If I understand correctly, you are arguing that pace helps protect against “random” 2 point shocks. But the math around a typical efficiency margin / expected score is such that 6 more possessions (or even 10 more) likely doesn’t matter enough. At 6 extra possessions, we would need to increase our expected margin by 0.34 points per possession for that random shock risk to be overwhelmed. And that sort of expected efficiency margin in those increased marginal possessions is unlikely, to say the least.
I think pace is a red herring. We need to focus on generating and taking better shots, which come out of more dangerous attacks. That might come with faster pace, but might not.
Edit: just wanted to add thanks for writing - it’s well done
Thanks as always for writing. I just wrote a lot but I deleted it, because it really all boils down to this: Does Tony want to change? I don’t know. Does he? The last couple years suggests to me he’d rather not. All staff hires are internal or retreads. It’s been years (maybe over a decade?) since he’s done any of those USA basketball type things where he gets exposed to other coaches’ viewpoints, styles, etc. I get it. If I were super successful and making bank and the rules of my industry and trends of my industry totally changed, I’d be like, whatever. I’m not changing. (and also, I’d be a terrible basketball coach). Tony can continue to be a good hoops coach without changing, but he can’t be very good.
Also, kind of agree with your detractors on pace. We don’t need to increase the pace that much (though we should try not to be DFL every stinking year, like they’re giving out an award for it), but we absolutely do need to be able to play at pace occasionally. Because despite what iMac thinks, coming back from a large deficit is possible. I’ve seen it with my own eyes!
14-17 year olds who are good at hoops generally agree with the first statement!
Fast breaks! Remember fast breaks? And run outs? I do … kinda.
Run outs!
Like, the line of the song is “I like the way they dribble up and down the court.” Not “I like the way Rohde gets the ball and immediately takes two dribbles away from the hoop, looks for a hockey assist, sees it’s not there, so works the ball around the perimeter again, and despite that the coach plays him exactly 31 minutes per game”. That song would not have been a hit!
I wouldn’t say two-point shocks (although yes, when N.C. State hurled in that almost half-court shot on us it was a larger percentage of the game impacted), I’d say randomness over the course of a game. If a player shoots 25% from three and then shoots 50% against us, that deviation is more impactful on fewer possessions than on a greater number of possessions (both because the odds are in our favor that he will regress to his average with more attempts and if he doesn’t… even worse luck, and because his made attempts represent a larger portion of the possessions).
But, yes, I do agree that improving our offense is far more important and if we can do that and play the same pace or slower, by all means, let’s do that because that will help us way more in the long run.
The pace topic seems to have sparked the most debate and branched off a few ways so I’ll just say this about it to kind of consolidate my thesis:
We can argue the statistical significance of the extent to which this would matter over a season but, all things equal, if the two best teams in basketball are identically good but one plays 75 possessions per game and the other plays 60, the team that plays 75 possessions per game should get upset fewer times over a large sample size of games. So, it’s desirable in a vacuum but not something to be achieved at the sacrifice of a better path of getting toward offensive/defensive efficiency.
All of these next points are just opinion but, hey, that’s what the blog is!
Our teams have historically played really tight in big games on the whole (especially against underdogs). Not always, and many times we still have overcome, but more than I’d expect given the talent of our teams vs. our opponents. I believe that’s compounded by pace as it relates to our culture and offensive philosophy.
I do think the aesthetic, entertainment, and negative recruiting/appeal element are real (more now than ever because of the style of play in the NBA), and it limits our pool of potentially interested players, even within the NIL landscape (primarily those thinking they will become professionals at some point). Which, in turn, limits our own talent and our own offensive and defensive efficiency.
I also think our desire to play slow causes us to pass up offensive opportunities that would be a net positive to our team if we were to take them.
If you have the ability to effectively alter your pace of play, that can be used as a weapon against your opponents.
Situationally, we have been very bad at increasing our pace when the game calls for it (down big), which limits our ability to get back into games, which also increases our loss rate (and defeatism).
So, all of that would be my argument in favor of finding a solution that works alongside increasing (and ideally being able to vary) our pace of play while also improving our overall team play (not at the cost of it).
If it turns out, no, that can’t be done, our solution to become a championship contender once again has to come through keeping our pace of play the same… so be it… but I’m skeptical that’s true.
During Bennetts run, (2014-20?) Our scoring margin was very high. I doesn’t feel like we played a ton of close games, though that was the narrative. After the title, our games seem to be a sweat.
The pace isn’t going to change. Over Bennett’s tenure, the adjusted tempo per KenPom has ranged from 58 to 61. So I’m going to bet next year’s Cavaliers are going to be right around 60 possessions per game.
At their best, Bennett’s teams play deliberately and efficiently.
Great piece cuts. I was wondering what you think about the theory that our team is more prone to late game collapses than most. Does the data bear that out? If so, thoughts on how to address that?
Its largely been in the NCAA tournament. Which, on the one hand, is a fairly small number of games. On the other hand, at some point its not that small a number of games.
CTB opened his coaching career by going 6-1 in opening games of the NCAA tournament (2007-2017). That’s pretty good. Then 2018 arrived and CTB has gone 1-4 since. This year’s opponent, CSU, as a 10-seed was the best seeded team we’ve lost to during that stretch.
Other folks have had stretches like this as well. Purdue losing to a 14-seed, a 15-seed and a 16-seed in 3 straight years is almost inarguably worse (we lost to a 16-seed, 2 13-seeds, and a 10-seed over a 7 year period), and that’s not even giving them bonus credit for pulling off the possibly-more-unlikely-than-a-1-losing-to-a-16 feat of losing to a 15-seed as a 1 seed. I haven’t looked it up, but I’d be astounded if that’s ever happened before.
So its not unique, but its certainly bad, a notable departure from earlier success, and I’d assume we’re into the stage where its happened enough times that no one really thinks its just bad luck anymore.
You mention the possessions/game discrepancy- and one aspect of our approach that has really peeved me has been our tendency to walk the ball up the floor. It sounds small, but anecdotally we tend to get the ball across at the 22-23 second mark, and are initiating action at the 18-19 mark. I would love as a small modification for us to push the ball across and get things going earlier. If we’re going to be methodical, let’s find easy ways to add more seconds and possessions.
I would have liked to see us push down the court more often just because it would have added a few more Imac or Groves threes, probably more Dunn at the basket shots, and Reece would have been good at it. Not to mention that potential recruits watching would be more enthused about joining in.
My question is can we change offensive emphasis even within the schemes we currently run? Seems the problem isn’t even just that we take too many mid range 2’s. Mid range 2’s would be an improvement! We take long range 2’s. Could it be as simple as Tony benching guys for missing 18 footers and also for passing up semi contested 3’s regardless of what set we are running? IMO our shot selection is the biggest holding the offense back if you zoom out to the 4 seasons post-Covid. No matter what sets we run we have to ween ourselves off taking the worst shots in basketball so frequently
I also think there is plenty of evidence that the scheme was much more effective 10 years ago than it is now. Offenses have gotten much better and much more efficient at shooting 3’s, and even if our defensive efficiency metrics are still top tier (and they are) you’re still going to lose against any good team if you can only out up 50-60 points yourself. We won a title by having a team ranked top five OFFENSIVE efficiency and folks often overlook that — we had three guys with the confidence and leash to take any shot they wanted, and we did not win any of those tournament games by shutting down our opponents on defense. We won by matching their scoring runs with our own. If we are really spending 80% of our time on defense and phoning it in with an inefficent 1990’s offense we’re not going to win unless we have three more players who are that good and that trusted by the coach to do whatever they want … and we simply aren’t getting those guys. Not sure what the answers are, but I fear the game has changed and left our program in the dust.
Jay Wright’s teams played at a slower pace too — I don’t think pace is the primary issue. It’s more that we’ve become the basketball version of what coaches like Nick Saban deliberately pivoted away from in football as rules changed and schemes evolved to favor quick-hitting, aerial attack offenses that you just aren’t going to beat 14-10: the clock control, defense-first, only throw in third down team that quickly became a dinosaur. You absolutely have to be able to light up the scoreboard to win in the postseason, and every stat and metric out there says so. But we’re still trying to do things the opposite way everyone else who is competing for championships does and it’s no longer a new thing that catches people off guard.
Past comments from our coaching staff have made it sound like this tendency to walk the ball up the floor isn’t something they mandate. Rather, it seemingly reflects the orientations of our point guards and potentially a programmatic cultural tradition stemming back to the Perrantes days (London was working with a 35-second shot clock, so there were fewer downsides).
I wish that coaches would mandate a quicker initiation of the offense.
@Cuts_from_The_Corner Honestly, I think you paint a little too negative of a picture on the state of the program here, or at least on many of the components supporting the conclusion that we aren’t in a good spot (since clearly that is true).
Some specific quibbles:
Redshirting no longer works: we redshirted 3 guys this year and none left.
Benching of Kadin: it’s fairly well established that there was more to it than just him making mistakes.
Packline effectiveness vs. modern offenses: this is my big quibble because a) there is absolutely ZERO chance we ditch packline; b) our defense was very solid this year despite having a clear “barbell” issue with the athletes executing it (i.e. RB and RD elite individual defensive athletes but the rest of the team very much the opposite); and c) the specific assertion that the pack is designed to concede exactly what modern offenses want to take is countered by the fact that we still ranked quite highly in 3P% defense.
Lineups: honestly I just skipped this part, it’s the same old stuff, not that I disagree entirely
My point being, while I agree the program is not in a great place and agree about the ineffectiveness of the offensive system and then perhaps with many other minor points you make, I don’t think every single aspect of the program is broken, which is the impression I got from your piece. The defensive system is far from broken. The player retention issue is debatable, but clearly less favorable than it once was. The offense sucks, but would suck less with better athletes and better shooters.
I think we need some changes:
be better at offense by having a better scheme
be better at offense by practicing it more
be better at offense by picking up the pace a little
I don’t know. Does he? The last couple years suggests to me he’d rather not. All staff hires are internal or retreads. It’s been years (maybe over a decade?) since he’s done any of those USA basketball type things where he gets exposed to other coaches’ viewpoints, styles, etc. I get it. If I were super successful and making bank and the rules of my industry and trends of my industry totally changed, I’d be like, whatever. I’m not changing. (and also, I’d be a terrible basketball coach). Tony can continue to be a good hoops coach without changing, but he can’t be very good.