Rough night for Hurley | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Rough night for Hurley

Hans Sprungfeld said:
He asked.
Would it hurt you to answer?
I'd also be interested in your answer.
Expand ...

Anyone that has coached any level has had to teach players the difference between bad and good shots. And every coach at every level in basketball has also had to have a similar conversation with the team's leading scorer(s).

Coaching shot selection occurs in the first month of practice of the first year of playing town league basketball in 3rd grade. Some players get more flexibility than others, but that is always a relative assessment. In other words, the star may have a bright green light if the team around him (or her) sucks, but if there are other shot makers around the star, then the star needs to cool it with the crazy shots. And even if there aren't other shot makers, sometimes the star needs to give up the ball, work to get open, and get the ball back. Keep the defense honest.

Vital and Gilbert take insane shots, and neither of them is anywhere close to the best option on the team for shot making. Polley and Bouk are better from outside, and Carlton needs touches in the paint. Vital's 33% from deep is misleading because I suspect he is over 40% when he shoots off the catch, and is probably hitting about 1 out of 6 of his pull up 3 point attempts.

None of this is that hard to figure out, and part of coaching is teaching an offense, and then rewarding those who make plays within the offense, and punishing those that don't. Playing time is the easiest reward system there is.
 
I will add that a lot of "old school" coaches, like Hurley, tend to "let the players play", and are often more tolerant of bad shots. Looking at the extremes, teams like Villanova are heavily influenced by analytics which drives shot selection, while Syracuse has played pickup basketball for my entire lifetime. I am not talking about the offensive construction and movement, but instead about where and when players are told to shoot.

I like Hurley's offensive motion, but he tolerates a lot of bad shots in this offense.
 
BlueDogs said:
Hurley is still learning how to manage big time games. I was underwhelmed watching Rhody in the NCAAs when he put together a solid team. I think I see a strong coach developing players, bringing in talent and motivating them. Not sure he is a Hall of Fame in-game tactician. Got to give him some time to adjust and grow too.
Expand ...

Hurley is really just starting down the path we already completed with JC. In the end, we won a lot -- but Calhoun/we lost a lot of big games along the way.

This has nothing to do with Indiana, obviously, but I think we have to accept that Dan Hurley can't just pick up where JC left off. We're a part of Dan Hurley's journey now, and hopefully it's going great places. But he has to figure out how bright the lights are and how to win big games. To do that, he's likely going to have to lose -- a lot.

A long way of saying -- you have to get Christian Laettnered before you get to the promised land...
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I will add that a lot of "old school" coaches, like Hurley, tend to "let the players play", and are often more tolerant of bad shots. Looking at the extremes, teams like Villanova are heavily influenced by analytics which drives shot selection, while Syracuse has played pickup basketball for my entire lifetime. I am not talking about the offensive construction and movement, but instead about where and when players are told to shoot.

I like Hurley's offensive motion, but he tolerates a lot of bad shots in this offense.
Expand ...

Imo you are exactly the opposite of correct. But the reality could be somewhere in the middle.

Old school coaches pull kids for early 3s and things like that because they want to run the offense.

New school is predicated on shooting any time you are open. That you may get the best shot available in a possession at 5 seconds into the shot clock. So take it. That early shot clock 3 we might consider "bad" is a better shot than we might expect analytically speaking. New school guys believe in that.
 
.-.
husky429 said:
Pretty sure calhoun was 47 when he won the 89 NIT. And 57 for the first natty. Hurley is still learning, just like the players. It will come.
Expand ...

But let's not compare the rosters while saying this. Calhouns 2nd year had baseball and soccer players on the roster to fill in for what should have been schollies.

Still Danny is doing fine, he's young still learning but in a good place as we speak. Players need to step it up for him.
 
husky429 said:
Imo you are exactly the opposite of correct. But the reality could be somewhere in the middle.

Old school coaches pull kids for early 3s and things like that because they want to run the offense.

New school is predicated on shooting any time you are open. That you may get the best shot available in a possession at 5 seconds into the shot clock. So take it. That early shot clock 3 we might consider "bad" is a better shot than we might expect analytically speaking. New school guys believe in that.
Expand ...

There is more to it than that. Moneyball has changed every sport, and I would argue it has changed basketball more than even baseball. Carmelo Anthony would still be a star player in the NBA if it hadn't. Modern coaches, even at the youth level, take a much more statistical driven approach to coaching than coaches used even 10 years ago.

Analytics dictates that all shots should occur at the 3 point line or at the hoop. Mid-range shots are bad, because they are lower percentage but earn the same number of points as a dunk or layup. While there is a little more debate on pull-up jumpers vs. catch-and-shoot, increasingly coaches are pushing players to shoot off the catch rather than the dribble.

I think Hardaway in Memphis takes analytics too far. I have only seen two Memphis games this season, but players were passing up open mid-range shots to take contested 3's.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Anyone that has coached any level has had to teach players the difference between bad and good shots. And every coach at every level in basketball has also had to have a similar conversation with the team's leading scorer(s).

Coaching shot selection occurs in the first month of practice of the first year of playing town league basketball in 3rd grade. Some players get more flexibility than others, but that is always a relative assessment. In other words, the star may have a bright green light if the team around him (or her) sucks, but if there are other shot makers around the star, then the star needs to cool it with the crazy shots. And even if there aren't other shot makers, sometimes the star needs to give up the ball, work to get open, and get the ball back. Keep the defense honest.

Vital and Gilbert take insane shots, and neither of them is anywhere close to the best option on the team for shot making. Polley and Bouk are better from outside, and Carlton needs touches in the paint. Vital's 33% from deep is misleading because I suspect he is over 40% when he shoots off the catch, and is probably hitting about 1 out of 6 of his pull up 3 point attempts.

None of this is that hard to figure out, and part of coaching is teaching an offense, and then rewarding those who make plays within the offense, and punishing those that don't. Playing time is the easiest reward system there is.
Expand ...

Thank you for fleshing out your point of view. It has elevated the subsequent discussion.

"None of this is hard to figure out," however, isn't helpful...whether to a message board audience you'd like to educate, or a coach you'd like to persuade toward your way of seeing things.

And what of those who regard "punishment" as counterproductive, or lesser in value than learning from mistakes and preparing with new awarenesses?

I still see 2019 as getting things ready for 2020. If I'm wrong in being hopeful for the new calendar year, then I'll own it, but also not imagine that it's because Hurley didn't listen to the wide variety of suggestions here.

Somebody's take is going to align with what happens, but I don't think it will be regarded as prescient genius.
 
Hans Sprungfeld said:
Thank you for fleshing out your point of view. It has elevated the subsequent discussion.

"None of this is hard to figure out," however, isn't helpful...whether to a message board audience you'd like to educate, or a coach you'd like to persuade toward your way of seeing things.

And what of those who regard "punishment" as counterproductive, or lesser in value than learning from mistakes and preparing with new awarenesses?

I still see 2019 as getting things ready for 2020. If I'm wrong in being hopeful for the new calendar year, then I'll own it, but also not imagine that it's because Hurley didn't listen to the wide variety of suggestions here.

Somebody's take is going to align with what happens, but I don't think it will be regarded as prescient genius.
Expand ...

When I say "none of this is hard to figure out", I am pointing out that there are statistics for most of what I am saying. Good shot selection is not just an opinion.

I do think there is a role for "old school" approaches with intangibles like confidence, and skills are as or more important than strategy in basketball. That said, the team that takes the most high percentage shots will usually win, particularly if the teams are evenly matched. UConn is taking a lot of low percentage shots, and it is hurting the Huskies in close games.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
When I say "none of this is hard to figure out", I am pointing out that there are statistics for most of what I am saying. Good shot selection is not just an opinion.

I do think there is a role for "old school" approaches with intangibles like confidence, and skills are as or more important than strategy in basketball. That said, the team that takes the most high percentage shots will usually win, particularly if the teams are evenly matched. UConn is taking a lot of low percentage shots, and it is hurting the Huskies in close games.
Expand ...
We are both looking forward to seeing if it improves.
I look forward to more Boneyard posts that strengthen our common bond, emphasize what's good & working, and show continuous improvement where things are sub-optimal.
 
I think there are a couple of things to consider. Hurley is being paid like a big time coach. So he doesn’t get lots of excuses. There are 3 types of coaches out there. Guys who can recruit, guys who know sixes and os but can’t recruit and those rare types who can recruit and coach the heck out of what they get. I think Hurley is a solid recruiter. It remains to be seen if he can coach. So far 2019-20 bears a pretty good resemblance to 2018-19 and that is sort of scary.
 
.-.
I think Hurley's old school ways are hurting Vital. I think Vital is an excellent shooter off the catch, but Vital's long pull up 3's are essentially the first pass of the other team's fastbreak. I like Vital and Gilbert attacking the basket, but they need to be thinking pass instead of shot on those drives. By the time Vital or Gilbert get from 25 feet out to the basket, the help defense is going to be there and they are going to have a very tough finish at the hoop. They need to be dumping off to Carlton or Akok, or kicking out to a spot up shooter on those drives.

The coach's job is to maximize his players' strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That is all any coach can hope to do, but I do not think that is happening right now.
 
BlueDogs said:
That’s one perspective. He didn’t make it out of week one. Got pounded by Duke. I thought the Oregon game got away from him. Be that as it may, not suggesting he’s a bad coach. Suggesting he has some cycles to go through. Took Calhoun many years to reach the pinnacle.
Expand ...
You’re criticizing a guy because he couldn’t get URI to the Sweet 16? You realize that’s insane right?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The coach's job is to maximize his players' strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That is all any coach can hope to do, but I do not think that is happening right now.
Expand ...
It's happening to a majority of the players on the team.
 
I am much more a critic of Coach than most here. That said, I can't blame him for leaning on an experienced Backcourt to lead his team. This team will go where CV and Rique lead them (at least early on).

What I can't understand is his inability to call timeouts at proper times. He doesn't seem to recognize a negative run until he is deep under water. Then again, he will waste a timeout at a non-critical moment for reasons that baffle me. I think all that hype up emotion and the silly antics are a big distraction for him.

He is human so he is entitled to make a mistake here and there. But the inability to develop real-time sense and feel for a game is troubling.
 
HuskyHawk said:
I think he needs to try to play faster whenever we can. IU is deep, so maybe he wanted to avoid it yesterday. But we are a bad half court team. I'm not sure I recall a UConn team since about 2006 that was a good half court offensive team.

The other thing is to take some risks. He came off a game where CV and AG had their best games, Carlton was a beast and Polley was very good. The bench did nothing. Fine, roll with that until it doesn't work. Yesterday, it was clear within moments of AG going out and CV playing PG, that that was not going work. And he left it that way, with no time outs or subs, until our lead was erased and had built a lead. Unacceptable. Play Gaffney. Play Adams. You cannot leave CV in at the point in that situation. I don't care if you don't trust young guards, you have to. You have no choice. On a similar note, Bouk needs to play with the better guys, not the subs all the time.
Expand ...

I thought 2014 was a good half-court team. By good I mean we had Bazz and Boat to bail us out time after time.
 
.-.
Purple Stein said:
Hurley is really just starting down the path we already completed with JC. In the end, we won a lot -- but Calhoun/we lost a lot of big games along the way.

This has nothing to do with Indiana, obviously, but I think we have to accept that Dan Hurley can't just pick up where JC left off. We're a part of Dan Hurley's journey now, and hopefully it's going great places. But he has to figure out how bright the lights are and how to win big games. To do that, he's likely going to have to lose -- a lot.

A long way of saying -- you have to get Christian Laettnered before you get to the promised land...
Expand ...
IIR Calhoun won the NIT in his second season and was an NCAA number 1 seed in year 4. And that was starting with a LOT less history than Uconn has now. I'm not hammering Hurley, but implying it took Calhoun years to be successful is disingenuous.
 
NJHusky said:
IIR Calhoun won the NIT in his second season and was an NCAA number 1 seed in year 4.
Expand ...
What gets forgotten is that year after the NIT title was an absolute turd. They were supposed to compete for an NCAA spot and ended up losing at the Field House in the NIT. It was only when the senior leaders of the previous losing regime left did the program thrive. Hey, wait a minute...
 
I know Jim Calhoun. Jim Calhoun is a friend of mine. Hurley is no Jim Calhoun.

But that is true of 98% of coaches.
 
Waquoit said:
What gets forgotten is that year after the NIT title was an absolute turd. They were supposed to compete for an NCAA spot and ended up losing at the Field House in the NIT. It was only when the senior leaders of the previous losing regime left did the program thrive. Hey, wait a minute...
Expand ...

That 88-89 team had three players that played on NBA rosters. Let's also not forget that both of those teams had a player that scored nearly 20,000 points in the NBA. There is nobody in the same zip code as a player on this team, at least not offensively. Right now there is only potential.
 
The path to success is not going to be a straight line upwards. The mess KO created was huge. The team was nearly unwatchable and noncompetitive. The hole Hurley has dug us out of is impressive. We actually look and play like a competitive top 25- 35 basketball team.

Hurley has to do better in-game and the players need to keep making improvements. Expect frustration and failures (6-3 is the result of at least 2 self inflicted failures).
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
There is more to it than that. Moneyball has changed every sport, and I would argue it has changed basketball more than even baseball. Carmelo Anthony would still be a star player in the NBA if it hadn't. Modern coaches, even at the youth level, take a much more statistical driven approach to coaching than coaches used even 10 years ago.

Analytics dictates that all shots should occur at the 3 point line or at the hoop. Mid-range shots are bad, because they are lower percentage but earn the same number of points as a dunk or layup. While there is a little more debate on pull-up jumpers vs. catch-and-shoot, increasingly coaches are pushing players to shoot off the catch rather than the dribble.

I think Hardaway in Memphis takes analytics too far. I have only seen two Memphis games this season, but players were passing up open mid-range shots to take contested 3's.
Expand ...

There's a lot to digest here.

I don't think anyone is questioning what is a good shot vs. bad shot. The in-game selection of a shot is coaching only to the extent that it, like you say, can be punished by benching/lack of playing time. That requires options for replacement, which were lacking on Wednesday.

It's also interesting to note that the two most common criticism of Gilbert and Vital are over penetrating and taking too many 3's respectively (Gilbert also takes too many mid-range jump shots, but many of those are in late shot clock situations). If analytics determines that the best shots are layups, 3s and free throws (i.e. drawing a foul), in that order, what exactly is the issue here? Again, it's the selection of the shot in the heat of the moment.

Regarding catch and shoot vs. off the dribble, your analysis is out-dated. It's becoming increasingly common for threes to be taken off the dribble. A player that can only catch and shoot is too easy to defend (see Polley, Tyler).
 
Excalibur said:
That 88-89 team had three players that played on NBA rosters. Let's also not forget that both of those teams had a player that scored nearly 20,000 points in the NBA.
Expand ...
With all that talent, why did the season end by getting curb stomped at home by Alan Ogg? Bad coaching?
 
Excalibur said:
That 88-89 team had three players that played on NBA rosters. Let's also not forget that both of those teams had a player that scored nearly 20,000 points in the NBA. There is nobody in the same zip code as a player on this team, at least not offensively. Right now there is only potential.
Expand ...
20,000 points in the nba? I bet that's top 50 all-time. c'mon, tell us who that is. the suspense is killing me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,264
Messages
4,560,440
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom