- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,379
- Reaction Score
- 23,676
Yeah, suspicious. I know what the word means. Inclined to suspect, especially inclined to suspect evil; distrustful, per dictionary.com (which I never use to try to appear smart, btw).
You wouldn't call the UConn basketball program evil...unless you were a fan of another team. Kevin Ollie, specifically, might be evil, because he has the tendency to around during the regular season and then laugh wickedly in your face when he sends you packing in the postseason. Between the conference tournament and the NCAA tournament, Kevin Ollie has ended the season of ten different teams during his tenure as head coach. He is 15-3 in such games, with all three losses coming at the hands of Hall of Famers. Take out 2014, and he's still 7-2, so this can't be attributed entirely to one really good team getting hot.
There are no Hall of Famers in the AAC, yet his record in conference play is 42-28, and his record overall in regular season games is 96-55 (a .600 and .636 winning percentage, respectively, compared to .833 in the postseason).
I created a thread earlier in the season, essentially wondering if Ollie treated the regular season like the preseason, and if a difference in coaching philosophy - instead of simply statistical deviation - is the cause of the chasm in these results. Months later, this feels like more than just a theory, not because it's impossible to imagine a team decimated with injuries limping through the season, but because I've done some research to substantiate my claim. (Here is the original thread, by the way): Food for thought
A week ago, I wrote something, read by like a dozen people, on how UConn's painful loss to Houston may have concealed a discovery that would guide them through the conference tournament and into the NCAA Tournament. If you want to read it, it's still more than pertinent two losses later: How UConn's match-up zone stymied Houston -- And how they can ride it to an NCAA Tournament berth
The gist of it is that UConn's personnel is more conducive to zone than man. Zone prevents opposing coaches from inverting their offense, which maximizes the effectiveness of Brimah. Zone forces opposing guards into isolations on Facey, which plays to his strengths. Zone makes it more difficult for opposing offenses to avoid Purvis in ball screens. The match-up zone does a lot of things that, if played right, can't be overstated. This isn't a gimmick defense that only serves to confuse teams for possessions at a time; it's a structurally sound scheme designed for the college game, where there is no three seconds, that evolves to something menacing when you have the right personnel to do it.
The stats corroborate the idea that UConn's defense is capable of performing at a top ten level in the right alignment. In 28 tracked possessions since the UCF game, UConn has allowed just .54 points per possession. This is only roughly a half worth of basketball, but it puts them on a historic pace. It has worked in situations of every leverage: take this possession, for instance, against Memphis:
A great match-up zone is virtually indistinguishable from a man-to-man, since it's essentially just a switching man. Here, you can see everybody is matched up - the only difference is, Brimah is in the paint, and not out hedging on Lawson's ball screen. (UConn doesn't play this perfectly, in my opinion, but it results in one of Memphis' paltry guards trying to make a play late in the shot clock against a closing Brimah. They fail to get a shot off).
It also answers to every scheme - strong side overloads, blindside picks like you see here, 1-5 ball screens, high-low zone action, etc. - with perimeter players rotating between man and land. When the ball goes to the wing, the low defender pinches up - about half-way between the wing and the corner - and allows the guard time to retreat. When the ball goes to the high post, either the guard or the low man flips up to the post.
It has also worked against every team. Watch how SMU is suffocated on this possession:
UConn is outnumbered by man but not space, an important distinction when taken in the context of a great man-to-man, which is prone to rifts but always ready to sew them with instantaneous recoveries. What this does, essentially, is simplify rotations: when you're spread equidistantly along the three point line, the reads become easy. Instead of scampering across the floor to close out, you're shuffling over a few feet and passing the baton off to the next man. It's not simple, but it can look that way once you get it. And this team has gotten it.
If UConn is so dominant in this alignment, then, why doesn't UConn use it more often? That's the question that continues to perplex me. In the two games since my post about the match-up zone, UConn has played - by my count, which includes watching it live both times and most of the tape - exactly two possessions of match-up zone, with both of those possessions resulting in shot clock violations.
Their reluctance to play it and their success while playing it has grown eery to the point that I am suspicious that they are intentionally concealing something, if only because it would, theoretically, behoove them to unleash the zone in a setting where there is limited prep time. It sounds far-fetched, but also more practical than the alternative, which is, to find something that works and go away from it.
18-3 is the number you should be keeping in mind, though. That, and 0.54 points per possession in 28 possessions, most of them against pretty good offenses. You wonder if opposing coaches have that in mind as well. They've seen UConn barrel into antique shops in March and leave with the loot before the police can arrive before, and it's this type of deception - and courage to conceal things that you know work but don't want to be scouted - that must precede that. I don't know if we see it Sunday, or ever, but I'm intrigued.
You wouldn't call the UConn basketball program evil...unless you were a fan of another team. Kevin Ollie, specifically, might be evil, because he has the tendency to around during the regular season and then laugh wickedly in your face when he sends you packing in the postseason. Between the conference tournament and the NCAA tournament, Kevin Ollie has ended the season of ten different teams during his tenure as head coach. He is 15-3 in such games, with all three losses coming at the hands of Hall of Famers. Take out 2014, and he's still 7-2, so this can't be attributed entirely to one really good team getting hot.
There are no Hall of Famers in the AAC, yet his record in conference play is 42-28, and his record overall in regular season games is 96-55 (a .600 and .636 winning percentage, respectively, compared to .833 in the postseason).
I created a thread earlier in the season, essentially wondering if Ollie treated the regular season like the preseason, and if a difference in coaching philosophy - instead of simply statistical deviation - is the cause of the chasm in these results. Months later, this feels like more than just a theory, not because it's impossible to imagine a team decimated with injuries limping through the season, but because I've done some research to substantiate my claim. (Here is the original thread, by the way): Food for thought
A week ago, I wrote something, read by like a dozen people, on how UConn's painful loss to Houston may have concealed a discovery that would guide them through the conference tournament and into the NCAA Tournament. If you want to read it, it's still more than pertinent two losses later: How UConn's match-up zone stymied Houston -- And how they can ride it to an NCAA Tournament berth
The gist of it is that UConn's personnel is more conducive to zone than man. Zone prevents opposing coaches from inverting their offense, which maximizes the effectiveness of Brimah. Zone forces opposing guards into isolations on Facey, which plays to his strengths. Zone makes it more difficult for opposing offenses to avoid Purvis in ball screens. The match-up zone does a lot of things that, if played right, can't be overstated. This isn't a gimmick defense that only serves to confuse teams for possessions at a time; it's a structurally sound scheme designed for the college game, where there is no three seconds, that evolves to something menacing when you have the right personnel to do it.
The stats corroborate the idea that UConn's defense is capable of performing at a top ten level in the right alignment. In 28 tracked possessions since the UCF game, UConn has allowed just .54 points per possession. This is only roughly a half worth of basketball, but it puts them on a historic pace. It has worked in situations of every leverage: take this possession, for instance, against Memphis:
A great match-up zone is virtually indistinguishable from a man-to-man, since it's essentially just a switching man. Here, you can see everybody is matched up - the only difference is, Brimah is in the paint, and not out hedging on Lawson's ball screen. (UConn doesn't play this perfectly, in my opinion, but it results in one of Memphis' paltry guards trying to make a play late in the shot clock against a closing Brimah. They fail to get a shot off).
It also answers to every scheme - strong side overloads, blindside picks like you see here, 1-5 ball screens, high-low zone action, etc. - with perimeter players rotating between man and land. When the ball goes to the wing, the low defender pinches up - about half-way between the wing and the corner - and allows the guard time to retreat. When the ball goes to the high post, either the guard or the low man flips up to the post.
It has also worked against every team. Watch how SMU is suffocated on this possession:
UConn is outnumbered by man but not space, an important distinction when taken in the context of a great man-to-man, which is prone to rifts but always ready to sew them with instantaneous recoveries. What this does, essentially, is simplify rotations: when you're spread equidistantly along the three point line, the reads become easy. Instead of scampering across the floor to close out, you're shuffling over a few feet and passing the baton off to the next man. It's not simple, but it can look that way once you get it. And this team has gotten it.
If UConn is so dominant in this alignment, then, why doesn't UConn use it more often? That's the question that continues to perplex me. In the two games since my post about the match-up zone, UConn has played - by my count, which includes watching it live both times and most of the tape - exactly two possessions of match-up zone, with both of those possessions resulting in shot clock violations.
Their reluctance to play it and their success while playing it has grown eery to the point that I am suspicious that they are intentionally concealing something, if only because it would, theoretically, behoove them to unleash the zone in a setting where there is limited prep time. It sounds far-fetched, but also more practical than the alternative, which is, to find something that works and go away from it.
18-3 is the number you should be keeping in mind, though. That, and 0.54 points per possession in 28 possessions, most of them against pretty good offenses. You wonder if opposing coaches have that in mind as well. They've seen UConn barrel into antique shops in March and leave with the loot before the police can arrive before, and it's this type of deception - and courage to conceal things that you know work but don't want to be scouted - that must precede that. I don't know if we see it Sunday, or ever, but I'm intrigued.
