Bear Down Wildcats

In case we didn't see this summary of a Miller interview with Star and Blue Ribbon Yearbook from last week...

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 9e43e.html

Most of this we know but always good to hear from coach.

Doutrive as a third string point guard is interesting... maybe just gives him some growth opportunity to focus on. Clearly Miller isn't anticipating needing to use him in that spot for more than emergency / acute situations.

The comment about having four freshman but also four fifth year seniors is interesting (with Lee and Doutrive as the other two eligible scholarship players). I hadn't given much thought about how much experience is on the roster with those older players. Still - there's no post-season experience on the team beyond Max Hazzard's round of 32 loss to Oregon and the first round exit that Lee, Smith, and Jeter watched from the bench. At least Josh, Nico, and Zeke are all coming off of high school championships (Josh winning the national with IMG) - maybe that winning energy permeates the team.

Miller's comment about having ten good guys and only likely playing 8 is interesting as well. I suppose we'd put Koloko and one of Smith/DD or one of Ira/Stone in that late bench group?

The experience point is funny.

We basically either have maximum experience or none with very few in betweeners. Ira as a junior is pretty decent experience wise.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:The experience point is funny.

We basically either have maximum experience or none with very few in betweeners.

If you put your head in the freezer and your legs in the oven, the average temperature you'll feel isn't really so remarkable.

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:The experience point is funny.

We basically either have maximum experience or none with very few in betweeners.

If you put your head in the freezer and your legs in the oven, the average temperature you'll feel isn't really so remarkable.

That's called the Ted Williams, right?

SOOOOOOO

Stone Gettings just broke the one mile run record of 5:17 set by TJ and previously matched by PJC. Punched in a 5:14. He's 6'9" y'all.
It's wild that we're hyped on the potential of this roster and we have NO IDEA what kind of impact Stone Gettings will make. Excellent passer in the half court, very good shooter, great post up game... and now the fastest mile runner of the past decade. Who is this guy. What kind of minutes will he get? Who fucking knows. Goddamn wildcard.

Also...

Max Hazzard is an elite three point shooter. His release is lightning quick and the dude is smart in hunting for open looks off ball - getting it out of his hands quickly and getting to his spot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2C90EIh4fN/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2FnN0sBF7u/

The fast break of Nico, Josh, and Max (along with pick your big of Zeke / Ira / Chase) is going to be bonkers.

YoDeFoe wrote:Also...

Max Hazzard is an elite three point shooter. His release is lightning quick and the dude is smart in hunting for open looks off ball - getting it out of his hands quickly and getting to his spot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2C90EIh4fN/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2FnN0sBF7u/

The fast break of Nico, Josh, and Max (along with pick your big of Zeke / Ira / Chase) is going to be bonkers.

Starting to sound like Golden State Warriors the college version...

CatFanOneMil wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Also...

Max Hazzard is an elite three point shooter. His release is lightning quick and the dude is smart in hunting for open looks off ball - getting it out of his hands quickly and getting to his spot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2C90EIh4fN/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2FnN0sBF7u/

The fast break of Nico, Josh, and Max (along with pick your big of Zeke / Ira / Chase) is going to be bonkers.

Starting to sound like Golden State Warriors the college version...

Miller does sound bullish. Maybe he's on to something.

Hazzard and Nico and Green are all big game players and now they're all playing in front of 14.5k every home game and in the biggest home game of the opponent's season when away and they're going to burn the fucking buildings down. This season is going to be one hell of a show.

(Yes I've stopped drinking since yesterday, no I have not stopped the hype train)

YoDeFoe wrote:Hazzard and Nico and Green are all big game players and now they're all playing in front of 14.5k every home game and in the biggest home game of the opponent's season when away and they're going to burn the fucking buildings down. This season is going to be one hell of a show.

(Yes I've stopped drinking since yesterday, no I have not stopped the hype train)

Pre-season, I usually expect the new team to come out looking like an Olson-era team: fast, fluid, overpowering, and sharp-shooting, with smart, flexible defenses able to turn the ball over and dunk thunderously in transition. And then on game day I see the plodding, the halting, and the helpless-shooting, with confused defenses that can only hope the opposition throws the ball out of bounds on their own volition.

I'm just trying to keep that pattern in mind.

Longhorned wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Also...

Max Hazzard is an elite three point shooter. His release is lightning quick and the dude is smart in hunting for open looks off ball - getting it out of his hands quickly and getting to his spot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2C90EIh4fN/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2FnN0sBF7u/

The fast break of Nico, Josh, and Max (along with pick your big of Zeke / Ira / Chase) is going to be bonkers.

Starting to sound like Golden State Warriors the college version...

Miller does sound bullish. Maybe he's on to something.

Name ONE team Miller has ever sounded bullish on...I do get that he is always the most accurate source for reality on where the team actually is, but it's early and he always tempers expectations at this time of the year...ALWAYS.

I have yet to see him ever hype any team he has coached.

CatFanOneMil wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Also...

Max Hazzard is an elite three point shooter. His release is lightning quick and the dude is smart in hunting for open looks off ball - getting it out of his hands quickly and getting to his spot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2C90EIh4fN/

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2FnN0sBF7u/

The fast break of Nico, Josh, and Max (along with pick your big of Zeke / Ira / Chase) is going to be bonkers.

Starting to sound like Golden State Warriors the college version...

Miller does sound bullish. Maybe he's on to something.

Name ONE team Miller has ever sounded bullish on...I do get that he is always the most accurate source for reality on where the team actually is, but it's early and he always tempers expectations at this time of the year...ALWAYS.

I have yet to see him ever hype any team he has coached.

This one. He's always been even-tempered to disparaging in a really general rather than specific way, like "We just aren't a very good basketball team." This time, he seems really locked in and fiery in a general rather than specific way. I don't know if it means anything, but the hopeful part of me wonders if he's enjoying working with this group so much, he's forgetting himself.

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Hazzard and Nico and Green are all big game players and now they're all playing in front of 14.5k every home game and in the biggest home game of the opponent's season when away and they're going to burn the fucking buildings down. This season is going to be one hell of a show.

(Yes I've stopped drinking since yesterday, no I have not stopped the hype train)

Pre-season, I usually expect the new team to come out looking like an Olson-era team: fast, fluid, overpowering, and sharp-shooting, with smart, flexible defenses able to turn the ball over and dunk thunderously in transition. And then on game day I see the plodding, the halting, and the helpless-shooting, with confused defenses that can only hope the opposition throws the ball out of bounds on their own volition.

I'm just trying to keep that pattern in mind.

I keep thinking of the incredible change in play style and culture at UCLA when Lonzo showed up. A 15-17 team became a 30+ win team. The passing and running / attacking mindset was contagious - they became one of the top Assist Rate teams in the country. Of course, Alford couldn't coach defense for the life of him but that's never been Miller's problem.

We have a potential all time great UA point guard coming in along with a collection of other players who are smart in moving the ball (including Green, Gettings, and Hazzard). I'm sure Miller knows how lucky we are to have Nico and the rest of these guys. No chance he puts the yolk on them on offense.

And while I loved dudes like Trier and Lauri and Ayton - a lot of our stalled offense was because we needed to run plays through those guys / get it into their hands. I think you look at the 1-7 on this team and see much more balanced scoring potential, with the huge benefit of the number one scoring threat being the guy who takes the ball up every half court possession.

Jesus guys, the last few days in this thread are getting me really fired up for basketball season.

Thank you!

Has this years calender come out? Lasts years was pretty dorky.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Hazzard and Nico and Green are all big game players and now they're all playing in front of 14.5k every home game and in the biggest home game of the opponent's season when away and they're going to burn the fucking buildings down. This season is going to be one hell of a show.

(Yes I've stopped drinking since yesterday, no I have not stopped the hype train)

Pre-season, I usually expect the new team to come out looking like an Olson-era team: fast, fluid, overpowering, and sharp-shooting, with smart, flexible defenses able to turn the ball over and dunk thunderously in transition. And then on game day I see the plodding, the halting, and the helpless-shooting, with confused defenses that can only hope the opposition throws the ball out of bounds on their own volition.

I'm just trying to keep that pattern in mind.

I keep thinking of the incredible change in play style and culture at UCLA when Lonzo showed up. A 15-17 team became a 30+ win team. The passing and running / attacking mindset was contagious - they became one of the top Assist Rate teams in the country. Of course, Alford couldn't coach defense for the life of him but that's never been Miller's problem.

We have a potential all time great UA point guard coming in along with a collection of other players who are smart in moving the ball (including Green, Gettings, and Hazzard). I'm sure Miller knows how lucky we are to have Nico and the rest of these guys. No chance he puts the yolk on them on offense.

And while I loved dudes like Trier and Lauri and Ayton - a lot of our stalled offense was because we needed to run plays through those guys / get it into their hands. I think you look at the 1-7 on this team and see much more balanced scoring potential, with the huge benefit of the number one scoring threat being the guy who takes the ball up every half court possession.

Let me say this too, people overrate the difference pace makes. In 16-17, we were #293 in the nation in possessions per game.

So, we must have had a lot fewer possessions than top teams, right? Turns out, if we had 5 more possessions per game, we'd have been tied for 77th nationally. 10 more, and we'd be in the top ten nationally.

That's actually how pace works out in college. Differences of 3-4 possessions a game move you dramatically around in pace rankings. Most of CBB is a gigantic pace clump differentiated by a possession or two.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Hazzard and Nico and Green are all big game players and now they're all playing in front of 14.5k every home game and in the biggest home game of the opponent's season when away and they're going to burn the fucking buildings down. This season is going to be one hell of a show.

(Yes I've stopped drinking since yesterday, no I have not stopped the hype train)

Pre-season, I usually expect the new team to come out looking like an Olson-era team: fast, fluid, overpowering, and sharp-shooting, with smart, flexible defenses able to turn the ball over and dunk thunderously in transition. And then on game day I see the plodding, the halting, and the helpless-shooting, with confused defenses that can only hope the opposition throws the ball out of bounds on their own volition.

I'm just trying to keep that pattern in mind.

I keep thinking of the incredible change in play style and culture at UCLA when Lonzo showed up. A 15-17 team became a 30+ win team. The passing and running / attacking mindset was contagious - they became one of the top Assist Rate teams in the country. Of course, Alford couldn't coach defense for the life of him but that's never been Miller's problem.

We have a potential all time great UA point guard coming in along with a collection of other players who are smart in moving the ball (including Green, Gettings, and Hazzard). I'm sure Miller knows how lucky we are to have Nico and the rest of these guys. No chance he puts the yolk on them on offense.

And while I loved dudes like Trier and Lauri and Ayton - a lot of our stalled offense was because we needed to run plays through those guys / get it into their hands. I think you look at the 1-7 on this team and see much more balanced scoring potential, with the huge benefit of the number one scoring threat being the guy who takes the ball up every half court possession.

Let me say this too, people overrate the difference pace makes. In 16-17, we were #293 in the nation in possessions per game.

So, we must have had a lot fewer possessions than top teams, right? Turns out, if we had 5 more possessions per game, we'd have been tied for 77th nationally. 10 more, and we'd be in the top ten nationally.

That's actually how pace works out in college. Differences of 3-4 possessions a game move you dramatically around in pace rankings. Most of CBB is a gigantic pace clump differentiated by a possession or two.

Five possessions seems like a pretty wide gulf to me. Averaging five more possessions over your offense's split of the 40 minutes total of game clock strikes me as a different product entirely. Ten would be in a different league. Is my perspective off on that?

Five possessions seems like a pretty wide gulf to me. Averaging five more possessions over your offense's split of the 40 minutes total of game clock strikes me as a different product entirely. Ten would be in a different league. Is my perspective off on that?

There's a point it's sort of the eye of the beholder, but I don't really see it as a huge difference.

5 possessions is roughly 2-3 made baskets depending on turnovers, free throws and fg%. In both ways, I'd wager the average fan thinks pace plays a larger role than that, in which 5 can vault you from cellar dweller into one of the top teams.

TO's per game, 2.6 will bring you from 150 to #1. In terms of fouls per game, there's roughly a 4 difference between #1 and #150. Free throws per game, it takes about 7 more per game to go from #150 to #1. Steals are 3.6 more to make that jump. You'd think a team that leveraged several of these variables could create a major gap.

I mean, heck, there's a 5.3 possession difference from #1 to #10, but then it's #10 to #168 for another 5.3 possession difference. That first differential implies to me that you can create big differences.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Five possessions seems like a pretty wide gulf to me. Averaging five more possessions over your offense's split of the 40 minutes total of game clock strikes me as a different product entirely. Ten would be in a different league. Is my perspective off on that?

There's a point it's sort of the eye of the beholder, but I don't really see it as a huge difference.

5 possessions is roughly 2-3 made baskets depending on turnovers, free throws and fg%. In both ways, I'd wager the average fan thinks pace plays a larger role than that, in which 5 can vault you from cellar dweller into one of the top teams.

TO's per game, 2.6 will bring you from 150 to #1. In terms of fouls per game, there's roughly a 4 difference between #1 and #150. Free throws per game, it takes about 7 more per game to go from #150 to #1. Steals are 3.6 more to make that jump. You'd think a team that leveraged several of these variables could create a major gap.

I mean, heck, there's a 5.3 possession difference from #1 to #10, but then it's #10 to #168 for another 5.3 possession difference. That first differential implies to me that you can create big differences.

Yeah, I see that, in terms of the negligible differences that add up to major separations in the lists of rankings. It makes you half expect that when a team with an overall ranking of 10 plays a team with an overall ranking of 75, they should win by at least 65 points.

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Five possessions seems like a pretty wide gulf to me. Averaging five more possessions over your offense's split of the 40 minutes total of game clock strikes me as a different product entirely. Ten would be in a different league. Is my perspective off on that?

There's a point it's sort of the eye of the beholder, but I don't really see it as a huge difference.

5 possessions is roughly 2-3 made baskets depending on turnovers, free throws and fg%. In both ways, I'd wager the average fan thinks pace plays a larger role than that, in which 5 can vault you from cellar dweller into one of the top teams.

TO's per game, 2.6 will bring you from 150 to #1. In terms of fouls per game, there's roughly a 4 difference between #1 and #150. Free throws per game, it takes about 7 more per game to go from #150 to #1. Steals are 3.6 more to make that jump. You'd think a team that leveraged several of these variables could create a major gap.

I mean, heck, there's a 5.3 possession difference from #1 to #10, but then it's #10 to #168 for another 5.3 possession difference. That first differential implies to me that you can create big differences.

Yeah, I see that, in terms of the negligible differences that add up to major separations in the lists of rankings. It makes you half expect that when a team with an overall ranking of 10 plays a team with an overall ranking of 75, they should win by at least 65 points.

Yeah, with the # of variables, it shocked me that there was only a 5 possession difference. Heck, offensive rebounds alone could account for 5 extra possessions.

You think going extra fast, offensive glass, steals, etc. are all gonna pump those possessions numbers up, yet you wind up with a single possession or so differentiating approximately 50 ranking points at times.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Let me say this too, people overrate the difference pace makes. In 16-17, we were #293 in the nation in possessions per game.

So, we must have had a lot fewer possessions than top teams, right? Turns out, if we had 5 more possessions per game, we'd have been tied for 77th nationally. 10 more, and we'd be in the top ten nationally.

That's actually how pace works out in college. Differences of 3-4 possessions a game move you dramatically around in pace rankings. Most of CBB is a gigantic pace clump differentiated by a possession or two.

To that point: UCLA's transformational year with Ball saw their adjusted tempo (KenPom) go from 70 to 73, taking them from top 100 to top 25 in the nation. Not a big difference in the raw number, big difference in rank. Their "assist per field goal made" rate jumped from just outside the top 100 to one of the tops in the nation... by assisting on 8% more baskets per game.

As a stats guy... that's not helpful to my argument. But I don't think you need to be Clip to have noticed what that team looked like in terms of passing the ball and pushing pace. Heading back to the stats, here's what stood out to me for UCLA:

SEASON | FGM | FGA | AST
2016 | 915 | 2016 | 502
2017 | 1210 | 2320 | 771
2018 | 927 | 2014 | 495

2017 is, of course, the Lonzo season.

Really though, it's the combination of having two exceptional guards on that team with Ball and Holiday. Something we could have had with Mannion and Williams. So my "generational PG = increase in team passing" hypothesis is probably trash... teams don't magically become great at passing with the addition of a single player, it's the collection of passing on the roster.

We don't have that second guard who will put up 150+ assists this season (like Holiday did with Ball). But we do have some guys who can put up 70-100 assists on the season... Hazzard, Green, Gettings. Add another 30 a guy for the fifth, sixth, and seventh guy on the depth chart.

I'll guess we end up with 520-570 assists on the season if everyone stays healthy and productive. Looking at our historicals... that's what we had when we were a top 20 offense.

(This is probably my least focused post in some time, so if you read till the end thank you / I'm sorry)

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Five possessions seems like a pretty wide gulf to me. Averaging five more possessions over your offense's split of the 40 minutes total of game clock strikes me as a different product entirely. Ten would be in a different league. Is my perspective off on that?

There's a point it's sort of the eye of the beholder, but I don't really see it as a huge difference.

5 possessions is roughly 2-3 made baskets depending on turnovers, free throws and fg%. In both ways, I'd wager the average fan thinks pace plays a larger role than that, in which 5 can vault you from cellar dweller into one of the top teams.

TO's per game, 2.6 will bring you from 150 to #1. In terms of fouls per game, there's roughly a 4 difference between #1 and #150. Free throws per game, it takes about 7 more per game to go from #150 to #1. Steals are 3.6 more to make that jump. You'd think a team that leveraged several of these variables could create a major gap.

I mean, heck, there's a 5.3 possession difference from #1 to #10, but then it's #10 to #168 for another 5.3 possession difference. That first differential implies to me that you can create big differences.

Yeah, I see that, in terms of the negligible differences that add up to major separations in the lists of rankings. It makes you half expect that when a team with an overall ranking of 10 plays a team with an overall ranking of 75, they should win by at least 65 points.

Yeah, with the # of variables, it shocked me that there was only a 5 possession difference. Heck, offensive rebounds alone could account for 5 extra possessions.

You think going extra fast, offensive glass, steals, etc. are all gonna pump those possessions numbers up, yet you wind up with a single possession or so differentiating approximately 50 ranking points at times.

Does an o rebound count as an extra possession? Or does the ball have to change hands?

Good stuff guys. The thing that immediately stood out to me going through the UCLA team stats from Lonzo's season was that UCLA shot 70% at the rim and those looks consisted of 35% of the teams shot attempts.

Considering our bigs, thats something we should hope we can come close to replicating, although losing BWill is certainly going to impact those easy looks.

I’m one of those weird people who care about winning, first and last. So I’d want to know what the correlation is between increased pace and winning. We’ve all seen the correlation between offensive and defensive efficiency and likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Is there any kind of similar correlation with increased pace? If not, don’t care. The day we become spoiled enough to have the luxury to care about style points on the way to our Final Four run . . . is the day I’ll consider caring if we play more like the Lakers or Celtics (Magic/Bird era).

ByJoveByJingle wrote:I’m one of those weird people who care about winning, first and last. So I’d want to know what the correlation is between increased pace and winning. We’ve all seen the correlation between offensive and defensive efficiency and likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Is there any kind of similar correlation with increased pace? If not, don’t care. The day we become spoiled enough to have the luxury to care about style points on the way to our Final Four run . . . is the day I’ll consider caring if we play more like the Lakers or Celtics (Magic/Bird era).

Miller is a round peg in a square hole coach. Until he decides to be more flexible in allowing his players to play to their strengths we will see the same results year in and year out. Eventually I'm hoping Miller will get tired of watching coaches like Dana Altman and Mark Few out perform him because they have the ability to adapt and get the most out of the players they recruit. Miller is a superb recruiter but having an antiquated coaching style/philosophy will continue to be his undoing until he decides to evolve.

You are the inverse Machina of the basketball board. Every issue can be solved by fans attending the football games. And every basketball issue would be solved if Miller would just listen to Captain Obvious. But do you have an opinion on whether increasing pace, all other things being equal, will increase the winning prospects of the team? Or might you agree that the Celtics were pretty damned good despite not adopting the Showtime moniker?

Slower tempo teams are more susceptible to upsets in the tournament. Statistically similar to how the shorter the playoff series is (or single game for football), the better chance for upsets.

EDIT: To clarify, slower isn't necessarily worse or a killer, this is just a nuance. Virginia is the perfect example considering the last two years.

ByJoveByJingle wrote:I’m one of those weird people who care about winning, first and last. So I’d want to know what the correlation is between increased pace and winning. We’ve all seen the correlation between offensive and defensive efficiency and likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Is there any kind of similar correlation with increased pace? If not, don’t care. The day we become spoiled enough to have the luxury to care about style points on the way to our Final Four run . . . is the day I’ll consider caring if we play more like the Lakers or Celtics (Magic/Bird era).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a somewhat common perception that A) the pace ranking is a best-to-worst ranking in the same way adjusted offensive efficiency is, whereas in fact it's a ranking from most to fewest possessions per game; and B) the pace ranking has something to do with "letting the horses loose" to run circles overwhelm opponents with their oh-so-impressive pace.

And therefore, absent these misapprehensions, there is no necessary correlation between pace ranking and winning.

As for your later analogy about Bird v. Magic, we don't know. For example, I drove to my first basketball game 10 years ago when I turned 16 and got my drivers license, and that stuff you're referring to looks awfully grainy on Youtube. I don't know how your people could even see through all that pixelation, and how Larry Bird didn't hang himself on the strings hanging out of Michael Cooper's waistband. Not that I remember who Michael Cooper was.

One word answer: Virginia

ByJoveByJingle wrote:I’m one of those weird people who care about winning, first and last. So I’d want to know what the correlation is between increased pace and winning. We’ve all seen the correlation between offensive and defensive efficiency and likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Is there any kind of similar correlation with increased pace? If not, don’t care. The day we become spoiled enough to have the luxury to care about style points on the way to our Final Four run . . . is the day I’ll consider caring if we play more like the Lakers or Celtics (Magic/Bird era).

Here's a link to pure pace. Note the teams at the top.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... s-per-game" target="_blank

Check out points per possession:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... efficiency" target="_blank

Here's a link to offensive efficiency. Note the teams at the top.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjOE" target="_blank

I'd venture the best case is the combination of pace and efficiency. Fast and efficient is best. If I had to sacrifice one, it would be pace. A slower, more efficient team can win. A fast, inefficient team had better turn the opponent over a ton.

The corrolary to the only 5-10 possession difference between slow and fast teams is that if you are low efficiency and waste 5-10 more possessions than the opponent, it doesn't matter if you play fast.

Longhorned wrote:.

As for your later analogy about Bird v. Magic, we don't know. For example, I drove to my first basketball game 10 years ago when I turned 16 and got my drivers license, and that stuff you're referring to looks awfully grainy on Youtube. I don't know how your people could even see through all that pixelation, and how Larry Bird didn't hang himself on the strings hanging out of Michael Cooper's waistband. Not that I remember who Michael Cooper was.

Listen, even Mario and Luigi still kicked ass with 8 pixels and we could see it plenty fine on our Atari consoles . . . something a suspiciously time-worn 26 year old like yourself would know if you were around to appreciate McHale when he was doing weird things to people with his chest.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ByJoveByJingle wrote:I’m one of those weird people who care about winning, first and last. So I’d want to know what the correlation is between increased pace and winning. We’ve all seen the correlation between offensive and defensive efficiency and likelihood of reaching the Final Four. Is there any kind of similar correlation with increased pace? If not, don’t care. The day we become spoiled enough to have the luxury to care about style points on the way to our Final Four run . . . is the day I’ll consider caring if we play more like the Lakers or Celtics (Magic/Bird era).

Here's a link to pure pace. Note the teams at the top.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... s-per-game" target="_blank

Check out points per possession:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... efficiency" target="_blank

Here's a link to offensive efficiency. Note the teams at the top.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjOE" target="_blank

I'd venture the best case is the combination of pace and efficiency. Fast and efficient is best. If I had to sacrifice one, it would be pace. A slower, more efficient team can win. A fast, inefficient team had better turn the opponent over a ton.

The corrolary to the only 5-10 possession difference between slow and fast teams is that if you are low efficiency and waste 5-10 more possessions than the opponent, it doesn't matter if you play fast.

That’s great, Spiff! Thanks. And supports my expectations. KenPom efficiency and the more simple O efficiency statistics matter, while pace seems to have very little impact on performance.

No need to point out where we were in KenPom offensive efficiency when we were a missed 3 and missed charge call from Final Fours. Despite the great burden of being average paced teams.

prh wrote:Slower tempo teams are more susceptible to upsets in the tournament. Statistically similar to how the shorter the playoff series is (or single game for football), the better chance for upsets.

EDIT: To clarify, slower isn't necessarily worse or a killer, this is just a nuance. Virginia is the perfect example considering the last two years.

Unless there is a larger more statistically supported study of this, I’m not sure I can unquestioningly swallow that. I mean you say Virginia, I say Loyola Marymount (Paul Westhead edition). Blinding pace is no panacea to early exits from the Tourney.

TheCat wrote:One word answer: Virginia

Oh my god, I read that as a body part.

ByJoveByJingle wrote:

prh wrote:Slower tempo teams are more susceptible to upsets in the tournament. Statistically similar to how the shorter the playoff series is (or single game for football), the better chance for upsets.

EDIT: To clarify, slower isn't necessarily worse or a killer, this is just a nuance. Virginia is the perfect example considering the last two years.

Unless there is a larger more statistically supported study of this, I’m not sure I can unquestioningly swallow that. I mean you say Virginia, I say Loyola Marymount (Paul Westhead edition). Blinding pace is no panacea to early exits from the Tourney.

I've seen some data before from ESPN (maybe 538), but I'm not sure I'd be able to find it again. It's by no means guaranteed, it's just a slight statistical anomaly you could say. Sample size is so small, it just reinforces the fact the tourney is more of a crapshoot than anything.

ByJoveByJingle wrote:Unless there is a larger more statistically supported study of this, I’m not sure I can unquestioningly swallow that. I mean you say Virginia, I say Loyola Marymount (Paul Westhead edition). Blinding pace is no panacea to early exits from the Tourney.

I have no idea the impact of pace, but wouldn't Loyola Marymount be supportive of a pace argument? They had a winning record in the tournament under Westhead despite being a 10 seed or worse each year.

ByJoveByJingle wrote:

prh wrote:Slower tempo teams are more susceptible to upsets in the tournament. Statistically similar to how the shorter the playoff series is (or single game for football), the better chance for upsets.

EDIT: To clarify, slower isn't necessarily worse or a killer, this is just a nuance. Virginia is the perfect example considering the last two years.

Unless there is a larger more statistically supported study of this, I’m not sure I can unquestioningly swallow that. I mean you say Virginia, I say Loyola Marymount (Paul Westhead edition). Blinding pace is no panacea to early exits from the Tourney.

The thing pace might help you with, IMO, is coming back from a deficit. The faster teams probably have a better shot at making up a 15 point deficit, just because they're used to pushing the pace in the way you have to when down 15.

I'm not sure I buy pace as a determinant in upsets, though. Villanova's last championship run, they were #134 in possessions per game. Most big time teams tend to be in that mushy middle.

Statistics that predict success or failure in the tourney are like the Loch Ness monster. Sometimes someone says they saw something, and nobody else can confirm. But we all want to believe.

Longhorned wrote:Statistics that predict success or failure in the tourney are like the Loch Ness monster. Sometimes someone says they saw something, and nobody else can confirm. But we all want to believe.

I believe 97's top 20 AdjO and AdjD stat.

The only thing we can be certain of are fluke injuries, random suspensions and ESPN shouting to the word about how dirty we are.

Can't wait for the season to start!

Statistics cannot tell you what chance you have of winning, they are there to tell you your chances of losing...

Winning ALWAYS includes some luck.

tricat wrote:

ByJoveByJingle wrote:Unless there is a larger more statistically supported study of this, I’m not sure I can unquestioningly swallow that. I mean you say Virginia, I say Loyola Marymount (Paul Westhead edition). Blinding pace is no panacea to early exits from the Tourney.

I have no idea the impact of pace, but wouldn't Loyola Marymount be supportive of a pace argument? They had a winning record in the tournament under Westhead despite being a 10 seed or worse each year.

They lost in the first or second round for 4 straight years as they emerged on the national scene. Then they had the big run to the Elite 8 which I’m guessing skewed that record into winning territory.

Alieberman wrote:The only thing we can be certain of are fluke injuries, random suspensions and ESPN shouting to the word about how dirty we are.

Can't wait for the season to start!

ByJoveByJingle wrote:They lost in the first or second round for 4 straight years as they emerged on the national scene. Then they had the big run to the Elite 8 which I’m guessing skewed that record into winning territory.

Not sure what to tell you man, they only made 3 tournaments during that era and pulled upsets in 4 of their 7 games.

tricat wrote:

ByJoveByJingle wrote:They lost in the first or second round for 4 straight years as they emerged on the national scene. Then they had the big run to the Elite 8 which I’m guessing skewed that record into winning territory.

Not sure what to tell you man, they only made 3 tournaments during that era and pulled upsets in 4 of their 7 games.

My mistake. I did a quick look at their Wikipedia page and added in their first round loss to ASU in 1980.

1988
First Round Wyoming W 119–115
Second Round. North Carolina L 97–123

1989
First Round. Arkansas L 101–120

1990
First Round. New Mexico State W 111–92
Second Round. Michigan W 149–115
Sweet Sixteen Alabama. W 62–60
Elite Eight UNLV L 101–131

So what conclusion about pace would you draw from these Tourney results from the ultimate pace team? Completely mixed results with a tendency to either blow out teams or be blown out? Not anything I would want to use as a foundation for building my program. And unsurprisingly, the Westhead era was a bubble, an historical curiosity that nobody would remember if Hank Gathers hadn’t passed away.

The only argument I would listen to about pace at this point would be if average pace programs couldn’t recruit top notch players. We know that is fundamentally untrue at Arizona. I loved the run and gun Lute era teams but if that’s not Miller’s thing, recruiting and winning will provide me with plenty of satisfaction.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:Statistics that predict success or failure in the tourney are like the Loch Ness monster. Sometimes someone says they saw something, and nobody else can confirm. But we all want to believe.

I believe 97's top 20 AdjO and AdjD stat.

That and the more important part of the equation: that NOTHING APPLIES TO UCONN EVARRRRRR!!!!!!

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:Statistics that predict success or failure in the tourney are like the Loch Ness monster. Sometimes someone says they saw something, and nobody else can confirm. But we all want to believe.

I believe 97's top 20 AdjO and AdjD stat.

That and the more important part of the equation: that NOTHING APPLIES TO UCONN EVARRRRRR!!!!!!

Fuck whoever the guy is who sold his soul for UCONN's incoherent run of success.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:Statistics that predict success or failure in the tourney are like the Loch Ness monster. Sometimes someone says they saw something, and nobody else can confirm. But we all want to believe.

I believe 97's top 20 AdjO and AdjD stat.

That and the more important part of the equation: that NOTHING APPLIES TO UCONN EVARRRRRR!!!!!!

Fuck whoever the guy is who sold his soul for UCONN's incoherent run of success.

Yeah, where did that guy even manage to find that bargain? Like where specifically.

Jim Calhoun's masturbatorium emporium.

Jake DesJardins had some shoot around video up on his Instagram yesterday... Nico and Max shooting three's. Funny to see their respective play styles - Nico had a two dribble shake that got him to his spot in the corner and then hoisted a tough three (made it); Max took one dribble to the line and flicked a quick make. Nico was talking up Max before his shot and gave him some praise after.

Koloko had another video of Nico and Max taking catch and shoot threes - sprinting to their spot at the top of the perimeter, catching a pass and taking a no dribble. They made every one.

It's practice, and it doesn't always translate, but I think we know these two are going to be quality jump shooters from distance. More importantly, I love seeing them both in the gym working on their shot together and building chemistry. Without BWill, we're going to need Max to deliver big for us - specifically with something like 70+ assists and 100+ made three's.