Can we finally agree that bigs are necessary in basketball?

[jibsey]

No because they make the open shot when we crowd the paint with two bigs and there isn’t a rebound. Just an inbounds with 2 seconds remaining and only three guards to try to make magic happen.

Maybe just Clingan. Who is rebounding over him?

 

[August_West]

No, but is there any money to made working from home imitating chatGPT?

You should ask that question TO chatGPT

 

[jake14mw]

If only 1 big is good, then no bigs must be better by your logic. How did Butler do with no frontcourt today?

 

[SixRings]

Maybe just Clingan. Who is rebounding over him?

Completely agree.

 

[uconndogs]

If only 1 big is good, then no bigs must be better by your logic. How did Butler do with no frontcourt today?

Do you think posts like this add anything to this board? What’s the point?

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

If only 1 big is good, then no bigs must be better by your logic. How did Butler do with no frontcourt today?

Bigs are like burritos.
2 burritos = tummy ache
0 burritos = tummy ache
1 burrito = just right

 

[Jaydumo20]

@uconndogs if posts have to "add" to the board we'd have a short list. Have you read the doomsday prepper threads? I'd love to see the purses of those BYERS cajoling us to bet the house on Butler today

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Do you think posts like this add anything to this board? What’s the point?

Sanogo and Clingan are without question 2 of the 4 best players on the team. To win a game, historically teams have tried to get their best players on the court as much as possible, even if coaches need to adapt their strategy to do it. Also, as anyone who has so much as played a pickup game at the YMCA knows, size is an advantage in basketball.

But many on the Boneyard do not agree. On this board there is a large contingent (many of whom jumped in this thread with generic internet memes) that argue that spreading the court with everyone out at the 3 point line is the best strategy because a few talking heads who don’t understand statistics and only moderately understand basketball told them so. And bigs are apparently unsuited for this kind of offense.

Well, Butler played a 5 out, heavy cutting and attempting to penetrate to the basket while attempting to launch 3’s strategy, and they were literally (using that weird correctly) helpless. The same team that beat Kansas State with its center, got annihilated without him by a UConn team that had lost 5 of 6 coming into this game. We have listened to literally years of these same posters telling us that spreading the court with all 5 players was better, only to watch Butler have one of the worst performances by a major conference team in a league game in years trying to do exactly that. Maybe there is a reason that no major conference team plays 5 guards by choice. Maybe, playing a team’s best players and playing an offense that actually maximizes the expected value of each possession is a good idea. Or we can throw more mediocre 3 point shooters on the court instead of high percentage bigs and see where that gets us.

So now a few of the smarter posters see the logic gap in their argument, and have switched from “spreading the court and more three pointers is good” to “1 big on the court is the perfect number”, because reasons. Apparently 1 big is good, 2 is unacceptable. I am very interested in the logic behind this, because I suspect that whatever rationale they have for why there should be one big would also work for two bigs.

 

[Jaydumo20]

@nelsonmuntz I'm over the use of internet memes. I never thought they were funny. Internet group think jokes are the worst. Michael Jackson eating ppopcorn in thriller? Come on. Try harder. Think

 

[CheshireCat]

Sanogo and Clingan are without question 2 of the 4 best players on the team. To win a game, historically teams have tried to get their best players on the court as much as possible, even if coaches need to adapt their strategy to do it. Also, as anyone who has so much as played a pickup game at the YMCA knows, size is an advantage in basketball.

But many on the Boneyard do not agree. On this board there is a large contingent (many of whom jumped in this thread with generic internet memes) that argue that spreading the court with everyone out at the 3 point line is the best strategy because a few talking heads who don’t understand statistics and only moderately understand basketball told them so. And bigs are apparently unsuited for this kind of offense.

Well, Butler played a 5 out, heavy cutting and attempting to penetrate to the basket while attempting to launch 3’s strategy, and they were literally (using that weird correctly) helpless. The same team that beat Kansas State with its center, got annihilated without him by a UConn team that had lost 5 of 6 coming into this game. We have listened to literally years of these same posters telling us that spreading the court with all 5 players was better, only to watch Butler have one of the worst performances by a major conference team in a league game in years trying to do exactly that. Maybe there is a reason that no major conference team plays 5 guards by choice. Maybe, playing a team’s best players and playing an offense that actually maximizes the expected value of each possession is a good idea. Or we can throw more mediocre 3 point shooters on the court instead of high percentage bigs and see where that gets us.

So now a few of the smarter posters see the logic gap in their argument, and have switched from “spreading the court and more three pointers is good” to “1 big on the court is the perfect number”, because reasons. Apparently 1 big is good, 2 is unacceptable. I am very interested in the logic behind this, because I suspect that whatever rationale they have for why there should be one big would also work for two bigs.

Interesting that you fancy yourself as one of the “smarter posters”. Winning basketball games is about scouting, matchups and obviously execution. What you’re basically saying is that because a Butler team without Manny Bates got throttled on the road, that your case for UCONN playing two bigs makes even more sense. One has NOTHING to do with the other. I actually think you might see some Clingan and Sanogo together against Xavier depending on what lineup is out there for Xavier. But how you position it like many of your posts is often flawed, pompous in in some cases, just ridiculous. How’s your incomplete report on Big East officiating coming along?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Interesting that you fancy yourself as one of the “smarter posters”. Winning basketball games is about scouting, matchups and obviously execution. What you’re basically saying is that because a Butler team without Manny Bates got throttled on the road, that your case for UCONN playing two bigs makes even more sense. One has NOTHING to do with the other. I actually think you might see some Clingan and Sanogo together against Xavier depending on what lineup is out there for Xavier. But how you position it like many of your posts is often flawed, pompous in in some cases, just ridiculous. How’s your incomplete report on Big East officiating coming along?

So you understand, I won't respond to you anymore because you are just a spit thrower. You have literally nothing to add and you just attack other posters.

 

[Tenspro2002]

So now a few of the smarter posters see the logic gap in their argument, and have switched from “spreading the court and more three pointers is good” to “1 big on the court is the perfect number”, because reasons. Apparently 1 big is good, 2 is unacceptable. I am very interested in the logic behind this, because I suspect that whatever rationale they have for why there should be one big would also work for two bigs.

I have never wavered from the view that 1 big surrounded by 4 skilled players who can dribble, pass, shoot, and be nearly interchangeable on defense is the ideal configuration.

Replacing one of those 4 with a second big ruins spacing, ball-movement, and perimeter D.

Sometimes there is an optimum that's in the middle and not at either endpoint (zero bigs or 5 bigs). This is one of those cases.

 

[CheshireCat]

So you understand, I won't respond to you anymore because you are just a spit thrower. You have literally nothing to add and you just attack other posters.

About what I'd expect from a poster that thinks they are smarter than everyone including the coaching staff. I'm not the first one in this thread to call you out - so I'm not a random outlier. You just seem to be averse to having your viewpoint challenged and never willing to concede when something in your "logic" is flawed or when someone else makes a fair point that is counter to yours. Fair enough - not looking for a response from you, but I can still exercise my right to call things as I see them.

 

[nomar]

I'm on board the "2 bigs are better than 1" train and, in fact, I say we just keep going with it. New lineup:

5 Clingan
4 Sanogo
3 Johnson
2 Springs
1 Hasson

 

[PNolanFan]

Hear me out, let’s throw 5 bigs out there and destroy.

Who is the best team we would beat if we played a lineup of clingan/sanogo/johnson/karaban/jackson? I think that team is probably favored against most bottom dwellers in power conferences

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Who is the best team we would beat if we played a lineup of clingan/sanogo/johnson/karaban/jackson? I think that team is probably favored against most bottom dwellers in power conferences

I'm not sure that lineup would score 50 against most bottom dwellers. One ball handler who can't create his own shot?

 

[boiwerebad]

The only place "bigs didnt matter" was the NBA between like 2017-2020. Then everyone realized versatile bigs are important

 

[bendm]

Can we finally put the argument that "Hurley can't play Sanogo and Clingan together" to rest,

Chief has been the biggest proponent of the "double big" concept but he's not articulating how it would actually work on offense.

So can you explain how would it be different than last year when we had to pair whaley and sanogo? the board was almost unanimous in it's contempt for that double big pairing as it almost always resulted in our "10 pts in 10 mins" slow starts.

So riddle me this. Clingan needs to be within 5’ of the basket on both ends of the floor to be effective, so what would sanogo's offensive role be when playing next to him?

If Clingan is in the game there would be an automatic double on sanogo whenever he catches the ball down low. Either because Clingan is on the perimeter setting a screen but his defender isn’t bothering to guard him, or because Clingan has brought his defender into the paint thereby bringing an extra defender into sanogo’s vicinity.

So it seems like sanogo would be forced to stand in the corner shooting 3s when Clingan is in the game and that’s not how to effectively use our leading scorer imo.

Whaley was more athletic and a better midrange shooter than either sanogo or clingan, and the double big pairing still completely gummed up our offense, so how would this be different?

 

[uconn_jack]

Chief has been the biggest proponent of the "double big" concept but he's not articulating how it would actually work on offense.

So can you explain how would it be different than last year when we had to pair whaley and sanogo? the board was almost unanimous in it's contempt for that double big pairing as it almost always resulted in our "10 pts in 10 mins" slow starts.

So riddle me this. Clingan needs to be within 5’ of the basket on both ends of the floor to be effective, so what would sanogo's offensive role be when playing next to him?

If Clingan is in the game there would be an automatic double on sanogo whenever he catches the ball down low. Either because Clingan is on the perimeter setting a screen but his defender isn’t bothering to guard him, or because Clingan has brought his defender into the paint thereby bringing an extra defender into sanogo’s vicinity.

So it seems like sanogo would be forced to stand in the corner shooting 3s when Clingan is in the game and that’s not how to effectively use our leading scorer imo.

Whaley was more athletic and a better midrange shooter than either sanogo or clingan, and the double big pairing still completely gummed up our offense, so how would this be different?

I'm with you, I just don't see how it works, or at least how it works well. They just don't have complimentary skill sets when on the floor at the same time. They are much more effective subbing for each other because it forces the other team to adjust.

Whaley at the 4 was a completely different animal. It may have been limiting offensively, but he could gaurd 3-5 and rebounded. I think Sanogo would struggle defending a lot of 4's, would not be an effective rebounder, and would not be a net positive offensively.

 

[KembaSlice]

If 1 big is only Ok, 2 bigs is better than the only logical response is for Hurley to run out a 5 big lineup!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I have never wavered from the view that 1 big surrounded by 4 skilled players who can dribble, pass, shoot, and be nearly interchangeable on defense is the ideal configuration.

Replacing one of those 4 with a second big ruins spacing, ball-movement, and perimeter D.

Sometimes there is an optimum that's in the middle and not at either endpoint (zero bigs or 5 bigs). This is one of those cases.

What evidence do we have that it ruins spacing? I think putting 4 or 5 shooters on the perimeter ruins spacing.

As I have been saying since I was calling for Carlton and Whaley to play together, all of these three point shooters on the perimeter are getting in each other's way, and 3 point shooting percentages have been dropping for decades. Many basketball statisticians do not understand the concept of a marginal event. 30 years ago, the total NCAA 3FG% was 36.2%. In 2021, it was 33.9%. The number of 3's taken increased significantly. Assuming that 3 point shooting is consistent over the years (will get back to this later), those incremental shots are likely at much lower than 34% rate. Is an incremental 3 attempt that has a 25% or 20% chance of going in a better shot than a 2 point shot by a center that has a 50% or better chance of going in? Of course not. But that is exactly what coaches are doing, jacking up more 3's with offenses that are not creating that many good 3 attempts. If you want more good 3's, you need to pull the defenses in.

I would also argue that 3 point shooting ability is likely much better than it was and yet shooting percentages are down. I believe the reason for this is that teams are taking bad 3's. If you want to see evidence of this, look at the UConn backcourt and wings. Almost every one of them is having the worst shooting percentage year of their careers. These guys can shoot, but shooting out of an offense that is easy to defend on the perimeter leads to a low shooting percentage.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I will make the NBA comparisons a separate post.

It wasn't until 2019 that the NBA returned to the PPG averages it had in the early and mid 80's, and era when the top teams had frontcourts like Bird/McHale/Parish and Olajuwon/Sampson, and a team basically couldn't finish above .500 unless it had a quality center. 4 of the 5 were first ballot Hall-of-Famers. Bird played with a point guard (DJ) that couldn't shoot and a 2 guard (Ainge) that couldn't create his own shot, and those Celtics teams were unstoppable.

Dr. J's entire game was attacking the hoop even though Moses Malone was never more than 5 feet from the basket, and both were all-stars and first ballot Hall-of-Famers. There typically was a borderline all-star like Caldwell Jones or Bobby Jones playing inside too on those 76ers teams. Those offenses were better than anything we have seen until the last 3-4 years. Dr. J had a better backcourt than Bird did, at least offensively. All that inside action gave an OK player like Andrew Toney a lot of wide open looks. He shot 49.2% or higher for 5 straight seasons despite taking almost exclusively jump shots.

You think those teams couldn't light up defenses today the way games are officiated now?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

My source on the shooting percentages.

College Basketball Report: Three-Point Shooting is Mired in the Worst Two-Year Stretch in History

For just the second time ever, the Division-I-wide three-point percentage fell under 34% in 2020-21.

www.si.com

 

[huskiesNhoos]

What evidence do we have that it ruins spacing? I think putting 4 or 5 shooters on the perimeter ruins spacing.

As I have been saying since I was calling for Carlton and Whaley to play together, all of these three point shooters on the perimeter are getting in each other's way, and 3 point shooting percentages have been dropping for decades. Many basketball statisticians do not understand the concept of a marginal event. 30 years ago, the total NCAA 3FG% was 36.2%. In 2021, it was 33.9%. The number of 3's taken increased significantly. Assuming that 3 point shooting is consistent over the years (will get back to this later), those incremental shots are likely at much lower than 34% rate. Is an incremental 3 attempt that has a 25% or 20% chance of going in a better shot than a 2 point shot by a center that has a 50% or better chance of going in? Of course not. But that is exactly what coaches are doing, jacking up more 3's with offenses that are not creating that many good 3 attempts. If you want more good 3's, you need to pull the defenses in.

I would also argue that 3 point shooting ability is likely much better than it was and yet shooting percentages are down. I believe the reason for this is that teams are taking bad 3's. If you want to see evidence of this, look at the UConn backcourt and wings. Almost every one of them is having the worst shooting percentage year of their careers. These guys can shoot, but shooting out of an offense that is easy to defend on the perimeter leads to a low shooting percentage.

Oof, did you watch this team when they played together? It was truly awful. Remember we had UConn Carlton, not Houston Carlton...

I will make the NBA comparisons a separate post.

It wasn't until 2019 that the NBA returned to the PPG averages it had in the early and mid 80's, and era when the top teams had frontcourts like Bird/McHale/Parish and Olajuwon/Sampson, and a team basically couldn't finish above .500 unless it had a quality center. 4 of the 5 were first ballot Hall-of-Famers. Bird played with a point guard (DJ) that couldn't shoot and a 2 guard (Ainge) that couldn't create his own shot, and those Celtics teams were unstoppable.

Dr. J's entire game was attacking the hoop even though Moses Malone was never more than 5 feet from the basket, and both were all-stars and first ballot Hall-of-Famers. There typically was a borderline all-star like Caldwell Jones or Bobby Jones playing inside too on those 76ers teams. Those offenses were better than anything we have seen until the last 3-4 years. Dr. J had a better backcourt than Bird did, at least offensively. All that inside action gave an OK player like Andrew Toney a lot of wide open looks. He shot 49.2% or higher for 5 straight seasons despite taking almost exclusively jump shots.

You think those teams couldn't light up defenses today the way games are officiated now?

So we just need multiple HOF quality bigs and your argument makes sense...got it

 

[auror]

My source on the shooting percentages.

College Basketball Report: Three-Point Shooting is Mired in the Worst Two-Year Stretch in History

For just the second time ever, the Division-I-wide three-point percentage fell under 34% in 2020-21.

www.si.com

This is a hilarious bad faith argument. The cause is literally in the article, and it's not "teams are playing too many people around the perimeter and not enough bigs."

In the summer of 2020, as I sat in my house, doing not much thanks to COVID-19, I thought to myself, “Hey, the NCAA moved the three-point line back to FIBA distance last season (22 feet, one-and-three-quarter inches). I wonder if that had any effect on three-point shooting numbers.”

So I did the only logical thing a rational person would do after asking themselves such a question in the middle of a pandemic. I researched every D-I three-point shot ever, 1986-87 through 2019-20.

I found out that the shift back of the three-point line prior to 2019-20 did, in fact, affect three-point percentages quite dramatically. So dramatically, in fact, that 2019-20 yielded the lowest three-point percentage across D-I in the history of the shot.

For the first time ever, the D-I-wide average three-point percentage dipped below 34%; 33.47% (80,555 out of 240,649) to be more exact.

Despite an increase in attempts, the shooting % was also going up before they shifted the line back. Plus a pandemic that took away practice and training time.