We need to play an actual front court

[Lefty2one]

The only thing we should care about is that we can play any style of basketball with this roster. We can go bigger with Akok or Whalley at the 4. We can have Martin or Polley play the 4 when matchups call for it. We can go three guards (like our starting lineup last night) or more traditional with something like Cole-Bouk-Jackson.

No opposing team will have an obvious disadvantage to attack or matchup to hunt.

 

[JohnFSilver]

4 shooters with poor spacing inside are easier to defend than 3 shooters with a low post threat and someone running baseline and flashing to the high post.

There are no low post threats in basketball anymore. The function of the 5 in modern offense is to be a screen setter and rim runner. That’s where Hurley is going with this. Whaley is a mobile big who sets screens and dives to the rim.

if you have a terrific inside player, toss it in. But the old post-up is an inefficient play. You have to be really good post up player to get the efficiency numbers up.

basketball has changed. Not a front court game anymore. It is a wing game. Maybe if another Shaq comes around things change.

 

[Lefty2one]

I am confident that the next evolution of analytics is going to be a re-emphasis on offensive rebounding.

I doubt that will happen. NBA teams barely crash the offensive glass anymore because transition defense is far more important/valuable than offensive rebounds. The math/data isn't going to change on that.

Plus more threes lead to longer rebounds and conventional wisdom has changed: before they were seen as easier offensive rebounding opportunities, now the downside is respected that they serve as an outlet pass when the defense secures the rebound. It's not worth the risk/reward.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There are no low post threats in basketball anymore. The function of the 5 in modern offense is to be a screen setter and rim runner. That’s where Hurley is going with this. Whaley is a mobile big who sets screens and dives to the rim.

if you have a terrific inside player, toss it in. But the old post-up is an inefficient play. You have to be really good post up player to get the efficiency numbers up.

basketball has changed. Not a front court game anymore. It is a wing game. Maybe if another Shaq comes around things change.

Villanova/BC shot chart. It looks to me like people are taking shots right at the basket.

You are wrong about the efficiency. Players don't take long 2's anymore (I would argue that 5-10 a game are a good idea, but that is for a different time), but shots at the basket are very efficient.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I doubt that will happen. NBA teams barely crash the offensive glass anymore because transition defense is far more important/valuable than offensive rebounds. The math/data isn't going to change on that.

Plus more threes lead to longer rebounds and conventional wisdom has changed: before they were seen as easier offensive rebounding opportunities, now the downside is respected that they serve as an outlet pass when the defense secures the rebound. It's not worth the risk/reward.

You are mostly right if every shot was an independent variable. They are not. Each possession changes the odds on the next possession as the defense adjusts. Otherwise teams would just take the same "highest percentage" shot every time.

You are correct that longer shots are harder to turn into offensive rebounds. If a team takes better 3's, this becomes less of a problem.

And the emphasis on corner 3's undermines the emphasis on transition defense, because whoever is in that corner is out of the play for transition. The Bucks proved this by inexplicably parking Brook Lopez in the corner against the Heat.

Trading more offensive rebounds for a few more transition opportunities for the opponent is a pretty good trade at levels below the NBA, and probably even works at the NBA level.

 

[Watchdog]

These 4 guard lineups are fine when you want to be the "little engine that could" and pull an upset by taking 30 3's. UConn is going to have to play 2 forwards to win in the Big East. The Big East is big boy basketball, and UConn is going to go -10 on the boards if UConn plays 35 minutes a game with small lineups. UConn will get killed inside, will get killed on the boards, and will continue to have trouble with help defense unless it plays more traditional lineups. It is also easier to defend the perimeter when there is no interior threat.

I don't mind a small lineups as a change of pace, but UConn needs to be playing 20+ minutes of 2 forwards if they want to win in the Big East.

It seems you're getting your shorts in a wad over one game.
One game against a small, mobile, team.
One game being played after only a few practices following a two week shutdown.
One game, in which a number of new, key, players were being integrated into offensive and defensive schemes.
Relax and enjoy the games and the various lineups the coaching staff will use against different types and sizes
of teams and styles of play.

 

[Waquoit]

Way too early for this OP. You can only play who you have in front of you. I still remember last season's absurd pronouncement of "Worst coached game ever". I'm going with Hurley's take.

 

[mauconnfan]

One game vs CCSU with a full bench of talent and we’re having threads like this? Long way to go for the identity of this team. Will it be Nova like and small or will the line up with Whaley Akok and Sanogo on occasion. Let’s see Martin play with Bouk and watch everyone again before we get too worried about how big we are or how small the lineup is. Much to like about last night but if you were at all happy with the defensive end you’re too nice, long way to go there.

 

[UConnSwag11]

Villanova/BC shot chart. It looks to me like people are taking shots right at the basket.

View attachment 61768

You are wrong about the efficiency. Players don't take long 2's anymore (I would argue that 5-10 a game are a good idea, but that is for a different time), but shots at the basket are very efficient.

Nova spaces the floor with all 5 of their players which leaves the basket unguarded.

 

[Kenny11]

We played one overmatched team after we had 2 weeks of no practice. Lineups, playing time for specific players, etc is all going to change. There’s really not much to conclude about anything yet except that uconn is talented and has some very exciting players.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It seems you're getting your shorts in a wad over one game.
One game against a small, mobile, team.
One game being played after only a few practices following a two week shutdown.
One game, in which a number of new, key, players were being integrated into offensive and defensive schemes.
Relax and enjoy the games and the various lineups the coaching staff will use against different types and sizes
of teams and styles of play.

Two things:

1) This thread is basically a criticism of all coaching in the age of analytics. I think coaches are reading the data incorrectly.

2) UConn was playing a bad Central CT team. They should not be dictating anything UConn does.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nova spaces the floor with all 5 of their players which leaves the basket unguarded.

They do not play a lot of 5 out sets. That is also not spacing the floor.

 

[metsfan2323]

Play your best players and make the other team adjust.

The 2014 championship featured Giffey at the 4. Certainly not a traditional front court.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Villanova/BC shot chart. It looks to me like people are taking shots right at the basket.

View attachment 61768

You are wrong about the efficiency. Players don't take long 2's anymore (I would argue that 5-10 a game are a good idea, but that is for a different time), but shots at the basket are very efficient.

Layup is best shot in basketball. Villanova is my point. They get to the rim through driving or a diving 5 man. Or they shoot the 3. Brilliant.

I want a game where we only shoot layups. The mid-range is fine as long as not contested. The issue is a mid-range shot is more contested than a 3-point shot most of the time. If you can get to the front of the rim, do it. Most valuable player in hoops is if you can get to the front of the rim consistently. Check out Kirk Goldsberry‘s book on the nba shooting. Area 12, which is an 8 foot shot out of the post is the least efficient shot in basketball.

 

[zls44]

Jay Wright spent years trying to shoehorn a “Big East big” into his sets, it never quite worked, ditched the idea and Villanova turned into the nation’s preeminent program.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Jay Wright spent years trying to shoehorn a “Big East big” into his sets, it never quite worked, ditched the idea and Villanova turned into the nation’s preeminent program.

Other than the fact the Villanova played 3 forwards most of the time last year, that is a great point.

 

[HuskylnSC]

A lot of "analytics" coaches are phys ed majors that don't understand statistics, or specifically the difference between dependent and independent variables. Watch how Nova plays a 4 out vs. a lot of other teams. They get a lot of touches on post ups and cuts. They don't just swing it around the perimeter hoping someone will be open. The more easy layups Villanova gets, the more open their 3 point shooters are. That is playing analytics basketball.

Also, the more players there are on the perimeter, the easier it is to play help defense and stop penetration. Truly "spacing the court" means players set up or cutting to the paint.

So from this post you're a fan of 4 out lineups. Good call!

 

[Tenspro2002]

Other than the fact the Villanova played 3 forwards most of the time last year, that is a great point.

But they played forwards who could shoot. Calhoun was woefully behind the times when he tried to shoehorn Drummond and Oriakhi into the same lineup. That kind of early-90's basketball is dead. And I say that as someone who grew up watching the Ewing/Oakley/Mason Knicks.

You need 1 rebounder/rim-protector. Let's say you have 3 guards/wings on the floor.

The question basically boils down to: who do you want at the 4? What kind of player gives you the most marginal impact?

A) Another true big who isn't a threat from beyond the foul line
B) Another bigger wing type who can shoot and handle it a little

Ideally, you'd get a Draymond Green type who can defend true bigs, while being a threat from all over the floor. But if you have to choose, A doesn't give you very much -- there's only one rim to protect and one rebound to grab. That kind of guy at the 4 helps the opposing defense much more than your own defense. B is much more of a threat, while not giving up much on defense.

 

[JohnFSilver]

I am a huge believer in the analytics btw. Hurley’s recruiting and style lends itself to really going after that style too. UConn has shooters, slashers and wings. The bigs (outside of Carlton) are athletic and mobile. UConn was so much better last year when akok or Carlton was at the 5, abd not in tandem. I love Polley at the 4.
As far as offensive rebounding. Stats show that stopping transition, especially the 3, is better in long term.

But they played forwards who could shoot. Calhoun was woefully behind the times when he tried to shoehorn Drummond and Oriakhi into the same lineup. That kind of early-90's basketball is dead. And I say that as someone who grew up watching the Ewing/Oakley/Mason Knicks.

You need 1 rebounder/rim-protector. Let's say you have 3 guards/wings on the floor.

The question basically boils down to: who do you want at the 4? What kind of player gives you the most marginal impact?

A) Another true big who isn't a threat from beyond the foul line
B) Another bigger wing type who can shoot and handle it a little

Ideally, you'd get a Draymond Green type who can defend true bigs, while being a threat from all over the floor. But if you have to choose, A doesn't give you very much -- there's only one rim to protect and one rebound to grab. That kind of guy at the 4 helps the opposing defense much more than your own defense. B is much more of a threat, while not giving up much on defense.

This is the choice. Unless your PF is Karl Malone, go with a stretch 4.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Layup is best shot in basketball. Villanova is my point. They get to the rim through driving or a diving 5 man. Or they shoot the 3. Brilliant.

I want a game where we only shoot layups. The mid-range is fine as long as not contested. The issue is a mid-range shot is more contested than a 3-point shot most of the time. If you can get to the front of the rim, do it. Most valuable player in hoops is if you can get to the front of the rim consistently. Check out Kirk Goldsberry‘s book on the nba shooting. Area 12, which is an 8 foot shot out of the post is the least efficient shot in basketball.

Shot charting does not tell the whole story about good and bad shots.

More on offensive rebounding.

The Evolving Tradeoff Between Offensive Rebounding and Transition Defense - Nate Duncan NBA

Over the last few seasons, NBA teams have shifted the personnel manning the power forward and center positions. At this point, few teams employ two traditional bigs who do not shoot three-pointers. Many teams don’t even play one in many of their lineups. Guys like PJ Tucker, Kevin Love, and...

nateduncannba.com

 

[navery12]

But they played forwards who could shoot. Calhoun was woefully behind the times when he tried to shoehorn Drummond and Oriakhi into the same lineup. That kind of early-90's basketball is dead. And I say that as someone who grew up watching the Ewing/Oakley/Mason Knicks.

You need 1 rebounder/rim-protector. Let's say you have 3 guards/wings on the floor.

The question basically boils down to: who do you want at the 4? What kind of player gives you the most marginal impact?

A) Another true big who isn't a threat from beyond the foul line
B) Another bigger wing type who can shoot and handle it a little

Ideally, you'd get a Draymond Green type who can defend true bigs, while being a threat from all over the floor. But if you have to choose, A doesn't give you very much -- there's only one rim to protect and one rebound to grab. That kind of guy at the 4 helps the opposing defense much more than your own defense. B is much more of a threat, while not giving up much on defense.

I think Martin fits the 4 you described pretty well. Obviously not Draymond Green level but I think he can defend 4's and brings a lot on offense that will help stretch the floor

 

[nelsonmuntz]

But they played forwards who could shoot. Calhoun was woefully behind the times when he tried to shoehorn Drummond and Oriakhi into the same lineup. That kind of early-90's basketball is dead. And I say that as someone who grew up watching the Ewing/Oakley/Mason Knicks.

You need 1 rebounder/rim-protector. Let's say you have 3 guards/wings on the floor.

The question basically boils down to: who do you want at the 4? What kind of player gives you the most marginal impact?

A) Another true big who isn't a threat from beyond the foul line
B) Another bigger wing type who can shoot and handle it a little

Ideally, you'd get a Draymond Green type who can defend true bigs, while being a threat from all over the floor. But if you have to choose, A doesn't give you very much -- there's only one rim to protect and one rebound to grab. That kind of guy at the 4 helps the opposing defense much more than your own defense. B is much more of a threat, while not giving up much on defense.

The problem with Ewing's Knicks was not the frontcourt. That team had 3 guards who couldn't shoot. A team isn't going to win a championship with that problem in any decade.

I get that better players should play more than worse players. Very insightful. My point is that a single trait, 3 point shooting percentage, has been prioritized among all others. A fourth 3 point shooter probably reduces a team's overall percentage while costing the team rebounding and defense.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I like having 4 shooters out there. As long as you rebound why go bigger, slower and less skilled?

basketball is an efficiency and 3 pt shooting games these days.

I am watching a mid-major pass the century mark of scoring against one of the bluest of blue blood programs. This mid-major is starting a front court of 6'10, 6'8 and 6'7. Do you mind if I copy and paste your posts into an email and send them to Mark Few to let him know that his offense must suck because he isn't playing 4 guards?

 

[Deuce]

I am watching a mid-major pass the century mark of scoring against one of the bluest of blue blood programs. This mid-major is starting a front court of 6'10, 6'8 and 6'7. Do you mind if I copy and paste your posts into an email and send them to Mark Few to let him know that his offense must suck because he isn't playing 4 guards?

I stopped reading after labeling the #1 team in the country a ‘mid-major’

 

[HuskyHawk]

Basketball isn’t static. We all know that 4 out one in, 3 point or layup is what the analytics have said is the way to play for several years. But we’ve seen the Lakers showtime, the Bulls triangle, Isolation, all sorts of trends.

What we just saw in the NBA was that the team with the best center won. Yes they also had the best player. But Miami won vs Boston because Boston had no answer for Bam inside. Then I watched the NBA draft and saw lots of big men going early. The reality is that any small ball team is very vulnerable to a team with skilled bigs who can score and protect the rim. It turns that layup or 3 offense into a 3 pointer or bust offense.

I have a hunch we are about to see the return of the center in basketball. I honestly think Dan knows this. Maybe you guys think it’s a coincidence that this year’s class has 2 centers and our #1 priority next year is another 7’ center. And the 2021 class has a 6’10 PF.

 

[JohnFSilver]

I am watching a mid-major pass the century mark of scoring against one of the bluest of blue blood programs. This mid-major is starting a front court of 6'10, 6'8 and 6'7. Do you mind if I copy and paste your posts into an email and send them to Mark Few to let him know that his offense must suck because he isn't playing 4 guards?

Sure. email away.

It isn’t 4 guards, it is 4 perimeter players that I like. I like versatile players.

He plays the exact style I would want. His 6-8 and 6-7 guys have perimeter skills. I would mention that Few and I have the same number of national titles, but that’s not fair. He’s a really good coach.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Shot charting does not tell the whole story about good and bad shots.

More on offensive rebounding.

The Evolving Tradeoff Between Offensive Rebounding and Transition Defense - Nate Duncan NBA

Over the last few seasons, NBA teams have shifted the personnel manning the power forward and center positions. At this point, few teams employ two traditional bigs who do not shoot three-pointers. Many teams don’t even play one in many of their lineups. Guys like PJ Tucker, Kevin Love, and...

nateduncannba.com

I will give this a read later after the food coma. I am open to changing my view.

 

[the Q]

Someone tell Villanova.

Nova’s starting 4 their last 2 titles were paschall and Jenkins.

Those dudes were tanks. Shorter yet stocky 4s who could shoot it a bit.

Not guards

 

[Huskyforlife]

Just for the cherry on top, Nova starts Caleb Daniels at SF, who's 6'4. Samuel's and JRE, who're 6'7 and 6'9. I think I'd have the right to insult Nelson at this point.

 

[superjohn]

Nova’s starting 4 their last 2 titles were paschall and Jenkins.

Those dudes were tanks. Shorter yet stocky 4s who could shoot it a bit.

Not guards

Kris Jenkins was a 6'5 stocky shooter who averaged 3 rebounds per game.
The biggest rotation player for Nova the past 3 years is 6-8/6'9.