I went on the UL 247 "YUM' site, which is a pretty good free board, looking for discussion about Carr. I saw nothing about that, but there was a very interesting thread titled "PK is not the guy". Lots of the same criticisms about PK as you will see on the Indiana forums about CDD, to the extent that it seems like their situation and ours are mirror images, one year removed. Lots of talk about the lack of an inside presence on O and the offensive scheme breaking down v, physical defenses.
Which got me back at looking at 3 point "rate" and % makes rankings, this time looking at the Sweet 16 teams. Rate is first, % second:
1. Alabama.....1.....58
2. Nebraska.....12.....89
3. Illinois.....15.....115
4. Duke.....82.....142
5. Iowa.....134.....100
6. Michigan.....139.....36
7. Purdue.....155.....8
8. Houston.....160.....125
9. U Conn.....162.....135
10. Iowa St.....196.....11
11. MSU.....236.....38
12. Texas.....257.....129
13. St Johns.....281.....218
14. Arkansas.....316.....10
15. Tennessee.....330.....170
16. Arizona.....363.....44
The average rate ranking for the 16 is 177.4 (out of 365); the average % made ranking is 89.25.
Some posters tried to convey to those of us who were skeptical of CDD's system early in the year was the importance of launching a large #s of threes, as if #s alone was a positive good. I said that taking a bunch of long-distance 3s against the crap NC schedule we were playing was idiotic and evidence of poor coaching.
I will give CDD a smidgen of credit for finally getting Wilkerson to drive the basketball and for learning how to use Alexis' skills in the lane. I don't know why it took a coach in his 50s half the year to know to do those things.
I think some posters took the wrong lesson from the awfulness that was Woody's coaching. It wasn't primarily that we took too few 3s (6 of the remaining 16 teams are in the bottom third in frequency, including the #1 ranked team). It was rather that we shot them so poorly. The bottom line is that regardless of whether you shoot lots of 3s, or relatively few 3s, you're going to suck if you can't make a decent % of them. Even then, Tennessee and (especially) St Johns show that there are exceptions to that rule.
Edit....I checked on IU's #s last year....320 in frequency, 264 in %
I went on the UL 247 "YUM' site, which is a pretty good free board, looking for discussion about Carr. I saw nothing about that, but there was a very interesting thread titled "PK is not the guy". Lots of the same criticisms about PK as you will see on the Indiana forums about CDD, to the extent that it seems like their situation and ours are mirror images, one year removed. Lots of talk about the lack of an inside presence on O and the offensive scheme breaking down v, physical defenses.
Which got me back at looking at 3 point "rate" and % makes rankings, this time looking at the Sweet 16 teams. Rate is first, % second:
1. Alabama.....1.....58
2. Nebraska.....12.....89
3. Illinois.....15.....115
4. Duke.....82.....142
5. Iowa.....134.....100
6. Michigan.....139.....36
7. Purdue.....155.....8
8. Houston.....160.....125
9. U Conn.....162.....135
10. Iowa St.....196.....11
11. MSU.....236.....38
12. Texas.....257.....129
13. St Johns.....281.....218
14. Arkansas.....316.....10
15. Tennessee.....330.....170
16. Arizona.....363.....44
The average rate ranking for the 16 is 177.4 (out of 365); the average % made ranking is 89.25.
Some posters tried to convey to those of us who were skeptical of CDD's system early in the year was the importance of launching a large #s of threes, as if #s alone was a positive good. I said that taking a bunch of long-distance 3s against the crap NC schedule we were playing was idiotic and evidence of poor coaching.
I will give CDD a smidgen of credit for finally getting Wilkerson to drive the basketball and for learning how to use Alexis' skills in the lane. I don't know why it took a coach in his 50s half the year to know to do those things.
I think some posters took the wrong lesson from the awfulness that was Woody's coaching. It wasn't primarily that we took too few 3s (6 of the remaining 16 teams are in the bottom third in frequency, including the #1 ranked team). It was rather that we shot them so poorly. The bottom line is that regardless of whether you shoot lots of 3s, or relatively few 3s, you're going to suck if you can't make a decent % of them. Even then, Tennessee and (especially) St Johns show that there are exceptions to that rule.
Edit....I checked on IU's #s last year....320 in frequency, 264 in %
Another point-
--It's interesting to me that Pitino, who was an innovator in 3 pt offense when the shot first became available, has a team that shot so few 3s and made a poor % of them.....
@mushroomgod The pendulum certainly swung too far the other way, with this past team. But using you're own stat mention... if 6 of the remaining 16 teams are in the bottom 3rd in these 3 point stats... then 10 of them are in the upper 2/3s... That's roughly 2/3 in the upper 2/3... how many of them are in the upper 3rd, in these same stats? Could be the sweet 16 is a good representation of varying different types of approaches?
It's interesting to me that Pitino, who was an innovator in 3 pt offense when the shot first became available, has a team that shot so few 3s and made a poor % of them.....
Adapting to the strengths and weaknesses of the players? Don't ask them to do something they can't do. An IU coach at one time used to talk about that.
@mushroomgod And Pitino, like Izzo, is successful in March because his teams are almost always fast, athletic, physical, and defend and rebound well. Those Kentucky Pitino teams did take more threes that was normal, but they were as good as they were because of how they defended, how they rebounded, and how they got out and ran in transition. The 3 point thing was probably just something that happened because they had guys like Tony Delk and Travis Ford.
@mushroomgod The pendulum certainly swung too far the other way, with this past team. But using you're own stat mention... if 6 of the remaining 16 teams are in the bottom 3rd in these 3 point stats... then 10 of them are in the upper 2/3s... That's roughly 2/3 in the upper 2/3... how many of them are in the upper 3rd, in these same stats? Could be the sweet 16 is a good representation of varying different types of approaches?
Yes....that's what is so great about college basketball v. the pros. You can shoot a hell of a lot of 3s as long as you make a top 1/3 % of them....Bama, Nebraska, Illinois all the way to shooting very few but making a high %....AZ; Arkansas; St Johns; MSU; Iowa St., and everything in between. Woody's unique awfulness was that he had a team that took very few, and made very few of those they took, even tho they had a couple of legit shooters.
I think that flexibility is why I'm not a big fan of coaches with reputations as systems coaches, ala Kelsey, CDD, and even Woodson. ESPECIALLY, when you're relying on the portal, and you don't even have the time/opportunity to recruit to your system. Just get the 5 best players you can get for your $, paying reasonable attention to 'positions', and then adapt to them v. them adapting to you. I haven't watched St Johns.....is that what they've done?
@mushroomgod And Pitino, like Izzo, is successful in March because his teams are almost always fast, athletic, physical, and defend and rebound well. Those Kentucky Pitino teams did take more threes that was normal, but they were as good as they were because of how they defended, how they rebounded, and how they got out and ran in transition. The 3 point thing was probably just something that happened because they had guys like Tony Delk and Travis Ford.
Yes, but I think Pitino took it to a new level. Teams weren't used to defending the 3 then, and it showed. I was in Louisville and watched him put it to us, and Bobby had no answer. I think now the defenses have caught up such that someone like the Alabama coach will have to rethink his approach if he wants to win a NC.
@mushroomgod The pendulum certainly swung too far the other way, with this past team. But using you're own stat mention... if 6 of the remaining 16 teams are in the bottom 3rd in these 3 point stats... then 10 of them are in the upper 2/3s... That's roughly 2/3 in the upper 2/3... how many of them are in the upper 3rd, in these same stats? Could be the sweet 16 is a good representation of varying different types of approaches?
Looking at it again its 4 in the top 1/3 frequency, 7 in the middle 3rd, and 5 in the last 3rd.
@mushroomgod Not sure CDD is though, is he? Did his WVU and IU teams have 3 point stat similarities? Stylistically, they sure didn't play the same way. His WVU team was quite a lot more athletic and physical, than his IU team was. He sure did appear to assemble his IU team around skill, shooting, passing willingness... and missed on the athleticism and physicality side. I have to think he "knows" he needs to have shooting skill and athletic physicality, to win how everyone expects him to win, at IU. But for some reason, he didn't build his first roster that way.
@mushroomgod Interesting, for sure. I think athleticism and physicality, is the safest path to winning in March. If you have some dudes that can knock down threes, among the 7-8 guys that are very fast/strong/physical, then great! If not, attack the rim, attack the boards, defend like animals. If I'm CDD, I continue running the open style offense, include post actions, duck ins and duck downs, etc... But I focus nearly all of my roster on athleticism, physicality, and guys that have shown to be obvious competitors.
Woodson's problem was his insistence on Carmelo Anthony ISO ball, on offense. And a complete lack of attention on, and/or ability to coach, any sort of cohesive defensive strategy. It seemed like people talked about him using the "nail" philosophy. But it was pretty hard to pick it up when watching the games. And our players were AWFUL at rotating and recovering off those "nail" help principles, when they were doing it.
At least with CDD's team, you can see the style and stuff they're supposed to be running. They did stop their ball and player movement, too often for my liking. But it was pretty easy to see his modified ball pressure/pack line principles defensively. I think adding some length and athleticism to the styles he employed, will yield pretty good results.
@mushroomgod And Pitino, like Izzo, is successful in March because his teams are almost always fast, athletic, physical, and defend and rebound well. Those Kentucky Pitino teams did take more threes that was normal, but they were as good as they were because of how they defended, how they rebounded, and how they got out and ran in transition. The 3 point thing was probably just something that happened because they had guys like Tony Delk and Travis Ford.
I agree that's the kind of team we need, but I don't think that's the kind of team we got. And part of the reason, imo, is that Dullson fell into a very common trap ADs make when selecting a new coach.....they try to find the opposite of the coach they just fired, because everyone is sick of how that guy looked, talked, walked, and coached. So we had an old guy, with no energy, that loved to feed the pivot, and couldn't figure out how to get anyone to make a 3. And we hire a young guy, with energy, who loves the 3, instead of just hiring the best coach you could find, regardless of his 'system'.
Look at our football hiring....we hired Wilson because Denardo ran the ball 4 straight plays v. PSU within the 2 yard line. Then we fired Wilson because he knew nothing about D, and hired Tom Allen, who knew nothing about O. Finally, because Tom Allen turned out to be crazy, we hired the opposite of crazy in Cig.
@mushroomgod Interesting, for sure. I think athleticism and physicality, is the safest path to winning in March. If you have some dudes that can knock down threes, among the 7-8 guys that are very fast/strong/physical, then great! If not, attack the rim, attack the boards, defend like animals. If I'm CDD, I continue running the open style offense, include post actions, duck ins and duck downs, etc... But I focus nearly all of my roster on athleticism, physicality, and guys that have shown to be obvious competitors.
Woodson's problem was his insistence on Carmelo Anthony ISO ball, on offense. And a complete lack of attention on, and/or ability to coach, any sort of cohesive defensive strategy. It seemed like people talked about him using the "nail" philosophy. But it was pretty hard to pick it up when watching the games. And our players were AWFUL at rotating and recovering off those "nail" help principles, when they were doing it.
At least with CDD's team, you can see the style and stuff they're supposed to be running. They did stop their ball and player movement, too often for my liking. But it was pretty easy to see his modified ball pressure/pack line principles defensively. I think adding some length and athleticism to the styles he employed, will yield pretty good results.
I think we're on the same page. Get the 5 best coachable athletes with attitude.
One thing is clear. You need a physical presence with some shot blocking ability at the 5. Watching the OSU loss was instructive. Tilly, who was actually a small upgrade from our Reed Bailey, dragged down that team single-handily. They had 4 guys who could ball, and could even survive playing Cupps some, but they could not survive Tilly playing a lot.
@mushroomgod Not sure CDD is though, is he? Did his WVU and IU teams have 3 point stat similarities? Stylistically, they sure didn't play the same way. His WVU team was quite a lot more athletic and physical, than his IU team was. He sure did appear to assemble his IU team around skill, shooting, passing willingness... and missed on the athleticism and physicality side. I have to think he "knows" he needs to have shooting skill and athletic physicality, to win how everyone expects him to win, at IU. But for some reason, he didn't build his first roster that way.
Yes....his year at WV is the only thing that gives me any hope about CDD.
And I wonder why that roster construction? Was it in response to all that was wrong with Woodson's team (see my argument about hiring & firing coaches), Did he respond to the fans 'hatred' of the way that team played? Like....I know we can't be great, maybe we can be interesting?
@mushroomgod It sure would be nice to know. My best guess... I think one of the most easy things to glean from not just the guys he got, but the guys he largely seriously went after... was that he definitely was valuing skill over size and athleticism. Shooting, ball handling, willingness to pass... nearly all the guys he got early on, were good in many of those areas you'd usually use to quantify "skill". I would strongly guess he intended to fill in the roster with some physicality type guys... but maybe underestimated how hard good ones would be to find? Or maybe he ran out of money? But guys like Miles, Alexis, and Harris, fit the mold of guys that played with physicality... they just weren't as impactful as CDD had either expected or hoped.
However it happened, I hope he figures out how to land a good blend of skill and athletic physicality. I still think his style and system will be very effective if he can have a better balance of those things.
@mushroomgod Interesting, for sure. I think athleticism and physicality, is the safest path to winning in March. If you have some dudes that can knock down threes, among the 7-8 guys that are very fast/strong/physical, then great! If not, attack the rim, attack the boards, defend like animals. If I'm CDD, I continue running the open style offense, include post actions, duck ins and duck downs, etc... But I focus nearly all of my roster on athleticism, physicality, and guys that have shown to be obvious competitors.
Woodson's problem was his insistence on Carmelo Anthony ISO ball, on offense. And a complete lack of attention on, and/or ability to coach, any sort of cohesive defensive strategy. It seemed like people talked about him using the "nail" philosophy. But it was pretty hard to pick it up when watching the games. And our players were AWFUL at rotating and recovering off those "nail" help principles, when they were doing it.
At least with CDD's team, you can see the style and stuff they're supposed to be running. They did stop their ball and player movement, too often for my liking. But it was pretty easy to see his modified ball pressure/pack line principles defensively. I think adding some length and athleticism to the styles he employed, will yield pretty good results.
Have to give opposing defenses credit for stopping our movement. they basically switched on every screen which is a common counter to four/five out 3pt shooting screening cutting offenses. We eventually, too late, countered with more slip screens, dives and occasional pop outs and post ups, without the personnel that would be great at those things.
Seemed every team had a scheme to stop Wilkerson that worked early in games, and though I've been less than impressed with DD's in game adjustments overall, he did find ways to get openings for Wilkerson in the 2nd half of games. Of course many fans just thought Wilkerson was being lazy in first halves as if the defenses were nothing but traffic cones.
This thread is a poster looking for a negative result. Basically cherry picking a stat to fit his view of our coach. Nothing more, nothing less.