- Joined: Apr 4, 2017
- Last Login: Nov 30, 2021, 11:18am EST
- Comments: 17
Share this profile
This is exactly right and I do think part of why it’s so frustrating for everyone. There are no real clear, or at least, easy answers. And I think you’re focus on defense is right. That may not fix the Georgetown program but it would sure fix a lot of their on court problems. The way in which teams beat Georgetown is almost frighteningly consistent. I would love for someone to try and probe whether the defensive issues are scheme based or mistake based in Ewing’s estimation. I realize that’s a tricky question and unlikely to get a response but just a modicum of insight into his thinking would be helpful, beyond just ‘we work on defense everyday.’
The defensive scheme appears mostly nonexistent. It’s like they take all of the biggest liabilities of a pack-line defense and PNR coverage and that’s what their scheme is. It seems really odd to me that this is the way Ewing wants them to be playing defense, which is why I wonder if it is a scheme or individual issue. Both are coaching issues. FWIW, I feel like I saw Crouch really engaged from the bench on some defensive possessions this year. Up and directing guys, more so than I have noticed from him previously. That is speculative at best, but I’d be interested to know if he’s engaging more on that end.
has basically nothing to do with the offensive end. Right now, unless he is an egregious net-negative on that side of the ball I think it’s pretty much fine. the C+ comes from the fact that he was pretty bad in the first half on the defensive end. He figured it out in the second half a bit more. If he played like he did in the second throughout the game, or even game them more consistency throughout I think they are probably better off.
Comment 2 replies
The writer didn't mess up...
I said Curry type volume. I never said Curry type efficiency. Meaning he’s is taking shots at the pace of Steph Curry, but he is clearly not Steph Curry. That would seem to me to be fairly obvious. If the offense were designed for Kaiden to be jacking up as many threes as possible regardless of the quality of the shot, like the Warriors offense, that would be one thing. It’s not, or shouldnt be, for the obvious reason that the Warriors offense is built like that because they have the greatest shooter in the history of the sport and he has proven that over and over again. Kaiden is obviously not that.
Comment 1 reply, 3 recs
Did you watch the game?
At best we’re talking about the difference between a C and a B. I dunno, that doesnt seem like a "total mismatch," but whatever, I hearby change his grade to a B. As noted by others, many of the shots he took were not good shots and that impacts the rest of the offense. He managed to make some that were bad shots, but the result doesnt make them good shots – at least not for the purposes of this. And if we’re looking at previous games for context, in between those games where he went 7-10 and 7-13, he went 0-7 and 2-7, which is the whole point. This team desperately needs consistency, not just intermittent hot shooting. By the way, that game where he shot 7-10 from three, I gave him an A because 1) 70% is different than 53%…2) 10 shots is different than 13 and 3) those 10 shots came much more within the flow of the offense and frankly better shots.
Comment 2 replies, 3 recs
Some of these are decent points, none of them are made in a decent way...
Let me try and address these, despite the absolutely bonkers tone and tenor you’re taking here…
1) I gave him a C. I don’t really see how that is "bashing" him. In fact, I don’t really see how anything that I’ve written here is "bashing" anyone. I will say that I am acutely aware that these are college basketball players that do not deserve to be scrutinized in an overly negative way. That is why I’ve said that noone is getting an F and something I take into careful account when I am writing these. So yeah, that’s not cool with me…
2) There’s a totally fair argument that he could get a C+ or B or even higher. Assigning a letter grade is kind of difficult and it’s pretty arbitrary. I try to provide some insight into what I saw. And I thought, on the whole he was average, despite a very good scoring contribution. You are right that I didn’t address his true shooting % and box plus minus which were both high. And yes, I could have done that. I’ll try and be more comprehensive but I am also not trying to write 1,000 word posts. I don’t think that makes sense for the reader, or frankly for me and it’s in part why I encourage re-grade comments. I think that can be done in a non-aggressive and antagonistic way. But perhaps not for everyone…
3) The point I was making is that he is shooting a lot, and seems to have a green light to shoot regardless of the quality of the shot or whether he is open. That’s the "Steph level volume" I am talking about. You’re right that 53% is a good rate, but the way in which he’s getting that is more important in my perspective. Steph Curry can take 13 threes regardless of the quality of the shot because he’s Steph Curry and he has proven that he can make those at a consistent level and frankly, he has an offense that is designed around it. Needless to say, but Kaiden is not Steph Curry and I don’t think he’s shown that he should have a green light to take that many threes regardless of the quality of them. The broader point I was trying to make is that he is at his best when he is getting shots that come within the offense off of dribble penetration, etc. That is a point about the shots he is taken AND the offense that he’s operating in. I thought by acknowledging his very good stat line, while breaking down why I dont think all the shots he was taking (regardless of the result) were good shots, indicated my grade, but I will try to be more clear about that in the future.
3) I didn’t mention his defense or other elements of his game because I wrote about the ways he’s getting his shots. Again, these are not intended to be comprehensive in analyzing every single aspect of every single player. I am focusing on things that I saw and found interesting and might be of interest to others. In that way, these posts aren’t intended to be read as an full account of the game. I would think that would be clear as this is just one person’s analysis and not definitive and again, not a complete account of everything that happened. For those who did watch the game, these may be helpful points of analysis for discussion, for those who didn’t watch, these can be a singular insight into how players played. It can’t be all things to all people.
For my part, I will try in be more direct and explicit about why someone is getting a particular grade from me. For your part, I suggest you try and be less antagonistic and perhaps realize we’re all on the same team (but, utlimately, you do you). Thank you for reading.
Comment 1 rec
Yes but you see...
I gave him a C -, so slightly below mediocre. Yeah, he could have gotten a D. I guess I was just feeling generous. But I agree, he was not good.
Comment 1 rec
I think we have a winner
This is probably going up as the best re-grade comment in the next post! Your argument is sound. However, I can’t bring myself to give the Refs anything higher than a C, because, well, they’re the refs… Even when they are fine, they just kind of…suck. But fair play to you sir. I cede this argument!
I dunno, I can’t give Carey higher than a B when he really only played one half. He had no impact on the first half of the game. He was good in the minutes he played. And if he played like that across 25 – 28 minutes, I think he deserves a B+ or A. Also, FWIW, his defensive rating was not very good. Meanwhile, Jordan’s defensive rating was 2nd best. I really liked Jordan’s game.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
C- for Rice was the lowest grade on the team. I think that is reflective of the game. Could it have been lower? Sure. But I am trying not to grade relative to expectations, just performance. He missed shots, that’s about it. I thought Billingsley was OK, not great. Didn’t love his turnovers. And FWIW the fancy stats didn’t love his game either his offensive rating was second to last and his defensive rating was third to last. So really, all fair points, but we’re talking marginal changes at best. Rice probably got a 70 and Jalin a 75/76.
Comment 2 recs
Suggest offering solutions rather than criticisms
To echo what Hoya Saxual said…I have always found the Casual Hoya braintrust to be extremely encouraging and accepting of any offers to help add content. If there is something you’d like to see, go and write it, or reach out to the Casual folks and offer a solution. Everyone who’s contributing to this site is doing it on a volunteer basis among the many other commitments we all have. Your suggestions are all valid, but they are left for other people to execute. If you want to see a post on this site about the soccer teams, offer to write it. I am sure the Casual folks would love to have preview posts for the soccer teams or game recaps.
I’d also add that Casual Hoya is not the athletic department or the Washington Post and has made an effort to cover soccer as far as I have seen. In fact, there is a post about the soccer teams on the Casual Hoya homepage right now!