In my opinion, there are 4 things that contribute to winning close games:
1) Scheme success against set/locked in defense (and vice versa for defense against opponent offense).
2) Individual skill sets.
3) Composure
4) Luck
1) It's been widely discussed this season that conference teams "figured out" a lot of our sets that were successful in the first third of the season. Hurley (and Karaban on the CT Scoreboard pod) indicated he was working on the team playing with more freedom and flow. To put it another way (and use a big simplification), most of the game we use set plays to generate open or practiced looks from our best players. Other teams that run more ball screen-heavy offenses attempt to generate man on man advantages (either space, numbers advantage, or mismatches) and then capitalize. One is not inherently better than the other, execution is usually the most important thing (and sometimes defensive scheme matchup). Against unprepared or unfamiliar teams, we can really snowball games by just getting open look after open look, sprinkling in counters to keep piling on. We do run some spread ball screen looks, too, especially with Clingan in the game, but it's not usually a focal point of the offense. However in clutch situations, opponent defenses are much more focused in general and by the end of games they've seen most of our sets a few times and have adjusted to any wrinkles and counters we added to them in that game's prep. It's sometimes harder for us to score at the end of games than teams that are more PnR or 1v1 oriented, because it is much harder to completely shut those plays down without the right defensive personnel, and teams can generally find some mismatch. Shutting us down requires better coaching and focus, not necessarily better personnel.
On defense, the only aspect of our philosophy that really gives us trouble in close games is fouling too frequently. We tend to be offering the bonus often, which instead of forcing our opponent to attack the same late game set defense I've just said we've struggled against, the opponent gets to go to the line for a highly efficient scoring chance. We have the athletic personnel to generate a lot of fouls ourselves, but a combination of our offense generating actually open plays (so no one is in position to even contest/foul) and in conjunction a predisposition towards finesse and skill instead of physicality leads to drawing less fouls than you'd expect.
Occasionally actual timeout Xs and Os and ATO plays make an impact, but they're not generally that big a deal. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Obviously the Villanova game last year it was huge. But most close games come down to less structured plays and more normal flowing offense vs. defense.
2) And that brings us to individual skill sets. A lot of offensive scheme design is about the fit of players and systems. You want to recruit and develop players to fit your system, and also tailor your system to specific player strengths (or cover up weaknesses). We run a LOT more off ball screen action this year for Jordan Hawkins, because he's a screen shooting savant. We ran a little for Tyler Polley previously, but nowhere near to this extent. We run a lot more plays designed to get Adama a free release or deep position in the post than we did when we had Whaley as starting center in 2020. Very good coaches are either really good at tailoring and modifying their systems, or really good at developing and identifying the right players. The greats do both at a high level.
But individual talents do matter for winning close games. One of the reasons we run less PnR and more sets is due to our personnel. We don't have elite dribble penetration or many 1v1 scoring threats. Hawkins and Jackson have weak handles relative to the other aspects of their game and subpar finishing abilities. Newton can do it at times. He's got the size and skill to finish in the paint, but he's more shifty than quick or explosive. He doesn't generate a ton of advantage and relies on savvy to draw fouls. But an opponent fouling is a two way street, and they have to participate. Teams like Creighton, Xavier, and Villanova don't bail you out by fouling (they're drilled explicitly not to foul as much as possible). Diarra is quicker and has an easier time getting to the rim, but he lacks the skill to finish under duress and the control/IQ to navigate the teeth of the defense. Adama is a great 1v1 player, but his type of offense is generally inefficient outside of truly elite play (or a favorable matchup) and requires setup, which can be disrupted (Kalkbrenner knocking away the pass with 1:30 left last game) or out-muscled (Soriano in the St. John's game).
To perhaps have saved a full 2 paragraphs, we have no one that can reliably create their own shot against a set defense who is prepared for our sets. It's one thing to play more freely, it's another to have elite talent who can generate advantages and then capitalize. It's unclear if staff thought Newton would be that guy and missed on the evaluation or if they just thought he fit the overall scheme very well (including having more beneficial size on defense).
3) Composure comes through in a lot of ways. People put this on the coach's personality a lot, and I'm sure there is some validity to that, because humans are social creatures and do pick up the emotions of others, especially leaders. But I think it's a lot more about experience and individual personality (mental skill set, if you will) and leadership ON the court. Foul shooting is the most obvious example of composure, but it's often about decision making, and specifically the speed at which you make those decisions. Not so fast that you're rushing things, and not so slow that you're getting trapped or missing opportunities. It's also things like keeping your shooting form consistent despite anxiety. Diarra is a killer, but he just doesn't have the bag to capitalize. Alleyne appears to have zero composure. He never moves smoothly even when he's playing confident and the stakes are low, which is why he's such a streaky shooter. Jackson's composure has taken a hit alongside his confidence. Newton has decent composure, but he needs more talent (handling, explosiveness) to really use it.
4) Luck is extremely important in close games. I'm not talking about KenPom's luck, but actual luck. There's just no way around it and we should not minimize its impact. Northwestern hits all their shots down the stretch and they beat Purdue. Hawkins' toe is on the line, so we lose. The ball bounces straight down right to a guy we had essentially forced under the basket in the Seton Hall game and he gets the rebound and we lose The better you play, the less susceptible you are to shooting variance and ball bounce luck. You make your own luck... to an extent. This is why for most teams and coaches, close game results even out over time, as personnel changes out and waxes and wanes in experience.
You're not going to have a record as poor as Dan's in close games without being deficient in a couple different areas. And as a basketball coach, you're not specifically optimizing for winning close games, but for best results overall. Ed Cooley has won a huge % of close games, but still only has 3 NCAA tournament wins in 17 years. Dan and Ed have the exact same career winning percentage (.604). But it's certainly a reasonable argument that maybe optimizing for close games should be a larger consideration to roster building and scheme strategy than simply just considered game to game tactics. Fouling less frequently on defense is the first thing I'd address, alongside prioritizing 1v1 creation when team building. Hopefully that's an area that the staff has already prioritized, and that Castle and Ball improve our team and close game record over the next couple of years. But Castle is likely one and done, and may not necessarily have the composure and skill yet to make a difference as a freshman.
