He hasn't called a TO in 8 games
Stats and stuff (Indiana game)...
- Thread starter gary-7
- Start date
- Status
He hasn't called a TO in 8 games
There was never really a point where I felt a TO was going to be a lot of help. We were down 7 at the first TV TO. Two minutes later we were down 10. We were down 10 at the second TV TO. Two minutes later we were down 17. Those are timeouts. They didn't help.
So the use it or lose TO you just assume to lose it if the difficency is not getting much worse? Not putting words in ya mouth jw why not use a FREE timeout
Know what I derive from the box score?
Rebounds were even but we had 13 OR to their 8.
We had 4 more assists and 4 less TO's.
We had 9 more FG attempts.
We committed 1 less PF.
You'd think we won based on those stats, right?
But the most telling stats related to putting the ball in the basket.
We shot 39% from the field to their 48%.
We shot 29% from long distance to their 38%.
We shot 59% from the line to their 68%.
Our best player couldn't throw the ball in the ocean(3 for 13).
And yet we were within 5 with 5 minutes to go. IOW, if we shoot just a little better, we win the game. The sky isn't falling. Roy is building depth for contingency purposes. We will be better served for it down the road.
Rebounds were even but we had 13 OR to their 8.
We had 4 more assists and 4 less TO's.
We had 9 more FG attempts.
We committed 1 less PF.
You'd think we won based on those stats, right?
But the most telling stats related to putting the ball in the basket.
We shot 39% from the field to their 48%.
We shot 29% from long distance to their 38%.
We shot 59% from the line to their 68%.
Our best player couldn't throw the ball in the ocean(3 for 13).
And yet we were within 5 with 5 minutes to go. IOW, if we shoot just a little better, we win the game. The sky isn't falling. Roy is building depth for contingency purposes. We will be better served for it down the road.
I've got no issues with him using them. I just think their effectiveness at stopping runs is overrated.
While I agree the effectiveness of taking a TO to stop a run is probably overstated, I'm certainly in favor of using them to try and do so. It certainly can't hurt. If we don't get down by 17 early, I think we eventually win the IU game. I think the UNC/KU NCAAT game where we got down by about 30 before fighting back to within a few points, only to run out of gas, perfectly illustrates why you have to at least try to stem the bleeding with a TO.
Games like that one are what late runs into April are made of. This team was riding high on cloud 9 so far and ran into a buzzsaw. This is the first team that has matched Carolina's defensive intensity this season. Hopefully these young men will learn from this and build something special....and as I posted earlier this one had all the makings of walking into a snake pit. It was, and we didn't get the job done.
Stats
- The bad was obvious, as that's what it pretty much was on our end. When we got open shots we didn't convert. 39% from the floor and 59% from the line ain't gonna win you many ballgames, especially against a ranked opponent on their home floor.
- Justin had a good shooting night 7/13 FG, 4/7 3s. 3/4 FTs, as did Kennedy (5/9 FGs) when he wasn't being mugged. That's about it.
-Speaking of JJ, you can't ask for much more than 21 pts and 8 boards in a physical game like that.
- Only 2 Fast Break and 9 Secondary Break points. Not good.
- We did a decent job keeping them off the offensive glass (8 Off. Rebounds allowed) but team totals were 37 Rebounds each. Granted, with our poor shooting they had ample opportunity for Defensive Rebounds (29)
Stuff
- Roy went small down the stretch to step up defensive pressure with some success (but again we can see how much we miss Theo in those situations)
- Again, I want to see KW be more assertive on the offensive end. Passed up at least two open 3s.
- The killer sequence of the game came early, when Berry was called for 2 ticky-tack (phantom) fouls and forced to the bench at the 14:49 mark. Indiana proceeded to go off on an 11-2 run over the next 3:54 (which ended up being the differential of the game) and staked them to a 17 pt lead at 26-9. Roy then got away with putting JB back in for 7-1/2 minutes without picking up the 3rd and we outscored them 15-10 which got us back to what would end up being the half-time margin.
- We outscored them 38-35 in the second half but we could never make enough shots to get over the hump and make them have to earn it.
- I also figured going in we weren't gonna get any help from the home zebras. Welp, that was an understatement. It was pretty obvious Indiana's game plan was to be "physical" with our Bigs and they did and mostly got away with it. Again, expected... but at the risk of being politically incorrect, I would love to watch the replay with that crew and have them justify how Meeks didn't earn a single FT attempt with the pounding he was taking... and Hicks and JB only getting 6 FTs between them? Suffice to say double our 22 team attempts would have been more in order. That being said, the way we were shooting I'm not confident we would've made enough to win anyway
- Going in I figured the environment would be as hostile as one could imagine (it was), and Indiana would come out on fire (they did). I hoped we would be efficient and aggressive enough to overcome that (we weren't).
Bottom line, not a surprising loss, but still a disappointing one... Let's learn from it and get better.
Concerning Nate, I'm sure the lion's share of those extra minutes were when JB picked up the two early fouls. And not hating on the kid, but I would MUCH RATHER see Britt in that situation as opposed to Seventh Woods. He is going to be great when it finally clicks, but right now I think the game is moving WAYYYY too fast for him (as it does for most freshmen).
Yeah Arch, another example of why box scores alone don't mean a helluva lot and why coaches don't really look at them except for the parts already on their stat sheets. And that's why I post the stuff to try to provide context, and yeah, it started with the shooting #s, and then the timing of the fouls with our rotation. But there's more to it. We also missed three straight front-ends of 1-and-1s and on three occasions there were up to 5-pt swings when our Big got hammered with no call and thus no FTs and they ran out and hit a 3.
BTW: Speaking of context, upon rewatching, JB took the ball to the rack 7 times, got hit hard on 6 of them but only got one trip to the line out of it. In other words there was a reason he only converted 2 of those drives.
I was hollering about the same thing when watching the game, Gary. The refs definitely let it get very physical. But you have to adjust and play accordingly. Our bigs played a little timidly, but to be quite frank, they didn't get nearly enough touches inside(only 16 attempts between the three of them). And Isaiah only got 4 shots with Tony only getting 3. Not nearly enough. Meanwhile, Nate(9) and Joel(13) took 22 shots and were 2 of 10 from 3-pt range. We settled for jumpers too often.
The 3-pt shot can be fool's gold, reliance on it has led to early exits from the NCAAT 2 or 3 times in recent years. It is a valuable weapon, the great equalizer in college ball, but it can be a double edged sword. We have been shooting it well so far this year but you see what can happen when they don't fall and you keep settling for them. Our game is, and has been for 50 years, predicated on getting good shots in the paint, first and foremost. We can't forget that and I'm sure Roy has the team's attention this week and it will be one of the things he's stressing.
The 3-pt shot can be fool's gold, reliance on it has led to early exits from the NCAAT 2 or 3 times in recent years. It is a valuable weapon, the great equalizer in college ball, but it can be a double edged sword. We have been shooting it well so far this year but you see what can happen when they don't fall and you keep settling for them. Our game is, and has been for 50 years, predicated on getting good shots in the paint, first and foremost. We can't forget that and I'm sure Roy has the team's attention this week and it will be one of the things he's stressing.
He must get paid an extra grand per unused timeout upon retirement or something.
This game was not about the refs, they let them play some but it was a fair whistle but as you share archer, players have to adjust to the whistle. Honestly, Hicks should get a min of 10 shots a game, Tony should get 6 or 7 at least. UNC ball is to play inside out, our big men were not getting touches, our big men should be getting touches in the half court and not see us swing it around a few times before launching a defended trey. You get our big men touches and that forces guards to drop down to help and that opens up those clean jumpers that we do make.
Our spacing was not good for this game, did ya notice what IU was doing, they lifted everyone up and out of the paint and took driving lanes one on one as their mates converged from the off side, if we helped from the off side they slipped the pass, if we didn't they drove the rim. Yet on our end we clogged up the paint and allowed their guards to help from close in with easy recovery back out to our guards.
So every other coach in the country has it wrong and Roy has it right? Come on man.
I truly don't think Roy knows what to tell them in TO's so he doesn't use em.
So Roy became a hall of fame coach while not knowing what to tell his team on the side lines?
To be fair, if that's the play I'm thinking of, it was a really good floater in the lane that will go in 90% of the time.
I think that Nate was in a lot because he could stay in front of Blackmon. Blackmon got free enough to hurt us - the kid can really shoot when he has an opening - but he got open less with Nate on him. Or so it seemed to me the times I focused on them.
I actually think Seventh does a better job of running things and seeing the floor than Nate does today. He's not making shots and has freshman decision syndrome but I never really feel like Nate is playing point guard and seeing the floor.
Absolutely Arch. I always say "play through it". Indy was determined to restrict the movement of our Bigs and were helping from the wing not only on entries but on cross/back-screens. Hicks was a particular target and he got few clean touches, and when he did he was getting major contact, and the contact was coming early. I noticed Roy adjusted in the second half by clearing a block on a set reversal. Kennedy got some nice entries there from JB and scored easily when he did.
And given all that, taking it to the rack from outside is a usually good antidote but ya hope to get at least a few calls when the contact comes. And like it or not, to keep that defensive strategy honest you need to make some perimeter shots. We unfortunately had a bad night in that category.
OK, read what ya said "I truly don't think Roy knows what to tell them in TO's so he doesn't use em." ? There was no further explanation to suggest any other meaning than what I shared? I can't read your mind, all I can do is read your words.
C'mon. No one took a "quarter off". Give Indy credit, they came out smokin' --- I would have been shocked if they didn't --- and before we could restore order our most indispensable player has to go to the bench and it quickly got ugly.. We tried to recover ---- once JB got back we outscored them 58-50 the rest of the way --- but it just wasn't enough. In snake-pit games like that you try to weather the early storm, keep your poise and get it back to a team-on-team game. We didn't get it done. We'll learn from that and move forward.
Maybe "took the first quarter off" is too harsh. Then again, 19-7 after 7 minutes....
It wasnt a bad shot in and of itself-it was just that there are times where Nate acts like hes our first option in crucial possesions. Not to mention on that possesion he had JJ wide open in the corner looked right at him and continued dribbling the clock away. So yeah the shot itself wasnt terrible but it shouldnt have been Nate taking it and controlling the ball the whole shot clock.
As far as why Nate was in so much Idk. I doubt it was to stay in front of Blackmon. Ill say it again-the lineup that was plus 61 in Maui was on the court together a grand total of 26 seconds in that first half. Just weird no matter how we try to explain it away.
You mean, like Crean who didn't call a TO when we made our run and immediately saw IU go 10-3 on us? Roy is pretty hardcore about not calling them but he isn't the only one who lets his guys play through some adversity. If it comes down to Roy having it right or wrong I'm going to bank on Roy having it right considering his track record.
Refs may have let it get physical but they were consistent. They also called a few on IU that I would have been pissed about if I were an IU fan. The officiating was fine. Our better players, especially Joel, JJ, and Hicks, have to simply be smarter and not foul.
Calling TOs on the road when the crowd is getting louder and louder as the run builds compared to calling them at home when you have the crowd behind you are two different animals.
They are different but not all that different. The justification for both is to stop what is currently going on in the actual game. It isn't like the crowd all of a sudden becomes less engaged because a TO is called. I just think ignoring the stats here is wrong. Wish I could find the ones that were posted a few months ago on another site. It just seems like a way to vent about something or justify why we lost.
They're completely different. The crescendo of an engaged crowd absolutely can exacerbate the road team's mistakes. And a timeout does quiet the crowd a little bit. Now, if after the timeout, the road team continues to screw up, yes the crowd will reach a fever pitch once again. But it's simple human nature that a crowd won't carry over its same level of rowdiness through a 2+ minute timeout where they sit around and the action is halted.
Eh, I think the difference in crowd intensity is negligible at a place like Assembly Hall. The crowd will get fired up again as soon as play starts if they were already fired up. I mean, it isn't like they are sitting there 30 minutes. Again, I don't object to TOs. Just think the evidence is there to contradict their benefit. I think it is just what we think (including me for the most part tbh). I kind of feel (like, personally for my emotion sake) they are beneficial but don't truly believe they are. IOW, if I was a coach I would call one because I'm reactionary and want to think I can control the situation. In truth, don't really think I could though.
I see what you're saying about feeling it's beneficiary but not really knowing if it is. However, one thing to consider is that the benefit of the timeout could be way more about your own players than the crowd noise. Basketball is a nonstop game in which a couple bad plays can really, really snowball quickly into you falling way behind in a very quick span of game time. This is unique to basketball. Therefore, the benefit of a timeout in such a situation could simply be to give your players a minute-long break and stop the bleeding. Does that make sense? I hope I'm expressing that in an understandable manner.
Like, instead of letting the other team drill a three, then your team panic and turn it over, then the home team get another easy basket, you can call a timeout and stymie the momentum, even if just briefly, to clear your players' heads a bit.
No, I get what you are saying. I understand all the reasons from calming them down, to the crowd, to talking to them about calls or areas to focus on a coach has seen, to reassure them, etc... I used to coach and would call them for those very reasons. I just think whether they work or not is more coincidence. Just my opinion. Sometimes they probably do some good though. I certainly won't argue they never work. One thing I do like about Roy is that after TOs when he calls a certain play they almost always get a good shot. It is one reason I want the TO to come at the end of a half or game instead of just going. I like when he designs something in a TO because he usually gets what he wants, though I understand the philosophy of taking advantage of the chaos as well.
Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth:
Roy coulda used every time out, and I reckon the Heels still lose. They shot poorly from the field and the stripe,
they adjusted poorly to the IU defense, they lost their man too easily when defending.
No amount of time outs, clipboard smashing or jacket throwing would have turned around the poor execution.
As for Luke, sometime in March he may be called on to contribute, likely in a minor role, maybe in a bigger role. Its important to get game time experience under Luke's belt and 8 min against IU didn't change the outcome.
So it's a loss, the team dusts itself off, licks their wounds and move on to the next game. That's what a season is for.
Roy coulda used every time out, and I reckon the Heels still lose. They shot poorly from the field and the stripe,
they adjusted poorly to the IU defense, they lost their man too easily when defending.
No amount of time outs, clipboard smashing or jacket throwing would have turned around the poor execution.
As for Luke, sometime in March he may be called on to contribute, likely in a minor role, maybe in a bigger role. Its important to get game time experience under Luke's belt and 8 min against IU didn't change the outcome.
So it's a loss, the team dusts itself off, licks their wounds and move on to the next game. That's what a season is for.
Just doing like he was taught, from the best that ever coached this game mind you. Doesn't put me in his camp, or make me wish he'd never change, but it is what it is. If you're going to pull for the Heels, this is something you've got to understand.
I think everyone understands it. It doesn't mean we can't still have a little back and forth regarding our own thoughts about it though.
- Status
