All of us W&M basketball fans have been acting this year like Cold War Kremlinologists. Because they had no access to information they would make major assumptions about who is in power, next in line, etc. based on no more information than who was where in official May Day portraits of the reviewing stand.

So far we are trying to project how the team will do on very scant information. Consider the following moving parts:

1) Three players who have a lot of experience are now moving into leadership roles (captain): Prewitt, Dixon, Cohn.
2) Three key contributors last year are coming back from injuries or "other": Malinowski, Burchfield, Seacat.
4) Three contributors this year are so inexperienced they have already played more collegiate basketball this year than in their entire careers: Rowley, Pierce, Knight.
5) The backup point guard situation is fluid as it appears that Tot has not smoothly transitioned from his outstanding game in the CAA tournament against JMU. Sometimes he is first backup, sometimes Schlotman.

This is a lot of change and it will take time to work through. The past three years our rotations were essentially set at the beginning of the year with only one or two major changes. The major x factor was always injuries, which I didn't even list above.

If we learn by doing it will take time for this team to truly gel.

I think we will begin to really know this team by Feb. 4. Why that date? It is on that date we will finally have played each CAA team once and, in fact, it will be the first time we will face Towson, which is probably our most difficult matchup in the conference.

It would appear our biggest potential strength/weakness is the ability to continually rotate players with differing skill sets giving our opponents differing lineups with different characteristics for changing situations while wearing opponents down physically. The problem with that type of approach is that it is harder to develop a rhythm and it is much more difficult to manage from a coaching perspective.

My only observation about Tot is that he missed a lot of time with his team mates when he played for the National team last summer. I also don't think that this team needs a true point guard. We're moving to a transition based approach where anyone can bring the ball up the court and even with our half court offense, the offense doesn't run through the point guard (it runs through the high post). Cohn is by nature a classic point guard, but I'd be comfortable with Dixon, Pierce, or even Prewitt running the point if Tot and Schlotman aren't capable.

I've noticed under full court pressure that the ball usually goes to Omar to bring up. Makes sense. It takes the athletic quick guards out of the equation and very few forwards that check Omar can contain his ball handling.

His height also makes it difficult to trap him. Just another unsung way he helps the team.

(11-22-2016 09:04 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  My only observation about Tot is that he missed a lot of time with his team mates when he played for the National team last summer. I also don't think that this team needs a true point guard. We're moving to a transition based approach where anyone can bring the ball up the court and even with our half court offense, the offense doesn't run through the point guard (it runs through the high post). Cohn is by nature a classic point guard, but I'd be comfortable with Dixon, Pierce, or even Prewitt running the point if Tot and Schlotman aren't capable.

They might not need a true PG, but the offense is better with one.

2014-15, CAA play: 75.6 pts/game, 50.4% shooting, 282 assists, 186 turnovers
2015-16, CAA play: 77.9 pts/game, 48.8% shooting, 307 assists, 186 turnovers

The 2015-16 team added Cohn at PG while replacing Thornton and suffering with Dixon getting hurt and Tarpey forgetting how to shoot and didn't miss a beat. It's probably not a coincidence that Sheldon became useful offensively last year with a real point guard feeding him. Last year Cohn was worth 2.7 points a game on offense, while Tot was -1.7. (I'm not a total believer in BPM or even traditional plus/minus but it's interesting and there's value there.)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../2016.html

I think the point you proved is that we're better off with Cohn on the court with his team than Thornton was with his team. I don't think we would have been better off with a classic point guard like Scholtman last year.

Perhaps the key stat, and, alas, I don't think it is kept, is how many seconds does it take the player to get the ball across midcourt and the offense started. I think that is the key difference between Cohn and the others.

With the shortened clock, time is a big deal. FWIW, I suspect the pressure that Shaver has talked about putting in is more to eat up clock than to force TOs.

tribeinexile might have a point there... We took 1014 shots in conference with Cohn, only 945 the previous year. With more emphasis on pushing the ball on offense, you would expect more shots, more assists, and more points, with lower FG%. Tribe32, while Schlotman may be a pass-first guard, he's had trouble getting on the court because he's a never-shoot guard, and that's a significant difference. We're playing 4 on 5 on offense when he's out there. Cohn is as much a classic point guard as we've seen since Nick D'Antoni.

Number of shots also includes adjustments to 5 seconds less on the shot clock for each possession.