I'll ask the question again. We both agree that Archie has struggled so far?
Archie going with 11 scholarship players
- Thread starter edub72
- Start date
I'll ask the question again. We both agree that Archie has struggled so far?
Struggled sure. Some his fault, some not. He inherited what he inherited and there’s nothing you or I can do about that. Barring a Bryce Drew like third year he’ll get and deserve a fourth year. If there’s no immediate progress after that, then a change may be appropriate.
I agree, the numbers don't include decision making, clutch shot taking, shot creation ability. From my observation was that Robert Johnson played bettercas a back-up role player. When JBJ leftvsnd RJ was forced to be The Man he faltered, and suffered through a hobbible shooting slump if I remember. JBJ had multiple knee surguries was still far ahead of RJ as a shooter and shot creator.
Good to see we agree on that. I disagree Archie deserves a 4th unless we are a top 25ish team.
Last edited:
Let me ask you: how did Keith Smart do in the NCAA championship game against Syracuse?It would be nice if you were consistent with your high standards when it came to Archie. Rob Johnson averaged 14 pts, shot 43% from the field and 37% from 3s. His turnover percentage was 15% his senior season. That qualify’s as struggling, but Archie did a good job because we won half our games
You just dated yourself. I’m still young, handsome, and unable to give you an educated answer because of my youthful bliss
Can't fire a coach every 3 years because he doesn't win with a group of kids he didn't recruit.
Prepare to be disappointed because barring misconduct or a total collapse, Archie will get the fourth year.
I disagree on the 4 years. I think he will actually get 5 or 6 years.
We can agree to disagree. I’ve had this discussion to many times before and I don’t think Archie is going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
Have we not learned that stability is the key to long term and sustained success? Please cite the program(s) who have fired a coach after 2-3 years and have actually seen long term success with their next hire?
Stability isn’t the key to long term success. If it was then we could just keep any lousy coach. Great coaching is the key to success and leads to stability. Kentucky and North Carolina are 2 examples.
You can have the last word. I don’t want to continue to litter the board with the same discussion that isn’t relevant right now because Archie isn’t going anywhere.
Trust me, I'm not the one who brought up Archie's future. That was you.
So wait stability guarantees long term success? I wonder why anyone fires any coach then.
I didn't say that. But turning and burning a coach every 3 years because he doesn't produce immediate results doesn't allow for stability in the first place. Context.
i'm not a stats nerd so you'll have to bear with me. i assume offensive output is points per minute. how does that equal "usage"?
No, he wasn't. He was considerably more efficient (per possession) and as productive (per minute) his soph year.
Usage factor is percentage of possessions used. Offensive output can be measured three ways - each of which have value - per game, per 40, per possession.
Negative. it's your FGA + FTA x your turnovers/teams overall FGA + teams overall FTA x teams overall turnovers. Someone like Romeo or Juwan is going to have a high usage rate compared to someone like Zach McRoberts who is going to have a low usage. It's not the end be all stat by any means.
100 * ((FGA + (0.44 * FTA) + TOV) * (Team Minutes Played / 5)) / (Minutes Played * (Team FGA + (0.44 * Team FTA) + Team TOV)).
or something like that .. too early for math.
It just basically shows percentage of possession used.
doesn't playing defense qualify as "usage"? how about rebounding, boxing out, setting screens, knowing how to run the plays as called, making clutch plays? isn't that all part of how players are "used"?
Qualify? Sure. Does it factor into usage rate? No. There are other metrics that factor into defensive efficiency, rebounding, etc that I'm not going to get into with you. Just get your guys ready for varsity!!!
No. It's measuring offensive possessions. There's a few defensive measures but they're flawed as stops, picked up dribbles etc are not tracked. Teams track them generally as an arbitrary stat called "deflections".
Clutch plays are tracked, though you would need a site like synergy to get that info. It only costs 8500 per year.
Stats only do what they are intended to do, nothing more nothing less, they are not a magic wand but do contain valuable information, if you understand how to translate. It's an enhancement to eye test and a way to remove bias and not an end all.
Last edited:
No, I am probably far smarter and better informed than you'll ever be. Not that you're dumb by all means, but when it comes to basketball you have the understanding of a common fan. Which basically makes you an idiot.
I know this because you can't come up with a logical argument based on reason. Mostly because you don't know enough. There's a really good argument against, for which I have a counter, based on increased role. But you don't know enough to make that argument, do you?
Education time: look at his offensive efficiency his soph vs senior year. There's over a .10 pt difference. You probably don't understand what that means, but it does show who has a clue and who doesn't.
No sh#t? Scroll up and you will see I made that argument yesterday. Perhaps, use some of those “smarts” and learn to read through threads. I don’t need advanced metrics to figure out RJ was a better and more efficient player his senior year than his sophomore year. You never played basketball and you’re clueless.
My JV (and head coach also) coach taught me most of this. Or at least got me started. They were both math teachers and a big fans of Dean Smith. Not so much UNC, but Smith's mathematical approach to coaching which was probably the beginnings of analytics in basketball.
No, don't waste your time, your thoughts just aren't that important to me. lol
You need to study and get better informed. Especially if you continue to attempt to condescend to your intellectual superiors.. You're more than capable, so I'm just going to assume it's laziness or hurbis making you ignorant.
When you do become better informed then you may earn the right to talk to me. Until then ...
My apologies Mile Finch
I didn't realize you read a new kenpom article and was excited to share it with the board.One thing that was brought up, and it's going to sound 'excusie' I know was brought up a A Bosich in that your best offensive teams in general are typically teams that have played as a core together for multiple years.
I know...duh.
His point was today's offensive systems are complex in nature and teams need a lot of repetition to develop chemistry between players.
Archie's first year was with 13 new guys. Then he lost six including all his starters except Morgan (with McRob being ineffective with back issues) and brought in six new guys including Fitzner.
He made a freshman his offensive focal point...again having an 18 year old having to develop offensive chemistry with all new dudes.
This year we'll bring back three starters and the offensive focal points (multiple because I don't believe we'll have one dominant scorer) will be multiple guys who have played multiple years together (Rob, Al, Green, Smith, Davis, Race, Anderson) in this offensive system.
Basically has gotten old...but not just physically, which should help our overall offensive efficiency.
I know...duh.
His point was today's offensive systems are complex in nature and teams need a lot of repetition to develop chemistry between players.
Archie's first year was with 13 new guys. Then he lost six including all his starters except Morgan (with McRob being ineffective with back issues) and brought in six new guys including Fitzner.
He made a freshman his offensive focal point...again having an 18 year old having to develop offensive chemistry with all new dudes.
This year we'll bring back three starters and the offensive focal points (multiple because I don't believe we'll have one dominant scorer) will be multiple guys who have played multiple years together (Rob, Al, Green, Smith, Davis, Race, Anderson) in this offensive system.
Basically has gotten old...but not just physically, which should help our overall offensive efficiency.
This year we'll bring back three starters and the offensive focal points (multiple because I don't believe we'll have one dominant scorer) will be multiple guys who have played multiple years together (Rob, Al, Green, Smith, Davis, Race, Anderson) in this offensive system
Maybe not said by you...but many here did.
Those same posters now counting on those guys to save Archie’s IU career...
Those are all but Rob the guys that Archie Apologists wanted to run off...Al, Green, Smith, Davis, etc...remember they were ‘Crean-trash’ and needed sent packing!!
Maybe not said by you...but many here did.
Those same posters now counting on those guys to save Archie’s IU career...
Again it reeks of excuses...but those Crean trash players 'switched jobs' and learned a new offense.
Then six dudes left which meant last year six new dudes including Fitzner had to learn and develop offensive (and defensive) chemistry out of the box.
Next year won't be as drastic as far as introducing new guys to have to develop chemistry/rhythm with.
Just saying it is an aspect that people might want to consider that could have some upside surprise.
Last year's seniors only had two years in system. Not that it takes four to become proficient but it sure in the hell doesn't hurt. The more players a team has with experience the more teachers it has in practice.
And, since you're both a basketball player and a musician, you understand how hard it is to build the timing to be locked in. Sometimes it's instant but most often it takes work. Romeo and the backdoor cut on the overplay is a good example of that .. it was there every game. We never ran it successfully because the chemistry and timing wasn't there.
Similar threads
