Beautiful charts about our offense, but what gives? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Beautiful charts about our offense, but what gives?

That assumes that you don't already know who your good shooters are or that coaches are magnanimously letting bad shooters chuck it up. The former is unlikely and the latter would only be likely if you were playing overmatched opponents.

it be interesting to take a deeper dive in the data to figure it out though.
Top 20 teams also play the vast majority of their non-conference games at home with a few neutral sites sprinkled in before playing half their conference games in (mostly) hostile road environments.
 
Last edited:
I am not smart enough to understand those charts. My eyeballs tell me that Uconn has multiple scorers at any given time on the court, and that we have ample "spurtability". This is why and how we almost beat Kansas at Kansas w/out Castle and with Spencer hobbled, and why we keep beating OOC teams by double digits for two years now.
 
Seems clear that the outliers on the downside are greater than the outliers on the upside; i.e. the bad is skewing the overall numbers more than the good.

What we do know is that we are streaky, but we can clearly win when we aren't shooting well.
 
So just looking at three pointers overall.


First number is P6 games (IU, UT, KU, UNC, Zags), second is buy games
Main Shooters:
CS: 11/33, 23/41
AK: 11/33, 11/30
TN: 10/25, 9/29
SB: 7/16, 5/27
Total: 39/107, 48/127

Other heavy minute wings/guards
HD: 2/9, 2/6
SC: 0/3, 1/4 (5 games)
Total: 2/12, 3/10

Bigs:
DC: 0/1, 0/2
SJ: -/-, 0/1
Total: 0/1, 0/3

Freshman Wings:
JS: 0/1, 1/6
JR: -/-, 1/8
Total: 0/1, 2/14

Other: -/-, 2/7

The main 4 shooters are actually shooting it pretty well at 36.4% and 37.8% against top teams and buy games respectively. The rest of the team is pretty bad overall by percentage but don't take a ton.
 
Karaban's injury and subsequent shooting funk are the primary reason for the low make percentage, I'm guessing
 
.-.
The 3's or Paint shot chart is part of it. The other part is emphasis on moving the ball without the dribble and constant motion of players off the ball. There's still a lot of ISO out there on other teams. Trying to get your star to beat his man and collapse the D. Even NBA guys revert to that at times.

Think back to the Ollie years and early Hurley years and fans here were griping about not having anybody who could beat their man. You don't hear that now, even though we probably don't have anybody except maybe Castle that can break down a defender one on one. Last year we didn't have a single guy who could except Sanogo and he had to get the ball in close for that. Yet our offense is elite.

So yes, running modern motion offense and emphasizing quality shots is fantastic preparation for the NBA. We also practice defending against it in practice. I think players are seeing it and UConn is going to become an absolute NBA pipeline. I think it also makes Hurley appealing to the NBA.
I gave you a like, but please bite your tongue.
 
Last edited:
About what?
click the "Expand...." link in my post where I quote you. You are putting bad vibes and juju in the atmosphere with the statement I bolded in your quote no matter how true it might be :D
 
click the "Expand...." link in my post where I quote you. You are putting bad vibes and juju in the atmosphere with the statement I bolded in your quote no matter how true it might be :D
It’s true. I think we’ve got him for awhile, but he is showing what they like to see
 
It’s true. I think we’ve got him for awhile, but he is showing what they like to see
I hope he stays for a while. But for coaches it's not just about money in and of itself-it's about the intrinsic things in his case that would be knowing he could succeed in the NBA. I remember a conversation I had with a older friend of mine at UConn when I was a high school student at E.O. Smith (high school in Storrs) in the mid 90s. During that conversation he said, "some of these college coaches never should think about leaving their jobs when they have it made" and he was referring to Coach K and Dean Smith when they were getting offers for the NBA and flirted with it. Not to say it would be a bad move for Hurley because he might very well be successful in the NBA, but he has it made at an prestigious top tier elite basketball school.

Anyways, I am going to leave my computer and put my hand in the sand and pretend this was never mentioned just to make me feel better, LOL.
 
.-.
The 3's or Paint shot chart is part of it. The other part is emphasis on moving the ball without the dribble and constant motion of players off the ball. There's still a lot of ISO out there on other teams. Trying to get your star to beat his man and collapse the D. Even NBA guys revert to that at times.

Think back to the Ollie years and early Hurley years and fans here were griping about not having anybody who could beat their man. You don't hear that now, even though we probably don't have anybody except maybe Castle that can break down a defender one on one. Last year we didn't have a single guy who could except Sanogo and he had to get the ball in close for that. Yet our offense is elite.

So yes, running modern motion offense and emphasizing quality shots is fantastic preparation for the NBA. We also practice defending against it in practice. I think players are seeing it and UConn is going to become an absolute NBA pipeline. I think it also makes Hurley appealing to the NBA.
I would argue that Newton is that break down player. When he started tj be that at the mid point last year team took off. Newton is the one player who can create his own offense.
 
I hope he stays for a while. But for coaches it's not just about money in and of itself-it's about the intrinsic things in his case that would be knowing he could succeed in the NBA. I remember a conversation I had with a older friend of mine at UConn when I was a high school student at E.O. Smith (high school in Storrs) in the mid 90s. During that conversation he said, "some of these college coaches never should think about leaving their jobs when they have it made" and he was referring to Coach K and Dean Smith when they were getting offers for the NBA and flirted with it. Not to say it would be a bad move for Hurley because he might very well be successful in the NBA, but he has it made at an prestigious top tier elite basketball school.

Anyways, I am going to leave my computer and put my hand in the sand and pretend this was never mentioned just to make me feel better, LOL.
To me, Hurley and nba makes sense if you go to a real spot that has a player. For example, Celtics come calling, 76ers, Nuggets. If the team has an elite talent, you do it.

Dont do the calipari/Pitino and think you can out coach nba guys. The players know.

Hurley would have to tone down sideline antics.
 
Hurley is well aware that his coaching style would not work well in the NBA. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't like to go there, eventually, it just means that he knows he has some work to do before he can seriously consider it.
 
The 3's or Paint shot chart is part of it. The other part is emphasis on moving the ball without the dribble and constant motion of players off the ball. There's still a lot of ISO out there on other teams. Trying to get your star to beat his man and collapse the D. Even NBA guys revert to that at times.

Think back to the Ollie years and early Hurley years and fans here were griping about not having anybody who could beat their man. You don't hear that now, even though we probably don't have anybody except maybe Castle that can break down a defender one on one. Last year we didn't have a single guy who could except Sanogo and he had to get the ball in close for that. Yet our offense is elite.

So yes, running modern motion offense and emphasizing quality shots is fantastic preparation for the NBA. We also practice defending against it in practice. I think players are seeing it and UConn is going to become an absolute NBA pipeline. I think it also makes Hurley appealing to the NBA.

Overall you are probably right. Castle might be the only UConn player to really be able to take his man of the dribble one-on-one. Newton can at times. However, Newton and Cam are very good at driving off appropriate reads with Cam getting decent paint shots and Newton playing his own brand of bully ball. Karaban also does a decent job of beating a defender off the dribble on closeouts and efficient around the rim. The biggest shock this year for me are the reads Diarra is making to get to the basket off the pick and roll.
 
Hurley is well aware that his coaching style would not work well in the NBA. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't like to go there, eventually, it just means that he knows he has some work to do before he can seriously consider it.

His style wouldn't but his playbook would, if tapered down a bit to fit the 24 second clock.
 
It’s true. I think we’ve got him for awhile, but he is showing what they like to see

The NBA doesn't like to see anything from college coaches at this point in time--it's a hard barrier to cross straight from college to an NBA HC job. In the last 15 years, Hoiberg, Donovan, and Stevens are the only ones to try. Hoiberg was a disaster, Donovan is about to lose his job, and obviously Stevens was a star.

Most guys are working their way up the NBA ranks directly now. G-league assistants, player development, etc. Like Daigenault did. Honestly, I haven't even heard of half the NBA head coaches. Whereas guys like Calipari, Hurley, Scheyer, Pitino, etc. are pretty household names for people who knows sports.

Billy Donovan is the only current NBA coach who went directly from a college HC job, and he only ever made it past the first round of the playoffs his first year. I'm not sure he's a sought-after coach by any means.

Considering the lack of job security, the different role as more of a manager, 82 games + playoffs and travel... I'm not convinced an NBA job is something Hurley wants. Or honestly, that the NBA will even want HIM.

He's also making more than plenty of NBA coaches and is darn close to average.

This article from 4 years ago was interesting. Donovan and Stevens are the only college-to-NBA coaches in the past 30 years to have a winning NBA record. A number of those guys were NBA players, and we're talking about 11 coaches total in the past 30 years.

TL;DR: I'm not buying it. The NBA doesn't want Hurley, and Hurley isn't suited for the NBA. There's remarkably little history of college coaches having success in the league.
 
.-.
Hurley is well aware that his coaching style would not work well in the NBA. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't like to go there, eventually, it just means that he knows he has some work to do before he can seriously consider it.
His coaching style is perfect for nba. You adjust to coaching adults. Big thing is sideline demeanor. He would also adjust.

But, as post above says, lifestyle is an issue and he is getting premium dollars in college. Doubt he gets that in nba.
 
Lots of variables here. All NBA jobs are not the same. There are teams that get desperate all the time. It depends what job is open. The situation. I think Dan Hurley would look differently the Knicks job than say Minnesota. That is true of the teams as well.

The situation at UConn could change. An antagonistic AD or some stupid blown out proportion incident could come up. Lots of variables.

And, of course, money will have its say.
 
The NBA doesn't like to see anything from college coaches at this point in time--it's a hard barrier to cross straight from college to an NBA HC job. In the last 15 years, Hoiberg, Donovan, and Stevens are the only ones to try. Hoiberg was a disaster, Donovan is about to lose his job, and obviously Stevens was a star.

Most guys are working their way up the NBA ranks directly now. G-league assistants, player development, etc. Like Daigenault did. Honestly, I haven't even heard of half the NBA head coaches. Whereas guys like Calipari, Hurley, Scheyer, Pitino, etc. are pretty household names for people who knows sports.

Billy Donovan is the only current NBA coach who went directly from a college HC job, and he only ever made it past the first round of the playoffs his first year. I'm not sure he's a sought-after coach by any means.

Considering the lack of job security, the different role as more of a manager, 82 games + playoffs and travel... I'm not convinced an NBA job is something Hurley wants. Or honestly, that the NBA will even want HIM.

He's also making more than plenty of NBA coaches and is darn close to average.

This article from 4 years ago was interesting. Donovan and Stevens are the only college-to-NBA coaches in the past 30 years to have a winning NBA record. A number of those guys were NBA players, and we're talking about 11 coaches total in the past 30 years.

TL;DR: I'm not buying it. The NBA doesn't want Hurley, and Hurley isn't suited for the NBA. There's remarkably little history of college coaches having success in the league.
It's amazing that everyone focused on my throwaway line about Hurley. I agree with everything you wrote. That being said, a guy having success running what Hurley is running might tempt a desperate team. You can only recycle NBA losers so long. But I'm not worried about it. He's pretty happy here.
 
It's amazing that everyone focused on my throwaway line about Hurley. I agree with everything you wrote. That being said, a guy having success running what Hurley is running might tempt a desperate team. You can only recycle NBA losers so long. But I'm not worried about it. He's pretty happy here.

It's something I've been thinking about and wanted to do a little bit of digging. Not really about your comment as much as concerns I've had.
 
It's something I've been thinking about and wanted to do a little bit of digging. Not really about your comment as much as concerns I've had.
The only counterpoint I have really is that it was more common in the past. Pitino, Calipari, etc. In the ISO era I think the NBA and college games were more similar. I think Stevens was plucked away from Butler for running really advanced modern offense at the time. Looking at the college game and who is running modern motion offense and switching defense, and Hurley stands out with Self (who is old and going nowhere). Dusty Mae at FAU is running pretty impressive modern offense. I'm sure it is moving into the college game more and more, but old guys like Izzo and Cal don't seem to truly embrace it.
 
His coaching style is perfect for nba. You adjust to coaching adults. Big thing is sideline demeanor. He would also adjust.

But, as post above says, lifestyle is an issue and he is getting premium dollars in college. Doubt he gets that in nba.
Note that it was Hurley who said that he had to adjust his coaching style before he would be able to coach in the NBA. When you are saying coaching style you're talking about schemes. I agree with you that Hurley runs NBA style sets, and his team runs them exceptionally well. Though he did not define it, what I think Hurley meant about adjusting his coaching style was 1) sideline demeanor and 2) the way he interacts with his players. Hurley is an excellent college coach and a very demanding one. I suspect what he was referring to is the need to adjust that style when working with pro athletes, many of them have larger contracts than the Coach.
 
.-.
Hurley addressed coaching in the NBA after the title last spring, saying it’s something he aspires to someday but also knows he needs to mellow out first and also wants to put UConn in position where what we accomplished last season (and so far this season) is a year-after-year thing before he’s consider it. The exact line was something along the lines of “I’m not ready for them and they’re not ready for me”

If he wants to make the jump at some point, I certainly wouldn’t bet against him. How many coaches have made the leap from coaching high school to D1 successfully? Or remade their coaching identity to reach another level while at a major program?

Hurley is the elite of the elite in this profession and his ability to keep evolving is a separator (along with his willingness to surround himself with voices who keep challenging him to do so).

Thankfully, if it ever happens — we’re likely talking about years down the road after he has accomplished much more at UConn and with the legacy of the program in a very good place.
 
Game by Game. Very inconsistent.
7-25
10-31
11-28
7-22
7-24
9-20
4-28
11-28
10-31
13-28
7-17

96-282 for the season. 34%.

4 made 3's - 1
7 made 3's- 4
9 made 3's- 1
10 made 3's- 2
11 made 3's- 2
13 made 3's- 1

Take out the 4-28 in meaningless win against UNH and you get 92-254 which is 36.2% and an average of 9.2 made per game.

Go the other way and also take out the "really good" game of 13-28 against Pine Bluff and you have 79-226 over 9 games which is 35% and an average of 8.8 per game.

What's this mean? IDK. I just had a few minutes to mess around but at the end of all this I'm still breathing easy and expecting end of season numbers to be around 36% and 9 3's made per game. And I'm fine with those numbers.
Too bad we can't have an exchange. Because there are at least ten redundant threes made by our team that I would exchange for the one missed Cam three in the Kansas game.
 
To me, Hurley and nba makes sense if you go to a real spot that has a player. For example, Celtics come calling, 76ers, Nuggets. If the team has an elite talent, you do it.

Dont do the calipari/Pitino and think you can out coach nba guys. The players know.

Hurley would have to tone down sideline antics.
I like Hurley to the Trail Blazers. A little bit like Storrs, it's also off in the hinterlands where he can work his basketball mad genius magic with just the right amount of attention and a very forgiving fan base. Portland is one of the few places he could probably instill his "culture" and us against the world schtick without getting too much pushback from entitled stars. Chauncy has already done it to a certain extent, he just sucks as an actual game coach.
 
I like Hurley to the Trail Blazers
I wonder what PJ Carlesimo's advice to Hurley would be regarding that.
 
Early-season stats in college basketball have become a lot like spring training performance in baseball.

As fans, we love to think players perform to their true value every game, but getting kids to bring it against KenPom 300-types is among the biggest challenges coaches face and those results can really skew things early on.

We also don’t know exactly what a coach is telling his players to focusing on in a specific game, just like what a pitcher might be working on in a spring training start.

There have been pretty clear examples of letting Solo play through things and take shots against cupcakes that he isn’t pulling the trigger on in bigger matchups — or Spencer going 2-for-10 from 3 when trying to find his shot against Stonehill — along with games that the plan was obviously to force feed Donovan to work on establishing the post.

We’ll get a much better sense of how teams really stack up statistically as conference play begins.
I was surprised by how few assists the Zags had against us
 
It's an aberration, and look out when it shifts to the norm.
Probably an aberration, but also depends on who is taking them. My guess is ball shoots the most and he hit almost none until last few games. Diarra and bad finger and wrist karaban as well and most recently castle bricks. Will work itself out over time. Out-rebound, get better shots and you will win most games.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,352
Members
10,443
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom