Positives from the Tulsa Game

[PAHusky]

If a loss is a loss, why isn't a "win" a win?

You could argue that luck favored us against Columbia and disfavored us against Tulsa. But if you count those as equivalent game outcomes, we did as well against kenpom (now) #104 Tulsa as we did against #234 Columbia. That's improvement.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: We don't have a point guard (sans Gilbert), we don't have a center, we have freshman forwards and only two guys have played together prior to this season. You don't win in college basketball with such a roster -- it takes experience to build chemistry, big men take time to develop, and you need distributors and shooters and rim protection because the efficient shots are at the rim, 3 pointers, and after breaking down the defense or in transition. Given those roster deficiencies, what we can hope for is to see steady progress in both team execution and player capabilities. We're seeing that. If it continues, next year's team which will have a much more complete roster will be much improved.

I'm tired of this narrative. We don't have a point guard or a center because KO constructed his roster that way. Our frontcourt is freshmen because KO, and a number of other factors, means that a few of our contributors from last year left. Our roster issues are on KO - he's been here for years.

Every single year since the championship we've had offseason issues or recruiting setbacks or other similar obstacles that are cause by Ollie. His supporters then use these self created issues as excuses as to why he should have more time. His recruiting class next year is nothing special, we're losing our best players from this year, and this team is already mediocre. What progress are you seeing and what are you honestly expecting at this point?

 

[Paesano]

If a loss is a loss, why isn't a "win" a win?

You could argue that luck favored us against Columbia and disfavored us against Tulsa. But if you count those as equivalent game outcomes, we did as well against kenpom (now) #104 Tulsa as we did against #234 Columbia. That's improvement.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: We don't have a point guard (sans Gilbert), we don't have a center, we have freshman forwards and only two guys have played together prior to this season. You don't win in college basketball with such a roster -- it takes experience to build chemistry, big men take time to develop, and you need distributors and shooters and rim protection because the efficient shots are at the rim, 3 pointers, and after breaking down the defense or in transition. Given those roster deficiencies, what we can hope for is to see steady progress in both team execution and player capabilities. We're seeing that. If it continues, next year's team which will have a much more complete roster will be much improved.

Jesus, it went right over your head.

Nobody felt good about the Columbia win

Go back and look again. Plenty of people felt good about it and our much improved record over last year. That was the point.

 

[Sonova]

Kevin coaches perimeter defense. You simply have a young group of guys that are learning to play together also learning how to play perimeter defense. Lack of consistent player execution is the issue. When you have depth you can yank players out. Unfortunately we do not specifically defensively. These guys are learning.

Heading into last night’s game, we were 288th in 3-pt FG % defense. If there was a stat for “wide open three point shot defense” we’d be even lower. If KO actually teaches perimeter defense, the eye test says his players don’t seem to know pretty basic zone principles and the statistics say that he’s a failure as a teacher.

 

[auror]

Heading into last night’s game, we were 288th in 3-pt FG % defense. If there was a stat for “wide open three point shot defense” we’d be even lower. If KO actually teaches perimeter defense, the eye test says his players don’t seem to know pretty basic zone principles and the statistics say that he’s a failure as a teacher.

https://kenpom.com/blog/offense-vs-defense-3point-percentage/\

 

[DMIL]

Heading into last night’s game, we were 288th in 3-pt FG % defense. If there was a stat for “wide open three point shot defense” we’d be even lower. If KO actually teaches perimeter defense, the eye test says his players don’t seem to know pretty basic zone principles and the statistics say that he’s a failure as a teacher.

You are exactly right. This is what you get when you don't have a deep bench and a very young team that has to learn how to play together. It just doesn't happen over night. When you have an experienced core the young guys learn from them and not just the coaching staff. We don't really have that. Adams is really the only one and Larrier is basically a Sophomore. The transfers we have are not effective at all given their lack of talent.

 

[Sonova]

You are exactly right. This is what you get when you don't have a deep bench and a very young team that has to learn how to play together. It just doesn't happen over night. When you have an experienced core the young guys learn from them and not just the coaching staff. We don't really have that. Adams is really the only one and Larrier is basically a Sophomore. The transfers we have are not effective at all given their lack of talent.

Ok but listen to yourself (and others with similar POVs)...we aren’t good shooters, we don’t pass the ball, we get out rebounded and now we’re too young to defend (which I don’t buy at all. I’d argue that younger players actually play more/better defense in some capacity because so much of it is pure effort and young players still buy into coaching and motivation from coaches. Obviously technique and understanding come with experience AND coaching but we have none of the above. And we sure as hell don’t have accountability or consequences for not playing defense - THIS has been an Ollie trademark for years. The excuses are really mind-boggling in the face of actual facts over time.

 

[freescooter]

The uniforms looked nice. Chillious has a nice tie. That’s all I’ve got.

 

[gtcam]

Here are a couple more positives....UConn managed to score only 88 points in 50 minutes of basketball. Jalen Adams, Vital, and Larrier, altogether missed 37 shots during the game. Adam's was 10-25, Vital 8-20, Larrier 7-17. Great shooting guys!!! I hope all three are getting good grades in class and each gets his degree, because at this rate each will need that degree after UConn.

A very ridiculous post

 

[gtcam]

The uniforms looked nice. Chillious has a nice tie. That’s all I’ve got.

Surprise Surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gtcam]

Ok but listen to yourself (and others with similar POVs)...we aren’t good shooters, we don’t pass the ball, we get out rebounded and now we’re too young to defend (which I don’t buy at all. I’d argue that younger players actually play more/better defense in some capacity because so much of it is pure effort and young players still buy into coaching and motivation from coaches. Obviously technique and understanding come with experience AND coaching but we have none of the above. And we sure as hell don’t have accountability or consequences for not playing defense - THIS has been an Ollie trademark for years. The excuses are really mind-boggling in the face of actual facts over time.

the younger guys on any team, for the vast majority, play lousy defense - a proven fact

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

...he burned a timeout and all he came up with for an inbounds play was turning it over under the basket.

3 million dollars a year...

A frigging idiot like me can post in the game thread...

Call this a highly selective Like.

IIRC, the announcers initially called it as a Tulsa timeout that could work to UConn's advantage. I thought it was smart for UConn not to call it and dumb for Tulsa to do so. After it played out, I was stunned to see UConn out of timeouts and Tulsa with one.

Felt like one of those creative Giants losses from 2 seasons ago.

And yet, I was entertained by the uncertainty and feel like I'm shifting into new territory as a fan.

Maybe this is what it's like to follow a middle-of-the-pack team in a pretty-good conference. Would it be better or worse to follow a pretty good team in a middle of the pack conference?

Grateful for the many years I followed good-to-great teams in a perennial top 3 conference. Super grateful for all the relative comfort & ease I have on this wind-whipped & beautiful snowy day.

 

[Sonova]

the younger guys on any team, for the vast majority, play lousy defense - a proven fact

JC once told me that “young guys play defense because they still believe the b**hit and they are trying to please their coach. Sophomore’s quickly realize that offense gets you into the league.” But I’m sure your facts are more reliable.

I’m not suggesting that young guys know how to play defense as well as veteran players, but excusing our team from playing defense well because we’re young and still gelling is a crock. We play lousy defense because our coach allows it.

And if you subscribe to the notion that we are lousy defensively simply because we’re young, explain the last couple of years...and ready yourself for an even worse season next year.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

I read a few more. He also said that Anderson's minutes were cut like everyone wanted. Fouling out will have that effect on a player's minutes.

Anderson got 29 minutes. 15 is about right, spelling Adams and Vital.

 

[Doginaus]

What positive can you take away from this game...that we didn't lose by more than 15? it's still a loss, not a positive.

 

[intlzncster]

I understand that he is stuck with Anderson because of himself. That doesn't mean we need to criticize him twice for the same mistakes. The roster is what it is and at this point if we're going to evaluate him on this portion of the job then we need to clean the slate of any variables that might distort that picture.

My impression was that the opening lines are typically more accurate than the closing lines. I could be wrong, but either way they were ranked some 20 spots ahead of us on KenPom and those rankings tend to correlate strongly with where the line is opening. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume, especially given how we've plummeted after the Gilbert injury, that the computers were less fond of our chances than that spread might indicate. Now I'll take Vegas over all of them, but the other variables that factored into that spread can't be fully separated from human expectation which brings us back to the idea that people are counting double against Ollie.

The 3 million dollars is just another thing that distracts from the ability to accurately assess his performance as coach. When you start quibbling with how a coach uses a timeouts you're really belaboring the point because although that criticism may be valid in a vacuum it is going to influence your win probability in the long haul by a matter of decimal points. (Incidentally, I remember thinking the same thing as you at the time, but even if we are to assume that Ollie screwed up there it does not diminish the role that luck and variance played in that game). Nobody keeps track of which coaches use timeouts the best. He is bad at other aspects of his job that cause people to displace onto small things like that which is exactly my point. We can think he's guilty and he can be guilty but that doesn't mean he doesn't get a fair trial. He's not getting a fair trial from this board.

Once a line is set, which takes into account a number of variables, the line naturally moves towards a more accurate projection as educated bettors try to exploit what they see as an advantage. If it's set perfectly from the get go, equal money will be bet on each side.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Kevin coaches perimeter defense. You simply have a young group of guys that are learning to play together also learning how to play perimeter defense. Lack of consistent player execution is the issue. When you have depth you can yank players out. Unfortunately we do not specifically defensively. These guys are learning.

I get that you're being supportive of what is, for the most part, a young group of players. That they have a lot of learning to do is the undeniable truth.

But guarding the three point line isn't something that takes time to learn. You either guard your player on the perimeter, or you don't. It isn't difficult. It doesn't require experience. It's a decision, nothing more, to deny the open look from three.

These players are being coached, first and foremost, to give help D against inside players. To do that, they have to be in position to help. Which means they have to position themselves halfway between the 3 point line and the foul lane. Teams attack this easily by quickly swinging the ball to the opposite side of the court. The UConn defender is caught in no-man's land and has to rush out (too late) to the three point shooter.

KO is willing to give up the open three, rather than deny it. He doesn't want to get beat inside. The strategy hasn't worked. It can, but only if you have two things, a defensive shot-blocking center who allows the guards/forwards to hedge more towards the 3 point line than the foul lane. Also, would want to have tall, athletic guards and forwards who can recover quickly and have the length to disturb the shot.

UConn has neither the intimidating inside center, nor the lengthy athletic guards to play help D.

 

[60'sfan]

We all know that they are awful getting the ball in bounds, totally agree. But when things are good, which they aren't, most fans would be bitching about Jalen being pushed out of bounds, which he was. Everyone gets the ball to the guy they want on the line they did, and he was fouled. Problem also is they got it to him in a bad spot because they don't have good in bounds plays. But the refs make the right call, no one is even talking about any of this.

I just watched a recording of the game and you are correct, Jalen was pushed out of bounds. As he was falling, he threw the ball back in. It was intercepted by a Tulsa player who clearly traveled as he went to the ground. If we get either of those calls, we win and the discussion is completely different. I saw a solid effort from the team and I saw enough to see that they are getting better. I am looking forward to their next game.

 

[mauconnfan]

I just watched a recording of the game and you are correct, Jalen was pushed out of bounds. As he was falling, he threw the ball back in. It was intercepted by a Tulsa player who clearly traveled as he went to the ground. If we get either of those calls, we win and the discussion is completely different. I saw a solid effort from the team and I saw enough to see that they are getting better. I am looking forward to their next game.

No doubter 60's we got nothing down the stretch. If we were any good everyone would be up in arms on that play alone it's a game changer and with the 36-12 disadvantage at the FT line. I mean that #1 got away with murder and ended up with 2 fouls, he removed Vital from the lane in a big play and they called it on Christian.
But you have some of the dumbest fouls coming from Carlton and Diarra at times too so sometimes you get what you deserve.

 

[DMIL]

I get that you're being supportive of what is, for the most part, a young group of players. That they have a lot of learning to do is the undeniable truth.

But guarding the three point line isn't something that takes time to learn. You either guard your player on the perimeter, or you don't. It isn't difficult. It doesn't require experience. It's a decision, nothing more, to deny the open look from three.

These players are being coached, first and foremost, to give help D against inside players. To do that, they have to be in position to help. Which means they have to position themselves halfway between the 3 point line and the foul lane. Teams attack this easily by quickly swinging the ball to the opposite side of the court. The UConn defender is caught in no-man's land and has to rush out (too late) to the three point shooter.

KO is willing to give up the open three, rather than deny it. He doesn't want to get beat inside. The strategy hasn't worked. It can, but only if you have two things, a defensive shot-blocking center who allows the guards/forwards to hedge more towards the 3 point line than the foul lane. Also, would want to have tall, athletic guards and forwards who can recover quickly and have the length to disturb the shot.

UConn has neither the intimidating inside center, nor the lengthy athletic guards to play help D.

Agree with most of this. You are focusing on the execution of the defense with the talent that we have which requires the right personnel and execution however I'm really referring to the Defensive mindset. It takes these young guys today a while to adapt that kind of mindset out of High School and it is easier to do when you have (1) Defensive minded Head Coach (2) Upper class men to learn from. When I refer to youth and inexperience that is what I mean. This is half of it. The other half is the physical gifts to execute including talent. Defense is one of those areas that you have to have the right mind set, you have to want to play it, commit to it, take pride in it. Kids today are not wired that way. It has to be taught and that takes time with you guys.

 

[whaler11]

So don’t point out the team is bad because if they weren’t bad you wouldn’t say they were bad.

Pretty brilliant.

 

[DMIL]

That lack of depth on the perimeter is squarely on KO. He filled 13 scholarships with only 4 guards, with full knowledge that one of those guards has a lengthy history of shoulder issues. So we now play with 3 guards who are likely to be gassed at crunch time.

No disagreement there.

 

[jibsey]

We have one player down, a player who would be a factor but most teams have at least one player out so the fact that we’re no good goes to KO who was supposed to construct a roster that takes that into consideration. You need good players to compete and win and we don’t have enough of them either in the front or back court. Anderson was a bad choice for 4th guard because now he’s third. Our bigs have no offensive skills but they can hold on to the ball.

 

[notthestuff]

I get that you're being supportive of what is, for the most part, a young group of players. That they have a lot of learning to do is the undeniable truth.

But guarding the three point line isn't something that takes time to learn. You either guard your player on the perimeter, or you don't. It isn't difficult. It doesn't require experience. It's a decision, nothing more, to deny the open look from three.

These players are being coached, first and foremost, to give help D against inside players. To do that, they have to be in position to help. Which means they have to position themselves halfway between the 3 point line and the foul lane. Teams attack this easily by quickly swinging the ball to the opposite side of the court. The UConn defender is caught in no-man's land and has to rush out (too late) to the three point shooter.

KO is willing to give up the open three, rather than deny it. He doesn't want to get beat inside. The strategy hasn't worked. It can, but only if you have two things, a defensive shot-blocking center who allows the guards/forwards to hedge more towards the 3 point line than the foul lane. Also, would want to have tall, athletic guards and forwards who can recover quickly and have the length to disturb the shot.

UConn has neither the intimidating inside center, nor the lengthy athletic guards to play help D.

I've lurked here for years but never felt compelled to post but some of the criticism or suggestions on how to fix this mess on this board have grown beyond outlandish even for this place and I'm no Ollie apologist. His rotations are questionable at best and his talent evaluation and overall recruiting strategy has been terrible. You can't tell me Rak Lubin and Sam Cassell Jr. were the best we could get even with sanctions or that we had no inkling or back up plan for Stone and Diallo. He made his bed, but even in fanatical anger at the state of this program to think a guy who won a national title and out coached some of the best coaches in the country on the way and played 13 years in the NBA and 4 years in college for some of the best minds in the history of the game doesn't understand basic defensive and offensive concepts is beyond absurd.

The premise of this post is just fundamentally wrong. The only way to play any defense is with help principles and there is no competent coach in America from youth travel to the NBA who doesn't teach man to man defense with basic help principles. You also don't need either one of a shot blocking big man or long guards to execute. It's actually the exact opposite in terms of a shot blocking big man. You help LESS when you have a shot blocker because you can funnel penetration into your shot blocker who you can camp around the rim so no one else has to help. Your help is more critical when you have less length because smaller players are less likely to be able to stop someone at the rim so you need to stop penetration further out otherwise it's layup lines.

 

[notthestuff]

I'm not saying he and the staff aren't coaching them. I am sure he tells them what JC would have told them. If you don't have a shot blocker under the hoop, you hedge on the 3, and avoid getting beat going to the hole. Now, Calhoun tried to have shotblockers, and I think he did it because it allowed him to tighten the D on the perimeter.

What I'm saying is that with or without a rim protector, let them get by you if you must, but push them out further and stay closer to the 3 point shots. It is the primary thing you need to take away, not the layups or close shots. It's a philosophical change, in the same way you are seeing NFL teams play mostly nickel now. They used to say "take away the run", force them to throw. It's the opposite now against most teams. And sure, you adjust. Against some teams you will need to guard the rim and give up outside shots. But against 80% of them now, the 3 point shot is the main thing you take away if you can. We did a better job in the second half, and they hit some long and contested shots, but we also gave them some easy ones.

So in one post we can't help and in another we should overplay the 3 and allow ourselves to get beat to the rim without a competent shot blocker. I know everyone is emotional because we have given up a lot of threes on the year but, really? Let's play this scenario through. As I'm sure everyone knows, if you multiply your 3pt% by 1.5 you get what you equivalent 2 point shooting percentage is to score the same amount of points. Tulsa shot 42% from three on the game the equivalent of 61% on 2's. If we over play 3's and give up up blow bys and layups because we have no help and no shot blocker what do you think that shooting percentage on 2's at the rim will be? I promise you it won't be less than 90% and that's low balling even a bad D1 team. Bad trade. Even if you over play the perimeter and get blown by with help principles and stop the penetration the argument is counter productive because if you consistently get blown by you are 2 passes or less from giving up a an even more wide open 3 every time. The problem is not scheme. The problem is technique and reaction. Proper close outs are not easy and these players clearly were not taught it younger otherwise Ollie wouldn't waste valuable practice time in the middle of the season teaching division 1 players close out technique. As for the reaction part only experience can fix that, but the lack of this doesn't mean you compensate by abandoning one of the 3 most fundamental principles of defense.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So in one post we can't help and in another we should overplay the 3 and allow ourselves to get beat to the rim without a competent shot blocker. I know everyone is emotional because we have given up a lot of threes on the year but, really? Let's play this scenario through. As I'm sure everyone knows, if you multiply your 3pt% by 1.5 you get what you equivalent 2 point shooting percentage is to score the same amount of points. Tulsa shot 42% from three on the game the equivalent of 61% on 2's. If we over play 3's and give up up blow bys and layups because we have no help and no shot blocker what do you think that shooting percentage on 2's at the rim will be? I promise you it won't be less than 90% and that's low balling even a bad D1 team. Bad trade. Even if you over play the perimeter and get blown by with help principles and stop the penetration the argument is counter productive because if you consistently get blown by you are 2 passes or less from giving up a an even more wide open 3 every time. The problem is not scheme. The problem is technique and reaction. Proper close outs are not easy and these players clearly were not taught it younger otherwise Ollie wouldn't waste valuable practice time in the middle of the season teaching division 1 players close out technique. As for the reaction part only experience can fix that, but the lack of this doesn't mean you compensate by abandoning one of the 3 most fundamental principles of defense.

Nonsense. We have people inside. More often than not the trade (and the one we make on offense) is that the dribble past and then pull up for a shorter jump shot. They'd be lucky to shoot 50% on those. Watch how good teams play now. They do not give up the three.