SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 30, 2015 19:07:54 GMT -5
Have we been watching the same games? 5 minute stretches have been a large issue, but I wouldn't pin it on the last 5 minutes of the game. Also, JT3 has done a good job this year with his TOs/offense to defense subbing/even OOB plays. I guess we aren't watching the same games. At 4:30-5:00 marks remaining in our three losses, we were up by 3 against Radford, up by 7 against Maryland and down by 1 against Duke. So yeah, this team and coaching staff has failed to deliver in the last 5 minutes this year in all of our losses. By the time you've played 35 minutes in a game, you ought to know your best lineup for the rest of the way, understand what is working well on offense and defense to give you the best shot to close things out, take advantage of the countless time outs that occur at the end of close games, exploit any mismatches, etc. We haven't shown that ability ... yet. I'd rather be a second half team than a first half team if I had to choose. We all know first half leads in college hoops are pretty meaningless. Wisconsin we were up by 10 at that point and that's how it finished. This is beyond the definition of small sample size and selective . Especially since you are including the Duke game, where we went from 1 down ... to 2 down ... playing a team that pretty much every independent observer believes is better and everyone agrees gets most of the calls. We were also down 8 with 2:48 left ... and strong end game execution gave us a chance to win. Things change when you change the parameters. The idea that this can be laid at the feet of some systematic failure based on the results of two games (and three if someone were to give you the Duke game) is fairly silly.
|
|
Dhall
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by Dhall on Nov 30, 2015 19:32:00 GMT -5
I guess we aren't watching the same games. At 4:30-5:00 marks remaining in our three losses, we were up by 3 against Radford, up by 7 against Maryland and down by 1 against Duke. So yeah, this team and coaching staff has failed to deliver in the last 5 minutes this year in all of our losses. By the time you've played 35 minutes in a game, you ought to know your best lineup for the rest of the way, understand what is working well on offense and defense to give you the best shot to close things out, take advantage of the countless time outs that occur at the end of close games, exploit any mismatches, etc. We haven't shown that ability ... yet. I'd rather be a second half team than a first half team if I had to choose. We all know first half leads in college hoops are pretty meaningless. Wisconsin we were up by 10 at that point and that's how it finished. This is beyond the definition of small sample size and selective . Especially since you are including the Duke game, where we went from 1 down ... to 2 down ... playing a team that pretty much every independent observer believes is better and everyone agrees gets most of the calls. We were also down 8 with 2:48 left ... and strong end game execution gave us a chance to win. Things change when you change the parameters. The idea that this can be laid at the feet of some systematic failure based on the results of two games (and three if someone were to give you the Duke game) is fairly silly. The question was where the improvement will come from and the point is that we are good enough to compete with anyone for 35 minutes without improving if we can figure out a way to close out games in the final minutes. Other than Kentucky recently, the difference between winning and losing (or good and great) in college basketball is not whether you can build up a 10 or 20 point lead and hang on, but whether you can build a small lead and hold/extend it or come back from small deficits - each in the last five minutes.
|
|
Locker
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,265
|
Post by Locker on Nov 30, 2015 21:33:48 GMT -5
Better luck -- we are #348 in the nation currently -- should tend to help with results. But I think SF was asking how we can improve our overall performance, not our results in close games, which will continue to be unpredictable (as it is for all teams in college basketball).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 30, 2015 21:42:03 GMT -5
The question was where the improvement will come from and the point is that we are good enough to compete with anyone for 35 minutes without improving if we can figure out a way to close out games in the final minutes. Other than Kentucky recently, the difference between winning and losing (or good and great) in college basketball is not whether you can build up a 10 or 20 point lead and hang on, but whether you can build a small lead and hold/extend it or come back from small deficits - each in the last five minutes. Do you have any support for your claims? There's plenty of evidence that good teams don't consistently win or lose close games -- that it's not usually a skill or weakness either way. And I've seen nothing to say that games are coming down to closer scores recently, aside from the general increase in talent. I think the way to win more games is simply to be better; I don't think our team or many teams have a systematic advantage or disadvantage in close and late ... if they have an advantage then, they also have it the rest of the game.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 30, 2015 23:19:54 GMT -5
A twenty point lead isn't meaningless in the first half. And the end game strategies have been fine. Execution has been lacking to an extent though, to be fair, not in the Duke game. The Radford game was all about execution (or lack thereof). We had no business getting to one overtime much less two and even less business winning that game. And that had zero to do with the end game. If anything, the end game kept us in it. It was the rest of the turd they laid for the first 35 that was the problem.
I'm in the camp that we should be looking (hoping?) for an improvement in the defense. Bradley isn't going to get quicker but he doesn't necessarily have to if some other guys get it. He gets exposed because other guys blow assignments badly and consistently at times. Isaac is a key here. And, to a lesser extent, LJ. LJ is the more consistent performer on D and fights most times through picks. Isaac over helps and loses his man way more than he should. I'm not even sure that it's that he doesn't know where to be. It actually looks to me like sometimes he has mental lapses on that end of the floor and it seems to also coincide with him playing well on offense. He needs to be in the game on both ends for the entirety of the game. He has a nose for the ball too so I expect that he will come around on the boards. When he realizes that he needs to be the best player on the floor for us and, in actuality, it's not DSR that determines how far we go if we're going to pick one guy and that it's him, maybe that flips a switch for him.
With regard to DSR, his offense doesn't concern me in the least. He'll be DSR. And, realistically, him starting slowly on the offensive side is probably a positive for this young team. It puts the onus on other guys to step up and, largely, they have. However, he does have to pick up his defensive effort. He's taking plays off. If that means that Tre and LJ take some of his minutes so that DSR can get a blow every now and then, I'm fine with that. Getting Tre and Paul back is huge. It will be interesting to see the lineups and change in dynamics.
One area of improvement that I think would really help and is actually really easy to fix is getting back after a blown offensive possession. All it is is effort. The guys that are supposed to get back in transition seem to be doing so for the most part. But way too often we have guys jogging back and getting in position. You can't rebound poorly and jog back on D. You can live with one or the other but not both. Sprint or sit. We have the depth to do that and being winded isn't an excuse because of that. I don't care if it's DSR or Isaac or Peak. Jog and sit. We're not going to lose to most teams on offense. We're going to lose on D. Take that personally and focus.
SF, thank you for the post and for your analysis. I appreciate the time and thought you put into the vast majority of your posts but especially the threads that you start. There's always much to discuss once you do. Ya know, before it devolves into the inevitable Editeding contest. Good stuff.
Let's win the next one Hoyas!
|
|
HoyaChris
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by HoyaChris on Nov 30, 2015 23:35:48 GMT -5
I think it is possible to overthink much of why we are 2-3 as opposed to, say, 4-1. The most important factor is that DSR has not played well by his standards. For the past two seasons DSR has been a 39% 3 point shooting guard with an offensive rating of 121 which is outstanding for a high usage guard. Currently, he has an offensive rating of 106 despite having significantly increased his assist rate and marginally reduced an already outstanding turnover rate. The culprit here is 3 point shooting where he is 10-35 (27%) as opposed to an expected 14-35. If you randomly sprinkle 4 more makes across his misses across a large number of instances that is probably worth an additional win or two.
Visually, the defense seems to me to have significantly improved from the mess that was Radford. With the new rules, we will play a lot of zone and the success of the zone should improve with coaching given the youth of our team. Isaac's defense in particular seems to be way better than last year.
I despair for our rebounding. Period.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,991
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Dec 1, 2015 6:25:46 GMT -5
this team is good enough offensively. defend, rebound and limit turnovers. it all comes down to those 3 things.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,304
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 1, 2015 6:41:11 GMT -5
this team is good enough offensively. defend, rebound and limit turnovers. it all comes down to those 3 things. And make your FTs... 4 things...
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,304
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 1, 2015 6:45:56 GMT -5
SF, how does Kenpom define "Luck"? I tried searching for it, but it sent me to a subscription page.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,312
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 1, 2015 7:01:37 GMT -5
SF, how does Kenpom define "Luck"? I tried searching for it, but it sent me to a subscription page. Here you go: Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky). kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossary
|
|
canissaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 524
|
Post by canissaxa on Dec 1, 2015 10:47:23 GMT -5
Great thread and interesting question.
I think SF is right that there isn't an obvious strategic change that will yield massive improvements--for all the detractors on the board, I'm reasonably confident that the coaching staff would spot glaring deficiencies.
I do think that there are a number of incremental improvements that we can make over the course of the season--mostly because we've set the bar so low and there are no physical barriers to improvement. In particular team coordination on defense has been pretty awful. Even without plus rim protection, we've just been in the wrong places an incredible number of times in the early going. Got to think that improves just with more time, experience for the youngsters and perhaps shortened rotation.
Once we get better in our basic M2M and 2/3 zone, that will allow the team to practice a few alternative defenses like the 3/4 court trap. And I wonder if we couldn't make ourselves a little harder to scout and read if we managed to mix in another zone from time to time with the basic 2/3. Teams that vary the zone look can create a lot of confusion with attacking schemes and passing lanes.
I also think defensive rebounding will improve with better boxing out as the season progresses. It's just too basic and easy. We may need an object lesson of getting flattened by Xavier to get the wakeup call, but setting the bar so low thus far gives us a lot of room for improvement.
I guess there are two potential strategic changes that might yield some benefit, but both seem unlikely: 1) Using Peak in the PNR a bit more consistently. I wasn't in love with Peak freshman year (first game notwithstanding), but the end of the Duke game was incredible. He consistently took his man off the dribble and got to the rim and made great decisions. He also looked like the best player on the court by a LOT for some stretches of the last game. I know we don't run a standard PNR offense, but just as we've adjusted the offense for some great weapons in the past, I'm beginning to think that Peak's physical gifts may be on the level to justify a couple of wrinkles in the sets. 2) Pressing. This is incredibly unlikely, and mostly I think the folks on the board who consistently advocate for it are just a fan of the style (and I grew up in Arkansas in the Nolan Richardson era, so I can certainly appreciate it as well). But when you look at our depth and athleticism this year, pressing is an obvious way to play to our strengths--particularly when we've got Mourning (or white) in the the game at center and our rim protection is already compromised. Realistically, pressing well takes a lot of practice to not give up easy breakaway baskets, so very unlikely to get practice time with our defensive challenges in the half court.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Dec 1, 2015 11:08:41 GMT -5
I do think that III would like to press more with this team, but I agree that it won't happen until the half court d looks less terrible.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 1, 2015 11:27:53 GMT -5
SF, how does Kenpom define "Luck"? I tried searching for it, but it sent me to a subscription page. Here you go: Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky). kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossaryI hate that the general stat community refers to this as "luck." There is definitely "Luck" -- or drivers outside the players and coaching staff's control -- in close games. The officials are a key one, but also some random bounces, etc. But there's also a lot of executing or failing to execute. Just because three point shooting makes and misses are erratic or show high levels of variation in their results -- there are guarded makes and wide open misses by the same players all the time -- doesn't mean it's luck. In one situation the offense executed better than the defense and the another they didn't. What luck in this situation really is ... is a combination of actual luck -- getting calls, for example -- and executing in the so-called clutch. The reason why the latter, which is not luck, gets tossed into luck, is because almost no one and no teams have shown an ability to perform above their standard level of performance repeatedly in close and late or clutch situations. It's true in virtually every sport. There are some exceptions of chokers and once in a while someone has career stats that may say they can repeat it ... but the vast majority of teams' and players' performance in close games over extended periods of time usually looks like a random walk. Good teams are good because they win more games comfortably, not because they win close games consistently. Now, there may be ways in which teams are good that lend themselves better to this situation. In baseball, people may undervalue the bullpen because you can choose when to use them (a team with a super strong bullpen is better in close and important games because you play your better players). Basketball doesn't really have that but it does possibly have an edge -- given how they call the games, good FT shooters and the ability to draw fouls may give a team more of an edge down the stretch. That's my hypothesis; it could be wrong. Under Thompson, we've shown no consistent trend of being lucky or unlucky. Last year, we had exactly the same actual winning % as our ppp and ppp against would have predicted.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 1, 2015 11:31:43 GMT -5
I do think that III would like to press more with this team, but I agree that it won't happen until the half court d looks less terrible. Yep. I'd imagine he is trying to get the half court right before introducing too much more. But with the shorter clock and length we have, it's not a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 1, 2015 11:45:20 GMT -5
I do think that III would like to press more with this team, but I agree that it won't happen until the half court d looks less terrible. Yep. I'd imagine he is trying to get the half court right before introducing too much more. But with the shorter clock and length we have, it's not a bad idea. What I don't understand is why we don't consistently use the passive 1-2-2 to slow the other team. I suppose if we are playing a MTM, it is a bit trickier to recover and find your man, but there's no issue if we are playing a zone. And it is near impossible to beat that press down the court and get a layup.
|
|
Hoya Rich
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 205
|
Post by Hoya Rich on Dec 1, 2015 15:14:23 GMT -5
Great post. The defensive rebounding (or lack of it) has really been brutal. And, yes, turnovers seem to follow this team around. Hopefully we improve markedly on both fronts. Still a very young team and kind of hope the stretches of inconsistency become shorter as the season wears on.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Dec 1, 2015 17:14:06 GMT -5
Given the general consensus that our bigs are currently not very adept at protecting the rim and rebounding the ball, why not try a bit of a "small ball" type look? We used it on a couple select occasions last year ( I remember it working with some success against Seton Hall). DSR/Peak/Cameron/White/Copeland or DSR/Tre/Peak/White/Copeland, etc. You could easily work Derrickson in there too. I tend to think Paul could handle himself defensively against most C competition we'd see, and it would definitely create some mismatches in our favor offensively. That kind of lineup also gives us perimeter shooters at all 5 spots and probably lends itself well to the pressing/zone strategy some here have mentioned.
Our rim protection and rebounding already suck, so what are we really losing? Who knows, maybe the rebounding would improve since there might be more of a sense of responsibility instead of an "oh-our-big-guy-will-grab-the-rebound" mentality.
|
|