W&M Fires Tony Shafer after 16 Seasons

[VT4700]

I didn't realize I needed to preface my posts on a message board with the notation that what follows is my opinion. Especially when I said Sherod "might" have resulted in one more win.

Kobe Bryant's total career WARP in the NBA was 72 (see link below). He played for 20 years and was one of the greatest players in the history of the league. He therefore was worth about 3.6 more wins per 82-game season to his team than an average player would have been.

I don't think Sherod is to our team what Kobe was to the Lakers, so I'd have a hard time saying he'd be worth 3.6 games over 82 games. And pro-rated to a 33-game schedule, even Kobe would have had a WARP of only 1.44 for his team.

So yes, I believe Sherod might have improved our win total by one game this season.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html

If you think Kobe was only worth 3.6 wins a year for the Lakers, I cannot help you any farther. No one can. And, nice spin using Kobe's whole career when he had a few years of negative WAR, not to mention comparing NBA to college. Although I will offer this advice. Try actually watching the games instead of relying on some computers.

 

[VT4700]

You just can’t simply outscore quality competition. Nick will help us offensively, but defense is not his strength. You still have yet to explain how we will be a better defensive team and rebound significantly better with the same coach and tired schemes, adding a small starting guard, and adding NS who is an average defender at best. Also, the games we had Nick this past year didn’t go well so you can’t totally ignore that. I like NS and BF and think we will score, but not seeing huge improvements in the areas we need huge improvements in next year to win consistently.

Weren't we last in defense this year? So, would Nick make us worse defensively? I don't see how. Would he make us better offensively? Definitely. A lot better. I have a very good 2 year sample size including some monster A-10 games where he carried us to back my point, and all some of you keep doing is saying "what about the first few games this year"? Give me a break. This seems like another example where we would all be in agreement and there would be no debate at all if it were not Mooney related in certain people's eyes.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'm hardly a stat geek, but WAR and WARP are pretty commonly accepted methods of analysis in sports now. You can choose to ignore them at your own risk.

You also apparently choose to ignore the eye test, which would show you that with Sherod last year we went 12-20 and with him this year we were 2-4 and had our worst two losses of the year (meaning to the two worst teams).

But sure, I imagine with him the rest of the year, we probably would have ended up with 22 wins and a trip to the NIT. Get real.

 

[ur2K]

Wojick was logging a ton of minutes on day 1. Andre's probably the one that benefited the most from additional playing time when Nick went down.

 

[VT4700]

Wojick was logging a ton of minutes on day 1. Andre's probably the one that benefited the most from additional playing time when Nick went down.

But, as Andre started playing more he would not have taken Nick's minutes.

 

[MrTbone]

Nick makes us better next year. I don't think he makes us post-season worthy better. He also doesn't only make us 1-2 games better.

Going from 13-20 to 20-13 is a big swing. I don't think it's nearly as easy as some folks think. I hope to be wrong, but I'm not expecting us to be a ton better without some serious recalibration of our defense.

 

[spiderman]

I'm hardly a stat geek, but WAR and WARP are pretty commonly accepted methods of analysis in sports now. You can choose to ignore them at your own risk.

ok, I had to look this up to understand better.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html
Kobe's VORP (value over replacement player) was 72.1 over 20 seasons so I guess that's where you get 3.6 games per year ... which I said was ridiculous.

when I hover my mouse over VORP it gives the definition of VORP ... and says multiply by 2.7 to get wins over replacement. so 3.6 becomes 9.7 wins. that's more reasonable.

 

[VT4700]

ok, I had to look this up to understand better.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html
Kobe's VORP (value over replacement player) was 72.1 over 20 seasons so I guess that's where you get 3.6 games per year ... which I said was ridiculous.

when I hover my mouse over VORP it gives the definition of VORP ... and says multiply by 2.7 to get wins over replacement. so 3.6 becomes 9.7 wins. that's more reasonable.

And, also leaving out his 1st 3 years and last 3 years and focusing on the 14 years Kobe was in his prime (which Nick would obviously be as a junior), you would get 68.5 divided by 14, which equals. 4.9. Now, multiply that by 2.7 and you get 13.2, a far cry from 3.6, and still even lower than what he might have really been worth. So, yes, I think it is safe to say the 3.6 number is garbage, and anyone who knows anything about basketball would never think Kobe was worth less than 4 wins a year to his team, but I doubt the poster will admit he was wrong.

 

[97spiderfan]

Weren't we last in defense this year? .

Um, yes we were. We were last in the A-10 in defensive efficiency, #270 in the country. https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/defensive-efficiency

 

[97spiderfan]

And, also leaving out his 1st 3 years and last 3 years and focusing on the 14 years Kobe was in his prime (which Nick would obviously be as a junior), you would get 68.5 divided by 14, which equals. 4.9. Now, multiply that by 2.7 and you get 13.2, a far cry from 3.6, and still even lower than what he might have really been worth. So, yes, I think it is safe to say the 3.6 number is garbage, and anyone who knows anything about basketball would never think Kobe was worth less than 4 wins a year to his team, but I doubt the poster will admit he was wrong.

Because clearly Sherod coming off an ACL tear = Kobe in his prime years.

 

[Eight Legger]

And, also leaving out his 1st 3 years and last 3 years and focusing on the 14 years Kobe was in his prime (which Nick would obviously be as a junior), you would get 68.5 divided by 14, which equals. 4.9. Now, multiply that by 2.7 and you get 13.2, a far cry from 3.6, and still even lower than what he might have really been worth. So, yes, I think it is safe to say the 3.6 number is garbage, and anyone who knows anything about basketball would never think Kobe was worth less than 4 wins a year to his team, but I doubt the poster will admit he was wrong.

I stand corrected. We would have gone 25-8 this year had Sherod been healthy. My bad.

 

[Marley13]

Is Nick going to be ready to start? Any word on his health?

 

[VT4700]

Is Nick going to be ready to start? Any word on his health?

I read earlier he should be ready to go by June, so we should definitely expect him to start and gobble up a lot of minutes. Players come back from torn ACLs a lot sooner now than they used to.

 

[wr70beh]

Nick makes us better next year. I don't think he makes us post-season worthy better. He also doesn't only make us 1-2 games better.

Going from 13-20 to 20-13 is a big swing. I don't think it's nearly as easy as some folks think. I hope to be wrong, but I'm not expecting us to be a ton better without some serious recalibration of our defense.

Recalibration of our coaching staff is more like it. Of course, we were told that's not happening and we were to enjoy it or else.

 

[GKiller]

Everyone's "real good" can be different. The reason I won't say "NCAA tourney or new coach" is because next year we could have some nice out of conference wins, do great in conference, have very few bad games, maybe even correct some rebounding, defensive, and late game issues, and lose a close conference tourney final and go to the NIT if our conference is a little down. If all of that happens, I would certainly want to give the same coach another chance with all of the same players coming back.

That sounds a lot like vcu’s year. Except the a10 was way down this year & next year will be much much better. & vcu was an 8 seed this year. Yet next year we do all that & easily could end up in NIT. Stark contrast. Of course vcu is all about exceeding expectations. Picked middle of pack. We seem to be about minimizing expectations & still fall well below. Mooney gonna kick rhoades butt in the coaches cook off tho. Beef stroganoff. Lock it.

 

[gospidersgo]

I really want to believe that having Nick would have helped tremendously this year, and will push us well forward next year, but reality just doesn't support it.

The only thing we have to go by is actual games he's played in and how we fared. With Nick the past 2 years we are 14-24 (37% wins). Without him we are 11-16 (41% wins).

I like Nick a lot. I think he has shown he can be an elite A10 scorer. But to suggest he is the answer to our problems is just ignoring facts.

 

[MrTbone]

Recalibration of our coaching staff is more like it. Of course, we were told that's not happening and we were to enjoy it or else.

I am still expecting some kind of change somewhere but not at the top of course. A good AD is not going to shadow coach the team but I do think our situation calls for some AD influence.

I don’t know what’s realistic. Some kind of assistant coach shuffle is possible but improbable I think. Requiring CM to bring in a defensive consultant or FT trainer doesn’t seem far fetched. CM should welcome that kind of support even if it’s a whack to the old ego.

 

[Eight Legger]

There's probably no way for Hardt to force Mooney to do anything. From the sounds of it, Miller basically gave Mooney everything in that contract and provided no protection whatsoever for the university in the event things went south. So I supposed Hardt could forcefully tell Mooney to make some changes, but ultimately, what's going to happen if Mooney refuses? Nothing, most likely. Hardt clearly has no intention of firing him, and that's his only recourse. Prepare for another year of the same old stuff.

 

[spider23]

Yep, thank you sir, may I have another?

On Sherod, it will be interesting to see how he bounces back. On one hand, as noted the recovery time today is much quicker, medicine much advanced. If June is the expected come back date, that gives a few months buffer to hopefully be back to full strength. I am pulling for a fully recovered Sherod back on the court filling it up.

On the other hand, even Tom Brady had complications on his ACL, to the point that they had to go in several times due to infection. I know the fans in New England were just not able to believe this could happen to TB12 with access to the best doctors in the world. But it happens.

Another interesting point is that Nick's game was not predicated on super quickness or hops. On one hand, that would seem to be a positive if the net result of the injury is that he loses half a step. On the flip side, can he afford to be slowed down at all.

The last point is that sometimes the mental recovery takes some time. It used to be commonly thought that it took a full season under the belt after an ACL to get fully back and confident that the body will cooperate. Not sure if that still applies or how Nick will react.

Hoping he is back and we have a stud wing and inside player to mix in the line up with him.

 

[VT4700]

I really want to believe that having Nick would have helped tremendously this year, and will push us well forward next year, but reality just doesn't support it.

The only thing we have to go by is actual games he's played in and how we fared. With Nick the past 2 years we are 14-24 (37% wins). Without him we are 11-16 (41% wins).

I like Nick a lot. I think he has shown he can be an elite A10 scorer. But to suggest he is the answer to our problems is just ignoring facts.

I never said he was the only answer. I said we missed him a lot this year. He got better and better last year, and carried us in A-10 play. When we went 2-10 OOC, he scored in double figures in 7 of the 12 games and had a high game of only 14 points. Then, as only a sophomore don't forget, he got going in A-10 play, and scored in double figures in 16 of the 20 games, including 15 of the last 16 going into the A-10 tourney with games of 32, 28, 26, 25, and 7 more of 18 or more. And, as a result, we went 9-9 in the A-10 after going 2-10 OOC. If you don't think we missed that production a whole lot, fine, but we will have to disagree on that. I think with him healthy next year along with adding Blake, we will be a lot better next year. Again, fine if you disagree.

Don't forget if wins are the tell all for future importance, we were also 12-20 with Buck and Khwan last year, but that did not stop nearly everyone on here from saying we would miss them greatly this year. Were you one of those? Can't have it both ways.

 

[KWeaver]

Wojcik had some good games as a freshman for us this year. He also had some games that showed he was a freshman where he barely scored. Can you honestly say Nick, a proven experienced scorer, our best 3-point shooter and also our best inside-outside player, would have only given us one more win had he taken most of Wojcik's minutes? Come on. Just another experienced body would have likely given us a few more wins, and a proven score like Nick would have likely given us many more. I know you hate our coach but, geez, try to be realistic here.

For the record you said having nick back would give many more. For the record.

 

[VT4700]

For the record you said having nick back would give many more. For the record.

Sorry, I am not following you here. Your point?

 

[Marley13]

Even a moron could figure it out. Come on vt get with it.

 

[SpiderK]

I really want to believe that having Nick would have helped tremendously this year, and will push us well forward next year, but reality just doesn't support it.

The only thing we have to go by is actual games he's played in and how we fared. With Nick the past 2 years we are 14-24 (37% wins). Without him we are 11-16 (41% wins).

I like Nick a lot. I think he has shown he can be an elite A10 scorer. But to suggest he is the answer to our problems is just ignoring facts.

You all know I am a huge Nick fan. One of the handful of kids at the entire university that is actually from Richmond and has a wonderful Virginia basketball family history. Kid makes his free throws, rebounds fairly well for a 6’4” shooter and has the purest shot on the team. My only problem with Nick is that he disappears at times on offense. When he truly engages he is almost unstoppable by any A-10 team. Maybe a little slow, but at 6’4” 230 he is not easily moved. Is he the savior by himself, of course not, but he is a leader and will make this team much better. With the addition of Nick and Blake, I see no problem with us scoring next year. Defense is a whole different story.

 

[coach fezz]

Andre will give the perfect passes to Nick to shoot high percent next year.

 

[gospidersgo]

Just to be clear, my post wasn't really meant to be a knock on Nick. I'm just trying to be realistic that the issues we face run much deeper.

With him in the lineup the last 2 years we've lost to Hampton, Longwood, Jacksonville St, Louisiana-Lafayette, Wyoming, and Delaware. That should be about 10 years of really bad losses for our program and we achieved it in 2 years.

Next year we add Nick back plus Blake. I don't think there's any question we should be a top tier offensive team with that group. But we still have the same coaches, the same schemes, the same lack of depth. Time will tell, but in my opinion next year feels more like an 18-15 type of year than 25-9.

 

[VT4700]

Even a moron could figure it out. Come on vt get with it.

Then, help a moron out here.

 

[Eight Legger]

Just to be clear, my post wasn't really meant to be a knock on Nick. I'm just trying to be realistic that the issues we face run much deeper.

With him in the lineup the last 2 years we've lost to Hampton, Longwood, Jacksonville St, Louisiana-Lafayette, Wyoming, and Delaware. That should be about 10 years of really bad losses for our program and we achieved it in 2 years.

Next year we add Nick back plus Blake. I don't think there's any question we should be a top tier offensive team with that group. But we still have the same coaches, the same schemes, the same lack of depth. Time will tell, but in my opinion next year feels more like an 18-15 type of year than 25-9.

Correct. And that would be my expectation if we played the EXACT same schedule we played this year. But consider that everyone in the A10 gets better, except maybe St. Louis, and we are going to play the hardest OOC schedule in the league. Now 18 wins seems like a major step forward and one I am not confident we can reach.

Last year, we had the worst OOC schedule in the league. We ended up playing 9 top-100 teams total in our 33 games (2 of them OOC) and went 1-8 in those games. Meanwhile, VCU played 9 top-100 teams in its OOC schedule alone and went 5-4 in those games.

So presumably, we will have to play at least 10 top-100 teams in our 12- or 13-game OOC schedule to have the hardest OOC schedule in the league as Mooney has promised. Does anyone have the confidence that we will have a winning record in those games? I sure don't.

 

[97spiderfan]

Correct. And that would be my expectation if we played the EXACT same schedule we played this year. But consider that everyone in the A10 gets better, except maybe St. Louis, and we are going to play the hardest OOC schedule in the league. Now 18 wins seems like a major step forward and one I am not confident we can reach.

Last year, we had the worst OOC schedule in the league. We ended up playing 9 top-100 teams total in our 33 games (2 of them OOC) and went 1-8 in those games. Meanwhile, VCU played 9 top-100 teams in its OOC schedule alone and went 5-4 in those games.

So presumably, we will have to play at least 10 top-100 teams in our 12- or 13-game OOC schedule to have the hardest OOC schedule in the league as Mooney has promised. Does anyone have the confidence that we will have a winning record in those games? I sure don't.

18 wins doesn't even get us in the NIT.

 

[GKiller]

18 wins doesn't even get us in the NIT.

Nope. But getting on the Nit bubble is going to meet the admin’s definition of competing for a10 champ and tournament. Just watch. Oh we were close. Just needed a few more breaks and stops on d.

 

[Ulla1]

You all know I am a huge Nick fan. One of the handful of kids at the entire university that is actually from Richmond and has a wonderful Virginia basketball family history. Kid makes his free throws, rebounds fairly well for a 6’4” shooter and has the purest shot on the team. My only problem with Nick is that he disappears at times on offense. When he truly engages he is almost unstoppable by any A-10 team. Maybe a little slow, but at 6’4” 230 he is not easily moved. Is he the savior by himself, of course not, but he is a leader and will make this team much better. With the addition of Nick and Blake, I see no problem with us scoring next year. Defense is a whole different story.

Just a brief comment: Predict Blake will be a stud next year. Noticed in his only A10 competition while in last season at Wagner, Blake had 24 points and 5 steals against Dayton. Might add he is an 80% free throw shooter. Bye.

 

[KWeaver]

Just a brief comment: Predict Blake will be a stud next year. Noticed in his only A10 competition while in last season at Wagner, Blake had 24 points and 5 steals against Dayton. Might add he is an 80% free throw shooter. Bye.

Thanks, Ulla. I ask this in as nice a way as possible, with nothing backhanded with what I am saying. Truly.

Would you bet one of your many ranches on this?

 

[MrTbone]

I'm excited about Blake, seems like a kid who can light it up from outside. And yes, we can definitely use a reliable FT shooter. I think there are just questions on what he'll do on D, which is the broad concern to me in terms of how we improve.

 

[KWeaver]

I wonder if we can bring back Paul Westhead to do all the scoring and "olé-ing" that we seem prepared for.

 

[spiderman]

Thanks, Ulla. I ask this in as nice a way as possible, with nothing backhanded with what I am saying. Truly.

Would you bet one of your many ranches on this?

kid has 2 consecutive years shooting over 40% from 3. I'll bet my extra ranch for Ulla.

 

[VT4700]

I'm excited about Blake, seems like a kid who can light it up from outside. And yes, we can definitely use a reliable FT shooter. I think there are just questions on what he'll do on D, which is the broad concern to me in terms of how we improve.

Why is everyone assuming Blake will be a bad defender? Because of his size? Jacob is one of the best defensive players we've ever had here.

 

[spiderman]

I think the concern is more playing 2 small guys than playing Blake in particular. if we're in the match-up, there's even more likelihood of a switch mismatch. we'll see how he does in straight man against a bigger guard.

 

[ur2K]

Its not that he is a bad individual defender, its that our 2 presumed starting guards are undersized, which puts us at a disadvantage playing the coach's preferred defense which involves switching and the need to defend multiple positions.

 

[VT4700]

I think the concern is more playing 2 small guys than playing Blake in particular. if we're in the match-up, there's even more likelihood of a switch mismatch. we'll see how he does in straight man against a bigger guard.

I hear you, but I don't think our guards will be the issue if we have defensive problems next year. I would rather have 5'9 and 6 ft guys that are quick and can get steals and stay with their man than a couple 6'2 or 6'3 guys who are slow.

 

[VT4700]

Its not that he is a bad individual defender, its that our 2 presumed starting guards are undersized, which puts us at a disadvantage playing the coach's preferred defense which involves switching and the need to defend multiple positions.

We might finally be going away from this preferred defense a little bit.