Scott's performance is absolutely important, that doesn't mean we should be terribly worried about Scott not playing well.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU/Pittsburgh Preview (more of a scouting report)
- Thread starter jgisland
- Start date
BuffG
Well-Known Member
Interesting note on luck factor. What's their rank luck wise? Watched a few Pitt games this year and have noticed some crazy things go against them--none more memorable than the Ennis buzzer beater. Couple of those big games go their way & they're a 5 seed, but same could be said for us with bad injury luck.
I've seen Patterson disappear plenty & Zanna's fouled out in 2 of his last 4. I know Vegas placed their power ranking along with the likes of UCLA, Iowa State but I think most eye tests would disagree. Pitt should be favored based on experience, playing well lately, and consistency but they lack the relative firepower that would make this 70-80% in their favor as the advanced stats have stated.
I've seen Patterson disappear plenty & Zanna's fouled out in 2 of his last 4. I know Vegas placed their power ranking along with the likes of UCLA, Iowa State but I think most eye tests would disagree. Pitt should be favored based on experience, playing well lately, and consistency but they lack the relative firepower that would make this 70-80% in their favor as the advanced stats have stated.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Pitt has also had some absurd things go in their favor, none more so than a blown call against Clemson that let them score 5 points in the final 3.4 seconds.
PA_Panther
New Member
Pitt has had the exact opposite of good luck this season. Losses to Virginia, Cincinnati, and Syracuse all on the last possession of the game. If they win two or even one of them games your looking at a 5 seed.
First off that was a great post by the OP. Great information that I know you won't find anywhere else on the internet! Second off Patterson will play every position but Center come Thursday. If they get a good matchup they will go small and use him as the miss match all over the court. Most of the games where Patterson had played stinkers was when he was playing through and injury on his hand. What killed when they struggled mid to late Feburary was Patterson and Zanna had to play through injuries.
First off that was a great post by the OP. Great information that I know you won't find anywhere else on the internet! Second off Patterson will play every position but Center come Thursday. If they get a good matchup they will go small and use him as the miss match all over the court. Most of the games where Patterson had played stinkers was when he was playing through and injury on his hand. What killed when they struggled mid to late Feburary was Patterson and Zanna had to play through injuries.
As JG pointed out, using any metric other than RPI and Pitt is a 5 seed even without those one or two wins.
outstanding work, jg...rep delivered. your post almost makes me want to change my bracket...
almost.
almost.
You lead this off saying they are kind of like Arizona.. that got me to thinking about our two games against AZ, and specifically, the 1st half vs. the 2nd half of each game:
In the 1st game we dug out of an early hole and pulled to within 4 points with 17:49 to play but lost by 27.
In the 2nd game we were tied at 24 with 3 seconds to go in the 1st half but ultimately lost by 20.
What changed, in your view? Did we get fatigued, or did AZ come out with 2nd half adjustments, or was it something else?
I remember being amazed at how active AZ was in each 2nd half especially, both on defense, and with a faster-paced offense with tons of movement and passing. Usually all five players on the floor were all in almost constant motion. They were able to shut down our offense and generate lots of their own.
I am glad Pitt likes to play at a relatively slow pace...
In the 1st game we dug out of an early hole and pulled to within 4 points with 17:49 to play but lost by 27.
In the 2nd game we were tied at 24 with 3 seconds to go in the 1st half but ultimately lost by 20.
What changed, in your view? Did we get fatigued, or did AZ come out with 2nd half adjustments, or was it something else?
I remember being amazed at how active AZ was in each 2nd half especially, both on defense, and with a faster-paced offense with tons of movement and passing. Usually all five players on the floor were all in almost constant motion. They were able to shut down our offense and generate lots of their own.
I am glad Pitt likes to play at a relatively slow pace...
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I personally don't put much stock in the Arizona semifinal game. It was our third game in 3 days, only their second. Running out of gas was frankly inevitable. Pitt is well coached and well disciplined. Much of what Arizona did to us is because their talent is on a whole different level. Pitt is experienced, but their talent isn't in the same ballpark as Arizona's, IMO (I'm not blowing smoke, I've seen Pitt play 5 or so times this season)
The size difference is pretty big to. UA is sitting at +3.7 for effective height (#15) and Pitt is only at +0.6 (#132). CU is at +1.8 (#61)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
that matters a lot for guys like Scott (no hops) and Ski (short)
scoob
Well-Known Member
Since you brought it up, it's probably not really consequential with alternating possessions (kind of like deferring the kickoff in football), but has Scott won a jump ball all season? I always wonder why Tad doesn't have Wes jump the opening tip. Maybe Tad likes to open up the game on D.
My theory: Tad wants each of his guys standing next to the guy he'll be defending. Opposing centers take the tip. And rarely does it lead to an immediate score if you lose the tip, but it can if you're not properly matched up.
Scott has won a few but not a lot.
Id rather have a better shot at getting an extra possession.
Yep, and the height differences is honestly a big reason I think we win the game. I posted some other teams that we have played recently and the height difference between all of them and Pitt is significant, Cal USC And Furd are all big teams and Cal was the smallest and they are still bigger than Pitt. I know they're going to double Scott at some point but they're gonna have a tough time stopping him down low IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
scoob
Well-Known Member
Alternating possessions don't work that way, do they? Pretty sure the possesison arrow dictates who gets the ball to start the second half. So we are losing 1/2 possessions per game. Probably still not a big deal. I'm sure Tad has a good reason.
Yeah, it's based on the possession arrow. I haven't paid attention a whole lot but this year it seemed if we lost the tip at home we usually ended up with the ball to start the half. In the end it probably doesn't matter but whatever, I don't recall either team this year scoring on the first possession of the first half.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you win the opening tip, you have a chance at 1 extra possession in the game. If you lose it, the best you can do is break even on possessions.
Not that big of a deal. Probably not as relevant as a football coin toss where factors like weather and "setting the tone" with your best unit on the field to start the game play a larger role in the outcome.
Not that big of a deal. Probably not as relevant as a football coin toss where factors like weather and "setting the tone" with your best unit on the field to start the game play a larger role in the outcome.
yet another reason to win the turnover battle.
scoob
Well-Known Member
Bored, so I looked at the play-by-plays, and for the 31 games that I could determine who won the jump ball, we won 22 and lost 9 (better than I had thought). Of the 22 we lost, the opponent scored 24 points. Of the 9 we won, we scored 16 points. So were more efficient on the first possession after we won the jump than we were the rest of the game.
BuffG
Well-Known Member
Like CVille said, they were tremendously lucky to get the Clemson W. Would be interested to know where KenPom ranks them. That said, really appreciate your offerings in these threads. Always thought Patterson was the PG & got thrown off when I saw him listed as a 3. Playing positions 1-4 makes more sense. Any thoughts on Zanna's propensity to get into foul trouble? Doesn't seem that big, but my eyes lit up when I saw he fouled out 2 of last 4
KenPom has them at #16 and Clemson is #44. Both seem too high. Here's his conference stats (well, some of them) and the averages are the bottom values.
| Opponent | Result | Min | ORtg | %Ps | Pts | OR | DR | A | TO | Blk | Stl | PF | |
| 53 | North Carolina St. | W, 74-62 | 29 | 115 | 29 | 15 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 39 | Maryland | W, 79-59 | 29 | 97 | 25 | 13 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 113 | Wake Forest | W, 80-65 | 31 | 140 | 24 | 16 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| 111 | Georgia Tech | W, 81-74 | 31 | 153 | 21 | 22 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 14 | Syracuse | L, 59-54 | 37 | 109 | 21 | 12 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 44 | Clemson | W, 76-43 | 21 | 165 | 27 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 39 | Maryland | W, 83-79 | 33 | 105 | 23 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 6 | Duke | L, 80-65 | 32 | 100 | 23 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | Virginia | L, 48-45 | 29 | 40 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 66 | Miami FL | W, 59-55 | 37 | 118 | 16 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 190 | Virginia Tech | W, 62-57 | 43 | 70 | 17 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 14 | Syracuse | L, 58-56 | 29 | 126 | 32 | 16 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | North Carolina | L, 75-71 | 31 | 60 | 19 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 38 | Florida St. | L, 71-66 | 29 | 75 | 24 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 139 | Boston College | W, 66-59 | 28 | 143 | 30 | 21 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 101 | Notre Dame | W, 85-81 | 34 | 130 | 28 | 17 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 53 | North Carolina St. | L, 74-67 | 35 | 123 | 16 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 44 | Clemson | W, 83-78 | 40 | 122 | 12 | 10 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 113 | Wake Forest | W, 84-55 | 28 | 161 | 21 | 17 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 26 | North Carolina | W, 80-75 | 34 | 138 | 26 | 19 | 10 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| 4 | Virginia | L, 51-48 | 39 | 124 | 22 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 58.9 | 32.3 | 115.0 | 22.2 | 13.5 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 2.8 |
Compared to Josh...
| Opponent | Result | Min | ORtg | %Ps | Pts | OR | DR | A | TO | Blk | Stl | PF | |
| 104 | Oregon St. | W, 64-58 | 37 | 92 | 23 | 13 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 | Oregon | W, 100-91 | 33 | 146 | 16 | 15 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 192 | Washington St. | W, 71-70 | 41 | 132 | 22 | 19 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 99 | Washington | L, 71-54 | 27 | 123 | 26 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 18 | UCLA | L, 69-56 | 33 | 130 | 21 | 19 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| 160 | USC | W, 83-62 | 24 | 148 | 26 | 20 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | Arizona | L, 69-57 | 35 | 103 | 25 | 15 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 47 | Arizona St. | L, 72-51 | 30 | 87 | 23 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 43 | Utah | W, 79-75 | 40 | 142 | 21 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 192 | Washington St. | W, 68-63 | 32 | 24 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 99 | Washington | W, 91-65 | 28 | 150 | 27 | 21 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 18 | UCLA | L, 92-74 | 37 | 117 | 23 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 160 | USC | W, 83-74 | 33 | 116 | 22 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| 47 | Arizona St. | W, 61-52 | 35 | 94 | 23 | 13 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | Arizona | L, 88-61 | 33 | 120 | 27 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 43 | Utah | L, 75-64 | 35 | 149 | 18 | 17 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 36 | Stanford | W, 59-56 | 33 | 136 | 23 | 17 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 76 | California | L, 66-65 | 40 | 91 | 19 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 160 | USC | W, 59-56 | 33 | 79 | 34 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 76 | California | W, 59-56 | 32 | 86 | 26 | 11 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | Arizona | L, 63-43 | 34 | 39 | 21 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 76.3 | 33.6 | 109.7 | 22.5 | 14.7 | 2.8 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
Last edited:
BuffG
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I should've clarified that I meant where they ranked in luck. I can see the overall rankings but didn't pop for the $20 sub this year. But more to your point, I always take KenPom's rankings with a grain of salt (as he suggests). Don't see how Stanford and some other P12 schools could be ranked ahead of us at this juncture.
BuffG
Well-Known Member
This is what I was saying in regards to disagreeing with their power ranking being on par with UCLA, Iowa State. I respect Pitt and think they should be favored over us but they don't have the kind of game winners that those teams bring. It's partially why I think Dixon has mostly underperformed in past tourneys. Playing disciplined and shortening possessions is great especially in regular season, but at this time of year you need the Kemba Walkers, Jordan Adams, Kyle Anderson, Ejim, Kane, and Niang types who are so gifted offensively that you don't need to shorten the game. Not trying to take anything away from Patterson & Zanna but Pitt doesn't have UCLA & Iowa st level firepower
A big reason is the SOS can't be accurately taken into account. If Team A plays 30 games against teams with the 30 best defenses and Team B plays 30 games against teams with the 30 worst defenses... I think we can logically say that Team B having a better oRating than Team doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of who has the better offense. CU played a much tougher schedule than Pitt this season.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at - everything that KenPom does is adjusted for strength of schedule - so if you score 100 pts on a terrible defense that's accounted for.
So based on Kenpom CU has palyed the 28th overall schedule, they played the 38th best overall offenses and 23rd best overall defenses.
Pitt played the 38th best overall schedule, they played the 65th best overall offenses and the 12th best overall defenses.
And that's where I think KenPom gets it wrong.
Whose metrics does he use to determine SOS?
Because if he's using his own stats to evaluate relative team strength and then using those same stats to adjust the stats for SOS... those are circularly reasoned metrics. It doesn't work.
can't' imagine Kenpom does that... but I don't know.