Barbs of Cville: Local Reporter Takes Cuts at Virginia's Dave Leitao

It’s been a week since I posted—the tough season makes it difficult to dredge up the trauma of Virginia’s performances.

For example, see the Good Ol’ Blog for what looks like an emotional train wreck in hypertext.

But a couple of L's never prevented me from yakking on incessantly before, so I shall trod on. 

With the losses piling up, local media is getting a little chippy—if you read between the lines—with coach Dave Leitao.

The Daily Progress contains two articles detailing some calls that the writer found questionable. One questions his decision-making, while the other rehashes a story where his players are criticizing him.

Presumably neither would make Leitao happy (if he reads the paper, which he says he doesn't). I have diverging opinions about Leitao's decisions mentioned in the articles. 

In the the first article, Whitelaw Reid reported/opined about Jamil Tucker’s removal from the Virginia Tech game after Reid felt Tucker was playing well.

The article begins, “When Jamil Tucker gets the playing time, he usually puts up the points.” Reid noted in the article that Leitao became testy when asked about Tucker's removal.

Later, Reid says, “[Tucker] has managed to shoot a team-leading 51 percent from three-point range (23 of 45).”

Tucker is a fine player—a big guy who can shoot from beyond the three point line. His stroke from the outside no doubt propelled Virginia to a win against Arizona. Seth Davis even named him one of his “Ten Sophomores to Watch.”

However—and this cannot be emphasized enough—Virginia does not need anyone else shooting more threes. Virginia already scores 36 percent of its points from three-point field goals. Easily tops in the ACC. More diversity on offense would benefit Virginia.

Finally, Reid’s last statement is blatantly false. A check of Tucker’s three-point field goal percentage reveals that it is 38 percent, not 51 percent.

Not surprisingly, I agree with Leitao in his decision. Tucker’s rebounding is lacking. He grabs about 18 percent of the possible defensive rebounds and four percent of the possible offensive rebounds.

Adrian Joseph, his primary “replacement,” is much better on the boards; netting 20 percent and eight percent. With Virginia hemorrhaging points on defense, every defensive rebound is key, and Joseph is currently pulling them down better.

In the second article Reid pulls up Mike Scott’s comments to the Washington Post detailing his frustration with the coach’s decision to pull him in and out of the game. In this regard, I think Scott (and Reid) have a legitimate beef.

Scott plays hard on defense, inhales offense rebounds (17 percent to be exact), and goes to the line (his free throw rate is 62 percent), despite playing out of position the entire time. He does make some freshman mistakes, but even his turnover rate is a relatively paltry 13 percent.

Yet he only plays about 39 percent of the minutes.

At this point, it’s obvious that Mike Scott is the best post player Virginia has. Why not let him play more? Next year, with two freshmen seven-footers (well, almost) on the way, he’ll be the back to his proper position and will be significantly more seasoned.

It’s worth the investment.

(All stats courtesy of kenpom.com.)