Wtf is Ollie's half court offense philosophy?

[gmc1055]

I'm not new here I just don't post much so please be gentile. Here is my take on UCONNs offense. The 2014 team was a beautiful thing to watch. All the player were always moving. They were never in the same spot more than 2 to 3 seconds. Giffey would be in the let corner then the right then he would be at the top of the key for 3. The last two teams take too much time to get into their offense and don't seem to be moving. (How many times have we seen a fast break off a made basket (not that any of our guards could hit a layup). They walk the ball up take too much time dribbling the ball then all the sudden decide its time to speed up try and attack the lane either get caught in no mans land and lose the ball or pass it out with not enough time to take a shot. Shot clock violation. Under JC teams played the zone against UCONN. By the end of the season and into the tournament they knew how to beat it. This year, they look as lost today as game one. Nobody plays man on us. We had Kemba and Shabazz they could break the zone by themselves (inside or outside). The good news is I think have that player in Jalen. Kemba his first year he was moving too fast and a bit out of control and we know what we got two years later. Jalen is the only true point guard on this team. That's my take and I'm sure its nothing new to all you Boneyard Professional.

 

[gmc1055]

In answer to his half court philosophy I haven't found one. It turns into a lot of one on one play and panic.

 

[Rico444]

LOL, AB will never be an NBA no matter who coaches him.

Hilton Armstrong ring a bell? If Amida had developed the way he should've, he'd be better offensively and as a rebounder than he his now; he'd absolutely be an asset to an NBA team. I'm not talking about a lottery pick, but look how far Emeka and Thabeet came under Calhoun (I'm not saying Brimah is as talented as those two, so please don't misconstrue what I'm saying).

 

[Jerry1714]

But that "average division 1 team" is relative as well for each team since it will be based on their schedule. In other words would Stony Brook be that high if it played Syracuse's "average division 1 team"? I looked up the calculation and it's a good metric for the team to track it's own performance throughout the year but to take this number and stack it up against another team in some sort of ranking does not seem appropriate to me.

As for the team, they are good defensively around the 15ft to 20 ft perimeter. Interior defense not so much. Defense behind the arc is poor. The frustrating thing is they have games where they can show lock down defense on their weak spots. They just don't do it consistently enough.

No, it is the average division 1 offense, it is not relative. Every team is compared to the same exact "team." It is a set number it is not UConn's average opponent.

This stat is used by every analyst for a reason, because it is accurate and the best way to judge a team's offense or defense. The selection committee is also using Kenpom now as well.

 

[TheRogers]

No, it is the average division 1 offense, it is not relative. Every team is compared to the same exact "team." It is a set number it is not UConn's average opponent.

This stat is used by every analyst for a reason, because it is accurate and the best way to judge a team's offense or defense. The selection committee is also using Kenpom now as well.

It is relative. All the data used is tallied from the teams box score as I would expect. My contentions with this metric are a) it's stacked up against other teams whose level of competition directly affects the results yet at the same time can vary from team to team. b) the dilution from stats coming from the cupcake games. I understand though its inclusion stemming from ease of calculation and higher
sample size.

 

[Jerry1714]

It is relative. All the data used is tallied from the teams box score as I would expect. My contentions with this metric are a) it's stacked up against other teams whose level of competition directly affects the results yet at the same time can vary from team to team. b) the dilution from stats coming from the cupcake games. I understand though its inclusion stemming from ease of calculation and higher
sample size.

I disagree but if you can find me any metric which supports your point that UConn is not a very good defensive team then I would certainly love to see it.

 

[johnhuskies95]

It is relative. All the data used is tallied from the teams box score as I would expect. My contentions with this metric are a) it's stacked up against other teams whose level of competition directly affects the results yet at the same time can vary from team to team. b) the dilution from stats coming from the cupcake games. I understand though its inclusion stemming from ease of calculation and higher
sample size.

What I love about the internet is that it leads to people who admittedly know very little about a given topic talking as if they are experts. Pomeroy's methodology isn't perfect, but I can assure you it accounts for level of competition.

 

[TheRogers]

I disagree but if you can find me any metric which supports your point that UConn is not a very good defensive team then I would certainly love to see it.

My observations were all from watching every game. It wasn't from any metric. You mentioned this metric so for the sake of discussion I looked it up and merely shared what I thought.

I still maintain interior and behind the arc, defense is suspect. More so behind the arc. When AB is not in foul trouble interior defense gets better. They are good in the mid range area. It's one thing I tend to focus on. Just because the other team misses a shot, if the shot was uncontested or mildly contested that counts as bad defense in my book. It's hard to get a metric on that.

 

[TheRogers]

What I love about the internet is that it leads to people who admittedly know very little about a given topic talking as if they are experts. Pomeroy's methodology isn't perfect, but I can assure you it accounts for level of competition.

Did not say I was an expert. In fact that efficiency metric was the first time when I saw the calculation. Just giving my take on it.

 

[willie99]

Half court philosophy? that's easy

give the ball to Russell Westbrook and let him pound the floor until there's only a few seconds left on the shot clock, he then takes it to the hole and either scores over a bunch of giants or dishes it to KD who actually catches the pass and finishes the play. Either that, or let KD pound the ball and take it to the hole.

Of all of KO's mentors, it appears Scottie Brooks may have had the most influence

 

[Greathusky]

I wish there was more a high-low game where the guard penetrates and throws it back out. Or the high post would do that from the foul line area.

Too much circling the wagons around till time runs out!

 

[Stinger92860]

We certainly need more structure than we have now. In 2014 we had Bazz to bail us out. We don't have anyone who can do that now. The ability to hit one or two desperation shots would dramatically change our record.

What has surprised me recently is our defensive struggles. Not getting back on D, the poor rotations, which I thought was fixed. This team appears to lack discipline and testiculos.

 

[tzznandrew]

We know what his halfcourt philosophy is. We see players doing a bit of a circle offense coming from underneath from weak to ball side and catching the ball. They're supposed to shoot or drive there. And we know he likes to run pick and roll/pop at the top of the key with spacing from shooters.

The problem is this team doesn't have the decisiveness from DHam, the ability to finish at the rim from Gibbs/Purvis/DHam, the ability to be creative coming off the screen (Gibbs) or shoot (Adams). This allows opposing defenses to overplay Gibbs, or go under Adams and essentially neuter our offense.

It can be a beautiful system that empowers guards when it operates well (often in 2014), but it doesn't rely enough on the low block when you have a player like Miller there, and when the team can't run it, it looks like this mess we see today. When we play teams that don't have the athletes, suddenly there's an offensive system (like annihilating USF) . It's always there, but better teams can snuff it out. It's why we beat every bad team and struggle with every good team.

 

[TasteofUConn]

I disagree but if you can find me any metric which supports your point that UConn is not a very good defensive team then I would certainly love to see it.

We're 20 and 10.

 

[TasteofUConn]

I don't believe our offense has changed much since 2013. What's changed is our personnel.
Having Bazz and Boat to bail you out at the end of the shot clock with DD and Giffey on the wings to murder the 3 ball if any help defense moves to defend Bazz and Boat on the blowby worked great.

No so great when Bazz---->Gibbs, Boat----->Purvis, DD------->SM, NG-------->Calhoun.

So I expect more of the same going forward. Let's hope Adams and Arterique can approximate Bazz and Boat.

 

[TasteofUConn]

They're 11th in the country in efficiency. They have lapses, but they're good on that end.

This stat blows big chunks. We're 12th in the country in Pomeroy Defensive efficiency. Sounds great, right? 12th? My my. We must be really good on D. Ok, so look at the stat. It's points per 100 possessions, adjusted for opponent. Our number is 93.4. Go out 40 places to the number 52 team (Arkansas Little Rock) and their number is 96.7.

Thats a 3 bucket people.

If you believe the "advanced metrics" of Pomeroy, you have to believe that the difference between the number 12 team in the country and the number 52 team in the country is a single three point shot.

You'd also have to believe that the College of Charleston (ranked 115 with a 17 and 14 record in the CAA) is only .8 points per hundred possessions worse than Virginia on D.

Please. What a bunch of garbage. You don't need to get into the actual computation of the stat to see how unreliable it is.

Our defense is not good. Who are you going to believe? Kenpom, or your lying eyes, which saw us give up open 3 after open 3 repeatedly this year?

 

[tzznandrew]

I don't believe our offense has changed much since 2013. What's changed is our personnel.
Having Bazz and Boat to bail you out at the end of the shot clock with DD and Giffey on the wings to murder the 3 ball if any help defense moves to defend Bazz and Boat on the blowby worked great.

No so great when Bazz---->Gibbs, Boat----->Purvis, DD------->SM, NG-------->Calhoun.

So I expect more of the same going forward. Let's hope Adams and Arterique can approximate Bazz and Boat.

I think that's part of what I'm saying. The offense can and has worked well. The problem is that the current players aren't close enough facsimiles to the original for this offense to work well--and they don't need to be exact for this offense to work, and even when it worked it was sometimes less than ideal.

 

[lange10]

We know what his halfcourt philosophy is. We see players doing a bit of a circle offense coming from underneath from weak to ball side and catching the ball. They're supposed to shoot or drive there. And we know he likes to run pick and roll/pop at the top of the key with spacing from shooters.

The problem is this team doesn't have the decisiveness from DHam, the ability to finish at the rim from Gibbs/Purvis/DHam, the ability to be creative coming off the screen (Gibbs) or shoot (Adams). This allows opposing defenses to overplay Gibbs, or go under Adams and essentially neuter our offense.

It can be a beautiful system that empowers guards when it operates well (often in 2014), but it doesn't rely enough on the low block when you have a player like Miller there, and when the team can't run it, it looks like this mess we see today. When we play teams that don't have the athletes, suddenly there's an offensive system (like annihilating USF) . It's always there, but better teams can snuff it out. It's why we beat every bad team and struggle with every good team.

This whole post is exactly why I criticize Ollie. You said it perfectly. The offense in essence should be a thing of beauty but we don't have the correct pieces to run it smoothly, so it looks like a mess.

I have been saying this for weeks now, a good coach caters to his players abilities and skills and makes the necessary changes to implement a successful offense that will put players in spots where they will be successful. Ollie does the opposite, he forces the players to play and try to fit in his system, whether it plays to their strengths or not. As we've seen this season, or at least I hope you can see, it is more of the latter than the former. Players are being asked to do things they cannot do.

 

[Danzz]

UConn has never been a great half court team and that goes back to Dee Rowe's teams. The last 2 NCC we were bailed out often by outside shots by Kemba and Bazz late in the shot clock. JC's teams were not good half court teams either.

 

[tzznandrew]

This whole post is exactly why I criticize Ollie. You said it perfectly. The offense in essence should be a thing of beauty but we don't have the correct pieces to run it smoothly, so it looks like a mess.

I have been saying this for weeks now, a good coach caters to his players abilities and skills and makes the necessary changes to implement a successful offense that will put players in spots where they will be successful. Ollie does the opposite, he forces the players to play and try to fit in his system, whether it plays to their strengths or not. As we've seen this season, or at least I hope you can see, it is more of the latter than the former. Players are being asked to do things they cannot do.

I think Ollie is a good coach.

I also think he--and frequently Calhoun--were stubborn in the face of reality. Calhoun ran his system whether players could run it (94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 02, etc.) or couldn't (93, 97, 01, 07, etc). That often paid off in the long term, but looked terrible in the short. We'll see if KO's stubbornness on this will pay off, or if our offenses will continue to look like trash.

 

[Jay-Bone]

We just ran an offensive set. Mark it down. 3-6-16 2:10 pm.

 

[Giddyup5]

Our use of SM is criminal. Okafor averaged 12 attempts a game. Adrian averaged 10 attempts a game. Shonn averages 8. I would argue that Shonn is as good offensively as Okafor and he is shooting at 58% from the field and 78% from the free throw line. Imagine if Shonn averaged 4 more attempts a game (similar to Okafor) and converted 60%? Those 4 points would result in prob 3-4 more wins?

 

[tzznandrew]

Our use of SM is criminal. Okafor averaged 12 attempts a game. Adrian averaged 10 attempts a game. Shonn averages 8. I would argue that Shonn is as good offensively as Okafor and he is shooting at 58% from the field and 78% from the free throw line. Imagine if Shonn averaged 4 more attempts a game (similar to Okafor) and converted 60%? Those 4 points would result in prob 3-4 more wins?

He's not as good offensively as Okafor. But he is quite good, and should get more attempts.

I think his lack of touches is in part because our guards struggle to create good looks for themselves, and so they opponents get in their space, making entry passes more difficult.

 

[3rdbass]

He's not as good offensively as Okafor. But he is quite good, and should get more attempts.

I think his lack of touches is in part because our guards struggle to create good looks for themselves, and so they opponents get in their space, making entry passes more difficult.

I think he has way more moves offensively than Okafor. Unfortunately we don't have guards to get him the ball. Now Okafor was better rebounder and on defense.

 

[James]

Our use of SM is criminal. Okafor averaged 12 attempts a game. Adrian averaged 10 attempts a game. Shonn averages 8. I would argue that Shonn is as good offensively as Okafor and he is shooting at 58% from the field and 78% from the free throw line. Imagine if Shonn averaged 4 more attempts a game (similar to Okafor) and converted 60%? Those 4 points would result in prob 3-4 more wins?

Okafor was 6'11, Miller is 6'5. Much smaller target he doesn't necessarily carve up space /position that great. He must expense great energy in the post due to a size difference of other fours

 

[The Funster]

We know what his halfcourt philosophy is. We see players doing a bit of a circle offense coming from underneath from weak to ball side and catching the ball. They're supposed to shoot or drive there. And we know he likes to run pick and roll/pop at the top of the key with spacing from shooters.

The problem is this team doesn't have the decisiveness from DHam, the ability to finish at the rim from Gibbs/Purvis/DHam, the ability to be creative coming off the screen (Gibbs) or shoot (Adams). This allows opposing defenses to overplay Gibbs, or go under Adams and essentially neuter our offense.

It can be a beautiful system that empowers guards when it operates well (often in 2014), but it doesn't rely enough on the low block when you have a player like Miller there, and when the team can't run it, it looks like this mess we see today. When we play teams that don't have the athletes, suddenly there's an offensive system (like annihilating USF) . It's always there, but better teams can snuff it out. It's why we beat every bad team and struggle with every good team.

Spot on, IMO. It also didn't help that DHam had a horrid year shooting. If he can play like he did in the 2nd half today, hit the open 3, get in the lane and hit the floaters we'll be a lot better. I also like Adams getting in the lane. He seems like the only guy who can actually get to rim and if he can't he has the awareness to pass. Not sure what is up with Purvis, he doesn't have the burst he used to have. Gibbs is just a catch and shoot guy.

Its a bully offense, as you said in so many words. You can bludgeon a team that can't play good defense or can't matchup on the perimeter. I think our hope against Cincy to drive and pass to a big on the baseline for either drive, alley oop or jumper. We also need to set picks for Gibbs, DHam and Purvis and hope they can make a few early. That will help open up the lane and maybe get their bigs to over commit when we get in the lane. Use their defensive aggressiveness against them.

 

[Danzz]

Calhoun's teams relied more on defense and transition points. Ollie is similar but our problem is that we can't rebound to create transition opportunities and when we do we miss layups.

 

[Justin M]

Our use of SM is criminal. Okafor averaged 12 attempts a game. Adrian averaged 10 attempts a game. Shonn averages 8. I would argue that Shonn is as good offensively as Okafor and he is shooting at 58% from the field and 78% from the free throw line. Imagine if Shonn averaged 4 more attempts a game (similar to Okafor) and converted 60%? Those 4 points would result in prob 3-4 more wins?

Couldn't agree more, every guy on the team who I've talked to couldn't agree more. He deserves more touches and has earned the right to get more touches. Seems whenever the ball gets into his hands he makes something happen with either a bucket or kick out for an open three ball. IMO, a teams primary option should always be the fast break. With Brimah (a man who runs the floor exceptionally well for a big man) and all the other athletes/burners we have on the floor, there is no way this team shouldn't be scoring more transition baskets. The problem is, on the D board, our first look isn't up the floor, its down on the ground to make sure we can dribble it.

 

[GuttyWolf]

Our use of SM is criminal. Okafor averaged 12 attempts a game. Adrian averaged 10 attempts a game. Shonn averages 8. I would argue that Shonn is as good offensively as Okafor and he is shooting at 58% from the field and 78% from the free throw line. Imagine if Shonn averaged 4 more attempts a game (similar to Okafor) and converted 60%? Those 4 points would result in prob 3-4 more wins?

It starts at the top with Kevin. He has gone on record saying Hamilton and Purvis are our two best players (LOL). The fact he had no idea his best player wore #32 all year is my biggest gripe with him.