- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,379
- Reaction Score
- 23,676
Clearly, we have our bases covered here in regards to admonishing the players and staff for their latest loss, a game that really put a bow on a pattern of poor play. Although I'm still trying to exercise patience, I don't blame those who are signaling the alarm bells.
Hopefully, this thread provides a brief excursion from the problems that currently plague the program.
Amida Brimah is as polarizing and divisive a player as has donned a UConn jersey in quite some time (perhaps since Dyson). Certainly, the tenor of that dialogue shifts depending on what part of his game is being discussed; his value as a rim deterrent is fairly consentual among the fan base, and he harbors flaws that even his biggest supporters will concede.
One of the central dilemma's in assessing his value is rebounding. Is it a treatable weakness that has been blown out of proportion, or is it a fatal flaw that renders him a liability against elite competition? Theoretically, swapping Brimah for Facey makes us, if nothing else, a better rebounding team. Hamilton, Miller, and Facey are our three best rebounders, and when they share the court together, UConn can tap into a reservoir of extra possessions that Brimah prohibited us from ever realizing. There lies the question: is it a myth that Brimah is a bad rebounder?
The evidence suggests that it might be. In the nine games Brimah has played this season, UConn has averaged 39 rebounds per game to their opponent's 36. In the seven games since his injury, UConn has averaged 35 rebounds per game to their opponent's 33.
In other words, UConn has actually gotten slightly worse taking the ball off the backboard since their much-maligned center was replaced in the starting lineup by Kentan Facey.
And, by the way, I did account for competition, a variable that actually strengthens Brimah's case. If we were to cut the Maine, New Hampshire, Furman, Sacred Heart, UMass, and Central Connecticut from the sample, the proportions remain the same.
Against our Battle for Atlantis foes, Maryland, and Ohio State, UConn grabbed 34 rebounds per game to their opponent's 36 (this is heavily skewed by a huge outlier in the Maryland game, in which we were-out-rebounded 45 to 24. In that game, Brimah had 7 rebounds in 18 minutes).
Over the last five games - disregarding our first two tilts without Brimah, against UMass-Lowell and Central Connecticut, respectively - UConn has averaged 34 rebounds per game to their opponent's 39. Tonight, Facey, Miller, and Hamilton played a combined 88 minutes, and yet, a Tulsa team that frequently plays four guards outrebounded us 41-38.
Raw rebounding numbers are hardly conclusive. Tracking things like defensive rebounding% and total rebound% are likely to paint a more accurate picture than my elementary research provides. For one, rebounding is highly contingent on defense. Obviously, the more misses you force, the more rebounds that are available to you. The data set can be easily skewed in that regard.
But given that we're on a six game streak of holding opponents to 40% or less from the field, I'm not sure that caveat applies in this case. Teams are missing against us a lot and we're rebounding less of them without Brimah than we were with him.
Then, there's the matter of his offensive value. Some view him as a valuable rim-runner who soaks up bodies and enhances the shooting percentage of everyone else. Others maintain that we are playing 4 on 5 with him at the center spot. I could well be wrong - as I don't have the energy to research our offensive efficiency with and without him - but my best guess suggests that there's at least one guy who would disagree with the detractors: Daniel Hamilton.
During the first nine games of the season, Hamilton averaged 13.3 PPG on 45% shooting. In the seven games since Brimah's injury, Hamilton has averaged 11.1 PPG on 31% shooting. To put that into perspective, Hamilton would have to hit his next 20 shots to go from 31% to 45%.
Losing to Temple and Tulsa is unacceptable, with or without Brimah. And there are recurring, troubling trends that aren't simply going to vanish upon his return.
If there's one positive we can take from this stretch, maybe it's that this kid is better than some gave him credit for?
Hopefully, this thread provides a brief excursion from the problems that currently plague the program.
Amida Brimah is as polarizing and divisive a player as has donned a UConn jersey in quite some time (perhaps since Dyson). Certainly, the tenor of that dialogue shifts depending on what part of his game is being discussed; his value as a rim deterrent is fairly consentual among the fan base, and he harbors flaws that even his biggest supporters will concede.
One of the central dilemma's in assessing his value is rebounding. Is it a treatable weakness that has been blown out of proportion, or is it a fatal flaw that renders him a liability against elite competition? Theoretically, swapping Brimah for Facey makes us, if nothing else, a better rebounding team. Hamilton, Miller, and Facey are our three best rebounders, and when they share the court together, UConn can tap into a reservoir of extra possessions that Brimah prohibited us from ever realizing. There lies the question: is it a myth that Brimah is a bad rebounder?
The evidence suggests that it might be. In the nine games Brimah has played this season, UConn has averaged 39 rebounds per game to their opponent's 36. In the seven games since his injury, UConn has averaged 35 rebounds per game to their opponent's 33.
In other words, UConn has actually gotten slightly worse taking the ball off the backboard since their much-maligned center was replaced in the starting lineup by Kentan Facey.
And, by the way, I did account for competition, a variable that actually strengthens Brimah's case. If we were to cut the Maine, New Hampshire, Furman, Sacred Heart, UMass, and Central Connecticut from the sample, the proportions remain the same.
Against our Battle for Atlantis foes, Maryland, and Ohio State, UConn grabbed 34 rebounds per game to their opponent's 36 (this is heavily skewed by a huge outlier in the Maryland game, in which we were-out-rebounded 45 to 24. In that game, Brimah had 7 rebounds in 18 minutes).
Over the last five games - disregarding our first two tilts without Brimah, against UMass-Lowell and Central Connecticut, respectively - UConn has averaged 34 rebounds per game to their opponent's 39. Tonight, Facey, Miller, and Hamilton played a combined 88 minutes, and yet, a Tulsa team that frequently plays four guards outrebounded us 41-38.
Raw rebounding numbers are hardly conclusive. Tracking things like defensive rebounding% and total rebound% are likely to paint a more accurate picture than my elementary research provides. For one, rebounding is highly contingent on defense. Obviously, the more misses you force, the more rebounds that are available to you. The data set can be easily skewed in that regard.
But given that we're on a six game streak of holding opponents to 40% or less from the field, I'm not sure that caveat applies in this case. Teams are missing against us a lot and we're rebounding less of them without Brimah than we were with him.
Then, there's the matter of his offensive value. Some view him as a valuable rim-runner who soaks up bodies and enhances the shooting percentage of everyone else. Others maintain that we are playing 4 on 5 with him at the center spot. I could well be wrong - as I don't have the energy to research our offensive efficiency with and without him - but my best guess suggests that there's at least one guy who would disagree with the detractors: Daniel Hamilton.
During the first nine games of the season, Hamilton averaged 13.3 PPG on 45% shooting. In the seven games since Brimah's injury, Hamilton has averaged 11.1 PPG on 31% shooting. To put that into perspective, Hamilton would have to hit his next 20 shots to go from 31% to 45%.
Losing to Temple and Tulsa is unacceptable, with or without Brimah. And there are recurring, troubling trends that aren't simply going to vanish upon his return.
If there's one positive we can take from this stretch, maybe it's that this kid is better than some gave him credit for?
