The offense just isn't built for March...

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:25 pm

TucsonClip wrote:
NYCat wrote:
TucsonClip wrote: Miller is proving that with elite athletes in his packline system, he can trot out an elite defense every year. Whats wrong with that? The advanced stats and analytic guys are not going to grade out our players very well (See Gordon, Johnson, ect. via Kevin Pelton), but Miller's system works.
Its not needed, its made for inferior athletes. Great for the regular season, but for the post season? I'm not convinced. The defense will prevent early outings, but will get Wisconsin'd again.
What does it matter if its not needed? Miller is proving that he can field an elite defense each year with his system and his prowess on the recruiting trail. Why do we need to trap, play aggressive and jump passing lanes to speed up the tempo to score more when Miller's system is working?

Also, if getting Wisconsin'd means holding a team to 54 points in regulation with the Final Four on the line, then sign me up. Kaminsky beat us, but needed one of the best games of his career to do so. Yes, the offense failed but im not willing to sacrifice the best portions of Miller's coaching philosophy so that we can score more points. We were 2 baskets away from 2 Final Fours.

And two more away in 2005 and 2003, where the games were much higher scoring. Could just as readily make the argument that we needed to change the offense to help the defense back then.

I know this isn't about the exhibition for NY, but just in case it is for others.

Here's how it went down in Palo Alto:

The Cardinal built a comfortable lead in the first half, which saw them head into the locker room with a 10-point gap over Cal Poly Pomona. The beginning of the second half saw similar success for the home team, which built the lead to 14 points with over 15 minutes remaining in the game. However, it did not prove to be a comfortable night as Cal Poly Pomona made a strong push back. In fact, eight minutes after Stanford had increased the gap to 14 points, Pomona hit a 3-pointer to take a 64-61 lead with 7:11 remaining in the game.

The Cardinal men stayed resilient and managed to score 14 of the game’s last 22 points to close the win out. Cal Poly Pomona had their chances at the end of the game, missing two 3-pointers in the dying seconds before freshman forward Michael Humphrey collected the ball and held on until the buzzer sounded.

I would be awfully bummed if that team hung 76 points on us and we had to withstand two shots to win it.

On the other hand, 79 points! And a fast start!

As for the 60 points UConn scored to win it all, I think the point in NY's malleable theory is that that's fine if you're guard-oriented, but not if you're not. Because guard-oriented teams win, even if they can only score 60 points.

The 54 points Kentucky scored? Not a factor.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:52 pm

Still no one who has agreed or disagreed with this (besides loomer who agreed, and cg97 who agreed need shooters to make the offense work). This is my argument against, but no one has an opinion on it, neither disagree or agree. Bunch of posters arguing for something I never argued against. I won't even acknowledge or read the ones (pretty much all) who don't stay on topic.

Chi acknowledged but didn't have an opinion, Salim again went to his statistical wonderland, its like a scientist explaining human emotions. Stats aren't everything, else Louisville, Florida, Arizona would've won - two of those didn't make the final four. Stats can't account for UConn, UK having a bad season then getting good, Kemba, George Mason, VCu, Wichita St etc, and never will.

Again anyone actually have an opinion on what I'm debating for? Have an argument that convinces me and stays on topic?

NYCat wrote:Arizona is just running a defense made for less talented teams, for example Bennett at UVA is a good example when to use it. The pack line defense help less talented teams "hang in there" with better teams, but why use it if you're the better (more talented) team? Would a simple man to man defense be good enough with the size & athleticism the team has? Plain & simple it in turn limits/slows down the offense, ironically keeping less talented teams in the game.

Guess I never figured that out till today.

Again hate to quote him again but I agree with this too.

Miller's offensive style is straight out of the 80s and 90s with classic motion that either isolates the post, uses high-low action or opens the lane so centers can back-screen passers in order to create driving angles, post-ups and mismatches. Arizona is meat and potatoes. Occasionally they'll run a play for an alley-oop or a 3-point shot, but motion offense, man-to-man defense and "we are tougher and better than you" is the name of the game.

In many ways that style is the same one I've questioned with Syracuse over the years. Sure the Cuse is unique with its 2-3 zone, which is undeniably effective but can also be counterproductive as teams can slow the pace against the Orange. Syracuse has better athletes than 75 percent of its competition, yet uses a defense designed for inferior athletes. The same is true in many ways with Arizona

Or this

loomer wrote:
NYCat wrote:
It's the offensive philosophy that could determine whether this team raises a banner in Indy, or even gets there. Will Arizona ever use its athletes on both ends to expose athletic mismatches? Will Miller let all those athletes get out and run? Does the Wildcats' defensive style limit their offensive ceiling?
Absolutely. We will never be an uptempo team because the packline doesn't support speed because its a low turnover rate defense(283 in tempo last year). Wisconsin beat us with a packline but that defense suits their personnel better than it suits ours. They could afford playing a slow tempo because they were an elite shooting and offensive team. We aren't fortunate enough to have those qualities so you think we would create more possessions not less possessions. Only 62 possessions tonight...

gumby wrote: So the exhibition thread will be in March?

Was going to post this during the season, the again after the choke job in the E8. But I didn't because I knew that when someone goes against the grain & *gasp* ~criticize the players and team~, people don't like it. Especially if you don't defend your stance, board is like throwing a goat leg into a piranha lake - going to get shredded for days.

Perfect example is this thread. The snarky poster, the just one game poster, the snide remark poster, the off topic poster, the lame dad joke poster (*cough* you *cough*), the reminiscing and comparing teams from long ago that have no bearing in similarity poster, the overt sarcasm poster, the dumb joke poster, the don't overreact poster, the vague insider, the insider who says relax, etc.

gumby wrote:
nycat wrote: "I don't care what anyone says."
Says it all.

I like quoting context out of context too!! Contextually speaking of course, contextual contextualization.

--

Since I know no one will and branch out to something I wasn't talking about in the first place. Last thing I'll say in this thread, Offense & good guard play wins in the tournament. ('97????)

(Lutes teams sucked: chokers, soft, modern day equivalent is Bill Self at Kansas)

I won't look at the final fours, one because I'm too lazy to look at all of them, and there's outliers like VCU, Wichita St, George Mason, etc. So lets look at the Champs {no stats will be posted}

2014 • UConn | great guards in Boatwright & Napier, good offense w Daniels as a third guy (small team) - enough defense to win.

2013 • Louisville | great offense, good guard play from Smith & Siva - defense actually complimented the offense

2012 • Kentucky | great offense, great talent used correctly, two good guards in Teague & Lamb, what defense - size & athleticism were enough defense

2011 • UConn | kemba kemba kemba, good offense, defense was okay enough to win

2010 • Duke | great offense, Scheyer & Smith were good - defense? OK-

2009 • North Carolina | great offense, Lawson & Ellington were great - what defense?

2008 • Kansas | great offense, Rush & Chalmers good - defense OK

2006 - 2007 • Florida | great offenses, guards were good (Green, Humphrey, Brewer) - bad defenses

2005 • North Carolina | great offense, Felton & McCants great - bad defense

2004 • UConn | great offense, Gordon was great, Anderson good - defense bad

2003 • Syracuse | Melo, Melo, Melo, great offense - bad defense

2002 • Maryland | great offense, Dixon & Wilcox - bad defense

2001 • Duke | great offense, Williams was great, lot of NBA talent - bad defense

2000 • Michigan St | great offense, Richardson & Bell - bad defense.

I'll stop there because I'm lazy but....

1997 • Arizona | Great offense, Bibby & Simon - defense?
--

As you can see offense wins in the tournament

TJ & Yorkshire [good guard play] are the key and always will be the key to success in the tournament, that and a good offense. Both of which right aren't present on this team (Stanley isnt a guard)

Anyone disagree?

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:02 pm

We all agree we need to make shots. I don't think anybody disputes that fact. I just don't agree that changing our Defense would've made a difference against wisconsin on the offensive side of the ball it probably make us lose by more then 10 pts.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:03 pm

How do you equate good offense? Points per possession or points per game? FG % maybe. Just curious.

I certainly think Wisconsin was not a choke job. They took Kentucky to the brink and they are top 5 this year.

I would also agree as has been seen that guard play is essential to win the championship. Get hot and make shots and you will win. I just am having a hard time with the correlation to the type of defense we play and further success in the tourney which would be pretty deep and at the E8 it's all a crap shot

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:07 pm

Like I've said elsewhere, I thought Gottlieb's piece was a great article. It asks the right questions, and that's rare in the business. I just wouldn't want to confuse the specifics of the probing with implicit "corrections" to what a real, top-level coaching staff is doing with its talent. The contradictions would fall over themselves if put into practice. Boeheim wouldn't be Boeheim if he wasn't recruiting and coaching for the best strategy to face the most talented, athletic, and well-coached teams deep in the tourney, rather than the 75% referred to in the article. The same goes for Miller. Recruit and coach to put together the most reliable possible package for delivery to the Final Four, not opening up the court on offense from half court, and pressing on defense to blow away inferior talent during the season.

Unless I don't understand you, NY, you're agreeing with Gottlieb that the packline is the wrong defense for the players on Miller's roster. I'm with Boeheim and Miller on this one. I don't think the packline is responsible for minimizing the offense. I think Ashley going down was the cause. Last year's offense would have ended higher than 20 on Kenpom with Ashley, and Arizona would have been in the Final Four with a damn good offense and the best defense in the country.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:08 pm

azcat49 wrote:How do you equate good offense? Points per possession or points per game? FG % maybe. Just curious.

I certainly think Wisconsin was not a choke job. They took Kentucky to the brink and they are top 5 this year.

I would also agree as has been seen that guard play is essential to win the championship. Get hot and make shots and you will win. I just am having a hard time with the correlation to the type of defense we play and further success in the tourney which would be pretty deep and at the E8 it's all a crap shot

Tough, hard defense ~ which in turn slows down offense ~ Defense doesn't allow for a great offense (personnel and/or scheme) ~ offense doesn't allow (or hasn't allowed yet) for great guard play.

0/2 on what wins in the tournament

Longhorned wrote:Like I've said elsewhere, I thought Gottlieb's piece was a great article. It asks the right questions, and that's rare in the business. I just wouldn't want to confuse the specifics of the probing with implicit "corrections" to what a real, top-level coaching staff is doing with its talent. The contradictions would fall over themselves if put into practice. Boeheim wouldn't be Boeheim if he wasn't recruiting and coaching for the best strategy to face the most talented, athletic, and well-coached teams deep in the tourney, rather than the 75% referred to in the article. The same goes for Miller. Recruit and coach to put together the most reliable possible package for delivery to the Final Four, not opening up the court on offense from half court, and pressing on defense to blow away inferior talent during the season.

Unless I don't understand you, NY, you're agreeing with Gottlieb that the packline is the wrong defense for the players on Miller's roster. I'm with Boeheim and Miller on this one. I don't think the packline is responsible for minimizing the offense. I think Ashley going down was the cause. Last year's offense would have ended higher than 20 on Kenpom with Ashley, and Arizona would have been in the Final Four with a damn good offense and the best defense in the country.

Boehim only one won title, which was thanks to Melo. That '03 team was great offensively, not so much defensively

Harvey Specter · Post by **Harvey Specter** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:09 pm

Lock the thread.... Debate over.

Because the OP took the time to list every national champion from this millennium, and publicly declared his opinion that each of those teams were GREAT on offense - and only average to BAD on defense - his point is proven.

60... 82... 67... 53.... 61

That would be the point totals for the winning team in each of the last 5 NC games. It's amazing that all those "great" offensive teams did not score more. Must have been great defense by the teams they beat .... Figures, the losing teams didn't win it all because they were great defensively; should've focused more on offense!

TucsonClip · Post by **TucsonClip** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:24 pm

I mean, we have to factor in what defense our offense is facing as well. Obviously if we had Ashley our offense looks better. Same goes if York ends up being the shooter we needed in difficult spots.

That said, Wisconsin was the 49th ranked adjusted defense, but was the 4th rated adjusted offense. Our defense was good enough to win us an Elite Eight game, the ball just fell differently that day. I think a lot of us take solace in that, seeing as though that is our program's identity now.

Miller's adjusted offenses have finished the season ranked:

20th
10th
86th
8th
84th

Clearly, as I mentioned above, Miller's offenses are by no means exciting or fast paced, but they get the job done when there is talent. So, again, I am not willing to sacrifice Miller's defensive philosophy to increase pace nor tout a more efficient/higher scoring offense. The results speak for themselves. The fact that we only scored 54 in regulation against Wisconsin in the biggest game of the year, has a lot to do with TJ's shooting woes (2-10), missing Ashley and the guys committing to defense on every possession. It just didnt work out. Change one variable above or Kaminsky not grabbing a few offensive boards and the tone changes.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:31 pm

None of those national champion winners played bad defense. Ridiculous. Michigan State played bad defense in 2000? Come on. Incredibly simplistic post.

Bennett and Izzo have made it to the Final Four. Both run packline. Izzo has been to 6 Final Fours. He doesn't run the defense you want. But Miller can't do this, because of his defense?

Arizona in 1997. Two Final Four games:

UNC, 31.1 percent. Arizona, 33 percent.

Kentucky, 41.7 percent. Arizona, 37.9 percent.

Offense was great? Huh? I know, those pesky stats.

Following year our great offense scored 51 against Utah in an EE game.

Stuff happens. Far too simplistic to boil it down the way you have. But keep trying.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:50 pm

gumby wrote:None of those national champion winners played bad defense. Ridiculous. Michigan State played bad defense in 2000? Come on. Incredibly simplistic post.

Bennett and Izzo have made it to the Final Four. Both run packline. Izzo has been to 6 Final Fours. He doesn't run the defense you want. But Miller can't do this, because of his defense?

Arizona in 1997. Two Final Four games:

UNC, 31.1 percent. Arizona, 33 percent.

Kentucky, 41.7 percent. Arizona, 37.9 percent.

Offense was great? Huh? I know, those pesky stats.

Following year our great offense scored 51 against Utah in an EE game.

Stuff happens. Far too simplistic to boil it down the way you have. But keep trying.

All those teams were statistically (save for Mich St, one outiler but had good guards) bad on defense. Then the defenses started playing well in March (like all championships teams). But because they already had a great offense from the rest of the season they won it all. Arizona is the complete opposite, and Arizona doesn't have good guards. Like I said earlier I will have more confidence in this offense with Simon/Trier/PJC and future teams who have good guards. But not this team, or last years.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:05 pm

You use "good" and "bad" so often. By what measure is a good offense or good defense good and a bad offense or bad defense bad? I think we need some context here. Your definition of good and bad seems totally subjective.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:12 pm

Just for the recod: does everyone know that I'm only concerned for THIS years team (partially last years)? I'm only concerned for this years offense in march, which I've said repeatedly. I'm not looking forward or back 5-10+ years. Just this years team. Offense isn't great, TJ & York aren't good offensively = not the year.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:17 pm

NYCat wrote:Just for the recod: does everyone know that I'm only concerned for THIS years team (partially last years)? I'm only concerned for this years offense in march, which I've said repeatedly. I'm not looking forward or back 5-10+ years. Just this years team. Offense isn't great, TJ & York aren't good offensively = not the year.

Probably all of YOUR references to what works in past years that "confused" folks. Plus, you're concerned with the defense, too.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:19 pm

NYCat wrote:Just for the recod: does everyone know that I'm only concerned for THIS years team (partially last years)? I'm only concerned for this years offense in march, which I've said repeatedly. I'm not looking forward or back 5-10+ years. Just this years team. Offense isn't great, TJ & York aren't good offensively = not the year.

Wait a tick, weren't you the one going back over a decade?

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:20 pm

NYCat wrote:Just for the recod: does everyone know that I'm only concerned for THIS years team (partially last years)? I'm only concerned for this years offense in march, which I've said repeatedly. I'm not looking forward or back 5-10+ years. Just this years team. Offense isn't great, TJ & York aren't good offensively = not the year.

Yeah, how could we have misread that?

NYCat wrote:
Is horrific and always has been. And at some point he's going to have to change his old style of offense.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:22 pm

Guys, you have to wait until March to decide if it's always been bad. He's been very clear about that.

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:43 pm

I still haven't stopped laughing from him calling Kansas's #1 ranked defense in 2008 "OK." If you're too lazy to even know what you're talking about I don't see why any of us should bother responding to you any further.

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:55 pm

Chicat wrote:
NYCat wrote:Just for the recod: does everyone know that I'm only concerned for THIS years team (partially last years)? I'm only concerned for this years offense in march, which I've said repeatedly. I'm not looking forward or back 5-10+ years. Just this years team. Offense isn't great, TJ & York aren't good offensively = not the year.
Wait a tick, weren't you the one going back over a decade?

Championship teams not Arizona teams

Chicat wrote:You use "good" and "bad" so often. By what measure is a good offense or good defense good and a bad offense or bad defense bad? I think we need some context here. Your definition of good and bad seems totally subjective.

Really?

Really?

Really?

You're going to focus on something that as simple as the interpretation of good or bad. Which everyone has dozens of interpretations for everyone me. To some a good offense is 80, 90, 100+ pts ppg.

Not me, you can have a good offensive team whole scoring 60-70.

Here's the offense and why its not good.

Stanley/RHJ virtually the same size/player, take the same space, take the same shots = log jam. Same as last year with Gordon/Ashley = clog in the machine

Tarczewski still puts the ball on the floor, and gets stripped all the time. If he didn't learn in the off season, it won't change during the season. Still isn't aggressive and take easy dunks when he's supposed to.

Ashley, pretty much the only one I have no concerns on offense. But wait he's coming off a season ending surgery.

Now to the most important part the guards: TJ still isn't aggressive and not a viable offensive threat. York is textbook streaky, either miss all his shots or make most of them, more commonly missing. Pitts is the best shooting, but is rarely on the court.

No one can shoot still, you would think in the off season that would be a major skill to improve on. Where did RHJ 5000 shots a day go.

salim'sheadband wrote:I still haven't stopped laughing from him calling Kansas's #1 ranked defense in 2008 "OK." If you're too lazy to even know what you're talking about I don't see why any of us should bother responding to you any further.

Selectively: like how you ignore that the Kansas team had a great offense and two great guards. Like I said before, great offense the whole season, defense steps up in March.

Arizona doesn't have neither on the offensive part.

Not a great offense + no two great guards = 0/2 on what championship teams always have.

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:00 pm

NYCats wrote:Selectively: like how you ignore that the Kansas team had a great offense and two great guards. Like I said before, great offense the whole season, defense steps up in March.

Arizona doesn't have neither on the offensive part.

Not a great offense + no two great guards = 0/2 on what championship teams always have.

I didn't ignore it. I'm just pointing out how you're objectively wrong about their defense and if you're too intellectually lazy to research whatever "point" you're trying to make you don't deserve a serious response.

You're also wrong that that Kansas's team's defense "stepped up" in March - it was ranked #1 going into March too. It's okay to just admit you're wrong when you're wrong.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:21 pm

Preseason arguments about the past predicating the present are always awesome. Now if we could just start a "Would Arizona win against an NBA team" we'd be on par with UK's fanbase.

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:31 pm

Tell me how having three great guards and Offense worked out for Duke in Anaheim on 2011. They had guards out of there ass that year and great bigs galore!

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:34 pm

Again the point we are all trying to make is that our defense isn't the reason why our guards are underachieving and not making shots. We all agree that we would like the offense to improve! That's a no brainer but our defense doesn't miss wide open shots!

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:47 pm

This Phil Jackson quote about Silver's comment about the triangle causing problems for the Knicks reminds me of this thread's topic:

"There's enough focus on the triangle. It's not anything. It's a system. It's simple basketball. Just play the game."

NYCat · Post by **NYCat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:49 pm

You know this what happens when selective hearing, listening and selective arguments happens. Everyone is just picking at small irrelevant facets of anything I wrote, that might be wrong. Still no one has argued directly against my main points, without branching out to another topic or picking at small triviality. Not to mention everyone posting without reading the whole thread, commenting without any relevant context.

When people start picking and focusing on small irrelevant details I pretty much know by this point that no one has any direct argument against mine. You are all selectively reading and arguing at anything you can, none of which is against any of my main points.

Let's see what everyone is focusing on, Chi focusing on the interpretation of good or bad. Posters going back and quoting anything that might be a mistake. Some small detail that might be wrong, people making jokes, something something about old choking Lute teams etc.

So I'll ask again, can you argue against or disprove any of what I wrote (which no one has directly argued against)? No one has up to this point, who wants to be first.

• Arizona is just running a defense made for less talented teams, for example Bennett at UVA is a good example when to use it. The pack line defense help less talented teams "hang in there" with better teams, but why use it if you're the better (more talented) team? Would a simple man to man defense be good enough with the size & athleticism the team has? Plain & simple it in turn limits/slows down the offense, ironically keeping less talented teams in the game.

Guess I never figured that out till today.

• Miller's offensive style is straight out of the 80s and 90s with classic motion that either isolates the post, uses high-low action or opens the lane so centers can back-screen passers in order to create driving angles, post-ups and mismatches. Arizona is meat and potatoes. Occasionally they'll run a play for an alley-oop or a 3-point shot, but motion offense, man-to-man defense and "we are tougher and better than you" is the name of the game.

In many ways that style is the same one I've questioned with Syracuse over the years. Sure the Cuse is unique with its 2-3 zone, which is undeniably effective but can also be counterproductive as teams can slow the pace against the Orange. Syracuse has better athletes than 75 percent of its competition, yet uses a defense designed for inferior athletes. The same is true in many ways with Arizona

• It's the offensive philosophy that could determine whether this team raises a banner in Indy, or even gets there. Will Arizona ever use its athletes on both ends to expose athletic mismatches? Will Miller let all those athletes get out and run? Does the Wildcats' defensive style limit their offensive ceiling?

Absolutely. We will never be an uptempo team because the packline doesn't support speed because its a low turnover rate defense(283 in tempo last year). Wisconsin beat us with a packline but that defense suits their personnel better than it suits ours. They could afford playing a slow tempo because they were an elite shooting and offensive team. We aren't fortunate enough to have those qualities so you think we would create more possessions not less possessions. Only 62 possessions tonight...

• My only concern and what this thread is about, and that's concern for the offense in March. If UA bows out in the tournament it'll be because of offense (a slow tempo, low scoring game) I guarantee it

• Great packline defense slows down the game - slow game stagnates the offense - which doesn't allow for great offense - which doesn't allow for great guard play. Unless you have good shooters, offense will be strain if not, not applicable this year.

• *the whole past champions thing where history proves OFFENSE & GUARD play win. Of which Arizona has neither.*

• TJ & York are import than anyone/anything else on this team

• Here's the offense and why its not good.

Stanley/RHJ virtually the same size/player, take the same space, take the same shots = log jam. Same as last year with Gordon/Ashley = clog in the machine

Tarczewski still puts the ball on the floor, and gets stripped all the time. If he didn't learn in the off season, it won't change during the season. Still isn't aggressive and take easy dunks when he's supposed to.

Ashley, pretty much the only one I have no concerns on offense. But wait he's coming off a season ending surgery.

Now to the most important part the guards: TJ still isn't aggressive and not a viable offensive threat. York is textbook streaky, either miss all his shots or make most of them, more commonly missing. Pitts is the best shooting, but is rarely on the court.

No one can shoot still, you would think in the off season that would be a major skill to improve on. Where did RHJ 5000 shots a day go.

Anyone? Or are the irrelevant posts going to continue?

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:01 pm

"Who can disprove what I personally believe based solely on my own eye test and set of subjective criteria and nothing else?"

No one. No one can. Now take your ball and go home.

loomer · Post by **loomer** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:03 pm

Chicat wrote:
NYCat wrote:
TucsonClip wrote: Miller is proving that with elite athletes in his packline system, he can trot out an elite defense every year. Whats wrong with that? The advanced stats and analytic guys are not going to grade out our players very well (See Gordon, Johnson, ect. via Kevin Pelton), but Miller's system works.
Its not needed, its made for inferior athletes. Great for the regular season, but for the post season? I'm not convinced. The defense will prevent early outings, but will get Wisconsin'd again.
Why is it so great for the regular season and so terrible for the postseason? Is there some system out there that you think Miller should switch to that is infallible no matter what month it is? Apologies if you've already covered this.

And why do you think it's made for inferior athletes? On that one my opinion is the opposite. Inferior athletes in the post can't hedge as effectively as ours have to and do.

++++ By employing our theory of defense play, we will lower our opponent’s field goal percentage, we will improve our rebounding, and we will
reduce their opportunities for lay-ups and easy baskets rather off dribble penetration or transition.
- - - - The greatest negative of our system; and it is a system of play, is that it can have a tendency to allow lesser talented programs to compete. We
can not beat them on the advantage we hold due to our talent level or athleticism, our system is built upon execution – therefore, we have to out
execute our opponent. It also produces very few turnovers leading to easy scoring transition opportunities… We were #314 in NCAA’s

There is probably no reason to use the pack line defense if you have excellent, quick athletes who are good defenders... just keep the intense pressure on, using the standard pressure man-to-man defense. On the other hand, the pack line defense will perhaps help less talented teams "hang in there" with better teams, and can also help a team having difficulty preventing point guard dribble-penetration.

Tony Bennett’s teams have been very strong defensively, despite a lack of athletic wings and dominant shotblockers in the majority of the past 5+ years. Bennett relies on the packline defense to compensate for his teams weaknesses, which is a man to man defense with a few specific principles. The defense will put heavy pressure on the ball when it is beyond the three point line but the help defense will sag below the three point line, taking away dribble penetration.

The packline is a fine defense to employ with below average guards, as it will allow teams to better defend when they get beat on penetration.

http://www.coachesclipboard.net/Basketb ... fense.html
http://coachjacksonspages.com/03_Packlinedefense.pdf
http://tlorc.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/a ... cavaliers/

loomer · Post by **loomer** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:07 pm

Interpret this was you will:

Elite 8 participants from the last 15 years,
1st number is offensive efficiency, 2nd number is defensive efficiency. (,)

2014
----
#7 Connecticut(39, 10)
#8 Kentucky(10,41)
#1 Florida(18,2)
#2 Wisconsin(4,49)
#1 Arizona(20,1)
#4 Michigan St.(12,28)
#2 Michigan(1,109)
#11 Dayton(36,71)

2013
-----
#1 Louisville(4,3)
#4 Michigan(1,48)
#4 Syracuse(29,8)
#9 Wichita St.(30,25)
#3 Marquette(25,46)
#3 Florida(12,4)
#2 Ohio State(11,12)
#2 Duke(5,31)

2012
-----
#1 Kentucky(2,8)
#2 Kansas(28,3)
#2 Ohio State(5,7)
#4 Louisville(116,1)
#3 Baylor(8,46)
#7 Florida(3,90)
#1 Syracuse(7,17)
#1 UNC(13,14)

2011
-----
#3 Connecticut(18,13)
#8 Butler(48,44)
#4 Kentucky(10,15)
#11 VCU(25,84)
#5 Arizona(8,88)
#1 Kansas(7,11)
#2 Florida(17,41)
#2 UNC(49,4)

2010
-----
#1 Duke (1,8)
#5 Butler(57,2)
#2 West Virginia(11,23)
#5 Michigan State(36,27)
#3 Baylor(3,45)
#1 Kentucky(27,5)
#2 Kansas State(14,16)
#6 Tennessee(70,15)

2009
----
#1 UNC(1,21)
#2 Michigan State(22,8)
#1 Connecticut(18,3)
#3 Villanova(25,13)
#1 Louisville(50,2)
#3 Missouri(10,20)
#1 Pittsburgh(2,24)
#2 Oklahoma(4,34)

2008
----
#1 Kansas(2,1)
#1 Memphis(6,2)
#1 UNC(1,19)
#1 UCLA(8,5)
#3 Louisville(38,4)
#10 Davidson(5,21)
#2 Texas(3,44)
#3 Xavier(9,48)

2007
-----
#1 Florida(1,17)
#1 Ohio State(3,11)
#2 UCLA(29,3)
#2 Georgetown(2,24)
#1 UNC(4,10)
#1 Kansas(26,1)
#3 Oregon(5,63)
#2 Memphis(23,9)

2006
----
#3 Florida(3,6)
#2 UCLA(38,4)
#4 LSU(65,2)
#11 George Mason(58,13)
#1 Connecticut(2,25)
#1 Villanova(12,16)
#1 Memphis(37,5)
#2 Texas(8,28)

2005
----
#1 UNC(2,12)
#1 Illinois(3,4)
#4 Louisville(7,37)
#5 Michigan State(6,32)
#2 Kentucky(28,6)
#3 Arizona(10,39)
#7 West Virginia(11,102)
#6 Wisconsin(33,11)

2004
-----
#2 Connecticut(9,5)
#3 Georgia Tech(26,6)
#1 Duke (3,4)
#2 Oklahoma State(6,12)
#1 Saint Joe's(10,10)
#4 Kansas(31,16)
#7 Xavier(15,21)
#8 Alabama(18,83)

2003
-----
#3 Syracuse(14,14)
#2 Kansas (15,4)
#1 Texas(1,80)
#3 Marquette(2,119)
#1 Kentucky(10,3)
#1 Arizona(7,11)
#1 Oklahoma(33,7)
#7 Michigan State(50,9)

2002
-----
#1 Maryland(2,7)
#5 Indiana(23,6)
#1 Kansas(5,8)
#2 Oklahoma(17,3)
#2 Connecticut(36,22)
#2 Oregon(7,54)
#10 Kent State(8,50)
#12 Missouri(13,80)

2001
-----
#1 Duke(2,11)
#2 Arizona(12,6)
#1 Michigan State(4,14)
#3 Maryland(8,73)
#1 Stanford(1,31)
#1 Illinois(30,12)
#6 USC(53,116)
#11 Temple(9,224)

2000
----
#1 Michigan State(3,10)
#5 Florida(7,28)
#8 Wisconsin(193,25)
#8 UNC(30,197)
#2 Iowa State(15,29)
#3 Oklahoma State(22,8)
#7 Tulsa(17,3)
#6 Purdue(44,84)

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:19 pm

NYCat wrote:You know this what happens when selective hearing, listening and selective arguments happens. Everyone is just picking at small irrelevant facets of anything I wrote, that might be wrong. Still no one has argued directly against my main points, without branching out to another topic or picking at small triviality. Not to mention everyone posting without reading the whole thread, commenting without any relevant context.

When people start picking and focusing on small irrelevant details I pretty much know by this point that no one has any direct argument against mine. You are all selectively reading and arguing at anything you can, none of which is against any of my main points.

Let's see what everyone is focusing on, Chi focusing on the interpretation of good or bad. Posters going back and quoting anything that might be a mistake. Some small detail that might be wrong, people making jokes, something something about old choking Lute teams etc.

So I'll ask again, can you argue against or disprove any of what I wrote (which no one has directly argued against)? No one has up to this point, who wants to be first.

• Arizona is just running a defense made for less talented teams, for example Bennett at UVA is a good example when to use it. The pack line defense help less talented teams "hang in there" with better teams, but why use it if you're the better (more talented) team? Would a simple man to man defense be good enough with the size & athleticism the team has? Plain & simple it in turn limits/slows down the offense, ironically keeping less talented teams in the game.

Guess I never figured that out till today.

• Miller's offensive style is straight out of the 80s and 90s with classic motion that either isolates the post, uses high-low action or opens the lane so centers can back-screen passers in order to create driving angles, post-ups and mismatches. Arizona is meat and potatoes. Occasionally they'll run a play for an alley-oop or a 3-point shot, but motion offense, man-to-man defense and "we are tougher and better than you" is the name of the game.

In many ways that style is the same one I've questioned with Syracuse over the years. Sure the Cuse is unique with its 2-3 zone, which is undeniably effective but can also be counterproductive as teams can slow the pace against the Orange. Syracuse has better athletes than 75 percent of its competition, yet uses a defense designed for inferior athletes. The same is true in many ways with Arizona

• It's the offensive philosophy that could determine whether this team raises a banner in Indy, or even gets there. Will Arizona ever use its athletes on both ends to expose athletic mismatches? Will Miller let all those athletes get out and run? Does the Wildcats' defensive style limit their offensive ceiling?

Absolutely. We will never be an uptempo team because the packline doesn't support speed because its a low turnover rate defense(283 in tempo last year). Wisconsin beat us with a packline but that defense suits their personnel better than it suits ours. They could afford playing a slow tempo because they were an elite shooting and offensive team. We aren't fortunate enough to have those qualities so you think we would create more possessions not less possessions. Only 62 possessions tonight...

• My only concern and what this thread is about, and that's concern for the offense in March. If UA bows out in the tournament it'll be because of offense (a slow tempo, low scoring game) I guarantee it

• Great packline defense slows down the game - slow game stagnates the offense - which doesn't allow for great offense - which doesn't allow for great guard play. Unless you have good shooters, offense will be strain if not, not applicable this year.

• *the whole past champions thing where history proves OFFENSE & GUARD play win. Of which Arizona has neither.*

• TJ & York are import than anyone/anything else on this team

• Here's the offense and why its not good.

Stanley/RHJ virtually the same size/player, take the same space, take the same shots = log jam. Same as last year with Gordon/Ashley = clog in the machine

Tarczewski still puts the ball on the floor, and gets stripped all the time. If he didn't learn in the off season, it won't change during the season. Still isn't aggressive and take easy dunks when he's supposed to.

Ashley, pretty much the only one I have no concerns on offense. But wait he's coming off a season ending surgery.

Now to the most important part the guards: TJ still isn't aggressive and not a viable offensive threat. York is textbook streaky, either miss all his shots or make most of them, more commonly missing. Pitts is the best shooting, but is rarely on the court.

No one can shoot still, you would think in the off season that would be a major skill to improve on. Where did RHJ 5000 shots a day go.

Anyone? Or are the irrelevant posts going to continue?

Probably another irrelevant post, but you're claiming to have put forth a series of claims that nobody here is willing or able to counter or disprove. The problem really isn't selective hearing on everyone's part. It's that you've got a list of gripes and casual observations combined with Gottlieb's observations. They're good gripes and observations, but they're not points open to any real arguments. I might not be the brightest tool in the shed (I can't even keep my metaphors straight), but I'm unclear about what makes others' comments trivial and your original comments consequential. We've tried to help you articulate some kind of unifying thesis to your points, and you keep insisting that we're unable to stick to your argument. I errantly believe that you're arguing that Arizona's offense may not be good enough to win it all in March. Given that we've only seen a single exhibition game on November 9, I have no idea how your claim could be right or wrong on November 10. I suspect SJ and RHJ are going to be formidable at the same time on offense. Is that trivial, whereas your claim that they're the same player and are going to cause a log jam is weighty? I think Ashley looked even better than last year, but that's not an argument either. I think that TJ, Ashley, and York can shoot, and SJ and RHJ may complement them on the perimeter. I think Tarc will be outstanding and will draw fouls like nobody's business. I think we're going to have a championship-calibre offense.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:40 pm

Perhaps there are irrelevant posts because your whole argument is irrelevant.

Posters that post some opinion and then try to have people "disprove" their opinion are presenting a ridiculous notion.

As is comparing this team to last years team or any other for that matter. This years version has played one exhibition game that anyone has watched. In that game the offense looked awful for 15 minutes and looked good for 25. I can guess when you started this thread.

There will be nights to yell at the TV for the offensive woes, and others that will make you smile. I mean, do you really think that you wouldn't have a different perspective on "Miller's offense" if Bash had not gotten hurt last year? Do you really think that we would have lost by one to Wisconsin?

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:10 pm

NYCat wrote:
Chicat wrote:You use "good" and "bad" so often. By what measure is a good offense or good defense good and a bad offense or bad defense bad? I think we need some context here. Your definition of good and bad seems totally subjective.
Really?

Really?

Really?

You're going to focus on something that as simple as the interpretation of good or bad. Which everyone has dozens of interpretations for everyone me. To some a good offense is 80, 90, 100+ pts ppg.

Not me, you can have a good offensive team whole scoring 60-70.

Here's the offense and why its not good.

Stanley/RHJ virtually the same size/player, take the same space, take the same shots = log jam. Same as last year with Gordon/Ashley = clog in the machine

Tarczewski still puts the ball on the floor, and gets stripped all the time. If he didn't learn in the off season, it won't change during the season. Still isn't aggressive and take easy dunks when he's supposed to.

Ashley, pretty much the only one I have no concerns on offense. But wait he's coming off a season ending surgery.

Now to the most important part the guards: TJ still isn't aggressive and not a viable offensive threat. York is textbook streaky, either miss all his shots or make most of them, more commonly missing. Pitts is the best shooting, but is rarely on the court.

No one can shoot still, you would think in the off season that would be a major skill to improve on. Where did RHJ 5000 shots a day go.

I know that you know there are metrics that measure "good" and "bad", as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread.

I also know that you're looking for people to address your points solely within the context of what you see as "good" and "bad", which is of course intentionally almost impossible to do. This is why the Hot or Not threads don't go 5 pages. How can you argue for of against one person's visual interpretation of life beyond saying that what they see is not what you see?

Your description of why the offense is "not good" seems to be based solely on the exhibition game, even though you assured us repeatedly that this thread is not in response to the exhibition game. Where did RHJ's 5000 shots go? Well, I would hope that most of them went in the basket. Or are you saying definitively that you know at this moment that the offseason work put in was useless? That's a bold strategy Cotton. Let's see if it works...

Look, I don't mind disagreeing with good takes and chatting back and forth substantively on the subject, but it's easy to dismiss an argument like Sean Miller's offense and defense are subpar in relation to the talent on the floor if we aren't working from some sort of baseline. The NYCat Hooked On A Feeling Matrix is not that baseline and I'm not going to use it. And neither should anyone use Chicat's All Blondes Are Slampig Slumpbusters Theory to argue whether Sharon Stone is hot or not.

Substantive evidence is needed to have a substantive conversation.

97cats · Post by **97cats** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:24 pm

I can't believe someone thinks all those National Champs were bad at defense??

am I reading that right??

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:30 pm

97cats wrote:I can't believe someone thinks all those National Champs were bad at defense??

am I reading that right??

No - I mean Kansas was "OK."

azcat34 · Post by **azcat34** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:43 pm

UCONN's guards really filled it up in their other recent title as well:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=310940041

HiCat · Post by **HiCat** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 5:34 am

7th in rotation?

Dusan Ristic catching Sean Miller's eye

Heading into the 2014-15 season, the one freshman on the Arizona Wildcats getting all the attention is Stanley Johnson, and rightfully so. Johnson showed during the exhibition game against Cal Poly Pomona that he will be a part of the main six-man rotation on this team.

But there's one freshman who seems to be making quite the impression on Sean Miller in these early season practices. That guy is Dusan Ristic.

"Dusan Ristic is a guy that works hard every day," Miller said last week. "His offense is actually ahead of his defense, which for a low-post player and somebody his size, it's exciting to think about where he'll be down the road."

His offensive game shouldn't come as a surprise, as Fran Fraschilla had high praise for him this summer. But Miller sees a lot of potential in him, and possibly seeing that sooner rather than later.

"He has a knack and a way of being able to score and a fundamental set of skills that normally you don't see from somebody his size and age come to college with," Miller continued. "Where he's behind is on defense, but playing against Kaleb (Tarczewski) every day, and playing with the effort that he has every day, I really believe he'll get better. Where he's at in early November, he could be a far cry from there in early December just with constant, continual work."

"I'm impressed with Dusan and love his attitude. He listens. He works hard. He stays after practice. He loves the game and like I said, with his size on offense, I think he has a really high starting point."

His play in the game further validated Miller's praise of him.

"I thought Dusan did a good job tonight," coach said after the game. "You could see he has a really nice touch, good hands. He'll get better and better on defense as time moves on. Every day that he practices, and every time he gets game experience, he'll start to do a better job in that area. But there's no substitute for how long he is. And he can catch the basketball and score it."

"I think a lot of teams would love to have a guy like him off the bench. I was pleased with him."

Right now, it feels like Dusan Ristic is sort of the 7th guy, looking to make his way into the main rotation.

"Our seven through ten guys are important, and if we continue to develop them, we'll become a better team," Miller added.

http://www.azdesertswarm.com/basketball ... san-ristic

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:23 am

What is that statistic about past National Champions and their offensive and defensive efficiencies? Both are meant to be in the top something, and I don't want to give MAO a bunch of clicks by hunting down threads on the old site.

EDIT: never mind. Top 20 is the rule of thumb, I believe, and with very few outliers. That'll teach me to post before reading the other pages in the thread. Thanks, loomer.

3goggles · Post by **3goggles** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:12 am

azcat34 wrote:UCONN's guards really filled it up in their other recent title as well:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=310940041

Yeah Kemba was 5-19 and 0-4 from 3. Great guard! But look at how much uconn held Butler too. Thats right 41 points and they only scored 53 points. Thats a bad offense and good defense!

loomer · Post by **loomer** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:34 am

Puerco wrote:What is that statistic about past National Champions and their offensive and defensive efficiencies? Both are meant to be in the top something, and I don't want to give MAO a bunch of clicks by hunting down threads on the old site.

EDIT: never mind. Top 20 is the rule of thumb, I believe, and with very few outliers. That'll teach me to post before reading the other pages in the thread. Thanks, loomer.

No problem, just to further elaborate in the last 13 years:

13/20 teams that were top 10 in both adjO and adjD went to the FF 65%
7 of those teams won titles 35%

4/5 top 5 in adjO and adjD went to the FF 80%
2 of those teams won titles 40%

6/13 1st adjO FF 46%
4/13 1st adjO won titles 31%

2/13 1st adjD FF 15%
1/13 1st adjD won titles 8%

17/39 top3 adjO FF 44%
8/13 teams who won title had adjO in top 3 62%
11/39 top 3 adjD FF 28%
2/13 teams who won title had adjD in top 3 15%

20/65 top 5 adjO FF 31%
9/13 teams who won title had adjO in top 5 69%
17/65 top 5 adjD FF 13 years 26%
4/13 teams who won title had adjD in top 5 31%

Having a great offense seems to be important than having a great defense.

salim'sheadband · Post by **salim'sheadband** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:10 am

Having a great offense is definitely more important than having a great defense, and you need a great offense to win the title (this year's UConn mega-outlier notwithstanding). No one's seriously disputing that. What we're disputing is 1) that systemic offensive changes need to be made, and 2) that defensive changes need to be made to help our offense.

There is NO correlation between high tempo or forced-turnover percentage and having an elite team or an offense. This cannot be said enough. I haven't seen any data yet to suggest that simply creating more possessions is objectively better basketball, and I don't want to hear about the eye test. Losing 90-89 sucks just as much as losing 64-63. If you have some data, I'll keep an open mind.

Again, we just need to make shots. If you look at the years when we've had an elite offense, the shooting splits are north of 50-37-75. That's it. We need to make better shots and our free throws.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:57 am

Isn't it Grinnell College that has that system where they play a pressing defense that allows teams to pass over the top and score easy baskets just so they can get the ball back sooner thus creating more possessions? They lose games 125-120 and don't win Division III championships. Exciting basketball for sure, but not a recipe for sustained success.

I say we let Sean Miller be Sean Miller.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:21 am

We are 6 years into the Miller era...his system is well established now. I've always said, if fans have a problem find another team to root for...cause the system ain't changing.

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:29 am

Olsondogg wrote:We are 6 years into the Miller era...his system is well established now. I've always said, if fans have a problem find another team to root for...cause the system ain't changing.

What if everyone had to choose a second favorite team and had to do it based on nearest Division 1 program to where you live? It would certainly help with appreciating Miller's system.

What would yours be? I think mine would be Butler.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:30 am

Dayton

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:43 am

Olsondogg wrote:Dayton

Well looks like somebody hit the second favorite team requirement jackpot.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:46 am

Longhorned wrote:
Olsondogg wrote:We are 6 years into the Miller era...his system is well established now. I've always said, if fans have a problem find another team to root for...cause the system ain't changing.
What if everyone had to choose a second favorite team and had to do it based on nearest Division 1 program to where you live? It would certainly help with appreciating Miller's system.

What would yours be? I think mine would be Butler.

Valparaiso

Blech....

Give me old "Gonna lose at least one game a year because his system sucks" Sean Miller and his team of Wildcats any day over the Crusaders.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:50 am

Longhorned wrote:
Olsondogg wrote:Dayton
Well looks like somebody hit the second favorite team requirement jackpot.

No I am just lying about where I live, considering that Tempe is 23 miles away.

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Olsondogg wrote:
Longhorned wrote:
Olsondogg wrote:Dayton
Well looks like somebody hit the second favorite team requirement jackpot.
No I am just lying about where I live, considering that Tempe is 23 miles away.

I'm sure you'd get an exemption from ASU. Since Grand Canyon isn't real, you'd get NAU.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:02 pm

GCU actually is real, I think they play UK on Friday...

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:14 pm

GCU isn't real. I'll keep repeating it until it's true. Speaking of which, why did Kentucky choose Georgetown College (pop. 1900 students, not even in the NCAA) for its scrimmage?

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:16 pm

Longhorned wrote:GCU isn't real. I'll keep repeating it until it's true. Speaking of which, why did Kentucky choose Georgetown College (pop. 1900 students, not even in the NCAA) for its scrimmage?

So their coach would make a quote stating UK could beat an NBA team....so reporters could rekindle a dumb discussion....so fans could again print 40-0 shirts....

LBdCactus · Post by **LBdCactus** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:34 pm

Longhorned wrote:
Olsondogg wrote:We are 6 years into the Miller era...his system is well established now. I've always said, if fans have a problem find another team to root for...cause the system ain't changing.
What if everyone had to choose a second favorite team and had to do it based on nearest Division 1 program to where you live? It would certainly help with appreciating Miller's system.

What would yours be? I think mine would be Butler.

St. John's, made famous by Chris Mullin and Steve Lavin's prostate.

Wouldn't trade Sean Miller for any other coach out there.

Login • Register