It’s a small sample size and I am not getting swept up in it yet, but we’ve definitely improved our play over the past two games. Here’s a look at some of the main reasons why:
From @DavetheWave
4 Likes
A few scattered thoughts:
-
How much of our improved defensive rebounding is because we are switching everything? Middle part of season it was clear packline would fall apart mid possession, then guys would be out of position to rebound when the shot went up (@HoozGotNext mentioned this a few times). Now we at least have most players covered when a shot goes up. I’ll have to dig into the stats more, but I recall two-big line ups earlier in the season being pretty bad at rebounding. Over the last two games, our defensive rebounding rate is 17.8, good for 12th best in country. So I’m not inclined yet to take the two-bigs as the main causal factor for defensive rebounding at least. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out as Saunders gets more minutes.
-
We are switching everything but our defense is still pretty bad. In November we rolled out the 45th most efficient defense playing packline. Since Jan. 19 (before the BC win), our defense has been 166th. (Although, of note, we are 46th over past two games … if you want to take that as a meaningful sample).
I believe we just started almost exclusively switching in the Pitt game (lukewarm tried it against VT). So even though our defense had been much worse since mid January I would offer that this is something we’re trying in response to that rather than the cause - and early returns have been good. I’d also argue that I don’t think it would be nearly as effective with Saunders at the 4 - but that’s yet to be determined.
I’d be skeptical that switching alone will help our rebounding rate by the same amount. Many situations in the past two where the size of both bigs converging helped secure the glass by the eyeball test and throughout the season many examples of our center getting overpowered and Saunders struggling to keep position/not have someone tip it to keep it alive over him. I haven’t crunched the numbers on any of that, though other than our player pairing efficiencies and watching film.
Also - we really didn’t play two bigs enough early in the season to draw many conclusions, IMO. Cofie and Robinson have fewer than 50 full possessions between them. Robinson and BB only 70, BB and Cofie have 250. Meanwhile Cofie and Saunders have 430, and Buchanan and Saunders have 390 (and that pairing is the worst of any of those I just mentioned considerably so).
3 Likes
I think guards have been more focused/ doing better job of getting a body on the runners crashing from wing areas
Everything helps
4 Likes
Rohde talked about guards needing to do better helping the bigs in the GT postgame.
3 Likes
Thanks for providing some meaty content during the bye week!
(Who scheduled it so the men and women have the same week off?)
1 Like
Of course. But like, did they just start coincidentally doing that when we started switching everything?
Anecdotally I’ve seen a lot better effort on boards since mid-January, a lot of it driven from Blake. But I think there’s some mechanical stuff going on in our system that’s allowing their extra effort to get better results. The bigs aren’t great at boxing out traditionally, keeping their man away from the basket. But if they are hitting the boards from a position on the wing where they are matched up against a guard, they seem better equipped to track down the ball (just for example).
I think that’s particularly true of Blake.
Yea. Dont think too much. Just put a body on someone preferably as far away from the basket as possible.
Also, dont double a big by leaving another big 2 feet away
3 Likes
Thanks for this.
I thought the first defensive clip actually had some incorrect rotations that didn’t punish us. Blake leaving his man and jumping out at Isaac’s man (to get blown by) and Cofie cleaned up. End result good, probably because of length. Isaac recovered well to take Blake’s open man (although would have been late) but Dai Dai also jumped out and left his (to recover for Blake).
On the rebounding front to me all of those clips were individual results down low by a single big. The other big was cleared out. Seemed to be a lot more energy and tenacity recently by Blake. And A Rob definitely better. Maybe more says something about Cofie at the 5 being rough.
My summary - length and tenacity biggest improvement - that’s also coupled with going back to the 2014-2019 defensive lineups of two bigs which we got away with. The switching, agreed will be exposed but more adaptive than what clearly wasn’t working (but defensively as a system probably still poor - inexperienced bigs and the guards are non-plus athletes)
1 Like
Yes, that’s the best part - some of the rotations aren’t clean and some of the perimeter defense (especially by Blake) has been a little off but they’ve made up for it collectively re: length.
I agree on much better individual effort on the boards - I will say, though, consider the high low rebound Blake got against the zone when Cofie took that jumper from the high post. Blake took that shot earlier (or later order might be off) in the game and Cofie was there low - either way, you’re pulling the center to contest the jumper at the high post and leaving one of our 6’10" + guys to be boxed out by one of their smaller forwards. A more favorable matchup for us than if it was Saunders down there, just as an example. Having the length/size in spades I think helps with the energy and also, to your point, makes up for missed rotations, poorer perimeter defense, etc.
3 Likes
Ah that’s the nuance I was missing, thank you!
I do hope we see Saunders at the three. My eye test isn’t in love with his defense or rebounding, but interested to see how he holds up.
That combined with more Rohde-Dai Dai or Rohde/DaiDai-Sharma combos and more iMac rest time.
1 Like
It’s more chaotic and more of a scramble on both ends but that’s probably better for us when we have so much mobile length playing with energy.
Getting them to think a little less and play a little more with more athletic guys on the floor seems positive.
2 Likes
lol - include Ga Tech without their 2 leading scorers - 27 points per game … will be interesting to see how they do next 5 vs decent teams
One thing I’ve noticed writing these kinds of things is that it’s really hard to thread the needle to get either side of the audience to connect with what you’re saying.
The point of the piece is just to acknowledge that the team probably played its best two games of the season and to consider what’s contributed toward that.
You have some people interpreting that as “hire Ron!” and others piling on about how bad GT is (across mediums, outside of this forum as well).
This team was clunky on offense against the Manhattan Jaspers… looking capable against Pitt and GT IS improvement - it also doesn’t mean we’re good nor that this is the correct path forward.
11 Likes
Well said… because we looked bad against bad teams earlier … I say mostly because restricted Dai Dai and then injured Dai Dai…
1 Like
I think you did a good job of it. When you’re content is so in depth for a particular team, you’ll get extremes.
I actually thought about this today…when I’m turning on a random ESPN contest, I’m typically evaluating the team based on that performance and not biased opinion from 1) meticulously watching and comparing past performance and 2) interpreting the performance based on what I see (and not what I think I should see).
If I had never watched this UVA team and just happened to turn on the Pitt game for example, I would have probably assessed as “This UVA team seems a bit raw and getting away with some things defensively. Seem to shoot the three well. This Ames guy is going off < checks college reference for his season stats > Oh wow, he’s having a nice game for himself. This Pitt team looks bad. The ACC really is weak this year. These records and outcomes kinda make sense.”
Compare that against when I turn on a top 25 SEC metrics and you see identity, crispness and athletes…
3 Likes
One other thing I just noticed is that we did NOT double the post if the original player was guarding their man (i.e. when Blake was guarding Ndongo Cofie did not double.). Love that! Straight up if it’s man on man
Leaves the other big free to rebound, protect the rim and stay on his man.
Nice adjustment.
And want to just say one other thing, while i may not have overtly bashed Rohde last season, I was not happy with the way his minutes could have been allocated to Eli.
But I must give him credit this year. Dude is balling. Has found his mojo. Shooting early in the clock when it’s open. Hitting 3s and taking care of the ball. Also dropping sweet dimes to our cutting bigs for flushes. Well done Andrew.
Go Hoos. Beat VT.
7 Likes
Yes. This is why we are winning lately. We are playing bottom-dweller ACC teams. Not their fault, but it is what it is.
Bottom line, we play pretty good against bad teams.
1 Like