GW Hoops

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

11/03/2023 11:30 am  #21

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

LSF, thank you for bringing a little caution back to the OCC schedule, especially the opener. Has everyone forgotten the dreadful non-coference losses since the 18-19 season. Those years of losses should make us very cautious about expecting blowouts and .. to often even victories. (Reminder: home losses last season to American and UC-San Diego). How about we just win these so-called easy games.


11/03/2023 3:32 pm  #22

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Predictions for a minute estimate of the starters and the rotation?

     Thread Starter

11/03/2023 5:01 pm  #23

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Aware of LSF's excellent point.
And painfully realize over the years, especially recent ones, that we could lose to 
anyone--and have done so.
   But it is Stonehill, so it may be worth giving away 8.5 points--or not, depending on your
 But we sure as heck should win, and certainly at home.

Last edited by jf (11/03/2023 5:04 pm)


11/03/2023 5:21 pm  #24

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

The bandwagon for the coming year has plenty of empty seats. I’ll be happy to move over to make room for those of you afflicted with the dreaded GW history low expectation disease. Caputo plus so much more talent than we’ve seen in a long time. Assuming the walking wounded are available, won’t need rose-colored glasses to review Monday’s game.


11/03/2023 6:16 pm  #25

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

My post was not meant to denigrate the talent on GW in any way.  In fact, I am on that not fully populated bandwagon that Poog speaks of.    Rather, the point of my post was to indicate that given that it is the first game of the season with so many new players and so few returning from last season, and given our lackluster perfomance history in the opening games against so called lesser competition, that GW -8.5 may not be out of line line.


11/03/2023 10:01 pm  #27

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

As a GW fan for the past 57 years, i never bet for or against our team. However, if I did, I would jump on GW to beat the 8.5 pt spread. This is a very talented team.


11/03/2023 10:30 pm  #28

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Stonehill Skyhawks

Date: Monday November 6th, 2023
Time: 8:00 PM ET
Venue: Charles E. Smith Center (Washington, DC)
Preseason Ranks: 346th (KenPom), 277th (EvanMiya), 302nd (Haslametrics) (yes I left out Bart Torvik for petty reasons)
2022-23 Record: 14-17, 10-6 (T-2nd in NEC)
2023-24 Projected Record: 11-20, 8-8 (6th in NEC)

Head-to-Head: First time facing the Skyhawks! Not too much of a surprise given it's just their second year in D1...

Preseason Offensive Efficiency: 338th (KenPom), 276th (EvanMiya), 305th (Haslametrics)
Preseason Defensive Efficiency: 340th (KenPom), 266th (EvanMiya), 285th (Haslametrics)
Pace: 239th (KenPom), 181st (EvanMiya), 196th (Haslametrics)
"Roster Talent": 329th (EvanMiya)
Offensive Shot Quality Rank: 354th
Defensive Shot Quality Rank: 307th
Rim & 3 Rate: 83% (57th)

Free Throw Percentage - 75.8% (T-39th)
Turnovers Per Game - 15.1 TO/G (T-41st)
Opponent Free Throws Made Per Game - 11.2 FTM (T-71st)
Opponent Free Throws Attempted Per Game - 15.9 FTA (T-87th)
Steals Per Game - 7.1 SPG (T-99th)
Opponent Free Throw Percentage - 70.2% (T-100th)
Opponent Turnovers Per Game - 13.5 TO/G (T-107th)
3-PT Field Goal Percentage - 35.3% (T-108th)
Opponent Blocks Per Game - 2.9 BPG (T-114th)
Opponent Field Goal Percentage - 42.8% (T-119th)

Opponent Field Goal Attempts Per Game - 58.8 FGA (T-250th)
Opponent Assists Per Game - 13.7 APG (T-252nd)
Opponent Defensive Rebounds Per Game - 25.3 DRPG (T-257th)
Opponent Steals Per Game - 7 SPG (T-280th)
Opponent 3-PT Field Goals Made Per Game - 8.2 3PM (T-288th)
Opponent 3-PT Field Goals Attempted Per Game - 23.7 3PA (T-295th)
Points Per Game - 67.0 PPG (299th)
Opponent Rebounds Per Game - 36.4 RPG (T-309th)
Opponent Offensive Rebounds Per Game - 11.1 ORPG (T-320th)
Field Goals Made Per Game - 23.2 FGM (T-333rd)
Rebounds Per Game - 31.1 RPG (T-343rd)
Field Goals Attempted Per Game - 52.7 FGA (T-347th)
Offensive Rebounds Per Game - 6.3 ORPG (361st)

Key Returning Players:
Max Zegarowski (Graduate Student; Hamilton, MA) - 12.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 1.2 apg; 45% FG, 42% 3-PT, 88% FT per 33.7 mpg
Jackson Benigni (Senior; East Hampton, CT) - 9.5 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 2 apg; 39% FG, 27% 3-PT, 80% FT per 23.5 mpg (2021-22 season)
Thatcher Stone (Senior; Winchester, MA) - 5.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg; 40% FG, 25% 3-PT, 74% FT per 19.6 mpg

Key Losses:
Andrew Sims (Graduated; Mount Laurel, NJ) - 15.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.7 apg; 48% FG, 28% 3-PT, 75% FT per 33.2 mpg
Isaiah Burnett (Left Team; Annapolis, MD) - 12.2 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.8 spg; 43% FG, 31% 3-PT, 80% FT per 31.8 mpg
Shamir Johnson (Left Team; Waterbury, CT) - 7.6 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1 apg; 40% FG, 38% 3-PT, 58% FT per 21.5 mpg
Josh Mack (Graduated; Winchester, VA) - 6.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 1.9 apg; 50% FG, 41% 3-PT, 70% FT per 22.9 mpg

Key Newcomers:
Shane O'Dell (Junior Transfer from D2 St. Rose; Schenectady, NY) - 16.3 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.1 bpg; 46% FG, 27% 3-PT, 70% FT per 31.8 mpg
Tony Felder (Sophomore Transfer from VMI; Brockton, MA) - 10.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.2 apg; 36% FG, 34% 3-PT, 79% FT per 27.2 mpg
Pano Pavlidis (Graduate Student from Hartford; College Point, NY) - 8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1.3 bpg; 57% FG, 24% 3-PT, 57% FT per 24.6 mpg

Conference Realignment has been a major topic of discussion during the past two offseasons. The general focus of course has been on the teams moving up to the power conferences, but the result of this team shifting all over the country has trickled down to the small guys as well. A couple weeks back, it was announced that both Sacred Heart and Merrimack (a team that has only been D1 for a few seasons), are going to depart next season for the MAAC. That's a crushing blow to an NEC conference that also lost St. Francis Brooklyn this year as the school opted to scrap athletics altogether. It's a shame that the Terriers never had the chance to qualify for the NCAA tournament in their history; their program dates back to 1896 and is considered to be the oldest program in NYC.

Where the NEC goes from here over the next year will be interesting to watch. The knee-jerk reaction is to add from the D2 ranks again as the conference has done with their three latest additions. However, I believe the NCAA has a rule that in order for a conference to compete for a tournament spot there must be a minimum of six teams that can qualify. This is yet another example of how stupid the "four year transition rule" is for teams moving up from a lower division. New Haven (D2) has reportedly been itching to join the conference, but they'll likely have to continue to wait a bit or be added alongside another team as currently just five teams are eligible to qualify for the tournament in 2024-25.

As of now, all signs point to 1) adding Chicago State, a team that has been homeless since leaving the WAC a season ago, or 2) straight up merging with the MEAC, another low-rated conference that has been losing teams over the years as well. Either way, the travel costs are sure to go up going to schools in the southeast or the midwest in the case of CSU. The NEC has been one of the more geographically contained leagues in the country but that likely won't be possible after this year.

Anyways, Merrimack getting an invite to the MAAC shows that it doesn't take 5+ years for a team moving up to hang with other teams in D1, and that really the upper teams in D2 are not that different from the lower teams in D1. The Warriors have gone .500 or better in conference all four years that they've been in the NEC. Southern Indiana also went 9-9 in the OVC in their first year in D1 last year.

The Stonehill Skyhawks are another team that fall under the group of former D2 teams that have thrived early on in D1. Coach Chris Kraus led his group to a 10-6 record in conference, good for a second place finish and a tie with Fairleigh Dickinson - a team who notably knocked off Purdue in the first round of the NCAA tournament. Not too shabby! Could Stonehill be the next team that gets the attention of another conference? That's a discussion that's probably still three years away from being had as most conferences won't take on a team ineligible for the NCAA tournament, but it's not inconceivable with all the movement going on right now. Conference stability is priority #1 for all conferences outside of the high-major ranks.

Now on to the team. A quick look at Stonehill's roster tells a lot about the way Kraus likes to play. Granted, you're not going to find many 6'10" guys hanging around in the NEC but it's evident from looking at the team's "strengths" last year that the Skyhawks prioritize skill over athleticism (perhaps a smart move early on for all transitioning teams that are in the process of getting D1-caliber talent). Stonehill shot the ball well from three (108th nationally) and at the free throw line (39th nationally). It appears at least on paper that the performance in the former category may dip as snipers Shamir Johnson and Josh Mack are out of the fold. Johnson in particular was second on the team in makes, and two of the three transfers coming in shot sub 30% last year at their previous school.

One player who is likely to lead the way in that regard is Max Zegarowski, a fifth year player (and brother of Creighton standout Marcus Zegarowski) who also moved up to the D1 level after previously spending time at a pair of D2s in Lynn and Franklin Pierce. Zegarowski can really catch fire from deep as he had seven different outings where he made at least four shots from three point land.

He will be joined up front/along the wing by Hartford (another sad story...) import Panayiotis "Pano" Pavlidis and another D2-to-D1 import Shane O'Dell. Both players add experience right away to a team that lost quite a bit of production from last year (including leading scorer Andrew Sims) and are plus rebounders. The rebounding will be particularly useful on the offensive end, an area where Stonehill was absolutely dreadful last year (which might be part philosophical, but the Hawks were generally one-and-done on offense if they missed). O'Dell in particular is intriguing as he absolutely stuffed the stat sheet at the D2 level. His ability to score and pass could create mismatches to Stonehill's benefit during NEC play.

One of the other things that stands out in Stonehill's strengths above is their top 100 finish in steals per game in what was otherwise a conservative defense that didn't foul. Their lack of height inside also forced Kraus to pack it in a bit and hope that opponents didn't torch them from distance. It will be interesting to see whether Stonehill can continue to generate steals at that rate with the departure of Isaiah Burnett, a pesky guard who played with the toughness of a guy you'd expect to have spent some time at Navy. Burnett accounted for over 40% of the team's steals last year and no other player even averaged 1 per game.

While VMI import Tony Felder does not have anywhere near the same height that Burnett provided the team, he certainly fits the bill of a guy playing with a chip on his shoulder having also come from a military institution. Felder was a really good pickup for a school like Stonehill - he had a strong freshman year and finished in double figures 17 times. Not bad for a guy who also held an offer from Georgetown out of high school.

At the end of the day though it appears that Stonehill will have to take steps forward offensively to offset a slip on defense. Felder shot a respectable 34% from 3, but a guy like Thatcher Stone has to really step up. Stone had the reputation of being a good shooter out of high school but that has yet to pan out in college, as he's a career 23% from 3. This will actually be our second time facing him, as he put up 4 points in 11 minutes when he was still at William & Mary (more on that game in a few days...ugh).

If Stone can't step up, maybe Stonehill can get a boost from veteran Jackson Benigni, junior Christopher Melis, or a pair of sophomores in Ethan Meuser and Chas Stinson from off the bench. Both Benigni and Meuser are coming off lengthy injuries, with the former missing all of last season and the latter missing the second half of the year. Meuser probably possesses slightly more upside as a guy who could take a "sophomore jump" but he attempted less than 1 three a game despite being listed as a shooting guard. Positions don't really matter any more nowadays, but it's funny that Melis is listed as a forward despite standing three inches shorter than Meuser. Melis adds rebounding but prefers to play as more of a slasher than outside shooter (only four attempted threes all year). Stinson actually shot the ball well when he got the chance to play, but by all accounts did not win the trust of Kraus to play significant minutes last year.

The Skyhawks also bring in a four-man freshman class highlighted by a pair of guards in Se'yphon Triplett and Austin Abrams. Triplett held an early offer from Charleston and you just know that Abrams will provide a certain level of grit having played at Mount St. Joe's (JB's school) in Baltimore. I think both guards long term have higher upsides than any of the guards Stonehill has returning but there will be a learning curve.

I don't really know what to expect in game 1 from a team with so many newcomers. At the very least during OOC play I'm hoping the weaker schedule will allow for us to play many guys before the rotation has to get cut down. Stonehill doesn't foul a lot on defense, and we actually had quite a bit of success getting to the line last year. Otherwise, there are a number of things I hope we're able to exploit:

1) This is a game where we should win the rebounding battle by a decent margin. One thing that I don't think CC got enough credit for last year was just how much we improved as a rebounding unit compared to JC's team which was the worst in the A10. We did a much better job boxing out, and I thankfully don't have concerns of being outrebounded by 14 like Louisville did against Kentucky Wesleyan in their exhibition.

2) While we don't have an enormous team up front, the height advantage should allow us to control the paint. This should be a good first game to get Akingbola some touches to see what he can do offensively.

3) Stonehill will allow us to shoot from three. One game won't tell us whether we'll be a good or bad three point shooting team but I'm hoping to see more guys that feel comfortable taking and making a three.

4) The Skyhawks aren't particularly experienced in the backcourt. There are a number of things that we have been lacking in on the defensive end the past several years, but making an opposition uncomfortable is a prominent one. I could see Stonehill being uneven with the ball for stretches (even though Felder did pretty well handling the ball at VMI), and I want to see us hopefully generate a bit of pressure along the perimeter with the number of guards on the team which will also allow us to dictate pace running in the open floor.

Projected Score: GW 78, Stonehill 66. 86% chance to win (KenPom). ESPN gives us a 76% chance to open the season with a dub.


11/04/2023 5:11 am  #29

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

YES.  The season is upon us for sure with the arrival of the always insightful and well written DMV post.  Thanks as always and Go Revs


11/04/2023 7:37 am  #30

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Finally, something very right in this world.  Thank you DMV.


11/04/2023 7:43 am  #31

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

I'm right there with you Poog and Russianthistle.  While I may understand the apprehension based on recent past performance, the fact is that this is a new team with upgraded talent, a deeper bench, and a solid coaching staff which should only get better with time.  It's time for this program to start asserting itself against a pedestrian lineup of OOC opponents, and that starts on Monday.


11/06/2023 6:11 am  #32

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

GW is now -11 on DraftKings and -11.5 on FanDuel.

FanDuel still has us listed as the GW Colonials.


11/06/2023 10:33 am  #33

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Since 2016, GW fans have always been waiting for the other shoe to drop. In some cases, we got beat in the head with the shoe. So it's understandable that some approach this game with trepidation.

I think our perception (and the results) changes this year. But I would caution against overlooking any opponent especially early in the season as we adjust to a lot of new players and roles. Not saying I don't expect GW to win tonight but that it may not be as easy as it seems. Even some of our better teams have suffered from early season mishaps. Win or lose, this will be a marathon not a sprint. Keep that in mind tonight and don't get too high or too low off the results. A win over Stonehill doesn't stamp us as anything. Likewise, a loss may not doom us to a bad season.


11/06/2023 11:53 am  #34

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

GWRising is quick to point out that every season is different.  Never the same identical roster and even if this was the case, the players are that much more experienced playing a second year together.  This year's team has 11 new players.  A change to the coaching staff as well.  It's a really different team.

And yet, rather than analyze what's in place, the talent, the depth, the ability to defend different ways with many players able to guard multiple positions, the notion that GW has its first true rim defender since Zeke Armwood, the improved outside shooting, etc., so many here rely heavy on historical data to paint a picture of gloom and doom.  True, we can't change the fact that this program has been shaky in the OOC ever since MoJo became head coach.  What's also true though is that this does not mean it will always need to be this way.  In case you haven't noticed, CC is working pretty hard to improve the culture of this program.

Knowledgeable "sharpies" get what's going on as -8 and -8 1/2 have quickly become -11 or -11  1/2.  Like I said, take advantage of the betting market, or the period where the "public" thinks that we're not nearly as good as we are, while you can.  This is not to say that there definitely will not be an occasional misstep; it's college basketball and of course upsets occur.  But that said, even a 9-4 OOC record for this team against it's weak OOC schedule would be disappointing.  And unexpected, unless you want to cling to the "let's just worry about winning the games and not by how much" school of thought.  Of course I could be wrong, but my sense is that we're going to be much better than that.


11/06/2023 12:42 pm  #35

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

There are multiple stages of evolution in a program ...

1. Win games by any margin against any opponent. A win is a win.
2. Comfortably win most games you are supposed to win and compete in the games you should lose with maybe a single upset
3. Comfortably win the games you should win and win multiple games you are not supposed to win.

In 2016 and immediately before we were at #3. Right now we are striving to be at least #2. But we won't be a tournament team until we reach #3.


11/06/2023 1:49 pm  #36

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

My predictions for tonight:
Starting lineup

Score:  GW 80-Stonehill-72

Attendance:   2,400

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (11/06/2023 2:51 pm)


11/06/2023 2:02 pm  #37

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

My predictions for tonight:
Starting lineup

Score:  GW 80-Stonehill-72

Attendance:   2,400.00

I guess it’s possible that he’ll start Smith because he’s a vet, but I suspect he’d prefer Smith to bring shooting off the bench. 

I think it’ll be either Autry or Johnson in place or Smith. I’ll say the freshman gets the nod.


11/06/2023 2:22 pm  #38

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Don't discount Darren Buchanan or Trey Autry starting. 

Last edited by GWRising (11/06/2023 2:22 pm)


11/06/2023 2:24 pm  #39

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

I'll take a shot:
Jacoi, Darren, Autry play significant minutes before it gets out of hand

2,200 Attendance

GW 76: Stonehill: 60 


11/06/2023 2:37 pm  #40

Re: GW vs Stonehill Game

Starting 5
Bishop Edwards Benny DBJ Stretch

The real question is O/U .5 points for Laziz!


Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum