Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Expectations for 2018-2019

Sigmapolis said:
I think we saw late last season what happens when you do not have a guy with proven PG skills on the court. That can be a guard like Morris, Lucious, or Weiler-Babb or a big like Niang or White, but you need somebody like that out there to make the system go.

Wigginton turned the ball over a lot and took a lot of bad shots as a PG last season. His A:T was less than one! Prohm is not going to want to see a repeat of that. If Nick is not starting as a senior with the longest tenure in the program, then he is either not healthy or one of the new guys was an absolute revelation in practice and eventually proved it in the games.

For instance, Horton-Tucker would have to be night-and-day better than him to take his starting spot away. Having a good sixth man to rough up your opponents' bench is nice, too, if somebody is seriously that good to be challenging a healthy Nick for his spot.
Click to expand...

I think we are getting a little caught up on labeling Wigginton or NWB as THE Point Guard. Both will play similar minutes sharing PG duties with the other switching to SG when playing together maybe even possession to possession. I do think we see LW initiating the offense more often than last year and being better in that role as a sophomore. I do agree that NWB won't be coming off the bench as the most tenured member of the team. Let's not forget Nick was playing at an all conference level prior to the injuries slowing his production.

To tie that back to the Mooney discussion, that is one reason why the fit wasn't there for him at ISU, Prohm wasn't going to bring in a grad transfer to start over Senior starters in Shayok and Weiler-Babb and potential NBA 1st round draft pick in LW even with the possible concerns of reliable 3 pt shooting. Prohm is to loyal to his players to take a chemistry risk like adding a new starter demoting one of his guys to this team.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride, MartinCy and Sigmapolis
During the Hoiberg years people complained that we lived and died by the 3 ball. Now we have a ton of extremely long/strong guards who can finish at the room at an elite level and people complain we aren't able to space the floor.

As long as you shoot the 3 ball at a respectable rate you are going to stretch the defense.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclonepride and Doc
Babb's health and LW's ability to play PG are two big wildcards for the season. My expectations will likely be met/exceeded if either of those things work out in our favor.
 
brokenloginagain said:
Babb's health and LW's ability to play PG are two big wildcards for the season. My expectations will likely be met/exceeded if either of those things work out in our favor.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m pretty sure that LW’s ability to play PG this season is an even bigger wildcard for the success of the ‘19-‘20 season.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: acgclone
Just to build on my point about our problem last year not being the team's "peak" abilities when healthy and humming as opposed to consistency...

This chart is a metric called "game score," which basically gives your team a grade between 0 and 100 for each game that you play throughout the season.

0 = the worst team in the worst low-major conference
100 = you played like the best team in the country that night

Here are the game scores for the 2016-2017 team featuring four senior guards/wings in Morris, Mitrou-Long, Thomas, and Burton (with Young, Jackson, Bowie, and NWB)...

upload_2018-8-23_14-36-56.png

That was a very consistent team. They rarely scored below an 80.

Some notables...

-- bad score (despite the win) of 52ish against Indiana State
-- worst game of the season was the loss to Iowa
-- good scores in some tough early losses to Gonzaga and Cincinnati
-- an 89 against Purdue, another tough loss

That team rarely played terrible, with maybe two exceptions. We sometimes do not appreciate how good that team was. It was ripping off 95+ over and over again late in the season once they had it figured out, crushing a lot of really good conference foes. We were on a 10-1 run at the end of the season before we ran into Purdue. Ugh. Hate that game.

The efficiency metrics actually say that was the best team of the six year run -- not the Kane/Ejim team or any Niang teams, but I do digress there.

Last season?

upload_2018-8-23_14-38-42.png

My goodness. They were all over the map.

They had some great games last season, including...

-- 96 and 95 against Boise State and Western Illinois
-- 90 against UNI
-- 91 in the road loss to Kansas
-- 95, 100, 99, and 90 in home wins against ranked Baylor, TTU, WVU, and OU

They scores are efficiency-based and opponent-adjusted. The team last season was capable of playing like one of the best teams in the country, and it played about 1/3 of its schedule at the same level of quality as the team the year before.

It just had so many trash performances.

The problem was never our ceiling or scheme last year.

It was inconsistency, depth, and injury.

I hope our supplemented roster (not even a reworked one, because we might start 4/5 of the same guys, there is just more to it) is up to the task.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: SolarGarlic, VeloClone, herbicide and 6 others
ForeverIowan said:
During the Hoiberg years people complained that we lived and died by the 3 ball. Now we have a ton of extremely long/strong guards who can finish at the room at an elite level and people complain we aren't able to space the floor.

As long as you shoot the 3 ball at a respectable rate you are going to stretch the defense.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Heavy reliance on the 3 led to wild swings (up and down) when we were hot or cold. We got outshot from 3 by teams that didn't look like a match for us out there on paper simply because we had to sag away from shooters to protect the paint, and they made us pay for it.
 
Sigmapolis said:
Just to build on my point about our problem last year not being the team's "peak" abilities when healthy and humming as opposed to consistency...

This chart is a metric called "game score," which basically gives your team a grade between 0 and 100 for each game that you play throughout the season.

0 = the worst team in the worst low-major conference
100 = you played like the best team in the country that night

Here are the game scores for the 2016-2017 team featuring four senior guards/wings in Morris, Mitrou-Long, Thomas, and Burton (with Young, Jackson, Bowie, and NWB)...

View attachment 57273

That was a very consistent team. They rarely scored below an 80.

Some notables...

-- bad score (despite the win) of 52ish against Indiana State
-- worst game of the season was the loss to Iowa
-- good scores in some tough early losses to Gonzaga and Cincinnati
-- an 89 against Purdue, another tough loss

That team rarely played terrible, with maybe two exceptions. We sometimes do not appreciate how good that team was. It was ripping off 95+ over and over again late in the season once they had it figured out, crushing a lot of really good conference foes. We were on a 10-1 run at the end of the season before we ran into Purdue. Ugh. Hate that game.

The efficiency metrics actually say that was the best team of the six year run -- not the Kane/Ejim team or any Niang teams, but I do digress there.

Last season?

View attachment 57274

My goodness. They were all over the map.

They had some great games last season, including...

-- 96 and 95 against Boise State and Western Illinois
-- 90 against UNI
-- 91 in the road loss to Kansas
-- 95, 100, 99, and 90 in home wins against ranked Baylor, TTU, WVU, and OU

They scores are efficiency-based and opponent-adjusted. The team last season was capable of playing like one of the best teams in the country, and it played about 1/3 of its schedule at the same level of quality as the team the year before.

It just had so many trash performances.

The problem was never our ceiling or scheme last year.

It was inconsistency, depth, and injury.

I hope our supplemented roster (not even a reworked one, because we might start 4/5 of the same guys, there is just more to it) is up to the task.
Click to expand...

"It was my understanding that there would be no math"
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: Sigmapolis and cyclones500
herbicide said:
I'm 6'4" (6' 3.75" actually). I got measured in college by the grad assistant. He said I'd been listed at 6'6"...

This 2" "boost" is consistent with what I've seen when meeting players, no matter what school they are from.
Click to expand...

All of our guys that have gone to camps or the combine have been accurate. Kane actually measured an inch taller at the combine than what we had him listed at. Shoultz said they round up at a half an inch but they don't inflate the heights at all
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman, ChickenNuggetMan and MartinCy
CyTwins said:
All of our guys that have gone to camps or the combine have been accurate. Kane actually measured an inch taller at the combine than what we had him listed at. Shoultz said they round up at a half an inch but they don't inflate the heights at all
Click to expand...

I've met Kane and I am at least 1" taller.

This practice of over estimating height doesn't stop in college, and isn't unique to ISU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back