The Modernization Of Basketball (The reason Miles should go in favor of a new coach)

[QMany]

Tony Bennett has UVA playing at a VERY high level, despite relatively little talent. 

 

Recruiting Rankings

2013: 53rd (Nebraska #56)

2014: 32nd 

2015: 62nd (worse than #27 Nebraska)

2016: 7th

2017: 98th (worse than Georgia State, South Alabama, and Nebraska)

2018: currently 78th (worse than #63 Nebraska)

 

As evidenced by their historic regular season, their scheme works. When a Cinderalla catches fire, sh*t happens. 

 

37 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

I would call it a referendum on their style of play.  I have a good friend that I banter back on forth with about various teams during the season and we were both talking about how they were going to get knocked out early in the tournament like they pretty much always do because some team with a decent offense will outscore them.  And that's exactly what happened.  It's the same thing for UVA every year.  In case you didn't notice, they STRUGGLE hard on the offensive side of the ball and have all season.  UMBC did get somewhat hot but there's a lot of teams that if they used that game plan and executed it as well UMBC did, would end up winning that game.

 

They made the Sweet 16 in 2 of the last 5 years, including the Elite 8 in 2016. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by QMany

[Mavric]

42 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I said OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY.  They are low in PPG because of their tempo.  It's a huge difference.

 

In this ranking of offensive efficiency, Virginia is #52.  https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/offensive-efficiency

 

In this ranking of offensive efficiency, Virginia is in the mid-30s.  https://www.oddsshark.com/ncaab/offensive-stats

 

Now, I will say their pace of play allows teams to hang around with UVA, and they are susceptible to teams who are hot on the offensive end.  But, you are dead wrong when you say UVA's offense is the problem.

 

I understand your point about the difference between offensive efficiency and pace of play.

 

But an offensive efficiency ranking in that range isn't very good for a team team that was #1 in the country at one point.  That's probably below average for teams that make the tournament.

 

So I think saying their offense can't be the problem is over-stating it.  Over a large sample size the better team is going to win more often.  The problem is they are reducing the sample size which gives a lesser team a lot better chance to beat them.

 

They have been a #1 or #2 seed four of the last five years.  They have only made the Sweet 16 two of those years and have been upset by a #4 seed, a #7 seed, a #10 seed and a #16 seed.  I think it's fair to question whether their style of play is creating more opportunities for lesser teams to beat them.  Which includes how they play offense.

[RedSavage]

8 minutes ago, QMany said:

Tony Bennett has UVA playing at a VERY high level, despite relatively little talent. 

 

Recruiting Rankings

2013: 53rd (Nebraska #56)

2014: 32nd 

2015: 62nd (worse than #27 Nebraska)

2016: 7th

2017: 98th (worse than Georgia State, South Alabama, and Nebraska)

2018: currently 78th (worse than #63 Nebraska)

 

As evidenced by their historic regular season, their scheme works. When a Cinderalla catches fire, sh*t happens. 

 

 

They made the Sweet 16 in 2 of the last 5 years, including the Elite 8 in 2016. 

That's surprising they haven't recruited better.  I know they did and I probably could have said that better but I think they've gone out early relative to expectations just about every year.

 

4 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I understand you point about the difference between offensive efficiency and pace of play.

 

But an offensive efficiency ranking in that range isn't very good for a team team that was #1 in the country at one point.  That's probably below average for teams that make the tournament.

 

So I think saying their offense can't be the problem is over-stating it.  Over a large sample size the better team is going to win more often.  The problem is they are reducing the sample size which gives a lesser team a lot better chance to beat them.

 

They have been a #1 or #2 seed four of the last five years.  They have only made the Sweet 16 two of those years and have been upset by a #4 seed, a #7 seed, a #10 seed and a #16 seed.  I think it's fair to question whether their style of play is creating more opportunities for lesser teams to beat them.  Which includes how they play offense.

These are my thoughts but Mav summed it up much better than I could have

[ColoradoHusk]

34 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I understand your point about the difference between offensive efficiency and pace of play.

 

But an offensive efficiency ranking in that range isn't very good for a team team that was #1 in the country at one point.  That's probably below average for teams that make the tournament.

 

So I think saying their offense can't be the problem is over-stating it.  Over a large sample size the better team is going to win more often.  The problem is they are reducing the sample size which gives a lesser team a lot better chance to beat them.

 

They have been a #1 or #2 seed four of the last five years.  They have only made the Sweet 16 two of those years and have been upset by a #4 seed, a #7 seed, a #10 seed and a #16 seed.  I think it's fair to question whether their style of play is creating more opportunities for lesser teams to beat them.  Which includes how they play offense.

I agree that UVa's pace of play and focus on defense is going to have an impact when it comes to the NCAA tournament and leaves them vulnerable to a bad night in a one-and-done format.  I think it could be argued that their style of play allows them to "over-achieve" in the regular season and gets them higher seeds in the NCAA tournament than what their true talent portfolio would show.

 

If you are the coach of a basketball team, is your goal to have a successful regular season and conference tournament, or is it to win the NCAA tournament?  I am not sure if I would have a good answer.    

[Mavric]

23 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I agree that UVa's pace of play and focus on defense is going to have an impact when it comes to the NCAA tournament and leaves them vulnerable to a bad night in a one-and-done format.  I think it could be argued that their style of play allows them to "over-achieve" in the regular season and gets them higher seeds in the NCAA tournament than what their true talent portfolio would show.

 

If you are the coach of a basketball team, is your goal to have a successful regular season and conference tournament, or is it to win the NCAA tournament?  I am not sure if I would have a good answer.    

 

It is kind of odd that they've been able to have so much success in the regular season but seem to under-achieve in the tournament.  It's not like they have an easy schedule, but they are able to compete well with the Dukes and North Carolinas earlier in the year.

 

I don't know that they'd trade regular season success for NCAA tournament success.  Maybe a little bit but they've won three regular season ACC championships and two ACC tournaments (plus a runner-up) so they've been pretty good in those tournaments.  But the NCAA tournament hasn't been good to them.

 

Perhaps the difference is they are more familiar with ACC teams so they are better able to prepare for those games compared to NCAA tournament games where they're playing teams they've never seen before.

[ColoradoHusk]

11 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

It is kind of odd that they've been able to have so much success in the regular season but seem to under-achieve in the tournament.  It's not like they have an easy schedule, but they are able to compete well with the Dukes and North Carolinas earlier in the year.

 

I don't know that they'd trade regular season success for NCAA tournament success.  Maybe a little bit but they've won three regular season ACC championships and two ACC tournaments (plus a runner-up) so they've been pretty good in those tournaments.  But the NCAA tournament hasn't been good to them.

 

Perhaps the difference is they are more familiar with ACC teams so they are better able to prepare for those games compared to NCAA tournament games where they're playing teams they've never seen before.

I think that's the biggest thing that is in play here.  With conference opponents, coaches can get familiar with other coaches and know how to attack them year after year.  In the NCAA tournament the biggest factors are being unfamiliar with the opponent and match-up issues.  That is why ACC teams have figured out how to attack Syracuse's 2-3 zone after seeing it for a few years, but when Syracuse makes it to the NCAA tournament, they can make deep runs because the opponents don't know how to play against it.

[QMany]

For comparison, here is a team that spreads the floor and shoots a lot of threes. 

 

Recruiting Rankings

2014: 59th

2015: 69th

2016: 44th

2017: 25th

2018: currently 28th

 

In that span, they have zero conference titles. 

 

 

[Cdog923]

16 hours ago, PaulCrewe said:

Give me a Paul Westhead at Loyola Marymount type guy and system.  You know 1990s Hank Gathers ad Bo Kimble up and down the floor averaging 100+ a game.   I mean the he Miles defensive first mentality ain’t doing squat, so might as well make the games nonstop excitement 

 

So, Dale Wellman? 

[seaofred92]

21 hours ago, QMany said:

For comparison, here is a team that spreads the floor and shoots a lot of threes. 

 

Recruiting Rankings

2014: 59th

2015: 69th

2016: 44th

2017: 25th

2018: currently 28th

 

In that span, they have zero conference titles. 

 

 

I don't know if this is a "knock" on this concept or not but when you look at those recruiting rankings and the conference they're in the fact that they've made 12 tournaments in the last 20 years recruiting like that is nothing short of amazing.

[seaofred92]

On 3/18/2018 at 8:02 PM, Mavric said:

Threes and layups

 

You shouldn't be doing much of anything else.

 

Yup

 

Quote

Combing through the mountains of data at sports-reference.com reveals how Hoiberg's teams scored: all the three-pointers and easy twos they could get.

 

In Hoiberg's five seasons in Ames, Iowa State attempted 4,023 three-pointers. That total ranked fourth in the nation and first among power conference schools in that time frame.

Even the "let it fly" Creighton teams of the same era couldn't keep up, attempting 227 fewer threes in those five seasons.

 

Iowa State's five-year run under Hoiberg concluded with the national following ranks: 22nd in three-point shooting percentage, 18th in field goal percentage, 14th in two-point shooting percentage, 10th in field goals attempted, and fifth in shots made.

 

Nebraska in that stretch was 333rd in three-point percentage, 240th in field goal percentage; 157th in two-point percentage and 300th in field goals attempted. That final number is last among power conference teams.

 

So not only did the Huskers limit their attempts, they didn't make them when they took them.

 

https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/mens-basketball/diving-deep-into-the-numbers-shows-stark-offensive-changes-coming/article_a74cd48d-b057-58bb-8c3d-0b2f90daa123.html?utm_content=buffere74e8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC