Gators come to town

09-10 Basketball111

The Florida Gators come to town for an ‘inflexion’ in the Wolpack’s 2009-2010 season.

To this point in the season, the NC State has tracked slightly ahead of expectations. Today’s game will be particularly significant to the Wolfpack’s season because of the ‘Florida’ name and the major conference in which the Gators play. If Coach Lowe’s Wolfpack is fortunate enough to be discussed for any postseason tournaments when we get to March, today’s game will truly be one of the swing games on our schedule.

Ignoring Florida for a moment, the Pack could effectively hold a 12-3 record before launching into the main part of the ACC schedule with a ‘must win’ when we host very beatable Virginia next Saturday, Jan 9th at noon. If one were to presume wins over Holy Cross on (Jan 6) and North Carolina Central (Jan 30th) then today’s game makes the difference between a solid 13-3 record or a respectable 12-4 that would require six conference wins to get to 18 wins. At the end of the year, 18 wins could be enough to earn an NIT berth; and non-conference wins over both Marquette and Florida could be differentiating factors for the Wolfpack.

This is the type of game that deserves a deeper look at the opponent. There is no reason for us add to all of the hard work already provided here by Backing the Pack.

Between opponents’ low 3FG% and low 3FGA/FGA ratio, Florida’s perimeter D is looking positively Duke-esque. They’ve turned around their interior defense as well. And they’re forcing lots of turnovers while avoiding fouls, which is the defensive ideal everyone should strive for. I wonder about that TO%, though. Their steal and block rates are right in line with last year’s, so the higher TO% could be a function of a slate of crappy, mistake-prone foes. But that’s pure conjecture; obviously, there’s much more to a team’s defensive impact than block and steal rates.

I have a hard time believing their FG% defense is that much better, and if we manage to not throw the ball away willy-nilly, second chance opportunities should be available.

The Pomeroy Predictor says flip a coin.

If we’re flipping a coin in the matter then one can only hope that the home court advantage can make the difference today.

Go Pack!

Post-Script: For some additional fun, please click here to see comments before last season’s match-up with the Gators that focused a lot on former Wolfpack recruit, Dan Werner. Backing the Pack penned the following blurb today:

If I recall correctly, Werner was much more highly regarded than Dennis Horner coming out of high school, but Horner’s going to have the better college career when all is said and done. Not to sell Werner short–he’s been a reliable role player throughout his career. He’s just never been able to take the next step, and he’s shooting a modest 31.9% from beyond the arc in 3+ seasons, which feels disappointing in retrospect.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

09-10 Basketball

111 Responses to Gators come to town

  1. choppack1 01/05/2010 at 1:15 PM #

    And pack03 – this is where you and I differ.

    Apparently, you either don’t think the fouling strategy began at the 10 seconds mark…or you don’t care.

    I see the foul at the 8 second mark as the beginning of the chain of events that took us from a more aggressive position where we making our opponent earn a tie to a position where we put more pressure on our team.

    And I see it this way because of the following – w/ those 8 seconds, Florida either has to make a shot against our set D defense from 3 points – which even if made, gives us additional time to score and win or win in another OT.

    *If they miss the shot and we make one foul shot – the GAME IS OVER. OK – IT’S OVER….WE DON’T HAVE TO FOUL, WE LET THEM DRIVE, WE LET THEM CHUCK UP 3S, IT’S OVER…Even if we miss a foul shot – they still have drive the lenght of the floor and score TO TIE.

    OTOH – if you foul – you give them lots of options – and if they make both foul shots, the BEST YOU CAN DO IS BE UP BY 3, WHERE YOU EITHER HAVE TO FOUL THEM AGAIN OR THEY HAVE A SHOT AGAINST YOUR D WHEN IT ISN’T SET.

    I’m sorry, but ignoring the first decision to foul in this discussion just shows how silly the first decision to foul really was.

    Ask yourself this question – because this is the exact scenario that I’m so pissed about…

    If you are up by 3 w/ 10 seconds left and your team shoots foul shots badly AND is in the 1 and 1 and your opponent shoots them well – should you foul them???

  2. HPWolf 01/05/2010 at 2:43 PM #

    There is no curse, only missed ft’s and an uncontested rebound, dribble and open look shot. How come not even one player tried to at least play loose defense? Of course you don’t want to even touch the shooter as he shoots but there must be some resistence to a player with 2.6 seconds left.

  3. bradleyb123 01/05/2010 at 3:30 PM #

    ^^ ““Sid did the right thing by fouling at the end and not giving them a chance.”

    Yet, somehow we lost…in the same period.”

    Choppack, you just don’t get it. The strategy was a good one. It SHOULD have worked. We put that team in a position where they HAD to hit a 75 foot shot to win. If you can’t see how that was a good strategy JUST BECAUSE it didn’t work, and the guy hit the 75 footer, then there’s no getting through to you.

    You have to look beyond the actual end results to see that the strategy was good, despite the fact that it didn’t work in this instance. If every game was to come down to a miracle shot for our opponents, we’d most likely win the rest of our games and win the national championship.

    You’re looking at the strategy with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. But in the heat of the moment, at that point in the game, it was very much the right thing to do. The ONLY way we lose this game (the ONLY friggin way!), is if they nail a 75-foot shot. In 100 similar situations, how many times would he make that shot? We played the odds and put ourselves in an excellent position to win. But it wasn’t because of a failed strategy. It was only because of a VERY successful execution on the part of Florida.

    Carolina chose not to foul C of C when they led by three. Charleston launched a makeable three and hit it to send the game to overtime. They let C of C have a MUCH higher percentage chance of winning than if they had put them on the line the way we did. Statistically speaking, the strategy should have worked for us. Florida just happened to defy the odds on that one shot, but it doesn’t mean the strategy was bad.

  4. choppack1 01/05/2010 at 3:44 PM #

    bradley – You don’t get it. The “foul ’em instead of let em chuck up a 3 scenario” is something that is said w/out the result of a lot of data.

    If you can show me that statistically (and not specific examples of certain games), it’s better for a team that doesn’t shoot foul shots well to foul instead of allow the shot w/ 10 seconds left – I’ll reconsider.

    As it is right now – I’m not buying the conventional wisdom that a team that’s just as likely to miss at least ONE FOUL SHOT therefore giving their opponent a chance to win the game on that same lucky 3 or tie it on an easier two.

    HP Wolf – both Horner and Degand rushed the shooter – however, they were instructed not to foul him (correctly) AND they didn’t.

  5. packfan03 01/05/2010 at 3:47 PM #

    bradleyb123, do you remember when John Calipari was HAMMERED for NOT fouling Mario Chalmers in the NCAA Championship game two years ago?

    Chalmers drilled the 3 from the top of the key, overtime came and went, Kansas was the champ.

    I can guarantee choppack1 is going to argue with this statement by reminding us that there were “8-10” seconds on the clock – but no matter how you slice it, the situation was very similar.

  6. packfan03 01/05/2010 at 3:50 PM #

    Check that, I just checked the vid from the Kansas/Memphis game. Guess how much time was on the clock when Kansas inbounded the ball? 10.8 seconds!!!

  7. packfan03 01/05/2010 at 3:52 PM #

    “The foul that wasn’t: The plan was for Memphis to foul Kansas in the final 10.8 seconds and not allow the Jayhawks to get off a tying 3-pointer. Didn’t work.

    “Sherron Collins got away – we were going to foul at halfcourt,” Memphis coach John Calipari said. “He got away from our man. And then when our man did foul him and push him to the floor, he probably didn’t foul him hard enough because of the space. But we were fouling. He separated. I imagine their coach saying, ‘They’re going to foul you, so run from ’em.’ And we were fouling.”

    Really, truly fouling. The 5-foot-11 Collins got off a pass to Chalmers as he was going down.

    “I think I got fouled, actually,” Collins said, “but I ain’t complaining. I’m glad they didn’t call a foul.”

    http://blog.cleveland.com/sports/2008/04/at_the_final_four_chalmers_fou.html

  8. bradleyb123 01/05/2010 at 4:47 PM #

    choppack, what you’re not getting is that our strategy worked. It put us in the position we wanted to be in. Up two, free throw pending, 2.6 seconds on the clock, and Florida with no timeouts. That’s all a strategy can do — put you in a position that you want to be in. That’s why it worked and was not a bad strategy.

    Just ask Carolina about letting a team shoot a three when they’re only down three.

    This is an ongoing debate, and not likely to be won by either side. It’s probably hard to judge because when a team is down that late in the game, no matter which strategy is used, they usually lose the game more often than not anyway. But Florida wasn’t even in the double-bonus. Any missed free throw likely becomes an NC State possession on the rebound. I liked the strategy, but it’s even debatable if that WAS our strategy in the first place. I believe Sid said he didn’t want at least one of those fouls. We just fouled. I also liked the missed free throw at the end by Degand. Sid said that was not an intentional miss, but if it was, I would have liked it. Because no way Florida rebounds a missed free throw and scores with less than 3 seconds left. Sadly, they did. It was a miracle shot. But that doesn’t take away from the strategy that put us in a position to win, barring a made 75-footer.

  9. Rick 01/05/2010 at 5:28 PM #

    “choppack, what you’re not getting is that our strategy worked. It put us in the position we wanted to be in.”

    Wow
    I did not know we want to employ losing strategies. I do not care that much about the strategy but it is pretty nuts to say it worked as we lost the game. I would rather have a strategy that does not work but ends up with us winning the game.
    Meh, but maybe that is just me

  10. choppack1 01/05/2010 at 6:16 PM #

    packfan – who is arguing this point? Someone who has sat down and done the analysis or someone on ESPN or some sports writer??

    Heck, if Kansas is down 1, they’d love the idea of that Memphis team shooting foul shots…How many did they miss down the stretch????

    Like I said, everything is situational…and if your team sucks at shooting foul shots and is athletic enough to defend, then, IMHO, your stupid to employ a strategy that requires your team to make the shots – because they’ll likely miss at least one – which removes that fouling option, doesn’t it??

    Again, if there’s data, not “experts” – who aren’t just voicing some opinion – that supports a poor foul shooting team using this strategy, I’ll change my opinion.

  11. bradleyb123 01/06/2010 at 12:26 PM #

    ^^^ “Wow I did not know we want to employ losing strategies.”

    Wow, you can’t see the difference between strategy and outcome. The strategy worked. It put us in a position to win the game, nearly 100% chance of winning. The outcome was not statistically what should have happened. That is not the fault of the strategy. It just didn’t pan out.

    Imagine this: We play a game and shoot nothing but half court shots the entire game. But we make 55% of them and win the game. Was this a good strategy? It was a win, sure. But would you REALLY want us launching nothing but halfcourt shots for an entire game? In hindsight (and hindsight only), you would probably pretend the strategy was a good one. Because we won. But going into the game, you’d be calling for Sidney’s job for trying such a bad strategy.

    Conversely, you say our strategy was bad because we lost the game. You have to be smart enough to realize that the outcome does not make the strategy a bad one.

    Our strategy put us in a VERY high percentage chance of winning. I’d take this end-of-game situation EVERY game and be ecstatic about it. Because we’d probably win EVERY last one of them after this one.

    I knew the anti-Sid haters would try to use this against Sid. Sorry, this strategy should have worked. I’m happy with the way we played it. I’m just disgusted that that shot went in when it was shot from another county. And yes, it was DUMB LUCK.

1 … 3 4 5

Leave a Reply