• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Can We Please Start Playing Bigger?

D

Dallas Brave

New member
Since the 200-07 basketball season, Ken Pomeroy one of the most respected statistician / analysts, has tracked all Div 1 teams average height and effective height. In January of 2008, he posted an interesting article, “The Height of Expectations: Measuring Vertical Impact.” http://ww.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=82

You can read the full article, but here are some of the key conclusions (in red):

It should be no surprise that a team’s average height does correlate to its offensive and defensive prowess … defensive stats have a much better correlation with height than their offensive counterparts.

The deeper message here is that all those coaches lusting after seven-footers with hands of stone and happy feet don’t have the wrong idea. They may end up getting a defensive presence that the vertically challenged can’t provide.

… there is room for short people in this game, but let’s not get carried away. It really pays to have size up front. Of the teams that entered Wednesday’s play in the top 20 in adjusted defensive efficiency, only one had an effective height below the national average--and barely so, by two-tenths of an inch.

However, for most teams a great defense requires size at the four and the five. At least on the defensive end, basketball really is a big man’s game.


I love Bradley basketball and I like JL, but it has been so frustrating watching our tallest players languish on the far end of the bench for the last two seasons. If JL had played more zone D last year with DC and more zone D this year with AT at the 5 and WE at the 4, I am confident that we would have had 6-10 more wins over the last two years. I can’t prove it of course, but I can prove than playing an undersized lineup has been slightly better than .500.

Why recruit the height if you are not going to develop it and play it?
 
Dallas Brave said:
Since the 200-07 basketball season, Ken Pomeroy one of the most respected statistician / analysts, has tracked all Div 1 teams average height and effective height. In January of 2008, he posted an interesting article, ???The Height of Expectations: Measuring Vertical Impact.??? http://ww.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=82

You can read the full article, but here are some of the key conclusions (in red):

It should be no surprise that a team??™s average height does correlate to its offensive and defensive prowess ??¦ defensive stats have a much better correlation with height than their offensive counterparts.

The deeper message here is that all those coaches lusting after seven-footers with hands of stone and happy feet don??™t have the wrong idea. They may end up getting a defensive presence that the vertically challenged can??™t provide.

??¦ there is room for short people in this game, but let??™s not get carried away. It really pays to have size up front. Of the teams that entered Wednesday??™s play in the top 20 in adjusted defensive efficiency, only one had an effective height below the national average--and barely so, by two-tenths of an inch.

However, for most teams a great defense requires size at the four and the five. At least on the defensive end, basketball really is a big man??™s game.


I love Bradley basketball and I like JL, but it has been so frustrating watching our tallest players languish on the far end of the bench for the last two seasons. If JL had played more zone D last year with DC and more zone D this year with AT at the 5 and WE at the 4, I am confident that we would have had 6-10 more wins over the last two years. I can??™t prove it of course, but I can prove than playing an undersized lineup has been slightly better than .500.

Why recruit the height if you are not going to develop it and play it?
Click to expand...

I don't think we recruit a lot of height to begin with. Plus, when the coach says publicly that the bigs are there to set screens and rebound, well, I don't think it helps when you go on the recruiting trail. I'm glad we got Jordan Prosser, and I am optimistic that if he develops as the staff hopes, we can play him and Egolf together and actually be able to play some real basketball. I think we could rebound with anyone in the country with TB, JP, and WE on the court at the same time. I think we could score a heck of a lot from 15 feet in with that group too.
 
BradleyBrave said:
I don't think we recruit a lot of height to begin with. Plus, when the coach says publicly that the bigs are there to set screens and rebound, well, I don't think it helps when you go on the recruiting trail. I'm glad we got Jordan Prosser, and I am optimistic that if he develops as the staff hopes, we can play him and Egolf together and actually be able to play some real basketball. I think we could rebound with anyone in the country with TB, JP, and WE on the court at the same time. I think we could score a heck of a lot from 15 feet in with that group too.
Click to expand...


BB.....you just got me really excited with the WE-TB & JP on the court together next season! :D
 
Dallas Brave said:
Since the 200-07 basketball season, Ken Pomeroy one of the most respected statistician / analysts, has tracked all Div 1 teams average height and effective height. In January of 2008, he posted an interesting article, ???The Height of Expectations: Measuring Vertical Impact.??? http://ww.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=82

You can read the full article, but here are some of the key conclusions (in red):

It should be no surprise that a team??™s average height does correlate to its offensive and defensive prowess ??¦ defensive stats have a much better correlation with height than their offensive counterparts.

The deeper message here is that all those coaches lusting after seven-footers with hands of stone and happy feet don??™t have the wrong idea. They may end up getting a defensive presence that the vertically challenged can??™t provide.

??¦ there is room for short people in this game, but let??™s not get carried away. It really pays to have size up front. Of the teams that entered Wednesday??™s play in the top 20 in adjusted defensive efficiency, only one had an effective height below the national average--and barely so, by two-tenths of an inch.

However, for most teams a great defense requires size at the four and the five. At least on the defensive end, basketball really is a big man??™s game.


I love Bradley basketball and I like JL, but it has been so frustrating watching our tallest players languish on the far end of the bench for the last two seasons. If JL had played more zone D last year with DC and more zone D this year with AT at the 5 and WE at the 4, I am confident that we would have had 6-10 more wins over the last two years. I can??™t prove it of course, but I can prove than playing an undersized lineup has been slightly better than .500.

Why recruit the height if you are not going to develop it and play it?
Click to expand...

I have said it many times that basketball is a big mans game. The frustrating thing about Jim not playing our bigs is it is like he forgot the formula it took for us to reach the sweet 16, a 7-0 big man with a 6-7 power forward to go along with a 6-4 wing player and 2 good guards plus a good bench that not only played many minutes but contributed on offense.
 
BradleyBrave said:
I don't think we recruit a lot of height to begin with. Plus, when the coach says publicly that the bigs are there to set screens and rebound, well, I don't think it helps when you go on the recruiting trail. I'm glad we got Jordan Prosser, and I am optimistic that if he develops as the staff hopes, we can play him and Egolf together and actually be able to play some real basketball. I think we could rebound with anyone in the country with TB, JP, and WE on the court at the same time. I think we could score a heck of a lot from 15 feet in with that group too.
Click to expand...

I could read the Pomeroy stats for hours. Our biggest lineup of the last several years (2005-06) http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Bradley&y=2006 was very potent offensively and ranked 11th in the country in defensive efficiency. You need height for defense. 2006-07 showed what happens if you have offense and no height ... you go to the NIT. You need height to go to the NCAA.

If you scroll through the years, Bradley has been absolutely, unacceptably awful at offensive rebounding for the last four years ... really pathetic. We rank 311 this year http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Bradley Can you believe it ... 311. We need height!

Interestingly, and I don't think there is anything the team can do, but Bradley opponents do shoot FTs better against us ... a lot better. Bradley ranks last in all Div-1 schools in opponents' FT % and we were near the bottom last year.
http://kenpom.com/tmleaders.php?c=OppFTPct
 
Be careful Dallas, the excuse crew may be on the way. I can just hear "It's really hard to recruit to poor old Peoria, IL" or something similar. You have been warned!
 
BradleyBrave said:
Be careful Dallas, the excuse crew may be on the way. I can just hear "It's really hard to recruit to poor old Peoria, IL" or something similar. You have been warned!
Click to expand...

Well ... they would be wrong. If you look at these 2010 teams in the top 30 of effective height, several of them are non-BCS teams and they have pretty good records for the most part:
http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=HgtEffRank
St. Mary's, Tulsa, Montana, Radford, Cornell, UTEP, and Old Dominion. Height won't guarantee winning, but winning without it is very, very hard. Especially if your goal is to win games in the NCAA tournament. That is our goal, no? Sitting a guy like AT at the end of the bench for most the year is ludicrous ... especially this year when we are so desperate for inside players. It really burns me up. :mad:
 
Dallas Brave said:
Well ... they would be wrong. If you look at these 2010 teams in the top 30 of effective height, several of them are non-BCS teams and they have pretty good records for the most part:
http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=HgtEffRank
St. Mary's, Tulsa, Montana, Radford, Cornell, UTEP, and Old Dominion. Height won't guarantee winning, but winning without it is very, very hard. Especially if your goal is to win games in the NCAA tournament. That is our goal, no? Sitting a guy like AT at the end of the bench for most the year is ludicrous ... especially this year when we are so desperate for inside players. It really burns me up. :mad:
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument! ;)

I don't see us going bigger anytime soon, even if JP is ready. It's not how we've recruited in the past, and I don't think it's how we're recruiting now. WE is going to be our 5, TB is going to be our 4, and it's not likely we'll put JP or another big at the 4 and slide TB down to the 3. I would love nothing more than to be pleasantly surprised, but I just don't see it happening.
 
Big Mike said:
There is a rumor that the staff is looking at a big for next season! :D
Click to expand...

Was there one at the game Saturday? I thought I heard someone mention there was a pretty big guy who looked like he could be a recruit there.

Is this also an indication that Mr. Wilkins may not stay true to his word? :-o
 
BradleyBrave said:
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument! ;)

I don't see us going bigger anytime soon, even if JP is ready. It's not how we've recruited in the past, and I don't think it's how we're recruiting now. WE is going to be our 5, TB is going to be our 4, and it's not likely we'll put JP or another big at the 4 and slide TB down to the 3. I would love nothing more than to be pleasantly surprised, but I just don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

WE at 5 and TB at 4 is a recipe for another season of being 2-3 games over .500. We'll win most of the gamse when we shoot over 50% from the field and have little hope on the nights when the outside J isn't dropping.

JL was a stock broker. Hopefully he has a little bit of appreciation for number crunching and the insights that can be gained from such analysis.
 
It sure would be nice to have a big man that can really step it up and do big things. I love WE, but i really see him as a 4, and probably shouldn't be playing down low on any 7-footers... Anyway, Patrick O'bryant certainly didn't just set screens and rebound. He was a huge part in the best season in a decade.

Recruiting woes aside, i would to get a big man that can hold his own in the paint against any center in the league
 
So if we brought in another David Collins, you "let's play big" guys would be happy? I doubt it.
The staff has been spending hundreds of hours travelling all over the country to see players, especially big guys. I am sure if there is a kid that can and wants to play for BU, they'll get him.
 
Da Coach said:
So if we brought in another David Collins, you "let's play big" guys would be happy? I doubt it.
The staff has been spending hundreds of hours travelling all over the country to see players, especially big guys. I am sure if there is a kid that can and wants to play for BU, they'll get him.
Click to expand...

For now, I will be fired up to see and hope that WE, JP, and TB are on the floor at the same time next year. However, I would rather see a bulky bruiser like Dima recruited than a lanky tall guy.
 
Based on recent history, I have a hard time believing we'll ever see TB at the 3 spot anytime soon. It's just the way we play. Not saying it's good or bad, it is what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top