Strengths, Weakness and Root Cause

[SFHoya99]

It seems like every time we lose a game, people come out of the woodwork with their pet theories and put them forward as the reason we lost without really any backing or reasonable solution.

I want to try to start a reasonable discussion of this last team's strengths and weaknesses and see if we can get to a real root cause that fits the facts -- namely whether it was by personnel or choice that we were good or bad.

Here's my first crack:

This team was a really top team -- a Top 10 team if you measure its successes and failures over the course of the season. So let's remember that it had a Top 20 offense and a Top 10 defense before we dive too far in. My point is that nothing was too awful. That said, here are my issues:

Defense

1. Issue #1: We didn't force turnovers. For an elite team, we weren't very good at it. And it was apparent when we lost: only in the Louisville game did we have a turnover rate higher than 20%, and against Davidson it was 6.5%. 6.5%! I realize that Davidson basically shot threes most of the day and never made entry passes, but still, there's a reason we dominated nearly every other facet of the game and lost.

So is it personnel or system? I think it is primary system, which may or may not be dictated by personnel. Having a less than perfectly mobile shot-alterer in the middle and solid but hardly quick guards and perimeter players definitely leads a good coach to play a conservative game plan. I don't know anyone who presses good teams with our players' skill set.

The questions loom out there with new talent coming in? Does the new talent dictate a change in philosophy? Should it? Will Thompson change?

I think the answer to the first is probably yes. Wright taking Wallace's minutes should up the turnovers even without changing philosophy, but we should gamble more. Monroe should be very quick and help replace Ewing's quickness. We're getting longer and more athletic. It may be time to press more.

The thing with this decision -- pressing versus conservative -- is that neither is a cure all. We got in trouble as a conservative defensive team because conservative D teams can't do anything when an opponent makes ridiculous shots like Davidson did -- NBA threes, prayer layups, etc. A team that forces turnovers can still do that.

That said, teams that rely on forcing turnovers, like Clemson, falter when they run into a superior ball-handling team. It's been proven that turnovers are more in the hands of the offense than the defense -- so if you are too reliant on forcing them and you face a team that simply doesn't make mistakes, you're going to get shredded.

The answer, of course, is to be good at both. Easy.

2. Issue: Defensive Rebounding. We haven't been dominant at this at any point in III's reign, even when Jeff Green was here. I think the primary culprit is personnel. Roy is the type who gets what comes to him -- which is great in O rebounding because the percentages that generates are impressive, but isn't in D rebounding.

I don't think it is system based. If anything, the fact that we don't go for the shot block every time should make it easier to rebound. Playing zone didn't help, though, so maybe when we have more athletes we'll play more man and get better at this.

Perhaps the lack of an aggressive system on offense and defense makes the guys less likely to board. Perhaps. But we were a GREAT offensive rebounding team last year, so I find it hard to believe that argument.

What's the solution? I think personnel with a little more hop, and a little more fire solves quite a bit. Perhaps we should borrow from Tom Izzo's drills as well.

3. Strength: Defending the 2. Well, this was mostly Roy. Funnel the ball to Roy and let him put his hands up. Worked fantastic and it was both system and player. I think this has the potential to continue, but can Sims and Monroe play the same role without fouling? I do not think Macklin and Braswell can be the same presence that Roy was -- too much height difference.

4. Strength: Defending the 3. Again, a great fusion of personnel and system. The switching that everyone seemed to hate is why we defended the three so well this year. It was predicated by Roy being able to get back and defend the two, even on a switch, and he did it well. It got taken advantage of once or twice, but not often. Forget that you hate it: we were fourth in the country in 3 pt FG% defense, behind VCU, Hampton, and Ark-Little Rock.

And it's going to get better. Because Sims and Monroe are going to -- once they learn -- handle that switch much better. Roy was fantastic for his physical skills. Monroe will handle it like Jeff.

5. Issue: Fouling people. On the year, this wasn't an issue. In all our losses, it was a big issue. So my question is: was this merely quick teams that exploited us and ripped apart our defense or was it crappy officiating?

I think it's a mix and it highlights two problems. One, it seems to correspond best to no defensive rebounding. A lot of these fouls are on putbacks. Fix that and you fix the latter.

The second issue is the Davidson/first Villanova game issue. It's not a defensive problem, it is that when the officials are calling everything, it becomes an offensive problem because it is no longer a defensive strength. We aren't trying to force turnovers and getting no benefit but still getting hit with the foul. We need to be able to at least get a turnover or two, or more importantly, get some foul shots out of the offense.

Defensive Summary

Lots of trade-offs here. I think in the long run, the more athletic, interchangeable player we're going for here will mean a move to a more aggressive defense. Hopefully we find a happy medium.

As for rebounding, maybe we don't drill it well or teach it well, but I suspect more athletic players will help there as well.

We had a great defense, but it is odd that all our losses minus Louisville were actually defensive breakdowns. (Davidson was our second worst defensive performance of the year to Memphis).

Offense

1. Issue: Failure to repeatedly exploit mismatches. In our case, this year, it's going into Roy. Repeatedly. We just didn't do it. And yes, some of it is that Roy is not a great guy at presenting, and that we apparently can't make an entry pass to save our lives.

But some of it is an unwillingness to go the same route every time. To abandon the by rote movements and go with the philosophy. I love team basketball, but that also means realizing when your teammate is unstoppable. I don't think Roy should was ignored as some on here, but there's no doubt this was an issue, right?

While there are personnel components here, this is one area where I think it is legit to blast the system/coaching. There's no doubt the team runs the offense as they know it. There's no doubt they should recognize these mismatches and exploit them, but when the players don't, we don't see the bench force it.

Are there advantages to this? Of course -- not running plays, etc., I think has been a major contributor to our ability to stay poised in close games, to never really get rattled. That said, I think an adjustment needs to be made. You can't ignore mismatches. You need to take advantage of those mismatches, whether it is Roy or Chris repeatedly driving on someone.

We did do it better with Jeff. Somewhat. But the system/style of coaching seems to rely on the players to both recongize it and step up. I'm not sure it's necessary for it to be that way.

2. Issue: We can't pass. I think the system does create more turnovers simply because it creates more passes in each possession. It also demands more ball-handling of its forwards and centers, and while Roy wasn't an issue, a lot of our turnovers were from the frontcourt.

But let's be honest here -- it isn't the intercepted backdoors that are the issue. This is a personnel/coaching issue at its heart: eliminate the stupid, lazy passes and we're a Final Four team. How many times did we turn it over because the ball had no speed on it around the perimeter and it was obvious where it was going? How many times did we turn it over on entry passes that could have been made with a simple fake first?

It's a coaching/personnel issue. I really don't know why we were so bad at it. On the entry passes, Roy certainly doesn't help -- he's not quicker than his defenders; he's not a better jumper. His advantage is once he has the ball. But it's really not him.

3. Strength/Issue: Getting good shots. The offense is very good, period. I know people want to complain about it the little things, but a lot of that is picking nits.

Here's why it is a strength/issue. The strength is that we don't take bad shots. They are open shots outside or simply good shots because they are inside and we generally make them, unless DaJuan is trying to dunk it.

When we move like we did versus Villanova, it doesn't even matter that Roy wasn't effective/in the game. That kind of movement plus the team ball we play -- we get open shots. Any open shot we want. It's fantastic, and our personnel isn't all that great offensively aside from Roy and a bunch of guys who can shoot but no create. They aren't, but it can be an awesome offense.

The issue is when we don't move and we stagnate. I don't know how to solve this. It's related to the next one...

4. Issue: Minimal Penetration. I think this is mostly personnel. We don't really have anyone all that good at it except Chris, and haven't at all since III has been here. The rest of the team is mostly opportunistic, and that's a good thing, because nobody is a real breakdown type of player.

That said, it's the same as above. When we are at our best, we are opportunisticly driving. Jon, Jessie and others can all get to the hoop off a screen or a defensive breakdown. It's a matter of movement and aggression. It's not inherent in the system that we don't drive -- we do it when we play well. Just sometimes we don't.

I don't know whether it is great opposing defense or simply that we can't go hard on both offense and defense all game all the time.

5. Issue: Fast breaking. This one is simple. We don't fast break a lot because we're not good at it. Neither Jon nor Roy nor Jessie nor DaJuan are actually all that good (DaJuan because he just has trouble finishing) at it. We'll see if that changes with Chris and Monroe and Austin, etc. Then we can really see if it is a conscious choice on philosophy or personnel.

Now, when we are pressed, why we don't attack? I don't know. It has to be a conscious choice. I can see the reasoning a bit -- we want to dictate the pace, we want to run the offense. But I would like to see us at least try to punish them -- if only to make them stop pressing or to see if it would work. This is something that I think needs to change.

6. Issue: Offensive Rebounding. You'd think that this would be system based. But I disagree. It's personnel. We were one of the best offensive rebounding teams in basketball in 06-07 running the same offense. I think the issue is here that Roy and others get their valuable O rebounds off of misses close to the basket -- and without Jeff, we had a lot less of those.

I don't know if we'll improve next year, but it should if we have two big men in the game.

7. Strength: Shooting. We lose Jon and Roy. Man, that's tough on the FG%. I think Chris can shoot well from the outside and help replace Jon, and Austin can drain it as well, but it will be interesting to see if anything can replace Roy's FG% from the last two years. Our shot selection will make anyone a better shooter, but you've also got to have the skills. We'll be young down low.

8. Issue: Free Throw Shooting. Two issues here: the above lack of aggression means we don't get enough foul calls -- see above on penetration/offensive rebounding/inside play. That's partially an attitude thing and partially a system thing.

The second is making them. That's all personnel. I don't doubt that the coaching exists. So at this point it is up to the players. We're not getting any better next year -- Chris, Mack, and a bunch of frosh will get more PT.

Offensive Summary

I've seen this system function way too well to think the system is holding the team back. I would like to see us play with more aggression -- that's when we play best. Drive when it is the best option, fast break when it is the best option, pass it in low when it is the best option.

How do you teach that? Why did we more or less get it last year and not this year? Was that Jeff simply realizing it and taking over? Was Thompson having them hold back? I dunno, but the variable to me isn't the system -- no system is perfect or horribly flawed -- it's the aggression and effort put in.

[hoyatables]

This is unbelievably good. I think an assistant coaching spot should open up on the bench for you.

[hoopsmccan]

my wife complains about the #4 as well...

very well done SF.

[hoyaboy1]

This is a very good and very interesting analysis.

On defense, my only real issue is that I'd like to see flexibility. If we played a carbon copy of ourselves this year, would we have pressed? The answer of course is no, despite the fact that every team pressed us because it was obviously the right decision. Our style of defense works very well, but a more aggressive style can work even better against poor ball-handling teams, and I hope with the change in personnel that JTIII is willing to vary his defensive stratgey based on the opponent.

On offense, I strongly agree with your point about exploiting matchups. Throughout the early part of the season, the refrain on the board was "we aren't going to Roy now because we know we can do that, so we are working on other parts of the offense." Obviously, that turned out not to be the case and we rarely ever went to Roy consistently. Just as we should play more aggressive D depending on matchups, we should feed the post more or drive more or so on depending on matchups. Again, I think this is an issue of JTIII needing to be more flexible and willing to tailor gameplans more specifically to each opponent.

On the fastbreak, I agree that part of the issue is personnel. However, we've all read how the team never practices it, and I think that is clear based on the horrid spacing and general cluelessness that the team displays whenever they try to run. I really hope we work hard on that for next season.

So far, JTIII has had a slow PG and a slow C, which is obviously going to affect strategy. Now that is changing, and there aren't any obvious personnel reasons as to why we can't play a more aggressive defense or run an effective fastbreak. We'll have to wait and see if JTIII is willing and able to make these changes, but I am certainly hopeful.

[Loyal Hoya]

Great post with some interesting insights. I have a few comments:

1. Exploiting Mismatches

You say:

“But the system/style of coaching seems to rely on the players to both recognize it and step up. I'm not sure it's necessary for it to be that way.”

I think a good coach should teach players to recognize game situations on their own and step up. This is not to say that the coach can’t shout out instructions or reminders or call a play during a time out, but I would much rather that a coach teach the game and a philosophy of the game and have his/her players think and make decisions on their own during the game rather than a coach that is over-controlling and call times out at each crucial juncture of the game.

I admire the calm demeanor and confidence that JTIII exudes on the sidelines. I also respect him because he seems to let his players play the game and learn from their mistakes rather than try to micromanage the game.

Having said all that, I agree that we needed to get the ball to Roy more often this year and that we should have made better entry passes at times.

2. Creating Turnovers; Staying Out of Foul Trouble

For most of the year, we played great position defense. We did not gamble much and did not create many turnovers. Most of the time we also stayed out of foul trouble. With a big man anchoring the defense, I think this approach made sense, especially since we were not a great at the fast break. If you are a half court offensive team and not that good in transition, why gamble to create a turnover? The risk-reward is just not that good because:

a) it does not significantly increase your chance of scoring after creating the turnover
b) it increases the chances that you will be out of position and give the other team a better shot if you do not create the turnover
c) it increases the likelihood that you will be called for a foul and give the other team a chance to score from the free throw line

One thing I have been wondering is if we, to a certain extent, abandoned our conservative approach during post-season play. It seemed to me that, during the Big East Tournament and in the NCAA, our hands might have been a little more active. This might explain some of the foul trouble that we experienced in the Nova game and the Davidson game (though it certainly would not explain the three offensive fouls called on Roy in the Davidson game).

One thing I think that is important to keep in mind is that practice time is precious and that NCAA coaches have to make tough decisions about what they have time to work on and what they don’t have time to work on. With this team, this year, I would rather that we spent more time on getting the ball back through rebounding than getting the ball back thorough turnovers. Next year maybe our composition of players will call for a different strategy.

[hoyarooter]

Mar 25, 2008 12:34:16 GMT -5 hoopsmccan said:

my wife complains about the #4 as well...

very well done SF.

Great stuff, SF. Amazingly well thought out analysis. It will indeed be interesting to see if our style changes next season, but in any event, I hope that people will be patient, because we will be placing a great deal of reliance on many players who don't have a lot of experience (i.e., Wright, Freeman, Clark, Monroe, Sims, Braswell, Macklin).

[SFHoya99]

Loyal

1. I totally agree with you. The issue, as you pointed out, was that our players weren't always making the best decision. Or at least it didn't seem that way.

2. I don't know if we abandoned our conservative approach. It did seem we were a bit more active, but I think the foul trouble was almost entirely referee based. They called it tighter than most BE refs.

[dove]

We missed our free throws-we can only really control what we do -not the reff's ,the crowd etc we make our free throw's we win!!

[Loyal Hoya]

SF,

No question that the tight officiating had something to do with the foul trouble. Some of the increased activity can also be attributed to having Wright in the lineup.

Dove,

I understand your point. We lost by 4 and missed 9 free throws. But the weird thing about our free throw shooting was that, other than Ewing who went 0-2, no individual was that bad. Roy missed one. Wright missed one. Macklin shot above his average at 4-8. Clearly, Ticket needs to improve from the line next year, but I was relieved he hit as many as he did versus Davidson.

I think it is fair to say (and this is not blaming the refs because I'm not saying they were all necessarily bad calls) that the fact that Davidson took 13 more shots from the line had a huge influence on the outcome of the game.

My question is how much of this disparity was due to our defensive play and how much was to due to a tighter called game than we are used to playing? I think this is a legitimate discussion and should not be viewed as sour grapes or as making excuses (though I admit that I'm not necessarily beneath either of those things after a game like that!).

[SFHoya99]

The only real problem with the officiating were the ridiculous calls on Roy.

The Final Four year we had a ridiculously good offensive rebounding team despite our bigs playing on the perimeter even more than they did this year. Your point seems to make logical sense, but I'm not sure it really plays out that way.

[chep3]

And that strategy led to problems both with Roy having to defend PG's and us losing rebounds. When Austin and Dajuan were the only rebounders in the area because Roy is out on the perimeter, we have problems. If we go to a more traditional 2 guard lineup, I'd hope that when Vern has to go out and chase guards on a high screen switch, Monroe and Dajuan can handle the boards better than we did this year.

[SFHoya99]

Mar 26, 2008 10:00:32 GMT -5 chep3 said:

And that strategy led to problems both with Roy having to defend PG's and us losing rebounds. When Austin and Dajuan were the only rebounders in the area because Roy is out on the perimeter, we have problems. If we go to a more traditional 2 guard lineup, I'd hope that when Vern has to go out and chase guards on a high screen switch, Monroe and Dajuan can handle the boards better than we did this year.

Except Roy did an exceptional job guarding PGs. There's a reason we didn't give up threes very much this year and the switching and relying on Roy to get back is a big part.

Furthermore, when we had defensive rebounding troubles, it was generally people bullying Roy or overpursuit on shotblocking, not him being back for the boards

Watch the Celtics -- great defensive teams switch and recover on the pick and roll. I don't think it is going away.

And I think Roy actually did a phenomenal job given that he isn't wonderfully physically suited to doing it.

[gujake]

Wow, what a terrific post. This captures in one neat little essay just about every issue on-court issue we have discussed. Awesome.

As far as the content goes, I think you are generally spot on. I'll add a few of my own thoughts:

Defensive Rebounding:

You are correct that this is a personnel thing. After one of the particularly horrible games this year, I went back and watched the game on my Tivo and looked at every single defensive rebounding opportunity. They were in position to get the boards as well as you would expect. They just don't anticipate, and don't box out well (or at all). There's only so much a coach can do at the college level to motivate and teach players to rebound.


Failure to Exploit Mismatches:

While I do agree that some blame goes to the coaches here, I think more of it is on the players. It is my belief that, for the past two years, JT3 has made a conscious decision to spread around shots for most of the year. Once the end of the year comes around though, he tries to make sure the best players (last year, Jeff/Roy... this year Roy) get the most shots. This strategy seems to make sense within III's whole "getting better" mantra, but I wonder if it didn't hurt us this year, as it seems the guards never did learn how to get Roy the ball.

The strategy was very apparent in 2007; all you need to do is look at Jeff and Roy's FGA and Pts in the game log. I also remember him making some remark during the big east season that basically confirmed it. This year, though, it never seemed to happen. I'm not sure why. I do know for sure that JT3 called the dump play (the give it to Roy play) from the sideline much more often down the stretch than he did earlier on. This, as well as some of III's comments in the post season, makes me think that much of the blame should be on the players for not being able to get him the ball.


Fast Breaks Against the Press:

Now here is an area where I have no idea what the coaching staff is doing. I would love to be able to talk to III or one of the assistant's about this, because I can't understand it. Is it because we want to control the pace? Maybe, but most of these teams would stop pressing us if we just attacked it a few times and scored. At most we are talking about a few extra possessions. Is it because III is afraid of people (especially somebody like Roy) getting tired? I don't think so. Look at the way we break the press, Roy basically stands alone by himself waiting for everybody anyway. Is it because he just doesn't think we have the players to run it? Obviously we don't have the ideal group of players for fast breaks, but that doesn't mean they are so bad that we shouldn't try. I find it hard to believe that this is the case since we have never even attempted to run a real press break with the goal of scoring points off it.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that there is simply no reason for the opponent not to press us. They don't even have to do a real press, the faux press is enough to limit us to 25 seconds and even force a few turnovers. At the very least, we should attack when we have numbers. I know that the guys don't practice it much (a problem, in my opinion), but these guys are D1 basketball players. They are going to get more points per possession in a 2v1 or 3v2 situation than they would running a half court set.

[SFHoya99]

Jake, when I saw your name here I knew it was going to be a good post.

My two big questions if I ever got a sit down with Thompson would be:

1. Do you run plays? How much of the offense do you dictate and how much is read and react by the players only? When do you step in? Why?

2. Why the heck don't we attack the press?

[Loyal Hoya]

On attacking the press, I don't know how much practice time is needed to get really good at it, but there is an undoubtedly opportinity cost to it. What should we forego time on to get better at attacking the press?

I know Tom Izzo is asked every year why the Spartans don't press, and he always responds that he would like to, but he doesn't have enough practice time to spend on it

[hoyarooter]

What, 32 hours a day isn't enough time to practice everything necessary? I don't see the problem.