2021-22 Media Love Thread

[Shockm]

https://www.rockmnation.com/2021/9/1...-tyson-etienne

This statement from the article was what I thought was most interesting and most telling regarding last year. I hesitate to mention it (although the article does so it deserves retelling), because several people just brushed right over it last year, and were unwilling to be critical but we won't see the kind of success we saw in the past, with this type of rebounding. Strong rebounding covers a multiple of "sins". I should mention that others saw the problem last year, and were unafraid to say so.

"Given Wichita State’s style, it was stunning to see the Shockers finish 332^nd in defensive rebounding, per KenPom. The Shockers were slightly undersized, but Udeze, a 6’8 senior, will need to be better at mopping up misses. Doing so will complement the 10.3 points he averaged and the 66.2 percent he shot inside the arc during AAC play."

[Topshock]

https://www.rockmnation.com/2021/9/1...-tyson-etienne

This statement from the article was what I thought was most interesting and most telling regarding last year. I hesitate to mention it (although the article does so it deserves retelling), because several people just brushed right over it last year, and were unwilling to be critical but we won't see the kind of success we saw in the past, with this type of rebounding. Strong rebounding covers a multiple of "sins". I should mention that others saw the problem last year, and were unafraid to say so.

"Given Wichita State’s style, it was stunning to see the Shockers finish 332^nd in defensive rebounding, per KenPom. The Shockers were slightly undersized, but Udeze, a 6’8 senior, will need to be better at mopping up misses. Doing so will complement the 10.3 points he averaged and the 66.2 percent he shot inside the arc during AAC play."

While this is true, good shooting and forcing turnovers can also have the same effect.

[Shockm]

While this is true, good shooting and forcing turnovers can also have the same effect.

Rebounds and turnovers are largely an effort statistics and can be controlled. Baker, Fred, and others were good at both and we often were a Top 20 team. When we shot well, we advanced to Top 10, F4, E8, S16, and NIT Championship worthy. A team ranked 332nd in Defensive Rebounding will never be worthy of that discussion. At best, we will be a Top 70 team just like last year, and not make it past the 2nd round of the AAC Tourney. Good shooting comes and goes, and by the end of the year, good defense slows it down.

[Shocker1976]

Andy Katz preseason bracket prediction

[ShockdaWorld]

Andy Katz preseason bracket prediction

Well at least he has us in even if it's a play in. The other guy didn't even have us as next four out.

[Wooglin]

HCIB comes in at #69....one spot ahead of Penny.

NCAA Basketball: Ranking all 358 D-I head coaches for 2021-22 season (bustingbrackets.com)

[Topshock]

Good shooting comes and goes, and by the end of the year, good defense slows it down.

You can't just dismiss shooting as some magical thing. Sure teams and players shoot better some games than others. That has nothing to do with the point I was making. Rebounding becomes less important on a team of good shooters that one with poor shooters.

Of course good defense slows down shooting but the better shooting team will still be way better off than the team of poor shooters. See Baylor last year.

[Shockm]

You can't just dismiss shooting as some magical thing. Sure teams and players shoot better some games than others. That has nothing to do with the point I was making. Rebounding becomes less important on a team of good shooters that one with poor shooters.

Of course good defense slows down shooting but the better shooting team will still be way better off than the team of poor shooters. See Baylor last year.

I never dismissed shooting as being unimportant. Practically every team who won the NCAA Tournament, or went even to the F4 had to have really good shooting. Some teams are good all along, and some teams get "hot" in the Tournament. However, there have been great shooters, and great shooting teams, who never played on a great team at the end of the year. Creighton, for example, won lot's of MVC Championships by having really great shooters with no elite defenders, poor team athleticism, and poor team rebounding. They had players like Kyle Korver , Nate Funk, and Doug McDermott who were great shooters, but average defenders, and went nowhere in the NCAA Tournament.

Imo, it's best to start year in and year out, with team values, based on really good defense, and rebounding, and build from there. Our best teams had great defenders like Fred, Ron, Tekele, Ehime, Carter (and the 3 headed Monster), on and on and on and on. We had some good shooters too, but usually not elite shooters (although I like elite shooters too). A couple of our best teams got "hot shooting" in the NCAA and NIT Tournaments and went a long way.

[WuShock16]

HCIB comes in at #69....one spot ahead of Penny.

NCAA Basketball: Ranking all 358 D-I head coaches for 2021-22 season (bustingbrackets.com)

Chris Jans at 99? GTFOH.

[shock]

HCIB comes in at #69....one spot ahead of Penny.

NCAA Basketball: Ranking all 358 D-I head coaches for 2021-22 season (bustingbrackets.com)

Nice

[Shocker1976]

Chris Jans at 99? GTFOH.

IMO their rankings leave a lot to be desired as illustrated by the following clip from their introduction -

"There remains no rigid methodology for comprising these rankings, though they are based on several different criteria. A coach’s ability to win games is of course important, while things like postseason bids and wins are vital as well. A young head coach who succeeds immediately can shoot up the rankings, while a long-standing coach can see his ranking sink if his program starts to tumble.

The rankings are not perfect, and it’s guaranteed that someone will have issue with the placement of every single head coach on this list. Plenty of research was put into all 358 D-1 coaches and their programs, with Sports Reference and other resources used to gather statistics and information."

[wichshock65]

Interview with Mike O'Donnell previewing AAC. Mike really knows his ****! Interviewer, not so much. Shock talk starts at 27:00.

https://twitter.com/MOD4three/status...Zevi2IbVw&s=19

[wichshock65]

[WuTheOne]

Underrated.

That's a good thing. Instead of having a target on their back, they should have a chip on their shoulder.

They're still going to have a target on their back in league play. The best thing that could happen is for the Shox to be picked 3rd in the league behind Memphis and Houston.

[Shocker1976]

Underrated.

That's a good thing. Instead of having a target on their back, they should have a chip on their shoulder.

They're still going to have a target on their back in league play. The best thing that could happen is for the Shox to be picked 3rd in the league behind Memphis and Houston.

CBB Review predicts the Shockers will finish 3rd behind Memphis and Houston in conference play; while also predicting the Shockers will be dancing with a ceiling of Elite 8.