Loyola Game Thread - Tues 8pm ESPN+

[spiderman]

great road win. defense travels, and this team is busting their asses on defense like no Mooney team before.

yes, we struggled offensively. we were awful from 2 and we didn't help ourselves from the line late.
the tech was indeed a momentum changer. and King was terrific from 3. but the money shot for me was Dji's late 3 with about 3 minutes left up 1. they left him wide open and he stroked it. huge shot.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

First problem is giving credibility to A10.

Loyola is a commuter school. They had great run w notoriety 2018-22 w 3 ncaas. They had been to 1 ncaa in the 50 years prior. They were horizon league school for most of it. Never understood them to have a rabid fan base. Maybe things were better during MVC days idk. But doubt they ever sold out arena w much regularity.

fair. A10 grabbed a shiny new thing. We knew Davidson was a winning program but I don't know much about LUC, this was my first exposure to their facilities. But I am very glad that they have a weak tv production that could not produce a 2nd angle for review of a call that favored us. Be kind, rewind, Loyola.

 

[Eight Legger]

Looked a bit like the Seagull Center.

 

[spider23]

I'm sure - I guess based on the comments that it didn't seem so on TV, but it was actually quite loud in the arena at times last night .. I actually really liked the atmosphere and all seats have great views it seems. Was a bit similar but slightly smaller than arena at College of Charleston.

Yes, interesting, because usually the camera angles try to hide empty seats, but there were so many it was impossible. When you could see the crowd, it looked very bored. I can understand the lack of students, that makes a big difference this time of year - a lot of schools run "student for a day" type deals to fill in during this time of year. In any case, the weather and timing probably worked to our favor.

 

[spider23]

And agree with Sman, that Dji 3 - while it did not put Loyola away completely - was HUGE, and much needed. Loved the confidence. Just like I was bitching about Quinn, this was the opposite - have to make the D pay if they are going to give it to you.

A couple really big 3's in a row from King too.

 

[GKiller]

I have been to multiple games there. When the students are in, the place is electric. It's insanely loud.

OK good. Was that during those really good years pre Covid while in MVC? It hasn't shown so far in A10, nor did it much I think in their Horizon days. But like brownstoner I'm a casual observer of LUC, I've just never noticed them as a big or electric fanbase. Maybe the building acoustics are good to make loud more than size of crowd. Could be wrong & I haven't looked at their historical attendance but I just doubt they have filled the arena up much minus a couple of those years.

 

[GKiller]

I think we're saying the same thing but I'm not positive, lol. The announcers seemed to be focused only on whether he was inbounds or out of bounds, completely ignoring the fact that it didn't matter either way. When we finally got the ball, they said it was because he was determined to be out of bounds before he released the ball. But obviously if he landed with the ball out of bounds, then he traveled...and if he landed inbounds with the ball, then he traveled. Either way, our ball.

Even if you can't review a travel and the refs thought they were reviewing whether he stepped out of bounds or not, once they determined during review that he landed while still possessing the ball, they weren't going to change their original out of bounds call (even though technically it was wrong in the sense that they should have first called a travel).

we've made a couple similar points but I don't think we are saying the same thing overall.

u said they reviewed for a travel. They didn't. Travel not reviewable. & the ref called OOB. 100%. He's not going to review a travel call he didn't even make. Also the announcers were definitely talking about the release of the ball in relation to his foot landing OOB yet. I think u can find end of game on espn+ and listen. I heard it for sure.

If u go OOB and at the exact same moment u travel it is called OOB first. The travel doesn't even matter at that point. I disagree that they should have first called a travel. Travelling is a more subjective call overall. OOB is black & white.

 

[urmite]

we've made a couple similar points but I don't think we are saying the same thing overall.

u said they reviewed for a travel. They didn't. Travel not reviewable. & the ref called OOB. 100%. He's not going to review a travel call he didn't even make. Also the announcers were definitely talking about the release of the ball in relation to his foot landing OOB yet. I think u can find end of game on espn+ and listen. I heard it for sure.

If u go OOB and at the exact same moment u travel it is called OOB first. The travel doesn't even matter at that point. I disagree that they should have first called a travel. Travelling is a more subjective call overall. OOB is black & white.

If ref calls a OOB, and then reviews, and sees…

Right foot hits inbounds but is a travel, then ball released, then left foot hits OOB.

What should be the result of the review?

 

[SFspidur]

But it would have sucked if they called OOB, overturned that on review, but then couldn't enforce the travel.

 

[VT4700]

And agree with Sman, that Dji 3 - while it did not put Loyola away completely - was HUGE, and much needed. Loved the confidence. Just like I was bitching about Quinn, this was the opposite - have to make the D pay if they are going to give it to you.

A couple really big 3's in a row from King too.

23, as I'm sure you remember, we debated Dji in the off season. You wanted more Dji, while I didn't think I saw enough impact to lead to a lot of minutes. No doubt, you were Nostradamus23 on this one. He is really playing well and definitely making a positive impact.

 

[Eight Legger]

we've made a couple similar points but I don't think we are saying the same thing overall.

u said they reviewed for a travel. They didn't. Travel not reviewable. & the ref called OOB. 100%. He's not going to review a travel call he didn't even make. Also the announcers were definitely talking about the release of the ball in relation to his foot landing OOB yet. I think u can find end of game on espn+ and listen. I heard it for sure.

If u go OOB and at the exact same moment u travel it is called OOB first. The travel doesn't even matter at that point. I disagree that they should have first called a travel. Travelling is a more subjective call overall. OOB is black & white.

Well no, I agree that they were reviewing whether he was out of bounds or not, since that is what they initially called. I'm just saying that if you jump off the ground with both feet and the ball and then land, where you land is irrelevant. You're not allowed to land at all with the ball.

Had they reviewed it for OOB and concluded that he actually landed entirely inbounds, then what? You can't give them the ball, because it was a travel. That's why it seems to me that traveling supersedes inbounds/OOB, but you may know better than me there.

Whether or not traveling is reviewable, I think that in that situation they would have just said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the OOB call. You couldn't blatantly reward a travel if you had confirmed that he traveled.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

But it would have sucked if they called OOB, overturned that on review, but then couldn't enforce the travel.

This exactly is my frustration with replay and also how games are allowed to be called. If they review and determine their call needs to be overturned, sometimes the correct secondary call (in the precedence of calls order GK references) is not allowed to be enforced. In this case they really should be allowed to call BOTH an out of bounds and a travel so that if replay forces refs to say he was in bounds the whole time it still cannot be LUC ball.

Basically, common sense pickup game rules should apply.

 

[ManiBenton]

I’m guessing they just ran out of ads

would much rather have no ads than the constant ESPN + ads. They're so annoying.

 

[VT4700]

This exactly is my frustration with replay and also how games are allowed to be called. If they review and determine their call needs to be overturned, sometimes the correct secondary call (in the precedence of calls order GK references) is not allowed to be enforced. In this case they really should be allowed to call BOTH an out of bounds and a travel so that if replay forces refs to say he was in bounds the whole time it still cannot be LUC ball.

Basically, common sense pickup game rules should apply.

Agree. It's like when they review an out of bounds play on a rebound. It might go off the defensive guy, but that is because the offensive guy fouled him!!! So, the replay shows the foul, but they have to ignore that and just say it was out on the defensive guy.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

Yup.

One other note on last night's defense: LUC's leading scorer was Alston going into the game, at 15ppg. Spiders held him to zero. Tough defense, but also smart, taking 2 charges knowing he would lower his shoulder on post moves.

 

[Eight Legger]

This exactly is my frustration with replay and also how games are allowed to be called. If they review and determine their call needs to be overturned, sometimes the correct secondary call (in the precedence of calls order GK references) is not allowed to be enforced. In this case they really should be allowed to call BOTH an out of bounds and a travel so that if replay forces refs to say he was in bounds the whole time it still cannot be LUC ball.

Basically, common sense pickup game rules should apply.

Agree 100%, but I also think that in this case it would be impossible to have concluded that he landed inbounds with the ball without also calling a travel. Otherwise, they would be saying it is legal to jump up with the ball and land with the ball.

So in that type of situation, their options would have been to make that call (ridiculous) or simply say there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the court, even in a situation when there clearly is.

 

[GKiller]

Well no, I agree that they were reviewing whether he was out of bounds or not, since that is what they initially called. I'm just saying that if you jump off the ground with both feet and the ball and then land, where you land is irrelevant. You're not allowed to land at all with the ball.

Had they reviewed it for OOB and concluded that he actually landed entirely inbounds, then what? You can't give them the ball, because it was a travel. That's why it seems to me that traveling supersedes inbounds/OOB, but you may know better than me there.

Whether or not traveling is reviewable, I think that in that situation they would have just said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the OOB call. You couldn't blatantly reward a travel if you had confirmed that he traveled.

U earlier wrote “They had to be reviewing the travel.”

Not sure what u meant but u can’t review the travel. That was never in the equation.

OOB supersedes traveling.

Yes if they concluded he was entirely inbounds it’s Loyola ball. But to me obvious he was Oob. Just a question if he passed it b4 landing oob. That would stink but it happens in sports. Refs can’t call PI or reverse PI on a play where they r reviewing feet inbounds for instance.

 

[GKiller]

If ref calls a OOB, and then reviews, and sees…

Right foot hits inbounds but is a travel, then ball released, then left foot hits OOB.

What should be the result of the review?

LUC ball inbounding with whatever time left when ref whistled dead.

 

[GKiller]

But it would have sucked if they called OOB, overturned that on review, but then couldn't enforce the travel.

Sure. But it can happen. But thought obvious he stepped out. I wasn’t worried about that being overturned. I was unsure of him getting off pass beforehand. That play was much much closer imo.

 

[urfan1]

announcers said oob was one of few reviewable calls at that point.

 

[spider23]

23, as I'm sure you remember, we debated Dji in the off season. You wanted more Dji, while I didn't think I saw enough impact to lead to a lot of minutes. No doubt, you were Nostradamus23 on this one. He is really playing well and definitely making a positive impact.

Have to admit, I was probably going off a little blind faith based on his few glimpses of his potential when healthy. I will say all along I think I indicated he should be willing to play some wing. He definitely is solid bringing the ball up the court now, but is really good beating bigger defenders off the dribble. We definitely need some guys like him, Bigs and Harris to be able to step up an hit some perimeter shots at key moments like they did yesterday.

 

[Sandbridge Spider]

Have to admit, I was probably going off a little blind faith based on his few glimpses of his potential when healthy. I will say all along I think I indicated he should be willing to play some wing. He definitely is solid bringing the ball up the court now, but is really good beating bigger defenders off the dribble. We definitely need some guys like him, Bigs and Harris to be able to step up an hit some perimeter shots at key moments like they did yesterday.

Defense is legit . May take offense a little
time to catch up

 

[SpiderRick]

After reading about 8000 posts about an out of bounds call, I had to go back and check to make sure that we actually WON the game. Any conference win on the road is huge.
But man, the lousy free throw shooting is going to cost us some close games. I don't care how good you are, if you can't make free throws during the last 5 minutes of close games, you are a liability.

 

[97spiderfan]

Here are a couple things I saw.

1. I liked how Mooney started Tynne and then brought D-Lo off the bench. Not sure how this evolves but I think Tynne has played well enough to not just relegate him back to bench as soon as incumbent starter is over injury.

2. I thought Quinn played well. He was great on defense. Offensively he was aggressive he just missed a ton of shots he normally makes.

3. I did not like how Walz played defense. He was over helping at Loyola coach correctly saw this and took advantage.

4. Props to Bigelow for not responding to the Loyola player who was showboating in his face repeatedly. The Loyola player correctly got t'd up later on and that was a game changing play. Bigelow's non response made this as easier call for the refs to make.

5. Would like to see Dji be more aggressive on offense. 5 shots in 30 minutes, when he is so good at getting to the basket and finishing. Those are high percentage shots that also get the other team in foul trouble, we need more of that. Being only in the single bonus at the end really hurt us, if our guys are shooting 2 shots versus a 1-1 that is a big bonus.

6. Mooney needs to have these guys in the gym at the end of practice shooting free throws. As well all know, we got very lucky at the end, better teams will beat us if we do that again.

7. First road W of the year. Huge. The first one is always the most difficult.

 

[97spiderfan]

announcers said oob was one of few reviewable calls at that point.

What I wondered if had the refs not blown the whistle does Loyola even get a shot off. He passed it back out to Norris who made a move or two before shooting. There was only 1.8 left on the clock, not sure he even gets that shot off.

 

[spiderman]

Here are a couple things I saw.

1. I liked how Mooney started Tynne and then brought D-Lo off the bench. Not sure how this evolves but I think Tynne has played well enough to not just relegate him back to bench as soon as incumbent starter is over injury.

2. I thought Quinn played well. He was great on defense. Offensively he was aggressive he just missed a ton of shots he normally makes.

3. I did not like how Walz played defense. He was over helping at Loyola coach correctly saw this and took advantage.

4. Props to Bigelow for not responding to the Loyola player who was showboating in his face repeatedly. The Loyola player correctly got t'd up later on and that was a game changing play. Bigelow's non response made this as easier call for the refs to make.

5. Would like to see Dji be more aggressive on offense. 5 shots in 30 minutes, when he is so good at getting to the basket and finishing. Those are high percentage shots that also get the other team in foul trouble, we need more of that. Being only in the single bonus at the end really hurt us, if our guys are shooting 2 shots versus a 1-1 that is a big bonus.

6. Mooney needs to have these guys in the gym at the end of practice shooting free throws. As well all know, we got very lucky at the end, better teams will beat us if we do that again.

7. First road W of the year. Huge. The first one is always the most difficult.

1. I think Hunt goes back to starter once his legs are back under him ... maybe next game. I think we want our leader starting. but Tyne will still play a lot. he might be one of our best perimeter defenders ever. and stats don't show it, but I think he'll be a good shooter. I'm comfortable with Tyne stepping in for King next year.

2. Quinn was just ok defensively, and he took shots LUC is happy to give him. doesn't need to fade on those hooks. and 4 TOs is too many.

3. I thought Walz played very well.

5. Dji gets to the hole when he can. I'm glad he's not forcing more. I'll take the defense, the drives, the open 3's, and no midrange from him. he's been great.

 

[SFspidur]

I did not like how Walz played defense. He was over helping at Loyola coach correctly saw this and took advantage..

I think he had some solid D at times, but yes, he was definitely was helping too much. I lost count of how many times I saw a driver carefully probe baseline just enough to draw Walz away to help and then dump off to a completely open guy in the lane for a dunk or layup. Can't give up the middle like that unless you're also taking away that passing lane.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

wow, 97 I strongly disagree on a couple points,

First - I thought this was one of Quinn's most uneven games and trended below average by a good amount. 13 points on 15 shots is not good for a 7 footer and most of his makes were from 15 on floaters bc he couldn't force his will offensively in close. 4 turnovers, many of them pretty bad - really bad passes or overdribbling and got stripped by guards. We iso'd him 3 straight times late - after going 3-3 from deep to take the lead - and he made 1 shot, while then also going 1-3 on clutch FTs, including a front end miss. In the endgame he was late on defense when Dji's man got loose, and it led to a dunk +1 by his man as a result. It wasn't all bad - we needed every single one of his baskets and he had a few boards and blocks, but I also saw him get moved around by skinnier LUC players in the post as well. Real roller coaster of a game.

I thought Walz was good in 1v1 post matchups. I thought he was way better than Quinn in challenging post ups near the rim. P&R situations are tough for any big, he'll get better - both he and the guards need to pressure the ball handler more with hands up in the lob passing lane. And if you don't want him to overhelp, the guards can't get beaten off the dribble (I'm assuming that's what happened) or need to be stickier on their assignments in the p&r. We're playing a very help-centric defense, with loads of switching, it can't be reliant on the big to solve issues as last line of defense when opposing guards get penetration - they have to challenge the ball, but lobs are open and we have no other bigs on the court. We saw at Wichita that they dunked a ton on us that game, and we saw at UNI how they drilled a bunch of 3s.

Can't believe that I'm suddenly on Team Walz now, and also that after last night's defense, we're discussing defensive lapses. The offense and how to score are bigger issues now.

 

[SFspidur]

The sequence that really jumped out at me on back-to-back possessions:

1. Roche gets beat baseline and Walz comes over to cut it off. Driver picks up his dribble and Roche mostly recovers, but Walz sticks and doesn't get back to cover the lane where there's a guy waiting for the dump off.



2. Hunt gets screened and Walz comes over to help. Hunt is recovering, but Walz ends up in no-man's land and doesn't pick up the roller.

 

[spider23]

This also for me was one of those games where Quinn was driving me crazy. Not sure where you saw aggressiveness on O 97, but I am too lazy to do an SF video breakdown. But last game, when they gave Quinn an open 10 footer - he immediately took it and made about 4 out 5. This game, his man LITERALLY backed all the way to the circle multiple times and he did not even look at the basket. Finally after a timeout a coach must have pointed out. And was slower than usual on D. It happens, guys have bad games. I know in HS I hated playing in empty away gyms, it felt like a scrimmage, its human nature sometimes.

Yes, SF, those are some egregious plays by Walz, but also mixed it up and came up with some key boards too.

 

[PhillySpider]

The sequence that really jumped out at me on back-to-back possessions:

1. Roche gets beat baseline and Walz comes over to cut it off. Driver picks up his dribble and Roche mostly recovers, but Walz sticks and doesn't get back to cover the lane where there's a guy waiting for the dump off.

View embedded media

2. Hunt gets screened and Walz comes over to help. Hunt is recovering, but Walz ends up in no-man's land and doesn't pick up the roller.

View embedded media

I think Walz is fine on both these plays. On both the rotations behind him are late! On the first, he clearly can't leave the baseline spot he has because Roche has only recovered to the drivers hip and isnt close to getting back in front of him. If Walz leaves, he leaves the guy a shot (and a fairly easy one). This is Roche's mistake that Walz covers up and then a little bit of a late reaction in rotation by others failing to cover up for Walz! The 2nd one is little bit closer and I'd prefer if he comes off to help, he get fully up and challenge the pass, but you can see Harris hesitate on his rotation there and then be late. Again, this one was close and he could have been better, I don't think its really his fault and its certainly not only his fault. Overall, he gave us quality minutes last night.

I am actually very pleasantly surprised. I saw him in HS and I wasn't a big believer that he could even get to where he appears to be now and I'll assume so there still some improvement left!

 

[72Spider]

Loud crowd given the size … the place likely is intense when students are present

I heard the Richmond contingent at times. Seemed as loud as the Loyola crowd noise.

 

[72Spider]

Looked a bit like the Seagull Center.

Nah, better than the Cosco pavilion. Nobody does cheap like vcu.

 

[SFspidur]

I think Walz is fine on both these plays.

Appreciate your analysis! I agree rotations could have been better, but I still think he could have retreated sooner on both of those. Hunt was definitely back in front of his man, and Roche was starting to get in front of his and he'd already picked up the dribble.

Anyway, yeah, overall defensive breakdown on those that of course stands out being back-to-back wide open dunks.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

yeah, #1 I am perfectly fine with what Walz does. That trap should be effective in that spot. Philly is correct, neither King nor Harris rotates in front of the big. Gilly would have stolen that pass 9/10 times. Harris gets caught guarding essentially no one, both the big and his man (the shooter at 3 point line) are wide open. The guy actually makes a pretty nice dish under a jumping Roche and the action happens quickly. I'm okay with this help, as long as we put a better trap on the ball handler.

#2 is more debatable and I would like a harder recover by Walz and/or a more aggressive pick up of Hunt's man so he doesn't have the easy passing lane. I agree he is in no man's land here. But teams do play drop coverage with bigs on p&r action often - he just has to drop quicker to prevent the dunk. But also - Hunt has to get a hand up once he recovers, that pass had no resistance from him. And Harris is again in no man's land - he's guarding their leading scorer but I don't know if that guy is a 3 point threat that needs coverage in that rotation or not. Not great for one simple top of key pick to create this kind or situation, especially when the other 3 offensive players and their defenders are not moving at all. There has to be better rotation.

 

[spiderman]

I'm with Philly and Brooklyn here. Walz did exactly what I'd want on #1. maybe commit to the double more on #2. help has to come from the opposite side.

 

[Section9.RowD]

I heard the Richmond contingent at times. Seemed as loud as the Loyola crowd noise.

thanks - we try to get our moneys worth in terms of volume - was pleased by the # of Spiders fans at the game

 

[SFspidur]

Okay, I yield. 🏳️😀

 

[gospidersgo]

We won!

 

[97spiderfan]

After looking at those clips again (thanks SF), those defensive breakdowns were not all on Walz, so I'll retract my statement on his defense. Watching it live it looked like Walz was leaving his man for help defense and in the process leaving his man wide open.

As for Quinn, I just thought his defense down low was really good, fully acknowledge his offense was not on. I want Quinn taking a lot of shots because his shots are high percentage shots. He was just off on his shot, in my opinion.

I should have added that our defense was stellar last night, we did not get give Loyola anything easy all night. Similarily, I thought there defense on us was equally "sticky" to use a Mooney term. Two good defensive efforts last night, thankfully we had Jordan King step up and make some big 3's and I think that was the difference.