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

(02-23-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Always cracks me up when there are plenty of things you can criticize a team for and somebody chooses one of the things they do well. This is a very good defensive rebounding team. No UC team going all the way back to 2002 (the furthest back I can find the stat publicized for) has allowed the other team to rebound a lower percent of its misses. They are a very good defensive rebounding team.

Of course some major issues they have include:
1. They can't shoot
2. They turn it over too much
3. They give up too many layups
4. They foul too much.

Thus, our 7-8 [5-5] win/loss record...

5. They have zero physicality.
6. Their coach stands with his arms crossed instead of calling timeouts to derail huge runs.

Good times.

(02-23-2021 09:18 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5. They have zero physicality.
6. Their coach stands with his arms crossed instead of calling timeouts to derail huge runs.

Good times.

I just don’t understand why the staff doesn’t use timeouts and tactics like subbing, changing defenses, and the occasional technical foul to stop runs and make a point to his team.

I think the Bearcats will win tomorrow.

(02-23-2021 09:18 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  5. They have zero physicality.
6. Their coach stands with his arms crossed instead of calling timeouts to derail huge runs.

Good times.

8. They play point for point with teams until... that undefined time when it all just comes to a screeching halt.
9. Have no leadership, on the court or the sideline.

(02-23-2021 09:47 AM)Hemond Wrote:  I think the Bearcats will win tomorrow.

I hope they win out. Tulsa is a mess too. I want to see leadership this week and a couple of wins. Just something that shows us we are moving past the Houston game.

(02-23-2021 10:01 AM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 09:47 AM)Hemond Wrote:  I think the Bearcats will win tomorrow.

I hope they win out. Tulsa is a mess too. I want to see leadership this week and a couple of wins. Just something that shows us we are moving past the Houston game.

Tulsa is the type of team that the score will be +- 3 either way. We have been close in most of these lower-level games, winning or losing by a hair.

So, "could" the Bearcats win this next game? Sure. Could they lose the next game? Sure.

Might as well root for the win. The sad thing is that the scores have firmly cemented the fact that UC IS one of the "back third" teams of the AAC...we're right there with Tulsa, and Tulane, and Temple. As for the "top" of the conference? Nope...we're not even close to that conversation. Houston, Wichita State, Memphis...we're not even in the same book right now.

(02-23-2021 09:31 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

Disease of me?

He’s about to start with the “they need to submit” crap he was using last year.

I'd be curious of the defensive rebounding stats have anything to do with giving up so many wide open lay ups. When the only time the other team misses is 3's and long 2's, you'll look like a better defensive rebounding team than when guys grab their own misses close to the basket. I don't have access to the deep dive stats on KenPom or anything, but seeing Vogt out there plodding around getting burned on switches for 20 mpg makes me think our defense sucks.

(02-23-2021 10:16 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 10:01 AM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 09:47 AM)Hemond Wrote:  I think the Bearcats will win tomorrow.

I hope they win out. Tulsa is a mess too. I want to see leadership this week and a couple of wins. Just something that shows us we are moving past the Houston game.

Tulsa is the type of team that the score will be +- 3 either way. We have been close in most of these lower-level games, winning or losing by a hair.

So, "could" the Bearcats win this next game? Sure. Could they lose the next game? Sure.

Might as well root for the win. The sad thing is that the scores have firmly cemented the fact that UC IS one of the "back third" teams of the AAC...we're right there with Tulsa, and Tulane, and Temple. As for the "top" of the conference? Nope...we're not even close to that conversation. Houston, Wichita State, Memphis...we're not even in the same book right now.

Well, we did beat SMU on the road. Granted, we had a fuller roster at that point in the season. I'm with UCBLaw2. Cats won four in a row before we got our asses kicked. We didn't get our ass kicked by ECU FWIW. I want to see this team respond and not collectively tank the remaining games. The goal is to finish strong, see who still wants to be here and grind it out, and then worry about the offseason later. What else can we do?

Current conference standings and remaining games bolded...

WSU 9-2
UH 12-3
UM 8-3
SMU 7-4
@UT 7-7
UC 5-5
USF 4-6
UCF 6-10
TU 4-9
OWLS 3-10
@ECU 2-8

(02-23-2021 11:06 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Current conference standings and remaining games bolded...

WSU 9-2
UH 12-3
UM 8-3
SMU 7-4
@UT 7-7
UC 5-5
USF 4-6
UCF 6-10
TU 4-9
OWLS 3-10
@ECU 2-8

3-2 would be a solid finish for this team. I'd be thrilled with 4-1 and through the moon if they can win them all. 2-3 would be disappointing. Anything worse and I may have to take a sabbatical from this board.

(02-23-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Always cracks me up when there are plenty of things you can criticize a team for and somebody chooses one of the things they do well. This is a very good defensive rebounding team. No UC team going all the way back to 2002 (the furthest back I can find the stat publicized for) has allowed the other team to rebound a lower percent of its misses. They are a very good defensive rebounding team.

Where are you seeing those stats? Here it says we are 146th in total rebound % and 176th in offensive rebound %. I gather that means we're pretty average at defensive rebounding?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sea...stats.html

(02-23-2021 11:25 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Always cracks me up when there are plenty of things you can criticize a team for and somebody chooses one of the things they do well. This is a very good defensive rebounding team. No UC team going all the way back to 2002 (the furthest back I can find the stat publicized for) has allowed the other team to rebound a lower percent of its misses. They are a very good defensive rebounding team.

Where are you seeing those stats? Here it says we are 146th in total rebound % and 176th in offensive rebound %. I gather that means we're pretty average at defensive rebounding?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sea...stats.html

https://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Cincinnati

Teams rebound 25.2% of their misses against UC. The next best UC team since 2002 was 27.9% in 2010.

(02-23-2021 11:35 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:25 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Always cracks me up when there are plenty of things you can criticize a team for and somebody chooses one of the things they do well. This is a very good defensive rebounding team. No UC team going all the way back to 2002 (the furthest back I can find the stat publicized for) has allowed the other team to rebound a lower percent of its misses. They are a very good defensive rebounding team.

Where are you seeing those stats? Here it says we are 146th in total rebound % and 176th in offensive rebound %. I gather that means we're pretty average at defensive rebounding?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sea...stats.html

https://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Cincinnati

Teams rebound 25.2% of their misses against UC. The next best UC team since 2002 was 27.9% in 2010.

How does that compare to our FG% defense vs. those other years? I would guess more high quality looks (layups/dunks) means fewer misses that could be rebounded by either team.

(02-23-2021 11:41 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:35 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:25 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Always cracks me up when there are plenty of things you can criticize a team for and somebody chooses one of the things they do well. This is a very good defensive rebounding team. No UC team going all the way back to 2002 (the furthest back I can find the stat publicized for) has allowed the other team to rebound a lower percent of its misses. They are a very good defensive rebounding team.

Where are you seeing those stats? Here it says we are 146th in total rebound % and 176th in offensive rebound %. I gather that means we're pretty average at defensive rebounding?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sea...stats.html

https://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Cincinnati

Teams rebound 25.2% of their misses against UC. The next best UC team since 2002 was 27.9% in 2010.

How does that compare to our FG% defense vs. those other years? I would guess more high quality looks (layups/dunks) means fewer misses that could be rebounded by either team.

That is of course true that if you make more shots there are fewer misses, but again the stat is the percent of a team's misses they rebound so that shouldn't have an affect (Made shots aren't counted). It's not based on counting the opposing team's offensive rebounds.

UC is a pretty average in effective FG % defense. They are average in two point defense and good in 3 point defense. They also don't let teams take many three point shots. Teams take a lot of midrange twos against UC (That's good and has helped their 2pt defense) but they get a lot of layups (bad and has hurt their 2 point defense). Their biggest flaw defensively is how much they foul. They are 304 out 353 in FTA/FGA on defense and also a little unlucky because team's shoot 75.5% from the line against them which is the 25th highes tpercent teams shoot against any team.

(02-23-2021 11:46 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:41 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:35 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:25 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 08:52 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Always cracks me up when there are plenty of things you can criticize a team for and somebody chooses one of the things they do well. This is a very good defensive rebounding team. No UC team going all the way back to 2002 (the furthest back I can find the stat publicized for) has allowed the other team to rebound a lower percent of its misses. They are a very good defensive rebounding team.

Where are you seeing those stats? Here it says we are 146th in total rebound % and 176th in offensive rebound %. I gather that means we're pretty average at defensive rebounding?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sea...stats.html

https://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Cincinnati

Teams rebound 25.2% of their misses against UC. The next best UC team since 2002 was 27.9% in 2010.

How does that compare to our FG% defense vs. those other years? I would guess more high quality looks (layups/dunks) means fewer misses that could be rebounded by either team.

That is of course true that if you make more shots there are fewer misses, but again the stat is the percent of a team's misses they rebound so that shouldn't have an affect (Made shots aren't counted). It's not based on counting the opposing team's offensive rebounds.

UC is a pretty average in effective FG % defense. They are average in two point defense and good in 3 point defense. They also don't let teams take many three point shots. Teams take a lot of midrange twos against UC (That's good and has helped their 2pt defense) but they get a lot of layups (bad and has hurt their 2 point defense). Their biggest flaw defensively is how much they foul. They are 304 out 353 in FTA/FGA on defense and also a little unlucky because team's shoot 75.5% from the line against them which is the 25th highes tpercent teams shoot against any team.

I know that it's a rate stat, I guess the point I was trying to make is that a team who gives up more easy buckets, tends to have less "bad" shots against them which are 'easier' to rebound defensively.

We don’t keep teams from taking a lot of 3s...they just choose not to because we normally play the layup line defense.

Drilling down to subatomic levels is where advanced metrics often becomes a discussion of the sound of one hand clapping.

It’s ok to just use eyeballs sometimes.

(02-23-2021 12:18 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  We don’t keep teams from taking a lot of 3s...they just choose not to because we normally play the layup line defense.

Drilling down to subatomic levels is where advanced metrics often becomes a discussion of the sound of one hand clapping.

It’s ok to just use eyeballs sometimes.

I've watched nearly every minute of every game. Running teams off the three point line is quite obviously something they try to do. They were good at it last year as well (it wasn't something they were particularly good at under the previous staff who didn't really emphasize it). You can see what they are trying to do... force longv twos and runners.