Turnovers
- Thread starter longtimecoug
- Start date
They need to park their butts on the bench.
Except there is no bench available to replace them.
Sadly, the injuries have also resulted in no cause/effect for giving it to the other team repeatedly.
nope.
all coaching.
coach didn't instruct to not give the other team the ball enough.
You are high out of your mind if you think this team is poorly coached.
There's a careful balance of letting guys play to be comfortable and not overdoing the structure... but then there is also a "hey dumb ass, don't do that".
Overall, it's better to let the guys play (especially as juniors and seniors), but being so thin on numbers and missing key pieces really hurts.
Especially when you go against teams that are just better.
And honestly, I don't think the team is poorly coached at all. However... on the list of dumb... When there is around 2 seconds left on the clock, a play will be run to get a shot off. When we can only lose on a 3, you don't continously guard the man out of bounds. He can't pass and get back in position with enough time to shoot it. It's like 1 in 1000 chance they are going back to him.
It's about 75% probable it's going to the guy who's been hot. Doesn't mean he's the first option, but he will be AN OPTION.
We were dumb to spaz jump on defense against the man out of bounds with the ball. We basically guarded a guy who was almost impossible to shoot it in time.
Overall, it's better to let the guys play (especially as juniors and seniors), but being so thin on numbers and missing key pieces really hurts.
Especially when you go against teams that are just better.
And honestly, I don't think the team is poorly coached at all. However... on the list of dumb... When there is around 2 seconds left on the clock, a play will be run to get a shot off. When we can only lose on a 3, you don't continously guard the man out of bounds. He can't pass and get back in position with enough time to shoot it. It's like 1 in 1000 chance they are going back to him.
It's about 75% probable it's going to the guy who's been hot. Doesn't mean he's the first option, but he will be AN OPTION.
We were dumb to spaz jump on defense against the man out of bounds with the ball. We basically guarded a guy who was almost impossible to shoot it in time.
Sorry, I disagree. When you are ranked 338th in TO's that is 100% coaching. When that ranking is on an experienced team the core of which has never valued the ball that is coaching.
Good offensive coaching, very poor defensive coaching as you point out. Free throw's blah. Here is a link to at least a free service.
Good offensive coaching, very poor defensive coaching as you point out. Free throw's blah. Here is a link to at least a free service.
T-Page for Washington St. - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
barttorvik.com
Sorry, I disagree. When you are ranked 338th in TO's that is 100% coaching. When that ranking is on an experienced team the core of which has never valued the ball that is coaching.
Good offensive coaching, very poor defensive coaching as you point out. Free throw's blah. Here is a link to at least a free service.
T-Page for Washington St. - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.barttorvik.com
What your not seeing, getting:
1. Yes turnovers were, are a part of why WSU lost to Pacific, Gonzaga.
2. Pacific shoots about 39% from the floor, from inside the 3 point arc, and shouts about 23% from 3 point range(worst shooting team in the entire country out of 1000 colleges.)
Pacific shot 60% from inside the arc, and about 43% from 3 point range, despite just barely ok, decent defense.
WSU lost to Pacific because of A. Turnovers. B. Pacific getting extremely butlucky shooting. C. WSU missing foul shots. D. Pacific hitting foul shots. E. WSU blowing it, coughing it, snatching defeat from the Jaws of Victory. F. because of injuries, lack of depth.
3. WSU has had 4 key injuries, most of them Guards, to where Nate Calmese is the only good, competent PG, SG. Gerrit plays ok, tries hard, doesn't turn over ball, but he is slow on lateral defense, gets beat off of dribble, doesn't create own shot, score, does not shoot well, and tho not a bad passer, does not dish out a lot of assist. But at least he is a ok ball handler that usually does not turn ball over.
Wynott, and Tharstonsen, whatever his name is, are 6-5.5, 6-6, 6-7, semi Lodwick types that are slower laterally on perimeter, that get beat off dribble, blowed by, driven on, etc, and are not good ball handlers, are not good 2 guards, SG, and are more 3's, that forced to back up LeJuan Watts at the 2 guard, SG spot. At least they can shoot, but them playing as back up 2's, SG's, is leading to LOT's of turnovers thru lack of good ball handling and bad passes due to inexperience as freshman.
Le Juan Watts is 6-5.5, 6-6, 6-6.5, and handles the ball just barely ok, and passes just barely ok, and has good athleticism, lateral quickness, good defense, does not get beat off of dribble, drives ok, shoots ok, scores well, but he is a 3, instead of a 2 guard, SG, and he can't stay in whole entire game and is replaced by Gerrits, Wynott, Tharstensen, etc.
So there is a BIG, HUGE, GIANT, BAD HOLE at the 2 guard, SG spot, next to Nate at the PG spot, because Isiah Watts, Wilson got injured, and because Cedric got injured.
And that and foul trouble, etc, is what's helping to cause the lots of turnovers.
The other thing is that I am sure Riley and staff is hammering the team nonstop about not turning the ball over, and also would bench players guilty of lots of turnovers, except that he can't afford to do that because the team often only has 6,7,8,9 players available, and if he benches certain players guilty of lots of turnovers, the defense will suck, and offense will suck, and the scoring will go down, in a darned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Another factor to consider is that all but 2 of the players on team have never ever played together before this season. It takes time in such a situation to learn how to play together, how to Jell, develop chemistry, how to pass well to each other, how to avoid turnovers, etc.
I said earlier that the team would beat team they probably should not beat, as that's how good, awesome players they are, and that the team would have the rare, uncommon, occasional BURP, HICCUP, FART, etc, against weaker teams, and lose to teams they should not lose too.
And the injuries has certainly made that even worse having to have to play Gerrit, Wynott, Tharstensen, the 2 freshman, etc, because of the lots of injuries to the 1,2,3 PG, SG, SF/Guard/3/wing spots, etc.
Because of all that, it's not likely bad coaching.
If it was bad coaching, WSU would not be 13-5 now.
WSU will probably probably finish 2,3,4 in conference and either bubble out of NCAA tournament into NIT final 2 to final 4, or will bubble into NCAA tournament as a 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th seed.
That's not bad coaching considering the circumstances, injuries, etc.
Similar threads
