Shake Things Up
- Thread starter satnom
- Start date
Shaking things up, just to do it, only works to solve effort problems. Those aren't the problems we have. Our players aren't going to magically get better from not starting.
"Effort problems" might be narrowing the category too far. There is a wider number of mental problems it could in theory help with, like last year where I would say we had maybe shot selection and play discipline issues before making some changes as opposed to "effort" issues.
But regardless, last year we had more viable options to "shake things up" with and I don't think those are the issues we have either. What we have is a talent issue which unfortunately is not possible to solve mid season.
But regardless, last year we had more viable options to "shake things up" with and I don't think those are the issues we have either. What we have is a talent issue which unfortunately is not possible to solve mid season.
The challenge with Hyatt on offense is that he's been a volume shooter and the ball has been sticking with him - there's a good chance he's going to put up a shot when he touches the ball. From the start of January, he's shot more per 40 (15.9 FGA/40) than any player on the team, but has been just 5th in made FG per 40 (5.9 FG/40). He's gotten to the line more per 40 min than anyone but Harper (which is great), but he's missed as many FTs as he's made (and is .600 on the year, worst among players who've attempted at least 10 shots).
Looking at volume shooters over the last 4 combined seasons, Hyatt (14.4 FGA/40, .344 FG%) is only behind Jones (15.7 FGA/40, .347), E. Omoruyi (15.5 FGA/40, .445), and Young (15.2 FGA/40, .445).
His defense has been better than early in the season, which is great and I hope he continues to progress. He's a needed component in the offense... but he forces a lot, and it doesn't feel like he's fully comfortable yet on either side of the ball. Looking forward to bigger things from him going forward though the end of this season into next year.
What was the score at the 1st media TO?
A problem with the last 2 to 3 years????
I am going to need data to back that up. Every team has spurts. They come at all times. The bad run we had was actually not out of the locker room.
Your hypothesis is that we come out of the locker room and underperform. I don't think that is the case.
Other than Minnesota what game did we come out of the locker room slow? In fact if you look at all of our losses often times it is when Pike goes to the bench things fall apart. Every game so fa this year we were fine up until the 1st media TO.
Games this year where there was a significant change in win probability (>=10 percentage points) in the first 5 minutes
at UMass, went from 48% to 63%, we were up 14-5
Michigan, went from 28% to 42%, we were up 14-6
at Maryland, went from 30% to 20%, we were down 13-4
Maryland, went from 38% to 49%, we were down 11-7
Theory doesn't really pan out.
I have. Yes he hustles and dives for loose balls. But he can’t defend other players. Too slow. He didn’t get any quicker recently.
The breeze from the blow-by past Paul is the RAC air conditioning. And when he backs off players easily shoot over him.
Id like him much more at PG so he could distribute but that doesn’t work with Baker’s ISO game and our offense. I’d have Baker at 2 as a shooter and much less of a ball hog.
We have a problem scoring 70 points a game . We are not proposing shaking things up for the sake of it. We are proposing inserting Hyatt or Jones or Mag even into the starting lineup for 5-6 minutes to start both halves ( and maybe more minutes if warranted depending on the game ) with the hope they can give you 10 points a game to supplement either Paul or Caleb’s point total , without a huge reduction in their minutes , and to take the pressure off of Ron and Geo to score 20+ every night . We also have had some incredible slow starts both at home but also on the road , so this might help. No one is saying it is a foolproof solution. We are saying it is a discussion the coaching staff should be having and giving serious consideration. The proof in the losses is damning.
Not fair to make that assessment without looking at when and who he is subbed in for. He is clearly coming in now trying to be instant offense to earn more playing time and he was probably subbed for Ron or one of the guards , although he has played some at the 5 when Cliff was in foul trouble earlier in the year. Coming in for Ron , he better score because that is who he is replacing.
If he is starting with Geo , Ron and Cliff and Caleb, let’s say , he will not hunt his shot every time because there are legitimate other scoring options. But he can drive , he can get to the line and he can hit a 3 without hesitating and all within the normal flow of the offense . If Mag starts then Paul starts instead of Caleb and can do some of the same things , plus plays better defense .
Regarding next year , he will be starting . Not sure we need to wait until next year to see the full body of work , when we desperately need to score 70 to win.
"out of the locker room"= 1st 10 minutes or so of the game. It's a problem and we TEND to start games slowly - especially on the offensive end of things - more often than not. How can you disagree? How many times have we ONLY scored single digits, or very low teens, to start games? Do you honestly not notice this common theme?
@Scarlet Shack @PatrickRU92 @SirScarlet
Penn St, Iowa, both Maryland games, should I go on? Pretty much the entire OOC schedule?
I would just like to see a little more in-game accountability. For example, Caleb is an elite defender but he is the team's worst shooter and unless he hits his first 3-4 shots, he should NEVER take 15 shots like he did last game. (His last 3 in garbage time raised his FG% to whopping 26% for the game). After he literally forced up the first few bricks totally out of the flow of the offense, I would like to have seen him yanked for some time to reflect on the bench. Some of Pike's greatest attributes are also his greatest flaws - loyalty and patience. This year so far he has not been rewarded for those attributes. Sometimes, he's too nice and could use a mean streak.
Last edited:
He hasn't been getting beaten on dribble penetration - guys aren't blowing by him. When he gets beat, it's usually because he helped off his man, because he was running out to cover someone a teammate left open for help defense, or because he got caught up in a screen. His defense has been much better than last year, and I think your impressions of last year are coloring your judgement. His defense was fantastic in the Iowa game, for instance. This Maryland game he was off on both ends of the court - not helped by the Fatts flop that got him in foul trouble, either.
He's functioning as a distributing guard whether it's at the 1 or 3, and a lot of those passes are going back to Geo to shoot. He's got the 3rd highest ast/g in conference play (Baker is #8), and the 6th highest ast/tov ratio (Baker is #1)
You are looking at it from an irrational fan point of view. You point of view is lacking in details and facts. If out of the locker room is the 1st 10 minutes of the game we are now talking about 25% of the game. We are also treating the 1st 5 minutes the same as the 2nd 5 minutes. The 1st 5 minutes normally is the starting 5 and substitutions start early in the 2nd 5 minutes. Looking at our games minutes 6 thru 10 have been more of an issue than 1 thru 5. What this tells me the issue is more in our bench.
No, I'm "looking at it" as somebody who is either at, or watching, every single game and clearly sees the SLOW starts game-in and game-out. Again...do you honestly believe, watching the same games the rest of us do, that we DO NOT start off slowly? If so, God Bless, because most of us are losing our minds watching this team play from the opening tip until they finally get things flowing out there. It's a problem. Period.
What you see doesn't jive with the scores. Maybe you are expecting us to be up 5 after every media timeout. Look at all the box scores. What you are saying isn't happening. You are talking as an irrational fan.
Presumably Pike does not view those guys as net positive compared to the starters which is why they are not starters. If our net efficiency is worse with those guys in than it is with the starters in then playing them more minutes (fatigue issues aside) is not going to help us EVEN IF we end up scoring more points. The formula is points scored - points allowed and both sides are equally important.
If we are talking about playing the bench more because the starters are too tired I think that is a legitimate discussion but I don't think that's what we're talking about here, and if we are going to do that there's no reason it should be at the start of the halves. Just do it in the middle of the half like is normally done with the bench.
What about the other 14 games?
I don't have time to look at this right now, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that in a majority of our games this year -- especially recently -- we are losing at the under 12 timeout, many by a pretty good margin after just 8 minutes.
The other 14 games didn't meet the criteria (>= 10 percentage point swing in win probability in the first 5 minutes). If you want to define alternate criteria (in the same general form) I will go back and look.
From what I can tell (I'm not going to dig through to find out exactly when the under 12 timeout happened in every game but I will look and see what the score was with 12 minutes left in the first half):
| Game | RU (First 8 Minutes) | Opp (First 8 Minutes) | Diff (First 8) | RU | Opp | Diff (Whole Game) | Diff (Except For First 8) |
| Lehigh | 12 | 16 | -4 | 73 | 70 | 3 | 7 |
| Merrimack | 9 | 9 | 0 | 48 | 35 | 13 | 13 |
| NJIT | 14 | 13 | 1 | 75 | 61 | 14 | 13 |
| at DePaul | 13 | 11 | 2 | 70 | 73 | -3 | -5 |
| Lafayette | 13 | 14 | -1 | 51 | 53 | -2 | -1 |
| at Massachusetts | 20 | 9 | 11 | 83 | 85 | -2 | -13 |
| Clemson | 15 | 13 | 2 | 74 | 64 | 10 | 8 |
| at Illinois | 7 | 13 | -6 | 51 | 86 | -35 | -29 |
| Purdue | 15 | 15 | 0 | 70 | 68 | 2 | 2 |
| at Seton Hall | 8 | 12 | -4 | 63 | 77 | -14 | -10 |
| Maine | 18 | 11 | 7 | 80 | 64 | 16 | 9 |
| Central Connecticut | 17 | 6 | 11 | 79 | 48 | 31 | 20 |
| Michigan | 22 | 11 | 11 | 75 | 67 | 8 | -3 |
| Nebraska | 13 | 14 | -1 | 93 | 65 | 28 | 29 |
| at Penn St. | 4 | 12 | -8 | 49 | 66 | -17 | -9 |
| at Maryland | 14 | 14 | 0 | 70 | 59 | 11 | 11 |
| Iowa | 10 | 10 | 0 | 48 | 46 | 2 | 2 |
| at Minnesota | 8 | 17 | -9 | 65 | 68 | -3 | 6 |
| Maryland | 9 | 15 | -6 | 60 | 68 | -8 | -2 |
| Total | 6 | 54 | 48 | ||||
| Per 40 | 1.58 | 2.82 | 3.13 |
There is some support. We have outscored opponents by 1.58pts/40 in the first 8 minutes of games compared to 3.13pts/40 for the rest of the game.
To put this in context, our Adj. EM is +7.15 which is #98 in the country.
For the first 8 minutes, we have been roughly +5.25 (#116)
For the rest of the game, we have been roughly +7.62 (#95)
Rutgers had a 7-4 lead and then went into a scoring drought alllowing Maryland to maintain a double digit lead for most of the game.The game was over after five minutes.Harper mentioned the slow start was one of the reasons for the loss.
Thanks. I suppose my recency bias got me here. The recent PSU, both Maryland games, and Minnesota game have really stood out to me, with Rutgers falling behind by a good margin early on. (The road MD game took us longer to fall behind though)
Huge issue . If they are going to play 30 minutes , they got to find 9-10 ppg each . We are getting 16,11, 11 from Ron, geo and cliff . 38 from those three . If we got 19 from those two ...we would be getting 57 ppg in 150 mpg ...and bench can get us 15 in the other 50 to get us to 72
Those 5-6 ppg we are missing from Caleb and Paul are a huge issue
The biggest thing to me watching this offense is the lack of motion. Motion leads to open shots and less 1:1 or step backs. I like to see the ball in Paul hands, and we need some slashers that can open up the passing lanes. Passing the ball at the top of the key until we get a switch and then driving from 30 1:1 isn't a good offense. I am not sure switching things up will do us any good given the level of talent on the bench, but we do need to find some way to keep everyone invested for 40.
Absolutely correct. Geo does a poor job at PG. i think some of the problem is that Paul drives and passes well around the basket but that eliminates 3 point tries. Instead we force too many threes without enough ball movement
Yeah.. for me the DO SOMETHING thought happens when things go badly early in the game. Several times I have gotten to the point where you think.. man, we really need a timeout... and I watch Pike and he is not thinking that way, despite having 3 TOs available in the first half. Later, sure enough, we hit a few shots and the OTHER COACH calls a timeout to mess with momentum, change matchups, whatever.
To me.. THAT is the first level of DO SOMETHING.. and it could include getting a T from the refs for an obvious FAIL call on their part. There was a chance like that in this last game.. missed foul call.. Maryland gets the board... GET THAT TECHNICAL because you would be in the right and you never know if a ref that swallowed his whistle (or a different one watching a missed call) isn't thinking the same thing..
I'd love to see that kind of DO SOMETHING before embarring your regular starters when they didn't quit on you and when it is not obvious that someone on the bench can provide a spark.
Well, PM is in there to ASSIST others in scoring.. nothing wrong with that.
The previous comment someone made somewhere about Caleb taking 15 shots reminds me of the first games where PM took way too many shots.
We need PM to be in there when Cliff is in there. PM gets him the ball well and he will play better because of that. But, in general.. we have a problem with our go-to scorers not making themselves available to passes in position to shoot. They seem to all want to accept the ball where they will have to dribble to shoot. In our better offensive outings, we see a lot of catch and shoot.. no so in games like Minny and Maryland... not as much, anyway... or not the right people catching and shooting.
I am more sympathetic to this kind of DOING SOMETHING than I am to what is being asked for by the OP, but doesn't the hypothetical in your first paragraph kind of argue against it? If we managed to turn the momentum around enough that the opponent felt the need to call a TO then implies we didn't really need a TO to turn things around in the first place.
I am still skeptical that technicals do much of anything besides gifting the opponent 2 points but I would be more sympathetic to an argument that there is some optimal level of ref working and that the optimal level is close enough to the T line that it would result in occasional (but not intentional) technicals.
No.. that was later in the game.. maybe even 2nd half where we scored 3 baskets in a row.. BAM.. timeout by the other coach and he fixed things. You could check the play by play in a game cast to see where the opponent called timeout. Oh, I'll do it.. too curious.
-The official timeout was at 8-7 with 15:49 left.
-We did not call our first timeout until 12:49.. down 15-7
-The next timeout was an official TO at 10:49 and we were down 22-9. Some time before that official timeout was when I thought we really needed one.. that something had to be done to correct our play.. stop MD momentum.
-Maryland did not call a TO until 3 seconds left in the half leading 38-26. They had all the momentum afterall.
-In the 2nd half, Maryland called its first TO at 8:46 when we had cut the lead down from 16 to 10... 54-44.. scoring 3 baskets in a row. In other words, a 6-0 run was enough for a team still leading by 10 to want to check that momentum and correct things.
You can think.. we need a timeout and then something good happens without it.. and that's enough to suggest the timeout was not needed... but I don't see it that way. In order to justify that I'd have to see good things happen ing for us that maybe did not result in points but felt the momentum was changing and maybe I could wait for the TV timeout.
But you have seen the posts.. and you made them too.. doing a lot of work.. showing bad starts and bad extended starts... that's the kind of thing that timeouts should be used for in the first half.. imho.
How often have you seen announcers say so-and-so needs a timeout and then it gets called... they see a lot of basketball games and can feel when a timeout typically gets called. What I am suggesting is that Pike lets us go past the time where we need a timeout a little too often. Pike is still so much better than anything we have had.. at least recently.. that I am not saying it is a fatal flaw and he needs to go... kinda like GS's penchant for all-out blitzes and man coverage on 3rd and very long... it is just something I think would be better if he changed how he does things.
Last edited:
Per the box score:
1st half
12:49 - Timeout 30 sec (Rutgers)
5:45 - Timeout 30 sec (Rutgers)
0:03 - Timeout 30 sec (Maryland)
2nd half
8:46 - Timeout 30 sec (Maryland)
4:48 - Timeout 30 sec (Rutgers)
3:21 - Timeout 30 sec (Maryland)
1:09 - Timeout (Rutgers)
I really thought that the 12:49 timeout was our second, not our first.... no idea why we didn't call a timeout to stop the bleeding and get a better lineup on the floor. Mulcahy/Harper had been waiting at the scorer's table for several possessions.
1st half
12:49 - Timeout 30 sec (Rutgers)
5:45 - Timeout 30 sec (Rutgers)
0:03 - Timeout 30 sec (Maryland)
2nd half
8:46 - Timeout 30 sec (Maryland)
4:48 - Timeout 30 sec (Rutgers)
3:21 - Timeout 30 sec (Maryland)
1:09 - Timeout (Rutgers)
I really thought that the 12:49 timeout was our second, not our first.... no idea why we didn't call a timeout to stop the bleeding and get a better lineup on the floor. Mulcahy/Harper had been waiting at the scorer's table for several possessions.
Pike needs to have a good mid March thru Mid April and not whiff in the transfer portal again. Getting better at calling timeouts isn't a legitimate problem.
Rutgers problem is that it went possession after offensive possession with a goose egg. Same game where we are groaning that our starting shooting guard took 15 shots. Shots that if taken by any other P6 starting shooting guard would result in us saying the offense is getting us good shots.
Rutgers problem is that it went possession after offensive possession with a goose egg. Same game where we are groaning that our starting shooting guard took 15 shots. Shots that if taken by any other P6 starting shooting guard would result in us saying the offense is getting us good shots.
2 points. The under 16 timeout score was 8-7. Pike ‘s first timeout was at 12:49 and we were down 15-7 and he tried to break the momentum. Geo missed 2 threes and Paul missed threes and Caleb missed a jumper during that stretch.
The next timeout is the official one at 10:09 and the score was 22-9 and Cliff was fouled. During that stretch Caleb made a layup, missed 2 shots and Hyatt missed one and Ayala hit a three and they got 2 other layups off rebounds. Cliff makes 1-2 to make it 22-10.
The next stretch , Fatts misses and we get 2 steals from Paul and Caleb and convert neither. Mag gets an offensive rebound and turns it over and Cliff missed a layup and Green hits a 3 and Paul turns it over and then the next media timeout is at 7:50 and Maryland ‘s 22-9 lead was 25 -10 . They only scored 3 points between timeouts.
The next stretch Ayala missed a layup , Reese got the board and Ayala is fouled and missed 2 foul shots. Geo is fouled and hits 2 . Geo fouls Fatts and he hits 2 and Paul misses a 3 and their big guy gets a layup and Pike calls his second of his 4 total timeouts at 5:45 left with the score
29-12.
The next stretch Geo hits a 3 , Ayala misses and Geo missed and Ayala got the rebound at 4:46 and Fatts hits the 3 in transition at 4:43 . Dean then gets blocked by Wahab and Ayala again hits Fatts 3 seconds later for another 3 at 4 minutes left and Geo hits another 3 and Paul fouls to the next TV timeout at 3:27 . Score is 35-18
Finally we closed the half on a 8-3 run with Geo and Caleb hitting 3’s and Ron with a dunk and Ron missed 2 threes during that stretch and Fatts hit a step back 3 , so Caleb’s 3 ended the half down 38-26.
Based upon Play by play Pike used 2 of his 4 timeouts to break momentum and was screaming at the team at the 3:27 TV timeout after the 2 Fatts’threes in transition within 3 seconds of a rebound. If he used another at 4:43 after Fatts first 3 that would have left him with 1 timeout for the remainder of the game. This part of criticism against Pike is unwarranted. Those 2 transition 3 ‘s to allow Maryland to go up 20 from 15 at the prior timeout was the killer but he already used 2 and the TV timeout came at 3:27 .
The second issue was the lineup which is a different issue but getting Miller to commit a foul to get the subs in makes a lot more sense and should have been used since we did not have foul trouble nor were we in the bonus. However , Ron missed 2 threes and Geo and Paul missed 2 threes during the above stretches. It wasn’t just the subs.
When he calls an expected timeout for reasons of momentum it is something easy to ignore.. it was expected.
But the complaint is that he should have taken action like that earlier.. and that this is not the first game where he let things slide a bit too long.. again.. that's an opinion. I'm not a coach.. he is. But people who have seen a lot of ball expect to see certain moves at certain times.. and when they don't happen.. and things go south.. questions get raised. It is part of the job.