Games like this suck the witty quips and fun facts right out of you.
After dropping a second game in three weeks to the Oklahoma Sooners, I've decided to run quickly through Three Goods, Three Bads, and player grades.
Following, we'll delve into key factors in the Wildcats success and failures throughout the Big 12 docket so far.
Good Things to Take Away:
- Rodney's trying. We all should have seen this coming. We were living large on Rodney putting up 27 points a game at home through conference game so far. Rodney's come back to earth, and because of it, our previous shortcomings are really sticking out now. That being said, he's doing everything in his power to get us to win games.
- FT Shooting. Hard to believe I'm putting this here, but we did go 15-18 from the line tonight, for an 83% clip. Let's take little victories when we can get them.
- Rebounding. It certainly didn't seem like it during the game - I would have said we got our behinds whooped on the glass. Reality says we outrebounded OU 32-25, including a 10-8 advantage on the offensive boards. OU is actually a very good rebounding team, averaging just more than a rebound a game behind us.
Things To Improve On:
- Offense. Period. We spent entirely too much of that game just going through the motions. There was no conviction on offense. Understand this is not the same problem we were having earlier in the year. Previously, everyone just stood around, and took forever for the offense to actually get started. The offense to night had: Lazy vee-cuts and jukes on the perimeter, making moving the ball from side to side on the floor difficult; Listless and sloppy lane cuts, allowing defenders to easily stand in one position and guard the cut; and Poor entry passes, where guards were missing inside guys that had good position, as well as misplacing/forcing the passes when they did try. This was the most discouraged I've been this season watching our offense. Getting guys to move is one thing. This was a lack of effort. It looked like we didn't want to be on the court much of the night.
- PG Play. We won't win another game this year until Angel, Will and Martavious start taking care of the ball. These guys have been absolutely horrendous in conference play. Tonight, again, 20 TOs - with 12 of them being steals, or live-ball turnovers. You may remember the rant I had about steals versus other TOs after the Baylor game. Steals immediately send the ball the other direction, instead of killing the clock and letting your defense get back and get set.
- Attitude. These guys played most of the night like they didn't care. No passion. No fire. No desire. You can see when a team wants to play; there just wasn't that level of hustle. That body language. That spark. Dumb plays. Not getting back on D. Shuffling through the offense. Slow help-side rotation. Giving up 3 offensive boards on the same possession. This team has no attitude leader. No Jacob Pullen. No Denis Clemente. God forbid I actually say this - but no Steve Henson. No Lon Kruger. There isn't a single player on this team that actually leads this team. This team will struggle like this until that person emerges. Don't count on it happening this year.
Individual Player Analysis:
Starters:
- Rodney McGruder: B. Played decent defense on Steven Pledger once it was realized we didn't have a PG or SG that could actually guard him. Finished with 19 PTS on 6-14 shooting, including 1-6 from 3P. Had 2 REB, 2 AST, 1 BLK, and only 1 TO. Team high 39 minutes. Took too many outside shots. What stats will show you is that Rodney is not a good shooter - he's a streaky shooter. He's only shooting 36% from 3P for the season. What this means is that for every 4-5 or 5-7 night he has from three, he'll follow up with two 0-4 or 1-5 games. Great when he makes them, sucks when he doesn't. He is shooting nearly 48% from the floor overall. He needs to spend more time mid-range and in until he hits a few, then stretch out to the three, then work back in on shot fakes.
- Will Spradling: D-. This kid couldn't have played much worse. 6 PTS on 2-10 shooting (0-5 3PFG), 3 REB, 2 AST, 2 TO. Was supposed to be guarding Pledger most of the night, and Pledger just made him look non-existent out there. I don't know what poltergeist has taken up residence in Will's body, but exorcism - NOW. The sentiment has been echoed, but this team will not win until Will starts (a) taking care of the ball, and (b) making shots.
- Angel Rodriguez: D+. He did start the evening pretty well, aggressively taking the ball to the basket, and scoring 8 early points. Finished with 10 PTS on 4-10 shooting (1-3 3PFG), 2 AST, 2 STL, 2 REB, but 4 TOs. Fouled out with only 16 minutes of playing time. Four of the fouls were absolutely terrible. He played out of control the entire night, and was a black hole with the ball in his hands to boot. I will chalk his errors up to youth, but he needs to seriously learn to harness his energy and enthusiasm, instead of just running wild out there. The unfortunate part of Will playing sooooooo poorly right now is that Angel is needed on the floor. His benefits do outweigh his drawbacks considering the lack of options.
- Thomas Gipson: D-. Largely ineffective - again. 7 minutes, 1 REB, 1 TO. Got pulled for good after pushing Romero Osby following drawing a charge. Between the recent technical he received, the quick little bursts of testiness he's shown on the floor, and the little shove he gave Osby, I don't think HCFM is digging the attitude...just a guess.
- Jamar Samuels: B-. At least Jamar made an appearance at the game today. 9 PTS, 8 REB, 2 AST, 2 BLK in 30 minutes. Had 4 TOs, though. His turnovers are typical not quite as penalizing as the guard TOs, because they're typically dead-ball TOs in the paint. Very rarely does Jamar throw the ball to the other team - he throws it out of bounds, or gets called for travelling or similar. We got plays from Jamar where he missed two straight bunnies on offensive boards, but also plays where he makes a good move to the bucket and flushes it home. We'd be a much better team if he could just exercise some consistency. He also did a good job of defense on Romero Osby and Andrew Fitzgerald, coaxing them into 3-16 shooting and limiting them to 4 REB total.
Bench:
- Victor Ojeleye: B. Say what you want - the guy goes in, plays his heart out, and comes back out. 4 PTS, 2 REB, 1 AST, 0 TO. 14 minutes of floor time. Had his play of the year tonight, a rebound putback that he almost dunked, but it still went in. Only guy on the team that acted like he wanted to play tonight.
- Jordan Henriquez: B+. 9 PTS, 6 REB, and only 1 TO, which is pretty impressive for JO in a turnover-prone game. His 9 PTS came on 3-3 shooting, 3-4 FTs. JO had a little rust after the suspension against TTU, but he really played well tonight, also factoring his help against Osby and Fitzgerald in the paint.
- Martavious Irving: D+. Three days after his very impressive performance against TTU off the bench, he figuratively crapped the bed tonight. Wasn't able to play defense to his usual level - he was assigned Pledger when Will couldn't guard him (and before Rodney eventually had to go over to him). 3 PTS on 1-5 FG, 3 REB, 2 AST, 2 STL, 4 Fouls, took team high "honors" with 5 TOs. Threw a ton of bad passes, leading to OU steals.
- Shane Southwell: D-. The Paradox made it in for 2 minutes, didn't log any stats, and honestly, looked like he would have rather been home playing video games.
- Adrian Diaz: C+. Was a little foul-happy in the paint trying to reach. Didn't score, but had opportunities. 5 REB and 2 TO. He did some positive things and played like he knew where to be and what to do, but youth hindered his execution a little, I think.
Alright, now that that's out of the way, let's look at the team in general over the past 8 games:
We're 4-4 in league play now, with wins v. Missouri, v. Texas, @ Oklahoma State, and @ Texas Tech; and losses @ Kansas, v. Baylor, @ Oklahoma, and v. Oklahoma. For the record, we're currently 5th in the Big 12, and the conference coaches selected us as the 6th best team in the league, by a large margin behind 5th Texas.
From the tangible "statistic" side of things, K-State is...:
- shooting worse than its opponents: 42.7% to 43.5%;
- shooting only 29% 3PFG (compared to 30% opp);
- shooting 65% from the line (compared to 78% from our opponents);
- outrebounding opponents by 6.2rpg;
- averaging a half assist less per game than opponents, and 1.5apg less than our season average;
- giving up more than 2 steals per game more than we get.
- scoring 5 ppg less compared to season average, giving up 3 ppg more compared to season average.
- Individually, our scoring has become much more unbalanced. Overall, we have three players averaging double-figures scoring: Rodney (15.7ppg), Jamar (10.4ppg), and Will (10.2ppg). However, in conference play, Rodney's average jumps to 20.7ppg, Jamar drops to 8.8ppg, and Will drops to 7.8ppg.
- Will's shooting has been relatively non-existent all year. He's shooting under 27% from the floor through conference, but is under 40% for the entire season.
- Unbelievably, we are averaging fewer turnovers (1.5tpg) than our opposition for the season. That gap narrows a little bit for Big 12 play, but we have still committed 5 fewer TOs than our opponents in the last 8 games.
-
We actually shoot 3's at a slower clip than our opposition (29.3% of our FGs are 3's, compared to 29.8% of the opponents FGs are 3's).
- Our opponents have a much higher AST/FG ratio than we do (60.7% FGs are assisted, compared to 54.4% of our FGs are assisted).
Alright, so looking at the stats, it would appear that we lose games due to the following tangible effects:
- Poor ball movement. Our APG rate has dropped, and our opponents are finding easier buckets than we are.
- Poor ball handling. While we turn the ball over less than our opponents, we average more live-ball turnovers than the other team.
I sat here and looked at sortable stats for conference games, and the overwhelming reality is that there isn't one thing this team does well that causes wins, and there isn't one thing we do poorly that causes losses. Numbers only tell part of the story. But, having watched all the conference games, here's what I can tell you with certainty:
We lose games because of a strange phenomenon called "not showing up".
That's why we can outrebound a team by 20 and lose. That's how we have the conference leading AST/TO ratio defense, and we're 4-4. That's also how we can blow out a Missouri team ranked #6 at the time, and ascended to as high as #2 so far this season.
The fact of the matter is that we don't have a very strong team when it comes to leadership. Our best player - Rodney McGruder - has been a #2 option his entire career to this point, and has never exhibited the necessary personality to lead the entire team on the floor. You see him try every now and then, and it's just not natural. Jamar Samuels has been well-chronicled as being a "sixth-man" - he's arguably had his best production coming off the bench. Martavious Irving and Jordan Henriquez are role players, plain and simple. They do what they do pretty well, but they're not well-rounded players. Will Spradling is still just a sophomore, and has obvious physical limitations compared to the players he's matched up against night in, night out. Angel Rodriguez is a little freshman fireball that doesn't have a grip on his energy. Thomas Gipson has somehow gone from a dominating force to a complete disappearing act in conference play. Victor could be the best leader on the practice floor and locker room, but just doesn't translate to the game. Regardless of how much HCFM coaches this team up, there's just no floor general. No one on the floor that holds the rest of the team accountable.
This team is also very young. Given 1 point for each year in school (1 - freshman, 2 - sophomore, etc.), our team averages just over a sophomore - or 2.19. This is the second youngest team in the Big 12, to only Texas Tech (1.90). Young teams make mistakes. Young teams are inconsistent. Young teams have trouble executing. Young teams have difficulty transitioning from game to game, and from practice to play. What context cannot be lost is that we only lose Jamar and Victor next year, and pick up two more seven-footers. This season, if anything, should largely be a growth period for Rodney and Will, and an excellent chance for Gip, Angel and Diaz to develop. My only worry about next year is whether or not the leader we need emerges.
This team has no superior physical athletic specimens. Collectively, we have a team that can hustle and out-effort other teams, but we don't have a single person that can truly create for themselves, and not a player that can guard a stud on the other side. We're a team that, given the right gameplan and mindset by the opposing team, will give up big games to single players. If the other team can isolate players effectively in favorable positions, we're in trouble. Rodney and Martavious are the only two players that can effectively play on-ball defense with any efficiency. The rest of our defense, and the entirety of our offense, must be predicated on team play. If we play a team that makes us guard straight-up, we're not going to do well. Oklahoma just happens to be a team of that mold - their interior (Fitzgerald/Osby) combined with Pledger makes you guard inside and out. The first time we played them, we made Pledger work pretty hard, but Fitz and Osby killed us inside. Tonight, exact opposite. We sagged in, made it tough on OU's interior, and Pledger lit us up. On defense, we're forced to be an "either-or" team, and we're not escaping that fact any time soon.
What does this all mean? To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm just explaining what I see. What I do know is that all we can do for the rest of the season is expect the unexpected. I don't foresee a complete collapse by any means, but is probably not out of the question. Likewise, we're probably not going 10-0 for the rest of the conference slate, but in theory, we have shown the talent to make it at least plausible, though inconceivably difficult. I think we all know who this team is - they're a young, inconsistent team whose success seems to be tied to something as fickle and random as the flip of a coin: will we show up, or not? Let's watch and find out...
All comments, FanPosts and FanShots reflect only the view of the user creating them.
Why on earth didn't Frank call a TO when it was so clear JO was about to have the ball stripped?
Very poor coaching IMO.
Agree 100% on the poor guard play. Shane has been a total no-show for over a month now. Angel needs to learn how to play aggressively without committing stupid fouls. Will needs to break out of this slump, but more importantly do all the little things much much better. Irving was awful today.
This team has a long way to go. The future is bright, but I fear this year’s team just doesn’t have “it”. We’ve now seen three games in which the other team has made the big plays to win games at the end. I just don’t feel at all in these close games, even at home, that this team will hit the big shot or grab that key rebound.
yeahboozin - January 29, 2012
Miss by everyone on the TO.
Frank should have called it, JO should have called it, Rodney (or whoever our “leader” is) should have called it. JO lost the ball, but everyone dropped it.
I agree we don’t have “it”. I tried to define “it”…leadership, poise, experience, solidarity. No one fits that bill.
I look at it like this: In the grand scheme of things, we arent THAT bad. We’re 15-4, and doomsday theorists aside, we’re on track for a respectable season…better than anything we saw from 1994-2006. Are we competing for the Big 12 title? Probably not. But it someone thought we would this year, they’re out of their mind. This season is eerily similar to 08-09, where we were very young, had some up-and-comers transitioning out of shadows of greats, had no real identity, no real leader, and lost a number of games that we had the capability to win, and just couldnt close the deal.
Look at the season as a whole. Now remove the best 10% (v. MU, parts of v. BU, parts of Diamond Head) and remove the worst 10% (@ KU, v. OU). The remaining 80% is who we are as a team. That remainder is exactly who, if we have any sense of reality, we should expect – a marginal NCAA team, shows flashes of greatness followed by periods of utter awfulness. We are not alone in this regard…no team is exempt from letdowns, poor play, and mistakes.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
Agree very much with this.
Overall it’s been a solid season. And I think it’s great that Frank has brought this program to a place where we are upset by every single loss.
When you consider this team isn’t winning the league and no one could realistically believe has what it takes to win the National Championship, then what we should really want is progress. I think we’re seeing some in major ways – Rod’s emergence as a stud, the freshmen growing into valuable assets, Irving learning what he can and can’t do. Will’s in a sophomore slump, but I’m hopeful he will turn things around. JO is frustrating at times, but seems to be bought back in.
I don’t want to be one of those wait until next year people, but this season is really preparing us for a very solid season next year. Going into the year no one would be that made about 15-5 (4-4). Expectations were just raised in non-conference.
The only guy I’m disappointed in is Shane. At this rate he might not even be on the team next year. I don’t know what is going on, but he’s not playing very well, and more importantly that joy he exhibited on the court last year seems to be completely gone. I hope he can find it again as he’s one of my favorite guys and I think brings a real x-factor to the squad.
yeahboozin - January 29, 2012
Glad there is some one else that sees that this team is lacking the individual that demands the team wins, regardless.
Very good to see that they aren’t playing bad, just not great.
Not sure will make the NCAA this year.
Anon_the_younger - January 29, 2012
I want no part of a Iowa State on Tuesday. I have no doubt the Cats can win in Ames, but I'm really doubting they will.
There are distinct sides in the argument about why this team has continued to fail. BigE and Anon put in on the players and their lack of effort and desire. KSB, myself, powercat12, blame the coaching. I’m certain both leadership and coaching are lacking. This team doesn’t have a Big-12 worthy point guard (that’s on the coaches). How infuriating was it to see all those short-range shots right at the end of the game miss (that’s on the players)?
Martin’s blaming the players, and rarely himself, is driving me nuts. Look at these quotes from the postgame – http://www.kstatesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/012812aac.html
“They dug up and got after us, they made it a real physical game. Obviously we did not respond, we turned the ball over 20 times.”
“I could not have asked these guys to do more to get ready for this game. They were outstanding. When the game started, it got physical. We just stopped running our offense and guys just break off and do their own thing. That is what an aggressive defense does to you, and it happened to us.”
Sean T - January 29, 2012
I don't have a problem with those quotes.
In fact, I agree with them. Turnovers are a major problem for this team. We do have a PG – he just happens to be a freshman. Angel is going to be outstanding. But with the exception of the John Walls, this is what a freshman PG does – make some great plays and make some very stupid plays. Our real issue is not having a solid PG to fill in the minutes when Angel is out of control or in foul trouble. The most frustrating thing for me is how stupidly our experienced guys have handled the PG duty. Spradling and Irving have been very bad at it. Just look at two key plays last night. At the end of the first half when we could have held for one shot, Will throws the ball away and Pledger hits a three going into halftime. When up by six and playing well, Irving throws a telegraphed, lazy pass that’s picked off and then he makes a weak attempt at defense and gives up an and one. We lost by three points. I know these plays individually can’t be blamed, but they’re indicative of the way each guy has handled PG duties.
Now what is on Frank is how stagnant this offense is against physical defenses. Just like the Baylor game, we had the opponent on the ropes at home with their best players one foul away from being done. And instead of attacking, we throw the ball around the perimeter for twenty seconds and the opponent never fouls out. That just shouldn’t happen.
yeahboozin - January 29, 2012
Since you seem to know how coaching works, and know for a fact that HCFM sucks at it, what would you do differently?
I see nothing in the quotes that you referencing where he’s blaming players and not himself. Everything is “we”, with the exception where Will was specifically brought up by the media. The first quote you noted is the fuggin’ truth, plain and simple. The second quote you note – the part we could see tangibly in the game – is the truth.
I also do not feel it is fair whatsoever to say that Anon and I are on one side of the argument or the other. I’m mediating the damn argument, for Christ’s sake. I completely see both sides, and agree to a certain extent with both sides. I’m just trying to temper the anti-Martin rhetoric, because the extremism that it’s being conveyed within the game threads is wearing thin on me. I have no doubt that Frank gets these guys ready to play, and it just doesn’t translate to the floor. Don’t accuse me, implied or otherwise, of “blaming” anyone…I’m just explaining what I see. I don’t think there is any “fault” to be had. It is what it is.
There is a characteristic of basketball players called “coachability”. I don’t think many of our players have that. I think Rod is coachable, I think Will is coachable, I think Vic is coachable. I don’t feel anyone else really is.
Ultimately, we could have John Wooden (posthumously, I suppose) on our sideline, and it wouldn’t freaking matter if the players don’t go do what they’re instructed to do. It’s no different in school. As much as everyone might study, not everyone gets A’s in calculus, but everyone in the class had the same teacher. By your logic, it’s clearly the teachers fault that someone would get a C or a D.
That being said, Frank is not a good enough coach to get a team to overachieve on a regular basis. Anything better than a fifth-place finish in the league would be blatant overachieving. I have no problem with people questioning his methods. But that’s who he is. Obviously, he isn’t bad at coaching or recruiting, given his W-L record compared to even the legendary greats at K-State.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
Do you agree with how he yanks people's playing time around?
If so, why do you suppose that no other coach I can find at a major college does so? Also, while he uses the pronoun “we” in the presser, it’s very clear from the verbs of those sentences whose actions he’s calling out. If he were truly sharing the blame, there would have been something akin to, “We, as a coaching staff, failed to prepare our players for the physical intensity that OU brought to this game” or something like that.
Frank has his strong points and weak points as a coach. I think what bothers me most is that he doesn’t seem to acknowledge that it could very well be HIS weaknesses that cause a lot of the issues he is seeing as problems with his PLAYERS.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
I can't even quantify the number of times Frank says "We didn't prepare the team well enough to win."
He takes his fair share of credit for losses.
He felt the team was prepared for yesterday and didn’t execute. As BigE has said, which I agree with, is turnovers are on the players. Frank isn’t responsible for guys throwing the ball away.
The way he substitutes is well established. I can see the side of the argument that believes players should be allowed to play through mistakes. And many of them are allowed to. I think it’s an exaggeration to say that isn’t the case. Frank’s substitution patterns didn’t hurt us with Jake, Clemente, Curt, Rod, or any number of other players. It’s how he feels he best prepares the team to succeed on an individual and team basis. I don’t think any of us would argue with the results we’ve had in his tenure. Is it frustrating at times? Sure. But in the grand scheme of things, I’ll take a coach of Frank’s ability every day of the week.
yeahboozin - January 29, 2012
I actually don't have a problem with how playing time is dealt with.
We don’t have anyone on the team, outside of Rodney, that is a significant let down when subbed out. That’s why the team legitimately goes 12 deep. I would throw Jamar into that group, but he does it to himself. If anything, I’ll give the man credit for getting players in there, and trying to find some group of guys that will click in game situations.
I don’t sit in practice, so I can’t tell you what goes on there. I also don’t get to listen to timeouts, so no clue there, either. What I believe is that Frank and his staff believe he had this team prepared for the game, and it didn’t translate to the court on Saturday.
I agree Frank has his strong points and his weak points. We all do. But assuming its his methods causing problems seems rather presumptuous to me. I think we just need to let things play out. We have a good coach, that, if he stays (I.e. we don’t run him off) he’ll end up the winningest coach in program history. I’m not about to ask the man to do it, then have the audacity to argue the methods with which he does it, provided his methods are ethical and allowable.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
Just look at the chart someone posted awhile back,
detailing the game-to-game minutes for each player. It’s completely schizoid, and that is one major issue with developing continuity on the offensive end. Barring extreme foul trouble, you simply don’t see other top coaches doing that to their players. As for going “12 deep”, you also don’t see any other top coaches doing that, unless they’re an extremely up-tempo, run-and-gun, pressure-type team. And even when they do, the minutes each player gets normally doesn’t vary wildly from game to game.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
Furthermore, I don't want a coach that automatically goes into a post game presser and says, "well guys, we lost, that's all on me."
Because its a bullshit response. More often then not, that’s just politically-correct rhetoric that the coach thinks the media and fans want to hear. I would rather get the responses we get from Frank, which are, very frank. I want to know the truth. I want to hear that so-and-so had a shitty game, and we couldn’t overcome the quantity of mistakes they made. I want to know that we just got our butts whipped, and we need to get to practice the next day and get better.
His halftime response to Stan was dead on, in my mind. Will got his ass kicked the entire half. You might not want to hear that in an interview, because it might hurt your feelings, but it’s the truth. Ever heard of defense, Stan? Truth. We were downright terrible on defense that game.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
A coach taking public blame isn't being "PC."
It’s protecting the psyche of your players. It’s acknowledging the role you (as a coach) played in the loss, while not throwing 18-20 year old young men under the bus. Truth can be told in such a way that you don’t publicly berate your young people.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
What I'm saying on that last part is,
at some point (usually in non-con), you decide who your best 8 players are, and they play the majority of the minutes, with a 9th guy who usually gets a few minutes, and everyone else plays mop up time.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
And what I'm saying is that we know who the 5-6 are, but the 7,8,9,10,11,12 are all relatively interchangeable.
It’s the chicken or the egg. You think if you get more consistent minutes, you play better. I think if you play better, you get more consistent minutes.
Would I personally coach a team 12 deep? Nope, it’s a nightmare to manage. But that’s me. I’m not Frank.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
The problem with that is,
no other coach I can think of does it the way Frank is doing it. Also, he doesn’t have 5-6 whose minutes vary only slightly. He has, if I remember correctly, 2-3 (Rod, Will, and—I think—Jamar). Everyone else’s playing time chart looks like a volatile stock chart. Additionally, I’m not saying that consistent minutes magically improves play, just that you won’t develop any consistency as a TEAM until you have 5 guys who basically start every game, and 3 others (4 at MOST) that know that they’ll see a fairly consistent level of playing time each game. I’m also saying that it’s fairly impossible for an individual player to develop any consistency when he plays 25 minutes one game, 9 the next, 2 the next, and so on.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
Two thoughts:
1) Frank Martin is unorthodox. It’s why he’s the face of the program. It’s why the media loves him. He does things his own way in a way he believes in deeply. And it has worked wonderfully so far. Does it work every game? No. But if you look at his seasons as a whole, it’s clear that it does.
2) I agree with you on the rotation – it would be much better to have 8 guys who are consistent. But we simply don’t. And I blame that on youth more than anything. First year guys don’t show up everyday. With the exception of Spradling last year, we really haven’t seen a first year guy who gets a ton of PT for the whole year. Gip will go for a double double and then be a total liability the next game. Jeremy Jones will be the Microwave one game and then the next allow more points than minutes played. It’s a balancing act. And all I can say is Frank clearly doesn’t feel he’s found his 8 guys yet. Hopefully he will before the season is done, but until then this is the frustration we have to deal with and not sure there’s any way around it.
yeahboozin - January 29, 2012
I don't disagree with you on this.
I think if we had 8 or 9 that came out and had a competitive attitude every night, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Shane is a great example. He hasn’t played much recently, but it’s not because he’s making mistakes…it’s because he’s not competing. He just looks apathetic. Same reason why GIP gets yanked so quick. It’s also why Vic has seen an increase in his minutes, because he competes. He makes mistakes, he gets put in positions where he flat out gets beat, but he competes every minute he’s out there.
Again, it’s the chicken or the egg. players losing their competitiveness because of the reality of a quick hook, but the quick hook is a direct result of apathy. How that cycle starts or ends is debatable ad nauseum.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
And I guess my argument would be,
that because no other coach of a contending-type of team does it this way, that it’s more likely that Frank’s quick hook is causing a drop in confidence, which in turn causes play that LOOKS apathetic. I just can’t get past the fact that he fiddles and fiddles with the “rotation” (if it can even be called that) during the non-con, and still hasn’t found 8.5 guys that he can at least give the opportunity to develop a chemistry with each other. Until he settles the rotation, and quits yanking guys’ time around based upon each variation in their performance, we (as a TEAM) will not develop any consistency. It’s just completely unreasonable to expect an 18-19 year old young man to play with any consistency when they don’t have any idea how much time they’re going to get game-to-game, nor if their first mistake is going to put them on the bench for the rest of the game.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
(The above was intended as a reply to both YB and TBE.)
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
I wish I could quickly find MPG stats from each of the past four seasons.
It comes to my recollection that 2008-2009 was handled very similarly. A young team, that had a lot of minutes distributed to a lot of players, and not necessarily on a consistent basis – just to find something that works. But as 09-10 and 10-11 came along, those teams settled into more of the 8-9 man rotation you discuss, as they got older.
I would not necessarily expect different right now. I bet next year the rotation will settle into 8 or 9: Rodney, Will, JO, Angel, Gip, Tay, Shane, and Upshaw / Diaz would be my guess today. But this is why the paradigm doesn’t work this year: where does Jeremy Jones fit into that? where does Nino Williams fit into that?
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
I remember last season somewhat differently.
I distinctly remember Wally, Jamar, Shane, and others getting very erratic minutes.
As for this year, my ideal would be:
Starters:
Angel, PG (~25 mpg)
Will, SG (~25 mpg)
Rod, SG/SF (~35 mpg)
Jamar, SF/PF (~25 mpg)
Jordan, C (~25 mpg)
That leaves approximately 65 minutes/game for bench players to fill.
Bench:
Martavious, G (~20 mpg)
Shane, G/F (~15-20 mpg)
Gip, F/C (~15-20 mpg)
Diaz [or one of our guard-types] soaks up 5-10 minutes per game, depending upon foul trouble and whatnot.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
But why were they getting erratic minutes?
Wally was a headcase. Pretty evident by the fact he didn’t stick around, IMO.
Jamar was a bit of one too, and couple that with the fact that he was pretty foul-prone last season (led the team with 3.4 Fouls per game). Jamar has matured a little this year, but still foul-prone.
There’s a reason I started calling Shane “The Paradox”. He gets erratic minutes because he’s an erratic player.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
You are arguing that they received erratic minutes because were headcases.
I’m arguing that Frank’s sub patterns tend to CREATE “head cases” where they may or may not have existed previously. JO is a prime example, as is Shane, in my view. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Frank would give an 8.5 man rotation, similar to what I outlined above, an actual chance to work (say, 6-8 games). I truly believe player development is stunted by the lack of consistency we see in the sub patterns at this point.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
Almost there.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
Crap, I lost my reply.
The stats actually show that we’re not far off from your desired rotation, with two key factors:
Angel is committing nearly 3 fouls per game, but only playing 15.9 MPG. If he could keep himself on the floor, he’d be playing more minutes. He’s taking himself out of the game.
Jamar would actually be in the 30-35 MPG bracket, if he didn’t have the same problem. He’s averaging better than 3.6 fouls per game in his 26.3 MPG.
Will is at 30 MPG. Rod is dead on 35 MPG. JO, when he plays well, gets better than 20 MPG, but when he doesn’t he comes out. Rightfully so, because he’s a tremendous liability when he isn’t playing well; he just gets abused. Martavious is at 24 MPG. Shane is at 14. Gip is at 15. Diaz is at 11. We’re not that far off. A couple of minutes shaved off here and there, and distributed to other players.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
But it's HOW they get to those averages that hurts them, I think.
The erratic nature of their playing time (27 minutes one time, 8 another, 17 another, etc.) doesn’t let them find any “rhythm.”
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
I don't necessarily disagree with you.
I don’t sit in practice, and that’s what Frank bases a lot of his playing time off of. Can’t disagree with that method for the most part.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
And that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Players practice performance will have some significant variance over the course of a season. To yank players’ psyches around by basing playing time on whether they had good practices in the days leading up to a game seems very counterproductive. Practice performance can vary based upon how things are going in their academic lives, their social lives, et al. In my view (and I put this into practice with my young high school varsity team) player development is stymied when there’s no consistency in their playing time.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
No, I'm arguing that Wally was a headcase.
The overall point was that you have to look at why each was getting erratic minutes, not just the fact that they were.
Jamar dealt with foul trouble. Consistently. For four years now.
Shane is Shane. He is the only legitimate argument that I see on the team that Frank’s substitution patterns could be causing a significant performance problem for a player. However, we have seen instances of extended minutes from Shane where we just get nothing out of him. Why not put someone else in?
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
Now that I've spent a half a day debating whether or not Frank should be playing 8 or 10 players, I need to move on to something else.
You might not agree with how things are being done, but its not unprecedented, and we’ll be just fine in the long run. That’s why, by and large, I don’t have a problem with it.
It’s healthy to debate these things, because everyone has their unique spin on it. But let’s not completely lose focus on reality – HCFM is a good coach, he’s good for K-State, and we should want him here. He’s doing what he thinks he should with this group of guys, and its not failing. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Most definitely. But at the beginning of the year, there wasn’t a pundit, media outlet, or talking head that thought we should be making the NCAA tourney this year. Let’s go play hard, figure some things out, win a few games, and prove them all wrong.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
I can't find any other coaches who yo-yo playing time like he does.
I would love to see some examples, but I just can’t find any.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 29, 2012
OK, found it.
In 08-09, we had 10 players averaging over 8 MPG, and 8 players averaging over 18 MPG.
In 09-10, we had 11 players over 8 MPG, but only 5 players averaging over 18 MPG.
In 10-11, we had 12 players over 8 MPG, but again, only 5 over 18 MPG.
This year, we’re back to the same as 08-09, 10 with more than 8 MPG, and 8 with 18 MPG.
In every single one of those seasons, we’ve had two players averaging roughly 30 or more MPG. The similarities between lineups in 08-09 and this year are eerily similar, as well. No real go-to guy yet. Lots of interchangeable parts. Very young – 2.21 average “age” compared to our current 2.19.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
This really is 08-09 all over again.
The guards of the future (Pullen/Clemente, Spradling/Rodriguez) are taking their lumps. The senior “leader” is a guy you really don’t want to build your team around (Kent, Samuels). We lost at home to Baylor both years. We lost at home to Oklahoma both years.
The difference is that we are infinitely better in our non-con than we were that year, and we won at OSU for the first time in forever. Those things should be enough to get us in the Dance as long as we don’t completely fall apart. Then come back and try to be better next year.
BracketCat - January 30, 2012
Oh, yeah, and both teams were 4-4 after 8 games, too.
The difference is that the 08-09 team dug out of a 0-4 hole, while things never quite got that bad this year. But then they were on a hotter streak than this team is on. Also, that team won in Austin and College Station. Not sure this team is capable of that. And if the pattern holds, brace yourselves: There’s one home game left to lose, against a certain team that usually plays pretty well in Bramlage.
BracketCat - January 30, 2012
ISU?
jtarkman - January 30, 2012
KU
BracketCat - February 1, 2012
I didn't think we played Colorado this year.
BlackCats - February 4, 2012
Again, I want to point out that I'm not a Frank Martin apologist.
He has his shortcomings. I just hear things being talked about around Manhattan (my family still lives there), and see things that people post on threads, in forums, etc. What I see is a lot of anti-HCFM sentiment creeping in. I’m trying to simply temper those sentiments, and get people to understand that we should just let things play out.
Frank is a solid coach. I would play for the man (for God’s sake, I got Tom Asbury). For the most part, he has had a lot of success. He has never done anything to truly embarrass the team or the university. He has never done anything – as far as we all know (important caveat) – that is against the rules. He has a track record of getting teams to progress, even in the face of adversity, and even if he subconsciously creates that adversity himself.
Anyone that thinks we would have the opportunity to get a better basketball coach than HCFM into Manhattan is completely delusional, and a greedy mf-er to boot. HCFM is the best thing to happen to this program in decades; I witnessed firsthand the worst period in program history. Anything more than a lateral move in coaching – which I completely and vehemently disagree with – would be a step down for whoever would be targeted.
It will be a sad day – a day I will lose a lot of respect for my fellow K-Staters – if and when Frank gets run out of town for doing what he’s doing right now, or getting fired without just cause.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
Agreed
Lynx rufus - January 29, 2012 via mobile
Frank is a keeper
I’ve been a reader of BOTC for years now but finally feel compelled to comment. K-State would be foolish to run off a coach who has revitalized a morbid program while playing within the rules and graduating his players who stay thorough their senior year. Yes, he frustrates me at times, but he is a good coach that does right by his players on and off the court.
pdb9485 - January 29, 2012
Welcome
I agree with you.
Sean T - January 29, 2012
I agree with most of this
I’ve stayed out of the “fray” recently because I don’t think I have any thing productive to add to the discussion. On balance, Frank is a hell of a coach, and I’m glad he’s here and I hope he stays for years.
Any talk of running him off is crazy talk.
Having said all that, I’m still “frustrated” by the inconsistency. But I don’t know what causes it and I am not smart enough to fix it.
Furnace76 - January 29, 2012
I also agree
Frank makes sure his guys go to class, graduate, and put them in positions to be successful. That’s going to win you a lot of battles with administration. Frank’s teams are also decent. He’s never had a sub-.500 season, made the postseason every year, and keeps the team in the top half of the Big 12.
I keep saying, I think Frank is a good coach. And Frank can become a great coach with just a little more maturity, which is starting to come along. The last few games I have seen him yell less and coach more. He is still fiery and passionate, but there are less wild displays than we are used to. Now there are still some, and one in particular from the OU game directed towards Will comes to mind, but I think he is learning that he needs to control that emotion to become a better coach.
jtarkman - January 29, 2012
I've shared some frustrations on here and elsewhere...
…but I agree that we would be morons to run Frank off for the inconsistency we’re dealing with this year. He’s still a very young coach, and we should allow him to learn on the job. If he starts showing that he’s not able or willing to learn and grow and fix prior mistakes, then serious concern will creep in. Until then, let’s remember that we didn’t have realistic hopes of being much, if any, better than we have been this season.
TB - January 29, 2012
My expectations for every K-State team is a post-season appearence every year.
Yeah, this team is driving me nuts. It doesn’t matter. Until Martin (or Patterson, or Fritz, or Hill, or even Snyder) prove incapable of advancing to the post-season a couple consecutive years (or there are disastrous off-season issues), I have no desire to see any of them leave.
Sean T - January 29, 2012
To be completely fair, there hasn't been anyone (that I know of) calling for HCFM's job.
But, in the current age of immediate information, Facebook, Twitter, sports media, and digital rumor spreading, it doesn’t take much for the negative sentiment to gain momentum and blossom into a full-fledged witch hunt. A person is smart, but people are dumb, extremist and sensationalist.
I just don’t want to see debates about substitution patterns with a really young team turn into calling for Frank’s job without true merit.
TheBigE - January 29, 2012
There has been a TON of criticism of Frank on the message boards (here and elsewhere).
If it’s a reflection of real live conversations in Manhattan, then there’s definitely some grumbling going on.
I don’t think any coach should be above criticism, but let’s not get ridiculous with the frustration. Villanova is awful this year. No one is calling for Jay Wright’s job. UConn has lost three in a row, is 4-4 in conference, and started the year with way more expectations than KSU and no one seems to be questioning everything Jim Calhoun is doing. Has Frank been perfect this year? By no means. But we’re still having a pretty solid season in a “rebuilding” year. Let’s not jump ship just because OU has our number this year.
yeahboozin - January 29, 2012
If there are actual grumblings going on anywhere at this point, then I despair for the human race.
/endoverthetopmessageboardrhetoric
Itchy n Scratchy - January 30, 2012
And, for the record,
I don’t want to see Frank fired. I just want to see him mature into a “grown man”-type of coach, that’s all. That has to do with how he comports himself, as well as the (seemingly) petulant way he yanks people’s playing time around.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 30, 2012
I agree with
this:
And I disagree with this:
For the agreement part, I think Coach Martin is better than most with regards to change. How many people readily admit that they need to change? Coach Martin has done so on more than one occasion.
As for the 2nd part, having had friends from Latin America which has a different culture that is not Midwestern in the least, I have no problems with the way Coach Martin behaves. Coach Martin is Cuban-American and grew up in Florida, compared to some I’ve known he is not as animated. I expect his personality and such are going to be different than Lon Kruger (actually there was a good shot of Kruger at the game Saturday appearing ticked off) and expecting him to act like a reserved Swedish-American might cause frustration.
As for his substituting, I have no idea but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt considering his success as both a high school coach and at K-State.
Anon_the_younger - January 30, 2012
I still haven't got anyone to give me an example of even one other good coach who uses such schizo sub patterns, though.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 30, 2012
Millionth time you've said something similar to this...
That count is pretty much perfect btw.
MeatGeek - January 30, 2012
I just honestly want to know whether anyone can think of a coach who does it.
People act like it’s not that big of a deal, but then can’t come up with another coach who does something similar.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 30, 2012
I typically do not pay attention to other teams, so I'm not familiar with other coaches.
Anon_the_younger - January 31, 2012
This^
only other coaches I know are the big name, uber-successful ones (or uber-terrible ones) like MikeK, Huggins, Wooden, LarryW, Hartman, BobbyK
But those guys are not Frank, and Frank has never had the same style as those guys (well, closer to Huggins than anything, but Frank is still his own coach). And maybe its something he learned from Huggins? I don’t feel like going back into the history of Akron or Cincinnati basketball, but there could be a parallel.
And I would also point out, that we keep circling our arguments…we keep saying the same things just in just a little different way…
jtarkman - January 31, 2012
Finally caught some sleep so I can maybe write decently.
I’ve been on record for some time this season saying that the Cats lack a player that has the ‘will’ to win and can make the team win by taking charge of a game. This is not a knock per se against any player since everyone has a different personality. Each individual on the team wants to win but there is not the player like Henson, Colon or Clemente that the team is gelling around from what I’m observing (hard to really tell from just watching games).
Maybe it is the pressure of the season that is causing the issues, the expectations that the team needs to win. Don’t know. I’m happy with the team in and of itself, although I do not like the results and think this team is capable of much more than it is achieving. Possibly the pressure on the team is keeping it from winning a couple of games, or maybe the team has just had some very slump play that has to be fought through.
As for the coaching, Coach Martin is one of the few that I’ve seen willing to admit in a public venue that he needs to change. I think as coach, he’s where the buck stops but so far I’ve not seen him unwilling to try things to make the Cats better. Install a new offense mid-season? Okay. How many coaches are willing to do that and listen to both the fans and media complain about how bad the team is? I want to see him succeed but I definitely do not want what happened to Altman to happen to him. And the Altman scenario started off with grumbling and worked it’s way into a new coach.
It is easy to look at playing minutes as a metric on playing time, but I think if you look beyond just the minutes to performance on the court such as turnovers and fouls that you can get an appreciation of what is going on. JJ is one player that I like a great deal, but one game he was in resulted in a couple of not so good decisions. You can’t fault his effort or hustle but causing multiple turnovers through actions/fouls was not good. Will JJ continue to improve, yep. Will he probably see more playing time, I hope so. But not sure when it will happen or whose minutes he will take.
Should a coach not play more than 8 or 9? After last season, y’all convinced me that was probably a good idea. But sometimes when you are searching for things, you have to explore more than expected. And that is what some of the substitutions look like to me. I think most of the players that are not starting have had a good game at least once, but no one has had a good game consistently. Which brings the chicken and egg argument to the fore. Some will argue that you have to have time to have good play while others will say good play leads to time. And I if someone is practicing good then I can see the coaches saying lets play him especially when the previous game there were maybe 10 points from the bench. Which is why Vic is playing. He’s not going to get spectacular numbers but he’s going in and playing consistently with few if any turnovers. The one turnover he had on Saturday that I noticed was actually a foul by OU.
If K-State finishing mid-conference is reason for kvetching, remember 10 years ago when finishing mid-conference would be reason for celebrating.
#EMAW
#GO CATS
/hopefully this makes sense … but time to go back to bed.
Anon_the_younger - January 30, 2012
Having played, and now coached,
it’s nigh impossible to develop any rhythm or consistency as a player when you sometimes play 20+ minutes, sometimes single digit minutes, and sometimes not at all. Also, after 20+ games, there’s not much excuse for a coach not knowing his team well enough to figure out his 8-9 best players. Again, I feel like I need to make clear that I don’t want to see Frank fired or anything like that. I just want him to settle on some kind of semblance of a consistent rotation, so that the guys can develop some on-court chemistry. Right now we have none.
Collin's Bloody Elbow - January 30, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bring On The Cats to post a comment.