|
Replies: 22
| visibility 201
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
4
May 22, 2023, 11:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Here's a quick comparison of our losses with Galloway/Tyson versus the players imported to replace them. It's certainly not intended to be an extensive analysis.
1. Our 3-point percentage will drop with both player replacements versus last year.
2. Girard scored at a higher rate per minute than Tyson, but only because he took a lot more shots: 8o more shots in 71 less minutes. How does that affect your offense?
3. Your Rebounds per Minute is down because Girard doesn't rebound as proficiently as Galloway, possibly because he was shooting more.
4. Clark was given superb Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating by College Reference - almost equal to Hunter Tyson (1st Team All-ACC). He also played 562 less minutes than Tyson on the year, highlighting the need to be healthy.
5. Girard's Defensive Rating is abysmal. The Net ORtg over DRtg for Tyson/Galloway is +37.0. The Net Rtg for Girard/Clark is 19.0.
If correct that's 18 less Net points generated per 100 possessions (not per Game) for our incoming players next year.
These guys have talent, but they're going to have to play much better next year to just equal what we got out of Tyson/Galloway last year.
This doesn't "scream" an "improving team", but at least they're numbers and not just BS opinions.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2060]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1348
Joined: 9/25/16
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
1
May 22, 2023, 11:44 PM
|
|
I was concerned about Girard as a defender..but that was just from watching him play…
Thanks for validating that with data..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10787
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
1
May 23, 2023, 7:50 AM
|
|
The norm under Brad has been that his teams are not ready to play early in the season. He drops games to Q3 and Q4 teams in the early season virtually every year. He does this at a pace not consistent with his peers at other Power 5 programs, despite the insistence otherwise by the Brownell Bros. This has been exacerbated by his reliance on portal players. The team hasn’t had an opportunity to gel and it makes them very vulnerable. Then we enter the ACC schedule. Casual basketball fans haven’t really grasped just how far the ACC has fallen. We win a few games and everyone believes Brad ( yet again ) has turned the corner. Of course our RPI and/or NET are still in the toilet but the casuals don’t pay attention to that either. Then we’ll play ourselves into the position of being a possible NCAA tournament team - at least on paper. The Bros really get animated at this point and just can’t believe we won’t “just support the team!” Then, 77% of the time, Brownell will crap the bed. For this, he will soon be closing in on $30 million in career earnings at Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2526
Joined: 11/13/10
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
2
May 23, 2023, 8:09 AM
|
|
Please do not add this type of critical quantitative analysis to the discussion of our men's basketball team. Everyone knows this is Brad's most talented team and the excitement and anticipation to the season is palpable among Tiger nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2916]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3068
Joined: 9/10/04
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
May 23, 2023, 8:22 AM
|
|
The unknown right now is how much of what Tyson and Galloway produced will be taken up by the new transfer big, Wiggins, and Godfrey (rebounding), plus the 3 pt shot from Wiggins, Schieffelin, and D. Hunter. What Girard and Clark aren’t able to produce either becomes opportunity for the others to step up or the team has a noticeable drop off in scoring and rebounding. If Hall returns (and he remains healthy), I expect better rebounding and shooting production from him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10787
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
1
1
May 23, 2023, 12:17 PM
|
|
The known known right now is that Brownell will be coaching the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. Therefore it is easy to know that we’ll crap the bed like we do roughly 80% of the time under Brad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
if I were Wiggins, I'd take the transfer in of Clark
May 23, 2023, 2:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark ] |
|
as signal that you don't need me to "step up", you just need me to "accept" my role. Be there on the end of the bench, just in case circumstances arise that I'm needed, nothing more. Take my 12 mins/game and be happy.
Heck, I don't mind Brownell recruiting in "over" a kid. But if he's going to do that, then be ready to adjust your style and rotations. In other words, after some routine starting 5 gets 5 minutes, then come at it like this:
Wiggins
Clark
D. Hunter
Godfrey
big guy
and play full court pressure for 4-5 minutes. Then switch back to Hall/Scheff/Girard/C. Hunter/wing and play whatever. Work the other team - stress them!
Brownell had the opportunity three years ago to play two sets of athletic 5, and run the heck out the other teams with his depth. He #$%&@*^%$ !! wouldn't do it! He's simply not that creative!
So, Losses off that team were: Omax Prosper, J Baehre, L Kidd, C Trapp, and J Newman. He didn't play kids, so they left. He gave preferential minutes to Hall and Simms and Dawes and Honor and they stayed. He also played Hemenway too much for someone not ready. He stayed. All the non-athletes stayed.
He could have played everyone 20 Mins/Game, in full court press, and run the hades out of the ACC, but he's just too dang stupid for that.
And he loses every athlete to the portal so he can keep the Midget twins. eff me!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3427]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2728
Joined: 7/19/13
|
Apples to oranges
2
May 23, 2023, 8:25 AM
|
|
Girard played 100% of his defense in the 2-3 zone which we rarely run. Not sure the defensive/rebounding numbers are entirely comparable. Because he was a guard at the top of the zone, he was left on an island and away from the basket.
Girard won’t start if his defense is a liability. I think we’ll see great improvement there.
Good analysis but I’m not sure it’s that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10787
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Apples to oranges
May 23, 2023, 12:16 PM
|
|
Our defense efficiently rankings the last two seasons are 84th and 198th. This is multiple NBA combine invitees on the team and Brownell’s post renovations golden age. The idea that he is some kind of defensive guru is pure fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Apples to oranges
May 23, 2023, 1:21 PM
|
|
What? I thought I blocked you and I shouldn't see your posts!?
Funny how you take the last 2 year results and determine he isn't a good defensive coach. When speaking of Brownell and his overall results, it seems that you put more weight on his first few years than you do the last few years. I wonder why?
The 4 seasons before the last 2, our defensive efficiency rankings were 22, 20, 55, 35. Did Brownell forget how to coach defense these last 2 years? Is that what you are insinuating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10787
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Apples to oranges
May 23, 2023, 1:28 PM
|
|
You just can’t quit me huh? You made the big deal out of combine invitees. We’re told the program is improving and not to judge him by the past. Pick a narrative. Should a coach ever be referred to as defense oriented if he’s even capable of fielding a team nearly in the bottom third of all d1 teams? I guess yes if you are a Brownell Bro. But the objective world knows he isn’t a Top 50 coach and he’s no defensive mastermind. He’s just a thoroughly mediocre coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Apples to oranges
May 23, 2023, 1:51 PM
|
|
I didn't make a big deal out of combine invites. I just asked a question to see if anybody had any additional insight.
I have never said "do not judge him by his past" I do think the most recent years should be weighted a lot more. I don't put too much stock in a year like year 2 where the talent leftover from Purnell was bad and he had to start a player like Brian Narcisse.
If looking at the first half of his tenure, and compare to the second half, we have obviously improved. and we should be as good, if not better next year. I fully expect our team to make the NCAA tourney next year. If we don't then Brownell should probably be fired.
Are you saying that 1 or 2 bad years determine the skills of a particular coach? Is Boeheim a terrible coach because his last 2 years were bad? Is Leonard Hamilton a bad coach because his team has gone 26-37 over the last 2 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10787
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Apples to oranges
May 23, 2023, 10:13 PM
|
|
Seriously? You’re just spinning your wheels now.
Most recent years should be weighted more except when I do it or it concerns his defensive efficiency stats. Even when I was replying to someone touting Brownell’s defensive expectations. I have no idea why you are then digressing, again, to talk about Purnell and Brad’s earliest seasons. He sucks right now. That he sucks less than 10 years ago is irrelevant.
How can you even pretend that I’m saying 1-2 bad seasons determine the skills of a particular coach. Brownell, after 13 seasons, fails to make the NCAA tourney 77% of the time. You’re arguing the inverse. That he should be defined by his three decent seasons and given unlimited time. Since there is no precedent for a P5 coach getting a 14th season after accomplishing so little it may as well be unlimited. Boeheim and Hamilton have resumes that destroy Brownell’s. And one of them coaches at a non-traditional basketball school with absolutely every disadvantage you use to excuse Brownell’s dismal performance. Boeheim has struggled because everyone knew his retirement was imminent but Syracuse never forced his hand. Brownell is not even in the same universe as a coach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
This is why I wrote about the 2014 Pitt game - that's fact.
1
May 24, 2023, 1:09 AM
|
|
They can't argue that, and you notice they make no comments beyond the odd idiot or two.
But you simply can't logic with these people anymore. They don't even hear you. They don't even care about reality.
Here's a line from Part 9 that had all the comments about the screw-up at the end of that game: "These sorts of comments only evidence that the culture around Clemson basketball has slipped into some form of personality worship. The culture itself is both morally and physically sick."
That's what this is: sickness. Nothing less.
viztiz®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
yeah, I think you miss the point
May 23, 2023, 2:27 PM
[ in reply to Apples to oranges ] |
|
The point was to in fact show that what was brought in was non-sensical - it was indeed Apples-to-Oranges.
Brownell didn't recruit what he lost. He recruited whatever would come. Girard's not a fit at the rate he shoots. He takes shots from Hall. Clark's a talented player, but what are you going to do with needing to get minutes to Wiggins? That kid has got the length and shot to play after college, but just like Jonathan Baehre, Brownell's not going to get him the appropriate minutes.
Brownell should've kept Middlebrooks, recruited some "big" backup, and then gone after an efficient scorer - which is what he lost in Hunter Tyson. Then he should've looked at 4-year players only.
Brownell's an idiot - he has no plan, can't coach Offense, is mesmerized by the 3, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: yeah, I think you miss the point
May 23, 2023, 3:20 PM
|
|
1. Middlebrooks left because he wanted more PT. He was not going to start over Hall.
2. Brownell did recruit what we lost. He got an efficient scorer in Girard. Tyson was also a big time shooter. We replaced that with Girard. Our team would not be great next year at 3pt shooting when your only real good starting shooter is PJ Hall.
3. Wiggins might need another year to develop. I feel much better about having a starter from an NCAA tourney quality team, than Wiggins as a sophomore. Wiggins should give us quality minutes next year and then start for 2 years at Clemson. He seems to really enjoy Clemson.
4. We are in the middle of the pack in the ACC in 3pt attempts, so I don't think we are "mesmerized" by the 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
after this I'm not responding anymore, but let's show you
May 24, 2023, 1:25 AM
|
|
how limited the thinking is around Clemson BBall with Brownell at the helm.
The party line is that Middlebrooks wanted to "start" and so he couldn't stay.
No; what Ben wanted was starter's minutes - an opportunity to grow his game beyond 10 mpg as the first backup.
But here's the deal: Middlebrooks is limited to being a 5, and will be for the foreseeable future. That doesn't necessarily impose upon Hall's minutes, or at least it shouldn't because PJ's going to have to play as a 4 at the next level if he can get there.
Playing them both at the same time wasn't Brownell's first thought, but it needed to be to keep Middlebrooks. Heck, they played together a bit against Duke this past year, and that lineup was one reason we were as effective as we were against Duke's tall lineup that had Filipowski (7') and Ryan Young (6'10") on the floor at the same time. That indeed was the best game we played all year, and Ben was a key reason.
Brownell is absolutely terrible at using his talent - terrible. He had 10 talented, athletic players on the 2020 team, and he couldn't figure out how to make it work to save his neck. Half of them left after that year.
Stop repeating Brownell's BS - it's truly insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: after this I'm not responding anymore, but let's show you
May 24, 2023, 1:49 AM
|
|
Ok, you start middlebrookes and pj hall. Well guess what? You now put Ian schef in the same exact position as middlebrookes.
I would rather have Ian schef than middlebrookes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
why Schef? so some "athlete" from Louisville can score
1
May 24, 2023, 4:58 AM
|
|
on his sister every time down the court just like last year?
Schef is 6'7", with no vertical, and you've got him playing the 4-spot. That's no different than playing 5'9" Nick Honor at PG.
You can't get away with that in the Div. 1/ACC over the long run, and actually play reasonable defense that will get you to the NCAAT.
* This is the point: you simply "choose" to back Brownell whether what he does works or not.
SCREW THE BROWNELL SYCOPHANTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: why Schef? so some "athlete" from Louisville can score
May 24, 2023, 10:28 AM
|
|
Somebody must not be up with the times/doesn't watch much basketball other than Clemson. Teams are much smaller now. Can you tell me again how playing a 6'7 PF is like playing a 5'9 Nick Honor at PG?
Miami - Their tallest starter was 6'7
UVA - Their PF was 6'7
Duke - Their PF was 6'8. Schef actually guarded their 7 footer and did a great job
Pitt - Their PF was 6'7
NC St - They basically played 4 guards w/ fat boy, but Jack Clark was their second tallest starter
UNC - Pete Nance was 6'10
Syracuse - Had a 6'8 starter
BC - Thier PF was 6'7
VT - Their PF was 6'7
FSU - Their PF was 6'7
BC - Their PF was 6'7
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8560]
TigerPulse: 49%
Posts: 11538
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
1
May 23, 2023, 8:41 AM
|
|
We know nothing until they get in our system and having a defensive rating for a player on a team that plays almost 100% zone is a waste of time. Tyson was one of the most complete players we have had in years and years so it hard to imagine totally replacing him. Let's worry about baseball and softball right now and move to football and soccer in September and then to basketball in November.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
May 23, 2023, 9:15 AM
|
|
Good Stuff.
1. I'm hoping 3pt shooting is a wash. Girard and Tyson are basically a wash and Jack Clark shot a slightly worse percentage than Galloway last year. I hope to see a jump in Jack Clark's 3pt percentage similar to Brevin's last year. Brevin shot only 25% the year before at BC. His % jumped 7 points when he came to Clemson. BB is good at developing his player's shot.
2. Girard needed to take more shots because he didn't have the talent around him last year that Tyson did. Girard won't be expected to do as much for Clemson next year.
3. Brevin averaged 2.4 rebounds per game last year averaged 2.8. From the 2 position they are mostly a wash. I'm hoping Jack Clark and Tyson are wash too. I expect Hall to be a much better rebounder if he has a healthy offseason and season. Jack Clark proved to be a great rebounder at State, and he is more athletic than Tyson
4. I have a ton of NC State friends (unfortunate I know). They were extremely high on Jack Clark all year, and a lot of them said he had the highest ceiling on their team. They were very upset when they lost him. He is productive, efficient, and incredibly athletic.
5. I'm really hoping Girard's defense is better than expected. It's really hard analyze a defender when they play in the zone. I know he played football in high school so hopefully he's a better athlete than he is given credit for.
The data I'm looking at on the Sports Reference site says that JG and JC averaged 47 points per 100 possessions. HT and BG averaged 48.4, so that is basically a wash as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-26]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 864
Joined: 2/16/23
|
Re: Quick comparison: Tyson/Galloway - Girard/Clark
May 23, 2023, 1:56 PM
|
|
The only thing I can for sure promise you is this next team will definitely rebound better. Especially offensively. That’s all. Other than that I’m staying out of basketball arguments 😂
Thanks for the post though. That’s good work
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 201
|
|
|
50
