing small ball, limited UConn to only outscoring Temple by 6-points in the paint.

In a post-game press interview, Scott was asked about his three-point shot and he replied that he practices that shot and was confident he would make it. NPL jumped in and said Scott makes it all the time.

UConn’s HC Hurley who had recruited Scott, at his post-game conference, called Scott a “dangerous” player.

Scott, Alani Moore, and NPL, and Rose each played 40 plus minutes of the 50 minute UConn game. Most of the time they were on the court together.

Scott was high scorer with 25 points, shooting a whopping 9-11 on two’s, 1-4 on three’s, 4-6 at the foul-line, had 1-assists, 4-rebounds, and two steals. He scored 25 points taking only 15 FGA’s. This is way above his ultimate average of 8 ppg.

NPL scored 23 points on 8-14 shooting, 5-8 on two’s 2-3 on three’s, 6-6 at the foulline, 4 assists, and 13 rebounds. This is way above his conference average of 10 ppg. NPL making half his two’s was his third conference game rown he had done so, and only his fifth time in conference play.

Alani Moore scored 14-points on 4-8 shooting, including 2-4 on three’s, and was 6-6 at the foul-line. His 14-points exceeded his his conference average of 10 ppg.

As PF, Rose guarded the rim and had 4-blocked shots.NPL came down from his guard position and garnered 13-defensive rebounds.

Rose scored 16-points on 3-15 shooting, 3-11 on two’s, , 0-4 on three’s, 9-13 at the foul-line, had 4-assists, 6-turnovers, and 4 blocked shots. The 4-blocked shot attested to how well he played at PF. In two straight games playing small ball Rose had taken double-digit foul-shots. His 13- foul shots were to second most he had taken all season.

Moorman played 27-minutes at the Center position in Temple’s small line-up, along with Alani, NPL, Scott, and Rose. and scored but 4-points, on 1-3 shooting, 2-2 from the foul-line.

Scott guarded this year’s 1st round lottery pick (10th) James Bouknight and limited him to scoring just 16-points on 6-17 shooting.

Temple made 11 steals to UConn’s 7 steals.

UConn took 87 FGA’s, and Temple just 62 FGA’s. Part of the reason is that Temple got to foul line more than UConn.

Temple committed 6-less fouls than UConn did. Temple playing small ball kept Temple’s fouls down asTemple were playing bigs, who foul at a higher rate, very little.

In 50 minutes of playing time, Temple committed 17-fouls compared to UConn’s 23. Guard Alani Moore playing 45 minutes committed but one foul. Rose committed 2-fouls playing 47 minutes. Scott committed 2 fouls playing 40 minutes. All three players keeping their fouls down demonstrated discipline.

In regulation, Temple had taken 27 foul-shots to UConn’s 14 foul-shots. Playing SMU, Temple had taken 29 foul shots when Temple beat amount in one overtime. Playing Tulane, Temple took 26 foul-shots. In prior conference games when Temple played bigger, In prior games when Temple did not play small ball, Temple only averaged 18 foul shots per conference game.

Temple taking 27 foul-shot against HConn in regulation was huge. Taking more foul shots than opponents do is important, as teams shoot a much higher percentage at the foul line-than they do on fga’’s. Teams usually average shooting 70 percent plus at the foul-line, but a far lower percentage on two’s and three’s.

Thru double overtime, Temple took 35 foul shots to UConn’s 20. It’s safe to conclude that playing small board with good drivers to the hoop was responsible in Temple taking so many foul shots. Temple did so in three straight games.

Temple scored 9 more points at the foul-line than UConn did. Since Temple took more foul shots than Temple, Temple’s advantage at the foul-line, more than offset UConn taking far more fga’s than Temple, as Temple made more foul shots, and shot a higher shooting percent on fga’s. UConn only outscored Temple by 4-points on fga’s.

Taking Temple’s 9 more points scored at the foul line, and subtracting both the 4-points UConn made more than Temple on 2’s, and UConn’s one point advantage on made three’s for a total of 5-points, from Temple’s 9 more points scored at the foul line, explains Temple’s beating UConn by 4-points, 93-89.

In UConn’s prior 15-point win over Temple, 78-63, Uconn took 30 foul shots due to Temple’s bigs fouling a lot, compared to Temple’s 17 foul shots, and outscored Temple by 14 points at the foul-line.

Rose shot 9-13 on foul-shot. Alani Moore shot 6-6 from the foul-line. James Scott was 4-6 from the foul-line, Moorman Forrester and we’re all 2-2 from the foul line. In Temple’s win over Tulane game he took 13 foul shots.

Temple also shot better than UConn on two’s. As Temple shot 48-percent to UConn’s 43 percent. The reason Temple is Scott shot 9-11 on two’s, and NPL improved his two-point shooting. As Nate shot 54 percent (6-11) on two-pointers. He had not made half his two’s in any prior conference games.

Temple shooting 48 percent (24-58) on 2’s is a far higher percentage than when Temple shot 39.5 percent (19-48) in it’s first game with UConn. Temple’s smaller agrsssive line-up, line-up improved Temple’s shooting.

Temple shot slightly better taking a few more 3’s as Temple shot 35 percent (6-17) on three’s, compared to the first match-up when Temple shot 33 percent 4-12 on three’s.

Interesting, even tough UConn was facing a far Temple team they faced in their previous game with Temple, UConn shot almost the same percentage on two’s and three’s in both game they played Temple.

As UConn shot 43.1 (25-58) on 2’s and in the first game, and shot 43.2 percent (16-37) on two’s in the second game. UConn shot poorly on three’s in both games as well. As UConn in the second game, only shot only 29 percent (7-24) on three’s. and in the first game UConn shot 28 percent ( 7-25) on three’s.


For the third straight conference game, Temple playing Scott, Alani Moore, NPL and Rose together was Temple’s strongest line-up.

Prior to those games, Temple was shooting only 42 percent on 2’s in conference play. But in those three conference games, Temple shot a whopping 54 percent on two’s (69-127), with Scott leading the pack shooting an astounding 82.6 percent (19-23).

Scott playing significant minutes greatly increased his two-point shooting percentages and scoring, and helped improved NPL’s 2-point shooting percentage, and Rose!s trips to foul-line. Resulted in Temple beating three straight conference opponents they previously lost to.,
 
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2021 11:01 PM by Miggy.)
02-23-2020 07:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #182
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
After winning it’s last three AAC conference games against SMU,TuLane, and UConn, teams Temple had previously lost to by double-digit margins, Temple now embarked to close out it’s season, by playing ECU, Wichita, USF, Tulsa, and Cincinnati.

Temple had won it’s three games by playing small ball. They won because Temple’s small one-up ( Alani Moore, NPL, Scott, JPL, and Rose) had outplayed those opponents.

Such was obvious in the second half and overtime of the SMU game, the second half of the Tulane game, and the entire double-overtime game against UConn. As Temple outshot opponents on two’s and three’s, went to s ores at the hoop more, got to the foul line more, scored more in the paint, had a stronger bench, made more steals.

Given that Rose and NPL were both poor shooters, their success was dependent on Temple forcing many turnovers which enabled them to score at the hoop and increase their shooting percentages. Playing the floor in just half court sets was not going to bring out the best

In the five ensuing losses, Temple did not play aggressively on defense. As Temple committed more turnovers than opponents in those 4 of those games. Temple made fewer steals, and scored less in the paint. went to foul line less, In the other game, Temple just had a turnover advantage. Temple wasn’t making an effort to make steals, as Nate had only 2-steals in Temple’s last five conference games.

Although Mckie continued to have Temple play small ball, why did not employ a pressure defense that had been successful for Temple is not known.

Temple should have employed a pressure defense that would have had Temple leading in all the categories that Temple enjoyed in the three prior conference games that Temple won.

Temple saw it’s scoring average drop ton 60 points in the five conference games. In two of the games, Temple scored but 51 and 59 points. In two others, Temple scored in the low 60’s, and in it’s best showing, Temple scored 72 points.

In the five conference games, opponents in three games of the 5 games, averaged 64 points or less, and in the other two games scored 67 and 72 points.

4 of those 5 conference losses were by 6 points or less. The other was to Tulsa by 10 points.

The first three games against ECU,Wichita State, and YSF are teams that Temple had previously beaten.

Another reason for Temple’s losses is Mckie did not Perry as much as he should have.

ECU GAME


ECU beat Temple 67-63. Temple was coming off an exhilarating double- overtime victory over UConn on only three days rest. Whether that was factor in Temple’s loss is unknown.

Temple lost this game by not pressuring the ball and forcing ECU turnovers. Temple instead played it’s half court offense which only highlighted the team’s weaknesses.

Also, Temple lost by not shooting better from the foul-line, and by relying on both Rose and Nate at the end of that game for it’s offense, and Hamilton not used to defend ECU’s Gardner who torched Temple by scoring 29 points.

This was a game in which Temple did not protect the ball as Temple as Nate committed 5 turnovers of Temple’s 15 turnovers. The ball shouldn’t have been NPL’s hands to distribute the ball.

By Temple not pressuring the ball, ECU only committed 10 turnovers. more. If Temple had done so, Temple players would have shot a higher shooting percentage and scored more points. With no pressure defense being employed, Temple scored only 63-points.


In the ECU game, Temple bigs played a combined 39 minutes ( not even the 40 minutes a center plays) as Forrester played 12 minutes, Hamilton 3 minutes, and Moorman 25 minutes. I’ve included Moorman as big even though he’s only 6’8” tall. It can be argued he’s not a big.

Mckie decided before the game he was going to follow the same rotation pattern that had been successful in the UConn. He would start both Forrester and Hamilton, and then go small early by subbing in Moorman and Perry.

Hamilton played but 3 minutes even though statistically Hs was Temple’s best interior defender. This would be the last game he would play for Temple. His playing few minutes was a bad one as ECU’s Gardner torched both Forrester and Moorman as he scored 29 of ECU’s 67 total points, shooting 50 percent from the floor.

With Temple not pressuring the ball, ALani Moore, NPL, Rose, nor Scott had a good game.

As in 35 minutes Nate scored 2-points at the foul line and was 0-5 from the field. and had five turnover.

Alani Moore playing 35 minutes scored but 6 points. shooting 1-5 from the field.

Rose scored 16 points on 4-11 shooting on two’s, and shot 1-7 on three’s.

Scott scored 12 points on 3-9 shooting on two’s, 1-6 on three’s and 3-8 from the foul line, and had 4 assists.

Temple’s bench play was very good as Moorman scored 9 points on 4-6 shooting.

Perry played 16 minutes scored 7- points, on 3-4 shooting.

And JPL playing 12 minutes scored 6-points on 2- 4 shooting.

Both Rose and Scott should have known their three point shot was off and not shot as many as they did.

Scott scored 12 points, had 4 assists, and 4 rebounds, He shot 3-9 on two’s, 1-6 on three’s. Scott came into the game shooting 75 percent at the foul line shot 3-8 at the foul-line. Scott scored 10 of his 12 points in the first half, as he led Temple to a 1 point lead at half time.

Scott subbed with 15 minutes to play with Temple down 8-4. Scott had a good first half first half scored 10 points shot 3-4 on two’s and helped create 8 other Temple points via assists to Perry and NPL. So, Scott had effectively helped Temple score 18-points in only 14 minutes playing the first half. Temple finished the half down by one-point to ECU, 37-36.

Temple did outscore ECU by 8 points on fast breaks, 4 points on the paint, and by 4-points on second chance points.

Temple shot one more foul shot than ECU but shot but 13-26 from the foul-line. ECU shot 17-24 from the fouling Temple’s poor shooting from the foul-line contributed to Temple!s defeat.

With 3:51 remaining in the game, Temple was up one point, and Temple Temple missed their last 7 FGA’s, and lost the game by 3 points. Rose committed three of those missed FGA’s. One reason so many field goals were missed is that Temple doesn’t run plays at the end of games.

Mckie had made clear the entire season that he wanted the ball in Rose and NPL’s hands at the end of halves. That proved to be a bad decision in this ga’e, as both Nate and Rose each committed a turnover in the minute of play, after Nate had committed a turnover just prior to that.

Temple’s decent shooters who helped keep Temple in the game were Forrester shot 3-5 from the field, Perry shot 3-4 from the field, Moorman shot 4-6 from the field. All three should have shot more. Also, Perry should have played far more than the 18 minutes he did. JPL also shot well.

If Temple had played an aggressive defense they likely would won this game. Even without doing so they were in position to win at the end of the game.
 
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2021 10:56 PM by Miggy.)
02-23-2020 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #183
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
WITCHITA STATE AND USF GAMES


WICHITA STATE GAME

Wichita State beat Temple by three-points, 72-69.

The result was due to Temple not stopping WSU’s three ball, as WSU shot 45 percent ( 9-21) on three’s. Temple simply could not afford to allow WSU to score 27 points on three’s as they did. The loss has to be placed on McKie by not having his players defend the perimeter. He was more concerned about having perimeter players help out inside.

Temple had beaten WSU in their first meeting by 12-points.

In this game, D.Moore, Moorman, Alani Moore, NPL, and Rose, started for Temple.

McKie played bigs a total of only 54 minutes. D. Moore played 25-minutes, and Moorman 21-minutes, and Forrester 8-minutes. As one can see, Temple played small ball a good bit of the time.

6-minutes into the game with Temple trailing 10-8. Mckie pulls D.Moore, Moorman, and Rose and subs-in Forrester, Perry, and Scott. Forrester is now the only big on the court for Temple.

Mckie plays small ball the rest of the half. Scott scored 8-points on 4-4 shooting on two’s, had 1 assist to Alani Moore who hit a three-pointer., and Temple ends up leading the half 37-36.

In the second half, McKie starts tall with D Moore and Moorman, and Temple found itself down 7-points down with 13 minutes to play when McKie pulls D.Moore, Moorman, and NPL, and subs in Forrester, Perry and Scott.

Scott goes on a tear to bring Temple back from their 7-point deficit, scoring 6-points, shooting 3-3 on two’s, misses 2 three balls, and has 1 assist. Scott helped cut the scoring deficit to one point, WSU 67-66, as with 45 seconds left in the game. The game finished with WSU winning 72-69. WSU outscored Temple 36-32 in the second half.

Scott totaled 14 points in the game, his last double digit scoring game in 5 out of his last 6 games.

In the game, Temple shot 19-38 on two’s. WSU shot 19-35 on 2’s. Temple made half of it’s two’s mainly due Scott shooting 7-7 on two’s. Mckie didn’t play Hamilton against WSU.

Scott played 26 minutes, shot 7-12 on FGA’s, , including 7-7 on two’s, 0-5 on three’s, and 0-2 at the foul-line. in the game.

Rose scored 20 points and shot 7-16 from the field, was 4-5 from the foul line.

Alani shot 3-5 on three’s. Temple’s three point shooting was ok.

Temple had 10 steals and forced 15 WSU turnovers. WSU had 8 steals and forced Temple 13 turnovers. Temple scored 12 more points off turnovers than USF did. Rose had 5 of Temple’s steals. One can see that Temple had superior players getting to hoop off of for WSU turnovers.

Temple small line-up scored 1 more points than WSU off of second chance points, and 6 more point than WSU in the paint, and 3 more points than WSU on fast breaks.

Temple shot 5-17 on three’s.

Once again, Temple playing small ball on WSU’s home court, Temple took 24 foul shots and made 16. WSU only took 11 foul shots and made 7. Temple’s advantage at the foul line kept them in the game.

Temple’s lost it’s last two games by a combined 7-points.

USF GAME

USF beat Temple by six points 64-58 as USF outscored Temple 32-25 in the first half, and Temple outscored USF 33-31 in the second half. USF came into the game as having the 20th best scoring defense in the nation at 62 ppg.

In this game, McKie started D. Moore, Moorman, Alani Moore, NPL, and Rose. Temple’s played Temple’s bigs a total of 57minutes. Bigs D. Moore played 11-minutes, Forrester 22-minutes, and Moorman 24-minutes.

Temple’s shot just 35 percent (12-34) on two’s. Temple limited USF to shooting just 37 percent (15-39) on 2’s.

Perry played only 8 minutes in the game. He scored 4-points on /-3 shooting. He should have been played more as he was shooting the ball well. With Perry starting off so well, Perry should have been fed the ball more.

Scott playing 29 minutes had his worse game shooting two’s as he shot 1-8 on two’s in the game. He did shoot 2-5 on three’s.

Playing 35 minutes, Alani Moore scored but 3-points

Both teams had but 6 steals. An indication Temple was not pressuring the ball and trying to cause turnovers. committed 12 turnovers, USF 9 turnovers. Another indication Temple did pressure the ball. Temple formula for winning games is to force more opponents turnovers than
Temple commits for that. resulted in Temple shooting better and scoring more points. It helps explains why Rose shot 1-6 on two’s.

But by not pressuring the ball, Temple shot but 35 percent on two’s.

In this game Temple played small ball at times, but never applied a pressure defense.

In the first half, with Temple down eight points, Scott subs in plays most of the remainder of the half, and Temple finished the half eight down.

In the second half, Scott comes in with 13 minutes remaining in the game and Temple down 4 points, and Temple tied the game with 2 minutes to go.

What the first and second half shows is that even when Temple is down points, and Scott is not shooting well, he does enough other things well, that Scott keeps Temple in the game.

Temple found themselves tied with USF with 2:13 remaining in the game. Temple had every chance to win the game but Temple players missed their last 7 FGA’s. It seemed like no plays were run, and players were just jacking the ball up.

Bringing Scott off the bench when Temple trails makes no sense. He should have been starting to Temple so Temple would be in the position to take the lead from the outset of each half.
 
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2021 07:13 AM by Miggy.)
02-27-2020 11:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #184
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
In conference games, opponents have averaged shooting 48.4 percent on two’s, far exceeding what non-conference opponents shot at the beginning of the season.but as we have seen opponents shooting dropped shooting two’s, once Scott started playing significant minutes.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2021 03:20 PM by Miggy.)
03-01-2020 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #185
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Not much to say about Temple’s 61-51 loss to Tulsa. Can’t get any worse as Temple is in a free-fall downward as Mckie reduced Scott’s playing time. No surprise the scoring margin was so wide.

Temple reverted to bad shooting by other players with Scott playing just a few minutes as Rose, Alani, and Moorman, and Nate shot a combined 8-35 from the field.

Can’t score points with that kind of shooting from the field.

Scott was played only 12 minutes, took only one shot and missed it. How he can ignore his starters bad shooting and not play Scott more makes no sense.

Rose shot 4-14, Nate 1-6, and Alani 1-7 from the floor, and Moorman sho 2-8 from the floor. .Temple not going to win games with that happening.

D. Moore started as Center. In 21 minutes, he shot 4-6 from the field, had 10 rebounds, including 6 offensive rebounds and 4 blocks. Temple could have used a healthy D. Moore doting the season.

Tulsa shot 50 percent on two’s.

Temple committed more turnovers than they forced turnovers. As Temple made only three steals. Mckie never seemed to realize that Temple’s players Rose and NPL could only shoot well if Temple forced turnovers, and without that they shot poorly as in this game.

He never figured out that Temple’s half court offense didn’t work for these Temple players.

At the beginning of the season, Temple was among the nation’s best in ball-stealing.

Really upset that Temple’s two senior walk-ons who bust their ass every scrimmages, and we’re only played the last 15 seconds of Temple’s last home game. Where’s common decency? It’s also my view that walk-on Tim Waddington is ten times the shooter than either Rose or Nate are.

Rose would have played better if he was not the focal point of the offense, and was instead a third option. His whole offense is based on getting fouled on the way to the hoop. HC would have been much wiser to have an offense that shared the ball. And who takes the most shots should based on who’s shooting well.
 
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2021 07:12 AM by Miggy.)
03-06-2020 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #186
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Temple lost it’s last conference game to Cincinnati 64-63, in the last two seconds of play on a put-back off a missed shot.

Temple bigs in the game were D.Moore and Forrester, and Moorman.

Temple lost by one point because Rose shot 3-13 on two’s, Nate scored 0 points shooting 0-6 on two’s. Alani Moore was 0-5 on two’s. All would have shot a higher percentage on two’s if Temple had pressured the ball and would have won the game.

Scott played well but was played but 15 minutes. He scored 8 points. Given how poorly Nate, Alani and Rose shot the two ball he should have been far more than he did.

Big reason that Temple shot just 32.5 (13-40) percent on two’s.

McKie should have played both Scott and Perry more minutes. Playing only 15 minutes, Scott scored 8-points by shooting 2-4 from the floor, including 1-3 on three’s.

Perry in 19-minutes scored 10 points on 4-5 shooting from the floor, including 2-2 on three’s. If they had both played and shot more,
.
Temple started off playing big with D.Moore pared Moorman in the starting line- this was one of those rare games that Temple went up and enjoyed a 15-5 lead in the first half, when the two bigs subbed out with 12 minutes remains in the half.the reason that Cincy had only scored 5 points in 8 minutes is because Cincy shot mostly three’s and only one. Seems Cincy didn’t want go anywhere near D Moore inside.

Scott and Forrester subbed in NPL and D.Moore.

After going small Temple did not score for 6 minutes that ended at the 6 minute mark. Temple over the next minutes scored but 10-points.

Temple’s small line-up did not play a pressure defense.
Temple’s small ball team limited USF to only scoring 12 points over the last 12 minutes of the first half.

At the 3:31 mark, Scott subbed in with Temple up by eight points. Scott scored 4 points in the half by hitting a three ball and also a foul shot, and Temple extended it’s least to 14 points at the half, and enjoyed a 31-17 halftime lead.

and expanded their lead from 8-points to a 14-Temple defense held Cincy to scoring but 17-points in the first-half. Cincy shot but 1-10 on three’s in the first half. Cincy was 1-10 shoiting 1st in the first half og yhr fmh

Temple only made half their two’s but shot threes well to score 31 points.

In the second half, stopping the three ball should have been Temple’s highest priority. It was not, as Cincy scored 18-points on three’s on 6-12 shooting.

Temple defense held Cincinnati to shooting but 42.4 percent on two’s (14-33).

With 12 minutes left in the second-half McKie showed no confidence in his team and seeming wanting to run out the clock as he went to a stalled offense which only fueled Cincy. Cincy scored 47-points in the second half, as McKie failed to have a big on the court with Temple leading by 1-point on a shot by Moorman when Cincy missed a shot and made a put-back put-back at the buzzer to win the game 64- 63.

Temple finished the season with a 14-17 overall record, and a 6-12 record in conference play.

Most disheartening is that Temple started off non-conference play with a winning record and all five starters having way better offensive ratings and way better defensive ratings, yet in conference play all five starters saw their offensive and defensive ratings plummet to the point that all five starters were underwater.

Nothing can tell more about about how poor the coaching was then a tesM the starts off hot that tanks at the end of a season.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2021 03:41 PM by Miggy.)
03-08-2020 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #187
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Last year, Temple shot 49.8 percent on two’s and 35.3 percent on three’s in conference play. It’s opponents shot 52.2 percent on 2’s, and 29.6 percent on three’s.

In conference play this season, Temple shot only 43.6 percent on two’s (12th in conference), compared to it’s opponents 47.6. and Temple shot 33.3 percent on three’s (2nd in conference) , compared to it’s opponents 31.5 percent on three’s.

Even though Temple’s opponents shot a lower 3-point percentage in conference play this year, unlike last season when Temple took far more three’s than its opponents, opponents shot way more three’s than Temple did.

Temple also went to the foul-line slightly less in conference play this season, and shot a lower foul shooting percentage. Opponents went less to the foul-line in conference play, but shot a higher foul shooting percentage than last year. While Temple had a nice 2.6 ppg scoring margin at the-foul line last season, that disappeared in conference play this past season.

As a result of Temple’s decline in shooting percentages and fewer made foul-shots, Temple dropped from averaging 75.8 ppg in conference play last season, to just 67.8 points in conference play this past season. That’s a 7-point fro per game.

Opponents scoring average per game increased slightly (do to making more three’s) from averaging 72.7 ppg in conference play last season to 72.9 ppg in conference games this season.

Temple took far fewer three’s that the previous year. Temple should have shot more three’s, as shooting 33 percent on three’s is the equivalent to shooting 50 percent on two’s which is much higher than the 45.3 percent Temple shot on two’s.

Dre Perry, one of Temple’s best three point shooters, will be returning.

Forrester is likely to return. He shot 51.1 percent on two’s in conference play.
 
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2021 02:33 PM by Miggy.)
03-10-2020 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #188
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Temple’s HC made a lot of bad moves that resulted in Temple’s stats not only declining from last season in conference play, but also directly contributing in Temple going from having a 13-5 won-loss conference play, to this season having a 6-12 record this season.

With Alani Moore moving into the starting line-up and his having a negligible turnover rate, he should have been distributing the ball.

Instead., Mckie decided to have both Rose and Nate distribute the ball. He probably made such decision because he didn’t want Alani driving to hoop and either shooting or dishing the ball off inside. But neither Rose nor Nate ever dished the ball inside.

Both Rose and Nate had high turnover rates last season in conference play. and even higher one’s this year. As Rose averaged 2.6 turnovers last season in conference play, 2.8 in conference play this season. Nate committed 1.8 turnovers per game last season, 2.4 turnovers per game this year in conference play this season.

Last season in conference play, Temple committed but 203 turnovers as compared to opponents committing 259, some 3 less turnovers per game than it’s opponents. That’s approximately 6 ppg swing in points to Temple, and was a big factor in Temple having such a good record last season.

Starting off this season in non-conference play Temple maintained its turnover margin over opponents as Temple sometimes played a pressure defense that resulted in forced opponent turnovers. A by-product was that Temple committed fewer turnovers. Temple was a ble to have a 8-3 non-conference record at one point in time.

But in conference play McKie virtually stopped playing a pressure defense, and as a result Temple turnovers piled up and loss forced turnover by opponents occurred. Conferences losses followed as well.

The result in conference play this season was that Temple committed 246 turnovers and opponents opponents committed 222 turnovers in conference play, and thus opponents averaged about one less turnover swing in opponents favor. So opponents this past season had a 2-point swing fo their advantage.

This helps explain part of the reason that Temple saw it’s scoring per game in conference play decline from last season.

That Temple turnover deficit would likely not had been as high if Alani had been asked to distribute the ball, as Alani averaged .8 turnover per game in conference play,

With Rose, Nate, and Moorman shooting so poorly, Temple could not score points. Temple would have scored more points by moving Rose to PF, and Scott into the starting line-up, replacing Moorman and having him distribute The the ball and also shoot more. We saw this happen in Temple’s overtime win over SMU, when Scott came off the bench and scored 22-points and had 6-ssists. Could have done the same or more as a starter.

if Scott has been asked to play more distribute that ball more, he would have likely committed few turnovers as he averaged but 1.4 turnovers per conference game.
 
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2021 08:09 AM by Miggy.)
03-13-2020 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #189
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Temple did turn the ball over way more in conference games than than they did in non-conference play. As Temple turned the all over an average of 13.6 turnovers in conference games, as compared to an average of only 11.3 turnovers per game in non-conference play. That’s over a 20 percent increase in Temple turnovers. Helps explain why Temple had a winning record in non-conference play, and had al losing record inconference games.

One reason Temple’s turnover were less in non-conference games is because Temple played it’s pressure defense more that kept Temple out of so many half-court sets where they turned to ball over more.

This could have been averted if the offense was run though both Alani and Scott.

Temple should have averaged way more that 66.7 ppg if Scott and Perry played a lot more than they did.It’s clear to me in retrospect that Temple’s starting line-up from day one should have Alani, Nate,Scott, and Rose. Not Alani, Nate, Rose and Moorman. We can argue who should be the center, but i would have started Hamilton there as he was statistically Temple’s defensive Center.

What I now realize and didn’t then is that Rose would have been a much better PF than Moorman was. The above line-up would have insured less turnovers and way more Temple scoring, as Scott shot 54.7 percent on two’s, and Perry shot 59 percent on two’s and 34 percent on three’s in conference play, and they both would have taken a lot of shots from both Rose and Nate. Alani should have also scored more points.

Scott’s 22-points against SMU, and his 25 points against UConn is a glimpse of what could have been. What’s head-scratching is that everyone new he could do that.

Perry, Scott, and Alani should have been Temple’s scoring leaders

Coming off the bench would be Perry, Moorman, JPL, D.Moore, and Forrester.

But, more important than the starting line-up, the ball would have been shared more, and Rose and Nate would not have taken Temple’s motc shots. would
 
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2021 07:51 PM by Miggy.)
03-14-2020 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #190
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Temple’s opponents averaged 70.9 points this season in conference play.

Yet, in non-conference play, Temple had held opponents low 60’s. Temple did so as it played it’s pressure defense then, but HC McKie for some inexplicable reasons did not do so in conference play. Such turned a winning record in non-conference games into a losing record in conference play.

In 15 non-conference games, opponents shot but 44 percent on two’s. Temple was then ranked 38th in the nation in 2-point defense. For the season Temple finished ranked 76th in the nation as opponents for the season wound up shooting 46.3 percent on two’s.

Temple was able to reduce it’s opponents two point shooting percentage from 52.2 percent last season in conference play to 47.6 percent in conference play this season. That’s quite an improvement. Temple’s Asst. Coach Ross, Temple’s defensive coach deserves credit for Temple’s improved defense.

With Temple holding opponents to shooting such low two point percentages both in non-conference and conference games, both far better than last year when Temple had a 23-10 season record, and a 13-5 conference record, one can see clearly that Temple would have had a comparable record, if not better, if only Temple’s offense had not faltered and declined as much as it did this season. And, as I argue later in that post, that did not nbedd to be.

Such improvement in Temple’s defense was mostly do Rose, Nate, and Perry, upping their defense from last year. Scott played better on defense that Shizz did. Hamilton statistically was Temple’s best interior defender but his play was limited in conference play. Temple’s improved defense was not do to D.Moore and Forrester playing the Center position as their defensive ratings were not good. Moorman’s defense slid a little from last season.

Opponents three point shooting was 30.4 percent in non-conference games this season. Such closely approximates what opponents shot on three’s in conference games. At one point in non-conference games, Temple was holding opponents to shooting 28.3 percent on three’s, and Temple was ranked 55th in the nation. Opponents finished the season shooting 31 percent on three’s which is ranked 69th best three-point shooting defense in the nation.

Opponents three-point shooting was 31.5 percent this year in conference play.

This past season in conference play opponents made 11 more three’s (33-points) than Temple did. This opponent advantage in shooting three’s is mostly do to Rose and Nate not shooting three’s well and Alani, and Perry not shooting as many three’s as they should have, Temple opponents making more three’s then Temple could have been reduced if stopping the three ball as they did in non-conference play,

In non-conference games, Temple made 52 more two’s, and scored 104 more points than opponents did.

The reverse was true in conference play as Temple’s opponents made 33 more two’s or 66 points in conference games, or 3 more three pointers points per conference game than Temple did.

As we’ve seen, both Rose shot 44 percent on two’s and Nate shot 48.8 on 2’s respectively in non-conference games when Temple played it’s pressure defense, and Rose shot but 38 percent and Nate big 40 percent when Temple did not play it’s pressure defense in conference games.

Rose’s two point shooting percentage shooting was awful the entire season, Nate’s just in conference play. Both shot but 31 percent on three’s in conference play. Such poor shooting caused Temple to average only 67 points in conference games. McKie should have reduced their playing time,, and tried different combination of better shooters like Perry and Scott, during periods within a conference game to see if Temple could score more points, with ought giving up more points. He did not.

I’m sure some of you think Temple would have done better and some think not. But the point is he should have tried to see. With Temple playing so poorly in conference games he had nothing to lose. Rather, he remained stubborn and continued to put a bad product on the floor.


Opponents foul line shooting in conference play was 74.1 percent. Temple shot 68.7 percent.Temple went to the foul-line more but only outscored it’s opponents by only two foul shots in conference play. Scott and Perry playing more minutes would have given Temple a larger margin in points scored at the foul-line. Temple made three more foul shots than opponents in conference play last season

What made Temple have a losing record in conference games, was a combination of Temple’s lack of offense, and that could have improved if Rose was not Temple’s ball distributor, and if players like Perry and Scott had both played and shot more, and Rose, Nate, and Moorman less. And Alani had shot more, especially three’s.

Temple’s excessive fouling also cost Temple some conference wins.

If Temple had played it’s pressure defense in conference play that would have made a big difference. One must remember that well into non-conference play that Temple was rated by Andy Katz as the 23rd best team in the nation, and Temple’s NCAA NET rating was no. 34 in the nation. It’s my view that Temple would have closely matched Temple’s 13-5 conference record last season McKie had tried the things I mentioned above.
 
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2020 03:10 PM by Miggy.)
03-14-2020 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #191
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Looking back on Temple’s season it’s obvious that Rose should have started at PF with Scott at SF, and that Perry should have subbed in for Rose and Scott.

Perry should have played way more minutes than Moorman, not less as he did, and Moorman should have also come off the bench. HC McKie probably favored Moorman as he had named Moorman one of Temple’s three co-captains.

When we compare the two it's obvious that Perry is a much better player. As Perry played in 25 games, and in 14 of those 25 games he made half his shots. He shot over half his shots as three’s, Moorman shot more than half his shots as two’s.

Moorman played in 29 games and only made half his shots in only 5 games. No player with such a poor stat should be playing significant minutes,, no less starting.

For the season, Perry also shot an outstanding 56.9 percent on two’s, 41.3 percent on three’s, and 85.7 percent from the foul-line. In conference play, Perry shot 59.1 percent on two’s, 34.4 percent on three’s, and 86.7 from the foul-line.

For the season, Moorman’s shooting percentages don’t even approach Perry’s outstanding percentages. In fact, Moorman’s shooting percentages are sub-par. As for the season, Moorman shot 41.4 on two’s, 29.4 percent on three’s, and 62.9 percent at the foul-line. In conference play, Moorman shot 47.1 percent on two’s, 26.5 percent on three’s, and 65.2 percent at the foul-line.

Statistically, Perry also had a better defensive rating than Moorman does.

Perry’s shooting percentages and higher defensive rating clearly show that not only should Perry have played more than Moorman but he should have started over Moorman.

It should not have been that Moorman averaged 26.8 mpg, and Perry only 17.6 mpg for the season.

McKie had to know early on about the wide disparity between Perry and Moorman’s stats. Mckie’s favoritism of Moorman helped foster Temple’s losing games they should have won.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 10:58 AM by Miggy.)
03-16-2020 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #192
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
While some might think that Temple did not have good team this past season, in my judgment Temple had a very good team this past season.

My belief is backed up by the fact that well into Temple’s non-conference play, Temple was ranked 23rd in the nation by basketball reporter Andy Katz. and 34th in the nation by the NCAA NET rating system. Even in conference play, Temple beat Wichita State when it was thenranked 16th in the nation.

As pointed out in prior posts, this Temple team was much better defensively than last season’s team that finished the season with a 23-10 record.

It irk’s me that Perry and Scott, Temple’s two best two-point shooters, (Perryn 59 percent), and Scott 54 percent in conference play) (Perry also a good three-point shooter) who are also good decision-makers with few turnovers did not play more.

Not good when HC refuses almost the entire season to try to improve his team’s shooting.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 11:23 AM by Miggy.)
03-17-2020 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #193
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Temple’s record in conference play was 6-12. Of Temple’s 12 losses, 7 of those games were conference games were by less than 8- points. As Temple loss to conference champion Cincinnati by 1-point, Wichita State by 3-points, Houston, SMU, and ECU by 4-points, USF 6-by points, and Cincinnati by 7-points.

Two other Temple losses to both Memphis and Cincinnati were the result of Temple being beaten at the foul-line.

It’s my view that Temple would have won those games if Temple had played it’s pressure defense more, Rose and and Nate had had not taken so many shots, and Rose, NPL, and Alani Moore, had played mostly alongside Scott and both Scott and Alani Moore had taken Temple’s most shots.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 11:17 AM by Miggy.)
03-22-2020 08:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #194
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Want to take some time to discuss Nate-Pierre Louise.

Nate is extremely strong , athletic, and quick. He is constantly working on his game.

He’s forte on defense is stealing the ball and getting into the face of his opponents. What’s most impressive is that he does not foul when does either. He’s worth the priced of admission just watching him play D. He’s one of the best on-ball defenders in the country.

His offensive strength is getting to rim. He has nifty spin moves he employs when necessary to get to the rim. His weakness is his decision making in when to and when not to drive to the hoop. Way to often I see him come down the floor and drive to the hoop without assessing the situation. He sometimes craves and burn at the hoop.

He is ill suited to play in a half court sets. It highlights he’s weaknesses as he’s/ poor 2-point jump shooter, and a sub part three-point shooter.

His game is made for the open court off of steals or fast breaks. Temple does neither of those on a consistent basis.

Neither under Dunphy’s offense nor Mckie was Temple a running team. But Dunphy’s half-court offensive sets were far better than McKie’s. One can that in NPL’s stats. As Nate’s 2 point-shooting percentage declining from 50.4 percent the season before in conference play to this season 40.1 percent in conference play. Nate also got to foul-line less and made 1.1 less foul shots per conference games.

But he’s very adept at drawing fouls at the rim and either converting at the rim or going to the foul-line. Because of that skill set one has to cut him some slack ir keep that in mind when considering his poor shooting percentages as he scoring extra points points at the hoop or at the foul-line that other guards don’t do as often as he does. And given whether he’s shooting 60,70, or 80 percent at the foul-line, it’s higher than whatever shooting percentage he shoots from the field.

Nate’s decline in scoring contributed to Temple only scoring 67 ppg in conference games, and Temple losing 12 games in conference play.

Nate’s scoring has declined as well. As laxt season, Nate averaged 14. 3 ppg and his shooting 50.4 percent was excellent for a starting guard.

This season, Nate playing 34 mpg in conference play, and averaging but 10.1 ppg in on 40.1 percent two-point shooting was not. He should not be taking Temple’s low shooting percentages do not justify him taking Temple’s second most shots as he does. He’s an excellent rebounder at 8.2 rebounds per game.

Because of Temple’s offensive half court sets and not pressuring the ball often, Nate shot two’s at the rim at 62 percent last season, but only 52 percent this past season. Nate’s decline was also due making poor decision when ro drive in half court sets. in half court sets. Forrester playing in the low-post that made it difficult for Nate to get to the hoop.

Temple stopped playing it’s pressure defense as the season wore on also added to Nate’s decline getting to the rim.

As early in the season, Temple played a pressure defense that had Nate making steals, and scoring easily on lay-ups. As in Temple’s first two games, Nate made a whopping 5 and 6 steals that led to easy hoops. That was 20 percent of his steals for the season. As a result of Nate stealing shot 55.6 percent (5-9) on two’s in Temple’s first game, and 63.6 percent (7-11) on two’s in Temple’s second game. If Temple had played a pressure defense all season Nate would have scored extraordinarily well at the hoop.

Nate takes thousands of three point shots when he practices. The problem is that his form is fundamentally wrong. Doubt anyone has pointed that out to him. Nate’s problem shooting three’s is his shooting form. His shooting pocket is on the side of his face and low. It should be above his right eye. It keeps him from shooting in the high 30 percent range. Nate’s three point shooting also declined in conference play from 34 percent to 31 percent conference play.

Nate’s two point jump shot suffered from bad shooting form as his 3-point shooting form. Nate shot just 25 percent on two point jumpers the past two years.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 10:12 AM by Miggy.)
03-24-2020 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #195
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
After watching bb games for sometime, I’ve come to learn how excessive turnovers and fouls adversely effect the outcome of a game, as much as shooting percentage differentials between teams do, and that teams that commit few turnovers and fouls, place themselves in a better position to win games.

Both turnover and foul stats are significant as they ultimately take points off the board for one team, and provide opponents with more points.

Not good that this season in Temple’s conference games that Temple committed more turnovers and fouls than opponents in conference games this season, while the reverse was true last season.

When I first look at a team’s stats, I want to see how a team’s stats on turnovers and fouls compares to it’s opponents in these areas. For me, that’s a reflection on the team’s coaching staff and their ability to teach players how to not commit turnovers and fouls. I then look to individual players to see how they perform in these areas, and then compare them to other players on their team.

The gold standard for committing few turnover and fouls is the Univ. of Virginia. It’s useful compare Temple stats on turnovers and fouls to Virginia to see how far Temple lags behind in these categories.

In conference games, Virginia committed 12.45 turnovers conference games, compare to Temple’s 13.6 turnovers per conference game.

Even though Temple’s committed a little more than one more turnover per game, that translated into approximately two more points per game opponents score off that one turnover and Temple is losing one scoring opportunity and opponents are securing on scoring opportunity the otherwise should not have had.

Temple is losing Rose, who committed 2.8 turnovers per game, Temple’s most turnovers per game. If Scott and Perry replace Rose minutes, Temple’s turnovers should decline. However, Temple also loses Alani Moore, who’s turnovers were very low.

If Strickland or JPL replaces Alani Moore, Temple’s turnover rate will increase as both are high turnover players. Forrester is also a high turnover player. Just hope Temlle can find someone who can take his minutes.

In conference games Virginia committed 13.6 fouls per game compared to Temple’s 18. 7 fouls per game.One can see that Temple is committing a whopping 5 more fouls per game than Virginia commits. Virginia’s opponents averaged only 12.5 foul shots per conference game. Temple’s opponents averaged 19.3 fouls conference game.

So Temple opponents in conference games are taking almost 7 more foul shots that Virginia’s opponents are and scoring approximately 5 more points at the foul line that Virginia opponents are scoring at the foul-line.

While Temple opponents committed fewer turnovers and fouls than Temple did, but not as few as Virginia did, it’s still remains difficult for Temple to win when it excessively fouls and commits turnovers, and is at the same time shooting much lower on two’s than conference opponents. It’s why Temple has to put on the court players who both shoot well and commit few turnovers or fouls.

Seems clear that Temple’s excessive fouling is putting opponents at the line for more one and one’s and are fouling shooters more than Virginia is. excessive fouling is creating.

Temple is losing D.Moore and Hamilton who both played few minutes but fouled excessively.

Returning are Parks, Forrester and JPL who all commit both too many turnovers and fouls. excessively. Unless they dramatically lower their turnovers and fouls, Temple needs players to replace their playing time or for the HC to severely limit the minutes they play.

It shows how important it’s so important for Temple recruit to recruit smarter players with higher bb I’Q’s, and how to teach players to commit fewer turnovers and fouls. Both high turnovers and excessive fouls are more attributable to not playing smartly than physical limitations. Temple was not wise in signing Parks, Forrester, and JPL.

In my next post, i’ll provide my take on how Temple can teach players to commit fewer fouls and turnovers.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 09:13 AM by Miggy.)
03-26-2020 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #196
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
In evaluating a player, we’re influenced first by whether a player is a good shooter.

Fans should take a wider view and consider both the value of player’s shooting and non-shooting stats, and the relation of different statistical categories to each other.

Often we’ll say a new player has potential if see some things we don’t like.

Transfers Jake Forrester and freshman Josh-Pierre Louise fall in this category. Most posters like both players, even though there are aspects of their games, fans want to see improve.

Let’s look at Jake Forrester first.

Forrester hustled and shot fairly well as averaging 16.1 mpg in conference play, he averaged 6.6 ppg, took 5.2 shots per game, and converted 2’s at a decent 51.1 percent rate. He did not shoot any three’s.

He averaged taking 2.8 foul shots per game, but shot only 48.9 percent from the foul-line. He shoots a good bit.

Offensively, our first impression is that he’s a an ok shooter, but we’d like to see him improve his foul shooting.

He averaged 1.3 offensive rebound per game, which is good given the amount of time he plays.

Our attention is not drawn to his assist, steals, and blocks as he makes few of those. He only averaged 1.7 defensive rebounds per game.

Forrester averaged 1.6 turnovers per game, and committed 2.6 fouls per game. Those numbers severely undercut his scoring. But how many points does his negative turnover and fouls numbers result in opponents points?

General speaking we can say that each turnover a player makes results in approximately 2.5 point swing. I say that because each turnover represents one less scoring opportunity for Temple and one more scoring opportunity for the opponent, and assuming each would convert 50 percent of each shot, that would be a little higher than two points as each team would have shot some three’s.

So I would estimate 2.5 point swing to the opposition off of one his turnover. That clearly how costly any turnover is by a player, and why when you look at a player’s box score you should look at a players turnovers. You should also look to see if the team won the overall turnover battle regardless of one player’s performance.,

So, given that Forrester committed 1.6 turnovers, generally speaking that means that the opponent scored an 3.8 points off his turnovers. That’s a devastating number of points.

We also saw that he committed 2.6 fouls per game. How many points did an opponent likely score off those fouls? There’s probably some stat article that indicate their worth, but I haven’t read them.

To get some rough idea, I decided to compare a team’s total number fouls over conference play to number of fouls shot by opponents. It comes to about one foul for each foul committed by the opponent.

And given that opponents average 70 percent or so on foul shots, I decided to give each foul committed by a player a value of .7 points.

So given that Forrester averages 2.6 fouls per conference games, that converts into 1.8 opponent points per game off his fouls. But, it’s probably even be more as I haven’t calculated in the number of shooting fouls he commits, nor the cumulative effect his high fouling rate on the number of one and one’s (penalty) the player he fouls takes or number of foul shots opponent players take.

So, off of Forrester’s combined turnovers and fouls, opponents score since 5.6 points per game, while he scores 6.6 points per game.

But that’s just the beginning of the calculation, as Forrester does average 1.3 offensive rebounds per game, and that provides Temple 1.3 possessions and scoring opportunity that Temple would have otherwise not have had. Offensive rebounds are worth far less than turnovers, so while a portion his 1.6 turnovers are offset by his 1.3 offensive rebounds, opponents still score more points off his turnovers than Temple does off his offensive rebounds.

His steals should also offset his turnovers he makes few steals per game (.4). He should try to look for more steals given his quickness. Temple coaches need to show him to.

Some players like Rose make a good number of steals, but their steals need to be subtracted from their turnovers, in determining his turnovers point value.

Forrester has to learn to foul less often and commit fewer turnovers. Not sure how if he can reduce some of his turnovers as I often see him flubbing the ball away. He also fouls backing his man down that results in both an offensive foul and turnover being called on the same play
Was not taught how not to do that. Nor was he taught how now to make body contact when opponent who has ball so he won’t be called for a foul.

His defensive stats show that opponents scored quite well when he’s on the court (105.1 points per 100 possessions) His excessive turnovers and fouls cause that.

His turnover rate and excessive fouls on offense coupled with his
offensive rating as well as Temple ss scores less points and opponents more points by a wide margin when he plays. 93.1 points per 100 possessions.

Temple can’t afford to see nee year another overall poor performance in which Forrester fouls once every 6.2 minutes, and turns the over once ever 12.3 minutes.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 07:37 AM by Miggy.)
03-27-2020 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #197
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
JPL’s shooting stats are very good. In conference play he shot 50 percent on two’s and 41.7 percent on three’s, but only 28.6 percent at the foul line. When left wide open, he shoots well from certain spots.

His two point shots are mostly drives to the hoop. Does have have amazing hops.

Since he’s a poor foul-shooter, it pays to foul-him.

He averaged 12.9 minutes per conference game, averaged 3.2 ppg.

He rarely shoots, and his rebounding, assists, and steals, are miniscule.

His bad stats are turnovers (1 per game game) and fouling. That’s a lot given his limited playing time. As 21 percent of his touches ate turnovers. Simple too high. His 1.4 fouls per game is high given the limited minutes he plays.

Although JPL ‘s scoring average was 3.2 points per game on good shooting percentages, he was not a productive player when one considers his turnovers and fouls.

As when JPL played Temple as a team scored only 91.1 points per 100 possessions ( 2nd lowest scoring than any other Temple player) when he was on the court, some 2 less points than when Forrester played. This is due to JPL’s excessive turnovers and fouls.

Because his decision making was bad, his turnover rate was high. Such goes way behind his being a freshman.

Defensively, when JPL played, opponents scored 105.1 point per 100 possessions. That’s bad defense. It’s obvious to me that Josh has not been taught how to play aggressively without fouling. JPL told to make only short perimeter passes so he doesn’t turn the ball over. Also, should be told not to favor passing the ball to his brother. Do think his bad habits may well be too baked-in, and he is not likely to improve.
Does seem to be a disgruntled player with his limited playing. He doesn’t suffer from lack of confidence.

Since Temple only scored 91 points per 100 possessions and gave up 105 points when JPL played, that’s a negative 16 point scoring margin for Temple biggest negative Temple scoring margin of any Temple player.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 11:12 AM by Miggy.)
03-27-2020 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #198
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
It’s beyond me why Dre Perry only averaged 18 mpg, since he shot 56 percent on two’s, 41 percent on three’s, and 85 percent from the foul-line for the season. Nor can I understand why he takes but 4.6 FGA’s per game.

If he had played more, Temple would have averaged way more than the 67-points they averaged in conference play.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2021 03:46 PM by Miggy.)
03-27-2020 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #199
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
Once again, NPL was Temple’s best defender as he led Temple to it’s best defensive effort in spite of their losing record.

He declined in scoring from 13.3 points to 10.9 ppg from last season and declined in conference play from 14.3 ppg last season to 10.1 ppg this season.

On the other hand, NPL’s rebounding this past season was off the chart, as he increased his total rebounds to 8.5 per game from 5.8 rebounds per game last season. It was great to watch him run to the defensive boards when the ball was shot toward the rim.

Not often that a 6’3” guard ranked 87th in the nation in total rebounds as he did, while at the same time guarding the opponents best scorer on the perimeter. Bravo Nate!
 
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2021 03:45 PM by Miggy.)
03-29-2020 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miggy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,260
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation: -4
I Root For: Eastern Michigan and Tem
Location:
Post: #200
RE: Temple men’s bb 2019-2020
I’ve been very hard on Rose even though he averaged 16 ppg, as his shooting percentages were awful.

Have come to the belief that even thought skinny, when played inside, he was a tenacious defender, rebounder, and shot blocker. This happened far to infrequently. When he did, he sometimes garnered 11 rebounds in a game. He played PF agains UConn and had 3 block shots. Temple would have been far better off playing Rose over Moorman at PF, thus given Temple more points from the PF position, and moving Scott into the SF position, providing Temple with even more points.

Rose did get to the foul-line a lot, and made a good percentage of his foul shots. His turnover rate was more than offset by his steals and offensive rebounds.

Rose taking and missing so many FGA’s cost Temple from even averaging 68 points per conference game. By shooting often and missing shots, Rose averaging Temple’s most points per game has little value. By shooting often, better shooters didn’t get to shoot as much as they should have.

Rose’s low offensive rating between 96-98 stayed consistent his entire four years at Temple. It was not good as opponents scored slightly more points when he played. Here’s how many points Temple scored and gave up per 100 possessions each year Rose played for Temple:

Rose:

Freshman-offensive rating 97.3, Defensive rating 98.5
Sophomore-offensive rating 97.9, defensive rating 105
Junior-offensive rating 97.5 defensive rating 101.5
Senior-offensive rating 96.1, defensive rating 97.5

The coaches did use Rose’s skill-set as they should have. As running and getting into the open court was his game. Playing in half-court sets was not his game. Although, in arose defense, he did not get the individual coaching he needed to improve drlliving to the hoop and shooting the ball.

Last season, when Alston played his offensive rating was 112.7, and his defensive rating was 105.7. Alston’s offensive rating was high because he both shot well and was an efficient scorer, and he helped other players shoot well when he played. Alston’s offensive rating would have been even higher but for Rose dragging his offensive rating down.
 
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2021 12:10 PM by Miggy.)
03-29-2020 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.