masthead.jpg

switchconcepts.com, U3dpdGNo-a25, DIRECT rubiconproject.com, 14766, RESELLER pubmatic.com, 30666, RESELLER, 5d62403b186f2ace appnexus.com, 1117, RESELLER thetradedesk.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER taboola.com, switchconceptopenrtb, RESELLER bidswitch.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER contextweb.com, 560031, RESELLER amazon-adsystem.com, 3160, RESELLER crimtan.com, switch, RESELLER quantcast.com, switchconcepts , RESELLER rhythmone.com, 1934627955, RESELLER ssphwy.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER emxdgt.com, 59, RESELLER appnexus.com, 1356, RESELLER sovrn.com, 96786, RESELLER, fafdf38b16bf6b2b indexexchange.com, 180008, RESELLER nativeads.com, 52853, RESELLER theagency.com, 1058, RESELLER google.com, pub-3515913239267445, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
February 28, 2006

What Happened?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Chas @ 1:41 pm

Keith challenges the assumptions that the offensive play of Krauser and Gray were the key reasons for the loss. His argument is that the defense didn’t do the job it did last night, especially compared to the previous meeting. Specifically the 3-point defense. He makes a very good point about the way Pitt was extended out right away on the perimeter so there was little time to square-up to shoot. I’m not disputing this.

I do, however, dispute it can solely be blamed on the defense. That’s as much as a WVU fan simplifying the last loss to, “if Pittsnogle or Gansey could have had a couple of those shots fall.”

The counter argument is that WVU wasn’t that good on the 3-point shot aside from Herber’s initial streak of 3 straight (1-5 after that, and no 3s after 12:11 in the first half) when Kendall was continually late to him. Aside from Pittsnogle (5-12) and Herber, the rest of the team shot 3-16 on 3s (2 for Beilein and 1 for Collins). Ramon, once again, helped shut down Gansey.

Simply because WVU had better field goal percentage from the first game to the second is not enough to say it was the defense.

The other problem is the assumption that somehow WVU wouldn’t learn anything from the first meeting. WVU made adjustments. They didn’t commit fouls like they did in the first game, which completely disrupted their rhythm. Look at the difference in the number of fouls. In the first game, Pitt was able to draw and initiate contact with WVU. This time, Pitt was getting to the basket and WVU let them rather than take the late foul.

Is it that there weren’t enough fouls? Is that the reason or something to do with the style played?

Pittsnogle wasn’t going to be shut out again (and I still contend that he was still in the adjustment to lack of sleep with a newborn kid). He didn’t have the foul trouble and really wore down Gray. It was senior night, and they had the home court advantage. Especially in the college game, the emotions can carry things.

WVU built a lead and was able to stay just enough in front the rest of the way. That was what Pitt did in the first meet-up.





Powered by WordPress © PittBlather.com

Site Meter