Why did PSU win last night's game?


#1

Battle had the lowest output of offense that I can ever remember at PSU, Edwards basically didn’t play at all, so why/how did PSU win?

  1. Jackson at some point was 6-7 with a couple of free throws. That is not something that is going to happen night in, night out, so that is more anomoly than anything. Although I don’t see why DJ shouldn’t be able to average 11-13 points per game as he has a decent shot.

  2. Brooks definetly played a little better on the offensive end. Played with more aggresiveness. He should be able to play more like this every night, but I think the reason he did vs. NW is because he knew he had an athletic advantage over the guy guarding him, so therefore had confidence. When Brooks gets up against a quality defender, he tends to fall apart.

  3. BABB…I think this was the key to the game. He actually made the first couple of three pointers he took, not only meaning points, but meaning that NW had to keep an eye on him. Babb’s shooting has just not been there this year in key times, but when he made shots last night, PSU’s offense looked much better. Pringle (and Morrissey to a lesser degree) hit the same shots Babb did last night and PSU won.

  4. I don’t think that Jones played that well that it made a difference. He still didn’t show anything on offense and his defense was OK at best.

On another note, I don’t understand why Sasa didn’t get more run time. I agree with KidCoyote here in that when Sasa was out there, you can tell he just has that ‘feel for the game’ that both Ott and Jones and Brooks severaly lack. Three plays really stood out to me that give me this feeling.

  1. The first is when he made that easy lay-up, not that he made it, but that he was in the exact right spot when Battle (or Frazier, don’t remember who) drove the lane and drew his defender. Having that court sense of where to be to get the ball is something that I don’t see PSU players doing at all when Battle/Frazier drive the lane.

  2. The play where he got blocked. Why you ask, because as soon as Sasa got the ball, he immediately turned and went up. No hesitation, no dribble, just turn and shoot. Scorer’s mentallity of being ready to immediately shoot the ball when it hits your hands.

  3. Watch Sasa set a pick. He set a couple of them, best picks I have seen anybody set this year.

Sasa knows how to play the game. Athletically he is not there yet, but court sense wise, he is light years ahead of any other frontcourt player on PSU. He should be getting at least 8-10 minutes per game and if he is playing well and not getting burned too much on defense, should be running 12-20 minutes per game. I think he gets real run time, he is smart enough you would see his game really improve as he began to adapt.


#2

The simple answer is that unlike some other games we should have won (Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind), we never had that string of several horrible offensive possessions that led to a bunch of points at the other end.


#3
I agree with KidCoyote here in that when Sasa was out there, you can tell he just has that 'feel for the game' that both Ott and Jones and Brooks severaly lack.

Disagree completely, and don’t think your reasoning offers any proof to the contrary. Ott is the most well-balanced guy we have inside, he makes us better generally while the other guys mostly hurt us in some way. Then I’ll take Jones, followed by Brooks, followed by Sasa who has shown me nothing this year.


#4

I disagree on Jones - I thought he played a very good game, relatively. He was tough and agressive and really went after boards. As noted in other threads, he got hosed on a couple of those foul calls. He did fumble a couple passes, but still scored 10 points, which I’ll gladly take.


#5

I thought the guys played with emotion last night. I loved the two throwdowns, one by Jones and the other by Brooks. And I absolutely loved the emotion that Jones showed when he took the charge and started roaring and beating his chest laying on the floor. That is what this team needed and it was beautiful to see.

However, I think the key to the game was Ed’s tan blazer. I don’t think I saw that one before.


#6

Thought last night’s game win was 60% attributed to our passing, 20% to our ability to control the boards, 15% to our FT shooting, and 5% to our ability to not give up too many easy buckets. We passed the ball better last night than we have in a long time. Crisp ball movement, going inside out, finding guys on the baseline for easy looks, making the extra pass at the arc to get an easier look, etc. We really limited NW’s second chance points, and also got some of our own. We made the FTs down the stretch when we needed it (including Babb and Jones both hitting the front ends of 1-1’s on the 8th and 9th team fouls, which is something that has killed us). And though we gave NW some open looks from the outside and a few dunks, they didn’t really get anything back door against us, didn’t score in transition (not that they ever do), and only once or twice forced big time defensive breakdowns where we lost out man (it did happen a few times, but not nearly as much as in other NW games that I’ve seen when they live off of guys getting their switches mixed up and leaving someone all alone).


#7

Disagree completely, and don’t think your reasoning offers any proof to the contrary. Ott is the most well-balanced guy we have inside, he makes us better generally while the other guys mostly hurt us in some way. Then I’ll take Jones, followed by Brooks, followed by Sasa who has shown me nothing this year.[/quote]

I kind of agree with Craftsy. I think Sasa has shown some offensive skill/touch, but if you don’t notice how bad he is defensively at this point then you are only judging him on offense. He is horrible at switching and knowing when not to switch. He gets pushed around on the boards and he got schooled on a post up against him last night. I think he will be a productive player in 2 years when he puts some muscle on, which will help not only his D, but his post up game. So its not terrible for him to get minutes, but for people to want to see him a lot more, well, you’re going to see the D go downhill and have a lot of help coming over opening up 3’s if he gets extended minutes.


#8

I am just hoping Sasa rounds into Goran Suton. I think we would all be able to live with a Goran Suton.


#9

[quote=“mjg, post:2, topic:859”]The simple answer is that unlike some other games we should have won (Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind), we never had that string of several horrible offensive possessions that led to a bunch of points at the other end. [/quote]yes we did, but NW didn’t capitalize on them. We got a D rebound and didn’t call a TO before we were tied up. Then the lazy 3 ft in bounds pass that NW tipped off of Talor’s foot. Up till this game those 2 turnovers had typically turned into 5 or 6 points.


#10

If he rounds into Goran Suton he’d be one of our two or three best post players in the past decade (Cornley, Cline-Heard). I’d LOVE for him to resemble Goran Suton!!!


#11

[quote=“jjepsu92, post:5, topic:859”]I thought the guys played with emotion last night. I loved the two throwdowns, one by Jones and the other by Brooks. And I absolutely loved the emotion that Jones showed when he took the charge and started roaring and beating his chest laying on the floor. That is what this team needed and it was beautiful to see.

However, I think the key to the game was Ed’s tan blazer. I don’t think I saw that one before.[/quote]

Someone mentioned earlier this year how that big primal scream after a rebound was missing… I heard it for the first time last night, with about 5 to go… (at least, I thught that’s what it was!).


#12

I only watched the last 8 or so minutes, but even the box score could tell you the story of the game: point distribution and balance. How that occurred is up for you guys to tell me. :smiley:


#13

Disagree completely, and don’t think your reasoning offers any proof to the contrary. Ott is the most well-balanced guy we have inside, he makes us better generally while the other guys mostly hurt us in some way. Then I’ll take Jones, followed by Brooks, followed by Sasa who has shown me nothing this year.[/quote]

I was thrilled with the aggressiveness of Jones and Brooks last night. They should continue to get major minutes. Ott played terrible again last night - he was horrible. Sasa didn’t show me anything last night. He can’t even get shots off.


#14

I think we won because we shot 56%. I really like how much better they ran the O last night. Guys were moving faster and seemed to have purpose. We didn’t stand around until late in the game when we were intentionally running the clock. It’s probably not that rare to have all 5 starters in double digits, but for this team it was a miracle. Those extra points we got out of Brooks and Jones were very important.

We didn’t win with defense that’s for sure. :-X


#15

[quote=“JakkL, post:14, topic:859”]I think we won because we shot 56%. I really like how much better they ran the O last night. Guys were moving faster and seemed to have purpose. We didn’t stand around until late in the game when we were intentionally running the clock. It’s probably not that rare to have all 5 starters in double digits, but for this team it was a miracle. Those extra points we got out of Brooks and Jones were very important.

We didn’t win with defense that’s for sure. :-X[/quote]

You’ve hit on the question I’d like to have answered. I didn’t see the game but obviously our offense was good last night. Was it good b/c we ran different offensive sets? Were the guys simply more aggressive? Was it b/c of NW’s zone defense? We made shots which is always important if you plan on winning. I watched the MSU game (and a couple other games this year) and granted we missed some open shots but we rarely got good looks. In the previous games it almost seemed like in the half court it was Talor hitting 30 ft threes or a forced shot at the shot clock buzzer. Apparently we got better looks last night. Why?


#16

Well my work schedule got all verhootzed yesterday. Didn’t get home until late and only caught the last five min or so.

Needless to say I was too busy pinching myself to really try any amateur analysis.

Afterward, I had to dust off the dictionary to look up the word win.

A quick look at teh box score and I noticed the following:

F Throw % 1st Half: 3-3 100 % 2nd Half: 17-20 85.0% Game: 87.0%

F Throw % 1st Half: 1-1 100 % 2nd Half: 3-10 30.0% Game: 36.4%

Scientific progress goes BOINK?


#17

And rebounding. We absolutely controlled the defensive glass, grabbing a mind blowing 86% (30 of 35) of the available boards preventing any second chance points by NW. Anything above 67% is considered a good defensive rebounding percentage but 86% is though the roof.


#18

[quote=“JakkL, post:14, topic:859”]I think we won because we shot 56%. I really like how much better they ran the O last night. Guys were moving faster and seemed to have purpose. We didn’t stand around until late in the game when we were intentionally running the clock. It’s probably not that rare to have all 5 starters in double digits, but for this team it was a miracle. Those extra points we got out of Brooks and Jones were very important.

We didn’t win with defense that’s for sure. :-X[/quote]

Don’t overlook the impact of our defensive rebounding (see above post).


#19

Certain teams have certain other teams numbers, as is the case with PSU over NW. PSU plays with confidence against teams like NW and does things that it can only dream of doing against more athletic opponents.

That’s what I saw last night.


#20
[quote="mjg, post:2, topic:859"]The simple answer is that unlike some other games we should have won (Michigan and Wisconsin come to mind), we never had that [b]string of several horrible offensive possessions that led to a bunch of points at the other end.[/b][/quote]yes we did, but NW didn't capitalize on them. We got a D rebound and didn't call a TO before we were tied up. Then the lazy 3 ft in bounds pass that NW tipped off of Talor's foot. Up till this game those 2 turnovers had typically turned into 5 or 6 points.

You didn’t read the entire statement. It was a two part statement.