Iowa Basketball Recruits

[#1DieHardHawk]

Mike had a couple deficiencies in his game, but he was also a pretty good player. I didn't mean to start a Mike G. bashing session. Not many players in today's college game bring the complete package to the table, especially at PG. How many guys PG's out there are good outside shooters, good ball handlers, good defenders, good at facilitating offense for others, good at driving and dishing, and good at driving and finishing? It seems we have a lot of poster who think Mike and Jordan should be good or very good at every aspect of the game. Sure it would be nice to have an All American at PG every year, but it isn't realistic.

Gesell was a solid player for Iowa, and Bohannon currently is. No one is suggesting otherwise.

The point is that Fran just seems to target guys who are solid, both on and off the court, but not ones that are actual difference makers. If Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Rutgers all can bring in well-rounded PGs that can break down defenses offensively and pressure the ball defensively, there is absolutely no reason why we can't.

It could easily be argued that the biggest reason that we had a horrible season could be summed up in one word...penetration. Our perimeter players couldn't penetrate offensively, and, couldn't prevent penetration defensively. The end result is that our entire competitiveness centered around transition offense (which never came to fruition) or relying on Bohannon to chuck 30-footers with regularity. That's not a formula for success.

 

[deanvogs]

It could easily be argued that the biggest reason that we had a horrible season could be summed up in one word...penetration. Our perimeter players couldn't penetrate offensively, and, couldn't prevent penetration defensively. The end result is that our entire competitiveness centered around transition offense (which never came to fruition) or relying on Bohannon to chuck 30-footers with regularity. That's not a formula for success.

If you think all of the problems of last years teams were summed up by just Penetration, then you and I don't agree at all. By far, and it isn't even close our biggest issue was team defense. We were horrible, heck beyond horrible. Even with out Penetration we were still a KenPom top 25 offense. We didn't have a problem offensively, it was defensively we were atrocious.

 

[Northside Hawk]

If you think all of the problems of last years teams were summed up by just Penetration, then you and I don't agree at all. By far, and it isn't even close our biggest issue was team defense. We were horrible, heck beyond horrible. Even with out Penetration we were still a KenPom top 25 offense. We didn't have a problem offensively, it was defensively we were atrocious.

We were nineteenth in what I believe is called "Adjusted O". Does anyone know exactly what that entails. If it doesn't take possessions into account then the offensive numbers are skewed because poor defense will lead to more possessions. I watched our offense this year. It had it's moments but to the tune of nineteenth in the country? Not sure about that.

By the way , we were 242nd in "Adjusted D"whatever that means. I thought it would be even worse than that. That means that over 100 teams in the country played worse defense based off that metric.

KenPom is an interesting but not 100% accurate tool. I will say this however. Iowa played Baylor in the NIT final a few years ago. Guess who were the two highest rated teams in KenPom not to make the NCAA. Last year I believe that honor went to TCU. Guess who won the NIT? I'm guessing it's also been wrong many times too.

 

[Robowe]

We were nineteenth in what I believe is called "Adjusted O". Does anyone know exactly what that entails. If it doesn't take possessions into account then the offensive numbers are skewed because poor defense will lead to more possessions. I watched our offense this year. It had it's moments but to the tune of nineteenth in the country? Not sure about that.

By the way , we were 242nd in "Adjusted D"whatever that means. I thought it would be even worse than that. That means that over 100 teams in the country played worse defense based off that metric.

KenPom is an interesting but not 100% accurate tool. I will say this however. Iowa played Baylor in the NIT final a few years ago. Guess who were the two highest rated teams in KenPom not to make the NCAA. Last year I believe that honor went to TCU. Guess who won the NIT? I'm guessing it's also been wrong many times too.

Here's the glossary that describes the Ken Pom data ... including adjusted offense and defense. Good luck.

https://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-glossary/

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

If you think all of the problems of last years teams were summed up by just Penetration, then you and I don't agree at all. By far, and it isn't even close our biggest issue was team defense. We were horrible, heck beyond horrible. Even with out Penetration we were still a KenPom top 25 offense. We didn't have a problem offensively, it was defensively we were atrocious.

I don't think you're getting my point.

First, I never implied that penetration encompasses "...all of the problems." There were and are numerous issues. If we are including more esoteric factors, then I would propose the lack of on-court leadership as perhaps the biggest issue with this team.

Secondly, I would say that penetration is the bigger issue on the defensive side (so I agree with you there) - our lack of "team defense" in large part was due to our inability to prevent penetration. Our constant need to rotate due to dribble-drive penetration put us in a "pick your poison" situation - give up a layup, or, rotate and give up an open jumper. Our perimeter guys couldn't keep anyone in front of them which created a domino effect.

Lastly, our offensive metrics are largely skewed by our poor defense. What I mean by that, is that teams were more than comfortable playing loose defense knowing that they had big leads and could ramp up defensive pressure at any moment if needed. It's very similar to what is known as a "selection bias" in statistics. Ironically, if our defense was better, our offensive efficiency would suffer due to teams being forced to play better defense to have a chance to win.

 

[deanvogs]

I don't think you're getting my point.

First, I never implied that penetration encompasses "...all of the problems." There were and are numerous issues. If we are including more esoteric factors, then I would propose the lack of on-court leadership as perhaps the biggest issue with this team.

Secondly, I would say that penetration is the bigger issue on the defensive side (so I agree with you there) - our lack of "team defense" in large part was due to our inability to prevent penetration. Our constant need to rotate due to dribble-drive penetration put us in a "pick your poison" situation - give up a layup, or, rotate and give up an open jumper. Our perimeter guys couldn't keep anyone in front of them which created a domino effect.

Lastly, our offensive metrics are largely skewed by our poor defense. What I mean by that, is that teams were more than comfortable playing loose defense knowing that they had big leads and could ramp up defensive pressure at any moment if needed. It's very similar to what is known as a "selection bias" in statistics. Ironically, if our defense was better, our offensive efficiency would suffer due to teams being forced to play better defense to have a chance to win.

I don't think you understand what KenPom's TEMPO free stats are. Our defense being good or bad has nothing to do with our offensive efficiency.

 

[PCHawk]

I don't think you understand what KenPom's TEMPO free stats are. Our defense being good or bad has nothing to do with our offensive efficiency.

Are you saying that teams who are up big still give max effort on defense, or that KenPom figures that in? I'm of the opinion that a good third of our minutes played this year were against opponents that were ok trading baskets because they were either up big or never took us seriously. That helps offensive stats a ton.

 

[deanvogs]

Are you saying that teams who are up big still give max effort on defense, or that KenPom figures that in? I'm of the opinion that a good third of our minutes played this year were against opponents that were ok trading baskets because they were either up big or never took us seriously. That helps offensive stats a ton.

Are stats perfect? Nope. Do they tell a story? Yep.

 

[PCHawk]

Are stats perfect? Nope. Do they tell a story? Yep.

In this case, a make believe story. Unless you're saying Kenpom figures that in. I don't know because you didn't answer my question .

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I don't think you understand what KenPom's TEMPO free stats are. Our defense being good or bad has nothing to do with our offensive efficiency.

If you understand the nuances of sports, then you'll understand how completely wrong that statement is.

In any sport, teams that have a big lead - or know that they can recover it at any time - back off on defense. The end result is that the opponent's offensive efficiency improves. It's simple common sense.

For example, let's say Cornell College is playing Villanova. In the first half, Nova is up by 100 points. They back off, and only outscore them by 20 points in the second half. For Cornell, which half do you think would have the best offensive efficiency statistics?

 

[PCHawk]

If you understand the nuances of sports, then you'll understand how completely wrong that statement is.

In any sport, teams that have a big lead - or know that they can recover it at any time - back off on defense. The end result is that the opponent's offensive efficiency improves. It's simple common sense.

For example, let's say Cornell College is playing Villanova. In the first half, Nova is up by 100 points. They back off, and only outscore them by 20 points in the second half. For Cornell, which half do you think would have the best offensive efficiency statistics?

I've gone down this road before. You would think this would be one thing everyone on here could agree on. Surprisingly that's not the case. You are about to get a couple examples of where our offense did good in close games.

 

[trj]

If you understand the nuances of sports, then you'll understand how completely wrong that statement is.

In any sport, teams that have a big lead - or know that they can recover it at any time - back off on defense. The end result is that the opponent's offensive efficiency improves. It's simple common sense.

For example, let's say Cornell College is playing Villanova. In the first half, Nova is up by 100 points. They back off, and only outscore them by 20 points in the second half. For Cornell, which half do you think would have the best offensive efficiency statistics?

That basically sums up the Golden St. Warriors.

 

[Knight78]

It has always been my coaching philosophy that as a team, you do what you do the entire game. If you are a full court press team, you full court press the entire game. If you are a zone team, you zone the entire game. The big difference is that when either team has a huge lead, you keep doing what you do but you put in your subs. If the lead is enough, you clear your bench.

I will never forget one game, though, where this philosophy killed my team. Not because of what I did. We were down 20 at half time and down 30 at the end of the third quarter; ended up losing the game by 51. I put my subs in liberally, but the opposing coach full court pressed the entire game with his starters; well, not the entire game but he didn't sub out his starters until 2:00 left in the game. Now I know my team wasn't nearly as good as his (his team went to the state tournament that year, I believe they were runner up) but I was angry that he didn't sub; he even had two bench players that didn't play at all. I think it's pretty bad sportsmanship to beat a team 100-49 and not clear your bench.

 

[tksirius]

It looks more grim every day for Fran landing one of his '19 pg targets.

 

[N8theGr8]

It looks more grim every day for Fran landing one of his '19 pg targets.

On the flip side, one of our fan favorite targets is moving closer to an offer!

 

[Northside Hawk]

It has always been my coaching philosophy that as a team, you do what you do the entire game. If you are a full court press team, you full court press the entire game. If you are a zone team, you zone the entire game. The big difference is that when either team has a huge lead, you keep doing what you do but you put in your subs. If the lead is enough, you clear your bench.

I will never forget one game, though, where this philosophy killed my team. Not because of what I did. We were down 20 at half time and down 30 at the end of the third quarter; ended up losing the game by 51. I put my subs in liberally, but the opposing coach full court pressed the entire game with his starters; well, not the entire game but he didn't sub out his starters until 2:00 left in the game. Now I know my team wasn't nearly as good as his (his team went to the state tournament that year, I believe they were runner up) but I was angry that he didn't sub; he even had two bench players that didn't play at all. I think it's pretty bad sportsmanship to beat a team 100-49 and not clear your bench.

That's what made Kevin Gamble's shot against Oklahoma even sweeter.

Billy Tubbs was known for keeping his starters in and sticking with the press and running up the score against outmanned opponents. And they were talking trash before the Iowa game. And had Iowa down sixteen in the first half. But that was one of the toughest minded Iowa teams I've seen, just a notch below the 1980 final four team. And they got the last laugh.

As for Tubbs, he just continued doing what he did. One of his Stacey King-Mookie Blaylock teams once beat a directional school 146-51 and Tubbs bitched in his presser (I'm sure partially in jest but you never knew with Billy) that the refs cost them a chance to win by a hundred. He did get to the NC that year, but what is it with Big Eight now Big Twelve teams. Is it the water?

 

[PCHawk]

It looks more grim every day for Fran landing one of his '19 pg targets.

If Fran was half as good at landing recruits as he is at spotting them early, he would be Raveling like.

 

[deanvogs]

If you understand the nuances of sports, then you'll understand how completely wrong that statement is.

In any sport, teams that have a big lead - or know that they can recover it at any time - back off on defense. The end result is that the opponent's offensive efficiency improves. It's simple common sense.

For example, let's say Cornell College is playing Villanova. In the first half, Nova is up by 100 points. They back off, and only outscore them by 20 points in the second half. For Cornell, which half do you think would have the best offensive efficiency statistics?

This is true for every single team and every single stat. Hell according to you why keep stats at all, I mean they all have slight anomalies to them so now all stats are completely invalid. LOL.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

This is true for every single team and every single stat. Hell according to you why keep stats at all, I mean they all have slight anomalies to them so now all stats are completely invalid. LOL.

JFC. Stop. Just stop.

You've lost the debate and now you're resorting to sarcastic hyperbole in desperation. Good grief.

Grow up and man up.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

Well Terry and Carton both have offers from Indiana so they both probably don't end up there. So there is that.

But seriously, I can't see how Fran doesn't offer Locure soon with this latest development.

Or maybe I can see it.