MUScoop

Reading up on a lot of the recent threads, it seems like the common themes are Tyler's shooting and Shaka's offensive style.
Why does Kolek continue to shoot?
Why does the offense seem so rushed?
Why does it appear that MU rarely passes up a shot for a better shot?

Common answers to some of these questions conclude that this is Shaka's system and that he is creating a "culture" at MU that he wants/needs the players to buy in to. In instances where it doesn't seem to quite be working you stick with it until it does, and the guys in the program will eventually buy-in, learn it, and become efficient in it.

This is Shaka Smarts team, he makes all the decisions and the results fall back on him, good or bad.

The DEFENSIVE system is Shaka's system. The long/tall/athletic player with the high motor that plays with a lot of energy and is very active. The pressure style defense that wears the opposing team down, the deflections, the elite rim protector for times when the pressure gets beat. All of it, that's coach Smart. It's been his system for a decade and it's well documented that he's been a quite successful defensive head coach statistically for many years. He recruits guys that fit this mold, or that he thinks he can teach to fit and be effective in it.

The OFFENSIVE system, however, is coach Nevada Smith's system.
Coach Smith has had a very interesting career path- fantastic 3P shooter in college, albeit as a DIII player.
Then a DIII head coach for many years, followed by, oddly enough, a leap to the D League.

Below is a Grantland article quote based on his first year in the D League as a Houston Rockets affiliate head coach in 2013

——-Nevada Smith, coach of the most innovative pro basketball team you've never seen, says almost all the criticism he hears about his chosen strategy comes from older fans and scouts.

"It's mostly those old-school basketball guys," says Smith, coach of the D-League's Rio Grande Valley Vipers, who have attempted 46 3-pointers per game over their 9-1 start to this season. "They ask why we're doing this. They say it's not basketball."

Smith just laughs it off. The Vipers, Houston's D-League affiliate, average nearly 112 possessions per game — about a dozen more than any NBA team. All that sprinting and 3-point gunning has produced 115 points per 100 possessions, best in the D-League and a number that would blow away the entire NBA. "If we could take a 3 every time down the court," Smith says, "we probably would. There's going to be a game where we shoot 60. I'm telling you. And people are going to think we're crazy."——

For the past decade this has been coach Smith's style. He values extremely quick possessions and the 3pt shot, especially a corner 3 (even higher percentage). The Rockets are known as one of the pioneers in this analytics based approach of shooting a ton of 3s.
Shaka knew this when he brought him to Texas. I don't have the exact numbers, but the offense was heavily lagging behind the defense in efficiency and quality, so he brought in coach Smith to help out the offense. Now they are both at Marquette and the same style offense has followed.

Interestingly enough, Nevada smith had a 3 year stretch as a head coach for the D League affiliate of the Miami Heat, where he coached Duncan Robinson who has had a lot of success from 3. Some wondered if he was on the doorstep of becoming an NBA head coach, but then he made the shift back to a college assistant under Shaka at Texas and now Marquette.

Is the system more effective for the NBA than College? Is the system more effective in the D League than college? Even if the answers are yes, can the system work in college basketball at the DI level, in the Big East?
My answer is that I'm not here to answer that, and that Shaka reached out and hired Nevada Smith, and then brought him along to MU, with the thought that it would work.

A look into the history of the style behind the offensive mind on MUs staff, coach Nevada Smith, answers a lot of the questions about the teams offensive play so far and going forward.

We are seeing what we are seeing because it is by design.
Hopefully the design works for this team, at this level, in this current season. If not hopefully it works in the following season, or for as long as Coach Smart decides to roll with Coach Smith's offensive system.

I say stick with it.  Kids will want to come to MU to play this style.  We are already getting some good wins.  Keep it going into Big East play and hope they put it all together.  There is nothing to lose except a few games.  Hopefully we finish on the positive side of the Big East ledger.

I agree... it's a fun style to watch, too.  Get the 3pt percentage up to about 35-37% and MU beats UCLA and is much closer against the Bonnies...
perhaps close enough that the outcome is different.

This is super interesting. I had no idea

The game has changed and I am all in in this style. Once the shots start falling everyone can focus on a new topic, likely what a great a system MU has put into place.

When the 3 first came out Al was completely behind the thought of firing 3's, which was contrary to the style he coached. I happen to agree because if feels like your cheating, making 33% of 3's is like making 50% inside the line.

In the Shaka system I think I would have been a very big Marcus Howard fan. A couple of years from now Kam Jones might be playing that role and putting very big numbers.

The system might have seemed wild in 2013 ... but in 2021, most NBA teams and a lot of college basketball teams play some form of it. It's no longer all that unique, and in a few years it very well might be the norm.

Oh, and if it's Shaka's assistant's system, and Shaka has adopted it, that means it's Shaka's system. The choice to use it is the head coach's, as is the responsibility for its success or failure.

Those who place a priority on winning and losing this season very well could end up doing a lot of complaining that Shaka has chosen to put square pegs (mediocre-at-best shooters) into round holes (a 3-pointer-heavy system).

But those who realize that Shaka is playing the long game won't sweat it that much.

Recruits/transfers will want to play for the cool coach with the fun, everybody-has-the-green-light system; players will gain experience in it; and it will be part of the Marquette basketball culture that Shaka is building.

"It's not a quick fix. It's not an instant-gratification thing. It's a drip-by-drip process."

https://www.grinnell.edu/news/playing-system

The Grinnell System is Nevada Smith on steroids.  Tons of 3 point shots, forget the close shots and send everyone to the offensive glass.  Pretty entertaining and some wild results.

Quote from: IrwinFletcher on December 14, 2021, 07:53:10 AM
https://www.grinnell.edu/news/playing-system

The Grinnell System is Nevada Smith on steroids.  Tons of 3 point shots, forget the close shots and send everyone to the offensive glass.  Pretty entertaining and some wild results.

Having watched them play multiple times....it's not entertaining after about 10 minutes.  There's no ball movement.  It's just jacking up threes.

BTW, all those people who pined for Nate Oats, his and Smith's philosophy are pretty much the same.  I think they believe they can teach guys to shoot over their careers here as well.

I have nothing against the system if you have the personnel.  Although, on the college level I don't think you can win or get go an F4 without a consistent defense or pros. There are a few anomalies but you definitely need at least one guy that can break the defense down and get his.  So, while kids that can't shoot sometimes become better shooters I'm not sure zoomability, handles, or the ability to create space, rise, and fire is easy to teach.  I had it at an early age Dr. V but was always too short.  :)

Ws and Ls will determine if the new methodology is successful or not.
The question is: How long is one given to make that determination?  It cannot be indefinitely.
Do the practices reflect this style?  How to you reproduce it in practice unless it is a scrimmage?

Scoop is an interesting place.

First, thanks to our coaches for being open to what they are trying to accomplish. The transparency versus past regimes is appreciated. That's the only point of clarity for me.

Second, we are told by some to expect up to an Elite 8 and BE title on the high side or a NCAA appearance on the low...that Shaka wants to win now.  Then we are told we are playing for the future so we need to go full speed ahead with this system come hell or high water.

Third, we are told Shaka (and by Shaka too) wants to build a culture, get his guys in here, establish a base to build. Then we are told most of these guys won't be here in 2-3 years, that they will be replaced in the new world marketplace with higher talent...because, it's Shaka. But we should stick with his system for the good of the future.

Then we are told this is "Shaka's system" and we should stay with it because he has been a successful head coach a long time. Then I see that Shaka has never played this fast offensively, that this is a recent evolution.

Then I hear we should be patient because it's early, be happy with 8-3. That those of us critiquing don't know ball and are negative nabobs. Then I see Haslam has this offense ranked #171, it's worse than Wojo's Derrick Wilson led offense, we've had some of the worst MU games in the MU Stat Age, and one third into the season, MU has yet to play a complete offensive game with the round robin conference rock fight coming...without any discernible half court offense. I also see slower, more disciplined teams picking MU apart with their half court games, while feasting situationally off easy transition points from our too fast offense.

So what is it Scoop Intelligencia?  Are we playing for the future or winning now?  And don't give me any "both" answers. That's what we just fired as MU achieved neither, we had no identity. Shaka is a self-acclaimed accountability guy. I will be looking for the changes personally.

This is Smith's offensive "system", and I'm fine with it.  Though I do question if Smart should need an employee to guide him daily on offense, if the message is " extremely quick possessions and the 3pt shot, especially a corner 3", and ""If we could take a 3 every time down the court, we probably [should]."

Seems pretty simple, but hey, I'm not a head coach  making millions or an assistant coach making several hundred k.

Marquette leads the Big East in the number of unguarded threes they get our game, but are 9th in PPP on those attempts. As players like Jones and Joplin develop into more reliable shooters and as they fill the roster with more guys that can knock down shots, that will come up and pay dividends.

My biggest concern is our unwillingness to pursue offensive rebounds. I believe it's rooted in a desire to get back into a set defense as we get killed in transition, but I think that's a misguided belief.

There's a metric called Shot Quality that looks at the expected effectiveness of shots taken and allowed. Many of the teams we'd like to emulate (Baylor, Villanova, Gonzaga, Alabama) rank highly in this regard. I looked at the top-18 (because that's what fit on the screen) adjusted Shot Quality leaders and compared them with their offensive rebounding ranks. Of the 18, 17 were in the 64th percentile or better in offensive rebounding rate, 15 were in the 77th percentile or better, and 10 were in the 90th or better percentile.

What does that mean? That any defensive efficiency loss from chasing offensive rebounds is more than offset by the offensive efficiency gained by the open looks at the perimeter and easier putbacks created by securing an offensive board.

If anyone wants to read more, I did a little thread about this with some visuals to reinforce it today.

https://twitter.com/brewcity1977/status/1470762942358507521?s=21

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 14, 2021, 08:54:33 AM
Scoop is an interesting place.

First, thanks to our coaches for being open to what they are trying to accomplish. The transparency versus past regimes is appreciated. That's the only point of clarity for me.

Second, we are told by some to expect up to an Elite 8 and BE title on the high side or a NCAA appearance on the low...that Shaka wants to win now.  Then we are told we are playing for the future so we need to go full speed ahead with this system come hell or high water.

Third, we are told Shaka (and by Shaka too) wants to build a culture, get his guys in here, establish a base to build. Then we are told most of these guys won't be here in 2-3 years, that they will be replaced in the new world marketplace with higher talent...because, it's Shaka. But we should stick with his system for the good of the future.

Then we are told this is "Shaka's system" and we should stay with it because he has been a successful head coach a long time. Then I see that Shaka has never played this fast offensively, that this is a recent evolution.

Then I hear we should be patient because it's early, be happy with 8-3. That those of us critiquing don't know ball and are negative nabobs. Then I see Haslam has this offense ranked #171, it's worse than Wojo's Derrick Wilson led offense, we've had some of the worst MU games in the MU Stat Age, and one third into the season, MU has yet to play a complete offensive game with the round robin conference rock fight coming...without any discernible half court offense. I also see slower, more disciplined teams picking MU apart with their half court games, while feasting situationally off easy transition points from our too fast offense.

So what is it Scoop Intelligencia?  Are we playing for the future or winning now?  And don't give me any "both" answers. That's what we just fired as MU achieved neither, we had no identity. Shaka is a self-acclaimed accountability guy. I will be looking for the changes personally.

So ... what you're saying is that Scoop has a lot of people who post different opinions to the site, including you.

I agree with that thesis.

Quote from: MU82 on December 14, 2021, 09:18:37 AM
So ... what you're saying is that Scoop has a lot of people who post different opinions to the site, including you.

I agree with that thesis.

Agree. But, I also say some of those same posters contradict themselves, often in their same posts or series of posts.

What's your position?

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 14, 2021, 09:28:13 AM
Agree. But, I also say some of those same posters contradict themselves, often in their same posts or series of posts.

What's your position?

I've stated it pretty clearly -- and I've used a strong, pointed Shaka quote on this exact topic as my tagline.

I don't think Shaka has prioritized winning this season over building what he wants long-term; some of our fellow Scoopers say both can be accomplished but I think it's a lot easier to say that than do it. Of course Shaka "wants" to win this season -- he's a coach, they all want to win every minute of every game -- but IMHO he won't abandon what he believes will work long-term just to win Game X or Game Y this season.

He clearly seems committed to this offense, even if he doesn't have the shooters to implement it properly. He no doubt is hoping that Kolek can be at least the 35% shooter he was last season at George Mason, and hoping a couple other guys develop ... but even if they don't, he doesn't seem ready to say on Feb. 1, "Welp, that didn't work. Let's go to Plan B instead to save this season."

That will frustrate some Scoopers -- it already has frustrated some, and we've exceeded expectations greatly -- but that's life. They can rip him and pine for Moser or Wojo if it makes them feel better.

I love the offense we're running.  Some of the NBA sets we're running are really good, things I've never seen anyone run at the college level.  We're generating open 3s like crazy.

We just have to start making them.

We've seen the ceiling and the floor from the scheme 11 games in. I gets that it's wildly frustrating watching us go 8-30something from behind the arc. If we hit double digit threes, we'll be competitive in most games.

Our defense is sound and our the upside is their for our offense. The sky is absolutely not falling.

Would have been interesting to see this current type of MU offense with our 2016-17 squad. 3 Point Shooters galore that year.

Markus 54.7 %
Sam 45.3%%
JJJ  38.1 %
Katin 37.5%

Quote from: Herman Cain on December 14, 2021, 09:58:10 AM
Would have been interesting to see this current type of MU offense with our 2016-17 squad. 3 Point Shooters galore that year.

Markus 54.7 %
Sam 45.3%%
JJJ  38.1 %
Katin 37.5%

Some may say this was the ONLY offense Wojo ran with Markus.

Quote from: JTJ3 on December 14, 2021, 09:49:23 AM
I love the offense we're running.  Some of the NBA sets we're running are really good, things I've never seen anyone run at the college level.  We're generating open 3s like crazy.

We just have to start making them.

This is about where I am at. The looks are good. The assists are good. The shot execution leaves me wanting. Players I expected to be better shooters on open 3s aren't making them (outside of Greg, who I expect will be getting a lot more run from here on out).

In short, I am trusting the process. So far, the record exceeds my expectations.

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 09:55:07 AM
We've seen the ceiling and the floor from the scheme 11 games in. I gets that it's wildly frustrating watching us go 8-30something from behind the arc. If we hit double digit threes, we'll be competitive in most games.

Our defense is sound and our the upside is their for our offense. The sky is absolutely not falling.

The future is bright and the sky certainly isn't falling but there's a difference between good defense and teams missing open shots.  Whisky and SBU got very clean looks versus us and drained them.  I think our transition defense has to be better and part of it is long misses that lead to teams running out.  We also got pounded by Illinois and UCLA on the glass and securing defense rebs is a huge component of a solid defense.  What I'm saying is the verdict is still TBD defensively and I really worry about teams that can push and good O-rebounding clubs. 

As a side note you can never bet against Nova, but like us they pretty much solely rely on jump shooting.  They really don't have an inside game at all.  I look at a healthy UCONN, the Hall, and Xavier and do think they have more balanced teams.  Xavier is much better than I anticipated with two solid bigs, Scruggs, and competent three point shooters.  UCONN without question is more talented than Nova if Sanogo is healthy.  The bottom line is there are four very good teams in our league and we're going to have to elevate our play to make some noise.

Quote from: MuggsyB on December 14, 2021, 10:31:31 AM
The future is bright and the sky certainly isn't falling but there's a difference between good defense and teams missing open shots.  Whisky and SBU got very clean looks versus us and drained them.  I think our transition defense has to be better and part of it is long misses that lead to teams running out.  We also got pounded by Illinois and UCLA on the glass and securing defense rebs is a huge component of a solid defense.  What I'm saying is the verdict is still TBD defensively and I really worry about teams that can push and good O-rebounding clubs. 

As a side note you can never bet against Nova, but like us they pretty much solely rely on jump shooting.  They really don't have an inside game at all.  I look at a healthy UCONN, the Hall, and Xavier and do think they have more balanced teams.  Xavier is much better than I anticipated with two solid bigs, Scruggs, and competent three point shooters.  UCONN without question is more talented than Nova if Sanogo is healthy.  The bottom line is there are four very good teams in our league and we're going to have to elevate our play to make some noise.

Nothing is perfect but our defense has been solid. The metrics back it up. Just need to hit some more shots

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 10:45:27 AM
Nothing is perfect but our defense has been solid. The metrics back it up. Just need to hit some more shots

The metrics weren't solid the 2nd half vs the weasel/rodents.  That's all I'm saying.

When the three's start falling, either this year or next year with new players, we are going to be singing praise to the style of play. Every game there are a ton of wide open three balls, unfortunately we are missing them badly. Now, some might be angry on who is taking the shot, but there are a lot of wide open looks every game.

Quote from: MuggsyB on December 14, 2021, 10:49:49 AM
The metrics weren't solid the 2nd half vs the weasel/rodents.  That's all I'm saying.

Correct. It's also worth noting that one half is a pretty poor sample size.

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 10:45:27 AM
Nothing is perfect but our defense has been solid. The metrics back it up.

#60 defense Pomeroy, #85 Torvik, #71 Haslam.  Metrics say it's mediocre so far.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 10:57:01 AM
#60 defense Pomeroy, #85 Torvik, #71 Haslam.  Metrics say it's mediocre so far.

I was going off kenpom. 60 out of 358 is good and will keep a team competitive every game.

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:03:18 AM
I was going off kenpom. 60 out of 358 is good and will keep a team competitive every game.

60 is pretty average.  Title contenders are top-20.  I believe Baylor was only the 2nd team of the KenPom era to win a title not being in the top 20 defensively and they were 22nd

Quote from: Uncle Rico on December 14, 2021, 11:06:37 AM
60 is pretty average.  Title contenders are top-20.  I believe Baylor was only the 2nd team of the KenPom era to win a title not being in the top 20 defensively and they were 22nd

In my lexicon, 60 is solid. Maybe I should've picked a different adjective.

Either way, the defense isn't the issue as muggsy falsely laid out.

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:03:18 AM
I was going off kenpom. 60 out of 358 is good and will keep a team competitive every game.

But that's only good for 6th best in the BE (pomeroy...so far)

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:08:58 AM
In my lexicon, 60 is solid. Maybe I should've picked a different adjective.

Either way, the defense isn't the issue as muggsy falsely laid out.

At best, the defense has been disjointed

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 11:11:24 AM
But that's only good for 6th best in the BE (pomeroy...so far)

A defense that will keep you in more games than it will lose you games is "solid" in my verbiage. We're looking at the same stats and drawing the same conclusions. Pick a different adjective that you feel may be a more appropriate fit.

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:08:58 AM
In my lexicon, 60 is solid. Maybe I should've picked a different adjective.

Either way, the defense isn't the issue as muggsy falsely laid out.

I didn't write that it "was" the issue.  I have stated far more problems with our offense than our defense.  I just wrote that our defense being "solid" is TBD.

Quote from: MuggsyB on December 14, 2021, 11:16:51 AM
I didn't write that it "was" the issue.  I have stated far more problems with our offense than our defense.  I just wrote that our defense being "solid" is TBD.

To be fair, you would have a list as long as the Declaration of Independence even if we were 11-0 !

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:15:58 AM
A defense that will keep you in more games than it will lose you games is "solid" in my verbiage. We're looking at the same stats and drawing the same conclusions. Pick a different adjective that you feel may be a more appropriate fit.

I already did.  Mediocre.  You want to compare us to all Div 1, I'm comparing to our BE peers.  D is solidly in the middle of that group (so far), (and lets not compare our offense to that group right now, yikes).  We all hope for better, and for improvement as the year(s) goes on.

If you're content with our defense today, you should have also been content last year (#59, Torvik).  I assume that wasn't the case???

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:21:10 AM
To be fair, you would have a list as long as the Declaration of Independence even if we were 11-0 !

I  have occasionally pointed out some issues.......regardless of our record over the years.  I'm eager to get back to greatness.  :)

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 11:22:42 AM
I already did.  Mediocre.  You want to compare us to all Div 1, I'm comparing to our BE peers.  D is solidly in the middle of that group (so far), (and lets not compare our offense to that group right now, yikes).  We all hope for better, and for improvement as the year(s) goes on.

If you're content with our defense today, you should have also been content last year (#59, Torvik).  I assume that wasn't the case???

As stated multiple times, the defense won't play us out of games like it has in the past.

Muggsy stated the defense had significant issues (I should've noted who was posting before responding) and I said the defense was solid aka not the root issue of our struggles.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 11:22:42 AM
I already did.  Mediocre.  You want to compare us to all Div 1, I'm comparing to our BE peers.  D is solidly in the middle of that group (so far), (and lets not compare our offense to that group right now, yikes).  We all hope for better, and for improvement as the year(s) goes on.

If you're content with our defense today, you should have also been content last year (#59, Torvik).  I assume that wasn't the case???

The defense was horrendous last year in conference (as it always was with Wojo). It had to be far and away the worst in the league.

Probably decent OOC and horrible against common coaching staffs and opponents in conference. Makes me shudder thinking about it still.

Quote from: Goose on December 14, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
When the three's start falling, either this year or next year with new players, we are going to be singing praise to the style of play. Every game there are a ton of wide open three balls, unfortunately we are missing them badly. Now, some might be angry on who is taking the shot, but there are a lot of wide open looks every game.

100%.

Quote from: panda on December 14, 2021, 11:41:07 AM
The defense was horrendous last year in conference (as it always was with Wojo). It had to be far and away the worst in the league.

Probably decent OOC and horrible against common coaching staffs and opponents in conference. Makes me shudder thinking about it still.

Actually, it was consistently mediocre last year, ended #7 in the league.  And that's my point!  If you want to see it plotted, go here and pull down "adjusted defense"
https://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Marquette&year=2021

There is lots of room for improvement this year.  If that happens, I'll join you on the "solid" defense train.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 11:47:11 AM
Actually, it was consistently mediocre last year, ended #7 in the league.  And that's my point!  If you want to see it plotted, go here and pull down "adjusted defense"
https://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Marquette&year=2021

There is lots of room for improvement this year.  If that happens, I'll join you on the "solid" defense train.

Their defensive efficiency in conference last year was 98.4. Dead last.

rocky and panda, you're talking a bit past each other. Both of you are correct but you're not talking about the same thing.

Marquette's total adjusted defense was 7th in the league when you factor in non-conference games, so in that regard, rocky is right. Much of that is because they absolutely suffocated UAPB and Eastern Illinois to start the season, and were at least respectable in all their other non-con games.

The wheels came off in Big East play, and in conference-only play we were dead last, which is where panda is right.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 14, 2021, 12:32:45 PM
rocky and panda, you're talking a bit past each other. Both of you are correct but you're not talking about the same thing.

Marquette's total adjusted defense was 7th in the league when you factor in non-conference games, so in that regard, rocky is right. Much of that is because they absolutely suffocated UAPB and Eastern Illinois to start the season, and were at least respectable in all their other non-con games.

The wheels came off in Big East play, and in conference-only play we were dead last, which is where panda is right.

Yes - and to answer Rocky's question, no I would not want last years defense as it was truly horrendous.

This years is fine.

I wonder what Nevada Smith thinks of the defense.

Quote from: MU82 on December 14, 2021, 01:32:05 PM
I wonder what Nevada Smith thinks of the defense.

He probably hopes it improves so that his offense gets less criticism :)

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 01:41:38 PM
He probably hopes it improves so that his offense gets less criticism :)

Indeed!

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 01:41:38 PM
He probably hopes it improves so that his offense gets less criticism :)

Tongue in cheek, but I think the offense improving will lead to the defense improving. We're best when we can set our defense and press, but we can't do that unless we're putting the ball in the basket. Unlike Smart's VCU teams, we don't thrive on live-ball turnovers which lead to easy offensive opportunities so the defense feeds the offense, instead we need to make shots so we can set up the defense and the offense feeds the defense.

Brew

Spot on. If we make some baskets it will help on defensive side of the ball a great deal. Definitely can cause more trouble defensively starting from inbounds pass vs. a rebound.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 14, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
Tongue in cheek, but I think the offense improving will lead to the defense improving.

Absolutely.  Or at least highly likely.  With the edit that our two best offensive games this year (WVU & Ole Miss) were very meh to bad defensive games (statistically), but also wins.  WI was our 3rd best offensive game.

In the spirit of the original post, is there an inherent conflict in recruiting styles between Shaka's defensive needs and Smith's offensive needs? Shaka wants long athletic guys and Smith wants guys who can drive, kick and make the 3. If you can get players that do all of those, congrats, you have a team of 5-stars and you're winning no matter what. But the current crop looks to me a lot more like Shaka's prototype than Smiths. (Not that I'm complaining, our previous coaches teams were kind of the inverse and it didn't seem to work out all that well.)

We don't have the shooters to play a wild gunner offense. When we do fine but until then were better off playing like the rodents for sure shots.

What kind of offense best suits MU's inexperience and lack of 3 pt shooting?

Quote from: Stretchdeltsig on December 14, 2021, 05:37:12 PM
We don't have the shooters to play a wild gunner offense. When we do fine but until then were better off playing like the rodents for sure shots.

That's what I was talking about ... Shaka doesn't care that we don't have the shooters this season. He wants that offense to be his offense, and the guys playing this year will do the best they can with it, hopefully improve within it.

Could he institute a different offensive system that would get another win or 3 with this year's cast? I don't know, and it doesn't appear we'll find out because this is what Shaka wants to do.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 08:55:11 AM
This is Smith's offensive "system", and I'm fine with it.  Though I do question if Smart should need an employee to guide him daily on offense, if the message is " extremely quick possessions and the 3pt shot, especially a corner 3", and ""If we could take a 3 every time down the court, we probably [should]."

Seems pretty simple, but hey, I'm not a head coach  making millions or an assistant coach making several hundred k.

I hear ya, but it seems as if there is a lot more nuance than that, I suppose?

Bringing Nevada Smith in at Texas shows that Shaka felt like he indeed needed an offensive coach to guide him daily- I say this because anyone who brings in Coach smith has something specific in mind, something that requires a fairly drastic change in offensive mindset.

Someone has previously posted his KenPom offensive finishes at Texas and I'm fairly certain they were not too stellar, even though I must admit I don't remember them specifically. He did much better overall at VCU so I'd like to see what those offensive numbers were at both stops if someone can do the legwork.

It's easy to see that as the years went by and the offense continued to lag, Shaka decided he needed to make a change and bring in an "offensive guru" or "offensive mind" that would come in with the goal of putting together an offense that could be on par with Shaka's defenses.

In my opinion that's a very good sign of maturity, that coach Smart realized he needed some help on that side of the ball and reached out to someone he thought could help.  After all, he has said at several press conferences/interviews that "scoring is hard." He was an assist junkie as a player and seemingly a defensive junkie as a coach, so he's doing what he can to improve his offensive approach and that's commendable.

The real question then becomes did Shaka bring in the right guy with the right approach?
Someone mentioned the concept that the "type" of player that Shaka loves to recruit may not really mesh with the "type" of player Nevada needs for his system to thrive and I think that's a legit concern.
Perhaps the style of athletes that beat fit Shaka's defensive system need more of an offensive approach that Buzzes system had, or better yet Wojos, I don't know. Perhaps Shaka's fast paced defensive system needs a more slow paced and deliberate system like Wisconsin- God forbid! I honestly don't know, but that part is a legitimate concern/question.
Time will definitely tell and hopefully coach Smith is the right guy with the right plan at the right time and it meshes well with Shaka's guys and Shaka's defensive system.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 14, 2021, 08:56:09 AM
Marquette leads the Big East in the number of unguarded threes they get our game, but are 9th in PPP on those attempts. As players like Jones and Joplin develop into more reliable shooters and as they fill the roster with more guys that can knock down shots, that will come up and pay dividends.

My biggest concern is our unwillingness to pursue offensive rebounds. I believe it's rooted in a desire to get back into a set defense as we get killed in transition, but I think that's a misguided belief.

There's a metric called Shot Quality that looks at the expected effectiveness of shots taken and allowed. Many of the teams we'd like to emulate (Baylor, Villanova, Gonzaga, Alabama) rank highly in this regard. I looked at the top-18 (because that's what fit on the screen) adjusted Shot Quality leaders and compared them with their offensive rebounding ranks. Of the 18, 17 were in the 64th percentile or better in offensive rebounding rate, 15 were in the 77th percentile or better, and 10 were in the 90th or better percentile.

What does that mean? That any defensive efficiency loss from chasing offensive rebounds is more than offset by the offensive efficiency gained by the open looks at the perimeter and easier putbacks created by securing an offensive board.

If anyone wants to read more, I did a little thread about this with some visuals to reinforce it today.

https://twitter.com/brewcity1977/status/1470762942358507521?s=21

Excellent work Brew, as always.

A few questions though-
1) MU leads in "unguarded" threes. Is this just a result of attempting the most 3s overall, and therefore a good portion will fit under the "unguarded" umbrella. You've mentioned before but what's the exact way to figure out unguarded?

2) I'm tracking on your offensive rebounding importance and emphasis, and I agree that I wish MU crashed the offensive glass more. Here's the thing though- how much do you think the offensive system, predicated on very quick shots and a ton of 3P attempts, puts MU at a general disadvantage at grabbing an offensive board?

I mean, if you get up the court in 7-10s and 4 guys are outside the arc, one big has barely made it to the FT line and a guard chucks up a seemingly unguarded, or in their eyes good enough to attempt 3P shot, what are the odds that any of your guys will be close enough to even fight for a board?
There are so many times in a game where a shot goes up and it seems like there's really no one even close to the basket, so good luck sprinting in and trying to grab a board. In a system like Buzzes where paint touches were key, you always had some trees inside to battle.

3) Back to the unguarded 3s deal again-
Overall speaking do you think this team takes a lot of "good or great" shots. Volume alone, if you shoot 35+ threes you'll have a decent amount that appear open. I think they get an ok amount of open 3s, but I think they should be getting a lot more if your system emphasizes tossing up a lot of threes. Part of it is the speed of play and the pursuit of quick offense to increase the number of possessions, but there are many many shots that just appear rushed, with a guy that already isn't a great shooter not set or not sure if that's the one he should be taking and yet it goes up anyway.

It's easy to chuck up a shot at any time, especially if that's what your coaches want. It's much more difficult to move at as rapid of a speed as you can, both defensively and then immediately offensively when you get the ball, but then get to the right spot, get open, and compose yourself enough to slow down and get the right mechanics and calm mental focus that a repeatable and effective 3P shot takes.
This is probably easier at the next level because most of those guys can shoot much better, but at this level well over half of the kids, if not 3/4 of them, aren't great or even average long distance shooters to begin with 

Quote from: MU82 on December 14, 2021, 07:25:01 PM
That's what I was talking about ... Shaka doesn't care that we don't have the shooters this season. He wants that offense to be his offense, and the guys playing this year will do the best they can with it, hopefully improve within it.

Could he institute a different offensive system that would get another win or 3 with this year's cast? I don't know, and it doesn't appear we'll find out because this is what Shaka wants to do.

I'm not 100% sure here.
Again, he brought in coach Smith and if it were up to Nevada this team would shoot 3s all day every day.
It's still Shaka's team and it's his final say, but I think he doesn't want to undermine his assistant and his offensive philosophy if he can avoid it.... Until he feels like he has to to win games.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he will drastically change everything or completely scrap the system mid season- that would cause a lot of confusion in a young and new team and probably lead to bigger problems.

However, you're already seeing wrinkles. The plays with Justin in the block against KSt after seeing a weakness in their film for example. There are often times where Justin is likely coached to take a mid range jumper, even though that's likely not in the original plans.

Shaka mentioned the other day that he needs Kolek to keep shooting, of course he does it's the system, but that he also needs him to perhaps just slow down a bit, and that's not really the system.

Another wrinkle that I think this team needs to see almost immediately is Morsell taking a lot more mid range shots. He's very very good at them, probably the best part of his offensive game. That's definitely not a part of the system but I think needs to be implemented very soon. Likely the same for Kolek/Justin and maybe even Kam, who was lauded for his "complete offensive game with the ability to score in many ways" in the preseason but we've only really seen one way.

Feeding the post to JL, Kur, Oso and letting them either make an offensive move or distribute to a cutter or spot up guy may be another wrinkle as the season progresses.

Again I'm not talking complete overhaul, I'm just talking wrinkles to a struggling system (assuming it continues to struggle in BE play) to try to get some wins by scoring more points based on the pieces in place

Quote from: DoctorV on December 14, 2021, 07:36:59 PM
Someone has previously posted his KenPom offensive finishes at Texas and I'm fairly certain they were not too stellar, even though I must admit I don't remember them specifically. He did much better overall at VCU so I'd like to see what those offensive numbers were at both stops if someone can do the legwork.

Without analysis, and without looking into when Smith was brought along.  Also Torvik #s, as they're free (and easy) for everyone:
https://www.barttorvik.com/coach-history.php?coach=Shaka%20Smart

Adjusted Offense:
VCU
09-10 : #30
10-11 : #42
11-12 : #86
12-13 : #16
13-14 : #109
14-15 : #66
Texas
15-16 : #48
16-17 : #170
17-18 : #82
18-19 : #25
19-20 : #161
20-21 : #25
Marquette
21-22 : #157 (so far)

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 09:28:04 PM
Adjusted Offense:
VCU
09-10 : #30
10-11 : #42
11-12 : #86
12-13 : #16
13-14 : #109
14-15 : #66
Texas
15-16 : #48
16-17 : #170
17-18 : #82
18-19 : #25
19-20 : #161
20-21 : #25
Marquette
21-22 : #157 (so far)

Quick Analysis, based on how the numbers oscillate, it would appears Shaka can/will coach a good offense (regardless of Smith?), but it must depend on personnel.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 14, 2021, 09:28:04 PM
Without analysis, and without looking into when Smith was brought along.  Also Torvik #s, as they're free (and easy) for everyone:
https://www.barttorvik.com/coach-history.php?coach=Shaka%20Smart

Adjusted Offense:
VCU
09-10 : #30
10-11 : #42
11-12 : #86
12-13 : #16
13-14 : #109
14-15 : #66
Texas
15-16 : #48
16-17 : #170
17-18 : #82
18-19 : #25
19-20 : #161
20-21 : #25
Marquette
21-22 : #157 (so far)

Shaka hired Smith before the 20-21 season.  Immediately following the offense rose 136 spots and was Shakas best ever.

Quote from: DoctorV on December 14, 2021, 08:19:20 PM
I'm not 100% sure here.
Again, he brought in coach Smith and if it were up to Nevada this team would shoot 3s all day every day.
It's still Shaka's team and it's his final say, but I think he doesn't want to undermine his assistant and his offensive philosophy if he can avoid it.... Until he feels like he has to to win games.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he will drastically change everything or completely scrap the system mid season- that would cause a lot of confusion in a young and new team and probably lead to bigger problems.

However, you're already seeing wrinkles. The plays with Justin in the block against KSt after seeing a weakness in their film for example. There are often times where Justin is likely coached to take a mid range jumper, even though that's likely not in the original plans.

Shaka mentioned the other day that he needs Kolek to keep shooting, of course he does it's the system, but that he also needs him to perhaps just slow down a bit, and that's not really the system.

Another wrinkle that I think this team needs to see almost immediately is Morsell taking a lot more mid range shots. He's very very good at them, probably the best part of his offensive game. That's definitely not a part of the system but I think needs to be implemented very soon. Likely the same for Kolek/Justin and maybe even Kam, who was lauded for his "complete offensive game with the ability to score in many ways" in the preseason but we've only really seen one way.

Feeding the post to JL, Kur, Oso and letting them either make an offensive move or distribute to a cutter or spot up guy may be another wrinkle as the season progresses.

Again I'm not talking complete overhaul, I'm just talking wrinkles to a struggling system (assuming it continues to struggle in BE play) to try to get some wins by scoring more points based on the pieces in place

You're probably right about this team needing more wrinkles to wring more success out of this offense, which in turn might help win a game or two that we otherwise wouldn't. It will be interesting to see if Shaka/Nevada do some of the ones you talk about or others.

The one thing you all forget is Marquette is not the basketball program it was 50 years ago.  Al could almost pick and choose players. Right now MU is really a weak mid-major program, so getting the perfect recruit is not easy. The debate about the type of player Smith or Shaka is great, but at this time he has take whomever wants to come here. I think the next recruiting cycle will tell us where the program is going, or style he wants to play. 

Quote from: BCHoopster on December 15, 2021, 12:03:32 AM
The one thing you all forget is Marquette is not the basketball program it was 50 years ago.  Al could almost pick and choose players. Right now MU is really a weak mid-major program, so getting the perfect recruit is not easy. The debate about the type of player Smith or Shaka is great, but at this time he has take whomever wants to come here. I think the next recruiting cycle will tell us where the program is going, or style he wants to play.

Weak mid-major?   Like Fordham or Duquesne or San Francisco or Seattle or fill in the blank weak mid major?   

I don't think MU has fallen that far.  Maybe a weak major program but even then I would say we are above the likes of DePaul or Rutgers or Boston College or Mississippi State or Washington state or fill in the blank weak major.

Shaka thought this was a pretty attractive job and so did Porter Moser from what has been told.  I guarantee they don't think MU is a weak mid major program or Shaka would have never come.  Nor would our fan base come to games year in and year out.   

The right coach, which we hope Shaka is, should be able to recruit well.  If he doesn't it's an indictment on him and not MU in my opinion. 

Wojo had no system and we criticized his lack of an offensive system on this board.

Shaka has a very popular and attractive and modern system and we criticize his system on this board.

Sometimes I think this board would criticize MU if Steve Kerr was the coach, Giannis was the center and the backcourt was Steph + Klay.

QuoteThe one thing you all forget is Marquette is not the basketball program it was 50 years ago.  Al could almost pick and choose players. Right now MU is really a weak mid-major program, so getting the perfect recruit is not easy. The debate about the type of player Smith or Shaka is great, but at this time he has take whomever wants to come here. I think the next recruiting cycle will tell us where the program is going, or style he wants to play.

So we are comparing NCAA men's basketball in 2021 to 50 years ago. Apples to apples.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on December 14, 2021, 07:58:57 AM

Having watched them play multiple times....it's not entertaining after about 10 minutes.  There's no ball movement.  It's just jacking up threes.

100%.
I loved Markus Howard, but we needed more to win. Now we don't even have a shooter.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 14, 2021, 02:52:11 PM
Tongue in cheek, but I think the offense improving will lead to the defense improving. We're best when we can set our defense and press, but we can't do that unless we're putting the ball in the basket. Unlike Smart's VCU teams, we don't thrive on live-ball turnovers which lead to easy offensive opportunities so the defense feeds the offense, instead we need to make shots so we can set up the defense and the offense feeds the defense.

MU should play like those Arkansas teams under Nolan Richardson. Press, havoc, press some more. MU has the athletes to do it.  TO's will produce easy buckets.

Quote from: BCHoopster on December 15, 2021, 12:03:32 AM
The one thing you all forget is Marquette is not the basketball program it was 50 years ago.  Al could almost pick and choose players. Right now MU is really a weak mid-major program, so getting the perfect recruit is not easy. The debate about the type of player Smith or Shaka is great, but at this time he has take whomever wants to come here. I think the next recruiting cycle will tell us where the program is going, or style he wants to play.

Solid take. If only we could dig up Al, Luke and Dean, we could aspire to be a strong mid-major program.

Right now I would say Marquette is between Al and Dukiet level and that we will either improve, stay the same or get worse.

Any idea if Nevada Smith recruits or is he purely X's and O's for offense?

Eventually, you'd think he would be able to recruit some shooters to fit his system

Btw, I'm a fan of the system. Once we start hitting shots it's gonna be awesome

Smith isn't allowed to recruit.

Quote from: THRILLHO on December 14, 2021, 05:06:54 PM
In the spirit of the original post, is there an inherent conflict in recruiting styles between Shaka's defensive needs and Smith's offensive needs? Shaka wants long athletic guys and Smith wants guys who can drive, kick and make the 3. If you can get players that do all of those, congrats, you have a team of 5-stars and you're winning no matter what. But the current crop looks to me a lot more like Shaka's prototype than Smiths. (Not that I'm complaining, our previous coaches teams were kind of the inverse and it didn't seem to work out all that well.)

Recruit athletes that defend, drive, and kick.  Teach them to shoot.

They should have Brett Nelson come in for a day or two and spend all day shooting. Pay him a consulting fee

Quote from: NCMUFan on December 15, 2021, 08:29:24 AM
Right now I would say Marquette is between Al and Dukiet level and that we will either improve, stay the same or get worse.

Nailed it!

Quote from: swoopem on December 15, 2021, 11:08:46 AM
They should have Brett Nelson come in for a day or two and spend all day shooting. Pay him a consulting fee

He might be looking for work soon, so that could work.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 14, 2021, 08:56:09 AM
Marquette leads the Big East in the number of unguarded threes they get our game, but are 9th in PPP on those attempts. As players like Jones and Joplin develop into more reliable shooters and as they fill the roster with more guys that can knock down shots, that will come up and pay dividends.

My biggest concern is our unwillingness to pursue offensive rebounds. I believe it's rooted in a desire to get back into a set defense as we get killed in transition, but I think that's a misguided belief.

There's a metric called Shot Quality that looks at the expected effectiveness of shots taken and allowed. Many of the teams we'd like to emulate (Baylor, Villanova, Gonzaga, Alabama) rank highly in this regard. I looked at the top-18 (because that's what fit on the screen) adjusted Shot Quality leaders and compared them with their offensive rebounding ranks. Of the 18, 17 were in the 64th percentile or better in offensive rebounding rate, 15 were in the 77th percentile or better, and 10 were in the 90th or better percentile.

What does that mean? That any defensive efficiency loss from chasing offensive rebounds is more than offset by the offensive efficiency gained by the open looks at the perimeter and easier putbacks created by securing an offensive board.

If anyone wants to read more, I did a little thread about this with some visuals to reinforce it today.

https://twitter.com/brewcity1977/status/1470762942358507521?s=21

I think this is a personnel issue. Not enough drivers/cutters on this team to rebound shoots from. Part of the reason i am higher than most on next years two recruits. This will also take convincing Lewis to play more small ball 5 than i am sure he wants to.

Could they do better than they currently are doing, sure. But i dont see the path to actually accomplishing this at a high level without some outer body experiences from Oso.