In search of a third scorer
Any team that really wants to be good has to have at least three legitimate scoring options -- preferably three that are consistent. One of the reasons the Cougs were so good last year was that you knew on any given night, you were going to get 10-15 points each from Kyle Weaver and Derrick Low, and then another 10-15 from either Taylor Rochestie or Aron Baynes. It was a formula that allowed the Cougs to be one of the more potent offenses in the country. (It's true -- their 115.9 adjusted offensive efficiency was 26th in the nation last year.)
But so far this year, the offense has shown signs of trouble. It's been inconsistent, thanks largely to its over-reliance on jumpshots. The three games the Cougs have shot above 52 percent eFG% (what's that?) have resulted in offensive efficiencies of 119, 133.7 and 113.5. The other four, in which the Cougs shot under 48 percent eFG%, have produced just 86.8, 106.3, 90.9 and 73.7. Only one above average performance in the bunch, and that was because we dominated the offensive glass (48.0 offensive rebounding percentage) against Canisius.
Part of the issue in my eyes is that this team has yet to discover a legitimate, consistent third scoring option. Aron Baynes has been startlingly efficient in the interior, averaging 11 points on just seven shots in only 22 minutes. And Klay Thompson has been stunningly consistent, scoring 14 or more points in four of the past five games (his seven points against Pitt on 3-for-12 shooting being the notable exception).
But they've really been the only two guys we can count on, something that was exposed by Pitt when the Panthers were able to take both Thompson and Baynes out of the game (just 14 points combined), resulting in an offensive efficiency that was a season low by a wide margin. As the season goes on, more and more opponents are going to be able to match up with the Cougs physically, and they are going to do everything they can to take at least one of those two away and dare the rest of the team to beat them.
So, who can step up and be that guy, the guy who makes defenses pay? In my mind, there are three plausible options, and if this team is going to be successful, at least one of them has to step up and be a legitimate, consistent double-digit scorer on a night-in, night-out basis.
Taylor Rochestie
It was thought that Rochestie would be a shoo-in for that role, hitting the occasional 3 and using his craftiness to get to the bucket. After all, he averaged 10 points last year while sharing the rock with Derrick Low and Kyle Weaver, and it seemed inevitable that his production would increase with the extra shots that would be available.
But that hasn't been the case. His overall scoring average is only down a tick, but that's largely due to a couple of 17-point outings against Sacramento State and Canisius. In the rest of his games, he's shooting just 24.4 percent and averaging only 7 points, capped by a miserable weekend in New Jersey against MSU and Pitt.
The scary part is that while he's got this reputation with us for being a Husky killer, he's developing a scary trend of disappearing as a scoring threat in big games against more athletically talented competition. Consider his performances last year in the NCAA tournament and against the upper half of the Pac-10, working backward from the end of the year:
- 2 points (1 of 8) against UNC,
- 6 points (2 of 8) against Notre Dame,
- 5 points (2 of 3) against Winthrop,
- 11 points (4 of 10) against Stanford,
- 9 points (3 of 7) against Stanford,
- 10 points (1 of 10) against Arizona State,
- 13 points (4 of 9) against USC,
- 7 points (3 of 7) against UCLA,
- 7 points (3 of 10) against Stanford
- ... you're starting to get the picture.
Some of these performances aren't terrible, but he certainly didn't step up as a scorer against these teams, save the USC game. Can Rochestie still be that third scorer? I think he can, if he concentrates on letting the game come to him and making whatever play is in front of him, whether it be a pass, an outside shot or a timely drive to the basket. But I'm a heck of a lot more skeptical now than I once was, and to be honest, I'm not sure I want him pressed into that role anymore. I'm beginning to think the best thing for this team is for another guy to step up and Taylor to be the guy he was the last two years.
Daven Harmeling
Harmeling makes the list because of his shooting ability. Unfortunately, that might be the reason he's not going to be that third guy. He's a one-trick pony, and while that one trick can occasionally be exceptional, it's not too tough for a team to take away that one trick. No better was that on display than when he scored 19 and 10 against USC and UCLA, then in five of his next six games scored 6, 4, 8, 3 and zero.
If Harmeling is going to be that third guy, he needs to do one thing, and one thing only: Start shooting without a conscience. To step up, he would need to be taking 10 shots per game, six of them from 3-point range. I don't know if it's in his nature, and I don't know if Tony Bennett would turn him loose that way. But if neither of the other two guys on this list can give the team what it needs, TB might need to roll the dice with Daven.
Nikola Koprivica
Nik, of course, is the wild card. He looks like he's finally fully recovered from his knee injury, but the increase in production you would expect just hasn't been there. Yes, his points are up from 2.5 to 6.6, but his minutes are up from 11 to 26, so the jump is natural. He's shooting better from outside, but not well enough to be considered a legitimate outside threat. He's driving to the basket, but he's shooting the same number of free throws per game right now as he was last year in 2.5 times the minutes. So he's a bit of an enigma.
Of the guys on this list, Koprivica developing into that third guy is my best case scenario. He seems to be the most dynamic, and he's the one guy on this list who can actually score some points attacking the basket consistently. If he can get on the same page with Rochestie on some of those Princeton cuts he's so darn good at, and start getting rewarded for his aggression with some trips to the line, he may yet develop into a 10 ppg guy. But now that the knee is no longer an excuse, we need to see Nik starting to consistently deliver on that potential he showed two years ago.
Everyone Else
Is there another guy on the roster who can do it? I just don't see it. Of the other guys in the eight-man rotation, Caleb Forrest can't create his own shot, and Marcus Capers and DeAngelo Casto are too raw. Abe Lodwick looks like he could do some damage someday, but that day does not appear to be here yet. So that leaves us with the original trio.
It truly doesn't matter which guy it is, but one of them has to step up. If not, I'm afraid we're going to be doomed to an offense that is going to be maddeningly inconsistent. We'll still win a lot of games on our defense alone, and a few more on hot shooting nights, but there will be games that feel there for the taking that will slip away -- disconcerting because that's often how NCAA bids slip away, too.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Elephant in the room
I couldn’t help but think this very post after every game this season…especially the last 3. This season is going great so far, but it is clear we need a 3rd scorer. Without one I think we find ourselves on the losing side of a lot of heart breakers. Nik and Daven should each be good for a big game every other week, but Taylor has to become that 10ppg guy. He has to cut down on his turnovers. He has to step up in big games. And he has to be ready to play well against the elite pg’s we face. This Saturday could be some what of a make or break for what Taylor is going to bring against the big boys.
On the topic of offensive efficiency
Was anyone else yelling at Jay Bilas while watching the UCLA-Texas game. He kept bringing up the amount of points scored as if it is a tell all of offensive performance.
Examples:
He couldn’t believe that Michigan was able to win a game in Madison Square Garden (apparently more points is required to win there) over UCLA (who has played many games in the fifties in the Howland era) with 55 points.
It was amazing last year that the Texas-UCLA game was 63-61 because the two teams had such great offensive talent
Jay Bilas is just one of the many idiots that ESPN throws at us. Someone tell him about PACE, and offensive efficiency stats before I punch the TV.
That game between Texas and UCLA last year?
Offensive efficiency ratings of 106.2 (Texas) and 102.9 (UCLA).
Last night, it was 106.9 (Texas) and 100.6 (UCLA). It was the Longhorns’ third best offensive performance of the year, while it was UCLA’s second-worst … to the game against Michigan. Although your point remains completely valid, that game really was stinker — 91.2 for UCLA and 96.4 for Michigan.
Bilas was a lawyer before he became a TV icon. If a guy with a journalism degree from Washington State University can understand “advanced” basketball metrics, you would think a guy with an undergraduate and law degree from Duke could. But like most members of institutions, they don’t exactly embrace change.
It'll be interesting to see who emerges
Baynes and Caleb have both done a great job of staying off the blocks and spreading out the zones we’ve seen so far, so when we play zone teams like UW and ASU, slashers like McLovin and Nic should have great nights.
Man-to-Man I’m a lot more concerned, I think on nights when Daven he is on, he’ll help out (once he starts shooting more) and I’m already very surprised with Caleb’s production thus far. His hustle points will hopefully make up for our obvious shortcomings, and our defense can continue to bail us out.
Maybe Enquist has a 20 footer we haven’t been introduced to yet….
Stop by Witches of Eastman anytime! It’ll be nice to talk hoop with people who don’t ask “Why aren’t we running the alley-oop play to Casto more?”
Who is "McLovin" and "Nic"?
I don’t know that lingo. And, if the alley-oop is such a bad idea, why did Tony break a time-out with an alley-oop to Thompson right after ISU switched to a zone. I’m pretty sure I saw Cowgill on the recieving end of a few last season and Ivory Clark the season before. It’s a back door play that keeps defenders honest and a bit more on their heels when closing out a shooter off the ball.
But I guess that would be the feedback on a blog with the tag line of “Drunkenly ranting about Washington State Cougar Basketball … and apologizing for it the next morning.”
Be nice
You and I have both drunkenly ranted about Washington State Cougar Basketball, pal. Although I’m pretty sure we never apologized for it.
apologies
when i get off on a rant, sometimes i use words only familiar to those who are unfortunate enough to speak to me often enough. McLovin is Rochestie, mainly because he’s dressed as him in the promo poster this year. Nic is just short for Nikola.
nothing against the alley-oop, but it’s not like we’re going to catch them backdoor that often. It’s like yelling “WHY AREN’T WE RUNNING A FAKE PUNT!?!?!” on 2nd down….EVERY 2nd down.
Love the Alley-oop
Give me more alley-oops!!!
It has to be Rochestie ...
in the sense that Harmeling and Koprivica will only be as good as Rochestie can make them. Those two will be a product of the offense not the creation of it. So, whether he is scoring points or creating for his teammates, Harmeling and Koprivica, he is the key that unlocks this offense. This will not be an issue you see in the box score by simply looking at how many points Rochestie scored, it has everything to do with a good point guard making his teammates better.
Without looking at the stats, I seem to remember last year’s supporting scoring being something like the old Shakers mystery beer at power hour; you didn’t know which beer was being poored but you knew it was inexpensive and effective. Trying to fit one person into this role on this roster will be just like when Tony (the owner of Shakers, not Bennett) made the mystery beer exclusively Miller High Life; it was still inexpensive and effective, but it became predictable and lost it’s luster. The thrill was gone.
If Rochestie is playing well then it will be a different player each night. On any given night Harmeling could get hot, a team will not respect Koprivica and he will make them pay, and on some nights the points will come to Rochestie.
There is no real answer in the box score, but in principal, it is Rochestie who NEEDS to step up his game, or this team could be in some trouble offensively.
by Jo-Jo on Dec 5, 2008 9:04 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Great points
I completely agree!
7 in a row, baby!
by johnnycougar on Dec 5, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
That was hilarious
Mystery Pitchers. Those were the days.
But, do you think this team can really thrive just “hoping” that a different guy steps up each night? Can Rochestie be the kind of point guard we can count on, night in and night out, to elevate the play of another player? I’m skeptical.
Two years ago...
Way back then we relied on a different player every night to step up, or at least more so than last year. Baynes wasn’t dependable (remember how much his 10-10 night against USC caught us by surprise?), Weaver didn’t have a jump shot, Taylor was still limited by his injury, Niko was out, Cowgill was never reliable on offense, etc. Harmeling had some big games, but D-Low was our only consistent scorer, and even he had some off nights. But someone would always step up. We only beat Boise State by 2, ASU by 1 on the road, Idaho State by 6, and overall had a lot of games in the 50’s and 60’s (and some in the 40’s!) – but our defense pulled us through, as well as undoubtedly the surprise factor, hmmm having been picked last in the preseason!
I say that to postulate that it is possible we can thrive, or at least get to the NCAA tourney, without a reliable third option. I agree with Jo-Jo that it is necessary for Rochestie to be that player that we can rely on, but I also agree with Nuss in that I’m skeptical. IF this team makes the tournament, I think it will be because Taylor steps it up.
I also wanted to add that I think it very likely he will return to his form from last year. I believe this because I think Klay will draw the best defender every night, like Low (or sometimes Weaver) did last year. So far Klay hasn’t, or at least not as often, because he’s a freshman and no one was sure what he could do. I’m hoping other teams will send their best man at him in future games so that Taylor has a little more space to operate, which I think will be better for our team overall.
7 in a row, baby!
Good points about two years ago
It seemed like we had a different hero every night. I also remember that Baynes started to come on late, and Rochestie seemed to come out of nowhere as the season went on. So maybe we’re in for a revelation like that at some point this year from someone.
Oh yes, I'm skeptical too
but I’m bringing analysis based on the critical mass. In college basketball you can’t just pick up a free agent or make a mid-season trade. This is the team TB has to work with. I’d much rather have a regular 3rd scoring option, but I believe it will be a group effort. In reality, as Johnny said, it needs to be Rochestie who is the extra shot in this team’s cocktail.

by 
















