Thoughts on Penn State Basketball and tonight's loss to Purdue
- Thread starter Ranger Dan
- Start date
Right, Stevens driving aggressively with his head and shoulder down is almost always going to get a charge call against. Defender has a right to his legal guarding position, his feet don't have to be set.
Chambers just can't coach the end game. The talent is there to keep us in the game but Chambers is still learning the game and can't control or win the close ones!
This whole discussion reminds me of the Purdue board in reverse. For as good a shooting team as we have, the constant complaint all year is how unathletic our guards are.
Everyone wants the super-athletes who shoot 48% from deep but they are called 5 star recruits. There are few of them around and kind of hard to come by. Most programs have to find some sort of compromise between attributes. Matt Painter had a stretch where we recruited the more athletic type of guards but we couldn't shoot very well and we missed the NCAA tournament for a couple of years. I'd much rather be dealing with the problem we have this year where we hit over 40% as a team but have to worry a little about athleticism in certain matchups.
Everyone wants the super-athletes who shoot 48% from deep but they are called 5 star recruits. There are few of them around and kind of hard to come by. Most programs have to find some sort of compromise between attributes. Matt Painter had a stretch where we recruited the more athletic type of guards but we couldn't shoot very well and we missed the NCAA tournament for a couple of years. I'd much rather be dealing with the problem we have this year where we hit over 40% as a team but have to worry a little about athleticism in certain matchups.
Your quote from the rule book proves everyone's point. Stevens didn't start his upward motion to attempt a field goal or pass. He had his head down driving to the basket and lowered his shoulder into Swanigan's midsection. I'll admit that live I thought it was a questionable call, but when I saw the replay they got it right and it wasn't even close.
Not true....calls early in a game can often completely dictate and /or change the dynamics of the remainder of the game.
Spot on analysis. This team is sorley lacking in consistent outside shooting and also struggle with shot selection. The 4 players you mentioned are oustanding and will mature over the off season. Additionally, Bostick is also beginning to find a role on this team as a key sub, although he is currently injured. I don't have B1G Network, from the comments I read about Garner and Banks, I believe they are pressing a bit too much and its causing them to play out of their comfort zone. Hopefully Pat is emphasizing that they need to be more selective. Remember, the core of this team is young, athletic and talented, but the rigors of a B1G season are difficult. I said in a post several weeks back that this team would benefit greatly from a summer trip to play against Europeans. I expect alot of these late game swoons/loses to turn into W's next year and beyond. Chambers has opened up the Philly area for recruiting and though the dividends are trickling in, they are being paid, albiet, not @ the rate everyone wants to see. Stay the course.
Did not see the game last night but eventually saw the highlights (lowlights), the stats and Matt Painter's post game comments.
The three point shooting stats are unbelievable, 10 more makes by Purdue meant that's 30 pts PSU had to make up, it's remarkable the game was so close. The 48-12 pts in the paint favor to PSU, who'd have thought that would happen with Purdue's big guy? Only 8 assists by PSU.....sounds like one-on-one all night long.
Painter was extremely complimentary to PSU and said they completely outplayed Purdue in the first half and played hard all night. He also spoke highly of several PSU players, especially Carr.
Great effort..... tough loss. I honestly was shocked when I came out from dinner with some friends and asked Siri what the score was.....and she said the game was going to overtime. I'm glad I hadn't started the car, I probably would have goosed it into an accidental rear-ender!
The three point shooting stats are unbelievable, 10 more makes by Purdue meant that's 30 pts PSU had to make up, it's remarkable the game was so close. The 48-12 pts in the paint favor to PSU, who'd have thought that would happen with Purdue's big guy? Only 8 assists by PSU.....sounds like one-on-one all night long.
Painter was extremely complimentary to PSU and said they completely outplayed Purdue in the first half and played hard all night. He also spoke highly of several PSU players, especially Carr.
Great effort..... tough loss. I honestly was shocked when I came out from dinner with some friends and asked Siri what the score was.....and she said the game was going to overtime. I'm glad I hadn't started the car, I probably would have goosed it into an accidental rear-ender!
PSU's lack of assists also was partially due to their points in the paint coming from so many offensive rebounds and put backs. No assists on FT, put backs or Reaves steals and baskets. Also late in the game Carr took over and really PSU didnt want anyone else touching the ball. My only concern is why didnt they start the OT with Carr going to the basket like he did the last 2 minutes. Would have at least got a few FT rather than TO's
I love seeing lots of posts about the MBB team. Until recently, you could draw more commentary here about choices of breakfast cereals than you could attract after a MBB win over Michigan State. Finally seeing some passion and interest in MBB. Even when critical of Chambers or the program, at least interest is picking up, and that's a good thing.
If a bad call before the U16 TO happens, then there are 36ish minutes to make it up. The idea it can completely change or dictate the game is an overstatement.
Watkins absolutely dominated in the paint last night, particularly in the first half. He outclassed Purdue's 7'2 giant.
Well, in his defense, for much of the time he's been here his teams didn't have any strengths to play to.
I would guess the answer is Battle........ which, if true, doesn't really say anything - since Battle spent four years taking one tough, contested shot after another, as the primary offensive threat on the team......and he had a history of making a much higher percentage of those tough shots when the pressure was the greatest.
Garner and Banks get numerous wide-open opportunities as complimentary options, thanks to the presence of Carr/Watkins/Stephens etc.
I still would like to see us at times slow pace a little bit to get better shot selection...and #24 needs more touches....and I want to play 5 games in the Palestra because that is what a home court advantage sounds like...
Garner actually shot better last year from 3 when he wasn't getting so many clean looks.
I was just responding to the post that we need a "sharpshooter" like Battle. He was a scorer and he made a lot of big shots for us, but he was never a deadly 3 point shooter like a Lisicky or Pringle. Heck, Crispin only shot 34.8% behind the arc which puts him behind Garner. Yes, Crispin and Battle certainly took a lot of tough shots, but we remember them as great shooters even though their career numbers are right there with Shep/Banks (who many think are poor shooters).
One other thing on Battle, his shooting really improved after his freshman year. People forget how much he struggled when he got here. 28% from behind the arc and turned it over way too much. The nice thing was that his turnover rate, eFG%, and 3FG% all increased in each of his four years.
True enough.....though I will say, as opposed to a guy like Battle, Garner and Banks give you just about nothing if they are not scoring from the arc.
Rebounding? Defense? Distributing the ball?
I think that - in addition to not scoring - when you look at Garner/Banks numbers after a game, you also see just about no contribution anywhere else (and their overall game, just from the standpoint of a fan watching the game, doesn't help the club)
Guys like Reaves and Watkins, on the other hand, make HUGE contributions in ways that don't even enter the score sheet.
The "all or nothing" aspect of their ability to help the club really does accentuate the negativity when they are NOT scoring.
At most Big Ten programs you can get a program to where Chambers has Penn State in 2 or 3 years because all the other programs except for NW (until recently) have a history of successfully recruiting 4 star players and you can do it the day you step on campus.
If Chambers was in his 2nd or 3rd year any talk of his job security would be laughable considering the level of young talent on the roster. What he's doing is unprecedented at Penn State. People would be talking contract extension.
He inherited a decimated roster and had 5 months to recruit his first class and 17 months to recruit his second, getting in way way late with every player he had to recruit to have success at Penn State. Btw: much of that time was spent recruiting both classes when his completion was focused solely on the juniors.
At a school that had recruited nothing but bottom tier recruiting classes since joining the Big Ten and had zero established presence anywhere in recruiting, Chambers and his staff had 17 months to recruit two recruiting classes during the absolute heart of the Sandusky scandal.
Those first two recruiting classes were your juniors and seniors last year and your seniors this year. The seniors this year are junior eligible because they redshirted.
When you don't recruit to the required level your first 17 months that is a 5 or 6 year issue.
When it's clear as day that the absolute best players on this team are also the most highly recruited, doesn't that send a convincing message for the trillionth time in sports' history that the jimmys and joes matter WAY more than X's and O's?
The best coaches recruit well and get great effort. That's the key. Does anyone want to question how hard the kids play when the level of effort our kids generally show has been the biggest talking point by analysts who do our games?
The idea is to identify the right coach and support him, not insist on penalizing him for failures that were pretty much unavoidable.
And yes, I will continue to post this to a nauseatingly redundant level because it's the truth.
Matt Painter and the rest of the Big Ten coaches would love to see Penn State cut ties with Pat Chambers to to bring in another guy who couldn't point to Philadelphia or the DMV on a map. That is also the truth. You think those guys are excited about Penn State's freshmen and sophomores? No.
If Chambers was in his 2nd or 3rd year any talk of his job security would be laughable considering the level of young talent on the roster. What he's doing is unprecedented at Penn State. People would be talking contract extension.
He inherited a decimated roster and had 5 months to recruit his first class and 17 months to recruit his second, getting in way way late with every player he had to recruit to have success at Penn State. Btw: much of that time was spent recruiting both classes when his completion was focused solely on the juniors.
At a school that had recruited nothing but bottom tier recruiting classes since joining the Big Ten and had zero established presence anywhere in recruiting, Chambers and his staff had 17 months to recruit two recruiting classes during the absolute heart of the Sandusky scandal.
Those first two recruiting classes were your juniors and seniors last year and your seniors this year. The seniors this year are junior eligible because they redshirted.
When you don't recruit to the required level your first 17 months that is a 5 or 6 year issue.
When it's clear as day that the absolute best players on this team are also the most highly recruited, doesn't that send a convincing message for the trillionth time in sports' history that the jimmys and joes matter WAY more than X's and O's?
The best coaches recruit well and get great effort. That's the key. Does anyone want to question how hard the kids play when the level of effort our kids generally show has been the biggest talking point by analysts who do our games?
The idea is to identify the right coach and support him, not insist on penalizing him for failures that were pretty much unavoidable.
And yes, I will continue to post this to a nauseatingly redundant level because it's the truth.
Matt Painter and the rest of the Big Ten coaches would love to see Penn State cut ties with Pat Chambers to to bring in another guy who couldn't point to Philadelphia or the DMV on a map. That is also the truth. You think those guys are excited about Penn State's freshmen and sophomores? No.
Would be nice (REALLY nice) if a guy like Stephens or Carr (or Bostick, or whomever) could progress in the same manner.........because, if PSU IS going to have that outside threat while these freshman are still around to make it worth something, it is probably going to have to come from someone currently on the roster - I would think
(though, I am not familiar enough with the college hoops scene to know what the odds would be of finding a transfer player who might jump into that role)
I agree on Banks, but Garner has developed into a competent B1G-level on ball defender, and it's an aspect of his game that's really improved since his freshman year. He's not Josh Reaves (nobody else in the conference is) but Garner isn't a liability at all on the defensive side of the ball. Garner has a little more ability to beat defenders off the dribble and get the ball to the hoop. He's certainly a far less effective player when his deep shot isn't falling - and absolutely not when he's tossing contested bricks early in the shot clock - but he's a more complete player than Banks.
Garner had a big turnover at the beginning of OT as well dribbling the ball off his knee.
QUOTE="psualum10, post: 2658292, member: 24312"]Purdue had more TOs than PSU did last night
PSU also had more offensive rebounds (14-10), total rebounds (40-38), steals (12-7) and blocks (10-2). Only place they basically didn't beat them in was points. For one simple reason.
PSU from 3 -- 2-18
Purdue from 3 -- 12-26
30 points right there of a difference. There's nothing else to complain about other than that stat. Well that and Garner's genius play to not realize the ball didn't touch the rim and fouled the guy with 2 seconds left on the shot clock.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="psualum10, post: 2658292, member: 24312"]Purdue had more TOs than PSU did last night
PSU also had more offensive rebounds (14-10), total rebounds (40-38), steals (12-7) and blocks (10-2). Only place they basically didn't beat them in was points. For one simple reason.
PSU from 3 -- 2-18
Purdue from 3 -- 12-26
30 points right there of a difference. There's nothing else to complain about other than that stat. Well that and Garner's genius play to not realize the ball didn't touch the rim and fouled the guy with 2 seconds left on the shot clock.
[/QUOTE]Agree with everything pretty much except that I think you're selling Stevens a bit short. I think right now he could be getting good minutes on any team in the country. For me, he is a sure bet 1st team big player if his mid and long range jumpers improve just a bit. Carr could be too, but for me Stevens is the key to this team getting to where we all want to see it in the next couple of years.
I think highly of Stevens, but tempered my expectations because he isn't the only 3-4 combo player in the league with a potentially high ceiling and both Watkins and Carr have more "special" abilities. That being said, I think if Steven's could improve both his outside shooting and rebounding, he may have a chance for 1st team all Big Ten. Also, one limiting factor will be the overall success of the team. Teams with below .500 winning percentage in conference do not typically get too many 1st team all big ten votes.
The talent is there for this team. The guys we are rolling out, first 6-7, can play for any team in the B10.
But at times the youth just shines through. Guys are still adjusting to the college game. Unlike high school/AAU where these guys could get away with some bad habits, they just can't do it at the college level. Things like weak 1 handed passes, failing to cover for a guy on help defense, not aggressively going after a rebound, not smartly closing out on a shooter, properly setting and using on ball and off the ball screens. These are all little details that you MUST do right to consistently win in college, can't just do it with talent. Our young guys can do these things for 20-30 minutes a game, but winning big time college teams do it for 40 minutes.
It takes time, this offseason is critical for this team. All the frosh have areas where they need improvement in offseason. Stevens and Watkins need to get in better physical shape to run the floor for 30 mpg. Carr needs to put on some muscle and work on his shot. Garner could work on his first step and quickness. Reaves needs to be a better ballhandler and shooter. More importantly, the group needs to work on team defense, cutting down turnovers and mental errors. Right now they are 5 fingers doing their own thing out there, they become 1 hand and success will follow. Sounds cheesy, but it's true. Connectedness is the popular term being thrown out. I am biased but watch Villanova play, each guy knows exactly what the other 4 are going to do on offense and defense. Comes from all those guys playing together for min. of 2 years.
They are close though, this could be a NCAA tourney team next year with just a bit more seasoning. Kinda reminds me of the 2015 PSU FB team. You could see the potential, they just needed more experience.
But at times the youth just shines through. Guys are still adjusting to the college game. Unlike high school/AAU where these guys could get away with some bad habits, they just can't do it at the college level. Things like weak 1 handed passes, failing to cover for a guy on help defense, not aggressively going after a rebound, not smartly closing out on a shooter, properly setting and using on ball and off the ball screens. These are all little details that you MUST do right to consistently win in college, can't just do it with talent. Our young guys can do these things for 20-30 minutes a game, but winning big time college teams do it for 40 minutes.
It takes time, this offseason is critical for this team. All the frosh have areas where they need improvement in offseason. Stevens and Watkins need to get in better physical shape to run the floor for 30 mpg. Carr needs to put on some muscle and work on his shot. Garner could work on his first step and quickness. Reaves needs to be a better ballhandler and shooter. More importantly, the group needs to work on team defense, cutting down turnovers and mental errors. Right now they are 5 fingers doing their own thing out there, they become 1 hand and success will follow. Sounds cheesy, but it's true. Connectedness is the popular term being thrown out. I am biased but watch Villanova play, each guy knows exactly what the other 4 are going to do on offense and defense. Comes from all those guys playing together for min. of 2 years.
They are close though, this could be a NCAA tourney team next year with just a bit more seasoning. Kinda reminds me of the 2015 PSU FB team. You could see the potential, they just needed more experience.
Please post a link to where you saw or read that other Big 10 coaches would love to see Penn State cut ties with Chambers. I mean that's obviously not something someone would just make up, so you apparently have an in with the rest of the Big 10 coaches and you know what they think.
Not logical. So timing is more important in a close game. So when a close game ends the first 35 minutes doesn't mean as much as the last 5 minutes. Oh ok. Got it.
Fortunately for me I don't need a link and have a functioning brain.
My guess is the rest of the Big Ten coaches who enjoy their big salaries and are under major pressure to win would prefer if Penn State (viewed as an inexcusable loss by opposing fan bases) couldn't recruit Philadelphia and the DMV and fired the only coach in Penn State history who could do it while those recruits were still underclassmen.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that that Big Ten coaches liked it much better when Dunn and Ed recruited under the radar guys from Wyoming.
It's amazing how many people don't understand this. I'm sure part of the reason that they don't is that hoops announcers constantly get it wrong too. Virtually every game I watch, I hear an announcer talk about how a defender was still moving so it should be considered a block.
There are different ways to look at it. When you look at something like win probability, a basket in the last 2 minutes of a tie game definitely means more than a basket in the opening minute of a game. So I would say that the timing is important in a close game.
It's plenty logical. The closer to the end of a game that an action takes place the more important than action is. If you sink a final buzzer beater for a win, your opponent has no opportunity to respond. If you sink a shot clock beater in the first minute of the game, it's not that big a deal because your opponent has 39 more minutes to respond.
While each of those shots may be worth just two points (or three) on the scoreboard, the true value of any shot is how much it changes the odds of you winning the game. Down 1 point with the ball in your hands with a few seconds to go, you probably have about a 50% chance of winning a game. Make the shot and your probability of a win jumps significantly (50 points if the shot is a true buzzer beater). Same situation in the first minute of the game and it barely moves the needle on your odds of winning.
Actually, there defensive efficiency (ranked #62)is a much better than the offensive efficiency (ranked # 275)...
Ok, what actually constitutes a blocking foul then? Does the offensive player have the right to drive straight at the basket? If not, then why do referees even call blocks. Most offensive players have lowered their shoulders somewhat if they are driving.
Definitely. Last night was the best defensive effort I've seen Penn State play in probably the past decade - and that includes the 36-33 Wisconsin rockfight in the late Dechellis years. It was up there, IMO, with the way Virginia plays.
Defense has been Chambers' calling card since he got here, and it's a big reason why I think the job Chambers has done has been so respected amongst the rest of the B1G coaches. For the past five years we haven't had the talent or depth to win a lot of conference games, but the one thing coaches across the conference have always said is that under Chambers we're a tough team that almost always makes you fight for every point. Now we have the talent to start making them pay on the other end, too.
Yes, they loved it when Ed finished in fourth place two out of his last three years. Much better than the bottom half finishes Chambers almost always has. Come on dude, I doubt the other coaches even pay attention to where Chambers is recruiting. It's not like PSU is striking fear into anyone's heart at this point.
The identity of this program is defense and effort. Obviously we are trying to get more talented without losing that identity.
The freshmen are growing defensively. You don't see as much of the high school defense they played in the nonconference.
When you have to rely on the freshmen as much as we have and you have no choice but to play them, sometimes they don't develop good habits or give the effort that is expected. We don't have a strong senior class or any senior class for that matter to really lead these guys. I know some of the older guys are trying, but it's tough to lead when the freshman is clearly better than you.
That's why Villanova is so good and so consistent. They typically have a strong junior and senior class and they are the best players on the team. It doesn't matter if you were a 4 star recruit, if you don't defend and play hard, you aren't getting minutes.
The key to this program is that our freshmen/Reaves are really strong leaders while being the best players as upperclassmen and we bring in talented 18' and 19' classes who fall in line.
That's why the talk about blowing this up with Chambers is so ridiculous. It's not about this year or next year, it's about these guys dominating the Big Ten as juniors and seniors while our 18' and 19' classes compliment them and develop behind them.
It has to become an assembly line.
Don't think the success our freshmen are having isn't being noticed by the kids we are recruiting.
