The Case for Starting Both Tyrique and Hankins

[Snipe]

I would like to make a case for starting both Tyrique and Hankins.

Right now through our first three games, we are running a platoon at center. One guy goes out and the other comes in. Together the two big men average 39.3 minutes a game. All in all, it is a productive 39.3 minutes...

Combined Stats
Minutes = 39.3
Points = 23.6
Rebounds = 15
FG% = 64.4%

Those are great numbers. Out of the five positions, it is our most productive both offensively and defensively. I like what I am seeing out of both young men. I may want Zach to start, but I don't want it to be at the expense of Tyrique.

This team is not deep. That is no secret. If you look at average minutes, these two productive players come at 6th (Tyrique) at 21 minutes a game, and 7th (Hankins) at 18.3 minutes a game.

Hankins only has 18.3 minutes a game because Tyrique was in foul trouble against Wisconsin. He played 27 solid minutes. The previous game he only had 11 minutes, and 8 other players had more minutes. Through our first two games, Zach Hankins was 9th in minutes played. Should Zach Hankins be 9th on the depth chart on a team that isn't even 9 deep? That is madness.

The fact is, Zach Hankins played 27 solid minutes against Wisconsin, and I think he could play 27 minutes every game. He averaged 27 minutes a game last year in Division II, played 30 in the title game, and played 26 in a very close game at Michigan State last year. He had 4 fouls, 12 points, 8 rebounds and 2 blocks in an 8 point loss at MSU. Izzo himself tried to get him as our competition.

The kid can play. He is well rounded and does a bit of everything, scores, rebounds, blocks shots, plays on both sides of the ball. Zach can throw it down in inspiring ways. Zach Hankins can be an exceptional big man for us. What is more, he is a true center. Tyrique on the other hand, it a true power forward. These guys were meant to play together. It isn't going to be twin towers, it is going to be what a classic basketball team is supposed to look like.

Look at some stats:

In Field Goal %, they are 1st and 2nd on the team.
In points per minute, they are 1st and 2nd on the team.
In Rebounds they are 1st and 3rd on the team.
In Rebounds per minute they are 1st and 2nd on the team.
In blocks they are 1st and 2nd on the team.

In case you didn't read that last bit, I would like to ram it home by saying it again.

In the major statistical categories of FG%, Points, Rebounds and Blocks, Tyrique and Zach are better on a per minute played basis than every other player on the team. Statistically dominant. The numbers do not lie.

If you started both these young men and played them together for the first five minutes of each half, and then went back to the platoon you would increase their combined playing time from 40 minutes to 50 minutes a game. I believe doing this would positively impact our scoring, defense, rebounding, field goal percentage and the blocking of shots. People have been bemoaning our defense, our being out rebounded, and how the offense breaks down. Guess what, I have an answer!

50 minutes from 40 would be a huge improvement in my humble opinion. And it isn't like Tyrique isn't in the best shape of his career. He played 29 minutes against Evansville and had a monster game. And we just saw Zach play 27 well against Whisky. These kids can play.

We need to have our best players on the court for the maximum amount of minutes that they can play effectively.

Wisconsin was a tough loss, but it is November. Could it have been different? If you start Zach and put him on their Big, maybe Tyrique doesn't get into foul trouble. Having two bigs in the game gives you flexibility to slide one over to protect him if he has picked up a foul or two. It also poses matchup problems for the other team. Both those guys can score, but only one of them will be up against the other team’s best big man.

We may have lost the battle against Whisky, but we are going to win the war. Whisky was the coming out party of Zach Hankins. The days of him being 9th on the Xavier depth chart are over. They have to be.

We can't afford to have him on the bench. We have a Title to defend.

DEFEND THE TITLE!!!

[X-man]

I totally agree, and have been saying this since I saw practice before the season began. Hankins doesn't foul, and is in the best condition of anyone on the team. No problem with him on the floor. Jones might need breaks from time to time, but he is in better shape...just needs to watch his fouling tendency. I think these two guys give us an incredible inside presence on both ends of the court. It would be the new Hill and Strong show.

[Xuperman]

You are spot on! This was brought up in another thread and was quickly shot down by some here citing Jones would struggle to play out of his position. Of course opinions here don't matter. Until Coach Steele comments on why we don't see them together more, it will remain a head scratcher.

[Lloyd Braun]

Jones has a better outside shot than people realize and for this to work and not clog the lane for Q/Scruggs he would have to take and make some outside shots. That is the only way this works. Welage would have to be a wing in this lineup unless you can count on Naji or Scruggs to hit a high rate of 3s. Real estate becomes a premium with both Jones and MckSpanky together.

[GoMuskies]

Didn't read the whole thing, but if both start there are going to be times when both have to be on the bench. What is the plan for those stretches?

[X-man]

Didn't read the whole thing, but if both start there are going to be times when both have to be on the bench. What is the plan for those stretches?

And why is that, exactly? Are these guys bound at the hip or something?

[GoMuskies]

And why is that, exactly? Are these guys bound at the hip or something?

Well, I guess theoretically one of them could be out there at all times, but if that's the case they won't be playing together very often. So then what would be the point of starting both anyway?

[XUGRAD80]

It is an interesting idea, and one I’ve had also. However, how do you practice it? The roster is so thin in that area, how could you test it in practice against any real competition? Perhaps they should try it out in some games against some lesser competition for a few minutes and see how it works. It worked pretty good in the past with some other players. I just wish they had one more player that could fill the role for 5-8 minutes a game.

[Xuperman]

if both start there are going to be times when both have to be on the bench. What is the plan for those stretches?

It all comes down to Jones being versatile enough to play an effective "4".....If he can, Welage would come off the bench when bench time is warranted for Tyrique. When Zach is on the bench, Jones slides over to his normal position.

[Caf]

The only point I can think of that hasn't already been mentioned is defense. So far our 3pt defense has been non existent. If a team has a 4 who plays outside we'd be even more screwed on that front than we already are.

[Xuperman]

The only point I can think of that hasn't already been mentioned is defense. So far our 3pt defense has been non existent. If a team has a 4 who plays outside we'd be even more screwed on that front than we already are.

Yes, this seems to be the perception. I personally do not see this as a problem. You can't tell me that Tyrique is not quick/athletic enough to be an effective perimeter defender. In fact, you would think his size and length would make him exceptional but until coach comments on this we'll never know.

[mistabeecee41]

The only point I can think of that hasn't already been mentioned is defense. So far our 3pt defense has been non existent. If a team has a 4 who plays outside we'd be even more screwed on that front than we already are.

yup, this is why this can't happen. our two bigger problems have been defending the 3 and defending ball screens. having both of them on the court at the same time would make it even worse.

[XU 87]

Xavier would have to go back to the double low post offense for this to work. On defense, and as noted above, whoever is at the 4 would have to be guarding guys out on the perimeter.

[X-man]

Well, I guess theoretically one of them could be out there at all times, but if that's the case they won't be playing together very often. So then what would be the point of starting both anyway?

Why does that follow?

[Muskie]

I could see stretches where this COULD work. I think you have three problems:

1. Our offense is not currently set to run like this (we can debate whether that is good or bad)
2. What happens when inevitable foul trouble occurs with at least one?
3. Which leads into, who comes off the bench to give these guys a rest?

[XUGRAD80]

Defensively....1-3-1

Hankins down low protecting the rim. Jones in the middle. Naji and Wel play the wings. Q out front.

Could rotate Scruggs and Castlin in for Q and the wings. Could even move Naji into the middle or down low from time to time to give the others a break.

There are several options, but no matter how it is set up it will take the players to EXECUTE the game plan.



Q...to Coach McKay of the the Tampa Bay Buccaneers some years back after another loss.....

“What about your players execution?”

A...from Coach McKay

“I’m in favor of it”

LOL

[drudy23]

I don't think them starting together makes much difference.

But playing them both at certain times could make all the difference.

[Caf]

Why does that follow?

It's hard to imagine either of them consistently breaking 30 minutes and we definitely can't field a lineup with both of them on the bench. Using that framework it's hard to imagine getting more than 5 minutes of overlap.

Just looking at their histories, Jones has never broken 25. Maybe Hankins is more viable, he obviously played a ton at Ferris State. They're both in great game shape, so foul trouble would be the biggest limiting factor to me.

[XMuskieFTW]

This would only work against teams who also play two bigs. Would've liked to have seen it against Happ and Reuvers. Would also work against a team like Seton Hall. Won't work against 80% of teams though. We'll get bombed from 3 if anyone starts 4 guards and we play that line up.

[XUFan09]

Yes, this seems to be the perception. I personally do not see this as a problem. You can't tell me that Tyrique is not quick/athletic enough to be an effective perimeter defender. In fact, you would think his size and length would make him exceptional but until coach comments on this we'll never know.

Yes, I can. At least, he's not laterally quick enough to consistently defend on the perimeter. Tyrique can jump high and has impressive fast-twitch muscle, but that doesn't mean he can move his feet fast against a speedy perimeter player.

[Xuperman]

Yes, I can. At least, he's not laterally quick enough to consistently defend on the perimeter. Tyrique can jump high and has impressive fast-twitch muscle, but that doesn't mean he can move his feet fast against a speedy perimeter player.

And Welage can???? I think Snipe's premise is based on Hankins STARTING with Jones playing the 4 as apposed to what we saw Tuesday night. 1st game with Q back coach started Castlin in a "3" guard line up. I can't see this being the norm going forward, so there will be some type of different combination soon. Zach deserves to start and I think we would be a better team if he does. Castlin and Welage look like perfect 6/7 guys with our roster for now.

[XUFan09]

And Welage can? I think Snipe's premise is based on Hankins STARTING with Jones playing the 4 as apposed to what we saw Tuesday night. 1st game with Q back coach started Castlin in a "3" guard line up.Welage can't guard ANY position well. He's in the game to be an offensive presence and a three-point threat on a team otherwise lacking knockdown shooters. Your argument here is the equivalent of asserting that it's fine for Justin Martin to guard the 2 because Brad Redford had to. Actually, it's worse than that, because Tyrique is a far more effective defender at the 5 than Martin was at the 3.

You make defensive sacrifices for guys like Welage or Redford. That doesn't mean you start making those sacrifices elsewhere, especially in cases like this where Hankins and Jones in together risks hurting your offense instead of helping it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Xuperman]

Hankins and Jones in together risks hurting your offense instead of helping it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately there is nothing to base this on. This conversation is going in circles. Just put your best 5 players out there and see.

[Muskie]

Yes, this seems to be the perception. I personally do not see this as a problem. You can't tell me that Tyrique is not quick/athletic enough to be an effective perimeter defender. In fact, you would think his size and length would make him exceptional but until coach comments on this we'll never know.

How many extra fouls per game will Ty get defending quicker guys on the perimeter? He doesn't have fouls to give.

[XUFan09]

Unfortunately there is nothing to base this on. This conversation is going in circles. Just put your best 5 players out there and see.I'm confident that Welage with one of them is distinctly better offensively than Hankins and Jones together. I'm also confident that Hankins and Jones together is not going to provide some notable offensive lift over most other normal roster combos. That's pretty easy to see.

"Best 5 players"

That's simplistic because you have to consider how they complement each other or don't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[XUFan09]

How many extra fouls per game will Ty get defending quicker guys on the perimeter? He doesn't have fouls to give.Yep. And it's not like we don't have evidence of Tyrique struggling to defend wings. He's been switched on to them enough for us to see how it works. He's not as bad as Stainbrook or even Farr or Reynolds, but he's hardly good at it either.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[XU 87]

Unfortunately there is nothing to base this on. This conversation is going in circles. Just put your best 5 players out there and see.

I don't necessarily disagree with the argument of "Put your best 5 players out there", but the problem with that argument in this situation is that 2 of your 5 best players play the same one dimensional position, center.

I think I read a post where someone said that Jones could play "power forward", but X doesn't have a power forward in the traditional sense. That position (the 4) plays out on the wing in the Xavier offense. Jones would be useless playing out on the wing on offense.

[SemajParlor]

Would rather experiment with 1 of these guys surrounded by Goodin , Scruggs, Naji and Castlin tbh.

[X-man]

Would rather experiment with 1 of these guys surrounded by Goodin , Scruggs, Naji and Castlin tbh.

They did that already...see the Wisconsin game.

[smileyy]

Would rather experiment with 1 of these guys surrounded by Goodin , Scruggs, Naji and Castlin tbh.

I haven't had a chance to watch this year. I'm surprised this isn't the most common lineup. Is it depth at G that's preventing this? Or the fact that Q's been missing and Welage getting starts in his "place"?

Edit: Just saw the above...and yeah its their best lineup to run out there and get experience with.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Well, I guess theoretically one of them could be out there at all times, but if that's the case they won't be playing together very often. So then what would be the point of starting both anyway?

Yeah exactly.

I dont think its realistic for them to both start. Can both of them play together for some spurts during games yeah but our lack of a 3rd big doesnt make it realistic for them to both start. Plus I think Travis likes the small ball style of play.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Why does that follow?

Because neither one can play the entire game. And if you say they dont have to both be on the bench at the same time then that means one would always have to be out there. So then you would just fall into them alternating rests which what they are already doing.

I think best you could hope for if you want them to play together is a spurt here or there, and that doesnt make a whole lot of sense to do that at the start of the game.

[XUFan09]

Yeah exactly.

I dont think its realistic for them to both start. Can both of them play together for some spurts during games yeah but our lack of a 3rd big doesnt make it realistic for them to both start. Plus I think Travis likes the small ball style of play.Yep. There could be spurts where it's effective, but 1) lack of depth makes it not viable for longer stretches and 2) it moves the team away from a small-ball concept that gives the offense better floor spacing and the defense more versatility.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Snipe]

It is an interesting idea, and one I’ve had also. However, how do you practice it? The roster is so thin in that area, how could you test it in practice against any real competition? Perhaps they should try it out in some games against some lesser competition for a few minutes and see how it works. It worked pretty good in the past with some other players. I just wish they had one more player that could fill the role for 5-8 minutes a game.

I thought the same thing. How in the hell would you practice it? Who would that team go up against in practice? We are thin indeed.


The only point I can think of that hasn't already been mentioned is defense. So far our 3pt defense has been non existent. If a team has a 4 who plays outside we'd be even more screwed on that front than we already are.

I don't remember the last time our defense was good defending the 3, Sean Miller maybe? At least this team would be better rebounding the 3, and that is no small thing. Defense doesn't matter unless you get the ball back.


yup, this is why this can't happen. our two bigger problems have been defending the 3 and defending ball screens. having both of them on the court at the same time would make it even worse.


I think having both of them on the court would make our defense better and not worse, so I disagree. That is what I judge to be one of the benefits.


Xavier would have to go back to the double low post offense for this to work. On defense, and as noted above, whoever is at the 4 would have to be guarding guys out on the perimeter.

Dust off the old playbooks? Might be able to come up with some play diagrams. The person playing the 4 has to guard guys on the perimeter now. How is that working out for ya?


I could see stretches where this COULD work. I think you have three problems:

1. Our offense is not currently set to run like this (we can debate whether that is good or bad)
2. What happens when inevitable foul trouble occurs with at least one?
3. Which leads into, who comes off the bench to give these guys a rest?


I didn't anticipate that playing a classic power forward would upset the applecart so much that it takes us out of our offense. Maybe we could get the ball inside to Tyrique a lot more, or if he is covered get the ball to Hankins. Maybe they could kick it out. It would be nice to have an extra big man inside to get the rebound if someone misses.

Maybe it is a bigger deal than I imagined and will throw our offense out of whack. I would think Travis would be able to diagram some plays to see if we can take advantage of matchups. Those matchups go both ways. People are carping about Tyrique guarding someone out on the perimeter, well I salivate thinking of him posting up on a perimeter player.


In my scenario we would still platoon them, just start and play them together for the first 5 minutes of each half. So one of them would still always be on the floor. And the same people playing now would be playing when they are not together on the floor.


I don't think them starting together makes much difference.

But playing them both at certain times could make all the difference.

I agree. It isn't who starts literally. I just want the two guys to combine for more than 39.3 minutes of playing time. I have a hard time with that given their output. Give me 50 minutes instead of 40. To do that, that have to play together. Steele could play them together at any point of the game and I would be happy.

When Tyrique had a monster game Hankins only got 11 minutes. I think that is the thing that needs to end. Hankins needs to play regardless, because he is a player. Anything that increases his playing time without taking away from Tyrique is what I am after.

[Snipe]

It's hard to imagine either of them consistently breaking 30 minutes and we definitely can't field a lineup with both of them on the bench. Using that framework it's hard to imagine getting more than 5 minutes of overlap.

Just looking at their histories, Jones has never broken 25. Maybe Hankins is more viable, he obviously played a ton at Ferris State. They're both in great game shape, so foul trouble would be the biggest limiting factor to me.

Two games ago, he played 29 minutes against Evansville. I mentioned it in the post.

If you can't imagine a framework that I have already explained to you, you have a reading comprehension problem. If you can't imagine it on your own, you are a poor conceptual thinker and bad at math. This isn't rocket science.

[Snipe]

This would only work against teams who also play two bigs. Would've liked to have seen it against Happ and Reuvers. Would also work against a team like Seton Hall. Won't work against 80% of teams though. We'll get bombed from 3 if anyone starts 4 guards and we play that line up.

Is that the way it works? How can Wisconsin do it? How can Seton Hall do it? How can many other teams start a center and a power forward? And why is it Xavier that absolutely must let the other team dictate what our lineup is? What about Auburn? Is Auburn a candidate? Just curious what this camp of thinking thinks about that matchup.

Matchups go both ways. A disadvantage on one end can be an advantage on the other.

[Snipe]

Yes, I can. At least, he's not laterally quick enough to consistently defend on the perimeter. Tyrique can jump high and has impressive fast-twitch muscle, but that doesn't mean he can move his feet fast against a speedy perimeter player.

How do other teams do it? It is the gold standard, having a power forward and a center isn't some radical revolutionary concept. Didn't we just get beat by a team with a power forward and a center.


What a bunch of reactionaries.

[Snipe]

How many extra fouls per game will Ty get defending quicker guys on the perimeter? He doesn't have fouls to give.


Maybe he would foul less. He has been prone to foul, and that has impacted his playing time. To date, he has been fouling playing the 5. You seem to think if he played the 4 he would foul even more. Had we put Hankins on Happ, I believe it would have been the opposite. Tyrique only played 12 minutes. Start him at the 4 against Whisky and I feel he could have played more minutes. What makes you so sure?

[Snipe]

I'm confident that Welage with one of them is distinctly better offensively than Hankins and Jones together. I'm also confident that Hankins and Jones together is not going to provide some notable offensive lift over most other normal roster combos. That's pretty easy to see.

"Best 5 players"

That's simplistic because you have to consider how they complement each other or don't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Both Hankins and Jones average more points per minute than Welage. In fact, they average more points per minute than ever other player on our roster. You can look it up. After all, it is in my original post on this thread.

[Snipe]

Yep. And it's not like we don't have evidence of Tyrique struggling to defend wings. He's been switched on to them enough for us to see how it works. He's not as bad as Stainbrook or even Farr or Reynolds, but he's hardly good at it either.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

And yet Stainbrook, Farr and Reynolds contributed enough to warrant playing time.

[94GRAD]

Snipe has been day drinking

[Snipe]

Because neither one can play the entire game. And if you say they dont have to both be on the bench at the same time then that means one would always have to be out there. So then you would just fall into them alternating rests which what they are already doing.

I think best you could hope for if you want them to play together is a spurt here or there, and that doesnt make a whole lot of sense to do that at the start of the game.


They play 39.3 minutes a game combined. I want them to get them to 50 minutes. I proposed starting them and playing them together for the first five minutes of each half to do this. After the first five you can platoon them.

And why doesn't it make sense at the start of the game? What if they don't get into foul trouble. If they play well together, then you can play them even more. Perhaps if they play together they still won't lead every other player in points per minute, rebounds per minute and blocks per minute, like they both do now. Every other player. That is one reason I think starting them isn't a bad idea. To you it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put your statistical leaders on the floor for more minutes. I get it. No wait, I don't get it.

[Snipe]

Snipe has been day drinking

I am here as a public service....

DEFEND THE TITLE!!!!

[Caf]

I don't remember the last time our defense was good defending the 3, Sean Miller maybe? At least this team would be better rebounding the 3, and that is no small thing. Defense doesn't matter unless you get the ball back.

There's an enormous difference between not good 3pt defense and 2 teams hitting over 50% on us back to back.

[Caf]

Two games ago, he played 29 minutes against Evansville. I mentioned it in the post.

If you can't imagine a framework that I have already explained to you, you have a reading comprehension problem. If you can't imagine it on your own, you are a poor conceptual thinker and bad at math. This isn't rocket science.

As I said in the first two sentences. Unless you play with both of them on the bench at some point which would be either garbage time or a disaster, then 50 minutes total gives you 5 minutes of overlap.

[MHettel]

Lots of reading that I didnt do....

But, for everyone that says that 2 bigs on defense can be countered effectively by playing small ball, I dont disagree.

But turn that argument on it's head and ask yourself rolled out 2 bigs on offense, how could you stop them?

Instead of going small, a team might be forced to matchup big against us to try to stop our bigs from isolating on the post against an undersized player and scoring at will.

If a team chose to play small ball, then youd NEED to pound it inside on every possession and take high percentage shots to avoid the fastbreak on a miss. If you take a bunch of threes with 2 bigs in there, you'll get long rebounds and the small ball team will run, run, run to get transition buckets before the bigs can get down court.

In my mind, it woudl be worth trying for a few minutes at least a few times, and see how well our players can co-exist within that scheme, and also see how opponents react. I doubt they spend alot of practice time defending 2 bigs.

It might be this year's version of the gimmick 1-3-1 zone

[Snipe]

As I said in the first two sentences. Unless you play with both of them on the bench at some point which would be either garbage time or a disaster, then 50 minutes total gives you 5 minutes of overlap.

Regulation games have 40 minutes. If we wanted to add 5 minutes of overlap it would written mathmatically like this:

40+5=45

That would be 45 minutes, not 50 minutes.

To find the difference between 50 and 45, we would write it like this:

50-45=5

[Snipe]

Lots of reading that I didnt do....

But, for everyone that says that 2 bigs on defense can be countered effectively by playing small ball, I dont disagree.

But turn that argument on it's head and ask yourself rolled out 2 bigs on offense, how could you stop them?

Instead of going small, a team might be forced to matchup big against us to try to stop our bigs from isolating on the post against an undersized player and scoring at will.

If a team chose to play small ball, then youd NEED to pound it inside on every possession and take high percentage shots to avoid the fastbreak on a miss. If you take a bunch of threes with 2 bigs in there, you'll get long rebounds and the small ball team will run, run, run to get transition buckets before the bigs can get down court.

In my mind, it woudl be worth trying for a few minutes at least a few times, and see how well our players can co-exist within that scheme, and also see how opponents react. I doubt they spend alot of practice time defending 2 bigs.

It might be this year's version of the gimmick 1-3-1 zone

I agree. People are only seeing one side of the matchup, and not our advantage. If we have Tyrique at the 4 and they can't stop him they are going to sub someone in and get out of their game plan.

[XUFan09]

How do other teams do it? It is the gold standard, having a power forward and a center isn't some radical revolutionary concept. Didn't we just get beat by a team with a power forward and a center.


What a bunch of reactionaries.

Lol accuse others of what you yourself are guilty. Having a power forward and center was the gold standard 15 years ago.



Both Hankins and Jones average more points per minute than Welage. In fact, they average more points per minute than ever other player on our roster. You can look it up. After all, it is in my original post on this thread.

Offense is about more than personal points per minute. Welage stretches the floor, opening up more space for driving and cutting. When a guy is that much of a threat from deep, he can impact the offense noticeably without taking a shot for an entire stint on the floor.


And yet Stainbrook, Farr and Reynolds contributed enough to warrant playing time.

Yeah, they easily earned minutes at the 5. When it was the three of them and X was playing two bigs, though, the guy at the 4 struggled to guard wings. That's because they were much more suited to guarding other bigs. That also marked the last time we regularly saw two bigs on the floor, which is no coincidence.

[Caf]

Regulation games have 40 minutes. If we wanted to add 5 minutes of overlap it would written mathmatically like this:

40+5=45

That would be 45 minutes, not 50 minutes.

To find the difference between 50 and 45, we would write it like this:

50-45=5

Haha I’m an idiot.

Eh maybe it could work against the right team for 5 minutes. I still think there’s defensive loss and little offensive gain on the whole. Unless one of them is a better passer than I’ve seen to nullify a double team. Nonetheless the one who draws the 4 should be able to overwhelm them in iso.

[xukeith]

I doubt they spend alot of practice time defending 2 bigs.

X can't practice defending 2 bigs as they have only 2 bigs.

Steele said preseason that if he played both, it would be 5-7 minutes. Afraid of foul trouble.

[Snipe]

Lol accuse others of what you yourself are guilty. Having a power forward and center was the gold standard 15 years ago.




Offense is about more than personal points per minute. Welage stretches the floor, opening up more space for driving and cutting. When a guy is that much of a threat from deep, he can impact the offense noticeably without taking a shot for an entire stint on the floor.



Yeah, they easily earned minutes at the 5. When it was the three of them and X was playing two bigs, though, the guy at the 4 struggled to guard wings. That's because they were much more suited to guarding other bigs. That also marked the last time we regularly saw two bigs on the floor, which is no coincidence.

Yeah I am the reactionary. In 2014-15 we were playing 2 big men on the floor all the time. Lets talk about the good old days of 2015. I wonder how we did it? It is a big mystery.

I am a big fan of Welage and we are fortunate to have him. I can't wait to see him go off again. I think once he gets comfortable and in the flow of the offense he will be special. It may take a minute for this team to get in rhythm. I like what he does, and yes he does give offense and affect defenses. My point is, so do our fine young post players. They also rebound.

Every team poses different matchup problems. Teams going up against us back then had to worry about the big men. We had to worry about smaller players and stretching the defense. This isn't new. If you have effective players, you play them. Zack Hankins was 9th on the depth chart in minutes going into Wisconsin. I would like to change that. This is all just on the margins. I want to get good players that can rebound, defend and score more minutes. Those guys are tough sons of bitches. My kind of guys. I got a title to defend.

[Snipe]

Haha I’m an idiot.

Eh maybe it could work against the right team for 5 minutes. I still think there’s defensive loss and little offensive gain on the whole. Unless one of them is a better passer than I’ve seen to nullify a double team. Nonetheless the one who draws the 4 should be able to overwhelm them in iso.


To think that we used to have success playing with that type of lineup just in 2015. I wish we would have known then what a waste of time it is then. Maybe we could have beaten Arizona.

[XUFan09]

To think that we used to have success playing with that type of lineup just in 2015. I wish we would have known then what a waste of time it is then. Maybe we could have beaten Arizona.Snipe makes the best strawmen!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

Snipe has been day drinking

As you well know, I can appreciate that.

[XMuskieFTW]

Is that the way it works? How can Wisconsin do it? How can Seton Hall do it? How can many other teams start a center and a power forward? And why is it Xavier that absolutely must let the other team dictate what our lineup is? What about Auburn? Is Auburn a candidate? Just curious what this camp of thinking thinks about that matchup.

Matchups go both ways. A disadvantage on one end can be an advantage on the other.

Seton Hall and Wisconsin can do it because one of their two bigs can shoot the 3. Both our bigs are great in the paint. You don't want either on the perimeter offensively. And if both are in the paint on offense, things get too clogged. Also throwing it into the paint to a big and having them look to score on a back down is a terrible way to play offensively. It produces 0.7-0.8 points per possession(Don't remember the exact decimal but it's 0.7something)

[XUFan09]

Seton Hall and Wisconsin can do it because one of their two bigs can shoot the 3. Both our bigs are great in the paint. You don't want either on the perimeter offensively. And if both are in the paint on offense, things get too clogged. Also throwing it into the paint to a big and having them look to score on a back down is a terrible way to play offensively. It produces 0.7-0.8 points per possession(Don't remember the exact decimal but it's 0.7something)Yep. You don't want to toss out post play entirely, as it complements other components of the offense, but you don't want to lean on it so heavily.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[MHettel]

I doubt they spend alot of practice time defending 2 bigs.

X can't practice defending 2 bigs as they have only 2 bigs.

Steele said preseason that if he played both, it would be 5-7 minutes. Afraid of foul trouble.

I wasn't suggesting that X needs to practice against an offense that has 2 bigs. I'm suggesting that our opponents are probably not practicing against 2 bigs for the very reason that you point out.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Seton Hall and Wisconsin can do it because one of their two bigs can shoot the 3. Both our bigs are great in the paint. You don't want either on the perimeter offensively. And if both are in the paint on offense, things get too clogged. Also throwing it into the paint to a big and having them look to score on a back down is a terrible way to play offensively. It produces 0.7-0.8 points per possession(Don't remember the exact decimal but it's 0.7something)

Not that I think Hankins and Jones should play a lot together but to be fair, Happ cannot shoot the 3. He took 11 last year and made 1. He took zero as a frosh or soph, and he is 0/1 this year. The other big guy is better her was 12/47 last year.

[XUFan09]

Not that I think Hankins and Jones should play a lot together but to be fair, Happ cannot shoot the 3. He took 11 last year and made 1. He took zero as a frosh or soph, and he is 0/1 this year. The other big guy is better her was 12/47 last year.Yeah, Happ is a unique player. He has a tight handle and can drive and pass from the perimeter, so you could treat him like a perimeter player, but man, he can't shoot

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Caf]

Yeah, Happ is a unique player. He has a tight handle and can drive and pass from the perimeter, so you could treat him like a perimeter player, but man, he can't shoot

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Kenpom wrote about big men trying to add a 3pt shot to their game and how Happ was a failed experiment by Gard.


Second on last season’s list was Wisconsin’s Ethan Happ, who went 1-of-11 on his 3-point attempts. Happ is a good illustration of just how tough it can be for a traditional big to add a perimeter component to his game. He’s long been rumored to be a capable practice shooter. Even going back two seasons, there were mildly enthusiastic affirmations from Badgers coach Greg Gard that Happ had developed a perimeter game.

As it turned out, Happ didn’t take a single 3-pointer as a sophomore and then had just the 11 attempts last season. Happ, mind you, is still a very effective college player even without the outside shot. But for big men who have demonstrated some touch from mid-range, it almost always makes sense for them to extend their range to the 3-point line.

KenPom: The big man as a 3-point threat, and why the shot is worth the risk (https://theathletic.com/649490/2018/11/12/kenpom-the-big-man-as-a-3-point-threat-and-why-the-shot-is-worth-the-risk/)

As you said, his 3pt attempts could draw out possible help defense for other post players. This only works if the big is a great passer. Jones definitely isn't, I'm not sure about Hankins but passing wasn't a huge feature of his game at Ferris.

[drudy23]

Happ is a more athletic Stainbrook (I didn't say he has great athleticism, I said he has more than Stainbrook).

Smartest player on the floor with good size.

[smileyy]

I really ought to subscribe to The Athletic, huh?

[Caf]

I really ought to subscribe to The Athletic, huh?

I think Shannon alone makes it worth the money. She does a lot of reporting. We might have the best coverage of any other team that has a beat writer at the athletic.

[XUFan09]

I think Shannon alone makes it worth the money. She does a lot of reporting. We might have the best coverage of any other team that has a beat writer at the athletic.Yeah, and there are a lot of other good stories there too and not just for college basketball.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[D-West & PO-Z]

Yeah a friend and I share a subscription and just split the cost. It's not that much but we both wanted to try it and decided we'd just split it. Got it last February, look at it pretty much daily for all sports.

[sirthought]

I have not read the full seven pages of discussion.

I fully support Snipe's idea. I think having the two bigs in the first five minutes of each half will fundamentally change the defense to play more man to man, which these guys can play and likely would play better.

They wear teams down with size and athleticism, and then at the five/six minute mark one of them goes to the bench and we sub in/out and play whatever defense best suits that squad depending on the score.

With the status of our squad I think this would be the most productive and efficient use of minutes for your best players.

Steele said in interviews he wanted to find ways to get them both on the floor because Hankins is so good. MAKE IT HAPPEN!

[SemajParlor]

They did that already...see the Wisconsin game.

Ok. I think they should use it more than a part of the 3rd game of the year to determine if we can use it throughout the season.

[Xuperman]

I hope Coach Steele will tinker with the starting line up. Apparently starting both Jones and Hankins is not doable for all the reasons mentioned in this tread, however I do think we will start to see Welage get the start over Castlin. IMO that 3 guard look to start has not been effective and should be scrapped. With Ryan out there from the jump, we may be able to avoid falling behind early (see yesterday and UW). No reason to think he couldn't get hot from distance early.....besides, I haven't seen anything from Castlin that would offset RW's scoring potential.

[Xuperman]

I totally agree, and have been saying this since I saw practice before the season began. Hankins doesn't foul, and is in the best condition of anyone on the team. No problem with him on the floor. Jones might need breaks from time to time, but he is in better shape...just needs to watch his fouling tendency. I think these two guys give us an incredible inside presence on both ends of the court. It would be the new Hill and Strong show.

Has a team identity finally been established? What we saw tonight should have all of us wanting more. They looked incredible together when paired with that active zone. The entire team was feeding off Hankin’s energy...he looked unstoppable at times offensively and was a very effective rim protector. We desperately need leadership...especially EFFORT leadership by example.

[xu82]

Has a team identity finally been established? What we saw tonight should have all of us wanting more. They looked incredible together when paired with that active zone. The entire team was feeding off Hankin’s energy...he looked unstoppable at times offensively and was a very effective rim protector. We desperately need leadership...especially EFFORT leadership by example.

I hope to see more of what we saw in the last 25 minutes.

[Xuperman]

Yeah, switching to the zone made all the difference. Ty and Zach were able to be effective defensively, which allowed for them to stay on the floor together and KILL it offensively.

[Xuperman]

Jones also provided much needed leadership. He gets the game ball in this one. We get no "W" without his tenacious energy and hustle. His laser focus from the line was a game changer and real momentum killer for the Hoyas.

[IM4X]

Jones also provided much needed leadership. He gets the game ball in this one. We get no "W" without his tenacious energy and hustle. His laser focus from the line was a game changer and real momentum killer for the Hoyas.

Amen. Just amazing. So damn proud of Tyrique!

[IM4X]

My game ball goes to Jones... and Naji and Hankins and Scruggs and every X player who stepped on the court last night... and coach Steele.

They all stepped up to do something crucial that helped the team come back and win.

[GoMuskies]

My game ball goes to Jones... and Naji and Hankins and Scruggs and every X player who stepped on the court last night... and coach Steele.

They all stepped up to do something crucial that helped the team come back and win.

My game ball goes to Snipe.

[xu koop scoop]

I have advocated trying both Bigs all season. Finally we get that in Game 17. Until Game 17 I don't remember both on the court at the same time all season. I congrat Coach Steele for trying it, but wonder what our record might be if we had tried it in 1st couple of games. We are still pathetic at 3's, but there are games we probably can't win without jacking quite a few. Last night I literally saw us score 3 straight 2's at start of game only to be losing by 3 cause GTown scored 3 straight 3's. Somebody wrote that Creighton & Marquette went 33 for 61 combined from 3 pt land. We would have to shoot 50 of 61 from 2 pt land to beat that. Regardless if we start 2 Bigs in the future, I hope we continue to slash to the rim & get fouled. That's the other way to get 3 pt plays.

[paulxu]

My game ball goes to Snipe.

That's "Coach Snipe."

[American X]

My game ball goes to Snipe.


That's "Coach Snipe."

That's President Snipe.

[Lloyd Braun]

I have advocated trying both Bigs all season. Finally we get that in Game 17. Until Game 17 I don't remember both on the court at the same time all season. I congrat Coach Steele for trying it, but wonder what our record might be if we had tried it in 1st couple of games. We are still pathetic at 3's, but there are games we probably can't win without jacking quite a few. Last night I literally saw us score 3 straight 2's at start of game only to be losing by 3 cause GTown scored 3 straight 3's. Somebody wrote that Creighton & Marquette went 33 for 61 combined from 3 pt land. We would have to shoot 50 of 61 from 2 pt land to beat that. Regardless if we start 2 Bigs in the future, I hope we continue to slash to the rim & get fouled. That's the other way to get 3 pt plays.

I’m not sure having two bigs on the floor at the same time is the answer for our poor perimeter D.

This was strictly matchup orientated. Running Hankins and Jones our there against the better perimeter teams is not going to result in good things IMO.

[XUFan09]

I’m not sure having two bigs on the floor at the same time is the answer for our poor perimeter D.

This was strictly matchup orientated. Running Hankins and Jones our there against the better perimeter teams is not going to result in good things IMO.Yep. Georgetown was a good opponent to face with two bigs. There are a couple other opponents where it could work well too, but most Big East teams are perimeter-oriented.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Go Go Golston]

I advocate staying with it for now. It's the only successful thing that happened this season. How about the opponent adapting to Xavier for a change.

[XUFan09]

I advocate staying with it for now. It's the only successful thing that happened this season. How about the opponent adapting to Xavier for a change.They also had two bigs for a good portion of that 39-22 deficit to start the game. Also, the only successful thing to happen this season? Both beating Illinois on a neutral court and beating DePaul on the road are better wins than beating Georgetown at home.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Both beating Illinois on a neutral court and beating DePaul on the road are better wins than beating Georgetown at home.


Georgetown won at Illinois. But damn, this is a really sad list of accomplishments. :(

The last 25 minutes of the Georgetown game are definitely the best 25 minutes of basketball from Xavier all year.

[XUFan09]

Georgetown won at Illinois. But damn, this is a really sad list of accomplishments. :(

The last 25 minutes of the Georgetown game are definitely the best 25 minutes of basketball from Xavier all year.Agreed, it is a sorry list, and the last 25 minutes are probably the best Xavier minutes this year. Some people are just acting like the fact that two bigs played together just under half the game implies that it's the cause of the win. A lot of the great run after the miserable start came with a normal lineup. Actually, you can tie more of the comeback to Elias Harden playing, as he didn't get in until about halfway through the first half, then played most of the remaining game. Again, though, it's not a simple correlation equals causation situation. The team as a whole just played better too.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[xuwin]

I advocate staying with it for now. It's the only successful thing that happened this season. How about the opponent adapting to Xavier for a change.

When your perimeter shooting is as poor as Xavier's is this year the opponents can adjust to anything they try to do. Xavier's only chance to improve is for somebody to miraculously start shooting well from outside and make opponents take it seriously.

[paulxu]

When your perimeter shooting is as poor as Xavier's is this year the opponents can adjust to anything they try to do. Xavier's only chance to improve is for somebody to miraculously start shooting well from outside and make opponents take it seriously.

Sruggs is tied for 8th and Welage is 11th in the BE in 3 pt %.
Maybe we should design more plays for them?

[XUFan09]

Sruggs is tied for 8th and Welage is 11th in the BE in 3 pt %.
Maybe we should design more plays for them?Welage gets a lot of plays designed for him, but he's frequently faceguarded. It seems that a lot of defensive game plans for Xavier involve denying the team's most dangerous shooter and challenging everyone else to beat them.

I like the idea of giving Scruggs some more looks, but he honestly needs to shoot it more when he's open. He is great at attacking the closeout but is sometimes to keen to attack a packed defense rather than shoot the fairly open three.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JTG]

Welage gets a lot of plays designed for him, but he's frequently faceguarded.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
I don't find this to be true very often. On numerous occasions I have seen Welage totally unguarded, and the rest of the team ignores him completely. He could have had many open 3s, but the rest of the team is hell bent on something else. It reminds me of the new kid in school that everyone ignores.

[paulxu]

I don't find this to be true very often. On numerous occasions I have seen Welage totally unguarded, and the rest of the team ignores him completely. He could have had many open 3s, but the rest of the team is hell bent on something else. It reminds me of the new kid in school that everyone ignores.

This.

[XUFan09]

I don't find this to be true very often. On numerous occasions I have seen Welage totally unguarded, and the rest of the team ignores him completely. He could have had many open 3s, but the rest of the team is hell bent on something else. It reminds me of the new kid in school that everyone ignores.There's always going to be times that a shooter is missed on the perimeter, and these instances are going to be remembered well when the resulting drives are not effective. In addition, the overhead view often makes it look like a guy is open when really the passing lane isn't there or it is there but the pass is tricky. With an overall frustrating offense, the instances of Welage being neglected are exaggerated.

At the same time, there have been plenty of times when the team is clearly looking for Welage on the perimeter and at times passing up their own open shots to get it to him.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[IM4X]

At the same time, there have been plenty of times when the team is clearly looking for Welage on the perimeter and at times passing up their own open shots to get it to him.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I am completely fine with them passing up on those open 3s unless you are talking about Scruggs or Harden.

After all, bad shooters taking 3s is partly why this X team has been struggling in the first place.

Personally, I am perfectly fine with them sticking with what they were doing (and how they were doing it) during that last 23+ minutes... and slowly finding ways to work in a few more 3 point attempts for Paul, Wealage and possibly Harden.