GopherHole Column: J.B.'s Jottings

Donate To GopherHole

Good stuff. Thanks. Props to you on Welch.
Disagree on the positional stuff. It matters. Even Tubby admits that Hoff to the point was a mistake. Rodney will do better the more often he is playing close to the basket. The move will help him play better and perhpas develop the confidence to play better when he is on the perimeter.
 

Position matters because if Rodney is playing the 3, he will be on the outside more than the inside so will need to either drive or make a good cut to get the ball on the inside. But at the 4, he can setup in the post, and he is very good at getting in a good position to score from in the post.
 

There might not be a big difference between certain positions, but there's a difference between playing on the wing vs not playing on the wing. If you're playing the "4" you're generally going to be playing closer to the basket. Depending on a players skill-set this can make a difference, and I think/hope it will for Rodney. I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the free throw percentage thing because you don't have any logical points to support your view that they don't matter. Higher free throw percentage equals more points. More points gives you better chance of winning. It's hugely important in a close game. Not quite as much in a blow out, but in a blow out free throws aren't the only thing you can get away with doing poorly and still get the win.
 

I think what he's trying to say, I think, is that position wise Rodney isn't a four in the truest since despite being the four when they take the floor. What I mean is that when Trevor is the four, Trevor is a constant on the low block and at times in the high post. When Rodney is playing the four in Tubby's offense, at times it resembles more of a four out, one in motion as Rodney spends more time on the arc than the traditional four man would when he is playing the four. Sure he steps in for some post up opportunities from the wing and they will try and get a pass to him over the top for a lob posting up after a reversal. Those things will happen to take advantage of his length. And yes he will play some on the block. But the amount of time he spends inside won't compare to what traditional fours would usually do and therefore in this case the positional term of "four" doesn't fit as well. He's still the four right now, but not the four in the traditional way that Trevor or Andre have been playinging.
 


Hokie guard Erick Green (25 points on Wednesday) got a good shot off at the buzzer. His three-point try didn’t go in, but it would have sent the game into overtime. The Gophers had a foul to give and should have used it.
Click to expand...

Enjoyed the read, but so many definitive statements which seems odd. I disagree on this one and the age old debate about fouling in this situation will go on forever. One thing is certain, there is no definitive answer. The Gophers should have played it how they felt comfortable, which they did. They didnt guard the inbounds pass and had their best lanky defender cover green. He got off a good shot but Hollins was in his face and made him shoot from a slight angle. Good defense. Fouling doesn't guaranty a win. Gophers played good D, so no need to foul, when an inbounds play could free up an even better look.
 

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Positions - see Ryan's comments; he was more eloquent in explaining than I was - thanks.

I understand using positions to assist in describing a player... but not using a position to define a player. I realize that may sound like the same thing and maybe it only makes sense after a few beers, but put another way - teams do not necessarily (and very often do not) have each of their 5 guys on the court playing one certain traditionally-defined position.

Usually there is a point guard (which in some cases is better described as a player that brings the ball up the court, but from there things become ambiguous), but then what? A position may be useful to describe the player, but every team does not have a pg, sg, sf, pf and c on the court. If Rodney "moves to the four" that doesn't mean he suddenly is trapped into being a post player/banger. What is most relevant are the type of skills the player has and what they are called on to do for the team... and that generally is based on the team and player, not on a position. (Not to mention offense vs. defense... a player like Williams will be called on to defend multiple "positions".)

Hoffarber - I still think Hoffarber at PG was the best and probably only choice to give the team a chance to win last season. As mentioned before, I would have had Austin Hollins starting instead of Iverson, but that's in the past.

Green's good look - I hear you with regard to whether to foul or not when it puts a guy on the line vs. letting them try a shot. However, with a foul to give and how the last possession played out, I thought the Gophers should have fouled. Green got a very good look. Can't imagine the firestorm that would have been created if that shot had fallen and VT goes on to win in overtime.

FT percentage - "I'm guessing you don't want to talk about the free throw percentage thing because you don't have any logical points to support your view that they don't matter." Quite the contrary. I'll go through my thoughts in more detail at some point, but I don't like to talk about it because the attention that FT% gets from some is so bizarre to me that thinking much about it becomes almost frustrating. Not only are there logical points to support my view that free throw percentage matters very little to a team winning or losing games, but there is statistical evidence that says even free throw rate means very little.

OK.. back to pacing for me. Anxious to get into Williams Arena in a few hours as well as into a bar right after to watch MU beat Becky.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Green's good look - I hear you with regard to whether to foul or not when it puts a guy on the line vs. letting them try a shot. However, with a foul to give and how the last possession played out, I thought the Gophers should have fouled. Green got a very good look. Can't imagine the firestorm that would have been created if that shot had fallen and VT goes on to win in overtime.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I'd say it was a good look. Austin was in his face. If he had made that that would've been a great shot.
 

Great update, I always enjoy your insight ...

when I agree with it. I'm with you on Welch, I enjoy his game.

Since free throw percentage matters very, very little to a team winning or losing games, I’m rarely fascinated by it or even that interested in even talking about it. Sure, Virginia Tech shot 100% from the line compared to the Gophers’ 53.3% and those percentages should be closer, but I’m far more interested in effective field goal percentage, which was in the Gophers’ favor 52.1% to 45.3%. Still, some folks love to harp on free throw percentage.
Click to expand...

I find this quote strange as it seems you bring up the topic of free throws with most of your updates/previews. Anyway, keep up the good work.
 



Sal - thanks, & a fair point. I love to bring up (complain about) the fact that others dwell on FT percentage, I just dislike to get into all the details of why it makes me borderline freak out.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom