Slow Starts Theory
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:54 pm
You know how the pattern transcends the individual players we put on the court every year. It's chronic and endemic. Why do we so frequently have these starts?
Here's a theory: It's not as bad as it seems to the frustrated fan, and it's an inevitable part of a pattern of lots of wins, a very few close losses, and really nothing else.
At the start of any game, a Miller-coached team goes straight into its pack-line defense, which pulls our defense into a dense pack deep on our own side of the court, where the defensive possession almost always ends with a defensive rebound or a make. This ensures that our motion offense faces the opponent's set defense from the earliest possessions. We always have to start the game without any flow, without any open paths to the basket, and having to feel our way through how to break down that defense. The usual result is either a low-scoring first 5-10 minutes or, if the opponent starts the game shooting lights-out, establishing momentum, a lopsided scoreboard, and another uphill climb.
In the long course of the game, Arizona starts to figure out where the soft spots are and exploits them. As our defense makes slight adjustments, and as the hot streak of the opponent cools to normal, and as the opponent starts to wear down just a little, the game tightens up and Arizona usually starts to gain control. Or if not, to lose by one possession or little more, and that's only very rare.
Fast starts are a double-edged sword. They result from turning the opponent over in the open court and scoring in transition, or by streaky shooting. Against a disciplined pack-line defense and classic motion offense with size and talent, fast starts are as unsustainable as they are undependable. Because Miller-coached teams avoid defending in the open court, and often have an off-night shooting from the perimeter (Miller hasn't recently recruited shooters prior to Trier), Arizona won't usually get off to a fast start. But it will take its lumps early in exchange for really figuring out how to score well enough to have its defense keep it in the game against anyone anywhere, and even on a poor shooting night.
The temptation is to say, "Man, we have the horses. Open it up and let them run over the opposition." That's valid, but we also know the pain from what that risks. If Miller can't get Arizona to a Final Four like Lute could, we'll know the limitations of Miller's system. I just think Miller is right.
Here's a theory: It's not as bad as it seems to the frustrated fan, and it's an inevitable part of a pattern of lots of wins, a very few close losses, and really nothing else.
At the start of any game, a Miller-coached team goes straight into its pack-line defense, which pulls our defense into a dense pack deep on our own side of the court, where the defensive possession almost always ends with a defensive rebound or a make. This ensures that our motion offense faces the opponent's set defense from the earliest possessions. We always have to start the game without any flow, without any open paths to the basket, and having to feel our way through how to break down that defense. The usual result is either a low-scoring first 5-10 minutes or, if the opponent starts the game shooting lights-out, establishing momentum, a lopsided scoreboard, and another uphill climb.
In the long course of the game, Arizona starts to figure out where the soft spots are and exploits them. As our defense makes slight adjustments, and as the hot streak of the opponent cools to normal, and as the opponent starts to wear down just a little, the game tightens up and Arizona usually starts to gain control. Or if not, to lose by one possession or little more, and that's only very rare.
Fast starts are a double-edged sword. They result from turning the opponent over in the open court and scoring in transition, or by streaky shooting. Against a disciplined pack-line defense and classic motion offense with size and talent, fast starts are as unsustainable as they are undependable. Because Miller-coached teams avoid defending in the open court, and often have an off-night shooting from the perimeter (Miller hasn't recently recruited shooters prior to Trier), Arizona won't usually get off to a fast start. But it will take its lumps early in exchange for really figuring out how to score well enough to have its defense keep it in the game against anyone anywhere, and even on a poor shooting night.
The temptation is to say, "Man, we have the horses. Open it up and let them run over the opposition." That's valid, but we also know the pain from what that risks. If Miller can't get Arizona to a Final Four like Lute could, we'll know the limitations of Miller's system. I just think Miller is right.