Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

MBB: 16-17 Season Recap


Recommended Posts

All in all, it was definitely a successful year. Just ended poorly.

At the beginning of the year we thought we'd be bad defensively but it turns out, as the season progressed, so did our defense. The last few games, our offense is what did us in. Not enough weapons once a team shuts down our important guys.

 

Even with the defense getting better...teams JACKED 3's against us ALL YEAR LONG. Brown has to figure out a way to get guys to defend the 3 better. If my stats are correct, we attempted 536 3's while teams attempted 826 against us. There is NO DOUBT this cost us some wins. We handled most teams on the boards pretty easily leading to an almost +200 rebound advantage for the year.

 

Next year we have some nice kids coming in and we get a new scoreboard, so lots to look forward too.

Congrats to Mike Rowley and Dallas Ennema on finishing their careers. Hoped it would have ended better for them.

UAlbany Wins																								
** Albany stats are the left side in each grouping **																								
Opponent	FGM		FGA		FG%		FTM		FTA		FT%		3PTM		3PTA		3PT%		RBG		AST		TO	
Penn State	30	27	61	63	49.2%	42.9%	20	18	25	22	80.0%	81.8%	7	9	14	25	50.0%	36.0%	43	26	16	9	15	12
Oneonta	        38	20	81	71	46.9%	28.2%	16	11	25	13	64.0%	84.6%	5	5	12	27	41.7%	18.5%	69	31	15	11	12	13
Brown	        26	25	52	59	50.0%	42.4%	22	21	28	29	78.6%	72.4%	6	5	14	20	42.9%	25.0%	37	28	9	13	18	8
Siena	        27	23	52	49	51.9%	46.9%	21	19	32	25	65.6%	76.0%	6	7	12	22	50.0%	31.8%	29	31	15	11	6	11
Marist	        26	25	60	51	43.3%	49.0%	21	5	28	8	75.0%	62.5%	5	11	14	28	35.7%	39.3%	34	30	13	15	9	19
Colgate	        26	23	51	45	51.0%	51.1%	19	9	26	11	73.1%	81.8%	3	11	9	29	33.3%	37.9%	29	22	8	11	10	16
St. Francis BK	29	24	61	59	47.5%	40.7%	21	7	25	12	84.0%	58.3%	8	5	17	22	47.1%	22.7%	50	21	19	12	15	8
Columbia	21	24	52	51	40.4%	47.1%	24	12	28	18	85.7%	66.7%	4	7	12	23	33.3%	30.4%	39	27	8	16	15	13
Cornell	        27	22	62	49	43.5%	44.9%	11	5	16	9	68.8%	55.6%	4	10	16	31	25.0%	32.3%	43	24	14	14	10	13
UMBC	        28	16	54	49	51.9%	32.7%	16	10	20	15	80.0%	66.7%	5	11	8	27	62.5%	40.7%	41	26	8	11	11	13
Binghamton	35	22	54	48	64.8%	45.8%	7	13	11	14	63.6%	92.9%	7	8	12	24	58.3%	33.3%	26	22	17	12	8	13
Maine	        30	23	55	51	54.5%	45.1%	17	11	22	20	77.3%	55.0%	4	6	14	14	28.6%	42.9%	34	28	16	13	11	15
Hartford	25	19	55	55	45.5%	34.5%	19	11	27	16	70.4%	68.8%	5	12	14	36	35.7%	33.3%	44	29	11	14	13	13
Umass Lowell	32	30	61	58	52.5%	51.7%	19	10	24	13	79.2%	76.9%	7	7	13	17	53.8%	41.2%	33	30	20	15	10	14
UNH	        24	21	53	50	45.3%	42.0%	14	7	20	10	70.0%	70.0%	7	6	17	21	41.2%	28.6%	28	33	14	14	5	14
Binghamton	23	21	52	52	44.2%	40.4%	11	6	15	8	73.3%	75.0%	9	6	21	16	42.9%	37.5%	37	25	15	7	9	5
UMBC	        25	25	57	54	43.9%	46.3%	25	12	31	17	80.6%	70.6%	3	7	13	22	23.1%	31.8%	38	30	8	13	8	13
Maine	        29	17	70	51	41.4%	33.3%	8	13	10	23	80.0%	56.5%	8	9	23	19	34.8%	47.4%	40	36	15	10	3	9
Hartford	30	22	63	60	47.6%	36.7%	13	11	16	14	81.3%	78.6%	7	7	14	21	50.0%	33.3%	39	35	16	11	13	15
Hartford	35	27	57	64	61.4%	42.2%	17	12	21	14	81.0%	85.7%	13	5	25	20	52.0%	25.0%	37	26	25	11	11	11
Stony Brook	18	18	46	45	39.1%	40.0%	21	16	25	24	84.0%	66.7%	6	4	14	21	42.9%	19.0%	34	28	8	8	18	16
																								
OOC W Tot.	250	213	532	497	47.0%	42.9%	175	107	233	147	75.1%	72.8%	48	70	120	227	40.0%	30.8%	373	240	117	112	110	113
AE W Tot.	281	216	574	528	49.0%	40.9%	149	104	196	150	76.0%	69.3%	62	79	149	217	41.6%	36.4%	360	294	140	120	91	124
AE Tour. Tot.	53	45	103	109	51.5%	41.3%	38	28	46	38	82.6%	73.7%	19	9	39	41	48.7%	22.0%	71	54	33	19	29	27
																								
OOC W Avg.	27.8	23.7	59.1	55.2	47.0%	42.9%	19.4	11.9	25.9	16.3	75.1%	72.8%	5.3	7.8	13.3	25.2	40.0%	30.8%	41.4	26.7	13.0	12.4	12.2	12.6
AE W Avg.	28.1	21.6	57.4	52.8	49.0%	40.9%	14.9	10.4	19.6	15.0	76.0%	69.3%	6.2	7.9	14.9	21.7	41.6%	36.4%	36	29.4	14.0	12.0	9.1	12.4
AE Tour. Avg.	26.5	22.5	51.5	54.5	51.5%	41.3%	19.0	14.0	23.0	19.0	82.6%	73.7%	9.5	4.5	19.5	20.5	48.7%	22.0%	35.5	27.0	16.5	9.5	14.5	13.5
																								
Total W	        584	474	1209	1134	48.3%	41.8%	362	239	475	335	76.2%	71.3%	129	158	308	485	41.9%	32.6%	804	588	290	251	230	264
Average W	27.8	22.6	57.6	54.0	48.4%	42.1%	17.2	11.4	22.6	16.0	76.0%	71.6%	6.1	7.5	14.7	23.1	42.1%	32.8%	38.3	28.0	13.8	12.0	11.0	12.6
																								
UAlbany Losses																								
** Albany stats are the left side in each grouping **																								
Opponent	FGM		FGA		FG%		FTM		FTA		FT%		3PTM		3PTA		3PT%		RBG		AST		TO	
Cincinatti	20	28	48	61	41.7%	45.9%	9	13	14	20	64.3%	65.0%	2	5	14	21	14.3%	23.8%	33	34	8	16	22	10
Grand Canyon	27	29	59	69	45.8%	42.0%	15	14	21	21	71.4%	66.7%	8	10	21	24	38.1%	41.7%	36	33	10	15	13	9
Holy Cross	21	18	45	46	46.7%	39.1%	8	6	10	10	80.0%	60.0%	1	11	9	29	11.1%	37.9%	20	37	15	12	18	9
Yale	        22	22	50	56	44.0%	39.3%	9	4	10	5	90.0%	80.0%	2	11	12	29	16.7%	37.9%	31	33	13	15	12	13
Canisius	27	26	66	57	40.9%	45.6%	8	13	8	17	100.0%	76.5%	2	12	11	28	18.2%	42.9%	37	35	11	20	13	14
SMU	        21	25	51	47	41.2%	53.2%	4	13	5	24	80.0%	54.2%	7	8	23	17	30.4%	47.1%	25	33	10	14	12	10
Umass Lowell	32	33	56	52	57.1%	63.5%	8	7	11	12	72.7%	58.3%	7	12	16	23	43.8%	52.2%	28	18	13	17	13	11
Stony Brook	28	22	50	58	56.0%	37.9%	7	20	10	24	70.0%	83.3%	7	8	13	28	53.8%	28.6%	31	30	14	13	19	10
UNH	        22	25	51	52	43.1%	48.1%	18	11	25	13	72.0%	84.6%	5	14	19	30	26.3%	46.7%	31	29	8	16	6	8
Vermont	        19	22	64	50	29.7%	44.0%	10	13	13	20	76.9%	65.0%	1	3	8	18	12.5%	16.7%	43	37	8	12	10	14
Stony Brook	21	23	52	48	40.4%	47.9%	20	19	23	24	87.0%	79.2%	3	7	10	18	30.0%	38.9%	29	31	12	8	13	14
Vermont	        21	23	42	52	50.0%	44.2%	1	10	2	13	50.0%	76.9%	7	6	13	22	53.8%	27.3%	24	27	11	9	14	4
Vermont	        21	16	53	48	39.6%	33.3%	9	18	14	24	64.3%	75.0%	2	6	15	16	13.3%	37.5%	36	32	10	9	9	5
St. Peters	21	22	46	52	45.7%	42.3%	4	6	7	15	57.1%	40.0%	8	9	21	21	38.1%	42.9%	30	29	14	12	12	4
																								
OOC L Tot.	138	148	319	336	43.3%	44.0%	53	63	68	97	77.9%	64.9%	22	57	90	148	24.4%	38.5%	182	205	67	92	90	65
AE L Tot.	164	173	366	359	44.8%	48.2%	68	93	89	130	76.4%	71.5%	37	58	102	156	36.3%	37.2%	211	205	76	89	87	71
AE Tour. Tot.	21	16	53	48	39.6%	33.3%	9	18	14	24	64.3%	75.0%	2	6	15	16	13.3%	37.5%	36	32	10	9	9	5
PS L. Tot.	21	22	46	52	45.7%	42.3%	4	6	7	15	57.1%	40.0%	8	9	21	21	38.1%	42.9%	30	29	14	12	12	4
																								
OOC L Avg.	23.0	24.7	53.2	56.0	43.3%	44.0%	8.8	10.5	11.3	16.2	77.9%	64.9%	3.7	9.5	15.0	24.7	24.4%	38.5%	30.3	34.2	11.2	15.3	15.0	10.8
AE L Avg.	27.3	28.8	61.0	59.8	44.8%	48.2%	11.3	15.5	14.8	21.7	76.4%	71.5%	6.2	9.7	17.0	26.0	36.3%	37.2%	35.2	34.2	12.7	14.8	14.5	11.8
AE Tour. Avg.	21.0	16.0	53.0	48.0	39.6%	33.3%	9.0	18.0	14.0	24.0	64.3%	75.0%	2.0	6.0	15.0	16.0	13.3%	37.5%	36.0	32.0	10.0	9.0	9.0	5.0
PS L. Avg.	21.0	22.0	46.0	52.0	45.7%	42.3%	4.0	6.0	7.0	15.0	57.1%	40.0%	8.0	9.0	21.0	21.0	38.1%	42.9%	30.0	29.0	14.0	12.0	12.0	4.0
																								
Total L	        344	359	784	795	43.9%	45.2%	134	180	178	266	75.3%	67.7%	69	130	228	341	30.3%	38.1%	459	471	167	202	198	145
Average L	24.6	25.6	56.0	56.8	44.4%	44.7%	9.6	12.9	12.7	19.0	74.0%	68.9%	4.9	9.3	16.3	24.4	28.6%	37.3%	32.8	33.6	11.9	14.4	14.1	10.4
																								
Total (all)	928	833	1993	1929	46.6%	43.2%	496	419	653	601	76.0%	69.7%	198	288	536	826	36.9%	34.9%	1263	1059	457	453	428	409
Average (all)	26.5	23.8	56.9	55.1	46.8%	43.1%	14.2	12.0	18.7	17.2	75.2%	70.5%	5.7	8.2	15.3	23.6	36.7%	34.6%	36.1	30.3	13.1	12.9	12.2	11.7

Edited by Eli
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we really have 65 rebounds vs Oneonta? haha

 

Agree, excellent season!

 

Yep, 69. That's what happens when they take 71 shots and we take 81 lol.

 

Technically I probably shouldn't count that game in the averages, but it is what it is.

Edited by Eli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did we rank officially in defending the three?

135th out of 351 teams ranked

 

12th in rebounding margin, 303 in turnovers forced, 320 in 3-pt attempts/game, 346 in blocks/game

 

Joe Cremo was third in minutes played, David Nichols eighth in FG attempts

2017_stats.png

 

2017_ind.png

Edited by UAalum72
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the exception of the last week, I thought this was a fun season because we were so young coming into it and expectations were kind of low.

 

Looking back, in the 2000s I thought we had some good players and good teams that dropped off after certain guys left. In the 2010s I think we have a good program and have shown we can win when the faces change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did we rank officially in defending the three?

I think that stat is flawed in my opinion. There's so many streaky shooters out there. You can shoot 45% and there's games where you just go ice cold and can't hit anything and it has nothing to do with the opponents defense Edited by UA'08
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How did we rank officially in defending the three?

I think that stat is flawed in my opinion. There's so many streaky shooters out there. You can shoot 45% and there's games where you just go ice cold and can't hit anything and it has nothing to do with the opponents defense

 

 

But if teams are shooting a lot of them against you, that means it's a game plan decision more than likely because you suck at defending it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How did we rank officially in defending the three?

I think that stat is flawed in my opinion. There's so many streaky shooters out there. You can shoot 45% and there's games where you just go ice cold and can't hit anything and it has nothing to do with the opponents defense

But if teams are shooting a lot of them against you, that means it's a game plan decision more than likely because you suck at defending it.

True. But how often will a bad three point shooting team change their gameplan to shoot more threes lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How did we rank officially in defending the three?

I think that stat is flawed in my opinion. There's so many streaky shooters out there. You can shoot 45% and there's games where you just go ice cold and can't hit anything and it has nothing to do with the opponents defense

 

 

But if teams are shooting a lot of them against you, that means it's a game plan decision more than likely because you suck at defending it.

 

Since we're actually better than average, that means we've disguised our defense to just LOOK like we suck defending it, Will Brown, defensive genius,

 

Note we shot threes at 37% and opponents only 34%. The psychological effect of so many 3s is greater than the actual number of points scored.

Edited by UAalum72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...