Bear Down Wildcats

I've seen enough. If Miller won't start RHJ, then let's go with Pitts.

He's earned the minutes at this point.

I'm all on this wagon. Don't care what pictures Gabe has, Start Pitts

Pitts is shooting better in games, but Pitts has zero game outside shooting 3's while York is a better handler and slasher. Pitts is still too stiff on defense. Without fail he gets caught on the high ball screen every time and the shooter is left open.

They're both on the same level. Go with the more experienced go who has the potential to be lights-out from deep.

RHJ will be starting by PAC 12 season.

Be patient

Sure would like to hear a compelling point why he shouldn't start over York

eoe wrote:Pitts is shooting better in games, but Pitts has zero game outside shooting 3's while York is a better handler and slasher. Pitts is still too stiff on defense. Without fail he gets caught on the high ball screen every time and the shooter is left open.

They're both on the same level. Go with the more experienced go who has the potential to be lights-out from deep.

It's better than watching Gabe get beat off the dribble over and over.

Alieberman wrote:RHJ will be starting by PAC 12 season.

Be patient

It's coming.

Pitts as a Senior = All Pac-12 and mid-half 2nd round draft pick.

eoe wrote:Pitts is shooting better in games, but Pitts has zero game outside shooting 3's while York is a better handler and slasher. Pitts is still too stiff on defense. Without fail he gets caught on the high ball screen every time and the shooter is left open.

They're both on the same level. Go with the more experienced go who has the potential to be lights-out from deep.

Pitts is far superior to York off the dribble... it's not even close. York's FG% once he drives has to be under 20%, usually because he takes the shot no matter what, even if the defense collapses on him.

UofACat23 wrote:

eoe wrote:Pitts is shooting better in games, but Pitts has zero game outside shooting 3's while York is a better handler and slasher. Pitts is still too stiff on defense. Without fail he gets caught on the high ball screen every time and the shooter is left open.

They're both on the same level. Go with the more experienced go who has the potential to be lights-out from deep.

Pitts is far superior to York off the dribble... it's not even close. York's FG% once he drives has to be under 20%, usually because he takes the shot no matter what, even if the defense collapses on him.

On the handful of Pitt drives in his career, most end up being bad jump-stop shots. He can't finish. York tore up Kansas State on drives and mid-range jumpers, something Pitts is not able to do in games at this point.

Pitts this season:

20 shots on the year, 5 were 2-pt shots of which he made 2. He's a deep-shooter through and through.

York this season:

50 shots on the year, 21 were 2-pt shots of which he made 11 (that's >than 50%). He has proven in multiple games this season alone he can drive to the basket, make the floater, and hit the long ball. Something Pitts has never shown in any game in his time at Arizona.

eoe wrote:

UofACat23 wrote:

eoe wrote:Pitts is shooting better in games, but Pitts has zero game outside shooting 3's while York is a better handler and slasher. Pitts is still too stiff on defense. Without fail he gets caught on the high ball screen every time and the shooter is left open.

They're both on the same level. Go with the more experienced go who has the potential to be lights-out from deep.

Pitts is far superior to York off the dribble... it's not even close. York's FG% once he drives has to be under 20%, usually because he takes the shot no matter what, even if the defense collapses on him.

On the handful of Pitt drives in his career, most end up being bad jump-stop shots. He can't finish. York tore up Kansas State on drives and mid-range jumpers, something Pitts is not able to do in games at this point.

If you rewatch that game you'll see all of Yorks points came on catch and shoots and every time he took a dribble he missed his shot. York is the definition of one dimensional.

UofACat23 wrote:

eoe wrote:

UofACat23 wrote:

eoe wrote:Pitts is shooting better in games, but Pitts has zero game outside shooting 3's while York is a better handler and slasher. Pitts is still too stiff on defense. Without fail he gets caught on the high ball screen every time and the shooter is left open.

They're both on the same level. Go with the more experienced go who has the potential to be lights-out from deep.

Pitts is far superior to York off the dribble... it's not even close. York's FG% once he drives has to be under 20%, usually because he takes the shot no matter what, even if the defense collapses on him.

On the handful of Pitt drives in his career, most end up being bad jump-stop shots. He can't finish. York tore up Kansas State on drives and mid-range jumpers, something Pitts is not able to do in games at this point.

If you rewatch that game you'll see all of Yorks points came on catch and shoots and every time he took a dribble he missed his shot. York is the definition of one dimensional.

One game doesn't make a player. It also doesn't change the fact that Pitts is a one-dimensional player in every sense of the word.

Besides you're wrong. York had a floater and a dunk and another drive where he got fouled and shot FTs. Pitt had one drive to the basket where instead of finishing his drive, he jump-stopped 4 feet away and had his shot blocked on the front-side by a 6-6 mormon.

York is a much better shooter than Rondae, thus he gets the nod and Rondae comes in when we need more scoring inside. We are 8-0 and the teams shooting percentage is better than last years thus far (likely will dip). I'm not really seeing any arguments that are worthwhile made by you are anyone else with logic or numbers, so I'm not going to discuss the issue any longer. Pitts and York are both crucial to winning a NC this year.

I honestly don't think Pitts or York should start.

Chicat wrote:I honestly don't think Pitts or York should start.

Typical. Shouldn't surprise us that you'd be one of those "start your best players" types.

Longhorned wrote:

Chicat wrote:I honestly don't think Pitts or York should start.

Typical. Shouldn't surprise us that you'd be one of those "start your best players" types.

I was actually leaning towards starting the game going 4 on 5. It's a bold strategy, but I think it can pay dividends in March.

Start PJC, Elliott, Stanley, Brandon & Dusan. Position them outside the arc. Bomb away for 43.8%. Offensive 'problems' solved.

Agree. If RHJ own going to start Pitts needs to be over York.

Don't get the hard-on for RHJ to start. It's been dissected over and over.

He gets starter minutes
He provides a surge off the bench in energy and play, which is a MASSIVE boost mentally for all of the guys on the court. Major advantage in games against power teams where we might be struggling.
It looks incredibly selfless (it is) and impressive to scouts and NBA GMs (we've already had that fact drilled into our ears every broadcast). Rondae is getting all kinds of positive press from it and it will help his draft projection big time.
The player himself is a proponent and he likes the idea of being the spark plug as it's something he's comfortable and It has become his identity (something he has stated).

Yet, despite all these facts and logical factors, we have people who still want to mess with what everyone on the team is comfortable with and advocating for because "we start slow". Here's a great idea, let's start Rondae, fall into a rut against a good team, then go to the bench to insert the sparkp....oh that's right.

Dream scenario for any team with a player of his caliber and yet there's nonstop bitching. The guys getting as many minutes as anyone on the team, yet the change needs to be made!!!

Rondae and York aren't in the same league, but each have their role. Rondae starting doesn't change the offensive makeup or philosophy of this team.

Pitts, York, and Jefferson are getting plenty of minutes. Complaining about who the starters should be is pure semantics.

eoe wrote: Yet, despite all these facts and logical factors, we have people who still want to mess with what everyone on the team is comfortable with and advocating for because "we start slow". Here's a great idea, let's start Rondae, fall into a rut against a good team, then go to the bench to insert the sparkp....oh that's right.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Why do you think Miller started Rondae in the 2nd half of Missouri, SDSU, and sent him to the scorers table 1 minute into the second half of the Gonzaga game? If it's really in the team's best interest for Rondae to come off the bench, why wouldn't Miller have kept him on the bench in those situations?

2. Why do you think no other team in the country has their best player coming off the bench? Is there something unique about Arizona's roster that doesn't apply to any other team, and if so what is it?

3. Why do you think that York (or another player) could not provide a spark off the bench?

4. Why do you think it's more important for Rondae to spark the offense around the 17 minute mark when he comes into the game than for Rondae to spark the offense at the 20 minute mark by starting?

Miller said or maybe alluded to that the Cats need a 3 point shooter to start, otherwise the opposing D will just pack the paint.

But with BAsh coming around on his 3s, and SJ being a legit threat, that won't happen now.

If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Zeus, 4 points and 2 rebounds against a bunch of 26 year old Mormons a head shorter than you?

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

I honestly don't see scoring as our problem. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find a problem at all. We're playing great defense and really good offense in stretches. I thought rebounding margin might be an issue after what we saw in the Gonzaga and SDSU games, but against UVU it wasn't close.

Zeus played only 19 minutes and sat for long stretches, so his stat line isn't actually all that surprising. Since he wasn't in foul trouble, my guess is that because he was guarding a much smaller guy who was running him around the perimeter, Miller decided to save his legs and let him sit a while instead of chasing a rabbit all over the court.

Few points:
- It doesn't really matter who starts. It matters who plays the most. Especially in crunch time.
-Pitts is a better pure shooter and defender than Gabe. Gabe is probably a better finisher (i.e. dunking) but struggles to make contested shots or drives to the rim with a defender on him.
-The reoccurring problem on offense (I use problem loosely, because some of us don't see a top 20 AdjO as a problem) is that players need to take the shots open to them beyond the arc. This leads to my next point...
-The teams "lack of perimeter shooting" has lead to a 36.8% beyond the arc, which is not nearly as bad as the narrative would suggest.
-Players that defend will start and get minutes. Those pining for Ristic or PJC to start are comical, considering they have a ways to go on the defensive end of the floor.
-All of these issues have lead to a top 3 ranking and an undefeated season.

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

Just offering a suggestion on how to stop these God awful slow starts.

UA was actually ahead at the first TV time out for once, but quickly went behind immediately afterwards as the UA had committed a foul.

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

I honestly don't see scoring as our problem. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find a problem at all. We're playing great defense and really good offense in stretches. I thought rebounding margin might be an issue after what we saw in the Gonzaga and SDSU games, but against UVU it wasn't close.

Zeus played only 19 minutes and sat for long stretches, so his stat line isn't actually all that surprising. Since he wasn't in foul trouble, my guess is that because he was guarding a much smaller guy who was running him around the perimeter, Miller decided to save his legs and let him sit a while instead of chasing a rabbit all over the court.

If Tarc could play offense like Ristic, then Ristic would be our starter because Tarc would be in the NBA. And we'd have lost two games by now. I'm glad that Miller is so encouraging of Ristic, and that Ristic works as hard as he does, because he's got a long way to go before he's ready for starter minutes on a team trying to earn a 1-seed.

Merkin wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

Just offering a suggestion on how to stop these God awful slow starts.

UA was actually ahead at the first TV time out for once, but quickly went behind immediately afterwards as the UA had committed a foul.

It is pretty frustrating.

Merkin wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

Just offering a suggestion on how to stop these God awful slow starts.

UA was actually ahead at the first TV time out for once, but quickly went behind immediately afterwards as the UA had committed a foul.

I'm struggling to figure out why a slow start matters at all beyond the aesthetics of having to watch a team play a close game early.

If the team starts the game by playing even for ten minutes and then outscores the opponent by 30 over the next 30 minutes, is that really an "issue"?

Going back to some of our losses last year, in the ASU game it wasn't a slow start that doomed us. In fact, we were up 20-14 at one point. It was allowing them back into the game in the 2nd half. In the Oregon game we were up 9-2 at just under 16 minutes left in the first half and 18-8 with 10 minutes left. We then let them get back into it right before halftime.

So I would venture to say (and stay with me now, because this is going to be crazy) that starting slow or fast has less affect on the outcome of a game than the way we play through the rest of the game.

I don't get the complaints either Chi...I am always interested in the final outcomes of games, instead of how they look. I guess there needs to be things to complain about, but if we fixed the "slow starts" someone would complain about the "creamy middles".

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

Just offering a suggestion on how to stop these God awful slow starts.

UA was actually ahead at the first TV time out for once, but quickly went behind immediately afterwards as the UA had committed a foul.

I'm struggling to figure out why a slow start matters at all beyond the aesthetics of having to watch a team play a close game early.

If the team starts the game by playing even for ten minutes and then outscores the opponent by 30 over the next 30 minutes, is that really an "issue"?

Going back to some of our losses last year, in the ASU game it wasn't a slow start that doomed us. In fact, we were up 20-14 at one point. It was allowing them back into the game in the 2nd half. In the Oregon game we were up 9-2 at just under 16 minutes left in the first half and 18-8 with 10 minutes left. We then let them get back into it right before halftime.

So I would venture to say (and stay with me now, because this is going to be crazy) that starting slow or fast has less affect on the outcome of a game than the way we play through the rest of the game.

You're right, but as a related point, UACat23 posted the math on how the starting lineup responsible for these slow starts staggers the lineups in a way that limits the amount of time your best lineup can be in the court. There's evidence to believe that with a different starting lineup (RHJ in for York), the starts would be faster, and we have an increased chance to play even better the rest of the game.

UAGreg wrote:I've seen enough. If Miller won't start RHJ, then let's go with Pitts.

He's earned the minutes at this point.

Elliot shot well. Glad to see him on the court ..it'll pay off in March.

Olsondogg wrote:I don't get the complaints either Chi...I am always interested in the final outcomes of games, instead of how they look. I guess there needs to be things to complain about, but if we fixed the "slow starts" someone would complain about the "creamy middles".

I much more enjoy the last ten minutes than the first, not because of anything related to slow starts. My pleasure comes from the wear down at the end of games. When we kick it into the next gear and you can see the other team just wilt. Then you look at the scoreboard and realize that in 6 or 8 minutes the other team has gotten off like 5 shots and only hit 1 and we've gone up by 10 points because of relentless soul-crushing defense. That to me is far more enjoyable than if we were to come out, punch a team in the face in the first few minutes and then coast the rest of the game just trying not to give up a lead.

I understand the reasoning behind York getting the start, but it obviously is not the only approach that can be considered. RHJ should be starting; it is a superior team with him on the floor. It is commendable that he is such a team player that he is willing to come off the bench to help another player. However, if York needs to start so that he doesn't go cold is not a factor that should dictate what is going on with the line-up. If York is cold and inconsistent coming off the bench, then give Pitts the minutes. And frankly, York misses enough 3's (and a ton of short-range shots) as a starter, so it isn't as if there has been some real value giving him the start. Perhaps having RHJ starting will improve the slow starts -- more defensive pressure, easy buckets, steals, etc. Pitts has been a much more reliable long-range shooter. It is also frustrating to think that there will be another year of significant York minutes next year when he is a senior considering there are some major scoring guards coming in -- and with Pitts moving into his junior year. Very frustrating.

midnightx wrote:I understand the reasoning behind York getting the start, but it obviously is not the only approach that can be considered. RHJ should be starting; it is a superior team with him on the floor. It is commendable that he is such a team player that he is willing to come off the bench to help another player. However, if York needs to start so that he doesn't go cold is not a factor that should dictate what is going on with the line-up. If York is cold and inconsistent coming off the bench, then give Pitts the minutes. And frankly, York misses enough 3's (and a ton of short-range shots) as a starter, so it isn't as if there has been some real value giving him the start. Perhaps having RHJ starting will improve the slow starts -- more defensive pressure, easy buckets, steals, etc. Pitts has been a much more reliable long-range shooter. It is also frustrating to think that there will be another year of significant York minutes next year when he is a senior considering there are some major scoring guards coming in -- and with Pitts moving into his junior year. Very frustrating.

I think we might be overlooking the possibility that RHJ feels like he plays better coming off the bench and that it's a mental block where being on the court at the opening tip feels off to him somehow.

Chicat wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:I don't get the complaints either Chi...I am always interested in the final outcomes of games, instead of how they look. I guess there needs to be things to complain about, but if we fixed the "slow starts" someone would complain about the "creamy middles".

I much more enjoy the last ten minutes than the first, not because of anything related to slow starts. My pleasure comes from the wear down at the end of games. When we kick it into the next gear and you can see the other team just wilt. Then you look at the scoreboard and realize that in 6 or 8 minutes the other team has gotten off like 5 shots and only hit 1 and we've gone up by 10 points because of relentless soul-crushing defense. That to me is far more enjoyable than if we were to come out, punch a team in the face in the first few minutes and then coast the rest of the game just trying not to give up a lead.

I totally agree. The problem is that this is seldom discussed, aside from a few tweets during the games. When the game summary is written, it is always about how AZ "started slow" or "took a while" or the other team "hung around". For example:

The No. 3 Wildcats made Pitts' point by getting off to a slow start and then routing Utah Valley 87-56 on Tuesday night.

From Saturday:

Arizona (8-0) rallied from a poor-shooting first half and a couple of deficits in the second half.

Seldom do they mention that last night, Utah Valley went nearly 7 minutes without a score against UA's defense.

Or that the Zags, one of the nations premiere offensive teams, scored one single shot from the field (a trey from Pangos) in OT, and failed to score from the field in the final 4 minutes of regulation. That's 9 minutes of game time, with one make from the field.

But starting fast is the narrative. Ok.

Olsondogg wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:I don't get the complaints either Chi...I am always interested in the final outcomes of games, instead of how they look. I guess there needs to be things to complain about, but if we fixed the "slow starts" someone would complain about the "creamy middles".

I much more enjoy the last ten minutes than the first, not because of anything related to slow starts. My pleasure comes from the wear down at the end of games. When we kick it into the next gear and you can see the other team just wilt. Then you look at the scoreboard and realize that in 6 or 8 minutes the other team has gotten off like 5 shots and only hit 1 and we've gone up by 10 points because of relentless soul-crushing defense. That to me is far more enjoyable than if we were to come out, punch a team in the face in the first few minutes and then coast the rest of the game just trying not to give up a lead.

I totally agree. The problem is that this is seldom discussed, aside from a few tweets during the games. When the game summary is written, it is always about how AZ "started slow" or "took a while" or the other team "hung around". For example:

The No. 3 Wildcats made Pitts' point by getting off to a slow start and then routing Utah Valley 87-56 on Tuesday night.

From Saturday:

Arizona (8-0) rallied from a poor-shooting first half and a couple of deficits in the second half.

Seldom do they mention that last night, Utah Valley went nearly 7 minutes without a score against UA's defense.

Or that the Zags, one of the nations premiere offensive teams, scored one single shot from the field (a trey from Pangos) in OT, and failed to score from the field in the final 4 minutes of regulation. That's 9 minutes of game time, with one make from the field.

But starting fast is the narrative. Ok.

Makes me wonder (and I'm only half serious here) if the late start times of west coast basketball are to blame. East coast sportswriters would probably prefer that we jump out to a huge lead and then coast so they can write their stories before halftime, fill in some names and numbers by the 3/4 mark, and then shoot off the summary right at the final whistle.

Obviously that wouldn't apply to games like Gonzaga that happen during the day, but for late night games I'm sure that whatever the first impressions are is what gets written and not too much gets revised after the end unless something crazy happens like an upset.

But the wear down should be even more pronounced if you can put your best and most massive lineup on the court more minutes per game. Instead, we're sacrificing that for what can only be argued is the need for outside shooting to open the floor (but not using your best shooter to do it), or this idea that RHJ is somehow more comfortable coming off the bench (no All-American is comfortable coming off the bench).

Longhorned wrote:But the wear down should be even more pronounced if you can put your best and most massive lineup on the court more minutes per game. Instead, we're sacrificing that for what can only be argued is the need for outside shooting to open the floor (but not using your best shooter to do it), or this idea that RHJ is somehow more comfortable coming off the bench (no All-American is comfortable coming off the bench).

Why should the wear down be even more pronounced if the starting lineup is tweaked? The wear down happens at the end. If anything, you'd think that playing our best players less at the beginning gives them more strength and stamina for the end of games. Shit, maybe the walk-ons should play the majority of the first half.

Going back into time, Pitts was a diamond in the rough.

When he committed, the fandom questioned why we would take such a skinny 3 star player with no national publicity. This during the time when CSM was picking up 5 and 4 stars left and right. People just chalked it up that he will be a good guy to have in practice and get some sloppy time at the end of a blowout game.

Miller is a witch to see what Pitts could become. He looks like a new man out there, confident, great head on his shoulders.

Damn, another thing, Miller seems to only recruit high quality smart players, the cream of the crop, team players... not losers or turds with crazy talent.

I haven't an idea of the cause, but our AdjO at this point is at #14 and our AdjD is at #12. Nothing to scoff at there.

I have heard, and continue to hear, how great the Zags are from the offensive side of the ball...and I witnessed how well that team could shoot in McKale. To hold them to 39% from the floor, 23.5% from the arc, and to hold them from scoring for nearly 9 minutes should have been the focus. Instead, the focus becomes how Arizona doesn't win pretty.

For the record, this is shaping up to be Miller's best shooting team from the floor. Arizona sits at 49.8% currently. It's also averaging the highest points per game at 76 PPG.

So for everyone that is complaining about the offense, I can point to it being the best it ever has been under Miller. If you don't like that, then perhaps a Miller coached team is not for you...


Oh and to focus on Pitts, the point of the thread...the dude is shooting 52.6% from the arc.

Chicat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:But the wear down should be even more pronounced if you can put your best and most massive lineup on the court more minutes per game. Instead, we're sacrificing that for what can only be argued is the need for outside shooting to open the floor (but not using your best shooter to do it), or this idea that RHJ is somehow more comfortable coming off the bench (no All-American is comfortable coming off the bench).

Why should the wear down be even more pronounced if the starting lineup is tweaked? The wear down happens at the end. If anything, you'd think that playing our best players less at the beginning gives them more strength and stamina for the end of games. Shit, maybe the walk-ons should play the majority of the first half.

Brilliant!

Olsondogg wrote:I haven't an idea of the cause, but our AdjO at this point is at #14 and our AdjD is at #12. Nothing to scoff at there.

I have heard, and continue to hear, how great the Zags are from the offensive side of the ball...and I witnessed how well that team could shoot in McKale. To hold them to 39% from the floor, 23.5% from the arc, and to hold them from scoring for nearly 9 minutes should have been the focus. Instead, the focus becomes how Arizona doesn't win pretty.

For the record, this is shaping up to be Miller's best shooting team from the floor. Arizona sits at 49.8% currently. It's also averaging the highest points per game at 76 PPG.

So for everyone that is complaining about the offense, I can point to it being the best it ever has been under Miller. If you don't like that, then perhaps a Miller coached team is not for you...


Oh and to focus on Pitts, the point of the thread...the dude is shooting 52.6% from the arc.

Great stuff OD. Puts our "issues" into perspective.

The point of the thread was less about the slow starts and more about the part where Pitts has been routinely outplaying York. However, I do agree that at some point the slow starts could come back to bite us, but that's another discussion.

If Miller sticks to his guns, he wants a shooter in the lineup and for RHJ to come off the bench. Pitts seems like the better option both defensively, and offensively at this point. York should not be getting beaten off the dribble consistently against these inferior teams. I thought his defense in the first half tonight was pretty poor.

Merkin wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Merkin wrote:If anything, I would like to see Ristic start over Tarc.

C'mon Dean, you're smarter than this. Sean Miller's centers are defense-first players. Ristic is still god-awful defensively and Miller is not going to start him or play him starter's minutes until he improves drastically.

Just offering a suggestion on how to stop these God awful slow starts.

UA was actually ahead at the first TV time out for once, but quickly went behind immediately afterwards as the UA had committed a foul.

Wait. How could we have the lead at the first timeout and then fall behind after Rondae was in there sparking us? Because he had a pretty bad first half offensively. Turnover city. Rondae has started before. Six times, I believe. I don't believe we started fast each time. There is this assumption that we would ... that the problem is that one guy who starts at the two guard.

I don't see the other four busting out of the gates either. Problem goes deeper than who starts. I don't get it. Can't fathom why it continually occurs. Blaming York is silly. Exaggerating his flaws -- "it's not even close" between him and Pitts; "beat off the dribble every time" is silly.

I get the emotional stuff as the games are played, but -- dang! -- clinging to that stuff against all evidence later on is weird.

Olsondogg wrote:Few points:
- It doesn't really matter who starts. It matters who plays the most. Especially in crunch time.
-Pitts is a better pure shooter and defender than Gabe. Gabe is probably a better finisher (i.e. dunking) but struggles to make contested shots or drives to the rim with a defender on him.
-The reoccurring problem on offense (I use problem loosely, because some of us don't see a top 20 AdjO as a problem) is that players need to take the shots open to them beyond the arc. This leads to my next point...
-The teams "lack of perimeter shooting" has lead to a 36.8% beyond the arc, which is not nearly as bad as the narrative would suggest.
-Players that defend will start and get minutes. Those pining for Ristic or PJC to start are comical, considering they have a ways to go on the defensive end of the floor.
-All of these issues have lead to a top 3 ranking and an undefeated season.

I realize that we're still undefeated at this point, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the flaws. The goal is to be a better team by March, not be satisfied with our team just because they haven't lost year. There's always room for improvement.

UAGreg wrote:The point of the thread was less about the slow starts and more about the part where Pitts has been routinely outplaying York. However, I do agree that at some point the slow starts could come back to bite us, but that's another discussion.

If Miller sticks to his guns, he wants a shooter in the lineup and for RHJ to come off the bench. Pitts seems like the better option both defensively, and offensively at this point. York should not be getting beaten off the dribble consistently against these inferior teams. I thought his defense in the first half tonight was pretty poor.

I honestly don't see where or how Pitts is outplaying York, especially on the defensive end. This "consistent" bad defense on dribble drives is something I haven't witnessed. I do see him getting beat off the dribble but I've seen Pitts get beaten, and Rondae, and TJ, and Stanley and so on. If you don't want to foul, you are going to get beaten to spots on occasion. That's just basketball. Even the best defensive players in the world can't stop every drive unless they foul every time.

If York's on-ball defense is as bad as it's made out to be by people here (it's not), it would be so glaringly obvious that A) opposing teams only play would be to go right at him and B) Sean Miller would not let him see the floor. So I'm thinking York "consistently" being beaten off the dribble is more hyperbole than anything.

Miller is far more an expert on college basketball and coaching defense than I will ever be. I defer to him.

Bosy Billups wrote:
Damn, another thing, Miller seems to only recruit high quality smart players, the cream of the crop, team players... not losers or turds with crazy talent.

I believe it was one season that make him realize what types of players he should be recruiting...

UAGreg wrote:The point of the thread was less about the slow starts and more about the part where Pitts has been routinely outplaying York. However, I do agree that at some point the slow starts could come back to bite us, but that's another discussion.

I agree with that, and that is my concern. Not all teams are going to wear down at the end. Gonzaga had 3 chances at the end to tie and go to OT, 2 3 pt shots and the 3 FTs.

UK definitely won't wear down with their platoon system, but that is going to be a tough team to beat anyway.

UofACat23 wrote:

eoe wrote: Yet, despite all these facts and logical factors, we have people who still want to mess with what everyone on the team is comfortable with and advocating for because "we start slow". Here's a great idea, let's start Rondae, fall into a rut against a good team, then go to the bench to insert the sparkp....oh that's right.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Why do you think Miller started Rondae in the 2nd half of Missouri, SDSU, and sent him to the scorers table 1 minute into the second half of the Gonzaga game? If it's really in the team's best interest for Rondae to come off the bench, why wouldn't Miller have kept him on the bench in those situations?

Why do you think that Miller doesn't have the team's best interest in mind in failing to start Rondae? Because that's what this question implies.

You use his decision to start Rondae in the second half against Mizzou and to place him early in the game against SDSU as fortification for your point. But when he makes a decision that you wouldn't make, he's suspect. Aren't you really just saying he's smarter when he agrees with you?

I suspect he watched the first half against Mizzou and made an adjustment. Against SDSU, he watched the two guard bomb a couple of threes, and adjusted.

That's the thing about this whole inflated debate. Regardless of who starts, the coach can adjust.

UAGreg wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:Few points:
- It doesn't really matter who starts. It matters who plays the most. Especially in crunch time.
-Pitts is a better pure shooter and defender than Gabe. Gabe is probably a better finisher (i.e. dunking) but struggles to make contested shots or drives to the rim with a defender on him.
-The reoccurring problem on offense (I use problem loosely, because some of us don't see a top 20 AdjO as a problem) is that players need to take the shots open to them beyond the arc. This leads to my next point...
-The teams "lack of perimeter shooting" has lead to a 36.8% beyond the arc, which is not nearly as bad as the narrative would suggest.
-Players that defend will start and get minutes. Those pining for Ristic or PJC to start are comical, considering they have a ways to go on the defensive end of the floor.
-All of these issues have lead to a top 3 ranking and an undefeated season.

I realize that we're still undefeated at this point, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the flaws. The goal is to be a better team by March, not be satisfied with our team just because they haven't lost year. There's always room for improvement.

Look I agree...definite room for improvement. If we started "faster" and continued to play we have in the last 20-30 minutes of the game, then the offensive metrics and stats would be even better.

There is a reason why Miller plays and uses the players in the way he does. There is a reason that Ristic played what he played against Gonzaga and then Utah Valley.

Not all games are created equal.

I am more concerned that this team has yet to play a true roadie yet. I guess it makes sense considering that we lost our two best players from last year, and it has taken a bit of time for this team to gel. I am excited to see what happens in a (more) hostile environment.

Are the 2.5-3 minutes to start a game really that important to the fans? Do you want RHJ introduced in the arena? Why the focus on starting when it clearly doesn't matter to him?

Pitts should not start btw.