Chatted with Mike Young earlier today (along with Pedulla and Beran).
Had a great chat with Mike. Talked about the program's Europe trip and experiences, along with the newcomers, whom he raved about.
Quote that stood out: "We're bigger than we've ever been in my time here. We're deeper than we've ever been."
Story next week.
42 Replies
2y
We hear this every year...then we only really have 2-3 big players that play... 2 starters and 1-2 rotation guys who never play more than limited minutes, who can't score and may be can rebound or defend...
(In response to this post by David Cunningham)
L
lazarus1
2y
(In response to this post by David Cunningham)
L
lazarus1
2y
pointed out once that, even going back to Mike's Wofford days, his teams are really just average in most, not all, but most years defensively.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
His adjusted defensive efficiency rankings have been as follows:
82nd
52nd
53rd
139th
Year 1, 6 of the top 9 in minutes played were true freshmen
Year 4, the top 9 rotation missed a combined 45 games
They will finish somewhere between 50th and 60th this season if they're healthy. The offense will be somewhere in the 15th to 30th range.
As "bad" of a year people on this board (and the 247 daycare center) seem to think VT had last season, they lost 9 games by 7 points or less. That's the difference between 19-15 and 28-6.
VT does not need to be drastically better than the norm in order to change those outcomes. Even if you only win half of those games you're looking at 23-11 or 24-10.
The dip defensively has nothing to do with scheme, regression or some weird obsession with Chester Frazier, but rather 45 games missed by players who were supposed to be in the lineup.
EDIT: went back and looked and it was 45 games, not 43 as I originally posted
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 8/26/2023, 8:33:36 AM
(In response to this post by lazarus1)
H
Hokie622
2y
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, but that particular statistic is misleading. We lost and won and equal amount of games within 7 points. I sounds like you're saying two things in your post:
1 - The record makes us look worse than we really were, and fans were overreacting, since lots of those losses were close
2 - Lots of those losses (and the defensive efficiency associated with them) were a result of injuries
Overall record:
19-15
Close game (7-point) record:
9-9
Not-close game record:
10-6
So I guess you can say that we performed better in blowouts than tight games, but that should always be the case when we have cupcakes on the schedule. If we remove the cupcakes, we basically won as consistently in tight games as not-tight games. So, I disagree with your first point. The opposite argument is equally plausible.
But, on your second point, yeah...we were worse, and we'll be better if we're healthy.
** Edited by Hokie622 at 8/26/2023, 11:20:10 AM
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
I think the point here is that last year if we stayed healthy we would have been a more efficient team defensively and probably offensively as well. Being more efficient is going to turn a .500 record in close games into a winning record and we are probably a bubble team at least.
For me the narrative last year was that MY was forced to play a true freshman in collins the entire year. We missed cattor(our best defender) during a four game losing streak. A more experienced player in maddox missed half the season. Rice was consistently injured. If we have our top guys are we better defensively and do we win more games? The answer for me is absolutely yes
(In response to this post by Hokie622)
2y
Being more efficient on defense doesn't necessarily make you better than 50% in close games, but it shifts all of the game outcomes such that there are more games in the win side of 50/50 games and less games on the loss side.
You are correct on the narrative and issues from last year. I'd even say that not only did Maddox miss half the season, he was likely mentally distracted for the half he played (and justifiably so). That's the same as a physical injury that you play through but limits your performance. Also, even when Cattoor came back he was not 100%.
(In response to this post by Razzledazznick)
2y
If performance in close games is a sliding scale based on efficiency then VT would be about a 50 by going 9-9.
If you improve efficiency you move up the sliding scale, not down. Going from 139th efficiency to where they normally sit in the 50s makes them win MORE close games, not less.
This isn't a complicated concept
(In response to this post by Hokie622)
H
Hokie622
2y
I hear what you're saying, and we could have an interesting discussion about it, but it's not really worth it. Every one of your post seems like you're trying to pick a fight. I appreciate your thoughts, but it's almost not worth engaging because it will inevitably turn into an argument.
I'm not sure if your comment below was intended to be about me, but I'm actually quite good at statistics and have built a pretty good career around it. Calling me "hopeless" seems a bit much.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
H
Hokie622
2y
Looking past the insults, it looked like your point was that we had lots of close games, so a few extra points due to better efficiency would mean a significant shift in games won. Yes, I agree.
I adjusted the score of every game by "defensive handicap" to take a look. This is just a few extra points added to VT's score for every game, assuming that's the result of better defensive efficiency. I know that's an oversimplification, but it's relatively easy and good enough for discussion. I ignored games that became a "tie".
I also through in a "threshold" column for what constitutes a close game, just to look at sensitivity of the 7-point number you chose. Anywhere from 4 to 7 is pretty similar in most cases.
Interestingly, or maybe uninterestingly, anywhere from 0 to 6 "defensive handicap" points still keeps us at around 50% record in close games. The number of close games drops though. Probably some interesting tidbits about our competition in that data.
Most relevant to your point would obviously be the effect of "defensive handicap" points on the overall record. I have no idea whether this effect is particularly high for us vs any other team or any other year. Allow fewer points -> win more games. Is 9 close losses particularly unusual? I don't know.
Signing off...I'll come back later if there's a more constructive conversation to be had.
(In response to this post by Hokie622)
2y
But whether or not VT could have lost more games if they were less efficient last season is irrelevant.
Your data finds exactly what I said below that it would find. If the defensive efficiency improves even within 6 points it translates to 6 more wins. So I'm not really sure what we are discussing here
VT defensively allowed 1.025 ppp last season. They have averaged .955 ppp the 2 seasons prior. A difference of .07.
VT averaged 68.4 possessions per game last season
If VT simply performed at a level equal to the previous 2 seasons they would have taken away 5 points per game. If they would have allowed 5 fewer points per game there are 6 games where they lost by 4 points or less.
Charleston
BC (overtime)
Wake
Clemson
NC State
Clemson x2
It shouldn't come as a surprise that VT was without Hunter Cattoor for 4 of those 6 losses, they were without Rodney Rice for 5 of the 6 losses and they were without Darius Maddox for the only game that Rodney Rice played.
Those 6 losses becoming wins turns into 25-8 as well as 13-7 in the ACC
That's a great year
So...much like the whole point of my original comment. In order to get better defensively and be exactly where the fan base could realistically expect them to be, they simply need to get healthy
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 8/26/2023, 5:36:01 PM
(In response to this post by Hokie622)
H
Hokie622
2y
I posted them to add to the discussion, not to agree or disagree with you. Honestly, I think that's why you're confused about what we're discussing. I'm not trying to argue. I'm just adding info to support the discussion. FWIW, I think it does agree with the point you were making, especially with the context you shared (0.07*68.4 = 4.8 "defensive handicap" points).
I think I slightly misinterpreted your point initially. The clarification you put in this reply was interesting. Let's just go with that next time and maybe avoid the insults. Whether it was directed at me or not, I don't think it's warranted. I don't think anyone else in this thread was confrontational and deserving of being called a "dum-dum" or "hopeless".
I'll get off my high horse now. It was just a bit much this time.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
the "close game" record of 50%. Those 5 fewer points per game move 5 games from close wins to high margin wins and 4 games high margin losses to close losses. All outcomes just shift up, which is exactly what you'd expect.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
performance?
(In response to this post by vtbball80)
2y
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 8/27/2023, 2:10:06 PM
(In response to this post by Durham Hokie)
2y
Close wins would have probably been losses.
Sorry if this scenario is not pleasant to you.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
H
Hokie622
2y
I mean, it should be that way until you get to the extremes...but it's still cool to see it.
(In response to this post by vtbball80)
2y
In order to lose those close games VT would need to get worse from an efficiency standpoint. They would either need to fall offensively or fall even further defensively
In a thread about what does VT need to do to get better defensively, wondering if they could somehow get worse is one of the more irrelevant things you could posit
So VT had 18 close games last season. In order to win 9 of those games, they needed to be 139th in the nation in defensive efficiency. In the years VT has been healthy, they've averaged being in the 50s defensively.
Being in the 50s defensively this past season would have equated to MORE wins.
** Edited by GCHokie34 at 8/26/2023, 4:26:00 PM
(In response to this post by catdaddy)
2y
and we should be much better this year, all the way around.
(In response to this post by Durham Hokie)
2y
VT was 19-15 while having a defensive efficiency in the 130s
If you're wondering if VT will have a worse record if their defense gets marginally worse next season, then uh...yes if course they will
The whole point in showing the close losses is to illustrate the gap between where they were and what they want to be is not a large gap
(In response to this post by Durham Hokie)
2y
Those things are equally as relevant
(In response to this post by Durham Hokie)
L
lazarus1
2y
last year was not a 'bad' year (people forget the JJ years and a couple of the Frankie Allen years among others- now those were BAD). Last year I would rate as just disappointing or subpar. Hope we can stay relatively health this season. Thanks again.
** Edited by lazarus1 at 8/25/2023, 11:43:20 PM
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
Plenty of offensive threats. Nickel was a huge get.
(In response to this post by David Cunningham)
V
Vippie1
2y
all those shooters spreading the court.
(In response to this post by Spudnut)
2y
He can:
1. Finish, which he does well.
2. Kick out to Catoder or Nickel, splash.
3. Drop off to one of the big dudes for a dunk.
As a Hoo, I’m w wee bit concerned.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
Beekman against Pedulla is going to be a long night for Pedulla. McKneely is going to make Catoor have to shoot over him.
Dunn matches up well against either Nickel, Long, Camden and Beran.
I think the key is disrupting Pedulla from starting offensive. Beekman will not let him drive and cut passing lanes better than Clark a season ago.
Will be interesting matchup per usual, that just hinges on how well uva stops techs action.
(In response to this post by Spudnut)
2y
The adjustment would be easy, the strategy would be inefficient and the execution would be a toss up
I also wouldn't characterize Dunn vs Beran or Long as matching up well. They both have a very different way to play offensively and could more than hold their own against him defensively.
If we want to talk about the strategy of UVA and VT matching up well. I very much agree, which is why picking apart personnel is pretty futile. But even if you were to do so I can't say UVA looks good in the spots you mentioned
(In response to this post by wahoo2023)
2y
Mutts had that Draymond Green ability to get an offense going from the 4 while being a positional mismatch nightly.
I don’t see Long having the same effect at this level.
Yes you can immediately work into high post options like tech did often with Basilie and Mutts this past year but techs 4s don’t have that versatility this year in my opinion. To that point I don’t see Beran having the same impact as Basilie. I see most of techs 4s at this point (Camden, Nickel, Beran) as guys who need offensive to be created for them. Against athletic 4s those guys are not dribble driving against them at this point in their careers (once Nickel gets there, watch out).
I think the offense for tech will be highly reliant on Rodney Rice and Pedulla being able to break down defenses and creating for others.
To the point on Ryan Dunn - I think his growth defensively is going to be exponential this season. Talk from summer was he dominated and has made that jump, especially on the defense end. He has the size + strength to guard both types of 4s now. I think he’ll end up the in Beekman boat where his defense+feel+ athleticism is nba ready this year but he isn’t smooth enough on the offensive end to solidify a first round selection.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
2y
On any individual person(s) breaking down an opponent. You stress a defense with:
1) the threat of shooting to pull away from the basket
2) passing to move side-to-side
3) screening to occupy secondary defenders
4) spacing to pull from the gaps
Not one mention of putting the ball on the floor
You're also a little mistaken about the positional versatility of who is considered a 4 this season. UVA won't see a single minute from John Camden unless Beran, Long and Nickel are hurt.
Beran can play the four, but likely sees his most minutes at 5. Long can play on the wing, but likely sees most of his minutes at the 4.
So if Ryan Dunn is going to have success, he's gonna be put into a million screens with Beran as the screener and have to recover to a great shooter. If he's guarding Long, then he will be defending a quicker version of Mutts who will look to isolate Dunn on an island and take advantage of the space. If he's guarding Nickel then he has to run off of a million screens to chase him around the perimeter...as a 4.
If Ryan Dunn can do those things to 3 very different athletes and it be considered an "advantage" then he will be starting for some NBA team next season
...Ryan Dunn will not be starting for an NBA team next season
(In response to this post by wahoo2023)
2y
Same Pesky 6’0 guard (legit this time) with better Offensive abilities than Clark (scoring not facilitating).
Early reports are he’s a 94 ft type defender that makes facilitating offense hard. He will be hated in the ACC.
(In response to this post by GCHokie34)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...in men's (and women's) basketball this season.
(In response to this post by David Cunningham)