This Year and Next Year

[Stonewall D]

Earlier a point was made about metrics for a very good college basketball team. There were 5 measures- 3 or more averaging double figures, FG % = 50%; 3PT FG = 42%, FT % = 75% assist to turnover of about 2.0.
All five starters averaged double figures this year. That is a first for a UR team.
FG% was 46.1%, our opponents averaged 48.9%
3PT FG% = 42%, ours totaled 33.4%;
FT% = 75%, ours equaled 71.5%
Assist to Turnover = 486/373 = 1.3

 

[fan2011]

Earlier a point was made about metrics for a very good college basketball team. There were 5 measures- 3 or more averaging double figures, FG % = 50%; 3PT FG = 42%, FT % = 75% assist to turnover of about 2.0.
All five starters averaged double figures this year. That is a first for a UR team.
FG% was 46.1%, our opponents averaged 48.9%
3PT FG% = 42%, ours totaled 33.4%;
FT% = 75%, ours equaled 71.5%
Assist to Turnover = 486/373 = 1.3

Why are these the numbers for a good team? Is there some sort of analysis behind it, or is it just a "gut feeling"? For example, only 3 teams in the sweet 16 meet the mark for FT%, so why would you think a good team would need to shoot 75% from the free throw line? Only 2 teams in the entire country shoot 42% from 3, Purdue and W+M. Are those the only good teams in the country? The best assist to turnover ratio in the country was 1.75, so there actually weren't any good teams this year I guess. Seems like these are just some random numbers someone pulled out of some orifice.

 

[Stonewall D]

Takeaways, there were a lot of missed 3 Point FG's. Two of our starters averaged 27.5%. Rather than hoisting 3 pointers, better shot selection would help both scoring and FG %. Improved ball control would significantly reduce turnovers and improved ball handling would improve the number of assists.
http://richmondspiders.com/documents/2018/3/9/MBBCUMULATIVE.pdf

 

[Stonewall D]

The team really came together at the end of the year. The Great One, Dick Tarrant, said that team chemistry is so very important. As this team grows and improves, its chemistry will only get better.

 

[spiderman]

FG % = 50%;
3PT FG = 42%
assist to turnover of about 2.0.

no idea where you got these crazy metrics.
6 teams in the entire country had FG% of 50%
2 teams in the entire country had 3FG% of 42%
and the best assist to turnover ration in the country was 1.75

 

[Eight Legger]

Most of Stonewall's posts are based on nothingness.

 

[MolivaManiac]

Most of Stonewall's posts are based on nothingness.

What about Gallipoli's posts though?

 

[urfan1]

STOP ATTACKING POSTERS, disagree with the message

 

[spider23]

Fan1, unfortunately I think the only thing that will unite this board somewhat again is a new coach.

 

[Ulla1]

Fan1, unfortunately I think the only thing that will unite this board somewhat again is a new coach.

Nope.

 

[spider23]

Nope.

Always the antagonist

 

[urfan1]

I understand your sentiment

 

[urmite]

Fan1, unfortunately I think the only thing that will unite this board somewhat again is a new coach.

I’m not sure that is the only thing...
39-0?

 

[spider23]

I’m not sure that is the only thing...
39-0?

Yes, that would do it too I guess. As I have stated on here previously I have mentally checked out on Mooney. Just hoping that Hardt can make a good hire whenever that time comes. Just listening to that ESPN Richmond interview, I was not impressed. Acted like the idea of the practice facility was brand new and that he did not know about VCU's until they were kind enough to show him and he used a day or half day to tour it. A simple 5 second google search will give you a tour and show you how very nice it is

That just feels like a staged event. PQ looking to save Mooney's job and Hardt in on it. Hardt: Well golllly, look what VCU has. We get one of those and Mooney can recruit again. That has been hamstringing him all these years.
Just my opinion. Wish I would hear something from Hardt that is more passionate.

 

[Octapod]

If you look at the stats, it is easy to see the story of the bad season. Go over that sheet. The spiders are worse than their opponents in most of the categories. The only highlights are: More assists/less turnovers which gives a better ratio. More steals/steals per game. That's it. Every other stat on that sheet they are worse that the opponent. The question is how is that going to change next year and swing in favor of the spiders?

http://richmondspiders.com/cumestats.aspx?path=mbball

 

[spiderman]

The question is how is that going to change next year and swing in favor of the spiders?

players get better from one year to the next. other teams are pretty much all replacing top guys in their rotations. assuming we don't, we'll improve more.

 

[fan2011]

If you look at the stats, it is easy to see the story of the bad season. Go over that sheet. The spiders are worse than their opponents in most of the categories. The only highlights are: More assists/less turnovers which gives a better ratio. More steals/steals per game. That's it. Every other stat on that sheet they are worse that the opponent. The question is how is that going to change next year and swing in favor of the spiders?

http://richmondspiders.com/cumestats.aspx?path=mbball

We went 12-20, of course our opponents had better stats on the aggregate, that is why they won most of the games. You should compare the aggregate stats for the first and second half of the season though, you will notice a huge improvement. Even more so if you break the season up into smaller segments. In the last 5 game stretch of the season our aggregate stats were much higher than our opponents. Hopefully we are bringing back the team we had at the end of the season, not the one from the beginning.

 

[Ulla1]

We went 12-20, of course our opponents had better stats on the aggregate, that is why they won most of the games. You should compare the aggregate stats for the first and second half of the season though, you will notice a huge improvement. Even more so if you break the season up into smaller segments. In the last 5 game stretch of the season our aggregate stats were much higher than our opponents. Hopefully we are bringing back the team we had at the end of the season, not the one from the beginning.

Thanks, 2011; yours is a much more appropriate analysis.

 

[97spiderfan]

We went 12-20, of course our opponents had better stats on the aggregate, that is why they won most of the games. You should compare the aggregate stats for the first and second half of the season though, you will notice a huge improvement. Even more so if you break the season up into smaller segments. In the last 5 game stretch of the season our aggregate stats were much higher than our opponents. Hopefully we are bringing back the team we had at the end of the season, not the one from the beginning.

If you break the season up into only our 12 wins, than I'm sure those stats are much better than the 20 losses. We lost 5 in a row in late February, so the mantra that this team got much better throughout the year, doesn't ring true to me.

Yes, they were better, but they started 2-10. Only one way to go when you start there.

 

[Octapod]

Only 2 of the last 5 opponents had a winning record at the time of the game. Only one finished with a winning record. They were an NCAA tourney team, though.

 

[fan2011]

Only 2 of the last 5 opponents had a winning record at the time of the game. Only one finished with a winning record. They were an NCAA tourney team, though.

Do you think we did not improve over the course of the season and stats from the first half of the season are just as representative of the quality of the team next year as stats from the second half?

 

[Octapod]

Improved on the offensive of the ball but not much on the defensive side of the ball. That is what I am worried about. Now you can list the stats and talk about what a good offensive team UR became. If you look at the stats they did. But, it did not translate into a big difference in the win/lose column. In fact, the best winning streak was during the middle of the season. That was followed by a longer losing streak during the last part of the season. Then a shorter win streak and about the usual ending in the tourney. So, no I did not think the team improved overall very much from the first half to the second half. Not enough to be very optimistic for next year. Now, if I could see real potential for improvement on the defensive end I would be optimistic. I don't, however.

 

[fan2011]

Improved on the offensive of the ball but not much on the defensive side of the ball. That is what I am worried about. Now you can list the stats and talk about what a good offensive team UR became. If you look at the stats they did. But, it did not translate into a big difference in the win/lose column. In fact, the best winning streak was during the middle of the season. That was followed by a longer losing streak during the last part of the season. Then a shorter win streak and about the usual ending in the tourney. So, no I did not think the team improved overall very much from the first half to the second half. Not enough to be very optimistic for next year. Now, if I could see real potential for improvement on the defensive end I would be optimistic. I don't, however.

Fair enough.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

If you divide the season into two halves, we definitely improved:
3-13
9-7

That five-game losing streak after the VCU win at home is troubling in the middle of that 9-7 half. It was a combination of games against the top 2 in the conference, and the "must-win and winnable but we don't make the plays" games we've grown so accustomed to over 11 of the past 13 years.

 

[I-M-UR]

If you divide the season into two halves, we definitely improved:
3-13
9-7

That five-game losing streak after the VCU win at home is troubling in the middle of that 9-7 half. It was a combination of games against the top 2 in the conference, and the "must-win and winnable but we don't make the plays" games we've grown so accustomed to over 11 of the past 13 years.

We got better but the league wasn't standing still. We went 6 and 3 in the first half the conference schedule and 3 and 6 in the second. It's more a function of who we played in the second half but by itself doesn't show much improvement.

 

[fan2011]

We got better but the league wasn't standing still. We went 6 and 3 in the first half the conference schedule and 3 and 6 in the second. It's more a function of who we played in the second half but by itself doesn't show much improvement.

Also had an injured Buck in many of those losses.

 

[SpiderK]

Also had an injured Buck in many of those losses.

And we played the better teams in the second half.

 

[Spideroldie]

We did also have an injured Khwan at the very start of the season, so that needs to be considered too. I wonder how we progressed if you remove the games where Khwan was out and Buck was out, and then do an early vs. late season comparison...

I would have preferred to see our "end-of season" defense be MUCH better than our horrendous start (did not see that), but it definitely appeared that we got much better offensively.

 

[Ulla1]

Just sayin’

 

[MolivaManiac]

If all we need to do is slash our basketball budget roughly in half and pay a coach 420,000 a year like Loyola, I'm all for it.

 

[Ulla1]

If all we need to do is slash our basketball budget roughly in half and pay a coach 420,000 a year like Loyola, I'm all for it.

Pitiful.

 

[Eight Legger]

He was 1-17 with someone else's players in his first year. Apples to oranges. He built his own winner from scratch in the same amount of time we've been twiddling our thumbs.

 

[MolivaManiac]

Pitiful.

Assume you are talking about our (lack of) ROI, but if not, my suggestion is genuine. Let's slash budget and see if we can pull of what Loyola did. Let's compare out apples to their apples.

 

[Eight Legger]

Assume you are talking about our (lack of) ROI, but if not, my suggestion is genuine. Let's slash budget and see if we can pull of what Loyola did. Let's compare out apples to their apples.

And let's move to a worse conference than the A10 and a worse arena, too, to make sure it's a fair comparison.

 

[Ulla1]

If all we need to do is slash our basketball budget roughly in half and pay a coach 420,000 a year like Loyola, I'm all for it.

Mo, why are you and others so concerned about another’s salary? Just is foreign to me this way of thinking; never jealous of what someone else has. Be happy with your plight.

 

[MolivaManiac]

I want everyone to make as much money as they possibly can.

I would like University of Richmond to actually care about our supposed marquee program by doing something besides simply throwing money at it. The school is not genuinely committed to success.

By the way, I'm thrilled with Loyola. You were the one that needed to drop the back handed comparison. Go Ramblers.

 

[Eight Legger]

Right. Ulla, you know as well as the rest of us why it matters how much we pay our coach. No one is jealous of what he makes -- but for that much money, we could do much better than this. If we don't care to do any better than this, we should save our money and invest it in the biology department or the lacrosse program or another dessert endowment at D-Hall.

 

[Marley13]

Plight:
a condition, state, or situation, especially an unfavorable or unfortunate one

 

[MolivaManiac]

Plight:
a condition, state, or situation, especially an unfavorable or unfortunate one

Yep. Sure feels like a personal attack to me.

 

[Spider B]

The current condition of Richmond Basketball is our plight.