Sanogo and Clingan

[nelsonmuntz]

No, I'm not saying that basketball as played today is the apex, please don't make up quotes for me. Thanks for the snark though.

And while I appreciate that you think you're better at understanding math and statistics than most NCAA coaches (I noticed you dropped the NBA claim at least), I'm willing to bet that almost everyone has someone on staff or consulted with someone who does understand it better than you. Hot hand strawman aside, you're not right here. The statistics don't back emphasizing centers on offense/shooting more 2's.

PAHusky - Basketball is not played today at its apex.
Also PAHusky - there is no way that these coaches are wrong because they are the smartest (and by extension basketball must be getting played at its apex).

I will bring the NBA into this. Look at the Knicks and Rockets from the 90's. The Knicks had a backcourt of athletic guards (Starks, Anthony, Rivers) that could occasionally shoot. The Rockets had a slow, weak defensive guard in Kenny Smith, a young project in Sam Cassell, and a lunatic in Vernon Maxwell. All 3 of them could shoot from outside. Which team was more successful? Pat Riley is one of the smartest and most successful coaches in NBA history, and he had assembled a team that had no chance of winning a championship despite having a great center and good frontcourt, and penetrators who played a style popular at the time. Rudy Tomjanovich and Houston assembled a team of oddballs that perfectly complemented Olajuwon, and they won two titles. Riley didn't understand the math, and Tomjanovich did, at least on some level, in the pre-analytics era.

I promise you that, in the 90's, at bars and dinner tables all over the New York metro area, nerds like me were pointing out that the Knicks roster did not make a lot of sense, and people like you were saying "are you saying that you are smarter than Pat Riley?" Basketball was changing, and Riley missed it while coaches like Tomjanovich and Popovich were building champions.

I am not the only person that thinks there is a way to incorporate bigs into an analytics offense. Sean Miller and Doug McDermott play a style that I think a lot of college teams will play 5 years from now. Are you saying that you are smarter about basketball than Sean Miller and Doug McDermott?

 

[jibsey]

On Clingan, imagine if he added a pump fake to his repertoire or a 10' jump shot? I would get him the ball 80% of the time, he passes out great, and those end up being better 3s. He's a monster waiting to be unleashed. please Dan!

 

[PAHusky]

PAHusky - Basketball is not played today at its apex.
Also PAHusky - there is no way that these coaches are wrong because they are the smartest (and by extension basketball must be getting played at its apex).

I will bring the NBA into this. Look at the Knicks and Rockets from the 90's. The Knicks had a backcourt of athletic guards (Starks, Anthony, Rivers) that could occasionally shoot. The Rockets had a slow, weak defensive guard in Kenny Smith, a young project in Sam Cassell, and a lunatic in Vernon Maxwell. All 3 of them could shoot from outside. Which team was more successful? Pat Riley is one of the smartest and most successful coaches in NBA history, and he had assembled a team that had no chance of winning a championship despite having a great center and good frontcourt, and penetrators who played a style popular at the time. Rudy Tomjanovich and Houston assembled a team of oddballs that perfectly complemented Olajuwon, and they won two titles. Riley didn't understand the math, and Tomjanovich did, at least on some level, in the pre-analytics era.

I promise you that, in the 90's, at bars and dinner tables all over the New York metro area, nerds like me were pointing out that the Knicks roster did not make a lot of sense, and people like you were saying "are you saying that you are smarter than Pat Riley?" Basketball was changing, and Riley missed it while coaches like Tomjanovich and Popovich were building champions.

I am not the only person that thinks there is a way to incorporate bigs into an analytics offense. Sean Miller and Doug McDermott play a style that I think a lot of college teams will play 5 years from now. Are you saying that you are smarter about basketball than Sean Miller and Doug McDermott?

Couple of things here Nelson.

First, I never said either of those two things you've attributed to me. Please stop making up strawman arguments and putting my name to them, it's really not appreciated.

I do not think I know more about basketball than Sean Miller, Doug McD or a whole host of other people. I do know, however, that brighter minds than my own, right now, do not believe that the most effective offense is run with two centers shooting 2's over an offense that emphasizes more 3's. Apparently most of the modern NBA, international and college basketball teams agree with that thought.

Do I think there is room in this scenario for zigging while everyone zags and running two centers out sometimes? Sure, just as in the modern NFL that emphasizes passing an offense focused on running the ball can be effective by taking a contrarian position. But to keep arguing that you know better than the modern consensus, and citing your bar convos in the city in the 90s as proof, is a little much.

I don't disagree that things may change down the road, but that's not the convo we're having now. You keep saying you know better than everyone else, but your proof just isn't there.

 

[Max47]

I enjoy the "entertainment" here.

With respect to the "Clingan + Sanogo" discussion/debate I think today's Hartford current article

"Dan Hurley wants to get Clingan’s minutes up after UConn men were out-toughed in loss to Providence; notes from Huskies’ second straight loss "

Pretty much says it all with respect to early in Hurly's basketball coaching DEVELOPMENT acumen.

"Hurley employed the two bigs in short stints on multiple occasions against Providence, but later said they hadn’t practiced it and that at times the alignments were “not pleasing to the eye.”"

I admit I'm not a basketball coach but if I knew that I was going to have a 7'2" top 50 class of 2002 High school prospect I would have been designing practices and plans the day after his signing.

Clingan is raw. From a developmental perspective you can run practices until hell freezes over but there's absolutely no substitute for the stress and pressure of playing in high-level games.

Sanogo is one dimensional. He's neither 5 or 4 at least right now. He just a big man (bull) who can spend forever in the paint, dink and dive and has a pretty good's 5 foot shot.

Trying to throw them together without any kind of preparation is coaching moronic.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

hey! mr '5 and 15!'
u've conveniently forgotten to mention the Glide. u know,
He was inducted twice into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, in 2004 for his individual career and in 2010 as a member of the "Dream Team". Drexler is widely considered one of the greatest basketball players and greatest shooting guards of all time. wiki.
and who are 'the nix?'
seems to me, no one living outside the box formed by the Hudson and East rivers has ever heard of them. not much in the record book, either.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

On Clingan, imagine if he added a pump fake to his repertoire or a 10' jump shot? I would get him the ball 80% of the time, he passes out great, and those end up being better 3s. He's a monster waiting to be unleashed. please Dan!

If Clingan showed an effective midrange game, I would have far less issue with the two big lineup.

 

[jibsey]

If Clingan showed an effective midrange game, I would have far less issue with the two big lineup.

According to many he has but has not been allowed to unveil it. If he could make 50% of 10-12 footers it's acceptable. He still will get plenty of short stuff. We have down low and 3 shooters but no midrange or drive guys. Teams giving us trouble are driving and getting to line. What to do?

 

[WhereistheDove?]

According to many he has but has not been allowed to unveil it. If he could make 50% of 10-12 footers it's acceptable. He still will get plenty of short stuff. We have down low and 3 shooters but no midrange or drive guys. Teams giving us trouble are driving and getting to line. What to do?

He’s had a few opportunities at the top of the key and has looked very awkward and uncomfortable. I think that will be an effective part of his game eventually but I don’t expect it this year. Opposing coaches are giving him that shot consistently.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Couple of things here Nelson.

First, I never said either of those two things you've attributed to me. Please stop making up strawman arguments and putting my name to them, it's really not appreciated.

I do not think I know more about basketball than Sean Miller, Doug McD or a whole host of other people. I do know, however, that brighter minds than my own, right now, do not believe that the most effective offense is run with two centers shooting 2's over an offense that emphasizes more 3's. Apparently most of the modern NBA, international and college basketball teams agree with that thought.

Do I think there is room in this scenario for zigging while everyone zags and running two centers out sometimes? Sure, just as in the modern NFL that emphasizes passing an offense focused on running the ball can be effective by taking a contrarian position. But to keep arguing that you know better than the modern consensus, and citing your bar convos in the city in the 90s as proof, is a little much.

I don't disagree that things may change down the road, but that's not the convo we're having now. You keep saying you know better than everyone else, but your proof just isn't there.

You, like many, do not understand conditional probability. It doesn’t need to go much deeper than that with you.

For everyone else:

All 3 pointers are not created equal statistically, but to many coaches, they are the same shot. For example, a pull up 3 off 2 dribbles or more is probably 5 to 10 points less likely to go in than a catch and shoot 3. That is the case for most above average college 3 point shooters. Vital and Cole were perfect examples of this. They were much more accurate off the catch than off the dribble. Most offenses do not differentiate. Jay Wright did, and had Villanova shoot a lot off the catch, but you apparently know better than Jay Wright.

Proximity of defender is another key factor. A 5 out offense actually makes it easier for defenses to rotate to shooters because the gap between shooters is smaller if there are 5 shooters on the perimeter. More 3 point shooters on the perimeter actually leads to lower quality 3 point shots.

4 and 5 out defenses typically result in 1 or 2 offensive players in the corner. Those players are not available for rebounds and they are as far away from defending their own basket as they can possibly be. A lot of college offenses generate corner 3's, but the Conditional Probability analysis should be what happens to the other team's offensive possession after a missed corner 3. I suspect their PPP is pretty high after a missed 3.

4 and 5 out offenses are designed to create penetration by pulling defenders away from the basket, but playing a simple stretch zone or a man-gap defense can make penetration very difficult, resulting in traps, turnovers and long contested 2's. I actually don't understand why teams still play deny man-to-man because they are open to back doors and the shot clock is more effective at preventing passes than any off-the-ball defender would be. Erik Spoelstra took a mediocre Miami Heat team to the NBA Championship in 2020 by beating very strong Bucks and Celtics teams with a simple stretch 2-3 zone designed to stop 4 and 5 out defenses.

That is just part of the Conditional Probability analysis that needs to be done on standard offenses before a message board "expert" like you can assert that more 3's are better. I don't have time to address the conditional probability analysis needed for 2 pointers right now.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

He’s had a few opportunities at the top of the key and has looked very awkward and uncomfortable. I think that will be an effective part of his game eventually but I don’t expect it this year. Opposing coaches are giving him that shot consistently.

They aren't, and look at his shot charts.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

They aren't, and look at his shot charts.

What is this to be showing me about his ability at the top of the key or the coaches not giving him those shots?

 

[MuchoDogYears]

He had good position most of the night but the guards weren't feeding him- 2 of his buckets were defensive breakdowns. I think he needs more touches - granted Providence collapsed especially on Sanogo

When Clingan is in, I'd sit Newton and play Joey at PG. With the ball in his hands, he has the ability to hit the three, or drive the lane for a jumper, or pass inside to Clingan. Only guard on the team who's demonstrated that he can be a triple threat. That said, he's been way off his game since Georgetown.

None of the four transfers are contributing at this point. One or two need to elevate their game for this team to dominate again. Can't have only the 5 and 4 positions scoring. Need the guards to hit open jumpers to stop the D collapsing inside against Sanogo and Clingan.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Yes, 2 fouls early - can’t sit him for that long

Yeah but it's also necessary to point out that while AJ's first foul was a ticky-tak call, the second was a completely ridiculous error in judgment on his part. He went through (I believe it was Hopkins) with both hands, for a loose ball in a move that would only have been legal in a rugby scrum. His energy is important but there are times when he needs to tone down his aggression.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

View attachment 82722
What is this to be showing me about his ability at the top of the key or the coaches not giving him those shots?

I thought you were talking about Sanogo.

 

[REB1094]

On Clingan, imagine if he added a pump fake to his repertoire or a 10' jump shot? I would get him the ball 80% of the time, he passes out great, and those end up being better 3s. He's a monster waiting to be unleashed. please Dan!

Sophomore Clingan is going to be an animal. I have a feeling he’s going to add a post hook and a midrange jumper. At 7’2 that pretty much makes him unguardable without committing 2 defenders

 

[jibsey]

Sophomore Clingan is going to be an animal. I have a feeling he’s going to add a post hook and a midrange jumper. At 7’2 that pretty much makes him unguardable without committing 2 defenders

Agreed, plus Clingan passing out of the box for catch and shoot 3’s as someone pointed out will convert more of them. Makes sense all around. He has been a gym rat his entire life at first schooled by his mom, kid is on a mission. More Clingan is no knock on Sanogo, put them both out there and see what happens with Jackson, Newton and Hawkins. When one comes out then in goes Karaban.

 

[superjohn]

View attachment 82722
What is this to be showing me about his ability at the top of the key or the coaches not giving him those shots?

It shows you that dunks are the best shot in basketball by far. I'm not expecting foul line jumpers or threes but I doubt we've seen Clingan's full bag yet. He's gotten so few minutes and when he comes in he shoots like 80% because he dunks. I really wish Sanogo was a plus passer instead of a below average passer.

 

[PAHusky]

You, like many, do not understand conditional probability. It doesn’t need to go much deeper than that with you.

For everyone else:

All 3 pointers are not created equal statistically, but to many coaches, they are the same shot. For example, a pull up 3 off 2 dribbles or more is probably 5 to 10 points less likely to go in than a catch and shoot 3. That is the case for most above average college 3 point shooters. Vital and Cole were perfect examples of this. They were much more accurate off the catch than off the dribble. Most offenses do not differentiate. Jay Wright did, and had Villanova shoot a lot off the catch, but you apparently know better than Jay Wright.

Proximity of defender is another key factor. A 5 out offense actually makes it easier for defenses to rotate to shooters because the gap between shooters is smaller if there are 5 shooters on the perimeter. More 3 point shooters on the perimeter actually leads to lower quality 3 point shots.

4 and 5 out defenses typically result in 1 or 2 offensive players in the corner. Those players are not available for rebounds and they are as far away from defending their own basket as they can possibly be. A lot of college offenses generate corner 3's, but the Conditional Probability analysis should be what happens to the other team's offensive possession after a missed corner 3. I suspect their PPP is pretty high after a missed 3.

4 and 5 out offenses are designed to create penetration by pulling defenders away from the basket, but playing a simple stretch zone or a man-gap defense can make penetration very difficult, resulting in traps, turnovers and long contested 2's. I actually don't understand why teams still play deny man-to-man because they are open to back doors and the shot clock is more effective at preventing passes than any off-the-ball defender would be. Erik Spoelstra took a mediocre Miami Heat team to the NBA Championship in 2020 by beating very strong Bucks and Celtics teams with a simple stretch 2-3 zone designed to stop 4 and 5 out defenses.

That is just part of the Conditional Probability analysis that needs to be done on standard offenses before a message board "expert" like you can assert that more 3's are better. I don't have time to address the conditional probability analysis needed for 2 pointers right now.

Nelson classy as always. Solid amount of “technical” analysis with just enough buzzwords to resemble some sort of coherent thought. None of what you laid out at all refutes the fact that generally it’s better to have a lineup that emphasizes the 3 than playing two bigs and taking more twos. It’s that simple. You can make point out drawbacks to shooting threes and nothing else but you have nothing to back up your original outrageous statement.

It’s been great speaking. I’ll have to settle for agreeing with actual facts proven time and again in actual games.

 

[dennismenace]

I enjoy the "entertainment" here.

With respect to the "Clingan + Sanogo" discussion/debate I think today's Hartford current article

"Dan Hurley wants to get Clingan’s minutes up after UConn men were out-toughed in loss to Providence; notes from Huskies’ second straight loss "

Pretty much says it all with respect to early in Hurly's basketball coaching DEVELOPMENT acumen.

"Hurley employed the two bigs in short stints on multiple occasions against Providence, but later said they hadn’t practiced it and that at times the alignments were “not pleasing to the eye.”"

I admit I'm not a basketball coach but if I knew that I was going to have a 7'2" top 50 class of 2002 High school prospect I would have been designing practices and plans the day after his signing.

Clingan is raw. From a developmental perspective you can run practices until hell freezes over but there's absolutely no substitute for the stress and pressure of playing in high-level games.

Sanogo is one dimensional. He's neither 5 or 4 at least right now. He just a big man (bull) who can spend forever in the paint, dink and dive and has a pretty good's 5 foot shot.

Trying to throw them together without any kind of preparation is coaching moronic.

"Hurley employed the two bigs in short stints on multiple occasions against Providence, but later said they hadn’t practiced it and that at times the alignments were “not pleasing to the eye.”"

---

It is hard to believe this but had he been following the Boneyard he would have at least considered it an option. Not practicing it means his mind was closed to this even though opposition coaches have been exploiting it repeatedly. Limiting options to 3 pointers only has put additional pressure on three point shooters while a potentially great prospect of a big man is languishing on the bench.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

I have mixed feelings. I like it in theory, but in reality I don’t like sanogo just hanging out at the three point line on offense or having to guard a nimble stretch four like he has had to.

What’s wrong with getting every rebound on the defensive end and our opponents getting maybe one or two on our end? Ever hear of the hi-low? Or an ally oop? Would you rather have Bryce Hopkins hit three’s instead of Sanogo?

 

[MuchoDogYears]

Sophomore Clingan is going to be an animal. I have a feeling he’s going to add a post hook and a midrange jumper. At 7’2 that pretty much makes him unguardable without committing 2 defenders

In high school Clingan scored in ways other than putbacks, layups, and dunks.

He has a solid jumper out to the three point line. Good form.

UConn doesn’t need him to do anything but post up this year. But next year, if Sanogo is gone, look for Clingan to show a much more diversified offensive game.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

In high school Clingan scored in ways other than putbacks, layups, and dunks.

He has a solid jumper out to the three point line. Good form.

UConn doesn’t need him to do anything but post up this year. But next year, if Sanogo is gone, look for Clingan to show a much more diversified offensive game.

With the class Hurley has coming in and with Johnson’s injury being a memory and with Clingan being a seasoned veteran, plus the possibility of Sanogo staying another year, UConn can win despite refs that hate Hurley.