Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: 2012 Africa Cup Of Nations Final

Welcome back, Taylor

 

Nearly two weeks ago, on the eve of the Pac-10 season, I devoted more than 1,400 words to the play of our senior point guard. It wasn't a complimentary piece.

But after taking Taylor Rochestie to task for the team's struggles to score points, nobody is happier than me that he seems to finally be finding his place within the offense.

Yes, Rochestie averaged 20 points against the Bay Area schools, but as you can probably guess, I'm not a real big proponent of just looking at points scored and proclaiming a performance as a success or failure. Instead, I looked at his offensive rating in the two games compared to the games against other "like" competition.

In short, Rochestie comes out golden. In a stat where 100 is about average, Rochestie averaged a robust 116.4. Contrast that with an average of 70.75 in the first six games, as our supposed offensive leader was very nearly 30 percent worse than an average offensive player.

What I love about the offensive rating stat is that it factors in all of the ways a player contributes to his team scoring points. Because of that, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Rochestie -- not Derrick Low or Kyle Weaver -- led the Cougs in offensive rating in 2007-08 at 119.9, 90th best nationally.

I don't think it was an accident that this weekend is when that figure started approaching last year's levels, because those two games were vintage Rochestie.

After the UW game, I started to come around to the idea that the struggles of the offense had a lot less to do with Rochestie and a lot more to do with his teammates. Yes, Rochestie had been making some questionable decisions with the basketball, but the more I watched, the more I saw a guy who really wasn't getting a lot of help. Perhaps his efforts were misguided, but man -- did you see how much standing around the Cougs' upperclassmen did on offense as the Huskies ran them out of the gym? It was painful to watch Rochestie try to make something happen.

While I can't speak to what happened on Thursday, since the game wasn't on TV (thanks, Pac-10!) it sounds like Saturday was more or less an extension of strides made against Cal. Rochestie was under control the whole game against the Cardinal, orchestrating the offense beautifully, especially in the second half. Even though he shot just 6-of-15 and his passes weren't always perfect, it was the way he went about it. He poked and prodded at the defense, taking shots only when it made sense and content to find an open man.

I think there are some legitimate reasons why this came to fruition this weekend.

First, Tony Bennett finally mixed up his personnel groupings to give Taylor some energy guys playing next to him. Much of it was necessitated by foul trouble by Nik Koprivica and Caleb Forrest, but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. Even as the Cougars were bricking shot after shot in the first half, it still felt like we were close to breaking through, and the dam finally broke in the second half. For the first time I remember since the game against Pitt, Rochestie really looked like a guy who trusted his teammates. And when the team got the green light to run ... well, that fits Rochestie's game to a T.

Jo-Jo will be exploring this further in a post in the morning, but I'm more convinced than ever that a mixture of youth and experience in the lineup -- especially considering the particular skill sets of all the players involved -- will continue to bring out the very best in Rochestie.

Second, Tony ran some halfcourt sets specifically designed to play to Taylor's offensive strengths. The most obvious one to me, which the Cougs ran over and over again in the second half because Stanford simply had no answer for it, was the high screen and roll. I mentioned it in my post last night, but it bears repeating -- and watching -- because it opened up so many things on the offensive end.

Clearly, teams are selling out to stop Aron Baynes. Because the Cardinal sagged so much on his rolls -- which he now has the ability to perform at 250 pounds -- Rochestie was free to either step back for a jumper or penetrate against out of position defenders, either finishing at the rim or dishing off to a teammate whose defender had rotated. It was beautiful basketball, and it will be interesting to see how teams defend it from here on out. If they jump the screens on Rochestie, that should leave Baynes one-on-one in the post against an undersized defender and also leave someone else open on the wing.

Additionally, and perhaps most significantly, Bennett took the ball out of Rochestie's hands at times, running sets designed to get him the ball in position to receive a pass where he can score. This is something Jo-Jo's been calling for most of the year, and it definitely worked on Saturday. Rochestie's not the pure scorer that Derrick Low eventually became -- remember, he was a point guard, too, when he came to Pullman -- but mixing up the attack added another dimension to an offense that had become embarrassingly predictable by the UW game.

The bottom line is that, as we knew all along, we need an effective -- and efficient -- Taylor Rochestie on offense for this team to be able to compete with the big boys. We just didn't know how much we needed him.

Welcome back, Taylor. I think you returned just in time.

Comment 11 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Nice write-ups on how we appear to be "solving"...

our offensive woes.

You guys (all of you) do a great job of analyzing WSU basketball. Easily the best analysis on Cougar b-ball I can find.

Thanks!

Now if we can only get Lodwick and/or Harmeling to hit the 3 ball consistently (~40% clip)…then we might make some noise in the Pac-10.

by westsidecougar1 on Jan 15, 2009 9:14 AM PST reply actions  

Thanks for the compliment

We do work hard around here, and the reward is the interaction we get from readers like you. So “thanks” right back at ya.

by Jeff Nusser on Jan 15, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Sorry... I have no compliment to dish out... only a comment.

There has been an awful lot of analysis on just one half of basketball that was played. My gut tells me that we certainly can not just assume that Taylor Rochestie is back. Sure, it’s great to write about and support with statistical data from that miraculous second half, and it’s even more fun to read, but we must not look into this too far.

Oh and I lied- you and Grady are great at what you do here. And it appears that Jo-Jo has been putting in as much time as the two of you this past couple weeks, if not more. He is an excellent writer as well.

by cfred on Jan 15, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions  

The reason for the hefty work on that second half

is that the first half of that game has been exactly like the previous six weeks, and I just can’t bring myself to deep analysis of the same garbage. Hence my facination with the “Beating a Dead Horse” gif. It was exciting to comment on something new.

And thanks for the compliment, man.

by Jo-Jo on Jan 15, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Don't you dare put that dead horse graphic on here again!

If anything on this site exemplifies “Beating a dead horse”, it is posting that Michael Bolton GIF.
And I still do not see the Michael Bolton resemblance at all…

by cfred on Jan 15, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok, scratch that.

I just looked up Michael Bolton and realized that you must have been talking about the Office Space character and not the singer, lol.

by cfred on Jan 15, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions  

This is true

I would have liked to comment more based off of what I saw against Cal, but I didn’t see the game. What I can say is that from what I heard on the radio and what Grippi reported — and the stats I saw from Rochestie in that game — him starting to figure out his role in the offense went farther back than the Stanford game.

I think it is fair, though, to look into that second half as deeply as we have. The important question is why they were successful more successful than they have been. In this case, it wasn’t fluky in the sense that all of a sudden they started making shots doing the things they’ve always done. They were doing something fundamentally different, and that’s why we’ve spent so much time picking it apart.

by Jeff Nusser on Jan 15, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions  

They were certainly doing things fundamentally different.

But there is nothing to say that they are guaranteed to ‘click’ in that way again. It was just one half after all and perhaps the players were playing off of adrenaline. This week, under entirely different situations with different opponents and different expectations, the players may not have the same mindset as they had in the 2nd half against Stanford. It is mostly up to Tony to try and get that type of basketball to be played in the next couple games.

by cfred on Jan 15, 2009 1:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Absolutely true

That’s why we’ve put it out there as a “what was different?” and “can it continue?” pairing. (At least, that’s what we tried to do.) In fact, tonight might be a night where it doesn’t click the way we saw, which I’ll talk about on the game thread post.

by Jeff Nusser on Jan 15, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Our young team

I think Rochestie “finding himself” has as much to do with the freshmen playing better as anything, which you mentioned a bit. We all knew there would be growing pains this year, and maybe it surprised us that it was the upperclassmen that were showing the worst effects.

7 in a row, baby!

by johnnycougar on Jan 15, 2009 3:52 PM PST reply actions  

Thank you for the distraction

I’m always looking for new ways to waste my boss’s money at work.

by Craig Powers on Jan 15, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to CougCenter, a website dedicated to WSU football, basketball and other athletics.

Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

King_small
2007 Recruiting Class: A Look Back
Cougar_01t_small
Wrapped Up In Recruiting

Recent FanPosts

Small
Some respect for Wulff
King_small
Post Signing Day 2012 Schedule: Eastern Washington
King_small
Post Signing Day 2012 Schedule: BYU
Donttakethebait_sd_021011_small
2013 class's first recruit?
Cougar_01t_small
Leach & ESPN
Small
Questions for Washington State Commits Khalil Pettway, Alex Jackson, and Gabriel Marks
17351_652492462983_27214870_38132779_139527_n_small
Quick Analysis on Why We Are Still Going After Linemen
Small
TTU is no WSU

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

The only female CougCenter reader?
Your reminder that Pullman is awesome. Yes, someone called the police because a squirrel was stuck in a peanut jar. Yes, the description is awesome. And yes, a Google Image Search for a squirrel stuck in a peanut butter jar turns up this adorable photo.

Police log screencap via Pullman PD.
If you missed the Steve Gleason piece during the Super Bowl pregame show, here it is. Brian has his...

Recent FanShots

Austin Statesman: Leach welcomes challenge at Washington State
Yahoo Sports Radio Interview With Mike Leach
Committment for next year?
Khalil Pettiway and Alex Jackson Talk about WSU
Best reason to pick a school EVER.
Gabriel Marks... is confident
Taylor Taliulu Switches Back to WSU
Conner Johnson - Preferred walk-on
Shaq Thompson Flips From Cal, Commits To Washington

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Go Cougs


Attractive, intelligent managing editors

Jeff_mug_h2_small Jeff Nusser

62817_716885768283_27206155_40333453_7664553_n_small Grady Clapp

Arizona_small Craig Powers

Brianheadshot_small Brian Floyd

Attractive, intelligent editors

Florida_small Kyle Rancourt

Header_small Mark Sandritter