Who Is running the Grinnell system?

Started by Mr. Ypsi, March 24, 2005, 02:03:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 08, 2013, 09:29:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 08, 2013, 06:36:02 PM
And the North Central women were just totally blown-out by Wheaton (it was 100-50 before they salvaged a bit of 'face' with a closing 17-6 run against the very bottom of the Wheaton bench).  The System doesn't work so well when you miss 44 of 53 shots from downtown!  For the season, they are shooting a deplorable 26% from long distance.  For the System to work, you have to recruit for the System; just imposing it on athletes without the requisite skills is a recipe for disaster.  (Though with their current personnel, it is hard to say if they would have done any better with a more traditional approach.)

I would suggest that unless you actually watch them play and watch them practice, you're not qualified to say what system any team should be running.

And I didn't suggest whether or nor a different approach would work any better.  But, with all due respect, if you shoot 26% from beyond the arc, The System is NOT tailor-made for you.

smedindy

Of course, it may be a building year. They could have been even worse without the system.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: smedindy on January 09, 2013, 08:23:37 AM
Of course, it may be a building year. They could have been even worse without the system.

Exactly. Just looking at numbers and saying they shouldn't do something is ridiculous. First of all, the expectations are different for women's basketball, and secondly, who is to say they would do better in a traditional system? North Central wasn't lighting the world on fire last year without it. By comparison, the other Loyola Marymount/Grinnell system teams are shooting 27.3 and 23.3 percent from beyond the arc.

And here's the thing -- Grinnell doesn't shoot any better, comparatively.

At 31.9 percent, Grinnell is ranked 243rd of 328 teams that meet the D-III qualification of 5 made threes per game, three-quarters of the way down the list.
http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?sportCode=MBB

At 26.2 percent, North Central is ranked 295th of 433 teams, two-thirds of the way down the list. (For some reason, the NCAA doesn't apply a minimum of threes made to this women's stat report.)
http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?sportCode=WBB
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

RogK

What would you-all say is the differential between what is considered good FG pcts in D3 men's compared to women's? I'm thinking that 50 pct 2FG for women may be equal to around 57 pct for men for 2FGs? And in the women's game, making 33 pct of 3FGs is good, but you'd want men to shoot closer to 40 pct? These differences would of course be based on men being generally bigger and stronger, plus the fact that both genders use the same 3 pt line now and the same hoop height etc.

frank uible

But don't the men and the women play with different size basketballs?

dahlby

#305
Yes.

Wiki lists the men's ball at 29.5" in circumference and the women's at 28.5".

Mr. Ypsi

And I'm glad - I always bought my sons women's balls until they were 11 or 12, and with their small hands, I think it was helpful in ball control.

Pat, I never said NC would necessarily do any better with any other approach.  After all, they were 1-13 in conference play last year, so it would be hard to do much worse.  Where it does differ (if they care) is the possibility of blow out losses.  Their loss to Wheaton was about the same this year as their combined losses last season (18 and 22), and they only lost one game that badly all last season (at IWU, who won the national title, so no real disgrace in that).

smedindy

Isolated incident. Anomalous result. Must also correct for the pace of offense and defense. Brush up on your Ken Pom, too.

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: smedindy on January 09, 2013, 03:32:14 PM
Isolated incident. Anomalous result. Must also correct for the pace of offense and defense. Brush up on your Ken Pom, too.

Since it is still very early in the conference season, time will tell whether or not it is 'isolated' or 'anomalous'.  I'm on record in the CCIW room predicting several blowouts at the hands of the top teams.  That is the hazard of The System.

Now, of course, if you are 'a loss is a loss' sort-of guy, so what?  But I would think that blowouts can be quite disheartening for teenagers.

augie77

Agree.  Forty point losses don't do much for the confidence of a struggling team.

RogK

#310
In the last month, the NC women have won by 53, won by 42, lost by 20, won by 14, lost by 7 and lost by 39.
If they lose to Carthage tonight and to Augie on Saturday, then we can call them a struggling team.
Augie, by the way, has already played a System team this season and won easily (83-56 over Knox) despite committing 47 TOs! Augie won the rebounding 71-30.

Bombers798891

Remember, a team running a Grinnell system doesn't need to hit as many three pointers because the system is designed to give them more shots per game, and more three pointers. You trade efficiency for volume

In Grinnell's 2011-2012 season, they shot 34% from three, but they took an average of 21 more field goals a game than their opponents, and over 40 more three pointers. So even though their opponents shot significantly better from the floor (58% to 43%) and three (39% to 34%), they won consistently.


frank uible

Once upon a time your correspondent worked with a struggling business whose wags used to say about it, "we sell below cost but make it up in volume".

Bombers798891

As far as this being the "best" system for NC to run, I don't think we can say that a team shooting 26% from the arc is not-tailor made for the system. They might be exactly the *kind* of players you need, just not that good.

To me, it's like Springfield running the triple option. In 2001 the team averaged 23 points a game. In 2000, they had averaged 43. In 2002 they averaged 37.

Does this mean Springfield's 2001 team didn't have the right players to run the triple option? Or did they just have a bad year and not get the quality of players they wanted?


Just Bill

"That seems silly and pointless..." - Hoops Fan

The first and still most accurate description of the D3 Championship BeltTM thread.