A trio of player spotlights (Lewis, Thomas, De Ridder), a look at the defense and some of Dalin Hall’s proactive rotations.
Good stuff Cuts. Regarding our shooting, I would say we are clearly a good shooting team. My question is whether an aggressively physical defense - like the refs allowed with VT and Butler - turns us into mediocre shooters. Some of it is due to mounting frustration and the rest is just the residue of getting knocked around and losing your rhythm. Personally, I would say the jury is still out. Remember, our vintage defenses under Tony would do the same. When opponents finally got open looks, they couldn’t convert. Like a QB that has taken a few hits in a game, the performance goes down. I hope I am wrong and you are right that it is just a gym thing!
4 Likes
I’ve also just read the shooting prelude. I have a boring opinion on this: shooting variance can be chalked up to multiple separate types of variance:
- Player availability (not having your best 3-pt shooter–Jacari–will affect shooting)
- Opposing defense / opposing strategy
- Venue**
- Circumstances (e.g., not getting a full shoot-around)
- Random variance (some folks over-emphasize this one, IMO, but it is no doubt a biggie)
** My issue with over-focusing on the venue is that if visiting teams shoot poorly in Cassell or all teams at the Greenbrier, this should be eminently provable in the data. So go find the data to buttress the point! It’s like someone after the holidays who claims they gained 10 pounds, but refuses to step on the scale that’s right in front of them. If you’re making a data-based argument, go get the data!
But tbh, I don’t find the discussion that interesting, because I just assume there will be variance (no matter the cause). That’s why good offenses need multiple ways to beat you. And it’s why we won the NW game despite shooting really poorly (worst of the season, I think). We scored in the paint, we scored from the FT line, and we got ORs. At Tech and v. Butler we didn’t do those other things well enough to win (plus v Butler, our D got shredded).
2 Likes
I don’t think it has to apply to every team that goes to those venues, though. For example, we could be bothered by dark caves where Northwestern may not be.
But, to your point, I don’t actually find the venue or other-off-court-issues that interesting. That’s the most plausible theory, in my opinion, but it could have been a number of other things that the coaches and players would have some line of sight into.
My main point being, there’s been nothing about the looks we’ve been getting against those teams or how they’ve been playing us that would account for such significant variance across just three games. I’m quite confident it’s not just some model that our opponents can control/replicate aside from just being better at defense than any team we’ve played so far… and I’m also not worried that there will be many contests where our plethora of almost 40% shooters and above are all off again.
That being said, completely agree that we need to be better about adapting more quickly and finding other ways to score because it probably will happen again at some point.
5 Likes
Thanks!
I just don’t really think the physicality theory holds much water. We were clearly off across all of our guys from the jump of that game, prior to any of the physical play taking hold, which was primarily 4-5 anyway. Dayton, for example, and even N.C. State in the second half, were far more physical with our guards than VT was.
1 Like
This is now a VPI rather than NCSU point, but my bigger annoyance with VPI was the game plan / how Odom reacted (in game that is). And sorry to dredge this up, but it kind of reminds me of the Ohio Bubble Tourney game.
There were factors going into each game that should have clued the coaches into the fact that perimeter shooting might be off (long layoff v. Ohio / missed shootaround, no Jacari, lack of modern lighting v. VPI) and there were other reasons to suggest attacking the paint was the way to go (No decent paint defenders v. Ohio / Injured bigs v. VPI), and yet we didn’t prioritize paint points nearly enough.
Obv. the Ohio game was much higher stakes…
2 Likes
Haney, I didn’t see the opportunity to punish VT in the paint. Looked to me like they were walling up pretty good and Gurdak was getting his way with our bigs. I didn’t realize he had an advantage on our bigs but he did that day and it showed. We just couldn’t make wide open 3s and the refs were as bad as I have seen.
3 Likes
We had a few opportunities early on, but missed a few bunnies / maybe had a TO or two, if memory serves, and we went away from it.
I guess if they were gonna wall up anyway, we would’ve run into the issue at some point anyway…
Gurdak was big and physical and pushed everyone around on the offensive glass - but they didn’t really have an advantage on the interior defensively. They played three inside around the rim, sure, but those TDR/Grünloh ball screens/two-man actions worked pretty well throughout the game when we went to them - we just didn’t go to them nearly enough.
Grünloh and Onyenso also had a pretty easy time of it finishing when they got the ball deep - they just didn’t get the ball deep much because we tried to use Tillis as the playmaker in there for most of the second half.
If we had determined to play through TDR earlier in the contest (almost certainly got scared by the turnovers earlier) and made a real effort to get our Centers the ball on the block rather than just trying to throw them lobs, I think we’d have had a much better time of it/could have gotten their frontcourt in more foul trouble.
That and putting more on Thomas, too, because he could finish in the midrange.
It was the determination to keep shooting threes when no one was making anything and then using that high ball screen with guards like Mallory and Hall into a packed lane and using Tillis as the back up plan in the mid-post… it was a big snowball against us.
2 Likes
Good call-out here, @Cuts_from_The_Corner . Great drive by Lewis, and something we haven’t seen much (and great screen by Grünloh)
Shaq meme:
4 Likes
Great cuts. I enjoy reading them most after wins!
2 Likes
I might actually enjoy the Cuts pieces more after losses… probably because it changes my perspective on the game from “emotional” to “analytical,” at least in part anyway.
(Of course there have been some games where I have refused to look at Cuts or anything else. Just have to wipe it from my memory.)
4 Likes
Similar!
I have trouble getting started after losses too - but it’s one of those things where once it gets going then the curiosity kicks in.
3 Likes
Grünloh is so good at Gortat screens.
Also, if my cursory glance at Torvik is right, Sam Lewis had a career high in not just points, but also single-game usage against NC State, getting up to 34.3% in the game. At 18% for the season, but I think it would be a good sign if he was able to get up to 20%.
2 Likes
Probably not a popular take here, but: I don’t think we’re a particularly good in-the-paint team.
The stats probably say otherwise, but I think a lot of those points are coming off offensive rebounds. I don’t think we’re efficient generating points ourselves. Our bigs are not strong post-up players. They’re no Anthony Gill. Unyenso and Grünloh have one move, that little half-hook, and they’re often shooting it off-balance or from too far away because they get pushed around. TDR is more effective driving to the basket than posting up, and he’s less so now that teams are starting to catch onto his spin move.
As far as our guards, Lewis is the only one who seems to be able to finish consistently at the rim. Hall has a sneaky, YMCA-type game that lets him get a shot off once he’s at the rim, but he can’t get to the rim often. Malik just puts his head down and bulls forward and your guess is as good as mine (and probably his) about what’s going to happen next. Chance is the only one who can really break his man down off the dribble, but he’s still figuring out what he can and can’t get away with.
TL;DR is I’m not sure we have the kind of team that kind dominate offensively inside, no matter how much it seems to make sense to try.
3 Likes