• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slowing Tempo Would Help Wake

RJKarl said:
If UVA had rebounders, they would run more. They have to rebound as a group on D.

If your team has inferior talent, you need to get the ball up the court quicker to avoid allowing the more talented tam to set-up on D.

UVA has far superior players to Wake. you can't expect the same type of results.

Where were we two games ago? The last two games dropped our numbers dramatically. Not having Key being fully available (and out for one) for the past five games has hurt dramatically.
Click to expand...

UVA does have rebounders. They start Wilkins at the 4 and Salt at the 5. Both rebound and play D well. And their wings rebound well. This isn't their best rebounding team but they're still in the plus column on rebounds. And UVA only looks to run when they have a pretty obvious runout. That's the way Tony's teams have always been, whether at UVA or WSU. They would never look to run more.

UVA's current talent isn't far superior to Wake's. This is far from the most talented team UVA has had in the last 5 years. Right now, past players who have played in the NBA include Harris, Brogdon, Mitchell, Scott, Anderson and Perrantes. The only current player who will sniff an NBA roster is Hunter, and that's only if his handles improve immensely and he learns to play the 3. Their current roster is a bunch of role players plus Guy, and they just fit well together and play stifling D. The other thing is they have a great strength coach. Look at what these kids looked like as freshmen and what they look like now. This team is physically and mentally stronger than most teams they play.
 
Before the Syracuse game:

"As we all know, Wake Forest thrives on offense, where it has the 31st most efficient offense in the nation, but struggles immensely on defense, ranking 168th nationally."

So we are now 81st on offense and 123rd on defense.

Key has played 81 minutes in the past 7 games (11.5 MPG).

OE of opponents since then:

100, 74, 27, 2, 44, 42, 2 = Average of 41.5

DE of opponents since then:

15, 112, 106, 70, 134, 1, 70 = Average of 72.5

While I'm not ready to make a sweeping generalization based on this, it appears that Woods absence has hurt us offensively but helped us tremendously defensively. Despite playing much better offensive teams Wake has somehow made up 45 spots in DE, but dropped 50 spots in OE.

Obviously there are a ton of variables out there that impacts this aside from just the absence of Woods, but that's some good info there.

cville deac said:
UVA does have rebounders. They start Wilkins at the 4 and Salt at the 5. Both rebound and play D well. And their wings rebound well. This isn't their best rebounding team but they're still in the plus column on rebounds. And UVA only looks to run when they have a pretty obvious runout. That's the way Tony's teams have always been, whether at UVA or WSU. They would never look to run more.

UVA's current talent isn't far superior to Wake's. This is far from the most talented team UVA has had in the last 5 years. Right now, past players who have played in the NBA include Harris, Brogdon, Mitchell, Scott, Anderson and Perrantes. The only current player who will sniff an NBA roster is Hunter, and that's only if his handles improve immensely and he learns to play the 3. Their current roster is a bunch of role players plus Guy, and they just fit well together and play stifling D. The other thing is they have a great strength coach. Look at what these kids looked like as freshmen and what they look like now. This team is physically and mentally stronger than most teams they play.
Click to expand...

It's pretty amazing UVA lost 3 players in 2 days this offseason and are 8-0 in the ACC and 2nd nationally. What a testament to Bennett and his system.
 
Bennett's system works great in the regular season, but not so great in The Dance. He's lost to lower seeds very often.

I would love to have that regular season.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Before the Syracuse game:

"As we all know, Wake Forest thrives on offense, where it has the 31st most efficient offense in the nation, but struggles immensely on defense, ranking 168th nationally."

So we are now 81st on offense and 123rd on defense.

Key has played 81 minutes in the past 7 games (11.5 MPG).

OE of opponents since then:

100, 74, 27, 2, 44, 42, 2 = Average of 41.5

DE of opponents since then:

15, 112, 106, 70, 134, 1, 70 = Average of 72.5

While I'm not ready to make a sweeping generalization based on this, it appears that Woods absence has hurt us offensively but helped us tremendously defensively. Despite playing much better offensive teams Wake has somehow made up 45 spots in DE, but dropped 50 spots in OE.

Obviously there are a ton of variables out there that impacts this aside from just the absence of Woods, but that's some good info there.



It's pretty amazing UVA lost 3 players in 2 days this offseason and are 8-0 in the ACC and 2nd nationally. What a testament to Bennett and his system.
Click to expand...

In that case it was addition by subraction. I think Bennett went to Thompson or Shayock and Reuter and told them their PT would be reduced (he claims, and probably honestly, he has never asked anyone to transfer or stay). I'm guessing it was Thompson based on level of play, and the word was the other (I'm guessing Shayock) was close to the transferee and decided to transfer too. Which is why Tony went out and got Nigel Johnson to come for a post-grad year. I never liked Thompson, and Reuter was a complete stiff. I liked Shayock, but he was streaky offensively and was often a defensive liability. Those guys leaving and Guy and Jerome improving significantly on D is why this team is much better than last year's edition.
 
RJKarl said:
Bennett's system works great in the regular season, but not so great in The Dance. He's lost to lower seeds very often.

I would love to have that regular season.
Click to expand...

Right, The Big Dance is a complete crap shoot.

He is 64-16 in the ACC in the past 4.5 years and 131-31 in the same time frame.

Would definitely take that and would guess that the team is going to break through the Tournament at some point. Just a small sample size at this point. There is a case to be made that slowing the tempo down creates closer games because you don't have as many possessions to assert your efficiency dominance per possession, but unsure if that's actually "true" or just anecdotal.
 
How does our DE track with Chaundee’s PT?

I’d like to see Key and Chaundee play together.
 
PhDeac said:
How does our DE track with Chaundee’s PT?

I’d like to see Key and Chaundee play together.
Click to expand...

I can try to look.

KP only keeps the overall ranking from game to game and not the OE/DE, so that makes it a bit difficult to look up. I think I have the OE and DE for most previews in ACC play, but didn't really include them in the non-conference. I would guess that more minutes from Chaundee correlates to a better DE.

Unclear if it's tied to one player as a good barometer, or a couple of different guys.
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
Craw, Key, Chaundee, Sarr/Mitchell, Doral sounds like a pretty decent lineup
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued to see a:

PG - Brown - Mitchell - Sarr - Moore lineup get some run.

That length would cause issues for opposing offenses, which would finally offset our back court length issues.

We could switch everything 1-4 on screens (maybe not Sarr to a PG), and keep Moore inside. That would solve a lot of our pick and roll woes. We could also go zone if we wanted to (which Manning likes to do with Mitchell in the game as is).

Shooting may be an issue on offense, but I think with Sarr at the stretch 4 it would open up a lot of room for slashing. Give Brown and Mitchell the green light and let the PG get the ball to them out there. Also, by getting Sarr out of the middle it would open up Moore inside down low and keep him there. Sarr could effectively be the pick and roll guy like Collins was last year.
 
You do realize that to play much slower, you must be far more efficient, don't you?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I'm intrigued to see a:

PG - Brown - Mitchell - Sarr - Moore lineup get some run.

That length would cause issues for opposing offenses, which would finally offset our back court length issues.

We could switch everything 1-4 on screens (maybe not Sarr to a PG), and keep Moore inside. That would solve a lot of our pick and roll woes. We could also go zone if we wanted to (which Manning likes to do with Mitchell in the game as is).

Shooting may be an issue on offense, but I think with Sarr at the stretch 4 it would open up a lot of room for slashing. Give Brown and Mitchell the green light and let the PG get the ball to them out there. Also, by getting Sarr out of the middle it would open up Moore inside down low and keep him there. Sarr could effectively be the pick and roll guy like Collins was last year.
Click to expand...

This would be interesting to see. Maybe that lineup would also give Sarr and Mitchell more leeway to shoot from three. I haven't understood why both are so unwilling to look for their shot from behind the line.
 
If you have fewer possessions, each one is more valuable. If you dramatically change the number of possessions, you have to be nearly perfect. Each turnover and each missed shot is a bigger part of your game.
 
RJKarl said:
If you have fewer possessions, each one is more valuable. If you dramatically change the number of possessions, you have to be nearly perfect. Each turnover and each missed shot is a bigger part of your game.
Click to expand...
That's the entire point...we have a better chance of scoring from the half court.
 
RJKarl said:
If you have fewer possessions, each one is more valuable. If you dramatically change the number of possessions, you have to be nearly perfect. Each turnover and each missed shot is a bigger part of your game.
Click to expand...

Right, I understand that. You really mean that if you have fewer possessions then you likely need to have a wider efficiency margin than a fast tempo if you want to win games by more. If you are more efficient each game by even the smallest amount then you are going to win. Obviously if you are +0.2 per possession in a 40 possession game vs. an 80 possession game then you win by a lot more if the tempo is quicker.

The entire purpose of the article is to point out that right now 14% of our offense is in transition and averaging a much lower point per possession relative to the rest of the NCAA than the 87% of our offense that operates in the half court.

The same can be said for transition defense and half court defense. Therefore it seems obvious to me that by limiting transition possessions and increasing half court possessions it would help our win expectancy at the end of the day.

There is reasonable discussion to be had as to whether or not our efficiency numbers would remain the same in the half court offense/defense if those were increased substantially per game, but at this point in the season we have had a pretty sizable amount of possessions to base some hypotheses off of PPP.
 
It's not about winning by a lot. it's about winning at all. The fewer possessions the better each must be.
 
if the other team is better than you, as is the case for most of the ACC this year, then by limiting possessions you are increasing the variability of the outcome and increasing the chance of an upset

if this inferior team is also especially inefficient at a faster pace that is all the more reason to slow the pace
 
RJKarl said:
It's not about winning by a lot. it's about winning at all. The fewer possessions the better each must be.
Click to expand...

It's the exact opposite.

If you told me to try to win one game and I know my team isn't as good as the other team then I am almost certainly going to slow the pace down as much as possible and create a short game because it gives the better team fewer possessions to impose their will.

If you KNOW a team is better than you then do you want to play 80 possessions against them or 40 possessions? Odds are over 80 possessions the better team will eventually shake off a few bad possessions (due to sample size and all that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top