goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: kso_FAN on February 25, 2012, 04:32:17 PM
-
1st Pace PPP eFG% TO% OR% FTR
KSU 28 0.95 44.4% 24.7% 41.2% 22.2%
Opp 28 1.30 58.3% 14.1% 43.7% 13.3%
2nd Pace PPP eFG% TO% OR% FTR
KSU 33 1.02 48.2% 12.0% 15.8% 42.9%
Opp 33 0.84 42.3% 18.1% 20.0% 38.5%
Total Pace PPP eFG% TO% OR% FTR
KSU 62 0.98 46.4% 17.7% 27.8% 32.7%
Opp 62 1.05 50.9% 16.1% 30.6% 25.0%
Shooting was bad enough, but just as frustrating to be handled on the boards.
-
:flush:
-
2nd chance points = Isu 14 Ksu 6
After Christophersen did his best Jordan Crawford impersonation with the 35 foot shot ===
The next 8:30.............. Isu goes 0-12FG with 3 turnovers. We go on 20-3 run.
But then back to back to back 3s in the next 3 minutes.
Then a little later, Christopher drove on Sprads and hit 10 foot jumpers in the lane on back to back possessions
-
Last 35 possessions we were pretty good on defense (2nd half plus last 2 poss in 1st hf) =
0.80 ppp
9-28 FGA
4-16 3pt
18.2 OR% allowed
Same old crap though with our droughts --
2 pts in 5:45 in the 1st half (tie game to a 12 pt Clone lead)
2 pts in 6:03 in the 2nd half ( 2 point lead to 7 pt deficit)
-
Shooting was bad enough, but just as frustrating to be handled on the boards.
yeah, isu deserved the win.
-
Shooting was bad enough, but just as frustrating to be handled on the boards.
yeah, isu deserved the win.
No. christopherson deserved the win. Will deserved the loss.
-
Shooting was bad enough, but just as frustrating to be handled on the boards.
yeah, isu deserved the win.
No. christopherson deserved the win. Will deserved the loss.
Yeah, and Christopherson is everything we want Will to be, I'd even take 2/3 of what he's become.
-
Shooting was bad enough, but just as frustrating to be handled on the boards.
yeah, isu deserved the win.
No. christopherson deserved the win. Will deserved the loss.
Yeah, and Christopherson is everything we want Will to be, I'd even take 2/3 of what he's become.
I'd take Will being Conner Teahan at this point.
-
Yeah, and Christopherson is everything we want Will to be, I'd even take 2/3 of what he's become.
christo is a really good player. if he could pass, and if he wasn't a defensive liability, he'd be all-conference caliber.
-
How about putting somebody with length on the ginger scarecrow. Like every third grader and up, he's got the jump stop figured out.
:flush:
-
How about hedging on him when he's screened at the top of the key, especially when Angel goes underneath the screen.
-
Christo can go right and left with the dribble.............. but like almost all pure shooters who are not drivers............. they almost always want to go right. Its harder to block the shot if he drives right and pulls up for a short jumper, AND if they drive and try and leave their feet to dish.........they almost are always going to their right (or strong hand). Spradling consistently let him drive to his right early in this game and got beat off of the dribble.
Every Ksu starter did something to contribute today to allow us to win............. except Will
1. Angel 4-7Fg 8/1 asst - TO ratio
2. JO 7-12Fg 12 reb 7 blks
3. Gruds 13pts 11 reb, 0 TOs, good D when guarding Royce
4. Jamar. Guarded Royce most of game. held him to 9 pts on 3-7Fg
5. Sprads 2-9Fg, O rebounds, 2/2 asst TO ratio, laughable defense,
-
How about hedging on him when he's screened at the top of the key, especially when Angel goes underneath the screen.
Don't rough ridin' blame that on Angel, all guards went under the screen. They set those screens high enough where you had to go under. He hit two 3s because his defender went under and one of those was the 26 footer he hit. Going under was absolutely the play with how he was penetrating and how high they set the screens. Also we did hedge the screens but he is quick enough to get by the hedge after we also bumped the screener.
-
the screen was about 2 ft off the 3pt line. it was absurdly stupid for angel to go under or for JO to not hedge that. I know JO tried to bump the screener, but regardless, that was absolutely a terrible defensive effort by both JO and angel. that specific play didn't lose the game, but it was just one of many that did.
-
"Coach put some plays in specifically for this game that we thought could take advantage of the way they chase screens," Christopherson said.
-
the screen was about 2 ft off the 3pt line. it was absurdly stupid for angel to go under or for JO to not hedge that. I know JO tried to bump the screener, but regardless, that was absolutely a terrible defensive effort by both JO and angel. that specific play didn't lose the game, but it was just one of many that did.
So what you're saying is that Angel should have disregarded the game plan and JO should have disregarded everything he was taught in the three years he's been here? Got it.
-
"The screen was too deep on the floor," he said. "Our ball-screen defense is called by the guy defending the screener, not the ball and Jordan (Henriquez) made a call and Angel did what Jordan asked him to do. Give Christopherson credit, but that's not what cost us the game."
-
the screen was about 2 ft off the 3pt line. it was absurdly stupid for angel to go under or for JO to not hedge that. I know JO tried to bump the screener, but regardless, that was absolutely a terrible defensive effort by both JO and angel. that specific play didn't lose the game, but it was just one of many that did.
So what you're saying is that Angel should have disregarded the game plan and JO should have disregarded everything he was taught in the three years he's been here? Got it.
I'm saying one or both of them mumped that play up. and judging Lebron Christopherson's comments, they knew how we'd guard those screens and we either didn't adjust (on frank) or didn't execute (on angel and JO). choose.
-
the screen was about 2 ft off the 3pt line. it was absurdly stupid for angel to go under or for JO to not hedge that. I know JO tried to bump the screener, but regardless, that was absolutely a terrible defensive effort by both JO and angel. that specific play didn't lose the game, but it was just one of many that did.
So what you're saying is that Angel should have disregarded the game plan and JO should have disregarded everything he was taught in the three years he's been here? Got it.
I'm saying one or both of them mumped that play up. and judging Lebron Christopherson's comments, they knew how we'd guard those screens and we either didn't adjust (on frank) or didn't execute (on angel and JO). choose.
There are only two ways to guard high ball screens Zack, it isn't football everyone knows what everyone else does. If you want to fault someone, I suppose you could fault JO for not bumping that screen harder. I'm going to lean more towards Christopherson for making a play readily available for most guards who receive a high ball screen.
-
actually there are more. you can:
(1) go over the screen
(2) go over the screen, quick hedge from the screener's defender
(3) go under the screen, bumping the screener
(4) go under the screen, quick hedge from the screener's defender
(5) switch
(6) trap
there are a variety of ways to attack high ball screens. JO and angel f*cked that one up. Again, that one play didn't lose the game, it was just one of many plays that did.
-
actually there are more. you can:
(1) go over the screen
(2) go over the screen, quick hedge from the screener's defender
(3) go under the screen, bumping the screener
(4) go under the screen, quick hedge from the screener's defender
(5) switch
(6) trap
there are a variety of ways to attack high ball screens. JO and angel f*cked that one up. Again, that one play didn't lose the game, it was just one of many plays that did.
1 and 2 are the same thing as are 3 and 4. 5 and 6 are absurd notions for an average/above average high major guard. It isn't CYO basketball, there is a reason why you don't see teams trap from high ball screens. The only teams I see switch screens are teams like Mizzou who play four guards. If they switch that you have JO guarding Christopherson. You whined when JO guarded Jones against WVU so now you're proposing this? LOL. When you're red assed about literally everything the potential of double talk is quite high. You run out of ways to rationalize being irrational.
-
It's pretty simple, they were just better . . . again, and they had a better game plan and the Mayor out coached Frank . . . again.
Simple game.
I can only imagine the Mitchisms: The Mayor forecloses on the Octagon of Doom.
-
I really hope people don't lump you with wabash and zacker. See I think they actually know basketball, I just think their view is clouded by their strange love of Kansas State Basketball. You don't know dick about basketball, you just spew "clever" puns about losing. Have you ever had a post breaking down what you saw and offered an alternative to what you think should have happened?
-
How complicated was yesterday's game MIR? One guy hit everything they threw up, our perimeter D sucked, so their shooter was very comfortable, when we pressured out top, they back doored us . . . it's a simple formula that when teams get it going against K-State, K-State has a difficult time winning.
I will now let you go back to your regularly scheduled "I know more about the game than you" bull$hit.
-
How complicated was yesterday's game MIR? One guy hit everything they threw up, our perimeter D sucked, so their shooter was very comfortable, when we pressured out top, they back doored us . . . it's a simple formula that when teams get it going against K-State, K-State has a difficult time winning.
I will now let you go back to your regularly scheduled "I know more about the game than you" bull$hit.
It isn't bullshit, I do there isn't much doubt about that. You shouldn't use me as your measuring stick though.
Our perimeter defense was fine, Scott Christopherson wasn't the only guard they had, and he should get some credit for going 5-5 from the three point line. As much as some of you try, that can't be explained away by bad defense. Also back doors? WTF? Of it did happen it couldn't have been more than once. Their offense isn't set up to do much of that. I can't remember one successful backdoor cut that resulted in a basket for the cutter.
-
I recall several backdoor baskets in the 1st half for them . . . I do give Christopherson (?) credit, so then comes the next question, why 29 minutes for Spradling and 15 for Shane?
-
Christophersen was shooting good all day. But their other shooters started out OK but didnt finish with great numbers
Allen made his first two 3pt shots as the Clonies (not counting #11) started out 3-6 from 3pt, but were 3-17 after that.
We fell behind 27-14 with just over 5 minutes in 1st half, and Iowa St only made 13 of their last 38 shots. And Christophersen was 7-10 of that 13-38.
Our D against him was bad for about 90% of the game, but i thought we did an OK job on everyone else
-
actually there are more. you can:
(1) go over the screen
(2) go over the screen, quick hedge from the screener's defender
(3) go under the screen, bumping the screener
(4) go under the screen, quick hedge from the screener's defender
(5) switch
(6) trap
there are a variety of ways to attack high ball screens. JO and angel f*cked that one up. Again, that one play didn't lose the game, it was just one of many plays that did.
1 and 2 are the same thing as are 3 and 4. 5 and 6 are absurd notions for an average/above average high major guard. It isn't CYO basketball, there is a reason why you don't see teams trap from high ball screens. The only teams I see switch screens are teams like Mizzou who play four guards. If they switch that you have JO guarding Christopherson. You whined when JO guarded Jones against WVU so now you're proposing this? LOL. When you're red assed about literally everything the potential of double talk is quite high. You run out of ways to rationalize being irrational.
1/2 and 3/4 are not the same. 5 works if you have a player like Rodney at the 4, but they should switch back asap.
You don't get stuck behind the screen or go under it leaving 5+ ft of space against a team that has hit more 3s than anyone else in conference by a decent margin (+17 before the game I think).
-
Christophersen was shooting good all day. But their other shooters started out OK but didnt finish with great numbers
Allen made his first two 3pt shots as the Clonies (not counting #11) started out 3-6 from 3pt, but were 3-17 after that.
We fell behind 27-14 with just over 5 minutes in 1st half, and Iowa St only made 13 of their last 38 shots. And Christophersen was 7-10 of that 13-38.
Our D against him was bad for about 90% of the game, but i thought we did an OK job on everyone else
I believe they doubled us up on 2nd chance points.
Babb was Spradling like, so toss those 2 out, and ISU was 50% from behind the arc while K-State is still 25%.
-
yeah they had 14-6 edge on 2nd chance points
11 3pt makes is too many to give up even if it really was only one guy who was hot hot. That is why i say our defense on everyone else was OK, not great
I will take 13-43fg and 6-23 3pt shooting from their non white boys anyday. The lousy job we did on SC kinda diminishes those stats though
-
I recall several backdoor baskets in the 1st half for them . . . I do give Christopherson (?) credit, so then comes the next question, why 29 minutes for Spradling and 15 for Shane?
:dunno: I had the same question.
-
yeah they had 14-6 edge on 2nd chance points
11 3pt makes is too many to give up even if it really was only one guy who was hot hot. That is why i say our defense on everyone else was OK, not great
I will take 13-43fg and 6-23 3pt shooting from their non white boys anyday. The lousy job we did on SC kinda diminishes those stats though
The history of Bramlage is that it's always somebody. :shakesfist:
-
Our defense wasn't great, but we should be able to beat most people at home when we hold them to 1.05 points per possession. We can't keep having shooting nights in the mid-40s and win.
We also had our worst offensive rebounding game of the season and only our 3rd game of the year under 30% OR%. If we aren't going to hit shots, then we better get offensive rebounds. Granted, ISU is very good at not giving up oboards, but we still had a decent effort in Ames. And then we only have a FT rate of 33%. Frank's teams have proven over and over we can make up for bad shooting by winning these two stats and we didn't get it done. It was just another case of this team finding ways to lose in a close game.
-
Can't be a labrador when Mastiffs come to play....Or to be simpler for you folk, can't be a cat, gotta be more like a dog....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EChnZTJicw
-
hoiball has worked our defense 3 out of 4 times the two teams have met.
Hoi's Oeff% vs. Cats
10-11
@ISU 125
@KSU 79.7
11-12
@ISU 116.1
@KSU 103.2
-
hoiball has worked our defense 3 out of 4 times the two teams have met.
Hoi's Oeff% vs. Cats
10-11
@ISU 125
@KSU 79.7
11-12
@ISU 116.1
@KSU 103.2
Our defense was not great, but good enough to win; our biggest problem defensively was allowing ISU to have 50% of their shots be threes. 28 attempts was the most we've given up all year. This was a game where you really see the value of looking at eFG% as the comparative number. Regular FG% we "held them" to 41% for the game and on 2pt shots only 43%, but their eFG% was 51.5% because of the large amount of attempts and hitting 39% from 3.
-
Yeah, I was thinking about that blog post someone, I think you _Fan, posted about the percentage of total shots take from three while watching the game.
-
11 3s at almost 40% clip is pretty hurtful
Another thing that hurt was we only had 6 2nd chance pts. The 10 off boards is 5 less than our average.... but only getting 6 points from those 10 extra chances is not real effecient either. Isu turned their 11 off boards into 14 pts