I think you have a different memory of Reynolds' game than I do, Farr for sure. I'd also love to see that with Gates, I've hoped he'd become a stronger mid-range and post contributor.Quote:
Originally Posted by xuwin
Printable View
I think you have a different memory of Reynolds' game than I do, Farr for sure. I'd also love to see that with Gates, I've hoped he'd become a stronger mid-range and post contributor.Quote:
Originally Posted by xuwin
Simple. When JP comes off the bench, he does more of those things you'ce mentioned above. It's like he is being shot out of a cannon. JP coming off the bench is often the spark the team desperately needs. When he starts, his motor is not always cranked up. He can be quite lethargic (on offense and defense) and at times makes some really bad decisions in a game.He tends to stand in a corner on offense and he'll often even stay there when a teammate needs his help at the top of the key (maybe they've picked up their dribble or they hace two guys closing on them).Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
No question that JP shows superhuman tenacity at times and even comes through at important moments in wonderfully unorthodox ways.
No question JP is one of the five best players (one of 3 most valuable). I think we'd all agree that he could start on any BE team. But if someone plays better coming off the bench, why not not use him that way. Mack could just say, "Look you are playing your best ball when you come off the bench... you come out fired up with so much energy and it catches our opponent off guard... most importantly, it gives our team an edge."
Farr came off the bench often last year. No one really thought of him as not being a starter. When he would come in the games, he would often dominate. similar to what we witness from JP... which almost always leads to him having more points per minute and less mistakes per game. It's like he is both more energized and tuned in during the game.
I would start Bernard... and keep JP on the bench (like a chained attack dog). Then, at the first sign of the opposing players getting too comfortable, I'd unleash him.
If I was confident Kaiser and Tre could guard the 4 & 3 then I would bench JP. But I am not confident in that yet.
Without Myles and Edmond, having JP come off the bench is completely out of the realm of possibility, but I would have agreed when they were both playing.
No, the last two years aren't about depth. It's about a changing philosophy, one that generally doesn't have more than one big on the court. Floor spacing and defensive switching are being prioritized. Last year, Farr and Reynolds were both talented enough and in good enough shape to play more minutes, and O'Mara was reliable at a backup level. Mack had a good four-man rotation that he could have used to cover the 4 and 5 with Gates/London rounding it out. Heck, it was better than a lot of the 4-man rotations that he's had over the years. However, if the 1-3-1 wasn't being employed, two traditional bigs generally didn't see the court together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
So if Ed were healthy, your lineup would not include him or JP? Wow. Why do you want to take X's best players off the floor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
If Ed were healthy then I would absolutely sit JP. JP is a good player with a great heart. But he makes more dumb mistakes than any other X player we have. For every great shot or steal there are 2 dumb turnovers and 3 lost assignments.Quote:
Originally Posted by AviatorX
Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
I disagree. I think it was very much out of necessity as O'Mara wasn't a reliable backup. We were toast on defense with just him on the floor and Reynolds was consistently getting in foul trouble. As said, it's not his go-to pairing but it's still important against teams with big PFs. Especially defensively. We don't have a single rim protector, so crowding the box with 2 big men is our best bet.
I would definitely agree with that part. He doesn't always have the same motor out of the game, and probably because he knows he has to play big minutes and needs to save himself. I forget who tweeted it, but they said in the tunnel right before the 2nd half he was preaching to the team that they need to get going and play with more energy. Then he starts the 2nd half on fire. Thats what it would be like if he came off the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by IM4X
Having said that, I agree I wouldn't start him if we had that luxury. Unfortunately I don't think we do
That's a real stretch to say that he makes 5 bad plays for every good play. I assure you that if that were anywhere close to being true he would not be playing for Xavier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
It was a slight exaggeration. But the fact remains that he makes far more mistakes than any of our other starters.Quote:
Originally Posted by xuwin
He averages fewer turnovers per 100 possessions than any other starter. Among starters, only Ed has a lower Defensive Rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Reynolds and Farr were both more than capable of playing out to 15 feet with the occasional no no no whew three pointer. None of our three "bigs" should ever shoot outside of 8 feet maximumQuote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Also, It's pretty clear certain posters such as nasdadjr have zero idea what theyre talking about and zero credibility. Why do people continually engage them?
Get out of here with facts and statistics. X should play its best players less so that they can provide a "spark."Quote:
Originally Posted by ammtd34
I still say that overstates Reynolds' shooting abilities. However, I don't think that's really significant in terms of justifying 2 bigs. It's mainly done for defensive purposes and on a team where we lack any major bigs, it's a useful option. Just look at our blocks for example. Edmond Sumner is tied with Gaston for most blocks on the team, he's a PG, and hasn't played in 2 games... Sean O'Mara has 2 blocks on the year! That's one more than Tim Stainbrook. I think that's reason enough to say that 2 bigs is at least occasionally necessary and I haven't even delved into rebounding. If Jones keeps it up this will be a moot point though, but currently I think it's a little crazy to use the same philosophy with Jones/O'Mara/Gaston as you did with Farr/Reynolds.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUclutch
Reynolds had a pretty decent mid-range jumper. I remember that his prep school coach described his as Thomas Robinson with a jump shot. That was the cruelest thing anyone ever did to Reynolds, because that high praise led to some unreasonable expectations that he never approached.
I love it when people cherry pick stats to make their argument instead of owning it. So lets make it clear. You don't think JP is prone to mistakes?Quote:
Originally Posted by ammtd34
So if you were Mack what would your usage of JP look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
So O'Mara wasn't a reliable backup, yet Farr and Reynolds both averaged fewer minutes per game than any recent starting big? When those previous bigs include Matt Stainbrook and Kenny Frease? In addition, Reynolds wasn't consistently in foul trouble, and that doesn't even address Farr, who had a much lower foul rate. Farr would have easily played more minutes per game if there was actually an issue of depth and not a choice of play style. Also, Mack would be recruiting more bigs if he was really interested in two-big lineups all the time. Jones was a redshirt candidate if Ekiyor came and K. Jones is a project with grades issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
THIS.. Mack preferred to use that style back when that was all he had. Aka Phillmore/Stainbrook, etc. The game has changed and thank God we have a coach that recognizes that. He changed his recruiting style a couple years ago and it's pretty evident in who he's gotten. The JR class now had only O'Mara and London as bigs and London is a pure stretch 4. With the last 2 classes and the one coming in next year, pretty certain he wants long and athletic guys that can play multiple positions all over the court. It allows them to switch constantly on defense and create problems on offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
The statement was "the fact remains..." I was refuting the "fact." If you would like to support the fact, feel free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
No, O'Mara was not a reliable backup, especially defensively. Your the stats guy, show me one indicator that suggests O'Mara is a serviceable defender. I haven't seen any. Farr and Reynolds effectively backed each other up IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
I agree that part of the reason they played alone was because we didn't need them too. However, we've seen times where it was a good option, and because of foul trouble it wasn't usually possible. Reynolds averaged 6.7 fouls per 40 minutes and Farr averaged 4.7. Reynolds literally wouldn't make it through a game if we needed.
Also, Mack desperately wants more bigs. He offered 5 Cs and 6 PFs last year.
Not really sure this is true. Seems pretty clear to me who Mack is trying to model the roster after, and they aren't known for playing multiple bigs. Unless you can get elite bigs (and Xavier can't absent some connection to a specific recruit), going small and spacing the court is the way to go, Mack knows that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
He offers that many thinking he's going to get 1 or 2 of them. That's really not that many in terms of how many offers schools make now. And even after they offer all those, they really focus on a couple of them. I wouldn't call that being desperate, I think it's more that good quality bigs are harder to come by these days so they give out more offers to better their chance of getting some. Also, I think them offering 11 big men from one class gives no indication that they want to go with 2 bigs in the lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Quote:
Originally Posted by xufan2434
Fair enough re: recruiting. I disagree that if you can't get elite bigs you should go small. If anything, I'd say the opposite would be true. Honestly though, without a solid front court, you're going to be in a tough sport irregardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by AviatorX
I'm curious why you disagree. The way I see it, if you can get a glass-cleaning big guy that can make dunks and putbacks (hopefully Tyrique is the answer here), and surround him with really talented guards and wings, that's the way to go short of having Bam Adebayo or Gonzaga's big Polish guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
For a few reasons. Mainly because I think you're liable* to get punished in the interior. Even tonight, I think DePaul isn't having trouble scoring once they get in the paint. On the offensive end, if you don't have a respected inside presence, teams can push out on your guards and force tough shots. As a team that likes to shoot from 3, I think that's especially important.Quote:
Originally Posted by AviatorX
My main point is that this year none of our bigs can really protect the paint. I don't know if 2 of them would be able to hold it down either, but there's definitely a chance.
*liable
Match ups would determine usage, but he would have a much shorter leash with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AviatorX
The fact was he makes more mistakes than any other starter. I don't need to cherry pick stats. I watch the games.Quote:
Originally Posted by ammtd34
You realize that you provided zero references for what you said was a fact and then said my statistics, specifically used to refute the statement, were useless, correct? That's not how facts work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Pretty sure he was saying this about stats and facts - I don't care...I watch the games. And he's not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ammtd34
He isn't wrong, but I still love JP. He's not afraid of anything, plays hard as hell, is an impact player, and when he gets hot, is the ultimate weapon. He has weaknesses like any other player in the world...but his strengths and importance to this team far outweigh them.
We are 1st in the BE in rebounding and 21st in the country. 37-22 tonite.Quote:
Originally Posted by AviatorX
Really unsure why we don't play 2 bigsQuote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Either your standards for a backup are way too high or you are being unfair to O'Mara. He was fairly efficient at a moderately high usage rate and he was the best low post option on the team. He also rebounded the ball at a respectable rate. On defense, he knew what position to be in and was solid in one-on-one situations against post players. He was a little slow-footed but that doesn't make him much different from Farr and he had better defensive awareness than Reynolds. This more than meets the standards for a reliable backup. A starter? No, probably not, but definitely a backup. As for defense, there are few statistics outside a subscription to Synergy Sports. If you wanted to harp over things like blocks and steals, just remember that J.P. Macura has the second best steal rate on the team. These stats are highly questionable in their validity for testing defensive prowess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Concerning foul rates, I don't know why so many on this board don't get this concept: If a player knows he's not going to play many minutes, he tends to be more aggressive. At 4.7 fouls per 40 minutes, Farr could have definitely averaged more than 20 minutes per game and would have held back some accordingly. Even at 6.7 fouls per game, Reynolds could have still averaged more than 20 minutes per game and held back some. Seriously, it would not have been that difficult to give Farr and Reynolds a combined 10 more minutes of playing time each game. Mack didn't because it doesn't fit the four-out, positionless playstyle that he is aiming for. The only time they saw the court together or one of them and O'Mara saw the court together was when they were playing the 1-3-1, because that specific defense is better with traditional bigs (or a Gates or London).
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
How come Gates isn't a big?
Rhetorically.
I want to quickly remind you that the below is what you're responding to. You're arguing against a lot of secondary points.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
Again, it's situational. Mack didn't go to it very often last year, the reason is really not that important important. My original point is that sometimes it is necessary based on matchup. We've seen a few games this year where we've been highly vulnerable in the lane namely Cincinnati and Baylor. Reynolds or Farr could contest the lane and were great about switching and providing help. No one on our roster is as good in that regard, I think two bigs could help with it. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf
Actually, the reason that Mack didn't go to a big lineup last year is important, because it's central to his playstyle philosophy going forward. I mildly disagreed with your initial post, but then in a followup post you said the reason was a lack of depth. That implies that once he has frontcourt depth again, we'll see two traditional bigs out there again on a frequent basis, and that's simply wrong. Mack used to put out traditional frontcourts most of the time, but he's gone away from that recently, not out of necessity but out of a desire to change Xavier's playstyle. We'll continue to see that going forward, as he recruits players on "positionless basketball." I get that you might want a big lineup from time to time, but that's a different debate from what Mack is actually doing.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I know it was rhetorical, but Gates is a combo forward. With a traditional frontcourt, we'd see him at the 3 a lot, but in a small-ball lineup, he's perfect for the 4 spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by waggy
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Because his athleticism makes him more valuable playing a roll where he can stretch the floor both offensively and defensively.Quote:
Originally Posted by waggy