General OSU Discussion

• se-alum

  

  thedynasty1998;604278 wrote:That's actually not that bad of a shooting percentage.

  I think we have different perspectives on what is a good shooting percentage. This is kinda how I break it down:
  
  30% and below = Not Good
  31%-35% = Average
  36%-40% = Above Average
  41%-44% = Good
  45%+ = Great
  
  Buford and Lighty aren't shooting bad averages, but certainly not anything that would make the other team focus on not allowing those two to get outside shots.
• thedynasty1998

  

  se-alum;604289 wrote:I think we have different perspectives on what is a good shooting percentage. This is kinda how I break it down:
  
  30% and below = Not Good
  31%-35% = Average
  36%-40% = Above Average
  41%-44% = Good
  45%+ = Great
  
  Buford and Lighty aren't shooting bad averages, but certainly not anything that would make the other team focus on not allowing those two to get outside shots.

  
  I get what you're saying. On the scouting report it says to close out hard on Diebler and make him put it on the floor. For Lighty and Buford it probably says average shooter. Obviously Diebler is much more of a threat, but teams are still aware of Buford and Lighty.
• FatHobbit

  

  Something I just read that was interesting. There are 47 players in the history of OSU basketball that have scored 1000 points. Three of them (Buford, Lighty and Diebler) are playing this year. Of course Lighty had 5 years to do it, but it's still pretty impressive IMO.
• lhslep134

  

  FatHobbit;604317 wrote:Something I just read that was interesting. There are 47 players in the history of OSU basketball that have scored 1000 points. Three of them (Buford, Lighty and Diebler) are playing this year. Of course Lighty had 5 years to do it, but it's still pretty impressive IMO.

  
  Lighty having 5 years has nothing to do with it considering you only get 4 years of eligiblity unless you're injured.
• se-alum

  

  lhslep134;604328 wrote:Lighty having 5 years has nothing to do with it considering you only get 4 years of eligiblity unless you're injured.

  Yea, Lighty will only end up w/ 7 extra games.
  
  Buford - 78 games
  Diebler -116 games
  Lighty - 129 games
• Jester

  

  Writerbuckeye;604077 wrote:More nonsense about Diebler not based in fact. A "pretty good" outside shooter? LOL. He's almost a lock to end up as the Big Ten's all-time leading 3 point scorer, and his percentage of made 3 pointers has risen every season, and that percentage is better than most. As for his ball handling skills or ability to create...THAT'S NOT HIS ROLE ON THE TEAM. And why would you compare a PG to a SG or wing player? They aren't supposed to do the same things. Not every player needs to be able to do everything. In Matta's system he has specialists that blend together and create a team very difficult to beat.
  
  It amazes me how many fans watch basketball but have so little understanding of the team concept and players having specific roles on that team. Perhaps it's an NBA mentality where you see so much more one on one play.

  Um, yes, Diebler is a "pretty good" outside shooter. He's inconsistent at times. He's a good shooter, but lets not act like he lights the nets on fire or anything. So tell me, what exactly was "nonsense"? Are you saying Diebler is a good defender, or rebounder, or anything else I mentioned?
• centralbucksfan

  thedynasty1998;603923 wrote:
  I don't believe that. OSU could lose any of those four and still be a top 10 team. Obviously it would hurt the team, but to say Sullinger doesn't have more value than those four is just wrong. And to say that one player doesn't determine how far this team goes, would you say the same thing last year? No. Well I would argue that Sullinger has just as much value as Turner did, if not more.

  
  Couldn't disagree more. What Matta has right now with this team, are pieces to a very good puzzle. All play an important role on this team. Lose either of those 3/4 and I don't believe OSU would be a top 10 team. I see, understand and agree what your saying about Sullinger. His loss would obviously hurt more. But the loss of Buford, Diebler or LIghty would hurt tremendously as well. As evident was the loss of Lighty two years ago. They took a significant dive after that.
  
  As far as shooting goes...not sure enough credit goes to Buford. Buford is a very good mid range shooter and is a better three poitn shooter then his % shows IMO. As Dynasty pointed out...you can close out on Diebler, make him put it on the floor and recover. Thats tough to do on Buford and Lighty. Although I would never close out hard in LIghty as he really isn't that great of a perimeter shooter unless he has times to set his feet. But his first step is unreal and is a very good finisher. But he is good enough from the outside that you have to respect it somewhat.
  The above is why this team has such great potential. Very good athletes (except Diebler) capaable of beating you so many ways. All have very good skill. And what I like about this team as well, is it seems they have bought into it defensively. Craft is unbelievable on the ball defender. The rest, including Diebler, are solid or better thus far. Once Thomas buys into it defensively, he will be good as well.
• Jester

  

  And as far as comparing Craft and Diebler, I believe I said something about how Craft was a better defender and passer. I'm pretty sure it's okay to compare one guards defense and passing to another.
• centralbucksfan

  Jester;604411 wrote:Um, yes, Diebler is a "pretty good" outside shooter. He's inconsistent at times. He's a good shooter, but lets not act like he lights the nets on fire or anything. So tell me, what exactly was "nonsense"? Are you saying Diebler is a good defender, or rebounder, or anything else I mentioned?

  
  Pretty good? He shot 42% from three last year, and is hitting at a 49% thus far. Thats pretty DAMN good. And I don't care who you are playing...when you can hit 9 straight threes (a handful with someone in his face), thats equates to being a very good shooter.
• Jester

  

  Yeah, 42% is pretty good. It's a choice of words. Not much difference between "pretty good" and "very good" to me.
• Jester

  

  Big Gain;603772 wrote:Thomas is doing a very nice job playing the 4 spot, you completely forgot about him in your supposition. He's scoring in double figures and is 2nd on the team in rebounds/minutes played. ANY team would have a problem if their 2 best big men were in foul trouble at the same time. DUH!
  
  The first seven can be counted on in just about any situation, now that Thomas has learned he's not supposed to shoot every time he touches the ball. When Sibert plays, his only job is not to do something stupid. In a close game that's it and is MORE than sufficient. How soon we forget how short the bench was last year.

  Of course any teams would have a problem if their 2 best big men got in foul trouble. I was more pointing out that Sullinger and Lauderdale are the only 2 big men we really have that we can depend on. I mean yeah, I suppose you could slide Lighty and Thomas down there, but they only go 6'5 and 6'6 respectively. Which would leave them in a very tough position if going against a team with decent big men. Teams like Michigan State and Minnesota can go 3-4 deep or more if need to. Could pose problems for OSU.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I agree on the inside men vulnerability. Sullinger has shown he can get into foul trouble pretty quickly in some games, and Lauderdale has been prone to foul trouble in the past, although I do believe he's been smarter so far this season. Thomas, despite his size, could match up with just about any of the big guys simply because he has very good athleticism and can get up quickly. That said, he's not a good defender...yet.
  
  And my objection was to your use of "pretty good" on his three point shooting. That strikes me as he's just meh...when, as noted, his percentages the last two years have been excellent by anyone's standards.
• Big Gain

  Writerbuckeye;604077 wrote:More nonsense about Diebler not based in fact. A "pretty good" outside shooter? LOL. He's almost a lock to end up as the Big Ten's all-time leading 3 point scorer, and his percentage of made 3 pointers has risen every season, and that percentage is better than most. As for his ball handling skills or ability to create...THAT'S NOT HIS ROLE ON THE TEAM. And why would you compare a PG to a SG or wing player? They aren't supposed to do the same things. Not every player needs to be able to do everything. In Matta's system he has specialists that blend together and create a team very difficult to beat.
  
  It amazes me how many fans watch basketball but have so little understanding of the team concept and players having specific roles on that team. Perhaps it's an NBA mentality where you see so much more one on one play.

  
  BRAVO!
  
  I found an interesting stat about Diebler on StatSheet Network. If you look under "Player Stats" and click on (more), you will see several categories, one of which is called "Offensive Rating". Diebler has the 3rd highest "Offensive Rating" in the country at 147.82, just behind #2 Griffin Callahan from SDSU who has a 148.49. Duke's Andre Dawkins is 4th with a 147.35 and UCONN's Kemba Walker is 7th with 141.31.
• Big Gain

  They key to Thomas is his athleticism combined with his strength. At 6-6 he weighs 230, just 25 ounds less than the 6-8 muscleman Dalls Lauderdale.
• Tiger2003

  

  Big Gain;604754 wrote:BRAVO!
  
  I found an interesting stat about Diebler on StatSheet Network. If you look under "Player Stats" and click on (more), you will see several categories, one of which is called "Offensive Rating". Diebler has the 3rd highest "Offensive Rating" in the country at 147.82, just behind #2 Griffin Callahan from SDSU who has a 148.49. Duke's Andre Dawkins is 4th with a 147.35 and UCONN's Kemba Walker is 7th with 141.31.

  
  Who is #1?
• Hb31187

  

  what exactly goes into an "offensive rating" statistic. It kinda sounds like that dumb PER rating in the NBA
• lhslep134

  

  Hb31187;604885 wrote:It kinda sounds like that dumb PER rating in the NBA

  
  I hate all of those similarly created metrics.
• Jester

  

  Tiger2003;604872 wrote:Who is #1?

  Pierce Hornung from Colorado State.
  
  Yeah.
• Big Gain

  Hb31187;604885 wrote:what exactly goes into an "offensive rating" statistic. It kinda sounds like that dumb PER rating in the NBA

  
  Efficiency: Shooting %, 3-point shooting %, freethrow %, assist to turnover ratio, personal fouls/minutes played.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Sounds like a valid rating system to me. However, it takes into account some things most players today aren't interested in practicing, most of the time, like foul shooting. It also rates based on how efficient you are when it comes to assists and turnovers, and personal fouls.
  
  My guess is that all of these guys are VERY SOLID players on the floor, and their coaches love them -- even if some fans don't agree or understand why.
• Wooball

  

  Did anyone check out Shannon Scott last night in the City of Palms championship game on ESPNU? Aaron Craft is a solid pg for the Bucks this year, but after watching Scott last night I expect him to be OSU's best pg before the end of next season.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The game against Oakland was a prime example of the problem opposing teams face when playing Ohio State. The Buckeyes ended up with six players scoring between something like 12-17 points. That's amazing. You had Diebler hitting a few 3's...and he actually put the ball on the floor and drove a couple times when his defender close on him, and he finished well. If Diebler adds that to the mix, it will kill teams that think all they have to do is run up to him just as he's shooting, and he'll pass the ball away.
  
  In any event, the balance this team displayed is as good as any I've seen from an Ohio State team in 40 years of watching OSU basketball. It's amazing and lethal.