***OFFICIAL MINNESOTA AT IOWA IN-GAME THREAD!!!***

Donate To GopherHole
builtbadgers said:
People can complain about the offense and so many do but hardly anyone complains about giving up 86. You can win a ton of games scoring 71 if you take good shots and play great defense.
Click to expand...

Correct, people want to whine about our poor shooting. Look how good theirs was. Sure that's part because they are a good shooting team, but more so that the shots were comfortable and open. That's something that can be controlled and what lost us this game more than us "shooting bad". Iowa had so many open layups that were not even in transition it was pathetic.
 

EG#9 said:
Nothing unhinged about it. Non competitive against Iowa. This will be the 4th straight year Richard Pitino has finished below Iowa in the standings. Why is the hope (not the expecation) to not "roll over" in a basketball game?
Click to expand...

Non competitive? I guess we have different opinions on what constitutes a competitive game. We were down 5 points with 4 minutes left.

The only teams to beat Iowa so far this season are Gonzaga and Minnesota...this isn't some run of the mill Hawkeye team. It's the best team they've ever had (or since 1987 probably) and a legit top 10 squad.
 
Last edited:

manderson1984 said:
Correct, people want to whine about our poor shooting. Look how good theirs was. Sure that's part because they are a good shooting team, but more so that the shots were comfortable and open. That's something that can be controlled and what lost us this game more than us "shooting bad". Iowa had so many open layups that were not even in transition it was pathetic.
Click to expand...
Whining about MN poor shooting? Hardly whining. They are, and have been, a poor, poor shooting team. GABE had the most open 3 in all of history and airmailed it!!!!!!!!

IIRC, you are saying all the teams that Iowas has beaten the snot out of are poor defensive teams. MN is in that category.
 

manderson1984 said:
Correct, people want to whine about our poor shooting. Look how good theirs was. Sure that's part because they are a good shooting team, but more so that the shots were comfortable and open. That's something that can be controlled and what lost us this game more than us "shooting bad". Iowa had so many open layups that were not even in transition it was pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we had a lot of open looks, too. Fran McCaffery's Iowa teams have never been well regarded for their defense but their offense is enough to get them a good record most years. You need both. You're unlikely to pile up a really good record just by playing consistently good defense. Steve Pikiell's Rutgers teams have been very well regarded for their defense but they didn't achieve a winning record until last year. They should be able to finish with a pretty good record this year but probably not as good as the top teams in this league.

We've been a fair defensive team this year (#5 in the league in defense according to Sports Reference's defensive rating). One of the reasons we give up a lot of points is that we are 3rd in pace among league teams (Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is dead last in the league by that measure). Unfortunately, we are 10th in the league in offensive rating. Undoubtedly, a big part of that is that we are last in the league in overall field goal percentage and an even poorer last in 3 point field goal percentage (30.3% - the next lowest is 32%) - yet we keep taking a bunch of threes.
 

cjbfbp said:
Yes, but we had a lot of open looks, too. Fran McCaffery's Iowa teams have never been well regarded for their defense but their offense is enough to get them a good record most years. You need both. You're unlikely to pile up a really good record just by playing consistently good defense. Steve Pikiell's Rutgers teams have been very well regarded for their defense but they didn't achieve a winning record until last year. They should be able to finish with a pretty good record this year but probably not as good as the top teams in this league.

We've been a fair defensive team this year (#5 in the league in defense according to Sports Reference's defensive rating). One of the reasons we give up a lot of points is that we are 3rd in pace among league teams (Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is dead last in the league by that measure). Unfortunately, we are 10th in the league in offensive rating. Undoubtedly, a big part of that is that we are last in the league in overall field goal percentage and an even poorer last in 3 point field goal percentage (30.3% - the next lowest is 32%) - yet we keep taking a bunch of threes.
Click to expand...
No doubt you need both to be elite but one does not have to come at the cost of the other. PPP is the the stat that shows how good you are in both.
 



BarnBurner said:
What is PPP? Explain....please.
Click to expand...
Points per possession. Holy grail as you have to be pretty much top 20 in each to make a final four or to win a power 6 conference. For 70 years because of Naismith people thought that putting the ball in the basket was the object and they were right. What a great coach figured out if that was true then to increase your chances of winning, especially against more talented teams, then stopping them from putting in the basket was at least as important. Many would say more because of the physical and emotional toll it takes on the other team. To do it though takes tremendous work, physically and emotionally, great discipline and the deepest hunger to win. Tons of people simply will not work as hard as someone else. You can not lose if you Winn PPP in a game and for a season it will show in your consistent excellence. Of course you can have a bad PPP in a game and lose but those season averages will reveal who you are.
 

builtbadgers said:
No doubt you need both to be elite but one does not have to come at the cost of the other. PPP is the the stat that shows how good you are in both.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is likely the best measure but it isn't calculated for college basketball in the sources I use so I would have to calculate it. Calculating it for the opposing team would be more time consuming because I would have to tally the factors game by game.
 

builtbadgers said:
Points per possession. Holy grail as you have to be pretty much top 20 in each to make a final four or to win a power 6 conference. For 70 years because of Naismith people thought that putting the ball in the basket was the object and they were right. What a great coach figured out if that was true then to increase your chances of winning, especially against more talented teams, then stopping them from putting in the basket was at least as important. Many would say more because of the physical and emotional toll it takes on the other team. To do it though takes tremendous work, physically and emotionally, great discipline and the deepest hunger to win. Tons of people simply will not work as hard as someone else. You can not lose if you Winn PPP in a game and for a season it will show in your consistent excellence. Of course you can have a bad PPP in a game and lose but those season averages will reveal who you are.
Click to expand...
OK - thank you.
 



BarnBurner said:
Whining about MN poor shooting? Hardly whining. They are, and have been, a poor, poor shooting team. GABE had the most open 3 in all of history and airmailed it!!!!!!!!

IIRC, you are saying all the teams that Iowas has beaten the snot out of are poor defensive teams. MN is in that category.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that we shot poorly. We agree that we had open looks. I think that's a good sign and it's why I don't worry about it more than Iowa having wide open looks after reversals because our rotations were awful.
 

cjbfbp said:
Yes, but we had a lot of open looks, too. Fran McCaffery's Iowa teams have never been well regarded for their defense but their offense is enough to get them a good record most years. You need both. You're unlikely to pile up a really good record just by playing consistently good defense. Steve Pikiell's Rutgers teams have been very well regarded for their defense but they didn't achieve a winning record until last year. They should be able to finish with a pretty good record this year but probably not as good as the top teams in this league.

We've been a fair defensive team this year (#5 in the league in defense according to Sports Reference's defensive rating). One of the reasons we give up a lot of points is that we are 3rd in pace among league teams (Unsurprisingly, Wisconsin is dead last in the league by that measure). Unfortunately, we are 10th in the league in offensive rating. Undoubtedly, a big part of that is that we are last in the league in overall field goal percentage and an even poorer last in 3 point field goal percentage (30.3% - the next lowest is 32%) - yet we keep taking a bunch of threes.
Click to expand...

Good post and points made. I agree we've been the best defensively I've seen out of a Pitino team this year. I do think we were awful defensively against Michigan and Iowa though the last two games. Fixable for sure. I'm not just looking at the amount of points scored either. I'm looking at shooting percentages and watching the game. As built mentioned PPP is a better measure but I don't have access to that currently. I watched the game and our rotations were awful. It's hard when Garza's a beast and I get that, but we got lost a lot and reverted to older Pitino teams. Nice thing is it is all fixable. Richard's offenses have always proven to be pretty solid for the most part in our conference rankings. I've got confidence in him there even though we've been shooting so poorly.
 

They don't seem to have the intense needed on defense, you can't just turn up the heat when you need a stop you have to play hard the whole game and I just didn't see it. Shooting will change from game to game but defense has to be there every game.
 

manderson1984 said:
Good post and points made. I agree we've been the best defensively I've seen out of a Pitino team this year. I do think we were awful defensively against Michigan and Iowa though the last two games. Fixable for sure. I'm not just looking at the amount of points scored either. I'm looking at shooting percentages and watching the game. As built mentioned PPP is a better measure but I don't have access to that currently. I watched the game and our rotations were awful. It's hard when Garza's a beast and I get that, but we got lost a lot and reverted to older Pitino teams. Nice thing is it is all fixable. Richard's offenses have always proven to be pretty solid for the most part in our conference rankings. I've got confidence in him there even though we've been shooting so poorly.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that they have collapsed on both ends of the floor this year during their lopsided losses. Our four worst shooting games were our four losses (27.5% against Illinois, 31.3% against Wisconsin, 32.4% against Michigan, and 35.2% against Iowa yesterday) AND they have also been the four games where we allowed the highest field goal percentage (53.1% to Illinois, 50.8% to Wisconsin, 56.9% to Michigan, and 55.4% to Iowa). In contrast, the worst we shot in a win was 42.6% in the second Loyola Marymount game and the highest shooting percentage given in a win was 44.2% to St. Louis.

It should be noted that we haven't shot over 50% in a single game this year. Our highest was 47.9% against St. Louis followed by 47.6% against Michigan State. In contrast, we have limited 5 teams to under 40% shooting including 3 Big Ten teams (Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa in the first game).
 
Last edited:



cjbfbp said:
It seems to me that they have collapsed on both ends of the floor this year during their lopsided losses. Our four worst shooting games were our four losses (27.5% against Illinois, 31.3% against Wisconsin, 32.4% against Michigan, and 35.2% against Iowa yesterday) AND they have also been the four games where we allowed the highest field goal percentage (53.1% to Illinois, 50.8% to Wisconsin, 56.9% to Michigan, and 55.4% to Iowa). In contrast, the worst we shot in a win was 42.6% in the second Loyola Marymount game and the highest shooting percentage given in a win was 44.2% to St. Louis.

It should be noted that we haven't shot over 50% in a single game this year. Our highest was 47.9% against St. Louis followed by 47.6% against Michigan State. In contrast, we have limited 5 teams to under 40% shooting including 3 Big Ten teams (Michigan State, Ohio State, and Iowa in the first game).
Click to expand...

Is this TS%? Cause I find that hard to believe with our propensity (at times) to get to the line. Not sure what site shows per game TS% and I'm pretty busy with work so not going to do it now.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
Is this TS%? Cause I find that hard to believe with our propensity (at times) to get to the line. Not sure what site shows per game TS% and I'm pretty busy with work so not going to do it now.
Click to expand...

No, not True Shooting Percentage - just field goal percentage. Going to the line was our bread and butter for much of the season but we haven't been getting there as much lately.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom