Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Bench points are the new "depth"

clonedlion

clonedlion

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2013
1,002
992
63
Listening to the radio on Thursday, Chris Williams was on and the hosts brought up lack of bench scoring and made it a concern of theirs. Even when CW made it clear that the bench production depends on the night. If Naz is on, Thomas sits more and vise versa. If Naz happens to start the WVU game over Morris, our bench points go down, but what does that have to do with the outcome?

They only had 2 bench points compared to 38 against KSU last night. What does that mean? NOTHING. Good teams lose on the road all the time. There game plan was the same as always, ISU just didn't do enough to win at a good KSU team.

Bench points are an irrelevant statistic. ISU has a great team and everyone understands what they need to do to win. We all know they aren't going to change the way the play and I look forward to them having deep runs in the B12 and NCAA tourney this year.
 
clonedlion said:
Listening to the radio on Thursday, Chris Williams was on and the hosts brought up lack of bench scoring and made it a concern of theirs. Even when CW made it clear that the bench production depends on the night. If Naz is on, Thomas sits more and vise versa. If Naz happens to start the WVU game over Morris, our bench points go down, but what does that have to do with the outcome?

They only had 2 bench points compared to 38 against KSU last night. What does that mean? NOTHING. Good teams lose on the road all the time. There game plan was the same as always, ISU just didn't do enough to win at a good KSU team.

Bench points are an irrelevant statistic. ISU has a great team and everyone understands what they need to do to win. We all know they aren't going to change the way the play and I look forward to them having deep runs in the B12 and NCAA tourney this year.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense... "Depth" OF COURSE is part and parcel of bench scoring and vice versa... The simple fact is you can't expect the big 3 to be on every night thus you really NEED more scoring options to bring in to spark things. Especially when our guys get into foul trouble.

We're still a pretty good team but we're susceptible to early outs on the B12 and NCAA if 1 or 2 cylinders aren't firing.
 
clonedlion said:
Listening to the radio on Thursday, Chris Williams was on and the hosts brought up lack of bench scoring and made it a concern of theirs. Even when CW made it clear that the bench production depends on the night. If Naz is on, Thomas sits more and vise versa. If Naz happens to start the WVU game over Morris, our bench points go down, but what does that have to do with the outcome?

They only had 2 bench points compared to 38 against KSU last night. What does that mean? NOTHING. Good teams lose on the road all the time. There game plan was the same as always, ISU just didn't do enough to win at a good KSU team.

Bench points are an irrelevant statistic. ISU has a great team and everyone understands what they need to do to defeat us....many well-coached tournament teams do. We all know they aren't going to change the way the play and I look forward to them having deep runs in the B12 and NCAA tourney this year.
Click to expand...

I look forward to early exits from both.....I don't need statistics and lies to know that we could do better with a better bench contribution and our starters--although great--are playing gassed, using the eco-boost strategy many times, and missing free throws.
Prove me wrong. Mock me. Tweet that all of us realists need to go do something to something.
 
You can say what you want but off the cuff I would bet our bench production has been bad in every loss save KU there. Again, I looked nothing up. We can win without them but I htink it will be awful hard for us to lose with 15 points coming from the bench.
 
I, for one, would love some more bench scoring...it's a bonus and for a team like ISU that relies so heavily on it's starters to score, bench scoring usually equals a win.

Just think if Naz or Thomas would've hit a couple of 3s each last night, ISU probably wins.

So it's not that you NEED bench scoring, but an extra 12-15 points each game from "the bench" makes a big difference.
 
I'm not concerned too much about bench points. Only 2 guys normally come off the bench and see decent time for us, and both normally camp out behind the 3 point line anyways and can also be streaky at times. That's why it'll be nice next season to have one or both of them come off the bench next season along with Hogue/McKay for a more balanced bench
 
I would consider them relevant when your bench consists of 3 point shooters: scorers. I do see the difference when the roles change.
 
The solution is rather simple in my mind. If things continue as is, then MM is going to have to look to score more.
 
If One of Naz Or Matt doesn't step up our NCAA tournament stay won't be long. They don't have to be great but they need to hit some open shots. The games will be too close to assume we can win without them. We aren't a deep team. I don't know why it so hard for some to admit.
 
How about 0-11 - That is the stat. We need the combo of Naz/Thomas to average 10-20 points to be a truly dangerous team. Unfortunately they have been way too streaky.
 
I don't second-guess Fred too often, but he may have needed to play Gibson and Edozie more throughout the season, in small stretches each half, perhaps at the expense of a couple of close wins. It would allow Niang, Ejim and Hogue to play a little more all-out on defense (for both foul-saving and energy reasons) and if they were forced into action now, they'd have more true game experience.
 
SpokaneCY said:
That makes no sense... "Depth" OF COURSE is part and parcel of bench scoring and vice versa... The simple fact is you can't expect the big 3 to be on every night thus you really NEED more scoring options to bring in to spark things. Especially when our guys get into foul trouble.

We're still a pretty good team but we're susceptible to early outs on the B12 and NCAA if 1 or 2 cylinders aren't firing.
Click to expand...

We have three prime players that can carry the load. Three. Other teams are fortunate to have one or two on a regular basis.
 
BloodyBuddy said:
How about 0-11 - That is the stat. We need the combo of Naz/Thomas to average 10-20 points to be a truly dangerous team. Unfortunately they have been way too streaky.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure "streaky" does it justice. A quick scan, and MT and NZ have only had 2 impactful scoring conference games all year. Both amazingly dreadful on the road as well. Not smart enough to say they haven't positively impacted the games through other areas but I think MT is basketball smart and has a well-rounded game (other than scoring which is KINDA important).

Both have their best basketball ahead of them but this team DOES need someone (anyone) to step up and be that off-the-bench scoring threat ala McGee....
 
Sacrifice wins for it? No way! There are plenty of opportunities to steal minutes here and there for players on the bench without jeopardizing wins. Besides, the seeding boost from additional wins will be just as valuable in the tournament as a few additional minutes of game experience for our 8th and 9th players.
 
Cyclonepride said:
We have three prime players that can carry the load. Three. Other teams are fortunate to have one or two on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Not saying this team isn't successful because it IS! Saying this team isn't soup to nuts solid but same can be said for all but the most elite teams - which really haven't identified themselves yet this year.
 
VeloClone said:
Sacrifice wins for it? No way! There are plenty of opportunities to steal minutes here and there for players on the bench without jeopardizing wins. Besides, the seeding boost from additional wins will be just as valuable in the tournament as a few additional minutes of game experience for our 8th and 9th players.
Click to expand...

It could have meant a couple more losses. I guess it's more accurate to say a long-term upside to worker them into regular rotation more could have risked some earlier wins, which could negate it anyway (like the seeding advantage vs. some depth, as you said).
 
The "Big 3" went 20-45 (44%) from the field yesterday. That INCLUDES Niang's dreadful 3-14. Everyone else went 3-21 from the field (14%.)

This team will go as far as the Big 3 takes it. That's how it is built this year. We've talked all year about the need for another consistent outside scoring threat but it hasn't materialized, and it isn't particularly realistic to expect it to at this point.

Fred has to ride his horses and see where it gets us. Everything we get in terms of points from the other guys is gravy (those guys contribute plenty to our wins besides points.)
 
dirtyninety said:
I look forward to early exits from both.....I don't need statistics and lies to know that we could do better with a better bench contribution and our starters--although great--are playing gassed, using the eco-boost strategy many times, and missing free throws.
Prove me wrong. Mock me. Tweet that all of us realists need to go do something to something.
Click to expand...

Huh? ....."I look forward to early exits from both". As opposed to... being disappointed if we win and advancing while proving you're right..? What am I not reading right, here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back