Apologies to Mark Schmidt

[Vader_Storm]

The #2 and #3 teams should be St Bona and almost everyone. Yep he’s really reaching with these dumb examples.

You dont seem to understand what Im saying so Ill try one last time.

If The Bonnies get into foul trouble, they are going to have major trouble against any team with a pulse. If the Bonnies get into foul trouble against any team in the NCAA Tournament, they are in very serious trouble and most likely will lose. If they get into foul trouble against any Elite team, they have zero chance as in none, its over.

Someone actually said they have a chance of making a final 4. They have zero chance of doing that with zero depth. There is no way that team is going to play 4 straight games in the NCAA Tournament in a row without getting into foul trouble. There is zero percent chance of that happening, just so we are clear. If they played Duke in the NCAA Tournament, half their team would be in foul trouble before the first half is even over.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

His OVER use of ORTG type
stats is ridiculous. As you
said, you might not "know
much about efficiency stats"
but I've read your posts and
you do know what you're
looking at relative to Bball.

Here's the thing. HE doesn't know much about efficiency stats either. He just sees them and regurgitates them. For instance how often do you see him talk about needing guys with a 95-100 offensive rating? He's done it in this very thread. It's like as if he thinks that a 95-100 offensive rating is actually good, when in fact it is not. If we had a team full of guys with an offensive rating that of 95 then we would have a bad offense. If we had a team full of guys with a 100 offensive rating then we'd have an average offense (compared to the whole of the NCAA, not compared to the ACC or the P6). If you want to be a good offense you need guys with offensive ratings much higher than 95-100.

For instance, to randomly pick a team ( ) St. Bonaventure's five starters are currently at 96, 106, 111, 112 and 124. And I don't think that anyone would say that their offense is even close to the best in the country. Gonzaga, on the other hand, almost certainly does have the best offense in the country. Their five starters are 116, 130, 138, 141 and 146.

OK, so it's not fair comparing us to Gonzaga. But how about this. The middle team in the ACC in offensive efficiency right now (and yeah, it's still way too early for this), is Miami. Miami's five starters are currently at 91, 101, 113, 125 and 132. They will come down some, but if you want to be an average ACC offense those are the kind of numbers that you need. The notion that if we can get a whole bunch of guys with a 95-100 offensive rating that will make us anything more than a bad offense, especially compared to ACC teams, is simply wrong.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Here's the thing. HE doesn't know much about efficiency stats either. He just sees them and regurgitates them. For instance how often do you see him talk about needing guys with a 95-100 offensive rating? He's done it in this very thread. It's like as if he thinks that a 95-100 offensive rating is actually good, when in fact it is not. If we had a team full of guys with an offensive rating that of 95 then we would have a bad offense. If we had a team full of guys with a 100 offensive rating then we'd have an average offense (compared to the whole of the NCAA, not compared to the ACC or the P6). If you want to be a good offense you need guys with offensive ratings much higher than 95-100.

For instance, to randomly pick a team ( ) St. Bonaventure's five starters are currently at 96, 106, 111, 112 and 124. And I don't think that anyone would say that their offense is even close to the best in the country. Gonzaga, on the other hand, almost certainly does have the best offense in the country. Their five starters are 116, 130, 138, 141 and 146.

OK, so it's not fair comparing us to Gonzaga. But how about this. The middle team in the ACC in offensive efficiency right now (and yeah, it's still way too early for this), is Miami. Miami's five starters are currently at 91, 101, 113, 125 and 132. They will come down some, but if you want to be an average ACC offense those are the kind of numbers that you need. The notion that if we can get a whole bunch of guys with a 95-100 offensive rating that will make us anything more than a bad offense, especially compared to ACC teams, is simply wrong.

Yes. He’s a fraud. He is the living embodiment of that meme where the house is on fire and the guy says everything is fine.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

A team built like this would never survive in a Power 6 league. What would he do going up against a vintage Louisville Press defense all game long with no depth? What would he do against Huggins trap and on ball pressure defense all game long? How would a team with zero depth be able to handle the athletes of teams like Duke and North Carolina? How would his bigs have the stamina to remain playing 38 minutes per game in a power 6 league going up against real athletes every game running every game? How would a team with zero depth be able to sustain high level defense 38 minutes per game going up against real competition every night? How would a team with zero depth stay out of foul trouble every single game in a real power 6 league?

This is why Mark Schmidt is where he is and has made 3 NCAA Tournament appearances in 20 years. He has a really good starting 5 this year, a sweet 16 starting 5, it is legit. But he has zero depth. None. 1 injury, 1 illness, 1 issue outside of basketball off the court,1 problem with 1 player in this starting 5, and they are going to be in major trouble. 2 injuries to the starting 5, everybody will beat them.

Dude, you don't know if a basketball is round or square.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Here's the thing. HE doesn't know much about efficiency stats either. He just sees them and regurgitates them. For instance how often do you see him talk about needing guys with a 95-100 offensive rating? He's done it in this very thread. It's like as if he thinks that a 95-100 offensive rating is actually good, when in fact it is not. If we had a team full of guys with an offensive rating that of 95 then we would have a bad offense. If we had a team full of guys with a 100 offensive rating then we'd have an average offense (compared to the whole of the NCAA, not compared to the ACC or the P6). If you want to be a good offense you need guys with offensive ratings much higher than 95-100.

For instance, to randomly pick a team ( ) St. Bonaventure's five starters are currently at 96, 106, 111, 112 and 124. And I don't think that anyone would say that their offense is even close to the best in the country. Gonzaga, on the other hand, almost certainly does have the best offense in the country. Their five starters are 116, 130, 138, 141 and 146.

OK, so it's not fair comparing us to Gonzaga. But how about this. The middle team in the ACC in offensive efficiency right now (and yeah, it's still way too early for this), is Miami. Miami's five starters are currently at 91, 101, 113, 125 and 132. They will come down some, but if you want to be an average ACC offense those are the kind of numbers that you need. The notion that if we can get a whole bunch of guys with a 95-100 offensive rating that will make us anything more than a bad offense, especially compared to ACC teams, is simply wrong.

Actually I do.

Because an ORTG of 95+ from a freshmen or sophomore is far different than a junior or senior. It makes a ton of difference because of the year you are in.

Out of every single freshmen that came in the ACC last year including the 25 Top 150 Nationally rated players,

There are currently 13 players total with an ORTG of 95+ as freshmen in the ACC. That's it. 13 out of all of them. It is very hard to have an ORTG that high as a freshmen. Just go back and look at our own players, any of them. Patterson, Nasir Robinson, Wanamaker, go look at them as freshmen. Look at them as sophomores.

Freshmen and Sophomores arent the finished product.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Actually I do.

Because an ORTG of 95+ from a freshmen or sophomore is far different than a junior or senior. It makes a ton of difference because of the year you are in.

Out of every single freshmen that came in the ACC last year including the 25 Top 150 Nationally rated players,

There are currently 13 players total with an ORTG of 95+ as freshmen in the ACC. That's it. 13 out of all of them. It is very hard to have an ORTG that high as a freshmen. Just go back and look at our own players, any of them. Patterson, Nasir Robinson, Wanamaker, go look at them as freshmen. Look at them as sophomores.

Freshmen and Sophomores arent the finished product.

We’re in week 3 of the season. Freshmen who are good won’t be freshmen by February. We stink. Schmitt is a better coach than Capel. End of discussion.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No hate, only love.

The numbers and stats don't lie, they are what they are as every game goes forward. Im not sugar coating any stats for any player or for Capel to put them in a positive or negative spotlight. The players have to improve on the court and sustain it over the course of the season.

And I think the 4 young guys ( Femi, Will, Big John, Nate) are going to be telling in terms of what ultimately happens with Capel. These 4 players are the future backbone and spine of this team. They either get it together and step up and improve or they don't. Its unfair pressure because this is really Johns first season, it certainly is Nates first season, and it should be Jeffress first season because he turned 18 not all that long ago. But the reset button for Capel is over. Its time to improve, now.

W's and L's don't lie. Stats can lie, because you can take them within context to manipulate narratives.

 

[Vader_Storm]

W's and L's don't lie. Stats can lie, because you can take them within context to manipulate narratives.

Why you think Im trying to manipulate the stats is beyond me. I have no reason to.


Here are what ORTG's of our freshmen in the past look like by year and progression through senior years.

Wanamaker ORTG's by year: 80, 102, 107, 114
Patterson ORTG's by year: 84, 102, 116, 111, 113, he played a partial redshirt year
Nasir Robinson: 92, 97, 104, 105
Gary Mcghee: 101, 83, 110, 115
Audiese Toney: 95, 109, 107, 138
Woodall: 82, 95, 106, 110, 115 he played a partial redshirt year
Cam Johnson 100, 110, 121, 120, 128 played a partial redshirt year


I think that is enough examples. A freshmen or sophomore in that 95-100+ ORTG range has shown enough to take it to another level and become a really good player. There are plenty of former players that show you why, look at them above.

That is why I said to get Femi, Will, Big John, and Nate 95-100+ at years end. Its not because 95-100+ is some great number on the big scale. Its because as freshmen and sophomore, it is a strong number to put up in your underclassmen years. That is the reason I said it.

 

[Vader_Storm]

We’re in week 3 of the season. Freshmen who are good won’t be freshmen by February. We stink. Schmitt is a better coach than Capel. End of discussion.

On the big scale my friend.

In the entire ACC Conference, here is where our guys currently rank in ORTG offensive efficiency taking into consideration every single freshmen, redshirt freshmen, and sophomore in the entire ACC conference for actual rotational players in the conference right now. I said actual rotation players, not players that play 2 minutes per game.

John Hugley-18
Nate Santos-19
Will Jeffress-33
Femi Odukale-34


The bottom 2 need to come way up with their efficiency. Last year, Femi finished 13th in the entire ACC for all freshmen, 1 slot below RJ Davis. The top 2 are good right now through 4 games. They need to try and hold their level. The bottom 2 need to come way up.

 

[Drew1208]

I get not liking Vader. I just dont know why u guys are so mean about it.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

On the big scale my friend.

In the entire ACC Conference, here is where our guys currently rank in ORTG offensive efficiency taking into consideration every single freshmen, redshirt freshmen, and sophomore in the entire ACC conference for actual rotational players in the conference right now. I said actual rotation players, not players that play 2 minutes per game.

John Hugley-18
Nate Santos-19
Will Jeffress-33
Femi Odukale-34


The bottom 2 need to come way up with their efficiency. Last year, Femi finished 13th in the entire ACC for all freshmen, 1 slot below RJ Davis. The top 2 are good right now through 4 games. They need to try and hold their level. The bottom 2 need to come way up.

I know you don’t know the way OtRG is calculated, but Femi played backup minutes all year then came in as a basic unknown on scouting reports to take all the minutes, shots and time handling the ball. This is why his regression to his mean was always gonna be STEEP, and we’re probably not there yet. As the #1 option on every scouting report this year, every coach will watch WVU tape and figure out how to neutralize him as much as possible. Sure he may get off some games, but it will be because of volume, not efficiency. It will be exactly like XJ as a I predicted because of the way our offense is run.

 

[Vader_Storm]

I know you don’t know the way OtRG is calculated, but Femi played backup minutes all year then came in as a basic unknown on scouting reports to take all the minutes, shots and time handling the ball. This is why his regression to his mean was always gonna be STEEP, and we’re probably not there yet. As the #1 option on every scouting report this year, every coach will watch WVU tape and figure out how to neutralize him as much as possible. Sure he may get off some games, but it will be because of volume, not efficiency. It will be exactly like XJ as a I predicted because of the way our offense is run.

That's why the games are played and stats are counted. It takes guessing out of the equation. We'll see,

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

I get not liking Vader. I just dont know why u guys are so mean about it.

Correct - I don’t necessarily agree with him, but at least the guy is a Pitt fan.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Vader is Dokish, right?

 

[Drew1208]

Vader is Dokish, right?

I don't think dok likes star wars

 

[Chescat]

Here's the thing. HE doesn't know much about efficiency stats either. He just sees them and regurgitates them. For instance how often do you see him talk about needing guys with a 95-100 offensive rating? He's done it in this very thread. It's like as if he thinks that a 95-100 offensive rating is actually good, when in fact it is not. If we had a team full of guys with an offensive rating that of 95 then we would have a bad offense. If we had a team full of guys with a 100 offensive rating then we'd have an average offense (compared to the whole of the NCAA, not compared to the ACC or the P6). If you want to be a good offense you need guys with offensive ratings much higher than 95-100.

For instance, to randomly pick a team ( ) St. Bonaventure's five starters are currently at 96, 106, 111, 112 and 124. And I don't think that anyone would say that their offense is even close to the best in the country. Gonzaga, on the other hand, almost certainly does have the best offense in the country. Their five starters are 116, 130, 138, 141 and 146.

OK, so it's not fair comparing us to Gonzaga. But how about this. The middle team in the ACC in offensive efficiency right now (and yeah, it's still way too early for this), is Miami. Miami's five starters are currently at 91, 101, 113, 125 and 132. They will come down some, but if you want to be an average ACC offense those are the kind of numbers that you need. The notion that if we can get a whole bunch of guys with a 95-100 offensive rating that will make us anything more than a bad offense, especially compared to ACC teams, is simply wrong.

Absolutely!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Why you think Im trying to manipulate the stats is beyond me. I have no reason to.


Here are what ORTG's of our freshmen in the past look like by year and progression through senior years.

Wanamaker ORTG's by year: 80, 102, 107, 114
Patterson ORTG's by year: 84, 102, 116, 111, 113, he played a partial redshirt year
Nasir Robinson: 92, 97, 104, 105
Gary Mcghee: 101, 83, 110, 115
Audiese Toney: 95, 109, 107, 138
Woodall: 82, 95, 106, 110, 115 he played a partial redshirt year
Cam Johnson 100, 110, 121, 120, 128 played a partial redshirt year


I think that is enough examples. A freshmen or sophomore in that 95-100+ ORTG range has shown enough to take it to another level and become a really good player. There are plenty of former players that show you why, look at them above.

That is why I said to get Femi, Will, Big John, and Nate 95-100+ at years end. Its not because 95-100+ is some great number on the big scale. Its because as freshmen and sophomore, it is a strong number to put up in your underclassmen years. That is the reason I said it.

You put way too much stock on this number.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I get not liking Vader. I just dont know why u guys are so mean about it.

Cause he's an ass. And he is wrong. And he trumps up everything and cannot accept when he is wrong. I remember when Vader promoted John DeGroat as the second coming of Michael Jordan. He wasn't the second coming of Gil Brown.

 

[Drew1208]

Cause he's an ass. And he is wrong. And he trumps up everything and cannot accept when he is wrong. I remember when Vader promoted John DeGroat as the second coming of Michael Jordan. He wasn't the second coming of Gil Brown.

Vader been on this board that long??

 

[Thee Jackie Treehorn]

Vader been on this board that long??

And DeGroat passed through Pitt before Gil Brown. Or did I miss something?

 

[Chescat]

Cause he's an ass. And he is wrong. And he trumps up everything and cannot accept when he is wrong. I remember when Vader promoted John DeGroat as the second coming of Michael Jordan. He wasn't the second coming of Gil Brown.

Whether he's an ass or not,
I don't know. What he does
is push his ORTG's and other
statistics too far. Stats are
important and coaches
utilize them to varying
degrees. He also tends to
OVER hype certain players
before they come to Pitt.
I've mentioned this before,
Drumgoole, Coulibaly, Payton,
are just a few of the many
he's touted supported by
some mistaken use of
stats.

None of these things would
be all that bad if he understood
the difference between an
opinion and a fact. Ask yourself
do you ever see a IMO, or "in
my opinion."

Just my opinion

 

[Drew1208]

Whether he's an ass or not,
I don't know. What he does
is push his ORTG's and other
statistics too far. Stats are
important and coaches
utilize them to varying
degrees. He also tends to
OVER hype certain players
before they come to Pitt.
I've mentioned this before,
Drumgoole, Coulibaly, Payton,
are just a few of the many
he's touted supported by
some mistaken use of
stats.

None of these things would
be all that bad if he understood
the difference between an
opinion and a fact. Ask yourself
do you ever see a IMO, or "in
my opinion,"

To be fair alot of us talk like our opinions are facts.

 

[Chescat]

To be fair alot of us talk like our opinions are facts.

True, but some of us actually
state it's an opinion.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

To be fair alot of us talk like our opinions are facts.

That’s a fair point but some are stronger than others.

But again if you’re gonna be so knowledgeable you gotta do better than telling us it’s a guards game. Then next he comes with the turnover percentage after we watched back to back games with 32 and 17 (I think) turnovers. I mean for goodness sake anyone who watched even a little bit of Pitt this year knows they’ve been horrid (may be an understatement) in taking care of the ball. Plus it was already a major topic of discussion. He says this stuff as if as if he’s unearthing some gem.

I wish him no ill. Some people have mentioned “hate”. I have zero of that. I had the same thought as someone else that maybe he’s young. Hell maybe he’s looking to get into analytics as a career. But he just needs to take it down a notch or 2 sometimes. He can come across as condescending and did a couple times this week.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

That’s a fair point but some are stronger than others.

But again if you’re gonna be so knowledgeable you gotta do better than telling us it’s a guards game. Then next he comes with the turnover percentage after we watched back to back games with 32 and 17 (I think) turnovers. I mean for goodness sake anyone who watched even a little bit of Pitt this year knows they’ve been horrid (may be an understatement) in taking care of the ball. Plus it was already a major topic of discussion. He says this stuff as if as if he’s unearthing some gem.

I wish him no ill. Some people have mentioned “hate”. I have zero of that. I had the same thought as someone else that maybe he’s young. Hell maybe he’s looking to get into analytics as a career. But he just needs to take it down a notch or 2 sometimes. He can come across as condescending and did a couple times this week.

Parsing thru advanced stats to try and tell us the players are good when we eek out wins against bottom feeder low D1’s is enough for me. But then to tell us CBB is a guard’s game like we’re learning about it for the first time and have a blank slate is very odd.

 

[Vader_Storm]

That’s a fair point but some are stronger than others.

But again if you’re gonna be so knowledgeable you gotta do better than telling us it’s a guards game. Then next he comes with the turnover percentage after we watched back to back games with 32 and 17 (I think) turnovers. I mean for goodness sake anyone who watched even a little bit of Pitt this year knows they’ve been horrid (may be an understatement) in taking care of the ball. Plus it was already a major topic of discussion. He says this stuff as if as if he’s unearthing some gem.

I wish him no ill. Some people have mentioned “hate”. I have zero of that. I had the same thought as someone else that maybe he’s young. Hell maybe he’s looking to get into analytics as a career. But he just needs to take it down a notch or 2 sometimes. He can come across as condescending and did a couple times this week.

Here is something more in depth and if someone is going to complain about multiple paragraphs, dont read it.

We have significant (high low set ) problems in the post because Oladapo cant pass well even though he has been one of our best players through 4 games statistically. He has repeatedly turned the ball over on poor passing all season long and he struggles to get the ball to John. Gueye has done next to nothing in 4 games and also cant pass.

We are going to get repeatedly zoned with packed in defenses without 3 point shooters on the floor as opposing teams will dare us to shoot 3's. You need someone effective in the middle of that zone who can dribble drive in the middle against it to the rim or make the pass from the middle inside to John or back out to the perimeter looking for Nate or Femi. The only person who is anywhere close to taking on that role is Jeffress because Jeffress can pass. Jeffress biggest problem is dribble drive from the perimeter and in transition as he turns it over.

There is a lot of reason why I want to try Jeffress at the 4, besides the fact that Jeffress playing the 4 last game the final 5 minutes helped Pitt win the game. Jeffress trying to mimic Nasir Robinson would be a really good thing right now. Jeffress can make that pass to Hugley which Oladapo and Gueye have both failed with.

Oladaopo has been best so far in the dunker role. He is effectively scoring consistently at a high level around the basket. He looks more effective as a center, but his defensive rebound rate is far to low.

John Hugley is most effective within 5 feet of the basket, his shooting percentage within 5 feet is 66% this season which is very very good. We need to get John Hugley the ball inside 5 feet of the basket. John Hugley needs to stop thinking this is the NBA and start playing like Blair, within 5 feet of the basket. We need players that can actually pass Hugley the ball from the 4 position that don't repeatedly turn the basketball over trying to make the pass. John Hugley within 5 feet is by far this teams best offensive weapon.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

Here is something more in depth and if someone is going to complain about multiple paragraphs, dont read it.

We have significant (high low set ) problems in the post because Oladapo cant pass well even though he has been one of our best players through 4 games statistically. He has repeatedly turned the ball over on poor passing all season long and he struggles to get the ball to John. Gueye has done next to nothing in 4 games and also cant pass.

We are going to get repeatedly zoned with packed in defenses without 3 point shooters on the floor as opposing teams will dare us to shoot 3's. You need someone effective in the middle of that zone who can dribble drive in the middle against it to the rim or make the pass from the middle inside to John or back out to the perimeter looking for Nate or Femi. The only person who is anywhere close to taking on that role is Jeffress because Jeffress can pass. Jeffress biggest problem is dribble drive from the perimeter and in transition as he turns it over.

There is a lot of reason why I want to try Jeffress at the 4, besides the fact that Jeffress playing the 4 last game the final 5 minutes helped Pitt win the game. Jeffress trying to mimic Nasir Robinson would be a really good thing right now. Jeffress can make that pass to Hugley which Oladapo and Gueye have both failed with.

Oladaopo has been best so far in the dunker role. He is effectively scoring consistently at a high level around the basket. He looks more effective as a center, but his defensive rebound rate is far to low.

John Hugley is most effective within 5 feet of the basket, his shooting percentage within 5 feet is 66% this season which is very very good. We need to get John Hugley the ball inside 5 feet of the basket. John Hugley needs to stop thinking this is the NBA and start playing like Blair, within 5 feet of the basket. We need players that can actually pass Hugley the ball from the 4 position that don't repeatedly turn the basketball over trying to make the pass. John Hugley within 5 feet is by far this teams best offensive weapon.

Sounds reasonable to me. And this certainly beats the crowd who says put so and so in or just try this because it can’t be any worse.

I’m all for feeding Hugley. I’d like to see him get in better shape as others have said but he’s shown flashes that makes me think he has a good ceiling. He’s made some moves that not all big dudes can make as fluidly as he has.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Sounds reasonable to me. And this certainly beats the crowd who says put so and so in or just try this because it can’t be any worse.

I’m all for feeding Hugley. I’d like to see him get in better shape as others have said but he’s shown flashes that makes me think he has a good ceiling. He’s made some moves that not all bigly dudes can make as fluidly as he has.

What I wrote also applies to Femi. because Femi has been quite effective on the dribble drive into the paint, he has 12 made baskets inside 5 feet through 4 games where a large chunk of his points are coming from. Where Femi failed to start the season off, he never looked to pass when he drove into the paint. Every single time he tried to score when he drove into the lane.

Last game, Femi finally drove into the lane and passed the ball to Collier for a slam. This is part of growing up as a player and Capel actually coaching. If Femi dribble drives to the rim, he needs to be looking for Big John every single time.