SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 8, 2008 15:41:22 GMT -5
Tillmon was a better defender, but we only have one year of Austin vs. 4 years of Tillmon to form our opinions. Freeman is a scoring machine. I am expecting him to make a significant leap this year. If he doesn't end his Hoya career as being recogonized on a higher level than Mark (and I always like Mark and running mate Dwayne) I will be disappointed.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 8, 2008 15:50:06 GMT -5
My initial thought was that there are bigger players now with more strength training who take longer to get up and down the court. Then I realized that was hogwash. The Showtime Lakers, the 80s Celtics, even a young Shaq, Ewing, etc. ran plenty up and down the court and were as big as anyone today. I have to think its the issue of control. In all of our team sports nowadays, there is a lot more control by coaches. You watch football and you can hardly call an audible without a coach telling you. In baseball, coaches are often sending in the pitches from the bench. Even in soccer, the ultimate player sport, Americans have tried to control the game more from the sidelines including creating "plays" for certain situations, rather than keeping it fluid and allowing creativity. In basketball, it has shown itself in the coaches calling plays or trying to slow the tempo, ala the Princeton offense, and therefore, players slowing to receive instructions or follow previously given instructions instead of pushing the opportunities available. The NBA has instituted a lot of rules to try to create more offense (the hand-checking rule is one that comes to mind), but they didn't have that problem in the 80s. Magic, Bird, Isaiah, et al. directed their teams and were brilliant in doing so. Now, it seems that coaches have tried to control that brilliant creativity out of players for fear of making mistakes. Exhibit A is the Jason Kidd experiment in Dallas--sure, Kidd's lost a step, but Avery Johnson's extreme control of his team had to have quashed some of the autonomous creativity that Dallas was seeking from Kidd when they traded for him. Then again, as a player, I always preferred more autonomy on the field, so I was never fond of controlling coaches and officials, who I believe just interfere with those actually playing the game. What do you all think, is there any validity to that thought process or is it just some of my bias creeping out here? GREAT POINT--that is one of the best points brought up. Outstanding post Dude--and I'm with you--it's about the people on the court/field of play--not the people who coach them. Coaches are there to make adjustments--but the gameplan should've been put in in practices/prep--not the over-control of the game. Mistakes will happen--but it's the type of mistakes and if they are self imposed or created by opposing team? Let guys play--LET THEM PLAY!!! (where's William Devane and Bad News Bears when you need them?) I've got agreements and disagreements with the above. 1. I largely agree with the general point that players on the field/court would benefit from more autonomy in the game. Practice is the time for coaches to teach and control. Games are for players to implement. 2. While lots of us like this autonomy idea, virtually every person on this board... and the announcers in the games... have called for Hoya players to get the ball into the BIG MAN more! And we want the coaches to direct them to do so. 3. I don't think the Princeton is holding kids back as much as everyone says. OK, JT3 doesn't let the kids run and this year I would like to see much more to take advantage of our team speed and athleticism. BUT at the same time, the Princeton is like the Option play in football times a million. Princeton doesn't run on Plays as much as on philosophy -- teaching guys how to take advantage of mismatches, and overplaying on D, and more. But guys have to react...as a team.. when they see something. And they have to do it FAST. A HUGE factor in most sports, and especially basketball, is quickness. That doesn't just mean muscle reactions, it means Mental reactions. You see an opening, you squeeze in a pass, you make a cut, that opportunity isn't going to last long. You have to move on it Right Away. So I do see JT3 holding back our pace by not running and get guys to "run the system". But the system DOES have a lot of flexibility built in for the players. But if those players didn't get the ball into Roy -- heck, call a time out and make it happen!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,734
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 8, 2008 15:50:43 GMT -5
Dudeslade - I'm completely with you. I personally think in football coaches should be banned from calling in plays -- make the team call them -- and that in basketball two timeouts per half.
FewFac - Sorry, but the overcontrol of coachings happened long before stats got to basketball or football. Baseball managers openly ignore those things and flaunt it. In Football, the overcoaching started with Bill Walsh because it worked. In basketball, I think it is merely to support multi-million salaries.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 8, 2008 16:06:19 GMT -5
In Football, the overcoaching started with Bill Walsh because it worked. . In the 1950's, Coach Paul Brown - for whom the Cleveland Browns were named -- substituted offensive guards on every down so he could send in is call for the next play. Brown also instituted an amazing number of innovations that are long since taken for granted, like filming practices and games, and adding classroom work as part of practice... not algebra and english composition, classroom work on X's and O's.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,734
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 8, 2008 16:27:43 GMT -5
In Football, the overcoaching started with Bill Walsh because it worked. . In the 1950's, Coach Paul Brown - for whom the Cleveland Browns were named -- substituted offensive guards on every down so he could send in is call for the next play. Brown also instituted an amazing number of innovations that are long since taken for granted, like filming practices and games, and adding classroom work as part of practice... not algebra and english composition, classroom work on X's and O's. Learn something new every day.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 8, 2008 18:10:51 GMT -5
Dudeslade - I'm completely with you. I personally think in football coaches should be banned from calling in plays -- make the team call them -- and that in basketball two timeouts per half. FewFac - Sorry, but the overcontrol of coachings happened long before stats got to basketball or football. Baseball managers openly ignore those things and flaunt it. In Football, the overcoaching started with Bill Walsh because it worked. In basketball, I think it is merely to support multi-million salaries. I don't disagree with you. I just think the games were different then, and the competitive landscape was one in which outperformance on the field could be directly attributable to coaching. This is one of the reasons I still prefer NL to AL baseball, it's like the difference between automatic in a Porsche and cruise control in a Cadillac. But now, I think there is a level of dependence on certain features that have a mainly negligible impact on the game because the competitive advantage derived no longer exists. I also think decisionmaking that impacts game play is increasingly being made at an arm's length by people who may not understand not only the impact of their decisions, but also the game itself. I can do wonders with a spreadsheet, but does that mean I should tell a Phil Jackson who can and can't be on his bench?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,734
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 8, 2008 18:42:20 GMT -5
I think making a decision without incorporating the coach would be silly.
But I also think any coach who fails to see the value of empirical evidence is kinda silly, too.
Then, again, baseball is largely an individual sport where players perform on a team but more or less in an individual atmosphere. In basketball and football, it's much more of a team sport, and I think most of the statistical evaluations available to the public are bunk.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 8, 2008 18:44:39 GMT -5
I also think decisionmaking that impacts game play is increasingly being made at an arm's length by people who may not understand not only the impact of their decisions, but also the game itself. I can do wonders with a spreadsheet, but does that mean I should tell a Phil Jackson who can and can't be on his bench? I think your shooting from the hip before thinking. In LA, Mitch Kupchak is the GM. Mitch was a pretty decent player. Danny Ainge is the GM in Boston who recognized the value of veterans like Posey and Brown and also Eddie House. Kevin McHale is a GM. Larry Bird just drafted Roy. Geoff Petrie was a superb player at Princeton and decent pro and just drafted Pat. Jr.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 8, 2008 19:56:32 GMT -5
I also think decisionmaking that impacts game play is increasingly being made at an arm's length by people who may not understand not only the impact of their decisions, but also the game itself. I can do wonders with a spreadsheet, but does that mean I should tell a Phil Jackson who can and can't be on his bench? I think your shooting from the hip before thinking. In LA, Mitch Kupchak is the GM. Mitch was a pretty decent player. Danny Ainge is the GM in Boston who recognized the value of veterans like Posey and Brown and also Eddie House. Kevin McHale is a GM. Larry Bird just drafted Roy. Geoff Petrie was a superb player at Princeton and decent pro and just drafted Pat. Jr. I understand your perspective, however to conclude that they are not leaning a great deal on others for advice also misses a crucial point. And my point was not to say that all front offices are nightmares, and I didn't mean for this point to be contained to basketball. Besides, one of the leading stats-driven basketball front offices is the Sonics.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 9, 2008 0:13:26 GMT -5
GREAT POINT--that is one of the best points brought up. Outstanding post Dude--and I'm with you--it's about the people on the court/field of play--not the people who coach them. Coaches are there to make adjustments--but the gameplan should've been put in in practices/prep--not the over-control of the game. Mistakes will happen--but it's the type of mistakes and if they are self imposed or created by opposing team? Let guys play--LET THEM PLAY!!! (where's William Devane and Bad News Bears when you need them?) I've got agreements and disagreements with the above. 1. I largely agree with the general point that players on the field/court would benefit from more autonomy in the game. Practice is the time for coaches to teach and control. Games are for players to implement. 2. While lots of us like this autonomy idea, virtually every person on this board... and the announcers in the games... have called for Hoya players to get the ball into the BIG MAN more! And we want the coaches to direct them to do so. 3. I don't think the Princeton is holding kids back as much as everyone says. OK, JT3 doesn't let the kids run and this year I would like to see much more to take advantage of our team speed and athleticism. BUT at the same time, the Princeton is like the Option play in football times a million. Princeton doesn't run on Plays as much as on philosophy -- teaching guys how to take advantage of mismatches, and overplaying on D, and more. But guys have to react...as a team.. when they see something. And they have to do it FAST. A HUGE factor in most sports, and especially basketball, is quickness. That doesn't just mean muscle reactions, it means Mental reactions. You see an opening, you squeeze in a pass, you make a cut, that opportunity isn't going to last long. You have to move on it Right Away. So I do see JT3 holding back our pace by not running and get guys to "run the system". But the system DOES have a lot of flexibility built in for the players. But if those players didn't get the ball into Roy -- heck, call a time out and make it happen! Who said III is holding back things at Georgetown? I'm talking about too much focus on coaches and not enough freedom for players overall--in the sport and in other sports. Actually III encourages guys to play freely out on court--share the ball, etc...so he wouldn't have a problem doing this. BTW--you can trace announcers wanting Hoyas to get ball inside more--back to Ewing Era as well. It's not just current thing.
|
|