NCAA Tournament thread

[leeraymond]

leeraymond UNC plays fast, a top 50 tempo. And they play against good offenses. After adjusting for both of those, they allow 0.94 points per possession against an average team, which is #13 in the country. They have an excellent defense. Points per game is not a good way to evaluate teams. By that measure Alabama has one of the worst defenses in the country and Houston has a bad offense. We all know that's not true.

Skillings would play 2 thru 4 in the NBA. The NBA is full of wings his size. Generally only PG and C are defined positions for most teams. His problem isn't size, it's ballhandling, passing, and shooting.

Kemba's UConn team would certainly make the NCAA tournament today. I doubt they survive several consecutive games facing modern offenses that drag those guys out to the perimeter. You think Nikola Jokic is good just because he's big? I'm not sure how to respond to that. The dude is the most offensively skilled big man the game has ever seen. Aaron Gordon is one of the best athletes in the game. They aren't any bigger than other NBA teams. They aren't even much bigger than our Bearcats. They are the same size as Jamille and Simas. It's their skill and athleticism that set them apart.

I don't like to pick teams in the NCAA tournament, it ruins the fun for me. I like to embrace the chaos. All four are good teams that are capable.

Well Alabama is sort of a bad defensive team. It gives up 81.1 points / game. According to NCAA statistical rankings, that places UA at 346 out of 351 D-1 schools that play basketball. However, UA scores a whopping 90.6 points a game. It is clear that Alabama is not trying to stop you, it is trying to outscore you. Other than the injuries that plagued Houston this post season, it had a really hard time scoring. That is what killed them this Post-Season. Houston could hardly score a point against Iowa State in the second half of the BIG 12 Tournament championship game.

Once again, I cannot see Skillings at the 4 on any pro team. By the way, alone with ballhandling, passing, and shooting weaknesses for Skillings, you forgot DEFENSE as well.

Let's get this straight, I do not think a big man is good because he is big. It would be crazy to think that. A big man must know how to play winning basketball. Denver happens to have 3 big men (Jokic, Gordon, and Porter) that know how to play basketball. A positionless team would not have a chance against them in a championship series.

I get the feeling Sedz that you are a young guy because you think that positionless basketball is something new. College teams have been playing that way since at least 1989. When I started paying attention to college basketball (1989), the 1989 Illinois Final Four team played with 4 guys at 6'6" and a center at 6'7". Kendall Gill (6'6" point guard) was on that team. They lost to a very big and physical Michigan team in the Final Four. Michigan went 6'11", 6'9", 6'7" (Glen Rice), 6'9" (Sean Higgins (guard) (I think I got his last name right)), and 6'2". Illinois was a little too small. In recent history, West Virginia (Bob Huggins' Final Four season) had a team that featured a starting five where all the starters were 6'7" (no joke). Huggins had to abandoned that lineup because it was not a stable team without a true point guard. That is when Huggins inserted Truck Robinson into the starting lineup. They lost in the Final Four after DeShawn Butler went down with a horrific leg injury (very similar to what happen to Kenyon Martin). Also, Cronin had a positionless team (Sean Kilpatrick's last year; 2013 I believe) that featured Troy Caupain 6'3", Kilpatrick 6'4", Shaq Thomas 6'7", Titus Rubles 6'7", Justin Jackson 6'8", Jermaine Sanders 6'5", and Jermaine Lawrence 6'9". That was a very good defensive team. However, they could not score.

So, positionless basketball is not new. My point is when it comes down to a championship series or single championship game, the team with the more traditional lineup (with some big men) usually wins those games from what I have seen over the years. I do not have a data set to consult. I am going from the championship games and series that I have seen over the years. Mis-matches are created and bigger teams will typically find those mis-matches and exploit them to their size advantage in championship types of games. I gotta run.

[sedz]

leeraymond UNC plays fast, a top 50 tempo. And they play against good offenses. After adjusting for both of those, they allow 0.94 points per possession against an average team, which is #13 in the country. They have an excellent defense. Points per game is not a good way to evaluate teams. By that measure Alabama has one of the worst defenses in the country and Houston has a bad offense. We all know that's not true.

Skillings would play 2 thru 4 in the NBA. The NBA is full of wings his size. Generally only PG and C are defined positions for most teams. His problem isn't size, it's ballhandling, passing, and shooting.

Kemba's UConn team would certainly make the NCAA tournament today. I doubt they survive several consecutive games facing modern offenses that drag those guys out to the perimeter. You think Nikola Jokic is good just because he's big? I'm not sure how to respond to that. The dude is the most offensively skilled big man the game has ever seen. Aaron Gordon is one of the best athletes in the game. They aren't any bigger than other NBA teams. They aren't even much bigger than our Bearcats. They are the same size as Jamille and Simas. It's their skill and athleticism that set them apart.

I don't like to pick teams in the NCAA tournament, it ruins the fun for me. I like to embrace the chaos. All four are good teams that are capable.

[leeraymond]

UNC has the #13 defense in the country. We're really stretching here to try to say Grant Nelson can't drive the ball. He's crossing over defenders in the sweet sixteen. Traditional bigs don't do that. Nelson and Gillis are absolutely not traditional bigs. That's the only point I'm making. Of course they aren't exactly like Skillings and Simas. But they are WAY more like them than Aziz or Jamille. They can move laterally and score from the perimeter. Focus on that. I want to bring in players who can do that. Skillings played at the 4 almost the entire season and it was great for us, much better than when we tried two bigs.

Kemba Walker won the title 13 years ago, before modern offense had really worked its way down from the NBA to college. You could afford multiple guys who couldn't score from or defend the perimeter back then. NC St is making a miracle run with two bigs. It's not a pattern.

We already have Aziz on the roster. You would call us a "big team" too. I'm arguing that we don't need multiple SLOW pure centers in the rotation. Last year Clingan only played 13 minutes per game and he was the only guy over 6'9". In 2022, McCormack was the only guy over 6'8" for Kansas. 2021 Baylor played 4 guards under 6'5". Those are all modern 4 out teams with guys at the PF position who are 6'4" to 6'8" with perimeter skillsets. We already have Aziz as a true center along with guys who can be serviceable at the 5 like McKinley or Reed if the other wings are big. I would guess we'll bring in another huge, slow center because Wes seems to want that. But teams are not winning with slow unskilled bigs.

UNC gave up 70.5 points / game this season. Also, UNC is ranked 121 by the NCAA in terms of points allowed per game. I would hardly call UNC a strong defensive team. Nelson is a good player. He looks like a pro prospect. He reminds me a little of a right-handed Toni Kukoc (Chicago Bulls). We will see what Nelson is all about this weekend when Alabama plays UCONN. Gillis is NOT a big. He is a wing, but he does not remind me of Simas. Skillings at the 4 leads to losses. UC had 15 losses this season (way too many) with guys like Skillings at the 4. UC might be better off with Skillings playing at the 2 or the 3. Also, if Skillings is drafted, do you honestly think that he would play at the 4 at the professional level? He would get run over on every possession. Even now, teams seek Skillings out because they know he is not much of a defender. Nevertheless, Skillings is my man (at least one of them). I really like that guy.

This year UC played with the wrong two bigs. Oguama should have played more minutes. That is a coaching issue.

You know Sedz, man, you have a response to every comment ha, ha. I would bet that that same UCONN team (Kemba Walker) would make it to the NCAAs with the current version of college basketball. Like Oscar says, "basketball is basketball". "At the NBA level, it is all about the players. At the NCAA level, it is all about the coaching" (Charles Barkley). Watch the types of teams that end up winning it all. I will put my money on the teams with the good size. Look at the Denver (Nuggets) last year. They killed people on the boards and in the paint with those bigs. It was like it was not fair. Now every once in a while one of those bigs would hit a three, but it was primarily Denver's size that created all of the problems.

I would never play Reed as a five. However, UC should play him as a post-up guard. Imagine all of the matchup problems that posting up Reed would cause against smaller guards.

Hey Sedz, what teams do you like to end up in the NCAA Finals? Also, what team do you like to win it all? Let us know. Later.

[sedz]

I'm not saying we need a big unskilled center, but I'm not the least bit comfortable relying on the guys who have never played a minute of center at the college level (Reed and the Tyler's) to provide 15 minutes per game at center. If they prove they can do it, great, but that can't be the plan going into next season. It's one thing to have a veteran 6'8" PF playing center and another rely on inexperienced guys who haven't had time to get experience at the college level or bulk up. Reed (and Simas) are undersized at PF, we are going to get dominated by some teams if we run them out at center for long stretches.

Center is the toughest position in CBB to come in an play as a freshman, so I'm not counting on the Tyler's either. We don't need "another" huge, slow center (I'd argue that Aziz isn't slow), but we certainly can't feel comfortable with what we have. It's possible to find examples of teams that succeed playing virtually any style, if you have great players anything can work. There are also plenty of mid-majors who get run over by high majors because they just can't compete in terms of height, length and athleticism. It would be great to see some sort of statistical analysis of how team height effects win rate, but that's probably asking too much.

Aziz goes hard, which means he rarely plays more than 25 minutes. He was the only starter in our tournament stretch to not play over 30 minutes in any game. There's no way Wes is comfortable at center with our roster (assuming Reynolds and Sage transfer). Then you have to think about if Aziz gets injured, with the Reed, Simas and Tyler's backup plan, an Aziz injury would basically be a death knell for the season.

Aziz is very slow laterally. He can't defend wings on the perimeter. We played Reed at the 5 a few times this season, and I thought it worked out great. You don't have a "center" with that lineup. Everything is doubled and switched. There's no additional pressure on one individual. You have all four wings sharing responsibility for the interior. I know that fans and even coaches are afraid to try it, but I think everyone would end up surprised at how effective it can be.

All kinds of sortable team stats can be found here: https://barttorvik.com/team-tables_each.php
Average height is weighted by minutes played. Effective height is the average of the two tallest players on the floor, so basically frontcourt height. Purdue is unsurprisingly the tallest frontcourt in the country at over 6'11". We are #14 at 6'10" (it's thrown off by Simas being listed at 6'8"). Our average height is #35 at 6'6", just one inch shorter than the average height in the NBA. Size was not our problem.

Houston had the 19th smallest team in the country with average height under 6'4". There are a bunch of good short teams with average height under 6'5" and frontcourt height under 6'9" including Houston, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Colorado St, Texas A&M, Indiana St, South Carolina, and Nebraska. We're not even close to that small. We can afford to trade some size for quickness and skill.

"There are also plenty of mid-majors who get run over by high majors because they just can't compete in terms of height, length and athleticism."
I want to add overall length and athleticism. Take minutes away from true bigs and increase minutes for long, athletic wings.

[zykarious]

UNC has the #13 defense in the country. We're really stretching here to try to say Grant Nelson can't drive the ball. He's crossing over defenders in the sweet sixteen. Traditional bigs don't do that. Nelson and Gillis are absolutely not traditional bigs. That's the only point I'm making. Of course they aren't exactly like Skillings and Simas. But they are WAY more like them than Aziz or Jamille. They can move laterally and score from the perimeter. Focus on that. I want to bring in players who can do that. Skillings played at the 4 almost the entire season and it was great for us, much better than when we tried two bigs.

Kemba Walker won the title 13 years ago, before modern offense had really worked its way down from the NBA to college. You could afford multiple guys who couldn't score from or defend the perimeter back then. NC St is making a miracle run with two bigs. It's not a pattern.

We already have Aziz on the roster. You would call us a "big team" too. I'm arguing that we don't need multiple SLOW pure centers in the rotation. Last year Clingan only played 13 minutes per game and he was the only guy over 6'9". In 2022, McCormack was the only guy over 6'8" for Kansas. 2021 Baylor played 4 guards under 6'5". Those are all modern 4 out teams with guys at the PF position who are 6'4" to 6'8" with perimeter skillsets. We already have Aziz as a true center along with guys who can be serviceable at the 5 like McKinley or Reed if the other wings are big. I would guess we'll bring in another huge, slow center because Wes seems to want that. But teams are not winning with slow unskilled bigs.

I'm not saying we need a big unskilled center, but I'm not the least bit comfortable relying on the guys who have never played a minute of center at the college level (Reed and the Tyler's) to provide 15 minutes per game at center. If they prove they can do it, great, but that can't be the plan going into next season. It's one thing to have a veteran 6'8" PF playing center and another rely on inexperienced guys who haven't had time to get experience at the college level or bulk up. Reed (and Simas) are undersized at PF, we are going to get dominated by some teams if we run them out at center for long stretches.

Center is the toughest position in CBB to come in an play as a freshman, so I'm not counting on the Tyler's either. We don't need "another" huge, slow center (I'd argue that Aziz isn't slow), but we certainly can't feel comfortable with what we have. It's possible to find examples of teams that succeed playing virtually any style, if you have great players anything can work. There are also plenty of mid-majors who get run over by high majors because they just can't compete in terms of height, length and athleticism. It would be great to see some sort of statistical analysis of how team height effects win rate, but that's probably asking too much.

Aziz goes hard, which means he rarely plays more than 25 minutes. He was the only starter in our tournament stretch to not play over 30 minutes in any game. There's no way Wes is comfortable at center with our roster (assuming Reynolds and Sage transfer). Then you have to think about if Aziz gets injured, with the Reed, Simas and Tyler's backup plan, an Aziz injury would basically be a death knell for the season.

[sedz]

There are a number of points here. The clips that you provide show Grant Nelson against North Carolina and whatever teams that SDSU were playing at the time. North Carolina is not really known for its defense. So, it is not hard to see how Nelson can get to the rim or have a monster game against them. I have seen Nelson play, he is a good player. However, I do not think his defensive game is nothing like Skillings'. Nelson has the size to truly play the 4 and the 5. Sometimes Miller will play Skillings at the four, but that matchup does not favor UC. Remember, it was Skillings who was on Disu (Texas) when he hit the shot that led to the shot that lost UC the game. As for Nelson, let's see what he does against a more defensive minded team, UCONN, this weekend. There should be some really good matchups in that game. Gillis is a small forward / wing. Simas' game is much more aggressive than Gillis'. To me there is a big difference in the way Gillis plays vs Simas. Simas is much more of a volume shooter. The good thing is, we can watch Gillis play this weekend as well.

Do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that a guy's size makes him good. Even if a player is big, he still needs some skills. Nevertheless, there have been teams that won the national championship with two bigs that did NOT score, but they played defense and rebounded. The UCONN team that won the NCAA Tourney with Kimba Walker had two African big men that could NOT score a lick. However, Jim Calhoun found a way to get wins. Also, the UCONN team that won the national championship, with Shabazz Napier and Boatright (both were guards under 6'1"), had one big that scored a little but he mostly played defense and rebounded. My point is this, a team can win with bigs that are not highly skilled scorers. However, they must be good defenders and rebounders. Also, hitting free throws is always a plus. More importantly, these teams MUST have good coaching and very good guard play. I have been watching basketball a very long time and I can only remember a few smaller teams winning it all. The last NCAA team that was smallish to win it all, that I can remember, was Villanova (their last NCAA Championship). That team had a 6'9" forward that played in the paint and another 6'7" perimeter-oriented forward. As I recall, that team also had one backup big man (6'8" / 6'9" or something like that) that never shot the ball. So that team played 4 out and 1 in. One thing for sure this year, we know a big team is going to win the NCAA.

UNC has the #13 defense in the country. We're really stretching here to try to say Grant Nelson can't drive the ball. He's crossing over defenders in the sweet sixteen. Traditional bigs don't do that. Nelson and Gillis are absolutely not traditional bigs. That's the only point I'm making. Of course they aren't exactly like Skillings and Simas. But they are WAY more like them than Aziz or Jamille. They can move laterally and score from the perimeter. Focus on that. I want to bring in players who can do that. Skillings played at the 4 almost the entire season and it was great for us, much better than when we tried two bigs.

Kemba Walker won the title 13 years ago, before modern offense had really worked its way down from the NBA to college. You could afford multiple guys who couldn't score from or defend the perimeter back then. NC St is making a miracle run with two bigs. It's not a pattern.

We already have Aziz on the roster. You would call us a "big team" too. I'm arguing that we don't need multiple SLOW pure centers in the rotation. Last year Clingan only played 13 minutes per game and he was the only guy over 6'9". In 2022, McCormack was the only guy over 6'8" for Kansas. 2021 Baylor played 4 guards under 6'5". Those are all modern 4 out teams with guys at the PF position who are 6'4" to 6'8" with perimeter skillsets. We already have Aziz as a true center along with guys who can be serviceable at the 5 like McKinley or Reed if the other wings are big. I would guess we'll bring in another huge, slow center because Wes seems to want that. But teams are not winning with slow unskilled bigs.

[leeraymond]

Gillis is a wing. His game is similar to Simas. He defends guards and comes off screens like this: https://twitter.com/joejacksonCBB/st...29762129580498

I've acknowledged that NC St plays two traditional bigs. I'm not saying it's impossible to win like that, just that it's hard to do in the modern game. Your bigs have to be really efficient creating offense like Burns, or you have enough offense creation from your guards that the bigs just have to rim run and finish. We don't have either of those. Burns isn't one dimensional - he can create his own shot efficiently and he creates offense for others at a high level. You don't have to be a great defender or rebonder to be multi-dimensional - you just need multiple ways to provide value that the opposition can't shut down with a simple strategy. Burns has a 25% assist rate, higher than anyone on our team. And he has a true shooting percentage of 55% with a 28% usage rate. We don't have anyone like that at any position. But lets not forget that if Isaac McNeely, an 85% free throw shooter, hits a free throw up 3 with 5 seconds left in the ACC semifinals, even Burns wouldn't be enough to carry his two big team to the tournament. Burns is one of my favorite players to watch, but I don't think it's wise to try to copy what NC St is doing.

Here's Grant Wilson against UNC: https://twitter.com/WhiteBballPains/...56386628763687
And here he is at North Dakota St: https://twitter.com/SteveBal25/statu...57824720675249
His game is more like Skillings than Aziz, Reynolds, Vik, or Ody. He plays like a 6'11" wing. He has lateral quickness and can take people off the dribble. Regardless of what we want to call him, that's the skillset I want. You seem to think height is what makes a player a traditional big. Jason Maxiell was 6'7", a prototypical big. Durant & Wilson are four inches taller but completely different players. I consider them both wings. If a player can defend the perimeter and score from outside in any way other than an open set shot, they aren't a traditional big.

"Their big men are a VERY important part of what they do to win."
Because they are skilled! We aren't going anywhere without skilled players. The pool of players who are both big AND quick/skilled is small. I don't think many will be available to us in the portal. Obviously if we can land one we should. The dividing point here is size OR quick/skilled. Most college basketball players have only one or the other. I don't like that we think size is so important that we haven't had skilled bigs for last 5 seasons.

There are a number of points here. The clips that you provide show Grant Nelson against North Carolina and whatever teams that SDSU were playing at the time. North Carolina is not really known for its defense. So, it is not hard to see how Nelson can get to the rim or have a monster game against them. I have seen Nelson play, he is a good player. However, I do not think his defensive game is nothing like Skillings'. Nelson has the size to truly play the 4 and the 5. Sometimes Miller will play Skillings at the four, but that matchup does not favor UC. Remember, it was Skillings who was on Disu (Texas) when he hit the shot that led to the shot that lost UC the game. As for Nelson, let's see what he does against a more defensive minded team, UCONN, this weekend. There should be some really good matchups in that game. Gillis is a small forward / wing. Simas' game is much more aggressive than Gillis'. To me there is a big difference in the way Gillis plays vs Simas. Simas is much more of a volume shooter. The good thing is, we can watch Gillis play this weekend as well.

Do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that a guy's size makes him good. Even if a player is big, he still needs some skills. Nevertheless, there have been teams that won the national championship with two bigs that did NOT score, but they played defense and rebounded. The UCONN team that won the NCAA Tourney with Kimba Walker had two African big men that could NOT score a lick. However, Jim Calhoun found a way to get wins. Also, the UCONN team that won the national championship, with Shabazz Napier and Boatright (both were guards under 6'1"), had one big that scored a little but he mostly played defense and rebounded. My point is this, a team can win with bigs that are not highly skilled scorers. However, they must be good defenders and rebounders. Also, hitting free throws is always a plus. More importantly, these teams MUST have good coaching and very good guard play. I have been watching basketball a very long time and I can only remember a few smaller teams winning it all. The last NCAA team that was smallish to win it all, that I can remember, was Villanova (their last NCAA Championship). That team had a 6'9" forward that played in the paint and another 6'7" perimeter-oriented forward. As I recall, that team also had one backup big man (6'8" / 6'9" or something like that) that never shot the ball. So that team played 4 out and 1 in. One thing for sure this year, we know a big team is going to win the NCAA.

[sedz]

For Purdue, that 6th man, if you will, is Gillis (6'6" forward). He plays about four minutes more a game than Kaufman-Renn. However, they both score about 6 or 7 points a game. Kaufman-Renn gets more rebounds and blocked shots a game. Gillis is a better assist man. Regardless, Kaufman-Renn is the starter. I am sure that he starts for a reason. DJ Burns is semi-one-dimensional. He is a pretty good scorer, but only does about 4.1 rebounds a game and only has 23 blocks on the season. Now he does account for 2.8 assists a game; largely because he is smart and quick enough to pass out of double-teams. However, NC St. is winning with his semi-one-dimensional play. Also, let's not forget about the other semi-one-dimensional big man that NC St. has, Diarra. He is the unsong hero of their team. He only scores about 6.5 points / game, but he rebounds (7.9 / game) and he has 40 blocked shots on the season. By the way, Diarra is 6'10".

Nelson is not that quick. I have seen him play a few times and I do not remember him taking anyone off the dribble. He takes a lot of jump shots. However, he is a good shooter, a pretty good rebounder, and plays decent defense. Look, it is not by accident that these teams are in the Final Four. Their big men are a VERY important part of what they do to win. I like teams with serviceable big men. All of them have very good size except for Karaban.

Gillis is a wing. His game is similar to Simas. He defends guards and comes off screens like this: https://twitter.com/joejacksonCBB/st...29762129580498

I've acknowledged that NC St plays two traditional bigs. I'm not saying it's impossible to win like that, just that it's hard to do in the modern game. Your bigs have to be really efficient creating offense like Burns, or you have enough offense creation from your guards that the bigs just have to rim run and finish. We don't have either of those. Burns isn't one dimensional - he can create his own shot efficiently and he creates offense for others at a high level. You don't have to be a great defender or rebonder to be multi-dimensional - you just need multiple ways to provide value that the opposition can't shut down with a simple strategy. Burns has a 25% assist rate, higher than anyone on our team. And he has a true shooting percentage of 55% with a 28% usage rate. We don't have anyone like that at any position. But lets not forget that if Isaac McNeely, an 85% free throw shooter, hits a free throw up 3 with 5 seconds left in the ACC semifinals, even Burns wouldn't be enough to carry his two big team to the tournament. Burns is one of my favorite players to watch, but I don't think it's wise to try to copy what NC St is doing.

Here's Grant Wilson against UNC: https://twitter.com/WhiteBballPains/...56386628763687
And here he is at North Dakota St: https://twitter.com/SteveBal25/statu...57824720675249
His game is more like Skillings than Aziz, Reynolds, Vik, or Ody. He plays like a 6'11" wing. He has lateral quickness and can take people off the dribble. Regardless of what we want to call him, that's the skillset I want. You seem to think height is what makes a player a traditional big. Jason Maxiell was 6'7", a prototypical big. Durant & Wilson are four inches taller but completely different players. I consider them both wings. If a player can defend the perimeter and score from outside in any way other than an open set shot, they aren't a traditional big.

"Their big men are a VERY important part of what they do to win."
Because they are skilled! We aren't going anywhere without skilled players. The pool of players who are both big AND quick/skilled is small. I don't think many will be available to us in the portal. Obviously if we can land one we should. The dividing point here is size OR quick/skilled. Most college basketball players have only one or the other. I don't like that we think size is so important that we haven't had skilled bigs for last 5 seasons.

[GoBearcats31]

Saturday:
6:09 p.m. - #1 Purdue versus #11 NC State (Purdue favored by 8.5)
8:49 p.m. - #1 UConn versus #4 Alabama (UConn favored by 11.5)

UConn - 8th Final Four appearance, seeking 6th championship (including second consecutive)
Purdue - 4th Final Four appearance; first since 1980
Alabama - 1st Final Four appearance (previous best finish was 2004 Elite Eight)
NC State - 5th Final Four appearance; seeking 3rd championship (1974, 1983)

[longtimefan]

Alabama took only 3 midrange shots in their 1.25 point per possession performance last night. Houston took 31 midrange shots in their 0.91 ppp loss.

Because Shead wasn’t there. Duke lucky to be playing today.

[GoBearcats31]

Purdue …

[sedz]

Alabama took only 3 midrange shots in their 1.25 point per possession performance last night. Houston took 31 midrange shots in their 0.91 ppp loss.

[sedz]

Shead is the only guy on Houston's roster who can create offense. He has an assist rate of 40%. That means almost half of the baskets that Shead doesn't score himself are assisted by him. Roberts is a very distant second at 14% assist rate. Huge loss. They needed every bit of that defensive effort just to stay in the game.

[longtimefan]

Houston made it close without Shead. They were up 6 when he got hurt with about 7 minutes left in the first half.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

And then there were none.