Bear Down Wildcats

Chicat wrote:Parrish has us at #6 right behind Wisconsin. I would say that the UA and UW records are similar, but that Rutgers loss is startling. 10-19 overall and since they beat Wiscy they've lost 12 straight. Also, they have a home loss, albeit to Duke. I'd have UA slightly ahead of them right now but I can understand if people look at Kaminsky and the results from last year in their calculations.

eoe wrote:Nice piece by Gasaway on why Arizona is better than most anyone realizes:
http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college ... basketball

Why you should stop worrying about offense and appreciate Arizona

I'm not sure why Arizona has been languishing, relatively speaking, at No. 7 in the polls, but I do know I don't buy it. Or more precisely, the Wildcats are far stronger than your average No. 7-ranked team in your average season.

Sean Miller's men have outscored the Pac-12 by 0.27 points per possession, the same margin by which Kentucky has outscored the SEC. Conversely, last season everyone seemed properly respectful of an Arizona team that was "just" (ha) 0.17 points better than the rest of the Pac-12 on each possession. That group of Wildcats was given a No. 1 seed and came within a single possession of the Final Four.

Miller justly enjoys a reputation for coaching exceptionally strong defensive teams, but one aspect of this particular Arizona team that likely hasn't been talked up enough is its ability to force turnovers. Pac-12 opponents have given the ball away on 21 percent of their possessions to the Wildcats. That's nowhere near the percentages posted by the likes of West Virginia (forcing turnovers on 26 percent of Big 12 opponents' possessions) or VCU (24 percent in A-10 play), but within the context of an Arizona defense that also protects the rim and is absolutely dominant on the glass, an opponent turnover rate of 21 percent is excellent.

True, on the other side of the ball I'm hearing it said that the worry with Arizona is whether this team can score enough. Well, not to be repetitious, but I'm not sure I buy that either. First and most fundamentally, you can't outscore a major conference by a huge, borderline historic margin like 0.27 points per trip without both your defense and your offense being excellent.

Second and more specifically, this may be the best 2-point shooting team I've ever seen that has somehow caused people to fret about its scoring. The Wildcats have connected on 51.9 percent of their 2s in Pac-12 play. To draw another comparison to the No. 1-ranked team in the country, that's pretty much what we've seen from Kentucky in SEC play (51.4).

No, Miller's guys don't light up the scoreboard from the perimeter, but T.J. McConnell and Gabe York are legitimate 3-point threats who have combined to shoot 39 percent from beyond the arc in conference play. It turns out that Arizona's low team percentage against Pac-12 opponents (33 percent) is in large part the statistical residue of Stanley Johnson trying to display a needed skill to the next level. That team percentage does not, however, indicate that Miller lacks the personnel to make 3s.

Besides, this is an outstanding offensive rebounding team, one that's pulled down 37 percent of its misses in league play. Guys like Johnson, Brandon Ashley, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and Kaleb Tarczewski don't have eye-popping individual offensive rebounding percentages -- but that's because they have to compete with one another for every rebound. Cumulatively speaking, this is a team that has shown it can erase its own misses in a highly effective manner.

Winning the second game of a two-game road swing at high altitude against an opponent as strong as Utah (which was previously undefeated at home) is arguably one of the most impressive victories recorded by any team in the nation this season. I realize there are more national championship-caliber teams than there are available No. 1 seeds this season, and you can worry about this Arizona offense if you wish. But everything I'm seeing tells me this group of Wildcats may be even better than the top-seeded team that came out of Tucson last season.

TheBlackLodge wrote:

eoe wrote:Nice piece by Gasaway on why Arizona is better than most anyone realizes:
http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college ... basketball

Why you should stop worrying about offense and appreciate Arizona

I'm not sure why Arizona has been languishing, relatively speaking, at No. 7 in the polls, but I do know I don't buy it. Or more precisely, the Wildcats are far stronger than your average No. 7-ranked team in your average season.

Sean Miller's men have outscored the Pac-12 by 0.27 points per possession, the same margin by which Kentucky has outscored the SEC. Conversely, last season everyone seemed properly respectful of an Arizona team that was "just" (ha) 0.17 points better than the rest of the Pac-12 on each possession. That group of Wildcats was given a No. 1 seed and came within a single possession of the Final Four.

Miller justly enjoys a reputation for coaching exceptionally strong defensive teams, but one aspect of this particular Arizona team that likely hasn't been talked up enough is its ability to force turnovers. Pac-12 opponents have given the ball away on 21 percent of their possessions to the Wildcats. That's nowhere near the percentages posted by the likes of West Virginia (forcing turnovers on 26 percent of Big 12 opponents' possessions) or VCU (24 percent in A-10 play), but within the context of an Arizona defense that also protects the rim and is absolutely dominant on the glass, an opponent turnover rate of 21 percent is excellent.

True, on the other side of the ball I'm hearing it said that the worry with Arizona is whether this team can score enough. Well, not to be repetitious, but I'm not sure I buy that either. First and most fundamentally, you can't outscore a major conference by a huge, borderline historic margin like 0.27 points per trip without both your defense and your offense being excellent.

Second and more specifically, this may be the best 2-point shooting team I've ever seen that has somehow caused people to fret about its scoring. The Wildcats have connected on 51.9 percent of their 2s in Pac-12 play. To draw another comparison to the No. 1-ranked team in the country, that's pretty much what we've seen from Kentucky in SEC play (51.4).

No, Miller's guys don't light up the scoreboard from the perimeter, but T.J. McConnell and Gabe York are legitimate 3-point threats who have combined to shoot 39 percent from beyond the arc in conference play. It turns out that Arizona's low team percentage against Pac-12 opponents (33 percent) is in large part the statistical residue of Stanley Johnson trying to display a needed skill to the next level. That team percentage does not, however, indicate that Miller lacks the personnel to make 3s.

Besides, this is an outstanding offensive rebounding team, one that's pulled down 37 percent of its misses in league play. Guys like Johnson, Brandon Ashley, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson and Kaleb Tarczewski don't have eye-popping individual offensive rebounding percentages -- but that's because they have to compete with one another for every rebound. Cumulatively speaking, this is a team that has shown it can erase its own misses in a highly effective manner.

Winning the second game of a two-game road swing at high altitude against an opponent as strong as Utah (which was previously undefeated at home) is arguably one of the most impressive victories recorded by any team in the nation this season. I realize there are more national championship-caliber teams than there are available No. 1 seeds this season, and you can worry about this Arizona offense if you wish. But everything I'm seeing tells me this group of Wildcats may be even better than the top-seeded team that came out of Tucson last season.

The last part was bolded for emphasis, because this is exactly how I feel about this year's team.

cpt wrote:I hate to say it but Duke is legit. Winslow, Okafor and Cook are all peaking. I would say Wisconsin is clearly the second best team but Duke is right there and we are just behind them. Our offense is what holds us back from being higher.

eoe wrote:I've watched a number of Duke games and they are without a doubt a quality team...offensively. A team with good bigs, strong D, and length on the wings will wipe the floor with them (relatively).

Okafor is a load with incredible feet, but if you can guard him effectively with one guy, their perimeter game suffers big time. Teams with elite post D and depth (ie. Arizona) can handle the Blue Devils. Until UNC and Duke field strong D's, they'll continue to lose against inferior teams with less talent and deservedly so.

Beachcat97 wrote:

eoe wrote:I've watched a number of Duke games and they are without a doubt a quality team...offensively. A team with good bigs, strong D, and length on the wings will wipe the floor with them (relatively).

Okafor is a load with incredible feet, but if you can guard him effectively with one guy, their perimeter game suffers big time. Teams with elite post D and depth (ie. Arizona) can handle the Blue Devils. Until UNC and Duke field strong D's, they'll continue to lose against inferior teams with less talent and deservedly so.

I would really prefer to avoid Okafor, but I'd greatly prefer Duke over Wisconsin. Kaminsky is the nation's hardest player to guard, imo.

gumby wrote:No. 5, AP. Jumped Wisky. Respect.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

No. 6, Coaches. They don't watch.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

Beachcat97 wrote:Just curious: do the polls really matter at this point? If we win two games this week and win the Pac tourney next week, the coaches could rank us 7th, and we're still going to be the #1 or #2 in the West.

azgreg wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Just curious: do the polls really matter at this point? If we win two games this week and win the Pac tourney next week, the coaches could rank us 7th, and we're still going to be the #1 or #2 in the West.

I believe that RPI carries more weight with the committee.

Beachcat97 wrote:

azgreg wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Just curious: do the polls really matter at this point? If we win two games this week and win the Pac tourney next week, the coaches could rank us 7th, and we're still going to be the #1 or #2 in the West.

I believe that RPI carries more weight with the committee.

And RPI does not include poll rankings, right?

Beachcat97 wrote:Just curious: do the polls really matter at this point? If we win two games this week and win the Pac tourney next week, the coaches could rank us 7th, and we're still going to be the #1 or #2 in the West.

eoe wrote:I've watched a number of Duke games and they are without a doubt a quality team...offensively. A team with good bigs, strong D, and length on the wings will wipe the floor with them (relatively).

Okafor is a load with incredible feet, but if you can guard him effectively with one guy, their perimeter game suffers big time. Teams with elite post D and depth (ie. Arizona) can handle the Blue Devils. Until UNC and Duke field strong D's, they'll continue to lose against inferior teams with less talent and deservedly so.

rgdeuce wrote:

eoe wrote:I've watched a number of Duke games and they are without a doubt a quality team...offensively. A team with good bigs, strong D, and length on the wings will wipe the floor with them (relatively).

Okafor is a load with incredible feet, but if you can guard him effectively with one guy, their perimeter game suffers big time. Teams with elite post D and depth (ie. Arizona) can handle the Blue Devils. Until UNC and Duke field strong D's, they'll continue to lose against inferior teams with less talent and deservedly so.

Outside of him having an off night, from what I have seen, Kentucky is the only team i have seen that can effectively guard Okafor with one player. With us, he will give Tarc fits and Bash fits. You have to double/show double and have help ready. He gets the ball in deep and you are in trouble no matter what. I havent seen his "off game" ive been thoroughly impressed every game I have seen Duke play

Olsondogg wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

eoe wrote:I've watched a number of Duke games and they are without a doubt a quality team...offensively. A team with good bigs, strong D, and length on the wings will wipe the floor with them (relatively).

Okafor is a load with incredible feet, but if you can guard him effectively with one guy, their perimeter game suffers big time. Teams with elite post D and depth (ie. Arizona) can handle the Blue Devils. Until UNC and Duke field strong D's, they'll continue to lose against inferior teams with less talent and deservedly so.

Outside of him having an off night, from what I have seen, Kentucky is the only team i have seen that can effectively guard Okafor with one player. With us, he will give Tarc fits and Bash fits. You have to double/show double and have help ready. He gets the ball in deep and you are in trouble no matter what. I havent seen his "off game" ive been thoroughly impressed every game I have seen Duke play

Okafor is good. He also has the advantage of being able to use his size, without fear of an immediate whistle.

Olsondogg wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

eoe wrote:I've watched a number of Duke games and they are without a doubt a quality team...offensively. A team with good bigs, strong D, and length on the wings will wipe the floor with them (relatively).

Okafor is a load with incredible feet, but if you can guard him effectively with one guy, their perimeter game suffers big time. Teams with elite post D and depth (ie. Arizona) can handle the Blue Devils. Until UNC and Duke field strong D's, they'll continue to lose against inferior teams with less talent and deservedly so.

Outside of him having an off night, from what I have seen, Kentucky is the only team i have seen that can effectively guard Okafor with one player. With us, he will give Tarc fits and Bash fits. You have to double/show double and have help ready. He gets the ball in deep and you are in trouble no matter what. I havent seen his "off game" ive been thoroughly impressed every game I have seen Duke play

Okafor is good. He also has the advantage of being able to use his size, without fear of an immediate whistle.

Merkin wrote:

pokinmik wrote:It was clear as day that UK, Wisc, AZ, and either Duke/Nova were the top-4 teams heading into the tourney. But noooo, AZ got the shaft once again and ran into horrible luck vers Wisconsin. Duke and a Nova got the benefit over AZ (and Wisc really somehow), and our final four drought continues. And whaddya know, the final top-4 rankings anywhere you look still includes AZ. Seriously, fuck everyone that was on the committee this year.

pokinmik wrote:It was clear as day that UK, Wisc, AZ, and either Duke/Nova were the top-4 teams heading into the tourney. But noooo, AZ got the shaft once again and ran into horrible luck vers Wisconsin. Duke and a Nova got the benefit over AZ (and Wisc really somehow), and our final four drought continues. And whaddya know, the final top-4 rankings anywhere you look still includes AZ. Seriously, fuck everyone that was on the committee this year.

Machina wrote:Arizona with three awful losses did not deserve a 1 seed. And Duke was fairly seeded

catgrad97 wrote:

Machina wrote:Arizona with three awful losses did not deserve a 1 seed. And Duke was fairly seeded

Over Arizona, which did what Duke did not and win its conference and conference tournament. Uh-huh.

Machina and Salty are inventing a new type of board poster that defies troll attributes.

catgrad97 wrote:

Machina wrote:Arizona with three awful losses did not deserve a 1 seed. And Duke was fairly seeded

Over Arizona, which did what Duke did not and win its conference and conference tournament. Uh-huh.

Machina and Salty are inventing a new type of board poster that defies troll attributes.

Machina wrote:

catgrad97 wrote:

Machina wrote:Arizona with three awful losses did not deserve a 1 seed. And Duke was fairly seeded

Over Arizona, which did what Duke did not and win its conference and conference tournament. Uh-huh.

Machina and Salty are inventing a new type of board poster that defies troll attributes.

Duke had 0 bad losses to U of A's 3. U of A had three times as many bad losses as Kentucky Duke Virginia Wisconsin Villanova and Gonzaga combined. The only bad loss in that mix was when Frank was hurt.

Duke had the players and wins and no bad losses. Arizona had that but the losses. The tournament and regular season title kept Arizona in the west which should have been a benefit

catgrad97 wrote:That bracket did at least accomplish one thing: silence from anybody who still wonders why people think there's one standard for Duke and one for all other Division I teams.

I don't think, if the teams had been seeded fairly, Duke would have even gotten by Villanova out of its region. Politics and officiating are coming to have way too much influence on this tournament, to a level I'm not at all comfortable with.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Machina wrote:

catgrad97 wrote:

Machina wrote:Arizona with three awful losses did not deserve a 1 seed. And Duke was fairly seeded

Over Arizona, which did what Duke did not and win its conference and conference tournament. Uh-huh.

Machina and Salty are inventing a new type of board poster that defies troll attributes.

Duke had 0 bad losses to U of A's 3. U of A had three times as many bad losses as Kentucky Duke Virginia Wisconsin Villanova and Gonzaga combined. The only bad loss in that mix was when Frank was hurt.

Duke had the players and wins and no bad losses. Arizona had that but the losses. The tournament and regular season title kept Arizona in the west which should have been a benefit

You don't consider Duke getting whipped by Miami at home a bad loss? Cool story.

Machina wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Machina wrote:

catgrad97 wrote:

Machina wrote:Arizona with three awful losses did not deserve a 1 seed. And Duke was fairly seeded

Over Arizona, which did what Duke did not and win its conference and conference tournament. Uh-huh.

Machina and Salty are inventing a new type of board poster that defies troll attributes.

Duke had 0 bad losses to U of A's 3. U of A had three times as many bad losses as Kentucky Duke Virginia Wisconsin Villanova and Gonzaga combined. The only bad loss in that mix was when Frank was hurt.

Duke had the players and wins and no bad losses. Arizona had that but the losses. The tournament and regular season title kept Arizona in the west which should have been a benefit

You don't consider Duke getting whipped by Miami at home a bad loss? Cool story.

RPI wise it was not nearly as bad as ASU UNLV or OSU