Why does the Princeton Offense Work at GU?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

So I've been reading Moneyball, it got me to wondering whether the basic premise of the book - players are often under or over valued in sports relative to their actual abilities because the statistics that we use to describe those abilities are imperfect. Moreover, often times the evaluation process for players is based on watching a player play which brings into account a number of pre-existing biases of the person watching the player. This made me start wondering about last year's Hoyas team. None of the components of the team was that highly touted when they signed with GU. We knew Roy was tall. We knew Jeff was polished. But for a long time Tyler was the best rated player in our 2004 recruiting class. Even at GU the statistics of the guys were not amazing. However, they won and won more games each of the three years they played under John Thompson III. During this period there were players that many people rated higher than Roy, Jessie, Jeff, Roy, and DaJuan.* What explains this resurgence? Was it better evaluation of the players? Or was it a change in how we approached college basketball? Many other college systems value defensive pressure to create turn-overs and create easy baskets - many of the most successful coaches in college basketball over the last twenty years have emphasized tough defense to create turn-overs and get these open shots - big names of the game like John Thompson, Jr., Bobby Knight, Eddie Sutton, Jim Boehiem, and Coach K preached defense that created offense. It was simply conventional wisdom that a tough defense that created turn-overs was needed to win. JT III's teams get turn-overs but its clear from watching them that defense that creates offense is not the goal. The over all goal of the game that JTIII's teams is to increase the number of points per possession. They do this in two ways - getting high percentage shots, but also limiting the number of possessions in the game - this prizes a different type of player - not necessarily smarter but more efficient - someone who doesn't take a ton of shots, but takes shots when they are advisable and doesn't try to force turnovers but plays defense that will keep another team running its offense for a long time, limiting the opponent's number of possessions. While I'm not arguing that coaching doesn't play a role and that the addition of more Five Star rated talent wouldn't improve the system, I am saying that JTIII has certainly shown that way talent is evaluated in college basketball is not entirely predictive of team success. Some factors such as athleticisim which is seen as improving defensive ability are more highly prized than they should be. Wallace is a perfect example of this - while he has always been dogged by even those close to the GU program as not being athletic enough and not having the lateral quickness necessary to be successful, what he is is extremely efficient - he is the point guard of a team with one of the highest offensive efficiencey numbers in college basketball, he has an increasingly improving assist to turn-over ratio, and he has disciplined shooting abilities. Not only did Wallace go unsigned by every SEC school, he was completely over-looked by every major conference and only ended up at Georgetown because he followed JTIII. What do you all think? Is there ultimately something to the ratings system for high school players entering college ball or do colleges have the ability to improve their recruiting results by looking at more than is traditionally taken from watching a player play AAU ball?

* Note: DaJuan is sort of the out-lier in this discussion because he was a well known quantity and highly rated. However, in the case of other players in the starting line-up 4 years many members of this board would have gladly taken Darian Townes or even Matt Causey in the starting line-up before any of the starting players on our Final Four team.

[SFHoya99]

Interesting comment, if almost completely illegible for lack of paragraphs.

I don't like the Moneyball comp, less because it is wrong, and more because that book is so divisive. Furthermore, I don't think that JTIII took lower ranked players/less athletic players because he chose to; I think he did because he had to. As he has established himself, we're getting athletic guys and super talented guys. (P.S. Tyler was never the top ranked player in our 2004 class except when he was the only player in our 2004 class. Cornelio was, though).

I would put it this way, though: Thompson seems to focus on what a player can do, not what he can't.

The last point illustrates it best for me. Thompson does a fantastic job of highlighting a players strengths and hiding their weaknesses. If a player can't do something, I think he figures he can teach it, and if he can't, he'll design his offense or defense to hide the weakness and emphasize the offense. Jon is a perfect example. There is a always a spot for a shooter. Roy as a freshman is another perfect example -- you're an awful coach if you can't make a 7' useful.

I do think the rankings overemphasize athleticism and open floor play. It underemphasizes players who don't score or who do the little things. That said, while the team isn't UNC, DaJuan was Top 30, Jessie was top 75, and Jeff and Roy missing the Top 50 had more to do with developing late and skipping AAU than anything.

[SFHoya99]

I'd also say the premise of Moneyball isn't that players are under or overvalued because the statistics used are wrong. Rather, I think its key point is that conventional wisdom should be challenged and invalidated or validated by actual measurement and data, rather than assumptions. The best story in that book is when Beane asks if they can convert a lefty pitcher to shortstop -- something that hasn't occurred in about 100 years.

[SDHoya]

I hated Moneyball. I just wanted the author to get off his knees for at least a few pages during the book. Billy Bean is not THAT awesome. He does a very good job, but if you really want to look for a miracle worker, the better people to look at are the guys who put together the farm systems at Florida, and Montreal in the 80s and 90s. The number of stars who have come out of those two systems is just amazing, and unlike the A's under Bean, the Marlins have actually won the World Series with a bunch of low paid nobodies (see 2003).

[GIGAFAN99]

Indeed, I am not a moneyball supporter.

The season comes down to a game or a series which isn't long enough for any of your stats to kick in. Sure, in baseball with its massive season you can get good results by giving yourself the best probability of winning games over the long haul. But all that goes away in the playoffs when you face a very specific subset of the best teams and suddenly "better than average" means you could be the worst team in the bracket.

As for the Hoyas. Tyler was NEVER the best rated player in that class. Ever. We really have ventured into bizarroland with respect to the 2004 class. Pretty soon they're going to have peglegs and glass eyes before they got to the hilltop. Jon is the ONLY guy who would even remotely fit into this mold of being undervalued.

The rest are Sapp (1st team all-met), Summers (Jordan AA and Baltimore PoY), Green (1st team all-met), Hibbert (2nd-team all-met).

To give you an idea we landed ONE first-team all-met guy between 1998 and 2003 (You guessed it, Big Mike). The only recent team with two first-teamers on it before Jessie arrived? Again you guessed it, 2001 (Ruben, another guy who played in the league, was the other).

There's no "magic" here guys. We're landing the top tier local talent. That's the trick. Princeton's cool and it's nice to come up with interesting theories but if a guy named Peter Beane Carrill landed at Georgetown, he would be worth about 1/10000th of what JTIII is worth due to recruiting. Let Gary Williams find the undervalued. I'll take the highly-valued thank you very much.

I like diamonds in the rough but I also like diamonds in a stack of more diamonds. By the looks of the recent recruits, JTIII agrees.

[theexorcist]

I haven't read Moneyball, but I have a degree from SFS and so I'll be damned if that's going to stop me from commenting.

The premise of Moneyball seems very baseball-focused, because baseball has stats that really can't be altered via a different philosophy. In other words, a run-and-gun QB or SG may put up amazing numbers that pale in a different offense. Baseball has similar corrections, but they're usually park-related (think Coors Field) and can be controlled for. Baseball's stats thus mean something (unless you're a steroid abuser!).

Because those stats mean something, people try to build successful teams based on them, especially on batting average. Moneyball questions BA, and basically asserts that this stat is meaningless - every time you put the ball in play, especially in the infield, whether or not you get a hit is essentially probability. As such, Moneyball focuses on the three "automatics" that don't involve fielding - walks (which don't count toward average but put people on base), home runs (which are automatic hits and which score runs to boot), and strikeouts (which never involve fielding). Everything else is probability. You thus focus on these items when drafting and signing free agents. You become particularly successful when someone has a low BA but high walks or HRs and few Ks (reversed for pitchers) - basically their luck will change (or for pitchers, their poor results may be the work of a lousy defense). As discussed earlier, this isn't for finding A-Rod - it's for finding undervalued talent.

I don't think Moneyball could work in baseball, because most of the various stats are heavily in-game dependent - you can have a high FG% if you just dunk, or a high 3-point FG% if you just shoot threes when you're not guarded. It really only works in FT% (FTs are a determiner of how far you are away from the basket), which is such a small part of the game as to make signing players for that reason foolish.

With that said, the stuff Hoyas are good at (free throws and FG%) seem like what would be emphasized by a Basket-Moneyball. But I don't think that this is the "best" basketball. Does the Princeton offense with the best players beat the Westhead offense with the best players? Part of the beauty of sports like soccer, field hockey, football, and basketball that sports like volleyball and baseball lack is that they enable two different philosophies to collide. I don't think that one is necessarily "better" than the other, but it would be quite a battle.

With all of the above said, whatever you want to call the offense works at Georgetown. For me, that's pretty much all that matters.

[the_way]

maybe its the coach (JTIII) and not the offense?

just a thought.

[TBird41]

theexorcist said:

I haven't read Moneyball, but I have a degree from SFS and so I'll be damned if that's going to stop me from commenting.

The premise of Moneyball seems very baseball-focused, because baseball has stats that really can't be altered via a different philosophy. In other words, a run-and-gun QB or SG may put up amazing numbers that pale in a different offense. Baseball has similar corrections, but they're usually park-related (think Coors Field) and can be controlled for. Baseball's stats thus mean something (unless you're a steroid abuser!).

Moneyball basically takes a Wall St. approach to baseball--find the undervalued and overvalued and exploit them if you want to compete in a small market against the big spenders. When the book was written, college players, OBP and players that didn't "look" like a baseball player were undervalued and things like closers were overvalued (and Beane sold them for ransoms every year). That's not true anymore, which is why Beane has had to shift his focus within the market.

So it might apply to JT3 a little, in that he's looking for skills other might be undervaluing, but I'd say GTown is a lot more like the Red Sox than the A's in terms of their ability to acquire players--they can get the top tier talent and don't have to scrounge around for the undervalued but also know what skills are overvalued.

Also, I'd have to say JT Jr. used this "Moneyball" approach as well, from what I understand, and was better able to see the proper value of things, at least when he first started out, as he was one of the first to properly value what a defense could do. Also, I doubt many other coaches would have seen any value in a player fresh out of a stint in the Navy, no matter how good at defense he may have been in HS.

[DoubleOhHoya]

Let's face it, our entire team has developed more than could have been expected. That's good coaching, people.

[lichoya68]

agree good coaching and its the georgetown version of the princeton offense folks the GEORETOWN VERSION YES GO HOYAS GOING TO THE KEENER TONITE SO STAY AWAY PROBABLY NOBODY WILL PLAY OUCH VERNON BROKEN NOSE PLAY WITH THE MASK LIKE TYLER GO HOYAS BEAT CAROLINA ..........AGAIN ;D ;D ;D

[theexorcist]

Yes, III is a great coach. Trust in Thompson.

As discussed, Moneyball becomes less relevant for GU since the Hoyas remain a hot recruiting destination. Concerns about not being able to re-sign free agents don't matter.

The fun question for me on how a basketball player that's not valued highly is a hidden gem. Aside from watching video, are there any stats that could indicate a great star for GU?

[SFHoya99]

My favorite line of this conversation:

"I haven't read Moneyball, but I have a degree from SFS and so I'll be damned if that's going to stop me from commenting."

[McBricks]

I didn't think the Princeton Offense worked at Georgetown. I thought we were too dumb to run that offense. Oh, nevermind, that was a Dook fan.

[DudeSlade]

Moneyball works well in the MLB draft and scouting young guys--just look at the Dodgers minor leagues and the young guys coming up that were drafted under DePodesta (a Beane protege), but at the major league level it has worked nowhere else then with the A's (see their Frank Thomas signing last year). So can this work at the college level? Yes, to a degree. With players like Wright, Freeman, Braswell, Monroe, these are your Griffeys, Bonds, ARods, Mark Priors, Jered Weavers when they entered the MLB draft--guys who have been seen so much, evaluated so much, played so much that everyone can realize their value and their immediate impact on the next level. Despite the claims that the 2003 & 4 classes were awesome with the All-Met selections, let's look at this in the reality of the time and realize All-Met back then was nothing like All-NYC or All-Los Angeles City or All-Chicago. All-Met didn't even equate to Top 100 in the rankings for Jeff, Roy, Tyler. By that account, they were undervalued and the Moneyball concept works. Wallace is the perfect fit for a Moneyball type approach.

Now, however, as many of you are pointing out, GU is no longer in the Moneyball situation like the A's, rather like Moneyball moving to the Dodgers with DePodesta, the "Princeton offense" moved to GU and within a few years, we are now faced with an abundance of talent wanting to come to the school, a revitalization of the talent in the Metro area, and a revitalization of the fanbase. Unlike DePodesta moving to the Dodgers, JTIII has been able to adapt and modify the Princeton Offense to fit this new situation at GU, a new situation that he helped to create by his very own success with the implementation of the system. So now we can consider the Princeton to be the Georgetown Offense and we have top talent playing within it, but the concept that we value certain undervalued abilities or lesser valued abilities, as StPete stated, is true -- passing and basketball IQ are as valued here as scoring ability and athleticism, which no matter how one spins it, is not common in most basketball programs around the country or in the scouting sites. The convergence of both, like we find in Monroe, is unusual, but helps put GU in contention to attract these talents.

[SFHoya99]

Statistical Analysis has worked nowhere but the A's?

The Red Sox and Padres, both division leaders, are significant believers in statistical analysis of major leaguers. In fact, statistical analysis is much more significant for developed players than for developing players.

Logan White deserves most of the credit for the Dodger system, not DePodesta. But DePodesta deserves credit for Brad Penny, Jeff Kent and several other good moves, while scouting happy Ned Colletti signed Juan Pierre for no real reason and Nomar to play first.

-------------


A much better comp than Moneyball is the New England Patriots a few years ago. Their defense was one of only a few 3-4s in the league and thus they were looking for players that 4-3 defenses would never value highly. Since most teams were 4-3s, they had little competition.

That's how I feel about our offense -- lots of people want to run, so super athletic but maybe not so skilled players are in demand. Those offenses have little use for a Jon Wallace, for example. Since there are few teams that stress D and shooting over one on one breakdown ability, we have less competition for some of our fit players.

That said, we are competing for most of the top players anyway -- because the top players are athletic AND skilled.

[SFHoya99]

That said, we are competing for most of the top players anyway -- because the top players are athletic AND skilled.

I think this is where the Moneyball and the Patriots examples break down. In a pro situation, where players are paid with limited resources (for cap or simply that teams have less cash), teams must compete for undervalued players because they cannot sign all the best players. They are resource constrained.

In college, all college athletes "cost" the same. There is no differentiation in the cost of Greg Monroe versus me. They both cost 1/13th of our budget, more or less, a scholarship. In this situation, less of an emphasis is on finding undervalued talent and there is more of an emphasis on being able to secure the best talent. Since we are a "rich" team in terms of recruiting ability, we have no need to go after undervalued talent.

[bmartin]

The offense works because the coaches teach the skills required to run it. They drill guys and expect them to learn to handle, read, pass, cut, etc., then they put them out there and let them learn to put it together. The "figure it out" phase is what makes November and December games risky, but by conference season, they have figured it out.
Princeton is in a one-bid league with no league tournament, so the Ivy season is what counts. JTIII learned from Carril to use the pre-league season to build for January. Many of those "athletic" teams that love to run the floor tend to peak in December and then are overtaken when the system teams gel.

[SDHoya]

sfhoya99 said:

Statistical Analysis has worked nowhere but the A's?

The Red Sox and Padres, both division leaders, are significant believers in statistical analysis of major leaguers. In fact, statistical analysis is much more significant for developed players than for developing players.

Logan White deserves most of the credit for the Dodger system, not DePodesta. But DePodesta deserves credit for Brad Penny, Jeff Kent and several other good moves, while scouting happy Ned Colletti signed Juan Pierre for no real reason and Nomar to play first.

-------------


A much better comp than Moneyball is the New England Patriots a few years ago. Their defense was one of only a few 3-4s in the league and thus they were looking for players that 4-3 defenses would never value highly. Since most teams were 4-3s, they had little competition.

That's how I feel about our offense -- lots of people want to run, so super athletic but maybe not so skilled players are in demand. Those offenses have little use for a Jon Wallace, for example. Since there are few teams that stress D and shooting over one on one breakdown ability, we have less competition for some of our fit players.

That said, we are competing for most of the top players anyway -- because the top players are athletic AND skilled.

Moneyball has worked for the Red Sox and Padres? Umm, no. With the amount of money Theo Epstein has had to work with, I could build a team to win the World Series. Cashman is just an idiot, thats the only reason the Yankees suck right now. As for the Padres, while Kevin Towers has somehow figured out some magic formula for relievers (he seems to be able to take any random right hander, and all of a sudden he becomes the best middle reliever or setup man in the NL), but our hitting has been atrocious since 1998. So, there seems to be a major failing there.

And I don't think Moneyball has anything to do with the Hoyas. Different sport, different importance in stats, different resources. Apples and Oranges.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Yeah when i opened this thread i thought it'd be about why the princeton offense works at gtown, but not at other schools. Not about some baseball book that's full of wholes anyway.

[SFHoya99]

SD, I hate to disagree with a fellow Hoya and Padres fan, but our hitting has hardly been atrocious since 1998.

The ballpark suppresses run scoring. Once you account for that, our offense was above average last year and was about average this year until very recently, where it has slipped to lower levels.

The Padres are VERY moneyball. They refuse to spend large amounts of money on a relief core, since most relievers are not reliable year to year and there is a huge surplus of AAA pitchers with two good pitches -- all you need to be good for one inning of work. The market way overvalues these pitchers on the free agent market and often undervalues them in trades. It's no shock Heath Bell is this good -- most statistically inclined people saw that trade as a steal (and most scouts liked Heath Bell as well). It's just that stats people realized that guys like Ben Johnson and X Nady are a dime a dozen.