skyIdub
Illini Basketball 2021-2022
- Status
It might when he gets the MOP of this year’s Final 4
Sure, I thought he was talking about in transition specifically.
For sure, they were very different. I'm not sure which player would do the most damage in each era. Ayo was certainly here at the right time for the program, though.
While we are randomly debating things:
Darth Vader and Albus Dumbledore wake up in a small domed arena (50ft diameter x 50ft high). A screen appears and a man tells them they will fight to the death. Who wins? Darth Vader has his lightsaber and Albus his wand. Neither know anything about each other.
Darth Vader and Albus Dumbledore wake up in a small domed arena (50ft diameter x 50ft high). A screen appears and a man tells them they will fight to the death. Who wins? Darth Vader has his lightsaber and Albus his wand. Neither know anything about each other.
I believe Dee was better, but he also had better players surrounding him his first two seasons than Trent did. Therefore it is hard to compare stats such as assists.. and so on.
Trent Frazier career #s: 11.4 pts, 2.4 rbs, 2.6 ast, 1.3 stl, 38.8 fg%, 35.8 3pt%
Dee Brown career #s: 13.2 pts, 3.3 rbs, 4.9 ast, 1.7 stl, 42.2 fg%, 36.0 3pt%
I bolded the higher number in each category, which was super easy. Because Dee's numbers were better in every category. I love Trent too, but why try and bolster him by diminishing an all-time great Illini?
Fair, but Trent's assist numbers didn't get anywhere near Dee's last season either, and he had plenty of good players around him then. Also, Trent's best assist numbers were in his first season, on a not very good team (3.1 per game - still well below Dee Brown who never averaged less than 4.5).
Tempo is obviously personnel based, but here is what I’ve gathered as college coaches philosophies on the topic from coaching clinics and college visits.
Generally speaking the best scoring opportunities come within the first 8 seconds while the defense is retreating and scrambling. Pushing the ball creates personnel or numbers (4 on 3, 3 on 2 etc) mismatches, that stresses the defense’s principles. Do you shape up and protect the paint? Sean Miller was big on this, and showed like 3 drills his teams practiced for it, but he’s a pack line guy so it makes sense. Do you stretch to the shooter and leave a layup open? (More what I do, we shift our shape up over to the shooter wide and leave one guy in the paint) These one second decisions made or missed lead to those good looks in transition.
In the past BU has been a proponent of 1st 10/last 10 (of the shot clock) scoring. In a clinic he said once that if you keep the ball on one side, you score like 29% of the time, reverse it once, mid 30%, reverse it twice mid 40%, reverse it again, up to like 75% chance of scoring. Those reversals give the defense more chances to break down, usually in the last ten seconds of the clock. The caveat here is this was just after they made the shot clock change from 35 to 30, and he was running spread as his primary offense. I think was still at SFA when i saw him say this.
Last week my team was at a tournament in Houston. We got to tour their facilities and pick their coaches brains (I know, I know, it kinda made me sick a little too). They want to score 1st 10/2nd 10 because they feel like in the last 10 you get rushed shots to beat the shot clock that aren’t good looks. They want to avoid those so they run actions that get them shots in the quick/intermediate time frame.
Great post. I think to oversimplify a bit, the key is having players that can create/recognize defensive weaknesses and capitalize on them. Depending on personnel, both yours and theirs, your team may be able to better create and/or better capitalize on weaknesses early in the shot clock, middle shot clock, or later in shot clock. I agree that, when done well, a good transition offense is the best thing on Earth. Very hard to defend. It gets tougher to execute when the personnel doesn't include a gifted ball handler. We're down two from where we were last year in that regard, unfortunately.
sacraig
- The desert
They say she’s simply the best; better than all the rest.A man? Why not Tina Turner?
Now begins the debate on best emcee for dystopian fights to the death.A man? Why not Tina Turner?
sacraig
- The desert
Richard Dawson and it's not even close. Plus, the show he hosted was the best.
Richard Dawson and it's not even close. Plus, the show he hosted was the best.
Anything to derail the Dee vs Trent conversation.
I enjoyed hearing your perspective Varsity & Juice…I think what’s missing from this discussion is what immediately precedes or actually sets up transition. AND that is the
coaching question of: How many dudes do you send to the offensive glass? It changes everything. Everything hinges on that decision really. If you’re one of the runn-iest-gunn-iest Paul Westhead‘s System disciples (you’re sending 4-5 guys to the glass because you’re presumably better conditioned and you’re just planning on outscoring everybody. (Someone help me…there are much better current examples of that kind of whacky but effective coaching philosophy.) Grinnell? more…??
Something a bit more conservative and traditional...Izzo sends 3…I believe.
I like sending 2. (especially after I saw the vid @ bottom) Without analyzing every college coach…My instincts tell me…Get somebody to the basket…ideally a BIG…next up get somebody to the top of the paint as temporary middle fielder…Then from there BALL PRESSURE…stop and contain the dadgum ball. I don’t care how you do it…as long is it fits a sensible scheme that is sound. Hell double the ball…turn it sideline…I don’t care just contain it…
Also, I guess I have a pack-line soul becauseI feel like I‘d rather error on the side of giving up threes rather than lay-ups. Okay, you say you’re a shooter? Prove it first. Then’ll adjust….
Last edited:
…I was actually going somewhere with that rambling post. The point is sending too many guys to the glass destroys your defense. The analytics favor getting more people back on defense.
GOOD: Our transition offense has been virtually non-existent and we’re still scoring
a boatload of points. Imagine what we could do if we get that clicking even at opportune times. If it is half as effective as our numbered break last year- look out! I remain enthusiastic that we’ll get it going with Belo leading the charge. HOPEFULLY!
BAD: Our transition defense has looked disorganized and been atrocious at times.
Underwood has said as much.
BALL REVERSAL STUFF you mentioned: So very very true.
ran out of edits…I meant article not vid…dunno why I said that.
GOOD: Our transition offense has been virtually non-existent and we’re still scoring
a boatload of points. Imagine what we could do if we get that clicking even at opportune times. If it is half as effective as our numbered break last year- look out! I remain enthusiastic that we’ll get it going with Belo leading the charge. HOPEFULLY!
BAD: Our transition defense has looked disorganized and been atrocious at times.
Underwood has said as much.
BALL REVERSAL STUFF you mentioned: So very very true.
ran out of edits…I meant article not vid…dunno why I said that.
Last edited:
I, for one, would love it if basketball returned to the glory days of Pat Riley’s New York and Miami teams. If you’ll excuse me, there’s some paint I’d like to go watch dry.
Not bagging on anyone here, and it may well be the case that grinding the game to a halt, keeping five defenders in front of the ball, and never crashing the boards is actually the most effective way to play basketball, though I have some doubt that the elite ability of NBA personnel to play in the open court translates to the college game. It's just boring, and a bad product to watch, and I hope that basketball doesn't take the same route as baseball now that everyone just does the three true outcomes thing.
I know what you mean. I really do. I’m not saying you’re wrong either. As a spectator I totally get where you’re coming from. A classic example would be of course, the Four Corners in the pre-shot clock era…circa 1970-whatever. It changed the game. Spectators at large hated it…and perhaps for good reason...unless you were a North Carolina fan-then you loved it!
Govoner Vaugn Fan
- New Orleans
Run the 'picket fence'. Elite offense. Elite.
Some really insightful posts here. I love digging into this kind of stuff.
But the notion that good teams play fast and bad teams play slow, just isn't true. I understand fast is more entertaining, but at the end of the day, I'd rather win than be entertained.
Of the last 40 Final Four teams, only 6 were in the Top 100 for Adjusted Tempo (I know that doesn't tell the whole story but it's a nice neat snapshot).
The average AdjT for the last 40 Final Four teams is 202.
This actually suggests that the more effective strategy in college is to "slow it down."
So, when people say, "we need to play fast, we need to push it more."...ok, cool. But why?
As others have said, the best strategy is to play whatever style is most efficient for your personnel. And for the NCAA's most successful teams, this means playing "slow".
But the notion that good teams play fast and bad teams play slow, just isn't true. I understand fast is more entertaining, but at the end of the day, I'd rather win than be entertained.
Of the last 40 Final Four teams, only 6 were in the Top 100 for Adjusted Tempo (I know that doesn't tell the whole story but it's a nice neat snapshot).
The average AdjT for the last 40 Final Four teams is 202.
This actually suggests that the more effective strategy in college is to "slow it down."
So, when people say, "we need to play fast, we need to push it more."...ok, cool. But why?
As others have said, the best strategy is to play whatever style is most efficient for your personnel. And for the NCAA's most successful teams, this means playing "slow".
I'm too lazy to look it up, but my guess is that if you looked at those 40 teams you'd find that they have a pretty wide variety of average offensive possession length numbers (the offensive half of tempo) but were pretty uniformly slow on defensive possession length (its defensive counterpart), primarily because they're good defensive teams and good defensive teams make you work harder to score, which is what my comment a few posts up got at and what the data seems to imply once you break out those two components.
But I also think it's worth talking about what 'playing fast' really means. You can make the choice to throw four or five guys at the defensive glass at the expense of your transition game and still play fast, meaning you're always looking to attack when you have the ball. And I think good teams generally do that. The next time you feel like watching reruns of "Meet the Press" from 1983 is too exciting for you, take a few minutes to watch some of the good teams at Virginia. Even though they let the air out of the ball, once they're finally across half court they're not playing slow. They move with purpose and are ready to take what the defense gives them, not pounding the ball 25 feet from the basket while four guys stand around. That's kind of what I was getting at when I was talking about our rough stretches against Arizona.
I actually don't think offensive pace really makes that much of a difference at all, and I don't think there's a consensus among coaches as to what the most effective pace is. But I do think you're going to win more games if you treat every second you have the ball as an opportunity to score, slow or fast.
- Status