oversigning or what?

[Duke1Agn]

hanson has shown zero signs of improvement or ability to hold down the starting center position this year. Maybe he can improve enough to be a productive player, but If grocelle leaves we are f'd in the middle.

there are usually step in a play centers lying around in the spring. Maybe a grad transfer will drop out of the air, but big men are usually hard to find.

Agreed. We absolutely need Groselle to return next season. He and Patton will hold down the paint. I'm to the point now where I feel Hanson will be a career substitute. I don't think he has the hands or mental toughness to be a full-time starting center. But he has two seasons of basketball to change my mind.

[RVB]

I also think Zac needs to work on and improve his rebounding skills.

[Chicagojayfan]

I also think Zac needs to work on and improve his rebounding skills.

Good point. I think Groselle has work to do on the boards also, but I do think Hanson and Groselle do a good job of blocking out and it sometimes takes them out of position for cleaning up the rebound. Artino is by far our best rebounder per minute on the floor. His footspeed allows him to be aggressive and get to balls the others can't:

Per 40 minutes (total/conference)
Artino: 11.5 / 11.6
Brooks: 9.0 / 9.5
Hanson: 8.2 / 7.4
Groselle: 7.9 / 7.5
Hegner: 6.5 / 7.1
Kreklow: 5.6 / 5.9

Gilmore is at 9.2 in limited/mop-up minutes, 6.7 in conference. Interestingly he's also at the top of the list for FT's attempted per minute with 10.3 per 40 minutes (13.3 in conference).

A few notes: In conference Hegner's basically been as good of a rebounder as Hanson and Groselle - impressive considering he's been playing on the outside a LOT more than they do. Of course, Brooks is the most impressive rebounder on the squad.

[Trifecta]

I also think Zac needs to work on and improve his rebounding skills.

Good point. I think Groselle has work to do on the boards also, but I do think Hanson and Groselle do a good job of blocking out and it sometimes takes them out of position for cleaning up the rebound. Artino is by far our best rebounder per minute on the floor. His footspeed allows him to be aggressive and get to balls the others can't:

Per 40 minutes (total/conference)
Artino: 11.5 / 11.6
Brooks: 9.0 / 9.5
Hanson: 8.2 / 7.4
Groselle: 7.9 / 7.5
Hegner: 6.5 / 7.1
Kreklow: 5.6 / 5.9

Gilmore is at 9.2 in limited/mop-up minutes, 6.7 in conference. Interestingly he's also at the top of the list for FT's attempted per minute with 10.3 per 40 minutes (13.3 in conference).

A few notes: In conference Hegner's basically been as good of a rebounder as Hanson and Groselle - impressive considering he's been playing on the outside a LOT more than they do. Of course, Brooks is the most impressive rebounder on the squad.

This is not meant to call you out specifically, but "per 40 minutes" statistics are way overblown. I remember the past couple of seasons how so many people were touting Artino's offensive efficiency numbers per 40 minutes as a sign that he could step into Echnique's/Wragge's spot in the lineup. We've seen how that's played out. Artino may be the best "per minute" rebounder on the team...but I think anyone with eyes knows that Devin is the best rebounder on the team by far (especially considering his size and position).

Just because a player has impressive numbers in limited minutes doesn't mean his stats can be extrapolated to a 40 minute game. I think even Nick Bahe addressed this on his show this week--[paraphrasing] "You can't just say if player X was getting more minutes they would be doing well because they did well in 10 or 15 minutes. There is probably a reason they are only playing 10 or 15 minutes in the first place."

I'm not Charles Barkley, but some metrics are overvalued. Of course, what do I know? I would never intentionally foul when tied either despite the 3.7% increase in win probability

[JacobPadilla]

I also think Zac needs to work on and improve his rebounding skills.

Good point. I think Groselle has work to do on the boards also, but I do think Hanson and Groselle do a good job of blocking out and it sometimes takes them out of position for cleaning up the rebound. Artino is by far our best rebounder per minute on the floor. His footspeed allows him to be aggressive and get to balls the others can't:

Per 40 minutes (total/conference)
Artino: 11.5 / 11.6
Brooks: 9.0 / 9.5
Hanson: 8.2 / 7.4
Groselle: 7.9 / 7.5
Hegner: 6.5 / 7.1
Kreklow: 5.6 / 5.9

Gilmore is at 9.2 in limited/mop-up minutes, 6.7 in conference. Interestingly he's also at the top of the list for FT's attempted per minute with 10.3 per 40 minutes (13.3 in conference).

A few notes: In conference Hegner's basically been as good of a rebounder as Hanson and Groselle - impressive considering he's been playing on the outside a LOT more than they do. Of course, Brooks is the most impressive rebounder on the squad.

This is not meant to call you out specifically, but "per 40 minutes" statistics are way overblown. I remember the past couple of seasons how so many people were touting Artino's offensive efficiency numbers per 40 minutes as a sign that he could step into Echnique's/Wragge's spot in the lineup. We've seen how that's played out. Artino may be the best "per minute" rebounder on the team...but I think anyone with eyes knows that Devin is the best rebounder on the team by far (especially considering his size and position).

Just because a player has impressive numbers in limited minutes doesn't mean his stats can be extrapolated to a 40 minute game. I think even Nick Bahe addressed this on his show this week--[paraphrasing] "You can't just say if player X was getting more minutes they would be doing well because they did well in 10 or 15 minutes. There is probably a reason they are only playing 10 or 15 minutes in the first place."

I'm not Charles Barkley, but some metrics are overvalued. Of course, what do I know? I would never intentionally foul when tied either despite the 3.7% increase in win probability

The last thing he said was that Brooks is the most impressive rebounder on the team. Per 40 is just a way to compare on an even playing field, especially for guys who play a similar number of minutes. He could have gone with rebound percentage as well and probably gotten something similar.

[Chicagojayfan]

I also think Zac needs to work on and improve his rebounding skills.

Good point. I think Groselle has work to do on the boards also, but I do think Hanson and Groselle do a good job of blocking out and it sometimes takes them out of position for cleaning up the rebound. Artino is by far our best rebounder per minute on the floor. His footspeed allows him to be aggressive and get to balls the others can't:

Per 40 minutes (total/conference)
Artino: 11.5 / 11.6
Brooks: 9.0 / 9.5
Hanson: 8.2 / 7.4
Groselle: 7.9 / 7.5
Hegner: 6.5 / 7.1
Kreklow: 5.6 / 5.9

Gilmore is at 9.2 in limited/mop-up minutes, 6.7 in conference. Interestingly he's also at the top of the list for FT's attempted per minute with 10.3 per 40 minutes (13.3 in conference).

A few notes: In conference Hegner's basically been as good of a rebounder as Hanson and Groselle - impressive considering he's been playing on the outside a LOT more than they do. Of course, Brooks is the most impressive rebounder on the squad.

This is not meant to call you out specifically, but "per 40 minutes" statistics are way overblown. I remember the past couple of seasons how so many people were touting Artino's offensive efficiency numbers per 40 minutes as a sign that he could step into Echnique's/Wragge's spot in the lineup. We've seen how that's played out. Artino may be the best "per minute" rebounder on the team...but I think anyone with eyes knows that Devin is the best rebounder on the team by far (especially considering his size and position).

Just because a player has impressive numbers in limited minutes doesn't mean his stats can be extrapolated to a 40 minute game. I think even Nick Bahe addressed this on his show this week--[paraphrasing] "You can't just say if player X was getting more minutes they would be doing well because they did well in 10 or 15 minutes. There is probably a reason they are only playing 10 or 15 minutes in the first place."

I'm not Charles Barkley, but some metrics are overvalued. Of course, what do I know? I would never intentionally foul when tied either despite the 3.7% increase in win probability

As Jacob said, In my last note I said that Brooks was the most impressive (meaning that for his position and size, he does an incredible job on the boards). The rest of the guys are playing a similar number of minutes with the mention of Gilmore as the only real outlier, and I added him to make a point about his potential. He appears to get rebounds and get fouled a great deal.

In any case, the main point of this was to take a deeper look into the rebounding of our centers as someone mentioned Zach needing to improve his rebounding. The important point to me is that, the need for him to improve is correct:

- Groselle and Hanson don't get to as many rebounds as you'd like to see your centers get, especially in conference play. Some conference examples per 40: Delgado 14.2; Woods, 12.7; Ocefu, 14.0; Obepka 10.4; Stainbrook, 10.3; Josh Smith 11.3; Tommy Hamilton, 8.0; Luke Fischer, 6.8... They are closer to the lower end than the upper

- One mitigating factor: We do rely on our bigs to do a lot of blocking out to allow others to clean up the rebound. This is an area where Groselle and Hanson are better than Artino as their size makes it harder to shove them out of the way, but Groselle's footspeed and Hanson's just lack of aggressiveness this year make it less likely they'll get to the ball when it's up in the air.

- Hegner looks better on the boards than I expected and has upped his rebounding in conference play. I continue to think he can do a good enough job to play center a few minutes a game in the coming seasons. By comparison, Wragge had 9.4 rebounds per 40 during his injury shortened season, but otherwise never broke 7 in the other 4 years of play and had a 6.3 rebounds per 40 average over his career. Obviously his perimeter shooting made up for it, but Hegner's already surpassed him on the boards an in particular has done so in conference play (7.1 versus 5.5)

So that is what I thought was leaping out of the stats there.

*********

In terms of stats in general. People like to point at Artino and say that the stats don't back things up. Well, we know what we know about him in general. He isn't going to play a ton of minutes, he he has limitations, he can get pushed around by certain centers, but... we know all of our centers have limitations. He does bring things to the table and his efficiency has tracked well throughout his career:
freshman to senior:
PER: Player efficiency rating: 19.7; 29.5 (limited minutes, Doug next to him); 20.5; 19.9 (fairly impressive given the lack of offensive firepower around him this year)
eFG%: .623; .646; .669; .542 (a drop off this year, but probably not as extreme as we've seen from some of the other players)
TRB% (total rebound percentage): 18.1; 18.8; 15.2; 17.3

The biggest shock has been our shooting in general. You expect a drop off with Doug leaving, but the decline has been ridiculous.. Zierden was the difference maker early, but when he got hurt during the conference season and lost his legs, it was over for our offense. ..

Effective FG%
Brooks (.470 last year to .384)
Chatman (.408 freshman, .461, .507 last year, .412 this year)
Milliken (.457);

With Zierden out (.554), we are incredibly lucky Kreklow has stepped up and shot better than he's shot since HS (according to his own comments). We have only Kreklow and Hegner above 50% in effective FG% (.580 and .551 respectively) and otherwise have nobody who takes an outside shot shooting well. It's no wonder Mac has started to pound the ball inside more and more as the season progresses, especially with Groselle finishing so well in the post.

[vivid_dude]

Maybe I'm the last guy willing to get off the Titanic, but I still have faith in Hanson. During his flashes of good play, he brings something to the table that you can't teach. It's a more natural, polished feel. Unfortunately, we rarely see it, so it's frustrating. Perhaps with Artino gone, and no three-headed post monster to endure next season (assuming Patton redshirts, which I am doing), he'll be able to find that consistency and surprise a lot of people in 2015-2016. Or maybe I'll be playing cello with the band as we sink into the frozen Atlantic.

[AttyAlum]

Zierden was the difference maker early, but when he got hurt during the conference season and lost his legs, it was over for our offense. ..

I could certainly be wrong, but I don't know that we can attribute all of Zierden's drop off to injury. When he was defended by longer, quicker, more athletic guys once conference play began, his productivity dropped. On top of that, he also had to chase around those same longer, quicker, more athletic guys on the defensive end of the floor as well. Perhaps the differential in size, quickness and athleticism had a significant impact on his offensive productivity as well. It certainly had an impact on his ability to get good shots and to get those shots off.

[Chicagojayfan]

Maybe I'm the last guy willing to get off the Titanic, but I still have faith in Hanson. During his flashes of good play, he brings something to the table that you can't teach. It's a more natural, polished feel. Unfortunately, we rarely see it, so it's frustrating. Perhaps with Artino gone, and no three-headed post monster to endure next season (assuming Patton redshirts, which I am doing), he'll be able to find that consistency and surprise a lot of people in 2015-2016. Or maybe I'll be playing cello with the band as we sink into the frozen Atlantic.

I still have a lot of confidence in him getting better also. He's obviously struggled this year, but he has things you can't teach. Decent height, good bulk and strength, good footspeed and agility, decent bounce for a big guy, .. he has to work on the other things, but I think he can get there.

For the past year I often said we should be patient to see what we got from Groselle, and that worked out pretty well. As I said then, Mac, Merfeld and Sellers have all gotten more out of guys with less talent than Groselle (and now Hanson). Let's see how far he gets by next year.

[Chicagojayfan]

Zierden was the difference maker early, but when he got hurt during the conference season and lost his legs, it was over for our offense. ..

I could certainly be wrong, but I don't know that we can attribute all of Zierden's drop off to injury. When he was defended by longer, quicker, more athletic guys once conference play began, his productivity dropped. On top of that, he also had to chase around those same longer, quicker, more athletic guys on the defensive end of the floor as well. Perhaps the differential in size, quickness and athleticism had a significant impact on his offensive productivity as well. It certainly had an impact on his ability to get good shots and to get those shots off.

To me it looked like he had played too many minutes and lost his legs - coming into the conference season he'd played 43, 42, 35, 36 minutes in that stretch.. IMO, way too many for him with his knee injury issues.

Teams made him a focus, and Chatman's implosion really hurt, but Zierden had a track record of playing well against some good defenses coming in - 11 pts against OK, 13 pts against NU, 18 against Ole Miss, 17 against St. Mary's.

I could be wrong as well, but it looked to me like he's lost almost all of his elevation on his jumper (But even then it doesn't matter so much. In the 4th game of the conference year, he missed a half due to the injury, until dropping out entirely in the 7th game.. so at best, he had 3 healthy games) but I think he can score against good teams as well, provided we move the ball and distribute and that he's healthy. He's not a guy to get his own shot, but often we don't need that.. we just need someone to hit the open jumper... without him we've had only Kreklow and Hegner who can even shoot open 3's at a passable rate. We'll see more next year.