RealGM

emunney wrote:If you're suggesting there's a negative correlation between pace and wins, you're the one who's going to have to show your work on that.

Well, there's a bit of a caveat here.

Duke, Kentucky (paying players or at the very least if you don't want to believe it, prestige advantage), UNC (prestige/maybe?), Kansas, etc. are in a whole different league. Those teams play somewhat fast to fast. Wisconsin would be stupid to try to join that group in talent acquisition because it would likely be a giant failure. I'm not even speaking to the people that want slightly better recruiting rankings...maybe that could happen but I'm saying they will not ever succeed in loading up on guys like Duke does.

For the other 50 or so major teams, yes, I would suggest that there's mostly a negative correlation to pace and winning. I'll see if I have any data on that but I mean, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Villanova are 4 of the most successful teams in the past decade and other than when Villanova was head-and-shoulders more talented than everyone (not with a bunch of top 10 recruits) they all played slow as hell.

To show how skewed fast tempo is to the lower conferences or elite 5 teams and the fact that winning at the probably correlates to playing slower...

I'll bold power 6 conference teams + Gonzaga

KenPom teams in the top 100 tempos to make the 2019 tournament: Duke, UNC, Belmont, PVAM, St. John's, ASU, Gonzaga, Kansas, LSU, Georgia State, Murray State, Seton Hall (they were ranked 100th)

KenPom teams in the bottom 100 to make the 2019 tournament: Virginia, Liberty, St. Mary's, KSU, Cincy, Villanova, Va Tech, Wisconsin, Oregon, Old Dominion, Michigan, NDSU, UCF, Baylor, UC-Irvine, Bradley, Vermont, Kentucky, Wofford, New Mexico State, Purdue, Maryland, Washington, Houston, Syracuse, Northeastern. Texas Tech also barely missed the bottom 100 but is probably just as ugly to watch given elite defense


So from the fast teams you have 4 NBA factories (counting Gonzaga), LSU, Morant, and a bunch of fodder

From the slow teams you have the national champ and a ton of successful/dangerous to win several NCAA teams. There are like 5+ bolded teams that are not major conference but are very good like Cincy/Houston/St. Mary's or upset teams like Irvine.

Also, a lot of the teams in the bottom 100 that missed the tournament are teams that are generally competitive (Texas, Butler, Notre Dame, etc.)

In summary, the teams that play fast are:
-Teams loaded with NBA talent (like 5 teams)
-Teams that are 10x more talented in a given year than the rest of their conference (Nevada, Utah State, Gonzaga, Murray State) all played somewhat fast
-The dregs of division 1

I think you've hit on something there that differentiates the Badgers and the dogma of the Badger way (this also applies to Virginia for sure), because even when the Badgers were legitimately great, and that 2014-15 team was imo an all-time great college team, they were still extremely slow. It doesn't seem to me like there's a personnel set that you could give to Bo or Gard that would convince them that there's a superior alternative to what they're doing. And they could be right! They've had way more success there than their personnel would suggest they should have.

Everything I've seen says that pace has essentially no correlation with winning, but I imagine you could fudge that if you decide that all the fast good teams are invalid.

emunney wrote:I think you've hit on something there that differentiates the Badgers and the dogma of the Badger way (this also applies to Virginia for sure), because even when the Badgers were legitimately great, and that 2014-15 team was imo an all-time great college team, they were still extremely slow. It doesn't seem to me like there's a personnel set that you could give to Bo or Gard that would convince them that there's a superior alternative to what they're doing. And they could be right! They've had way more success there than their personnel would suggest they should have.

Everything I've seen says that pace has essentially no correlation with winning, but I imagine you could fudge that if you decide that all the fast good teams are invalid.

Well, yeah. If I had NBA players like Duke had last year or 5-8 guys that all have fringe or better NBA talent like UNC has most years I'd probably play faster.

Wisconsin's tempo was slower but their offense was more appealing to the casual fan in the national runner-up year because they moved the ball around very quickly. Not directly tempo-related but they played a fast-moving offense. This is why they had the most efficient offense in KenPom history. Maybe they'd have been fine running several fast breaks but I think that was the one alteration they could make the two years they had first round NBA talent.

You have to cut out the top 5-10 teams in this comparison in the NCAA with NBA talent because they are on such a different planet and should create more possessions because they have vastly superior talent.

Everyone else should be playing slower or they're going to underachieve like St. John's and ASU recently have for example. Better coached teams are going to eat them alive in the 5-10 blown possessions that those teams have.

Point being to the original argument, "modern convention" with NBA basketball players - play fast, shoot lots of 3s

"modern convention" with high-level NCAA players - play efficient (probably slow), shoot lots of 3s.

I'd argue that Bo wrote the book on modern NCAA convention.

Tempo has just as much to do with defense as offense. If your team gets back on defense and does a good job of taking away initial options - then the games tend to have fewer possessions. If it doesn't have fewer possessions, then I really like your chances.

What I’m infinitely more curious about than pure number of possessions in a game is at what point on the shot clock does UW on average cross the timeline, and then at what point on the shot clock do they start actually trying to manipulate the defense (so not counting meaningless side to side ball swings that move the ball but aren’t aiming to manipulate the defense actually) and of course the corresponding offensive efficiency for each possession that begins at each time slot.

mattg wrote:What I’m infinitely more curious about than pure number of possessions in a game is at what point on the shot clock does UW on average cross the timeline, and then at what point on the shot clock do they start actually trying to manipulate the defense (so not counting meaningless side to side ball swings that move the ball but aren’t aiming to manipulate the defense actually) and of course the corresponding offensive efficiency for each possession that begins at each time slot.

One thing they did last year was actually sprint it up the court to set the offense. Of course they stalled after that, but I think the idea was to not let the defense match up on Happ as much. Not sure they'll keep that up.

I get what you're going for here - that you think they stall too much. Sometimes that may be true but they generally are one of the more efficient offenses in the country so it's hard to completely complain with it. I think part of the problem last year outside of Happ being different and forcing them to play a post-up game was that other than Trice making all of those huge shots to finish games early in the year, their "end of the shot clock finisher" role was the worst it has ever been...so you may be right about offensive stall ball being very bad in that case.

I think not having Happ is actually going to help their offense.

HaroldinGMinor wrote:I think not having Happ is actually going to help their offense.

We've obviously gone in on this idea like every 4-5 pages of the thread.

I hope/think so. They will obviously be playing to actual modern convention of a free-flowing offense that focuses more on the 3...the one concern is if a playmaker or two that we hope to step up does not, it could have some brutal stretches in it.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

HaroldinGMinor wrote:I think not having Happ is actually going to help their offense.

We've obviously gone in on this idea like every 4-5 pages of the thread.

I hope/think so. They will obviously be playing to actual modern convention of a free-flowing offense that focuses more on the 3...the one concern is if a playmaker or two that we hope to step up does not, it could have some brutal stretches in it.

That plus he was a super high usage guy that couldn't make free throws. Removing him and Iverson will help spacing and free throw shooting by default. Be nice if they could find two guys that could penetrate. Maybe King can step up?

HaroldinGMinor wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

HaroldinGMinor wrote:I think not having Happ is actually going to help their offense.

We've obviously gone in on this idea like every 4-5 pages of the thread.

I hope/think so. They will obviously be playing to actual modern convention of a free-flowing offense that focuses more on the 3...the one concern is if a playmaker or two that we hope to step up does not, it could have some brutal stretches in it.

That plus he was a super high usage guy that couldn't make free throws. Removing him and Iverson will help spacing and free throw shooting by default. Be nice if they could find two guys that could penetrate. Maybe King can step up?

Yeah, I think King will. He was really showing signs of confidence on his knee at the end of the year.

The concern about FT shooting is how much does shooting 75% as a team matter if you have one of the lowest rates in the country of getting there? Again, I am a bit more optimistic on that but that is in the range of outcomes.

Kerb Hohl wrote:The concern about FT shooting is how much does shooting 75% as a team matter if you have one of the lowest rates in the country of getting there? Again, I am a bit more optimistic on that but that is in the range of outcomes.

I am very confident that rate will go up. Maybe not top 10 like it was in the old Bo days but certainly not bottom quartile like last year. Happ probably should have gone to the line 10 - 15 times a game but I think he avoided contact to avoid drawing fouls. He shot 5 free throws his last three games which is astounding given how much he operated in the paint.

Kerb slacking not posting this first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a really nice offer list for a PWO

That's a nice pickup, hopefully of Showalter caliber. He can always be lured away by another D1 school as next year goes by as he's got offers and interest.

I'd imagine it already may be the case or would be if bigger schools keep calling that they'd offer 4 for 5.

6'7".....one inch taller and he probably gets the scholarship.

George Lucas-ass name Carter Gilmore.

chonestown wrote:George Lucas-ass name Carter Gilmore.

Lead character in a Gilmore Girls/Dawson's Creek crossover.

With a name like that he probably lives in Bristlecone Pines, Four Winds or Mary Hill Park.

trwi7 wrote:With a name like that he probably lives in Bristlecone Pines, Four Winds or Mary Hill Park.

lake country bois