Postgame notes: Wojo returns practice gear, says time for gimmicks is over
Washington — When Marquette hit the practice court on Friday for the first time since its loss to Seton Hall, it looked more like a college basketball practice than a pick-up session at the Y. That's the Golden Eagles coaches and players were back in their team-branded gear instead of the white T-shirts and plain shorts they had been wearing since before Thanksgiving.
Source: Postgame notes: Wojo returns practice gear, says time for gimmicks is over (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/364046461.html)
An (small) excerpt from Matt's post game notes. Glad to hear Heldt is getting better and earned those minutes.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/364046461.html?ipad=y
Changing things up: On most nights, redshirt sophomore Duane Wilson and junior Jajuan Johnson are the first players off the bench for Marquette. On Saturday, freshman center Matt Heldt joined Wilson at the scorer's table in the first few minutes of the game.
Heldt, who had played in eight games for a total of 42 minutes, subbed in with Wilson and Johnson at the under-16 media timeout with 14:11 remaining in the first half. It was the earliest he had entered a game this season and did so as Fischer's replacement.
"Matt's practiced well," Wojciechowski said. "I thought Luke looked a little tired to start the game, so we wanted to get a fresh body in. We're looking for contributions from everyone. Matt's a good player and he's been practicing better and better over the past couple weeks."
Neither team is this good at the line. Can we chalk this up to bad luck?
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/364046461.html?ipad=y
After doing a good job of limiting opposing teams' free-throw opportunities, Marquette has had trouble keeping its Big East foes off the line. Seton Hall went 24 for 28 (85.7%) on Wednesday and Georgetown went 22 for 23 (95.7%) on Saturday. Marquette has gotten to the line 50 times over the past two games, making 35 (70%).
I thought Matt did well while he was in. He played good defense without fouling. He didn't have any moving screens, which he's been called for during most times he's played. He definitely seems to be getting more comfortable.
I thought Luke had gotten off to a pretty good start. We did go into a lull without him in there on offense if I remember right.
Thanks for the link, Heisy. I read it this time 8-)
Yeah, just our luck that our opponents never miss FTs. We need to work on whispering stuff to the shooters when they are in their FT motion - ha!
We are second best in the country at keeping teams off the line, but 6th worst at "free throw defense". Maybe that's why the staff has put such an emphasis on not fouling, because they know teams are going to make a high percentage against us?
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 03, 2016, 09:08:42 AM
We are second best in the country at keeping teams off the line, but 6th worst at "free throw defense". Maybe that's why the staff has put such an emphasis on not fouling, because they know teams are going to make a high percentage against us?
FT defense seems like a silly stat, but when a team has a very poor one, it likely means that they tend to foul the other teams best FT shooters. Georgetown is the #1 FT% in the BE, so while 22/23 is a little fluky it's not like we normally shoot 60% as a team and got lucky.
The players who shot for Georgetown are good FT shooters so makes are not unexpected:
Govan shot 4 FTs and is 36/39 on the year
Derrickson shot 4 FTs and is 27/30 on the year
Copeland shot 4 FTs and is 29/39 on the year
DSR shot 8 FTs and is 50-63 on the year way down from his shooting in her previous years He was 86 and 87% form the line the last two years.
So fouling good FT shooters leads to made FTs
Mean while our two worst shooters Hayes(61%) and Johnson(58%) Didn't go to the line at all.
I did not pick this up during the game. As usual Velazquez offered a keen observation. The Warriors made their second half run with only one of their bigs playing. As soon the second returned to the game, the Warriors went scoreless for what seemed an eternity.
This observation, missed by many, raises an interesting question. Is the team more efficient with just one of their bigs in the game at a time? Do they have more speed? Better defence? Better court awareness?
It seems like an absurd question, whether two bigs, each almost averaging double-doubles, should be on the floor together ... and, more likely is ... but?
Match-ups count, the coaching staff has access to advance data that is not available, or likely digestible, to the average fan, apply it, etc. However, Velazquez's observation, raises an interesting thought.
Quote from: UticaBusBarn on January 03, 2016, 09:56:15 AM
I did not pick this up during the game. As usual Velazquez offered a keen observation. The Warriors made their second half run with only one of their bigs playing. As soon the second returned to the game, the Warriors went scoreless for what seemed an eternity.
This observation, missed by many, raises an interesting question. Is the team more efficient with just one of their bigs in the game at a time? Do they have more speed? Better defence? Better court awareness?
It seems like an absurd question, whether two bigs, each almost averaging double-doubles, should be on the floor together ... and, more likely is ... but?
Match-ups count, the coaching staff has access to advance data that is not available, or likely digestible, to the average fan, apply it, etc. However, Velazquez's observation, raises an interesting thought.
On offense it would go better to go small and experienced, but MU would get killed defensively and on the boards. To me, these stats from yesterday are the problem: Between Henry, Luke and Haanif, they went 9-30, with 7 turnovers, and zero assists. Coupled with MU being the fastest-paced team in conference, this tells me that the ball is going predictably to these three and they get tunnel vision, trying to force the action.
Luke dribbles and dribbles to get a forced shot off without a pass out I can remember like the Ox was skilled at. Henry hangs on the perimeter for a forced three or drive into traffic. Haanif goes head down to the basket. No one passes out, no spacing, no sharing, no offensive rebounding because the defenders all know what they are doing and cluster themselves.
Meanwhile, Duane then tries to force whatever he gets, Sandy gets ignored, and JJJ sits, when, with Traci, these guys move the ball the best within a flow of the offense.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 03, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
On offense it would go better to go small and experienced, but MU would get killed defensively and on the boards. To me, these stats from yesterday are the problem: Between Henry, Luke and Haanif, they went 9-30, with 7 turnovers, and zero assists. Coupled with MU being the fastest-paced team in conference, this tells me that the ball is going predictably to these three and they get tunnel vision, trying to force the action.
Luke dribbles and dribbles to get a forced shot off without a pass out I can remember like the Ox was skilled at. Henry hangs on the perimeter for a forced three or drive into traffic. Haanif goes head down to the basket. No one passes out, no spacing, no sharing, no offensive rebounding because the defenders all know what they are doing and cluster themselves.
Meanwhile, Duane then tries to force whatever he gets, Sandy gets ignored, and JJJ sits, when, with Traci, these guys move the ball the best within a flow of the offense.
Yeah and this is why I am concerned that this isn't simply an experience issue.
Georgetown knew MU was going to pound the ball inside. Georgetown has excellent size and strength, so they were well suited to defend against this. It also seemed to me that the refs allowed it to be a very physical game, which also made it easier to defend an offense designed to go inside at every opportunity. I do not see where Wojo deciding to go small really changed anything, because MU still continued to take it inside at every opportunity. The announcers during the game talking about Georgetown's losses said that Georgetown lost those games, because they could not defend three point line. Taking it inside works well when you are the bigger stronger team. That worked well against our bunnies, but it will not work well in the Big East. The offense has to be more balanced or we will not win a game in the Big East.
I think the only option at this point is continue to work the inside-outside game.
Unfortunately, the guard play has been the heel of the offensive woes for this team.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 03, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
On offense it would go better to go small and experienced, but MU would get killed defensively and on the boards. To me, these stats from yesterday are the problem: Between Henry, Luke and Haanif, they went 9-30, with 7 turnovers, and zero assists. Coupled with MU being the fastest-paced team in conference, this tells me that the ball is going predictably to these three and they get tunnel vision, trying to force the action.
Luke dribbles and dribbles to get a forced shot off without a pass out I can remember like the Ox was skilled at. Henry hangs on the perimeter for a forced three or drive into traffic. Haanif goes head down to the basket. No one passes out, no spacing, no sharing, no offensive rebounding because the defenders all know what they are doing and cluster themselves.
Meanwhile, Duane then tries to force whatever he gets, Sandy gets ignored, and JJJ sits, when, with Traci, these guys move the ball the best within a flow of the offense.
I certainly cannot disagree with your comments, especially as to Traci.
However, might it be the other way around? That is, would it be better to go small and experienced because of defence? The small team, and in this I would include Wally, seems to have faster hands, play the passing lanes better and handle the ball better in transition. Would they killed on the defensive boards? Seems that we are getting waxed as is.
Regardless, with an eight person rotation, what is that, 64 different player combinations? No wonder coaches are stressed out!
The Georgtown numbers are skewed, because we kept fouling Smith-Rivera at the end of the game. Had we made more of our free throws, we would not have been fouling Georgetown to get the ball back. In the end you could look at the stats and say we were beaten at the line by one point, but problably 8 of those were beacuse of last minute desperation fouls. We got the game within 6. With everyting else being equal we had missed enough free throws at that point to have been tied with them.
I was very pleased with how Heldt played. The very first possession he held his own on defense.
I would argue the link below was our best possession all season. We have guys who can drive, but the kick out isn't there, we just keep going. I think JJ does a better job this year of getting to the middle, but stopping short of going into a big guy and evaluating his options.
It sometimes seems like we think we have Shaq down there, and we just dump it down and clear out. I think Luke does a great job of scoring when there's some movement and he can cut down the lane and receive a pass. It seems like once the ball is in the paint, whoever gets it there has to shoot it, and we force a lot.
https://twitter.com/marquettembb/status/683443788405063680 (https://twitter.com/marquettembb/status/683443788405063680)
Heldt looks overwhelmed and needs to relax a bit, but I liked what I saw. He kept his feet moving. I love that he had his arms up on D but rarely jumped. I used to warn a 7' friend of mine that every time he leaves his feet, he gets called for fouls. So I like it when bigs keep their feet and put arms straight up.
Quote from: bilsu on January 03, 2016, 12:13:28 PM
The Georgtown numbers are skewed, because we kept fouling Smith-Rivera at the end of the game. Had we made more of our free throws, we would not have been fouling Georgetown to get the ball back. In the end you could look at the stats and say we were beaten at the line by one point, but problably 8 of those were beacuse of last minute desperation fouls. We got the game within 6. With everyting else being equal we had missed enough free throws at that point to have been tied with them.
Yep. Scoopers know eFG% reigns supreme.
Georgetown 54.7%
Marquette 43.8%
Good points, hoyas. My FT defense comment was definitely a bit tongue in cheek, but we did do a good job of sending the wrong guys to the line, especially DSR late.
Quote from: bilsu on January 03, 2016, 12:13:28 PM
The Georgtown numbers are skewed, because we kept fouling Smith-Rivera at the end of the game. Had we made more of our free throws, we would not have been fouling Georgetown to get the ball back. In the end you could look at the stats and say we were beaten at the line by one point, but problably 8 of those were beacuse of last minute desperation fouls. We got the game within 6. With everyting else being equal we had missed enough free throws at that point to have been tied with them.
GT also had a lot of and 1's...
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 03, 2016, 08:46:18 AM
Neither team is this good at the line. Can we chalk this up to bad luck?
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/364046461.html?ipad=y
This link was already posted by the auto-feed, why not comment on the post that had the official RSS feed?
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 03, 2016, 11:33:16 AM
I think the only option at this point is continue to work the inside-outside game.
Unfortunately, the guard play has been the heel of the offensive woes for this team.
No it hasn't. The guard play is fine. Guards will always be challenged in college basketball. You cut them some slack.
You act like the team is 2 and 14. The forwards and Bigs must improve and deliver.
You go outside and then inside....and change it up.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on January 03, 2016, 04:28:44 PM
This link was already posted by the auto-feed, why not comment on the post that had the official RSS feed?
Because that thread has a different topic going in it. Ditto the Heldt thread.
Keep the topics separate and clean and not jumbled in one thread.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 03, 2016, 10:31:34 PM
Because that thread has a different topic going in it. Ditto the Heldt thread.
Keep the topics separate and clean and not jumbled in one thread.
Well then, stop it. Merged.
If the mods started a new thread every time a Scoop thread went off topic, we would have about 1,000 threads created daily with 2-3 posts each.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 04, 2016, 09:40:14 AM
If the mods started a new thread every time a Scoop thread went off topic, we would have about 1,000 threads created daily with 2-3 posts each.
Plus heisy is just trying to post "most" of Matt's articles in several threads, so he gets around the fair use issues.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on January 04, 2016, 09:46:52 AM
Plus heisy is just trying to post "most" of Matt's articles in several threads, so he gets around the fair use issues.
No rest for the wicked eh? ;D
Paint Touches tweeted about it during the game and some of us got into a discussion about it....how do you make a team tougher?
Luke especially but definitely Henry and Haanif seem to be playing like they are expecting to get fouled and get a call....they don't actually have to get a good shot up just the act of shooting will get them a foul called....and in Big East play that doesn't seem to happen.
So how does Wojo make this team tougher, which is a shocking thing to say because that was the one thing I wasn't worried about with a Wojo team. These guys need to learn to finish through contact and go up strong, not sure they can develop that mid-season.
Might be an unrealized side-effect of a craptacular non-conference schedule.
It's mental toughness as much as it is physical. They have lost aggressiveness at times when they haven't gotten calls. Let their heads hang after a turnover, or giving up an offensive rebound. Having offensive struggles bleed into their defensive focus.
Strength wise, MU will be outmatched much of the time this season. They're exacerbating that problem by not staying locked in mentally. I'm hoping the second half on Saturday showed them the level of focus and intensity needed to compete at this level.
One thing I'll add is that it's rare to find freshmen with that type of mental toughness. Takes reps (and losses, most of the time) to build that up. James, Matthews, and McNeal had it, but that's the exception to the rule.
Quote from: mu03eng on January 04, 2016, 10:02:53 AM
how do you make a team tougher?
Might be an unrealized side-effect of a craptacular non-conference schedule.
You might be right about the schedule. Designed to build a young team's confidence, maybe it succeeded too well and led to a team that didn't realize what was going to be required to win in conference.
The easy way to get your team to play tougher is to get an assist from the other team like the Bulls got from Toronto when someone foolishly gave Jimmy Butler a shot in the chops with an elbow. Lack of respect shown in quotes from future opponents put on the bulletin board can work, too.
Wojo already played the practice uniform gambit, and maybe let it ride too long, leaving him to bring them back after a home loss. Yelling to the point of embarrassing guys generally works, but only for the short term - when its overused it leads to players tuning a coach out. (See Scott Skiles)
The only sure way is to recruit toughness, one of the things that Buzz seemed to do well.
The only hope left for this season is that there is latent toughness waiting to emerge from the freshman starters when they lose their sense of being junior members of the team needing to fit in as the season goes on.
Right now I'd have to go with Duane as the guy exhibiting the most leadership and toughness of anyone on the team. Maybe replacing him in the starting lineup was a mistake for that reason.
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 04, 2016, 10:15:39 AM
It's mental toughness as much as it is physical. They have lost aggressiveness at times when they haven't gotten calls. Let their heads hang after a turnover, or giving up an offensive rebound. Having offensive struggles bleed into their defensive focus.
Strength wise, MU will be outmatched much of the time this season. They're exacerbating that problem by not staying locked in mentally. I'm hoping the second half on Saturday showed them the level of focus and intensity needed to compete at this level.
One thing I'll add is that it's rare to find freshmen with that type of mental toughness. Takes reps (and losses, most of the time) to build that up. James, Matthews, and McNeal had it, but that's the exception to the rule.
I agree. Having freshmen that exhibit true toughness from the get go is a rarity and a great advantage. Maybe that's a reason for recruiting JUCO's to a young team.
From MattyV: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/364046461.html
"No more gimmicks [in reference to the white T-shirts], it's time to do work"
I was very disappointed by this comment. I remember a thread where we were debating whether or not it was fair to call t-shirt/earn-your-practice-gear a gimmick. I believed then, and still believe now, that putting the question of gimmickery aside, the coach either commits 100% to the gimmick or don't bother at all. The worst possible outcome is to start a gimmick, get your team to buy into it, and then actually reveal that you were not genuine the whole time, admitting it was, in fact, a gimmick.
The players bought into it.
While Wojciechowski called it a gimmick to his players on Friday, both Ellenson and Cohen said the team took the stripped down practice wardrobe seriously.
"We definitely bought into it," Cohen said. "It definitely motivated us and more than anything it was a great analogy to show that we really haven't done anything as a team and we need to work every day. We use the analogy 'put money in the bank' because we're poor right now. The white T-shirts and the shorts that was a great analogy. We bought into it."
This is disheartening. Now that Wojo has actually called it a gimmick, players probably think to themselves "this dude took me to be a sucker...he got us all behind the cause and later revealed that it was nothing but a corny trick"
I have no doubt that the team has lost faith in him as a leader. Not completely lost faith as to fully turn their backs on him, but I have no doubt that any motivational content from Wojo's speeches from this point forward will be taken with a grain of salt by the players. And rightfully so.
Simply put, Wojo's comment that the t-shirt rouse was a gimmick, IMO, is a sign of poor leadership.
Man, go on a bit of a winning streak and this kind of handwringing goes away. Go on a bit of a losing streak and poof, it's back again.
It's not a gimmick? Thought it was the whole time and still do.
gim·mick
ˈɡimik/
noun
a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.
synonyms: publicity stunt, contrivance, scheme, stratagem, ploy; informalshtick
"the trivia contest was a gimmick to sell more newspapers"
Sounds like a gimmick to me.
No.
Geez, Eldon, lighten up.
Quote from: Eldon on January 05, 2016, 10:20:28 AM
I have no doubt that the team has lost faith in him as a leader. Not completely lost faith as to fully turn their backs on him, but I have no doubt that any motivational content from Wojo's speeches from this point forward will be taken with a grain of salt by the players. And rightfully so.
Coaches coach and players play. Motivational speeches are for the movies.
(https://memecrunch.com/meme/1JCJ5/lighten-up-francis/image.png?w=400&c=1)
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 03, 2016, 11:33:16 AM
I think the only option at this point is continue to work the inside-outside game.
Unfortunately, the guard play has been the heel of the offensive woes for this team.
The problem with the inside-outside game for us is that once it goes inside, it rarely comes back outside.
Quote from: willie warrior on January 05, 2016, 11:59:22 AM
The problem with the inside-outside game for us is that once it goes inside, it rarely comes back outside.
And even when it gets outside, it rarely goes into the basket.
Quote from: Eldon on January 05, 2016, 10:20:28 AM
From MattyV: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/364046461.html
"No more gimmicks [in reference to the white T-shirts], it's time to do work"
I was very disappointed by this comment. I remember a thread where we were debating whether or not it was fair to call t-shirt/earn-your-practice-gear a gimmick. I believed then, and still believe now, that putting the question of gimmickery aside, the coach either commits 100% to the gimmick or don't bother at all. The worst possible outcome is to start a gimmick, get your team to buy into it, and then actually reveal that you were not genuine the whole time, admitting it was, in fact, a gimmick.
The players bought into it.
While Wojciechowski called it a gimmick to his players on Friday, both Ellenson and Cohen said the team took the stripped down practice wardrobe seriously.
"We definitely bought into it," Cohen said. "It definitely motivated us and more than anything it was a great analogy to show that we really haven't done anything as a team and we need to work every day. We use the analogy 'put money in the bank' because we're poor right now. The white T-shirts and the shorts that was a great analogy. We bought into it."
This is disheartening. Now that Wojo has actually called it a gimmick, players probably think to themselves "this dude took me to be a sucker...he got us all behind the cause and later revealed that it was nothing but a corny trick"
I have no doubt that the team has lost faith in him as a leader. Not completely lost faith as to fully turn their backs on him, but I have no doubt that any motivational content from Wojo's speeches from this point forward will be taken with a grain of salt by the players. And rightfully so.
Simply put, Wojo's comment that the t-shirt rouse was a gimmick, IMO, is a sign of poor leadership.
Uh oh---Wojo said it was a gimmick? Shades of the phony downhome lonesome cowboy! Except in this case it could be called a motivational technique of the Jersey Tobacco Road urbane cowboy.