All of their good three point shooters have size too - a 6'10 stretch forward shooting 46%, a 6'6 guard shooting 44% and a 6'5 guard shooting 47%. That seems like it has the potential to be a problem.
The Iowa Game, Realistic Expectations & Other Dribbles ...
- Thread starter DT_PITT
- Start date
All of their good three point shooters have size too - a 6'10 stretch forward shooting 46%, a 6'6 guard shooting 44% and a 6'5 guard shooting 47%. That seems like it has the potential to be a problem.
Yeah, you're right. I noticed it when watching them but didn't mention it here
purposely. LOL
I didn't want it to look like it was mission impossible, but their BIGS are not
like anything we've gone up against yet. Good as they are, I like our energy
and our attitude on the floor. Regardless of what happens, I don't think our guys
will back down from them.
No doubt, this game is a probable loss, but it's still inherently winnable. As has been mentioned, both teams have the potential to exploit matchup inefficiencies. I think that the biggest difference is simply that Iowa's strengths as a team are less volatile than ours are. A shooter can have an off night, a bit of a turned ankle can impede penetration, but size is size and Iowa have plenty of skill as well.
That's not what makes you a fool. Continuing to deny what you posted over and over again for a period of close to two years on the other hand...
Then if he really did care, that's even more concerning. This is a coach who then reportedly did care but was so incompetent, that he couldn't get his team to win even one game in conference. And his entire staff was also historically incompetent, if they indeed cared also.
I'm sorry, but when you're paid that kind of money and you say you care about winning but can't coach your team to even one conference win, you're stealing money from the administration and wasting the time of good fans.
Why don't you repost them then , your so OC you should enjoy looking through 6000 post to finding all those thousands of pro Stallings posts .
Try not letting these facts get in your way
His only real recruiting class was Pitts best since Young and Artis ( Dixon yrs ) . Saying that still doesn't mean it was good enough to compete in the ACC and how bad Dixon's recruiting had become . It just shows how difficult it is to recruit at Pitt. Think if JC was still at Duke he wouldn't have signed just about every guy he's targeted and missed at Pitt this year . JC is a thousand times better recruiter than Dixon and Stallings combined and his current freshman class is a testament to how good of a recruiter he is yet he's struggling to get the big man he desperately needs .
Dixon did leave him with a dysfunctional roster .
The man even with his disastrous yrs at Pitt had close to a .600 winning precentage at D1 level for 25 yrs . And made millions of dollars in the process .
He placed more players in the NBA than Dixon with two #1 picks recently .
He signed a great contract ( for him at Pitts expense )
These are all facts not endorsements .
Now be a good little boy ( or do yourself a favor and just go to bed and admit that your just full of shit ) and do your homework and find all my posts that praise his coaching excluding his first win over ND and how he was such a great coach while at Pitt .
Good luck with that .
Last edited:
It's not. Ben Howland recruited well. Jamie Dixon recruited well for a while until a lot of factors (some of which were entirely of his own creation) hindered him. Kevin Stallings didn't recruit well because he was a dried up husk of a mediocre coach and you can't hide that from recruits.
That's a laughable comparison. There's a huge spectrum between a place where it's really difficult to recruit (which does not describe Pitt) and a place that recruits itself (Duke, Kentucky, etc). Pitt is somewhere in between those two extremes. In other words, of course Capel would have an easier time recruiting at Duke, but that says absolutely nothing about Pitt.
In what way is Capel struggling to get a big man? His top two targets are taking their sweet time and he thinks he has enough of a shot to justify waiting on them. That isn't struggling, but it seems like you're only saying that to try and soften just how poorly Stallings recruited. I don't really care, though, I'm not getting sucked into an argument about Kevin Malone's older, dumber brother.
Lol, what on earth is this post?
First off, did you forget the class with Luther and Johnson? Those two alone were better than anything stallings brought in?
Two, I didn’t realize this class was done for Capel. Thanks for the final judgement on it.
Three, nearly a .600 winning percentage is nothing great at a P5 school, especially when your conference record is under .500.
Four, you are basically making the argument that stallings is a poor coach if he recruits so well but constantly had below average results.
Finally, stallings cane in, and took a roster that returned everyone, and took the team from 9-9 in the conference and made the tourney to 4-14 and not even in the NIT.
Why anyone would defend stallings is beyond me, unless that person is related to them.
Like I said, you stop lying and I'll stop pointing out that you're lying.
Even now, you just can't stop yourself from making excuses for the guy.
I am an optimistic fan by default, but I don't think the bubble watch is coming back this year. Sorry.
Next year, though.....
Yep. You are correct except if we are luckyand get Akok in here in January. If that were to happen it could change the dynamic significantly. If his addition added a net team plus of 5 boards and 2 blocks a game that would likely mean 10-12 ACC wins.
If you guys have time, you should slide over to read the free Iowa b-ball board.
We are as cautiously optimistic as you are about our team, considering our last season collapse.
Everything that’s been said on here about Iowa is pretty close.
A nice challenge at this time of year for both (unknown and unproven) teams.
We are as cautiously optimistic as you are about our team, considering our last season collapse.
Everything that’s been said on here about Iowa is pretty close.
A nice challenge at this time of year for both (unknown and unproven) teams.
WHAAAAATTT?? You gotta explain that math.
1. What is the base # of wins if we don't get him?
2. If we do get him, how do your net increases in boards and blocks
get us to 10-12 ACC wins?
I agree. A raw freshman with 0 college experience, even in practice, may add a win or two, if that. If he goes straight to the NBA after 1/2 a year, would be cool seeing Pitt next to his name. That may be his biggest impact.
(1.) Right now, running the most favorable to Pitt Sagarin computer numbers (the recent ratings) gets Pitt a max of about 6 ACC wins.
(2) Basketball math: Assuming each team will hypothetically make 50% of their shots (on average)--then every rebound and block you get should roughly be worth 2 points (1 more possession for you and one less possession for your opponent). Therefore if Akok hypothetically increases our team rebounds per game by 5 and our team blocks by 2 over what our totals would be without him we should be 14 points better overall as a team (on average) scoring an average of about 7 more points per game while allowing about 7 fewer points per game (on average). Doing that would put Pitt statistically into the upper 1/3 of the ACC and probably come close to doubling the currently projected max of 6 ACC wins.
Of course, this is all "pie in the sky" wishful thinking and a WAG on how much having Akok would improve the current team. But IMHO, I suspect a 5-star one-and-done post ought to get you an average of 5 boards and 2 blocks a game more than Chuckwuka and Brown can get you. I would think for an NBA ready guy it would be more than a 1 game improvement given our woeful post situation so I would disagree with Scranton on his guess.
Thanks DC for the explanation. I agree with your comment about a player
of this caliber getting an average of 5 boards more than either Chuka or
Brown, but the two of em combined?...Ok, I'll give you that one. Blocks?
Well, Brown does give us a few, but...I'll give you that one too.
I guess where we disagree is the number of wins difference. I would say
two at best. Some of those losses without Akok are going to be by a wide
margin, and he will surely close the gap...but to the point of a win??
As far as the stats you listed, I'm a little more of "passing the eye test" as
opposed to only relying on stats. The conclusion in the second paragraph
moving us to "the upper 1/3 of the ACC is pure IMO statistical lunacy on the
part of Sagarin's computer numbers. Stats are widely used in basketball,
and are reliably used by all coaches. Usually what you see coaches using
are things like.... shooting %'s, made and missed, shots in the lane/outside
the lane, rebounding differences, FT %'s, tendencies etc, etc, etc.
When I see stats in program's like Saragin's, I always wonder how he or
any staistical analysis could measure intangibles like heart, intensity,
attitude, you know...those things that can't be measured, but somehow
win games. I appreciate the analysis but I'll go with the eye test.
You are seriously, and I do mean seriously, overestimating the effects of one guy on a team's record.
First of all, blocked shots. Brown is not playing enough to be in Pomeroy's listing of blocks leaders, but his block percentage is 10.2. Last year when he was playing a little more his block percentage was 9.3, which was good enough for 34th in the country in shot blocking. I don't know that it's realistic to expect the kind of jump in blocks that you are talking about. And that doesn't even take into account that teams don't rebound all the shots they block, which your numbers imply that they do.
Now rebounding. Chukwuka is currently 350 in offensive rebounding percentage and 438 in defensive rebounding percentage. While Brown isn't on the lists again due to playing time, his offensive rebounding percentage is 45% higher than Chukwuka's and his defensive rebounding percentage is 42% higher. Those guys are averaging a combined 10.3 rebounds per game in a combined 34.8 minutes per game, which is actually pretty good for your center position. You are positing that Akok would come in and get 5 rebounds more per game. 15 rebounds per game would make him far and away the leading rebounder in the country. The last time a player average 15 rebounds per game for a full season was in 1980. That's just not going to happen.
Well, Sagarin's computer's predictions are usually nearly identical to the Vegas opening lines on games so they are pretty good on average.
FWIW, the last time I ran the Sagarin recent games numbers for Pitt's potential game by game ACC results I got the following--
Projected close Wins by +4, +1, +1.4, +1.5, +3 and +0.5
Projected Close Losses by -2, -3, -3 and -3
All the rest (8 more games) losses by 5 points or greater.
If that is anywhere close to correct an Akok type presence in the middle could make a difference of far more than 2 games, IMHO,
He might come close to causing up to 10 ACC wins if his total additional contribution was worth even 5-7 points per game more than the current roster is capable of averaging.
[Note; By total contribution I mean the net added effect in terms of points scored on offensive rebounds plus blocks and intimidation as a rim-protector and defensive rebounder on the defensive side over what this team is capable of without him].
FWIW, the last time I ran the Sagarin recent games numbers for Pitt's potential game by game ACC results I got the following--
Projected close Wins by +4, +1, +1.4, +1.5, +3 and +0.5
Projected Close Losses by -2, -3, -3 and -3
All the rest (8 more games) losses by 5 points or greater.
If that is anywhere close to correct an Akok type presence in the middle could make a difference of far more than 2 games, IMHO,
He might come close to causing up to 10 ACC wins if his total additional contribution was worth even 5-7 points per game more than the current roster is capable of averaging.
[Note; By total contribution I mean the net added effect in terms of points scored on offensive rebounds plus blocks and intimidation as a rim-protector and defensive rebounder on the defensive side over what this team is capable of without him].
Right, I agree that if he were 5-7 points per game better he might get you there. What I am telling you is that it is almost certain that he isn't worth that many points, and probably isn't even close. People seriously overestimate how many "extra points" one guy is worth.
I would agree with you if Akok played any other position other than center. A big long mobile guy in the middle on a team that is seriously weak at that position would make a significant difference dfensively alone. And we are very seriously weak there. If he really is NBA ready he would be a huge upgrade in the middle.
DC, I usually agree with you but I gotta differ on this one.
My difference is largely contained in your last sentence. " If he really is NBA ready..." Few rookie bigs are any place near NBA ready even after their year or so against college competition. I doubt Akok is even truly ACC ready, coming in at mid season after a half year of no actual game action.
It's a fairly bold and possibly ill-considered move for Akok to try to jump directly from prep to the NBA anyway. He's ranked in the top 30 prospects, not the top 10. His performance this season, and even more, at the combines will determine if he has a chance to be drafted. If he is, it's more likely to be on potential than current production.
He has a long way to prove he is NBA ready. I'm not denigrating the kid. His videos look nice. But I'm not hearing anything about a groundswell from NBA scouts slavering over him.
Points have been made regardjng exactly how much improvement Akok would make over the combination of both Chukwuka and Brown. I fully expect he IS better than either. I fully expect both Kene and Terrell's production to drop once they face improved ACC competition every night.
But, I'm far from certain Akok's statistics would be 5 rebounds and 2 blocks better than their combined totals. That's a lot to ask from a high school kid getting tossed directly into the middle of arguably the best college conference.
And, I'm not sure adding Kareem or Shaq in their prime to this team takes this year's team to 10-12 ACC wins. We have a ways to go to reach that level. There are pieces to add and maturation to take place before these guys begin to reach their potential. McGowen and Toney must find consistency with their jumpers. More than one rebounder must be added.
It's a process. Adding a 5-star is exciting. But, one guy for 1 semester isn't a quick fix. Think of the last 3 5-star bigs we signed. Which really helped the program quickly? Or at all?
