PDA

View Full Version : Minutes vs Utah may be rotation



BobZag
01-01-2008, 10:36 AM
Here are the players who logged the most PT vs Utah--

38 mins = Bouldin
34 mins = Pargo
31 mins = Heytvelt
24 mins = Pendo
24 mins = Downs
23 mins = Gray
16 mins = Daye

Ladies and gentlemen, the 7 man rotation seems pretty obvious to me. Put Kuso (6 mins), Sacre (2 mins) and LG (2 mins) in to give the 7 breathers or foul relief.

Now, reps and more reps with those 7 till all 7 become aggressive and comfortable with one another.

rawkmandale
01-01-2008, 10:42 AM
The above looks good, but can we squeeze in a few minutes for Foster?

BobZag
01-01-2008, 10:48 AM
The above looks good, but can we squeeze in a few minutes for Foster?

Few knows its time to get the 7 up to maximum speed together ASAP. I think we'll see Will in situational circumstances and blowouts. Did you notice how far Utah sagged off of LG? Looked a lot like Winston Brooks. Can't have that.

TacomaZAG
01-01-2008, 11:08 AM
Agreed, BZ, that the minutes are starting to tell the tale. I am very glad to see Coach seemingly settling in on the 7-man rotation. As was stated earlier in this thread, the 7-man rotation doesn't really have a replacement for Heytvelt. I really liked the way that Foster was a game changer against WSU and think he would be a better replacement (4 min.) for Josh than Kuso, as both Foster and Kuso are not going to help us on the offensive end but Wil is more of a game changer on D, IMO. An earlier thread likened his impact to a Mark Eaton type player and I think that is a fair comparison. Also, I was very high on Sacre early this year but agree with the majority that he is just too raw right now to have an impact.

BTW, Josh is playing like an animal these last few games, he seems to now realize his ability to take over games needs to be combined with the attitude for the full 40 minutes. He has been a beast out there and will continue to escalate his game as his wind and leg strength return. However, I still cringe every time he goes on the floor after a ball............

MedZag
01-01-2008, 11:08 AM
You know, I'm damn fine with that rotation.

jscrk
01-01-2008, 12:29 PM
I would be happy if Pendo and Austin's minutes were switched; it should be Pendo (24 min.) replacing Austin (16 min.) and not Austin replacing Pendo.

billyberu
01-01-2008, 12:33 PM
It's a damn shame that LG doesn't have a good jump shot as he could be so versatile. I don't believe I've ever seen him attempt a 3 pt. shot.

Zagme-totheleft!
01-01-2008, 12:36 PM
BZ brings up another great point...we do need to settle on less than 8 consistent players that can begin to mesh with each other and gain some chemistry and continuity.

There was a thread a few weeks ago regarding the +/- of the depth of a team, is it good or bad to have a deep bench? I think this rotation answers that question, these 7 players need to get comfortable with the players around him and begin to play with some fluidity.

EL MUSTACIO
01-01-2008, 12:47 PM
The above looks good, but can we squeeze in a few minutes for Foster?


I really liked the way that Foster was a game changer against WSU and think he would be a better replacement (4 min.) for Josh than Kuso, as both Foster and Kuso are not going to help us on the offensive end but Wil is more of a game changer on D, IMO.

I think that, yes, Kuso and Foster are similar in that they are both almost fully defensive oriented but that's why Foster should be a replacement for Kuso/Pendo. I personally would rather see Sacre get some more minutes and be a replacement for Josh. Sacre, although raw, has a much greater offensive upside than either Kuso or Foster.

applezag
01-01-2008, 12:47 PM
Strange that LG started and only got 2 minutes. My guess is Few was trying to send a message to Downs by not starting him, but does that really work when you end up playing the same minutes anyway?

bartruff1
01-01-2008, 12:54 PM
Strange that LG started and only got 2 minutes. My guess is Few was trying to send a message to Downs by not starting him, but does that really work when you end up playing the same minutes anyway? If that is the rotation, what is the reason for starting Kuso and LG and then not letting them Play ??

EL MUSTACIO
01-01-2008, 12:56 PM
Strange that LG started and only got 2 minutes. My guess is Few was trying to send a message to Downs by not starting him, but does that really work when you end up playing the same minutes anyway?

I think that it does get a message. Downs should be start. He knows that. We know that. Few knows that. But until he plays like it, is there really a warrant for him starting. He obviously wants the job, probably a big reason he came from Kansas, and he works hard to get better. This is apparent through his progression into this year. He's been one of the, if not the most valuable players this year. He deserves to start, but not getting it certainly sends a message.

applezag
01-01-2008, 01:55 PM
Maybe other people think differently than I do, but I just don't see what the big deal would be about being a "starter" if it made no difference in my PT. Is it really that big of a status thing?

BobZag
01-01-2008, 02:07 PM
Maybe other people think differently than I do, but I just don't see what the big deal would be about being a "starter" if it made no difference in my PT. Is it really that big of a status thing?

Yes, some status. Even among fans who often reflect a team. How many "Starting Lineup" threads have been on this board? I lost count. Plus, the guys not starting don't know how much PT they'll get. Only after the game do they know.

MickMick
01-01-2008, 02:09 PM
Of all the players, it seems the Downs and LG have emerged as the biggest wildcards. Last summer, I believed that Downs would be the most consistent perimeter shooter, but it appears that Matt has assumed that role. If not for Micah playing good defense and rebounding well, I suspect he would be taking an even larger reduction in playing time.

Both players have been good defensive performers, but the team's offensive woes have diminished their defensive contributions. Few is really looking hard at combinations that puts point on the board. Shocking to me that Micah has not been a big contributer in that area.

MickMick
01-01-2008, 02:12 PM
Yes, some status. Even among fans who often reflect a team. How many "Starting Lineup" threads have been on this board? I lost count. Plus, the guys not starting don't know how much PT they'll get. Only after the game do they know.


The only point I want to make on this is that the Zags have been starting out the games in the hole. Seems that a pattern is developing over the last 2 games:

Josh out...we get outscored

Josh in...we outscore them

I would like to see us start out with a nice lead for once. That is why I want to see Josh starting.

BobZag
01-01-2008, 04:22 PM
Of all the players, it seems the Downs and LG have emerged as the biggest wildcards. Last summer, I believed that Downs would be the most consistent perimeter shooter, but it appears that Matt has assumed that role. If not for Micah playing good defense and rebounding well, I suspect he would be taking an even larger reduction in playing time.

Both players have been good defensive performers, but the team's offensive woes have diminished their defensive contributions. Few is really looking hard at combinations that puts point on the board. Shocking to me that Micah has not been a big contributer in that area.

I just have to wonder about Micah's wrapped thumb. At times it looks like it is affecting him, especially his ballhandling but I have to think his shooting too.

Reborn
01-01-2008, 04:34 PM
Few is pretty well known for a 7-8 man rotation. I do think that Daye is going to get more minutes as time goes by.

CDC84
01-01-2008, 05:46 PM
While I know that what matters the most are what players are playing when it's crunch time, etc., when a team is struggling offensively, selecting the right starting lineup can make the difference between starting out on fire and starting out slowly. We saw that in the 2nd half versus Utah. GU scored on its first 4 possessions in the 2nd half with the Pargo/Bouldin/Gray/Pendo/Heytvelt lineup. It led to an 11 point lead and a Utah timeout. The group that started the game was poor offensively, and it took forever for GU's offense to get momentum going....almost 13 minutes.

I still feel that the downfall of the 2003/04 team was Adam Morrison not starting. Few started two guys who averaged less than 5 points per game at shooting guard and small forward, and time and again during WCC play the offense was completely stagnant starting off games until Adam would come in at the 13 minute mark or so. That worked okay against WCC teams, but it didn't work so well against Nevada, who took total control of the game before Adam could even get in.

I think this team needs to go with its best offensive lineup in order to start off games on the right foot, and then bring in other guys. Once the offense gets clicking across the whole rotation, then maybe you can switch things around.....depending on the opponent.

pbriz
01-01-2008, 06:02 PM
While I know that what matters the most are what players are playing when it's crunch time, etc., when a team is struggling offensively, selecting the right starting lineup can make the difference between starting out on fire and starting out slowly. We saw that in the 2nd half versus Utah. GU scored on its first 4 possessions in the 2nd half with the Pargo/Bouldin/Gray/Pendo/Heytvelt lineup. It led to an 11 point lead and a Utah timeout. The group that started the game was poor offensively, and it took forever for GU's offense to get momentum going....almost 13 minutes.

I still feel that the downfall of the 2003/04 team was Adam Morrison not starting. Few started two guys who averaged less than 5 points per game at shooting guard and small forward, and time and again during WCC play the offense was completely stagnant starting off games until Adam would come in at the 13 minute mark or so. That worked okay against WCC teams, but it didn't work so well against Nevada, who took total control of the game before Adam could even get in.

I think this team needs to go with its best offensive lineup in order to start off games on the right foot, and then bring in other guys. Once the offense gets clicking across the whole rotation, then maybe you can switch things around.....depending on the opponent.

I definitely agree. Set the tone early and put fear into the other team.

BobZag
01-01-2008, 06:13 PM
I do, however, prefer/like one steady starting lineup, instead of switching it around according to the opposition. For instance, in 2000-2001 the starting lineup never changed and the team went 29-3.

Dickau
Stepp
Hernandez
Calvary
Gourde

I think the less a starting lineup changes the better.

Pargo
Bouldin
Gray
Pendo
Heytvelt

...would be fine, with Micah and Daye first off the bench.

thickman1
01-01-2008, 07:28 PM
The above looks good, but can we squeeze in a few minutes for Foster?

I don't understand why everyone clamors for Will to play. Yeah, he's tall - so what? He's slow with the footwork, soft with the ball. He can block shots on defense but if it comes with slow rotation to help on defense I'd rather he stay on the bench and work on his game in practice. I don't mean to sound harsh but the reality is he's not ready to help this team consistently. Purely situational at this point.

Zag 77
01-01-2008, 08:06 PM
Bob is right. You pretty much have to settle in to a regular 7-8 man rotation now that we are on the verge of the league season. Guys like Foster are going to have to be content to improving their game in practice in preparation for the future. It seems to me that the only real issue left undecided is who is going to back up Josh Heytvelt. Sacre has raw potential, but is still learning. Kuso is regressing and can hardly make a layup. Foster can only play defense.

We had better hope Josh stays healthy and out of foul trouble.

UberZagFan
01-02-2008, 02:05 PM
In the GU vs. UT game, Downs starts but only gets 12 minutes. Gray comes off the bench and gets 26 minutes while playing most of the second half. Maybe that was because Gray was 3-5 from the field with 8 pts at the half, but then again he finished 3-7 from the field with 8 pts. Was Downs' minutes limited because he wasn't shooting (Downs was coming off a 3-6 performance against OU however)? If so, does that mean Grays' minutes are limited the next game because he didn't shoot?

Against Utah, Downs starts on the bench and gets 24 minutes. Curious, at the least. Uber suspects the reason is something off the court. Maybe he popped off at halftime of the UT game or something.

This is even more curious: Sacre and LG both start against Utah but garner a grand total of 2 minutes--they both didn't even make it to the first TV timeout and never saw action again.


Oh and BZ, your 5 are too small and do not take advantage of GU's length enough. IUO.

BobZag
01-02-2008, 02:44 PM
In the GU vs. UT game, Downs starts but only gets 12 minutes. Gray comes off the bench and gets 26 minutes while playing most of the second half. Maybe that was because Gray was 3-5 from the field with 8 pts at the half, but then again he finished 3-7 from the field with 8 pts. Was Downs' minutes limited because he wasn't shooting (Downs was coming off a 3-6 performance against OU however)? If so, does that mean Grays' minutes are limited the next game because he didn't shoot?

Against Utah, Downs starts on the bench and gets 24 minutes. Curious, at the least. Uber suspects the reason is something off the court. Maybe he popped off at halftime of the UT game or something.

This is even more curious: Sacre and LG both start against Utah but garner a grand total of 2 minutes--they both didn't even make it to the first TV timeout and never saw action again.


Oh and BZ, your 5 are too small and do not take advantage of GU's length enough. IUO.

Few was sending some messages, Uber. You know, like neg rep and pos rep.

mgadfly
01-02-2008, 03:28 PM
I don't understand why everyone clamors for Will to play. Yeah, he's tall - so what? He's slow with the footwork, soft with the ball. He can block shots on defense but if it comes with slow rotation to help on defense I'd rather he stay on the bench and work on his game in practice. I don't mean to sound harsh but the reality is he's not ready to help this team consistently. Purely situational at this point.

He isn't slow, his rotation to help isn't slow either. Especially when comparing him to our other options for post defense: Kuso and Sacre.

He blocks shots with both hands, disturbs tons other shots and discourages opposing teams from trying to get into the key at all. He has no chance to be an offensive weapon (at least this year), but he is a much better defensive player than the other two options at this point.

I like Sacre's long-term potential better because I think he has the athleticism and attitude to develop into a back-to-the-basket scorer, but he won't ever be the defensive presence that Will is right now. I'm clamoring for Will because he gives us the best chance to win this year (of the three options). I'm a little sick of talking about how playing Player X now is really going to help when he matures in two or three seasons.

I would divide Kuso's minutes between Will and Sacre playing Will in close games and Sacre in games where we are ahead.

CDC84
01-02-2008, 03:32 PM
The offensive flow is so poor right now that I think some less than ideal lineups have to put out there to try to get things going on the right track. If that means that Downs, Daye, Kuso and Sacre start off on the bench, so be it. Gonzaga needs to do something, and that Pargo/Bouldin/Gray/Pendo/Heytvelt group worked better than any lineup GU has put out there in awhile.

mgadfly
01-02-2008, 03:38 PM
I've generally felt the same about our offensive flow. However, there is an article today on CNNSI that has a couple paragraphs that talks about the Zags and we currently have the 39th ranked offensive efficiency of 341 division 1 teams. I know we are used to being spoiled and having a top-10 offensive team, but 39th isn't bad considering our schedule especially since our defense is up to 39th (also) from the 80-100 range for most of last season.

I like the new balanced Zags, and hope that we can boost that offensive efficiency to a top-25 type ranking with the addition of JH. I'm not too concerned and agree with the article on SI that points out we are a more dangerous tournament team this year than last.

BobZag
01-02-2008, 04:17 PM
So, BZ...was Few not happy with Rob? Is that why he never came in again? I like the big guy. He brings a lot of energy & enthusiasm.


I've no idea what Few & Staff were happy or not happy about. I do think we saw a tightening of the rotation, and that likely means notable less PT for some. I agree re: Sacre's enthusiasm.

ClownRoyalZag
01-02-2008, 06:09 PM
I don't understand why everyone clamors for Will to play. Yeah, he's tall - so what? He's slow with the footwork, soft with the ball. He can block shots on defense but if it comes with slow rotation to help on defense I'd rather he stay on the bench and work on his game in practice. I don't mean to sound harsh but the reality is he's not ready to help this team consistently. Purely situational at this point.

I am sorry but this is why we have this public forum. Will Foster will not be here next year. Ok I said it...so kill me.

MickMick
01-02-2008, 06:36 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Will play more. If the other bigs contributed more on the offensive end, I would not be saying that.

Coach must be seeing things in parctice that we don't. Will has decent impact on the defensive end. He altars shots and rebounds ok. I don't feel a sense of huge liability when he enters the game. Probably because he is not much of a drop off (if any at all) from the other centers we have been playing.

sullyzag66
01-02-2008, 07:53 PM
I am sorry but this is why we have this public forum. Will Foster will not be here next year. Ok I said it...so kill me.
According to some who posted here last year, he wasn't supposed to be here this year.

VinnyZag
01-02-2008, 09:56 PM
I've generally felt the same about our offensive flow. However, there is an article today on CNNSI that has a couple paragraphs that talks about the Zags and we currently have the 39th ranked offensive efficiency of 341 division 1 teams. I know we are used to being spoiled and having a top-10 offensive team, but 39th isn't bad considering our schedule especially since our defense is up to 39th (also) from the 80-100 range for most of last season.

I like the new balanced Zags, and hope that we can boost that offensive efficiency to a top-25 type ranking with the addition of JH. I'm not too concerned and agree with the article on SI that points out we are a more dangerous tournament team this year than last.

Those numbers are probably skewed by all the Montana/Northridge/Eastern, etc., games. We've all seen the offensive struggles they've had against better teams.
I'm sure if somebody ran the numbers for GU's OE against Texas Tech, St. Joe's, UConn, WSU, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah, it'd be a lot worse. And, no, I'm not willing to do that much math to prove my point.

mgadfly
01-02-2008, 10:12 PM
Our numbers are averaged against all of our opponents, and I'll admit that we have struggled at times, but our SOS is 12th in the country, so I think there are a lot of other teams out there putting up impressive efficiency numbers against worse competition than us.

We are 0-3 against top-50 competition, but we have also yet to work JH in. We are 5-1 against 51-100 competition, which isn't too bad. I'm sure that if we averaged our efficiency numbers from only our losses or games against top-50 competition against other teams' numbers overall we wouldn't be as high as we are, but I'm not sure that is a very accurate way to determine where we are at as a team.

mgadfly
01-02-2008, 10:54 PM
I ran the numbers but may have messed up the tempo adjustment as I couldn't find a real clear explanation on Pomeroy's site. If my numbers are in the ball park our offensive efficiency for the games you listed would rank us at #133 in the country. Subtracting our worst game (WSU) from that same list would move us up to #84.

That isn't too bad since the ranking is comparing GU in its toughest games against the rest of the country's entire schedules, cream puffs and all.

Of the teams you listed the games broke down into three categories:

Great games:
UCONN (If we had this adjusted efficiency we would be the best offense in the country)
Oklahoma

Average games:
Utah, Tenn

BAD games:
St. Joes, T Tech, WSU (by far the worst offensive game, but also our best defensive game)

VinnyZag
01-02-2008, 11:12 PM
Just for the record, I'm not one of the people who's flipping out about how terrible everything is. I was just trying to explain the discrepancy between KenPom's stats and the perception on this board that the sky is falling.

Interesting numbers, though. Thanks for looking them up for us math-o-phobes.

lothar98zag
01-03-2008, 01:52 PM
vinny,

GU's Off & Def efficiency numbers (& other stats) are listed here: http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Gonzaga

The "raw" #'s are listed, as well as "adjusted" #s. When the numbers are adjusted based on the quality of the opponents, GU's O is ranked #33 and the D is ranked #31. So the claim that their ranking is due to good numbers vs bad teams is incorrect, since everything has been adjusted.

VinnyZag
01-03-2008, 04:15 PM
Lothar:
yeah, I know. But it turns out I misunderstood what he meant by "adjusted." thanks

BobZag
01-03-2008, 04:31 PM
My head hurts.