Thoughts on team as we head into Big Ten games

Donate To GopherHole
Gophers7633 said:
Middle of the pack isn't gonna be good enough this year. We've gotta finish in the top 6 to have a chance at the tournament. Maybe even top 5. League has been that bad, and the OOC is terrible.
Click to expand...
Middle of the pack in the Big Ten might not get us into the tournament but it would represent a really big improvement over the past 2 years and should probably be enough to justify keeping Johnson around for another year to see if he can build on the improvement.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Middle of the pack in the Big Ten might not get us into the tournament but it would represent a really big improvement over the past 2 years and should probably be enough to justify keeping Johnson around for another year to see if he can build on the improvement.
Click to expand...
This team is going to be at least middle of the pack.

The main reasons are: (1) this team can score at least 70 on most nights; (2) and they can score in that volume by way of loading the floor with at least 3 or 4 players who can shoot; and (3) the other main factors that go into winning are coachable and involve effort.

Why does scoring 70+ matter? Because, if you look at the interquartile range of points that a victorious B1G team scores, the 25th percentile is 70 points. If you try to win scoring, say, 66 points, you are trying to win with a point total that accounts for fewer than 10% of all B1G victories. So you have to score 70.

Why does shooting matter? Because the famous shit about "BALL MOTION!!!" only matters if there are shooters. Remember those teams with Hollins and Hollins and Mbakwe and Coleman and Williams? Here's what would happen on most nights: the opposition would wait a few minutes into the game and see which Hollins was having an off-night shooting. Then they'd put their best defender on the other Hollins, pack the lane with the other four defenders, and the opposing coach would instruct their players: "don't leave the lane or react to any ball motion at all." So the Gophers could move the ball all they wanted. It wouldn't affect the defense and was totally meaningless. Because they knew that three of the Gophers just couldn't shoot at all, and one was having an off-night. ...Now this team? If you just don't follow JOJ past the arc at all because "he's just a junkyard dog" -- well, he'll score 3. If you just don't follow Garcia out past the arc, he'll score 3. If you don't follow Ihnen or Christie out past the arc, they'll score 3. Mitchell, same thing. And so on. So they can create scenarios offensively, wherein ball motion actually affects the defense and creates opportunities. And they will improve on this aspect of the game as the year goes on.

What are the other coachable factors? Rebounding and turnovers. Those are coachable and merely involve effort. So coaching can actually affect the outcome, this year. Nothing could affect the outcome when you can't score 70 and can't shoot. But this year, coaching and game management can actually matter.

Score 70. Win the rebounding battle -- even if just by a little. And break even on turnovers (by moving the ball before it can be dug). Do that and you'll win your share.
 

jovs said:
You are cherry picking a bit, that game was the best performance of a Gopher basketball team in the last two decades.
Click to expand...
I could pick other games from that season and you know it
 




TwistingMyMelon said:
The past is rarely of any help in detecting a significant team turnaround. No one was predicting Northwestern to place second in the conference last season after five straight losing seasons and few, if any, predicted Minnesota would win 24 games in 2017 after winning 8 in 2016.

I don't know yet if Minnesota will have a significant turnaround this season but I do know that I can't look to the past to determine that.
Click to expand...

Nothing is ever 100% predictable but if you use the past as a predictor all things being equal (same coaches, similar player levels, similar schedules...etc.) you can probably guess with a reasonable amount of accuracy what the outcome is likely to be. I mean probability is a thing ;)

The problem is people don't understand how it works. Based on the last two years I could make a pretty informed bet on how the Gophers will finish. Doesn't mean it will always work out that way but more likely than not. Where people get it wrong is that it is possible, however unlikely, that you can flip a coin 100 times and get heads 100 times.

That is why I hate people who think all decisions in sports need to come down to analytics. Not everything is quantifiable. The human element plays in as do other non quantifiable factors. (momentum is a thing that is not mathematically predictable) That is why, even though I think this season is likely to go sideways in January and February, I know that isn't a guarantee and would never bank the mortgage on it. It is why my dad every season of every team he loves thinks "this is the year!". Because even if it likely isn't, that doesn't mean it can't be!
 

kix4kix said:
I could pick other games from that season and you know it
Click to expand...

You could, but that would ignore the other part of what he said where things are different now than they were then. College basketball as a whole doesn't really look like that anymore.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Middle of the pack in the Big Ten might not get us into the tournament but it would represent a really big improvement over the past 2 years and should probably be enough to justify keeping Johnson around for another year to see if he can build on the improvement.
Click to expand...
If they finish middle of the pack in the Big Ten that would be a heckuva turnaround for Ben and he would definitely prove all of us naysayers wrong! I would eat a lot of crow and do so happily!
 

The B1G looks bad enough that this team could win anywhere from 6-13 games and it would not shock me. I think 9-11 sounds about right. For better or worse that probably buys Ben year 4.
 



MNVCGUY said:
Middle of the pack in the Big Ten might not get us into the tournament but it would represent a really big improvement over the past 2 years and should probably be enough to justify keeping Johnson around for another year to see if he can build on the improvement.
Click to expand...

Yes, a big improvement, but if we're middle of the pack(7th-9th), that still might not even be good enough to make the NIT. Overall, big picture, in year 3 with this bad of a B1G (only 4 top 50 NET teams), we really should be in position to safely make the tournament. You put out on the court our 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2021 teams we safely make it based on this version of the B1G. Maybe we will with this team, but getting 8-10 wins in this version of the B1G shouldn't be an end all be all. The B1G will only be tougher with the additions coming in.
 

the Gopher team that played the second half of the Nebraska game could win the next 9 bigten games

the Gopher team that played the first half of the Nebraska game could lose all nine of those games

this uncertainty feels better than last season
 

GopherOhana said:
the Gopher team that played the second half of the Nebraska game could win the next 9 bigten games

the Gopher team that played the first half of the Nebraska game could lose all nine of those games

this uncertainty feels better than last season
Click to expand...
Well said. Hopefully they can figure out how to consistently look like the good version most of the time.
 

howeda7 said:
The B1G looks bad enough that this team could win anywhere from 6-13 games and it would not shock me. I think 9-11 sounds about right. For better or worse that probably buys Ben year 4.
Click to expand...
13 wins would shock me. 9 wins will very much surprise me. 6 wins will be better than I thought at the beginning of the season. Personally, I think the 6-8 range is roadkill for the program because it makes the stay or go decision not a slam dunk. Less is obvious. More shows the leadership has earned more time.
 



Holy Man said:
13 wins would shock me. 9 wins will very much surprise me. 6 wins will be better than I thought at the beginning of the season. Personally, I think the 6-8 range is roadkill for the program because it makes the stay or go decision not a slam dunk. Less is obvious. More shows the leadership has earned more time.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't expect 13. But there's only really two games on the schedule at the moment I give them basically no chance in (say less than 25%) @Purdue and @ Illinois. The only other ranked B1G teams at the moment are Bucky who we only play at home and Northwestern who will be dropping like a rock.

I agree on the 6-8 range being no-man's land. I hope it's 9+. My personal line is 18 regular season wins (which is 9 B1G wins assuming they don't slip up the next two). Get that and you stay. Less than that, you go.
 
Last edited:

Holy Man said:
13 wins would shock me. 9 wins will very much surprise me. 6 wins will be better than I thought at the beginning of the season. Personally, I think the 6-8 range is roadkill for the program because it makes the stay or go decision not a slam dunk. Less is obvious. More shows the leadership has earned more time.
Click to expand...
Even bigger than the win/loss record may be how the team looks during Big Ten season. If it looks like a competent squad that is competitive and playing similar to how they are right now....to me that will be enough to justify keeping Ben around for another year.

If we look outmatched and are not competitive most nights in conference games then it will be time to pull the plug and start over.

Based on early returns I would bet that Johnson is back again next year but a lot can change over the remainder of the season.
 

howeda7 said:
The B1G looks bad enough that this team could win anywhere from 6-13 games and it would not shock me. I think 9-11 sounds about right. For better or worse that probably buys Ben year 4.
Click to expand...
I'll take the under on those 9 wins, but you never know; this team has some guys who can do some things, and the league is down--way down. On that subject, it's hard to get a fix on who these other teams are. Everyone's so up and down; everyone has players that can hurt you; everyone looks like dog poop from time to time. As I've posted before, it's going to come down to who's able to improve and become consistent during the course of the season. Every team has some good players.
 

touchdownvikings said:
This team is going to be at least middle of the pack.

The main reasons are: (1) this team can score at least 70 on most nights; (2) and they can score in that volume by way of loading the floor with at least 3 or 4 players who can shoot; and (3) the other main factors that go into winning are coachable and involve effort.

Why does scoring 70+ matter? Because, if you look at the interquartile range of points that a victorious B1G team scores, the 25th percentile is 70 points. If you try to win scoring, say, 66 points, you are trying to win with a point total that accounts for fewer than 10% of all B1G victories. So you have to score 70.

Why does shooting matter? Because the famous shit about "BALL MOTION!!!" only matters if there are shooters. Remember those teams with Hollins and Hollins and Mbakwe and Coleman and Williams? Here's what would happen on most nights: the opposition would wait a few minutes into the game and see which Hollins was having an off-night shooting. Then they'd put their best defender on the other Hollins, pack the lane with the other four defenders, and the opposing coach would instruct their players: "don't leave the lane or react to any ball motion at all." So the Gophers could move the ball all they wanted. It wouldn't affect the defense and was totally meaningless. Because they knew that three of the Gophers just couldn't shoot at all, and one was having an off-night. ...Now this team? If you just don't follow JOJ past the arc at all because "he's just a junkyard dog" -- well, he'll score 3. If you just don't follow Garcia out past the arc, he'll score 3. If you don't follow Ihnen or Christie out past the arc, they'll score 3. Mitchell, same thing. And so on. So they can create scenarios offensively, wherein ball motion actually affects the defense and creates opportunities. And they will improve on this aspect of the game as the year goes on.

What are the other coachable factors? Rebounding and turnovers. Those are coachable and merely involve effort. So coaching can actually affect the outcome, this year. Nothing could affect the outcome when you can't score 70 and can't shoot. But this year, coaching and game management can actually matter.

Score 70. Win the rebounding battle -- even if just by a little. And break even on turnovers (by moving the ball before it can be dug). Do that and you'll win your share.
Click to expand...
Normally I would challenge the 70 point threshold, but this year the conference appears really down for the most part. You may be right. It is about to get more difficult, so we shall see.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Even bigger than the win/loss record may be how the team looks during Big Ten season. If it looks like a competent squad that is competitive and playing similar to how they are right now....to me that will be enough to justify keeping Ben around for another year.

If we look outmatched and are not competitive most nights in conference games then it will be time to pull the plug and start over.

Based on early returns I would bet that Johnson is back again next year but a lot can change over the remainder of the season.
Click to expand...
To hell with winning. Just look better losing and that is "enough". :rolleyes:
 

Dave H said:
You could, but that would ignore the other part of what he said where things are different now than they were then. College basketball as a whole doesn't really look like that anymore.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point
 

BarnBurner said:
Normally I would challenge the 70 point threshold, but this year the conference appears really down for the most part. You may be right. It is about to get more difficult, so we shall see.
Click to expand...
The 70 point thing is based on several years of data collection that I've done (and published here, from time to time). Each year -- over 3-4 years -- the 25th percentile is basically 70 points on the dot.

Now, this doesn't mean a game can't be won with fewer points. Because 25% are. What it means is this: if you systematically can't score 70, then you have a systematized problem. And defense, ball motion, and so on can't solve it. First score 70+. Then the rest has a chance of mattering.
 

kix4kix said:
I could pick other games from that season and you know it
Click to expand...
That team played some equally horrible basketball. Trevor was consistent but most nights the fanbase would rather have thrown Rodney to the wolves. Williams played to his potential that night and wow was it special but he never got close to that again.
 

Bayfieldgopher said:
This is my biggest concern with this squad. Hawk is a huge liability with this part of our D and Mitchell isn't much better. Now with Carrington sitting Christie will be getting more minutes but we all know he is green.

Ben has to have a couple of zone D's ready or switch things up some way. After watching what Thornton did guys like Buie, Hoggard, etc will have field days.
Click to expand...
This
 

touchdownvikings said:
Now, this doesn't mean a game can't be won with fewer points. Because 25% are. What it means is this: if you systematically can't score 70, then you have a systematized problem.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Last year's team had multiple problems but the biggest one in my view was that they simply couldn't score enough to win very often against better teams (like any team in the top 100 plus). Before the first game, I said that what I was hoping to see against the early season weaker opponents was whether the team could score significantly more than last season against these types of teams.

In the first game of the season, they played a lowly opponent and had a poor second half but they still scored 80 points, something they never did all of last season. In the second game, they played another weak opponent but they scored over 100 points. At that point, I felt that there was reason to believe that this year's team had far more potential to be successful than last year's team.
 


fan of Ray Williams said:
Last year at this time Minnesota was sitting at 160 out of 363 teams in defensive efficiency.
Were 289 in offensive efficiency.
This year sitting at 40 in defensive efficiency.
At 37 in offensive efficiency.
Click to expand...
Good data. Of course, as a malcontent, my first thoughts go to whether the weak schedule contributes to the improvement in efficiency ratings.
 

Holy Man said:
Good data. Of course, as a malcontent, my first thoughts go to whether the weak schedule contributes to the improvement in efficiency ratings.
Click to expand...
Probably
Western Michigan
St Francis NY
DePaul
Central Michigan
California Baptist
Nevada-Las Vegas
Virginia Tech
Purdue
Michigan
Mississippi State
Were the opponents last year
 

fan of Ray Williams said:
Probably
Western Michigan
St Francis NY
DePaul
Central Michigan
California Baptist
Nevada-Las Vegas
Virginia Tech
Purdue
Michigan
Mississippi State
Were the opponents last year
Click to expand...
That’s not exactly murderers row either. Maybe it is for real. A little better than this year, especially with power five and conference games, but not substantially.
 

fan of Ray Williams said:
Last year at this time Minnesota was sitting at 160 out of 363 teams in defensive efficiency.
Were 289 in offensive efficiency.
This year sitting at 40 in defensive efficiency.
At 37 in offensive efficiency.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting your data? Both kenpom and T-rank have both numbers in the 90s. That is better than last year, but …

Also kenpom has the noncon strength of schedule at #362 - dead last. Edit - it was #345 last year.

Color me unconvinced.
 

formerlybis said:
Where are you getting your data? Both kenpom and T-rank have both numbers in the 90s. That is better than last year, but …

Also kenpom has the noncon strength of schedule at #362 - dead last. Edit - it was #345 last year.

Color me unconvinced.
Click to expand...
Ncaa has statistics
 

formerlybis said:
Where are you getting your data? Both kenpom and T-rank have both numbers in the 90s. That is better than last year, but …

Also kenpom has the noncon strength of schedule at #362 - dead last. Edit - it was #345 last year.

Color me unconvinced.
Click to expand...

NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Offensive Efficiency | TeamRankings.com

NCAA Basketball offensive efficiency, by team.
www.teamrankings.com www.teamrankings.com
#33 today in offensive efficiency

NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Defensive Efficiency | TeamRankings.com

NCAA Basketball defensive efficiency, by team.
www.teamrankings.com www.teamrankings.com
#39 today in defensive efficiency

Not attempting to convince you.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom