We donāt want to get Keattsād
We were switching ballscreens in the last 10 mins vs VPI, too. We stuck with it for Pitt.
As for offense, weāve run almost exclusively blocker/mover with Saunders out of the lineup.
And in those three games, weāre averaging 76.3 points while shooting 52.9% from the floor (61.6% from 2; 42.0% from 3 ā ~45% of our attempts from 3), with an effective field goal percentage of 62.3%, very efficient at 1.48 points per shot.
3 Likes
My quick reads on this:
Offensive scheme:
- Itās a lot of blocker mover and some inside triangle. Kinda the same stuff we have been doing for forever.
- Why has it been going better? Combo of weāve executed better, our bigs are getting more involved rolling to the basket, weāve had some guards finally finding the paint, and frankly, weāve played some booty defensive teams.
- I donāt see why Saunders would immediately gum it up or if they would even run anything different, unless they try to force feed him in the post.
- Offensive boards might the area to watch, as we actually have been getting some in our wins, and thatās not his strength.
Defensive scheme:
- The big difference is switching.
- He seems switchable enough to me?
- I think heās a pretty solid defensive player, so I donāt anticipate negative effects.
3 Likes
I wonder if the switching is a carry over from Tech or a separate decision independent of that game. Last year Pitt blew up the hard hedge over and over again until we finally adjusted to a less aggressive hedge and some switching in second half.
Ron may have remembered that and just decided to do it for Pitt.
Main point being I wonder if we keep it for GT signaling a more deliberate change or not.
1 Like
Tangent on lineup stats:
- Ames and Rohde donāt play well with each other (better to alternate)
- Not a major difference but team plays better with Ames
- Both mesh fine with iMac
- Dai Dai meshes well with Elijah, Blake, Taine, and Ishan
- He meshes poorly with Power and A-Rob
- Heās pretty neutral with Cofie
- Cofie and Taine play much better without Rohde. He seems to blend well with ARob (but low numbers) and power, relatively
Interestingly, Saunders and iMac are not a good pair. Saunders plays a little better without iMac and iMac plays much better without Saunders
1 Like
The blocker/mover scheme, as much as I hate it in a general sense, fits this teamās personnel pretty well. And if youāre forced to play with 2 bigs, itās definitely the way to go. Weāve also played some really bad defensive teams during that stretch and Pitt was a no showā¦so not reading too much into the results.
Defensivelyā¦give them credit for adjusting. But itās mostly a white flag if weāre being realā¦we havenāt picked up the defense well enough so weāre simplifying to avoid the loopholes teams take advantage of because weāre not sharp enough in scramble mode. The bigs being able to defend in space, at least for a short time until they can be switched back, goes a long way toward it being workable so itās not a bad strategy all things considered.
12 Likes
Good question. I think we kinda half-assed the switching against Tech (thus a bunch of open threes or getting destroyed by Lawal) and then we decided to whole-ass it instead. I think Pitt not having a ābeat you upā big played a role too.
GT has Ndongo, who is generally not super efficient except when playing us last season. But maybe it will be harder to switch against him. I think Iād still do it because I donāt want George or McCollum turning the corner on us.
2 Likes
Some good point Hooz, but why must UVa basketballās D be so hard to master? For all of our players we should start out easier and then gradually go more difficult but TB and company like to do the opposite. That is why a Huff, Caffarro, Shedrick, and now an Arob take so long to finally get on the floor, after a redshirt year and then half way through a season.
If we started out playing guys by NOT extending the big man out to the half court line defensively, and allow them to get back to the paint easier then we can get them on the floor sooner. And then as a wrinkle we can surprise teams by extending the D and trapping them at the half court line.
Who thinks itās easier to do calculus out of the box instead of addition???
2 Likes
But you also never learn if you donāt do it in games.
I think this isā¦not a straw man, but a logical fallacy of some sort - begging the question, maybe? Definitely a false analogy in the final line.
Your premise seems to be that the staff knows that we will have to play simpler defense at some point, so they should start there and build to greater complexity, which, if you accept the premise that we have to play āeasier defenseā at some point is logically true, but thereās no real evidence for the argument that we have to play āeasier defenseā at some point, so you assume your conclusion from the premise without ever proving it.
Using your analogy to explain it:
Yes, it is easier to do addition out of the box than calculus. But if youāre enrolled in Calculus ā you better freaking be able to do calculus. I would not expect the first two weeks of Calculus, even Calculus 101, to review addition and subtraction, nor do I think that doing so would make Calculus easier to learn. Hence, the fallacy.
Now one could make an argument that Ron and staff should have recognized that this team wouldnāt be able to execute the packline and implemented another defense from the start. And I think Iād agree with that - I donāt think the packline is an effective defense in the modern game - but weāre not going to get better at the packline by playing a switching man. If anything, we might get worse at playing packline principles since they run counter to some of the principles of most other defenses.
5 Likes
Incredible job with this video. Thanks, Big Tone.
8 Likes
The last two games are our two best adjusted offensive outputs of the year (points per possession, adjusted for the quality of the opponentās defense).
Five of the last six games (exception was Notre Dame) have been excellent offensive games.
Our AdjO is now ranked 113, very close to AdjD 111. I didnāt expect that at the beginning of the season.
I know why we stink on D, but what have we figured out lately on O (or is it just a mirage because weāre shooting better than we can maintain.)
4 Likes
Dai Dai
If you wanna be less reductive, weāve figured it out itās good to have multiple guards/wings who can score (at least one who can do it in multiple way)
Oh, and HOF caliber coaching.
6 Likes
Last six games:
49.8% FG
54.3% 2FG
43.9% 3FG
59.3% EFG
43.0% 3PA/FGA
3 Likes
Echo this. Rather than being a PG with questionable court vision and passing range, heās been an effective score-first SG essentially. Pairs nicely with Rohde turning into an incredible table setter in conference play.
Team TOs are way down too and thereās been some opportunistic offensive rebounding.
7 Likes
And opportunistic pushing the pace. That has been noticable to me.
4 Likes
After watching our boys beat Pitt and now GT, both convincingly, Iād say that something may have changed! Rebounding good, defense good, hustle good, offense good. Ames and Buchanan stepping up. Everybody is more aggressive. Im starting to have a little hope for the future.
3 Likes
No minutes for TJ Power, and less Saunders = improved rebounding on both ends.
Also reverting back to mover blocker but with 3 guards who can shoot and letting the bigs crash the offensive glass
6 Likes
And the reason underlying most of this is BLOCKER MOVER.
(Only 20% kidding. Would love to see a regression between our offensive efficiency and portion we ran B/M)
3 Likes
As much as I still think the offense is outdated, it helps when you run the mover blocker with decent screeners and guys who can actually shoot from the perimeter.
6 Likes