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

Donate To GopherHole
MonikerSchmoniker45 said:
He's still ultimately responsible. I'm not sure how much money played a part, but, if it was the only factor in players leaving, he clearly should have paid Hawkins and Payne and let Garcia kick rocks.
Click to expand...
You're not sure how much money played a part??

We're a farm team. I have no idea how we kept Garcia though.
 

TwistingMyMelon said:
I'm going to disagree with you about Frank Mitchell. Based on what I saw against Yale, he's the kind of guy who can make a difference even if he only averages 2-4 points per game. He had 6 offensive rebounds in 22 minutes yesterday. He also takes up a lot of space and he fights for boards. Edmunds has been a fair inside scorer off the bench so far but he plays softer. The problem with both players is you have to pray that they go to the line as little as possible.

Yes, scoring is this team's biggest problem by far. They're not only last in the conference in scoring at 64.5 points per game; they're last by a sizeable amount. The next lowest team (Washington) averages 5.2 points more per game. The 9th best scoring team in the league (Michigan State) averages 83 points - about 19 more per game than the Gophers.

The Gophers are second best in the league in points allowed per game (57.8). I think they'll still be a pretty good defensive team in Big Ten play (as long as they stay healthy) but they're not going to limit Big Ten teams to the high 50s on average. They simply have to figure out a way to score more in order to have any success in conference play.

Early last season I had a pretty good feeling about the team being much improved from the year before because they showed early that they could score. Right now this team's scoring ability looks like the team two years ago. We all know how that worked out.
Click to expand...
Please, please stop using stats that don’t adjust for tempo. The Gophers are currently #355 in tempo on barttorvik. Therefore, both points scored and points allowed are lower due to fewer possessions, not bad offense or good defense.

When you look at points per possession - the stat that matters - the offense is still bad, but above Washington. The defense is where there’s a big difference - 16th in the B10.

Caveat that it’s way too early, of course, but it’s also consistent for a Johnson coached team.
 

formerlybis said:
Please, please stop using stats that don’t adjust for tempo. The Gophers are currently #355 in tempo on barttorvik. Therefore, both points scored and points allowed are lower due to fewer possessions, not bad offense or good defense.

When you look at points per possession - the stat that matters - the offense is still bad, but above Washington. The defense is where there’s a big difference - 16th in the B10.

Caveat that it’s way too early, of course, but it’s also consistent for a Johnson coached team.
Click to expand...
Do you ever watch a game? Turn off your laptop and spreadsheet and watch the Gophers play. It's amazing what you can see when you watch a game.

Yes, our pace is slow. There is little movement in our offensive sets. We stand and dribble for much of the shot clock and then take a contested shot near the end.

Defensively, we have actually been descent. We have contested most shots and are able to be competitive with the likes of North Texas and Yale. I am sure MSU and Indiana are filled with fear at playing us in December.

Our rebounding is sub-par and we will allow our opponents more touches than we get once we are into B1G play. Overall, our guards are similar to Ben's first couple years. They are low, slow, and close to the ground. Quick guards will cause us problems as well as those that play above the rim.

You see this when you watch the Gophers play. Enjoy your spreadsheet.
 

FinnGopher said:
Our rebounding is sub-par and we will allow our opponents more touches than we get once we are into B1G play. Overall, our guards are similar to Ben's first couple years. They are low, slow, and close to the ground. Quick guards will cause us problems as well as those that play above the rim.
Click to expand...

Agree that the guards are comparable to the first two years. I liked what I saw from F. Mitchell rebounding the ball in Saturday's game. I think the rebounding will improve if he can stay on the floor. The Gophers definitely won the possessions battle against Yale due to the lopsided turnovers and steals and that was the biggest reason that they didn't lose this one. You don't see a Gopher squad commit only 3 turnovers often.

There's little to be optimistic about so far but I'm not going to give up yet.
 
Last edited:

FinnGopher said:
Do you ever watch a game? Turn off your laptop and spreadsheet and watch the Gophers play. It's amazing what you can see when you watch a game.

Yes, our pace is slow. There is little movement in our offensive sets. We stand and dribble for much of the shot clock and then take a contested shot near the end.

Defensively, we have actually been descent. We have contested most shots and are able to be competitive with the likes of North Texas and Yale. I am sure MSU and Indiana are filled with fear at playing us in December.

Our rebounding is sub-par and we will allow our opponents more touches than we get once we are into B1G play. Overall, our guards are similar to Ben's first couple years. They are low, slow, and close to the ground. Quick guards will cause us problems as well as those that play above the rim.

You see this when you watch the Gophers play. Enjoy your spreadsheet.
Click to expand...
I do watch A LOT of basketball. What I have learned is to not put my trust mostly in my eyes. I lean in to the analytics because they give you a lot more insight into what is truly happening. Here is the barttorvik profile as of this moment.

1731948358746.png

The offense and defense efficiencies, while they are at least in the top 100, are 17th and 16th rated in the B10. They are not shooting the ball from the field at all well, but make up for it a bit by having a relatively low percentage of turnovers and a good rate of getting to the line. However, once they get to the line, they are atrocious (as everyone can see). They are bad on the defensive boards (as you've correctly observed), but they've turned over opponents and blocked shots well.

Or should we just trust in how they look? In god we trust, all others bring data.
 


formerlybis said:
I do watch A LOT of basketball. What I have learned is to not put my trust mostly in my eyes. I lean in to the analytics because they give you a lot more insight into what is truly happening. Here is the barttorvik profile as of this moment.

View attachment 34731

The offense and defense efficiencies, while they are at least in the top 100, are 17th and 16th rated in the B10. They are not shooting the ball from the field at all well, but make up for it a bit by having a relatively low percentage of turnovers and a good rate of getting to the line. However, once they get to the line, they are atrocious (as everyone can see). They are bad on the defensive boards (as you've correctly observed), but they've turned over opponents and blocked shots well.

Or should we just trust in how they look? In god we trust, all others bring data.
Click to expand...
I call bs on you actually watching a game and knowing what you're seeing.
What you tell us above is what anyone can see.
 


FinnGopher said:
I call bs on you actually watching a game and knowing what you're seeing.
What you tell us above is what anyone can see.
Click to expand...
I feel extremely confident that I know more about what I'm watching than you do. Anti-analytics folks really are missing a huge chunk of understanding what's going on. Didn't you tell us that the defense was descent (sic - another sign of the intellect I'm dealing with)? It's not, at least relative to the rest of the conference. Everyone can see the shooting is bad, but seeing how it is relative to the rest of college basketball puts it into context.

ETA:

The stats are showing poor 2P%, and part of that is because too many of those shots are midrange. In the Yale game, MN took 17 midrange (made 7) and 21 in the paint (made 10). Those are both terrible FG%, but it's way too many FGAs outside the paint that aren't threes. When I'm watching a game and I see a lot of midrange shot attempts, I know that's a bad offensive team (generally speaking -some teams have excellent midrange shooters - like Purdue - but even they are less than 50% makes from midrange). Teams that mostly shoot 3s or in the paint have coaches who know what they're doing.

I also look for offensive rebound and turnover margins. These are "extra" opportunities, and somewhat hidden to the eye test. In the Yale game, the Gophers were +7 on ORebs and had 11 fewer turnovers. That's a net +18, and THE key stat as to why they won the game, despite having a lower shooting percentage than the Bulldogs - they just got more FGAs and FTAs because of it.
 
Last edited:

formerlybis said:
I feel extremely confident that I know more about what I'm watching than you do. Anti-analytics folks really are missing a huge chunk of understanding what's going on. Didn't you tell us that the defense was descent (sic - another sign of the intellect I'm dealing with)? It's not, at least relative to the rest of the conference. Everyone can see the shooting is bad, but seeing how it is relative to the rest of college basketball puts it into context.

ETA:

The stats are showing poor 2P%, and part of that is because too many of those shots are midrange. In the Yale game, MN took 17 midrange (made 7) and 21 in the paint (made 10). Those are both terrible FG%, but it's way too many FGAs outside the paint that aren't threes. When I'm watching a game and I see a lot of midrange shot attempts, I know that's a bad offensive team (generally speaking -some teams have excellent midrange shooters - like Purdue - but even they are less than 50% makes from midrange). Teams that mostly shoot 3s or in the paint have coaches who know what they're doing.

I also look for offensive rebound and turnover margins. These are "extra" opportunities, and somewhat hidden to the eye test. In the Yale game, the Gophers were +7 on ORebs and had 11 fewer turnovers. That's a net +18, and THE key stat as to why they won the game, despite having a lower shooting percentage than the Bulldogs - they just got more FGAs and FTAs because of it.
Click to expand...
Tell us something that's not obvious when one watches a game. My goodness, anyone who actually knows basketball and has played it, can see the issues. It doesn't take a spreadsheet to figure it out.

It seems that Ben maybe listening to so much analytical chatter that he's over thinking the game.

Here's a sports phrase that exemplifies Ben's offense at present: "Paralysis by analysis." It's when people over-analyze a game and it destroys their capacity to play the game.

Go and watch the games. Put your spreadsheet in the bin and just watch the game. It's amazing what one learns from watching the game. "Trouble with the Curve." Watch it. It's a fun movie.
 



EasyThere Pilgrim said:
North Texas, Yale, and other teams like that will stink for sure.

Minnesota...we can aim for being above stinking. Implement a plan to go 6-14 or 8-12 in conference play. If that makes you happy.

But Ben didn't do that. He assembled a very good team...and all the players got bought by the paying teams.
Click to expand...
Give me a break. He lost one good player to NIL (Hawkins) and one to the NBA. Payne was replaceable and disappeared multiple times last year. JOJ and Carrington were both sub par. In all one player got bought worth trying to keep.
 

FinnGopher said:
It seems that Ben maybe listening to so much analytical chatter that he's over thinking the game.
Click to expand...
How so? They've sucked in the analytics since he got here. My guess is that they're not paying enough (any?) attention, or they'd be good at something. Anything.

There are zero successful teams not using analytics.
 

formerlybis said:
How so? They've sucked in the analytics since he got here. My guess is that they're not paying enough (any?) attention, or they'd be good at something. Anything.

There are zero successful teams not using analytics.
Click to expand...
If you say so. I assume you pulled it off your spreadsheet.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom