State Shows Moxy vs Tigers

General NCS Basketball69

In 2004, N.C. State lost at Clemson while ranked #15 in the country. Today, State entered LittleJohn with an indentical record and found a way to pull away in the second overtime to win at Clemson, 94-85. The Pack has now won 8 of its last 9 games against Clemson, and 4 of the last 5 in Littlejohn Coliseum.

The stat sheet looks a little weird as the Pack shot a very nice 50% from the field despite Cedric Simmons only attempting six field goals (and shooting 2 for 6) in fifty minutes of play. But, going 15-29 (51.7%) from the 3 point line can work wonders.

The win improves Herb Sendek’s record at Death Valley to 5-5 and State improves to 3-3 on the road for the season. Over the last decade, Sendek is now 11-7 against the Tigers’ program, traditionally the worst in the ACC.

Two trends collided today and one had to bite the dust. Clemson entered the game rated #58 in the RPI — a rating against which Herb Sendek teams traditionally do well (compiling a 44-19 overall record against teams finishing #51-#100 prior to this season). At the same time, the Wolfpack has struggled in close games under Sendek. Today, the “good trend” of being able to beat teams non-NCAA Tournament Teams rated #50 to #100 in the RPI thankfully won out.

With the win, the Wolfpack improved to 5-2 in the ACC and claimed sole possession of second place while improving to +2 in the home v road balance of the ACC. State is 16-4 on the season as the team continues to try to produce better results than the 2003-2004 campaign in hopes to generate a signature season for Coach Sendek. That team lost at Clemson.

General NCS Basketball

69 Responses to State Shows Moxy vs Tigers

  1. choppack 01/30/2006 at 8:36 AM #

    O – I’m right w/ you on defense. It really does boggle the mind why we’re struggling so this year. Defense has been the one consistency in the Sendek era.

    I also agree that there were several times when we got it to Ced down low and he had trouble. We went to the high post pick and roll offense and I thought we had mixed results. I do think Clemson is a very solid defensive team – they were allowed to really use their hands. Maybe we aren’t using ours as much this year and that accounts for the “bad D” we’re seeing.

  2. BJD95 01/30/2006 at 9:37 AM #

    What I’m saying, O, is if you have to shoot 50% from 3 in order to win (or even 40%), then you will NOT make an NCAA tournament run. You want the 3s there as an option when the opponent cuts off the low post game and drives to the basket. That also gives you a much better chance to hit a high percentage of 3s than when your offense revolves totally around it.

    A thought I did have was that Sendek forced the team to play more Princeton stuff in this game in order to regain some offensive discipline. Once that’s back in place, perhaps he’ll open things back up. If that’s the case, then it’s a great coaching move.

  3. smile 01/30/2006 at 9:46 AM #

    “Of course, if you have a team that can shoot 50%+ as a team from the 3 point line, then only an idiot would not play to that strength since we would have to shoot 75% from inside the arc to match it.”

    What is the formula here to calulate % equivalency, considering the effective additional possessions?

  4. Mr. O 01/30/2006 at 10:01 AM #

    It isn’t our offense to worry about. Prior to yesterday’s game, we were 2nd in the ACC in scoring in conference games only, 1st in FG%(only team over 50%), 3rd in FT%, 1st in 3 pt% at 44.6%, and 2nd in A/TO ratio.

    Why can’t we make an NCAA run if we have to average between 40% and 50% from the 3 point line when that is in fact already what we average thru 6 ACC games? Obviously, that percentage will go up slightly once yesterday’s numbers are included.

    Amazingly, when I look at our defensive statistics we are still 2nd in the ACC in defensive FG%.

    IMO, the fact that we can shoot better than 50% from the 3 point line is what makes us such a dangerous team (think W. Va last year) to make an NCAA run. I listened to the Clemson post-game show and all the coach talked about was how the strategy was to guard the three. Teams do this for a reason.

    As far as yesterday, the low post game wasn’t working. Ced was 2-6. Cameron was ineffective down there and Ilian made a couple of nice plays.

    I was really impressed with Clemson’s D.

  5. Mr. O 01/30/2006 at 10:03 AM #

    Smile: If take 100 3 pointers and make 50%, then that yields 50 FGs or 150 pts. To score 150 points on 100 2 pointers, then you would have to make 75 fgs or 75%.

  6. Jim 01/30/2006 at 10:22 AM #

    I don’t understand the complaints about winning on the road in the ACC while hitting a high percentage of 3s. I thought that was the idea.

  7. choppack 01/30/2006 at 10:43 AM #

    “What I’m saying, O, is if you have to shoot 50% from 3 in order to win (or even 40%), then you will NOT make an NCAA tournament run. You want the 3s there as an option when the opponent cuts off the low post game and drives to the basket. That also gives you a much better chance to hit a high percentage of 3s than when your offense revolves totally around it.”

    And that’s what we did yesterday. The time we struggled most was down the stretch when we were using Atsur to drive and penetrate and weren’t getting as good looks. We take what the defense gives us. Some days, it’s Ced one-on-one down low against a post defender. Other days, it’s dribble penetration. However, as long as you have 4 guys on the floor who can shoot the 3 as good as anyone in the country not named JJ Redick – the 3 will remain an important part of our arsenal.

    I wouldn’t look at this as a negative. What we have this year and why we’re so tough to defend is a big man that can dominate his defender if left one on one.

    Where we really had trouble yesterday was TOs. We gave the ball away 21 times. In our offense, that’s a lot to absorb. The fact that we found a way to win despite this fact is very encouraging to me.

    IMHO, my biggest worry remains our D. That’s what will keep us from making a run. People forget in the 2004 season – the 2 meltdowns vs. Vandy and UMd – were both fueled by poor defense – not necessarily offensive execution.

  8. BJD95 01/30/2006 at 10:56 AM #

    O – it’s not about averaging 40-50%. It’s about the 1 game out of 3 or 4 (even if you average 44% over those 3 or 4) that you shoot 30%. The team that played Duke and George Washington could still gut out a win, b/c it pushed tempo and attacked the basket. The “full Princeton” look WILL lose, every time.

    You need 4 straight wins to make the Final Four, and 6 straight to cut down the nets. I don’t like an offense that virtually ensures that kind of streak can’t happen.

    And I’m not complaining about the road win – I’m just saying that a plus-50% 3 point performance that earns a double overtime win against an NIT-caliber opponent CANNOT be evidence that a “full Princeton” look is the way for us to go. We have to get Ced through his mini-slump, and get him looks inside. That makes our team very, very hard to defend.

  9. RickJ 01/30/2006 at 10:58 AM #

    The offense for the 83 championship run was fueled almost entirely by an outside shooting attack and there was no 3 point shot.

    I agree with some of the comments regardging defense – this is what needs the most improvement. I really thought we would be a great defensive team but this hasn’t happened. If the defense improves, I believe this will take care of the rebounding (hard to believe but we did out rebound Clemson). Our defense was even worse at this time last year – the improvement we made towards the end of the year on defense is what got us back on track.

    Grant played 14 minutes, had 2 turnovers, 6 rebounds, 7 points (with 4 of 5 from the foul line & one three pointer). This is huge production for a bench player.

    Is Fells career going to mirror Scooter & Cam? He seems to have big time ability.

  10. choppack 01/30/2006 at 10:59 AM #

    BJ – I thought we ran a good bit, but I also thought that Clemson did a good job in transistion and that in the first half we got killed on the boards. If you ain’t getting rebounds and you ain’t getting TO’s – you ain’t gonna run much.

  11. Clarksa 01/30/2006 at 11:08 AM #

    “What I’m saying, O, is if you have to shoot 50% from 3 in order to win (or even 40%), then you will NOT make an NCAA tournament run. ”

    Just some stats on our 3pt shots… For the year, we are shooting 38% from 3pt land and that has resulted in 16 wins and four losses. In our four losses we shot 16.7% (Iowa), 40% (UNC), 18.2% (Duke), and 26.7% (Seton Hall). In our wins, we have shot 50% or better 5 times and 40% or better 3 times, and 30% or better 5 times. We are a good shooting team so it’s not unheard of for us to hit 50% or better on our 3’s.

  12. VaWolf82 01/30/2006 at 11:15 AM #

    The offense for the 83 championship run was fueled almost entirely by an outside shooting attack and there was no 3 point shot.

    – This team is not nearly as good as the 83 team. Even if we assume that your claim is correct (which is far from certain), that fact has absolutely no bearing on this team and this season.

    Look at the only four 1/2 seasons that Lee Fowler can remember: The longest winning streak from Jan through the end of the season was the five-game streak in 2004. That streak included several teams that did not make the NCAAT and it ended with a cold-shooting streak in Death Valley.

    History shows that State will have a poor shooting night every several games. When those nights occur, you need another way to score.

  13. VaWolf82 01/30/2006 at 11:16 AM #

    Don’t start a paragraph with a dash, unless you want it to look as stupid as the one I just posted.

  14. Trout 01/30/2006 at 11:18 AM #

    UVA game Wed night could mark the start of the “last 10 games” period that the NCAA Selection Committee places such high value on.

    If NC State plays 2 or more ACC Tournament games, then the UVA game wont be a part of our “last 10.” If we play only 1, then it will.

  15. Jim 01/30/2006 at 11:23 AM #

    Wins at Clemson (or anywhere on the road in the ACC) have always been precious and hard to come by, even by good and even great State teams of past eras. Yeah we shot well but we also turned it over way more than average, so that sort of balances it out. Clemson also gave Duke a hell of a game and also probably would have beaten them had they hit foul shots worth a damn.

    I think it is possible to pay too much attention to this RPI stuff. You need to mix in some “common sense index.” If we finish #2 in the ACC we will get a great seed notwithstanding a weak RPI or bad record against RPI top 50 teams or whatever. The RPI is a tool, not an end-all.

  16. Clarksa 01/30/2006 at 11:27 AM #

    ^however, with everyone and their brother who is on TV, in the papers, or operates a website screaming that the ACC is “weak,” some people won’t have the “common sense index.”

  17. BJD95 01/30/2006 at 11:32 AM #

    The 1983 team also had Thurl Bailey, a great dual inside/outside threat. It also had a great point guard (Sidney Lowe) that could push tempo when appropriate.

    I know we CAN shoot well from outside. That’s a great complement to pushing tempo and Simmons inside. But it can’t be how we live and die, or we’ll eventually die (as West Virginia did last year, blowing a 20+ point lead against Louisville when they cooled down a bit from beyond the arc).

  18. choppack 01/30/2006 at 11:46 AM #

    I wish I had a graph, but I think that we were perimeter oriented team in ’83. However, and this is key, I think the 83 team was a great rebounding team.

    Does anyone think that the reason we lost the Duke game was because we didn’t hit the 3s? I don’t – I think we lost because of that 2 minute stretch where they scored like 7 unanswered points.

    I was thinking this morning/last night about why we haven’t been able to put together a winning streak vs. solid competition. It may speak to your point – relying too much on the 3. However, as I stated earlier, I still think our greatest problems are defensive. (Even in the Iowa game, they caught fire in the last 2 minutes.) I also believe that if we’re shooting good 3s – our % will be a lot higher.

  19. BJD95 01/30/2006 at 11:47 AM #

    The ACC is definitely weak, but realistically, college basketball OVERALL is having a down year of sorts. There just aren’t that many really strong teams. 2nd in the ACC won’t buy the automatic 1 or 2 seed it usually does, but we are still in line for a 3 or a 4, assuming we close in an “average” manner, given the opponents we’ll face.

    The larger question for me is whether the team will be in position to do real damage in the post-season. I don’t care whether that comes as a 2, 3, 4, or 5 seed. A higher seed just makes that result more likely, but as we found out in 2003-04, guarantees NOTHING.

  20. RickJ 01/30/2006 at 11:51 AM #

    VaWof82 – certainly agree this team is not as good as the 83 one but they were primarily as outside shooting team. Put it this way, Cozell & Lorenzo didn’t average as many points points as Ced is now and we scored one basket in second half of the Houston game from inside of 16 feet (albeit a big one). If we eliminated every comment that has no bearing on this year’s team and season – there wouldn’t be much here.

  21. VaWolf82 01/30/2006 at 11:57 AM #

    What happened in one half of one game can not be extrapolated to cover the entire NCAAT run. I don’t have the numbers and don’t know where to get them….but I suspect that the 83 team was a lot more balanced in inside/outside scoring than you are giving them credit for.

  22. VaWolf82 01/30/2006 at 12:35 PM #

    I think it is possible to pay too much attention to this RPI stuff. You need to mix in some “common sense index.â€? ….The RPI is a tool, not an end-all.

    While you are correct, I think that most people don’t give the RPI enough attention. If you are depending on the “common sense index”, then what that means is that
    (a) State’s season doesn’t look that strong
    (b) You may not like what someone else’s “common sense” decides

    At present, the ACC is rated third by the RPI….which the Committee certainly looks at. Conference finish doesn’t guarantee anything….especially when the overall conference strength is down.

    Check out some of the “Absolute Best Stat Entries” for some correlations done with the RPI:
    “RPI and the Final Four”
    “Bubble Analysis”

  23. Jeff 01/30/2006 at 12:51 PM #

    “I don’t understand the complaints about winning on the road in the ACC while hitting a high percentage of 3s. I thought that was the idea.”

    Best line of the comments.

  24. RickJ 01/30/2006 at 1:16 PM #

    VaWolf82 – They just weren’t. Scoring averages for the 83 team starters were Whit – 17.5, Bailey – 16.7, Lowe – 11.3, Charles – 8.1 & McQueen – 3.5. Gannon averaged 7.2 off the bench as the top sub. With the game on the line on offense in 83, we had three six footers on the floor with Bailey & Charles. Lorenzo gave us a lot inside during some critical stretches of the season & the NCAAT but he was never our first, second or third option to score. Bailey was primarily a perimeter scorer but he did give us some inside scoring.

    I understand that many State fans hate our current offense because of the reliance on 3 point shooting and this is perfectly OK by me but you would have hated the 83 team offense for the same reason. It was an offense built from the outside in.

    There are many ways to win on offense and all systems have their strengths and weaknesses. I just see lots of posters here imploring us to go to a more traditional offense. Didn’t Herb play a pretty traditional offense in his first five years? To sum up my view – not winning enough is our problem, not the dang offense.

  25. Mr. O 01/30/2006 at 1:16 PM #

    #2 in the ACC with 11+ wins is going to get a top 4-5 seed easily. As long as we don’t tank the ACC season, then we are going to be fine heading into March.

    Our biggest problem yesterday offensively was turnovers with 20+. Our rebounding was bad in the 1st half, but the we turned it around in the 2nd.

    I guess I don’t understand the “full Princeton” versus what we ran yesterday. We went inside plenty of times, but either didn’t score, had to pass the ball out of the post, or simply we couldn’t get the ball to the post player. Maybe it was because I was there live that I noticed it so much, but Clemson played really good defense against us except they couldn’t stop our 3 point shooting. The guy guarding Cedric did a a great job on him all day long.

    Maybe it is a bit disappointing that we couldn’t get more in transition and that our post-game was working as well, but IMO that was to Clemson’s credit and not something to be upset about. We found a way to win on the road against a team that played well against us.

    http://theacc.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2005-2006/confonly.html

    Here are our updated ACC stats in conference games only:
    Scoring – 1st
    Scoring Defense – 10th
    Scoring Margin – 2nd
    FT% – 3rd
    FG% – 1st
    FG% Defense – 3rd
    3 pt. % – 1st (46.1% which equates too 69% from inside the arc)
    3 pt. % Defense – 3rd
    Reb Margin – 8th
    Blocked Shots – 3rd
    Assists per game – 4th
    Steals – 8th
    TO/Margin – 8th
    A/TO Ratio – 3rd
    Offensive Rebs – 12th
    Defensive Rebounds – 1st

    Again, criticism of our offense seems misplaced. We are a pretty impressive offensive team if you look at the numbers.

1 2 3

Leave a Reply