Playing out of position

[N8theGr8]

Nunge isn't really a threat from 3 point range. He only shot 33% on the season and was worse than that in conference play. Also Nunge and Cook's turnover percentage were almost identical.

Not a guarantee of improvement, but he did hit 43% in high school. So the possibility for improvement is there when he can get settled in.

Marble hit 26.8% his freshman year.
Jok hit 34.8 and 34.3% his first two years.
Kaminsky hit 28% and 31% his first two years.

 

[lightning1]

And that's a valid opinion, and I'd agree on the lack of effort front. However, to play devils advocate, the numbers you point to then could be due to a lack of effort then and not a lack of athleticism. And lack of effort can be corrected in off-season coaching. That does bring up an interesting point though as the numbers you are using can also point to odd overall team stats which can make a player appear worse than they actually are. There is an adjustment made to the BPM metric to equivalate overall OBPM to the teams adjusted team offensive rating. Since DBPM is simply BPM-OBPM, this means that high performing offenses with the same defensive stats ostensibly result in worse DBPM without actually being worse. Peter Jok is a perfect case study here going from a DBPM of 0.7 his junior year to a DBPM of -0.4 his senior year. His rebounding numbers increased substantially, he got his steals, and he even blocked a couple shots, however, his numbers went down due to his team's statistical offensive improvement. It's a weird statistic that can be useful, but is probably less useful in extreme cases like having a great offense and a terrible defense.



I never claimed that athleticism is 100% how well can you dunk a basketball. I am going to stand by the fact that there is a correlation though and that it is one of the less subjective measures. I will certainly concede that there are other measures of athleticism, just not ones we have available to see plainly on tape. It's very hard to get at measuring athleticism.



This post had nothing to do with athleticism.

Jok's DBPM got worse his SR year because he shouldered so much more of the load on offense. He took his rest on the defensive end. Fran allowed that to go on. Not coincidentally, we have the same things occurring this season.

 

[lightning1]

Defensively I completely disagree, and offensively I don't think so as much. What does he bring that isn't "replaceable"?

Cook isn't close to the worst defender in this team.

 

[lightning1]

Not downplaying just comparing to his assumed "replacement" who's averages are very similar with the exception of FG% and PPG. Nunge is either less than a point or better than Cook on both the defensive and offensive side of the ball while playing out of position (granted so was Cook), and playing less minutes. He was the leading rebounder...but by .4 to Luka Garza who will be in the lineup still. I don't think Cook will be back next year, but if he does do I think Iowa basketball will be any better or worse without him? That's up in the air. Depends on his desire to expand his game and play defense (both which Nunge displayed pretty well this year btw). Call it what you want but I'm looking at statistics.

It would be a huge loss. If you thought our guards faced a lot of ball pressure last season, imagine how it would be if opposing defenses didn't have to worry about Cook.

 

[lightning1]

There's more to losing a player than is he the best player or not? It's whether you have somebody behind them to fill the shoes respectively. Bohannon doesn't have that, Nunge and Baer have a combined 11 PPG which is Cook's backups. Luka Garza averaged .4 less rebounds and 3 less PPG who is also a frontcourt player. The point isn't whether we'll have a player as good or better than Cook (right now, no we don't have that). The point is can Iowa basketball fill the shoes as a team to be just as good or better than having Tyler Cook, and my answer is yes. Defensively without a doubt would be better, and offensively would be efficient enough with the players they have to make up the difference he leaves on offense.

Some posters thought Jok was so bad at defense, that we wouldn't miss him because Moss could step in and play better defense, while the PPG loss would be picked up by Moss and the combined starters. I recall laughing my ass off at these posters. That's what you sound like right now. You sound like those posters from last season.

 

[NikeHawk21]

Cook isn't close to the worst defender in this team.

He isn’t far from it. He is certainly our worst big at defense, worse than even Pemsl.

 

[lightning1]

Not a guarantee of improvement, but he did hit 43% in high school. So the possibility for improvement is there when he can get settled in.

Marble hit 26.8% his freshman year.
Jok hit 34.8 and 34.3% his first two years.
Kaminsky hit 28% and 31% his first two years.

43% is very respectable. He should be at 37% in college, seeing as he isn't going to get many of his shots blocked.

 

[lightning1]

He isn’t far from it. He is certainly our worst big at defense, worse than even Pemsl.

Our guards are the problem on the defensive end. If I could broom the starters at the 1-3 spots for legit BIG caliber defenders, I'd do it in a NY minute. That would immediately make this team 5 wins better.

 

[PCHawk]

Some posters thought Jok was so bad at defense, that we wouldn't miss him because Moss could step in and play better defense, while the PPG loss would be picked up by Moss and the combined starters. I recall laughing my ass off at these posters. That's what you sound like right now. You sound like those posters from last season.

The logic of that line of thinking was sound. We have no idea what would have happened had the team decided to try on defense for 40 minutes every game. That one huge aspect pretty much kills any way of knowing who would have been right or wrong on almost any subject of last year. There was just no way to predict that the entire team would give such little effort the whole year.

 

[lightning1]

The logic of that line of thinking was sound. We have no idea what would have happened had the team decided to try on defense for 40 minutes every game. That one huge aspect pretty much kills any way of knowing who would have been right or wrong on almost any subject of last year. There was just no way to predict that the entire team would give such little effort the whole year.

No. That logic was not sound! That's the logic of someone that has no idea WTF they are talking about.

 

[PCHawk]

Here is how a debate with 5656 goes.

Well thought out post

Blanket statement

Well thought out post

Blanket statement

 

[PCHawk]

No. That logic was not sound! That's the logic of someone that has no idea WTF they are talking about.

A guy who is bad at one end of the floor and good at the other is a guy who can more often than not be replaced way easier than his points per game would suggest.

 

[lightning1]

A guy who is bad at one end of the floor and good at the other is a guy who can more often than not be replaced way easier than his points per game would suggest.

That has nothing to do with how a player affects a team. JFC...you sound like some of the kids I coach. These kids can't think of anything other than how many points they scored in a game. Pete Jok is the hardest type of player for opposing teams to defend. Shoots lights out from 3. PLays without the ball at a high level. Deadly mid range game. Can drive the ball, rebound and pass.
Opposing defenses have to account for him on several levels.

 

[IHawk94]

The stroke is there with Nunge you can see it. You can see it on his makes, and he continues to shoot the ball with confidence. He is at least a threat out there.

Valid point on the turnovers also considering we asked Cook to do a lot.

Nunge is definitely a threat from 3. 33% is way better than anything we threw at the 4 position last year. The Turnovers I understand, but Nunge still averaged less than Cook by 1.5 turnovers per game. The only person even close to Cook on turnovers is JBo at 2.1 and Cook is at 2.5. Everyone else is 1 turnover or less per game.

 

[IHawk94]

It would be a huge loss. If you thought our guards faced a lot of ball pressure last season, imagine how it would be if opposing defenses didn't have to worry about Cook.

Imagine if all 5 guys on the floor had to be guarded straight up with respect everywhere on the floor. If Cook came back with an improved jumper out to the 3 point line I agree he would be a big loss after next season, but I don't see anything in his that isn't replaceable. I thought we would be ok without Jok, but knew we had nobody with his skillset. I thought if Moss took the right steps he could be that guy, but he didn't and we missed Jok deeply this year. Cook is a decent shooter out to 15 feet. Other than Pemsl everyone else can do that. Jok offensively nobody had, as we've seen already. I agree in saying that we were way off in thinking that we would be fine without Jok, but I don't think we're off by saying Iowa will be fine without Cook.

 

[Hawk5656]

Imagine if all 5 guys on the floor had to be guarded straight up with respect everywhere on the floor. If Cook came back with an improved jumper out to the 3 point line I agree he would be a big loss after next season, but I don't see anything in his that isn't replaceable. I thought we would be ok without Jok, but knew we had nobody with his skillset. I thought if Moss took the right steps he could be that guy, but he didn't and we missed Jok deeply this year. Cook is a decent shooter out to 15 feet. Other than Pemsl everyone else can do that. Jok offensively nobody had, as we've seen already. I agree in saying that we were way off in thinking that we would be fine without Jok, but I don't think we're off by saying Iowa will be fine without Cook.

Your logic is so flawed. Cook put so much more pressure on the defense than some random average stretch 4 would. There's a reason Cook was by far our best player and couldn't shoot the 3.

 

[Hawk5656]

Some posters thought Jok was so bad at defense, that we wouldn't miss him because Moss could step in and play better defense, while the PPG loss would be picked up by Moss and the combined starters. I recall laughing my ass off at these posters. That's what you sound like right now. You sound like those posters from last season.

Some people just don't understand how the game is played and don't listen no matter how much you try to explain it to them.

 

[lightning1]

Imagine if all 5 guys on the floor had to be guarded straight up with respect everywhere on the floor. If Cook came back with an improved jumper out to the 3 point line I agree he would be a big loss after next season, but I don't see anything in his that isn't replaceable. I thought we would be ok without Jok, but knew we had nobody with his skillset. I thought if Moss took the right steps he could be that guy, but he didn't and we missed Jok deeply this year. Cook is a decent shooter out to 15 feet. Other than Pemsl everyone else can do that. Jok offensively nobody had, as we've seen already. I agree in saying that we were way off in thinking that we would be fine without Jok, but I don't think we're off by saying Iowa will be fine without Cook.

Really? Because we get Tyler Cooks any time we want them? Tell me the last power forward we had that averaged 15 PPG as a true sophomore.

 

[Cableman]

Iowa is better with Cook. His game has improved each year, last year he added the 10-15 foot jump shot, percentage might not of been great but that is going to improve and he has the ability to beat another big off the dribble when they have to come out and guard him. Defense is going to be a focus of every coach and player this off season. After last season they don't have a choice . If for no other reason than pride

 

[HawkGold]

The logic of that line of thinking was sound. We have no idea what would have happened had the team decided to try on defense for 40 minutes every game. That one huge aspect pretty much kills any way of knowing who would have been right or wrong on almost any subject of last year. There was just no way to predict that the entire team would give such little effort the whole year.

If they 'decide' to play D why do you think the D outcome would be different. The real issue is lack of speed which looks like lack of effort. When a player or 2 really cant do it that makes the others have to be less aggressive.

I also dont think some understand Iowa how turtles veing so quick on transition makes the D quite vulnerable to drives and 3s.