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. Sammy Kent 01/30/2006 at 1:30 PM #

    Quote: Simmons got the ball in the post often. quote.

    No he did not. He attempted only six shots the entire game. Akingbala is a good player, but he’s not as good as SheWill, and he’s not why Ced was so ineffective. It’s like they say about MJ: the only person that ever held him under 20 ppg was Dean. The man that kept Cedric Simmons out of the low post was Herb.

    Quote: 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. quote.

    ONLY if we have a strong low post presence that the defense has to respect. It is that singular necessary factor that 1. generates more uncontested threes AND 2. gives you a balanced scoring option that you can even make your primary mode of attack if the threes aren’t dropping.

    Quote: 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. quote.

    What BJD95 said.

  2. Mr. O 01/30/2006 at 1:39 PM #

    Cedric also went to the line 10 times, had 3 assists and 2 Tos. He got opportunities, but he wasn’t getting many good lucks (ex. he was 2 of 6 on the opportunities he did get).

    Of course, I would point to the Duke game as a game where Ced got lots of opportunities and we lost. How many 3 pointers did we get take that game? 10. We were 2-10 in that game.

    For the record, we shot 46% from inside the arc yesterday and 51.7 from three. That equates to 77.55% from inside the arc. Again, it is clear that we need to be shooting a lot of 3 pointers because we are clearly more efficient when doing so. It makes sense with the makeup of this team.

    33.3% from the 3 point line equates to 50% shooting.

  3. SaccoV 01/30/2006 at 1:44 PM #

    Overall, it was a good win from a tough opponent on the road. Clemson should be an NCAA Tournament team but they won’t get the wins down the stretch to make a huge impression with the committee. Observations:

    1) Cedric has cooled off considerably from his Duke game. Although Clemson provided good defensive big men, he really should have had more success. Note: I’m fully aware of the turnovers and other shortcomings from the offense that impeded his overall output.

    2) Grant came through in the clutch despite at least three horrible plays during the game. I think Gavin is still in the terrible position of having no position. Whether he’s actually a guard or a forward, neither one seems to be working well right now. A perfect example of Gavin’s day was him catching a pass over the ten-second line, only to wait for the double-team to come to him which almost led to another turnover. Until he has a more structured role in the offense, he will cause problems.

    3) Rebounding, rebounding, rebounding. With some size available now, there is no reason to give up 12 (there could be more) offensive rebounds to ANY club. The only reason this game was close was because Clemson had two huge possessions with multiple offensive rebounds, both leading to baskets in the second half. State’s defense was good, but the rebounding wasn’t nearly as strong.

    4) Costner’s red warmup was a pleasing sight, along with minutes from McCauley and Fells. I’ve been waiting for some PT for the freshmen and hopefully Costner will get his share once he’s well enough to practice consistently.

    5) Cam is now a target for the T. Trust me, no Duke or Carolina player will be T’d up in an ACC game for the same thing. After that T, Cam almost got T’d again for a call along the sideline. Now that he knows he’s a target for “hanging on the rim,” he needs to be careful not to antagonize the already easily antagonized referees in the conference who by the way are the worst officials I have seen.

  4. class of '74 01/30/2006 at 2:07 PM #

    What the Clemson game showed me was we are highly susceptible to teams with speed. Clemson’s guards literally almost stole this game. And if Herb doesn’t play McCauley and Fells more he will regret it. Our guys looked like they were tired in several spots in the 2nd half which may have led to the abundance of tornovers.

  5. Sammy Kent 01/30/2006 at 2:09 PM #

    Quote: 33.3% from the 3 point line equates to 50% shooting. quote.

    No it doesn’t. We’ve gone over this ad nauseum. Same number of points, yes. But more shots missed, more defensive rebounds. ANY POSSESSION THAT YOU FAIL TO SCORE IN IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS A TURNOVER. 33.3% from the arc equates to 50% shooting inside the arc AND about a third to a half again as many turnovers. Dynamic equilibrium isn’t reached until somewhere between 40% and 45% three-point shooting.

  6. choppack 01/30/2006 at 2:15 PM #

    “Our guys looked like they were tired in several spots in the 2nd half which may have led to the abundance of tornovers.”

    Yea, but I think we caught our second wind in the second OT. We didn’t play like a tired team that second OT.

    Is it me or does McCauley have a great points per minute average in ACC play. He seems to play 2 minutes every game and end up w/ a basket.

  7. BJD95 01/30/2006 at 2:21 PM #

    O – we lost the Duke game because it was AT DUKE. Not b/c we didn’t shoot enough 3s (although the bad percentage contributed). That game would have come down to the last possession if not for the fluke 6-point play. Yet our offensive gameplan allowed us to almost win IN CAMERON despite shooting 20% from 3. That means that, on a neutral court, we would have had a damned good chance against anyone in the country. Even shooting 20% from long range.

    Sunday’s offensive gameplan would have required more than 50% from 3 to win – even against Clemson.

    I’m not saying Sunday was a bad win – not at all. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be foolish and take the wrong lesson. That wrong lesson would be thus: We shot an assload of 3s against Clemson and won. We shot only 10 against Duke and lost. Therefore, we need to make sure we shoot more 3s. I hope that the logical disconnect is apparent to everyone.

    I’m not saying not to shoot 3s – just to shoot BETTER 3s. And not to live and die by the 3. Use a varied offensive look, which will make us harder to defend, more capable of long winning streaks, and thus shoot a better overall percentage from 3. We have been more varied on offense this year than in the past 2 – is it really coincidence that our 3-point percentage has been higher?

    Driving the lane and lowpost offense generally has other benefits not captured in the simplistic “50% from 3 is 75% from 2” formula. You get your opponent in foul trouble. You can score on tip-ins. You get to the free throw line (and free throw shooting is perhaps our team’s greatest strength). You provide fewer opportunities for the other team to get out in transition.

  8. Zahadum 01/30/2006 at 2:28 PM #

    Various thoughts:

    1) Not that I expected any differently, but Bobby Cremins continues to be the worst announcer in all of college ball. Jeez, does the guy have any pride? Does he really need the money that badly?

    2) If Tony Bethel played the last 30 minutes of a game the same as he plays the first 10, he’d be an all-American.

    3) I’m not sure what purpose Engin Atsur’s left hand serves, but its sure not shooting or dribbling.

    4) Along that line, if its crunch time and you need a basket badly, having Atsur drive to his left 3 times in a row is probably not a real bright idea.

    5) The brightest spot in this game to me was what I saw from Etimov. I have felt all season long that he was having trouble making the transition from being matched up against much bigger but slower guys to going against guys his own size but also just as quick. But this game I just had a sense that he’s starting to get a feel for it. And given how his play tends to improve anyway as the season goes on, that’s a pretty positive sign.

  9. WTNY 01/30/2006 at 2:28 PM #

    “Costner’s red warmup was a pleasing sight, along with minutes from McCauley and Fells. I’ve been waiting for some PT for the freshmen and hopefully Costner will get his share once he’s well enough to practice consistently.”

    What is the status on Costner and a medical redshirt?

  10. choppack 01/30/2006 at 3:20 PM #

    “Sunday’s offensive gameplan would have required more than 50% from 3 to win – even against Clemson.”

    Let’s not forget about the 21 TO’s. IMHO, that was the main reason this we didn’t blow out Clemson. I don’t think anyone would have walked away concerned if we beat Clemson by 10 points in regulation w/ that kind of shooting % from the 3 point line.

    One thing to remember about those TO’s – I only saw a couple that were a result of Ced being thieved from outside of the post area.

  11. Mr. O 01/30/2006 at 4:12 PM #

    Equating 3 pt. percentage to 2 pt. percentage does make sense.

    If NC State has 100 possessions, then our opponent is going to also have 100 possessions no matter whether ours end with a TO, made shot or missed shot. You may give up some more fast breaks and what not off of missed shots and turnovers, but 46% from the 3 point line is well above any equilibrium point. Simply based on percentages, shooting a lot of quality three pointers makes a lot of sense for the makeup of our team.

    Do you guys realize how heartbreaking it is playing us when we shoot like that? Every time somebody got an open look yesterday from behind the arc the entire coliseum would moan because they knew what was about to happen.

    Or maybe we should look at this a different way. Maybe we finally have a team that can win by either making threes, driving and going inside to the post?

    Maybe that is what makes this team so much better than in years past?

  12. BJD95 01/30/2006 at 4:15 PM #

    ^ Yes, but with a caveat. That’s why this team HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE BETTER than in year’s past. We haven’t accomplished anything yet – just shown signs of life.

  13. Rick 01/30/2006 at 4:17 PM #

    “We haven’t accomplished anything yet – just shown signs of life.”
    Alas for some this is enough.

  14. class of '74 01/30/2006 at 4:22 PM #

    ^That’s a good point. No banners for where you stand on 1/30/06.

  15. Clarksa 01/30/2006 at 4:27 PM #

    Just a thought on big Ced…since he “volunteered” to sit the bench for the first few minutes after being late for breakfast, he may have had a more difficult time adjusting to the flow of the game…he never really looked comfortable but still managed 12pts and 10 boards.

  16. Mike 01/30/2006 at 4:43 PM #

    While this may not be the place to argue, O has a point. A team only gets so many possessions and so many shots. At the end, whoever has more points wins. Points per shot, points per possession, whatever you want to call it, does not matter. Bad 3’s dont help, but if you score 75 points on 50 shots (making 25 of 50), then we will call this a simulated 75%.

    Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say. A W is a W and counts as a W, regardless of where shots are made.

    Speaking of stats, one I hate is points off tunrovers. The announcers (and Bobby Cremins is one of the nicest, most genuine people you will ever meet, had dealings with him when I was in school and invovled wiht media, but he is AWFUL as color man) spout this stat all the time. Points off tunrovers is a valid stat when a steal accounts for a fastbreak layup the other way. When a team turns it over on a pass out of bounds, traveling, or something like that, it is just another possession in half court for the other team. This is no different than a missed shot. So all you stat hounds, how many points off TO’s did Clemson get? Seems like they were stripping us all day long, getting many easy points off those strips. Those are the ones that hurt.

  17. choppack 01/30/2006 at 4:58 PM #

    I think they got 23 or 25 points off our TOs if memory serves correct from the post game. OTOH, we got 16 off their 11 or something.

  18. Mr. O 01/30/2006 at 5:00 PM #

    I don’t know any Pack fan who would be happy with the season if we tanked from here. The success of this season will ultimately be determined in March, so that is why you never see me making a big deal out of any single game win or lose.

    What is pretty amazing to me about our 46% shooting from the three point line is that we have played 4 of our 7 games on the road( at UNC, at Duke, at BC and at Clemson.) It will be interesting to see if we can continue to shoot in the 45% range the rest of the year.

  19. JeremyHyatt 01/30/2006 at 5:24 PM #

    I was of the mindset the redshirt was almost a done deal, at least the common sense of that choice implies. His minutes would be sparse anyway in the current rotation and most of the season is done. However if we feel we could use him down the stretch and in the tournment games, or if someone gets hurt (god forbid), he would step and forgo that extra year of eligibility, IF IT REALLY COUNTED.

1 2 3

Leave a Reply