MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: MarkCharles on October 13, 2010, 11:05:39 AM
-
Newcomers must help Marquette
ESPN.com's Andy Katz recently wrote about this season's low expectations for Marquette. The Golden Eagles aren't getting much respect from outside observers -- which is pretty fair considering the team's measurables -- but betting against the team's intangibles and unknown newcomers could be a mistake.
Buzz Williams advocates a relatively slow-paced attacknot really true, that was out of necessity last year and likely won't be a trend that prizes efficiency and three-point prowess, and he may have brought in the perfect player to shore up the team's future in freshman Vander Blue. Blue impressed many with his performance alongside big-name Dukies Kyrie Irving and Austin Rivers in this summer's FIBA U-18 tourney.
"Blue is a four-star recruit who came into the FIBA tourney with less name-recognition than Irving, and a four-star (rather than five) rating," Blue was a Rivals 5star wrote SI.com's Luke Winn. "But it became clear rather quickly that Blue is an elite combo guard. He's an explosive wing player with a slashing ability and a slick pull-up jumper, and he's great at jumping passing lanes on D and getting out in transition. The Golden Eagles will have a future pro in their backcourt this season."
Blue will continue to get a lot of attention for his shooting prowess, which averaged out at a 56.5% mark when he played for Team USA, but he's also relentless on defense. Playing with and against future pros, he averaged 1.8 steals per game in a pressure-packed environment.
In other words, don't be surprised if Vander Blue breaks out this season, and takes Marquette along for the ride.
-
Got a link or anything?
-
Its an insider story so I figured I wouldn't bother. If you're an insider, its one of the top stories under the "rumors" section of the NCAA BB page.
-
Nice. Usually the rumors have to do with how Buzz likes "switchables" and how recruits we look at match Buzz's desire to have "switchable" players. We do make rumors once or twice per week which is nice.
ESPN's announcers are going to love "switchables" as much as they loved "pain touch" last year. Drinking game possibility there for those two buzz words during an MU game.
That being said, I agree with MarkCharles' edits, but I figure that the national media perceives us mostly in the way the article states. We were a little slow and unathletic last season. That will change this year. Hopefully Vander can have an impact.
-
I think people are vastly overestimating how much faster the tempo is going to get this year. If we've learned anything about Buzz, it's that he values efficiency on the offensive end more than pretty much anything. Given that highly efficient offenses are usually on the slow side in terms of pace, I think we'll continue to see a team with a tempo much slower than you would expect. It may not be as slow as last year due to personnel changes, but I doubt we're going to see the run and gun everyone seems to be looking for.
-
I think people are vastly overestimating how much faster the tempo is going to get this year. If we've learned anything about Buzz, it's that he values efficiency on the offensive end more than pretty much anything. Given that highly efficient offenses are usually on the slow side in terms of pace, I think we'll continue to see a team with a tempo much slower than you would expect. It may not be as slow as last year due to personnel changes, but I doubt we're going to see the run and gun everyone seems to be looking for.
I agree with bma on this one. Efficiency seems to be king for coach buzz. That said, buzz has often spoken quite highly about Mizzou's personnel and style. Not sure where that leaves us for this year.
-
I think people are vastly overestimating how much faster the tempo is going to get this year. If we've learned anything about Buzz, it's that he values efficiency on the offensive end more than pretty much anything. Given that highly efficient offenses are usually on the slow side in terms of pace, I think we'll continue to see a team with a tempo much slower than you would expect. It may not be as slow as last year due to personnel changes, but I doubt we're going to see the run and gun everyone seems to be looking for.
Every coach in the world wants efficiency from their offense--efficiency basically means not turning the ball over and taking good shots. Of course thats a high priority. Efficiency and fast-paced tempo are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think anyone here thinks we will be a run-and-shoot offense, but last year was a drastic situation. We will be significantly more up-tempo this year. Just look at the players on the roster--why wouldn't Buzz play that way?
-
I only agree with this to an extent. I agree that Buzz wants efficiency over run and gun, but he has also stated that he wants us to take the first good shot. Due to the circumstances with all of the roster shake ups, I think it has been necessary for Buzz to slow things down. We have had little to no bench and couldn't afford to wear the guys down by running up and down the court. Further, the complexion of the team hasn't been what Buzz is looking for in a roster (undersized, not overly athletic, and mainly good 3 pt shooters). This season Buzz is close to having a roster full of his desired pieces that fit what he wants to do. The athleticism has increased 5 fold since last year (and the year before), thus I think the pace will increase substantially. We no longer have a handful of efficient 3 pt shooters, rather guys that attack and create off the dribble.
-
last season Pomeroy had MU ranked 304th in tempo with 63.7 possessions per game.
In 2009 MU averaged fewer than 5 additional possessions per game, 68.4, but that increase had them ranked 85th.
-
I only agree with this to an extent. I agree that Buzz wants efficiency over run and gun, but he has also stated that he wants us to take the first good shot. Due to the circumstances with all of the roster shake ups, I think it has been necessary for Buzz to slow things down. We have had little to no bench and couldn't afford to wear the guys down by running up and down the court. Further, the complexion of the team hasn't been what Buzz is looking for in a roster (undersized, not overly athletic, and mainly good 3 pt shooters). This season Buzz is close to having a roster full of his desired pieces that fit what he wants to do. The athleticism has increased 5 fold since last year (and the year before), thus I think the pace will increase substantially. We no longer have a handful of efficient 3 pt shooters, rather guys that attack and create off the dribble.
+1
Our slow place of play was by design to limit our size and depth deficiency - not out of a desire of Buzz's. What I don't think will happen as some here think due to increased depth is that we foul more. Buzz-ball 101 says take more free throws than the opposition attempts. I can see Buzz having a shorter fuse with someone making a dumb foul, versus taking a bad shot/turning the ball over.
-
Every coach in the world wants efficiency from their offense--efficiency basically means not turning the ball over and taking good shots. Of course thats a high priority. Efficiency and fast-paced tempo are not mutually exclusive.
They aren't mutually exlusive, but it's pretty damn close. Year in and year out of if you look at the most efficient teams in the country, you'll find that they are teams that play either below average or slow tempos. If you look at the fastest teams, they are generally pretty inefficient. There will always be a few outliers, but not many.
I don't think anyone here thinks we will be a run-and-shoot offense, but last year was a drastic situation. We will be significantly more up-tempo this year. Just look at the players on the roster--why wouldn't Buzz play that way?
Because Buzz knows what most coaches know, slower paced offenses generally lead to higher offensive efficiency, and higher efficiency leads to more wins. The last 7 national champions have ranked no worse than 4th in terms of offensive efficiency, and only two of those teams(UNC both years) could be considered up tempo. Duke was the most efficient team in the country last year, and they ranked 249th in terms of tempo.
I know it's sacreligious to advocate a slower pace around here, but the numbers don't lie. I'm not saying we'll play the exact same style we played last year, but the notion that we'll become fast paced doesn't jive with what Buzz has been preaching.
-
There is no correlation between how efficient a team is offensively and what tempo they play at. (t-stat of 0.48; p-value of 0.62).
There is a correlation between how fast a team plays and how good they are defensively. The faster a team plays, the worse they are defensively. (t-stat 2.9; p-value of 0.003)
There is no correlation between how good a team is overall (pythag rating) and how fast they play. (p-value of 0.68).
I did not check a correlation between turnover percentage and pace. My hypothesis is that a correlation exists, but the data isn't all in one source and I didn't feel like consolidating files.
A team should play a faster tempo when they are the favorite and a slower tempo when they are the underdog. The logic is that the favorite gives themselves more possessions to prove out being a better team (or an underdog increases their chances by limiting the opportunities a favorite has to beat them).
-
I think people are vastly overestimating how much faster the tempo is going to get this year.
....
It may not be as slow as last year due to personnel changes, but I doubt we're going to see the run and gun everyone seems to be looking for.
Despite the aforementioned comments, I agree with the conclusion 100%. I highly doubt we'll see a run and gun anytime soon. If anything, it'll be an average tempo.
-
I love the stats :) Makes me feel smarter that other MU alums are that nerdy. Keep up the good work
-
I'm not sure where I recently read it, but I am virtually certain that Buzz said that on offense, he wants his team to take the first good shot it gets. That isn't quite what happened last year, as we would have a constant flow of guys getting into the lane and kicking the ball until we got a wide open 3.
-
I'm not sure where I recently read it, but I am virtually certain that Buzz said that on offense, he wants his team to take the first good shot it gets. That isn't quite what happened last year, as we would have a constant flow of guys getting into the lane and kicking the ball until we got a wide open 3.
I think his stated philosophy is to take the first "best" shot, or something such as that. I know the first merely good shot is not enough for him.
-
I think his stated philosophy is to take the first "best" shot, or something such as that. I know the first merely good shot is not enough for him.
Remember the Loyola Marymount philosophy. Everyone had an assigned spot on the floor they had to get to as fast as possible and the point guard's job was to get the ball to the first player who got to that spot. The goal was to get a shot off with only three seconds off the shot clock. That was fun to watch.
-
Remember the Loyola Marymount philosophy. Everyone had an assigned spot on the floor they had to get to as fast as possible and the point guard's job was to get the ball to the first player who got to that spot. The goal was to get a shot off with only three seconds off the shot clock. That was fun to watch.
Fun to watch, but not terribly effective. They won a lot of games in the WCC because they had a bunch of talent, but good teams would generally force a bunch of turn-overs and bad shots.
-
Fun to watch, but not terribly effective. They won a lot of games in the WCC because they had a bunch of talent, but good teams would generally force a bunch of turn-overs and bad shots.
It would have been nice to see what they could have done in 1990 if Hank Gathers hadn't died. They made it to the Elite Eight without him. I doubt they would have beaten UNLV even with him, but their seeding probably would have been different, so who knows how far they would have gone.
-
I did not check a correlation between turnover percentage and pace. My hypothesis is that a correlation exists, but the data isn't all in one source and I didn't feel like consolidating files.
I may be the only person that cares about this, but for another reason I finally consolidated some files.
There's no correlation between turnover percentage and pace on either the offensive or defensive end. I would have thought that playing faster helps you force more turnovers, and that playing slower helps you protect the ball better. Data says "no".
-
I may be the only person that cares about this, but for another reason I finally consolidated some files.
There's no correlation between turnover percentage and pace on either the offensive or defensive end. I would have thought that playing faster helps you force more turnovers, and that playing slower helps you protect the ball better. Data says "no".
Just so I'm clear:
Getting up and down the floor may create more turnovers on both ends (offensively and defensively), but that is a product of the increased # of possessions.
The % of turnovers a team commits/causes per possession cannot be linked to pace. Right?
That's very interesting.
-
I may be the only person that cares about this, but for another reason I finally consolidated some files.
There's no correlation between turnover percentage and pace on either the offensive or defensive end. I would have thought that playing faster helps you force more turnovers, and that playing slower helps you protect the ball better. Data says "no".
Would've thought so too. Interesting to note that VMI - who played at breakneck pace last year - actually protected the ball very well (#26). Defensively, they had a pretty good steal% but only an average TO%. But that's all anecdotal.
-
Just so I'm clear:
Getting up and down the floor may create more turnovers on both ends (offensively and defensively), but that is a product of the increased # of possessions.
The % of turnovers a team commits/causes per possession cannot be linked to pace. Right?
That's very interesting.
Correct
-
Correct
Did you already run stats for MU.
As an MU homer (and Buzz fan) it's interesting that Buzz had us play a quick pace when we could keep the turnovers to a minimum and get steals while doing so, but then slow down the pace once he thought we didn't have the athletes to play that way any longer.
But I'm better with bad jokes than I am with basketball, so what do I know? :)
-
Did you already run stats for MU.
As an MU homer (and Buzz fan) it's interesting that Buzz had us play a quick pace when we could keep the turnovers to a minimum and get steals while doing so, but then slow down the pace once he thought we didn't have the athletes to play that way any longer.
But I'm better with bad jokes than I am with basketball, so what do I know? :)
Good question. The previous comment was based on the entire pool of teams in 2010. I just re-ran it for the past two years of MU, however, and there still isn't a statistically significant relationship for pace and our offensive and defensive TO%. Also, for MU, there was not a correlation between our pace and the offensive or defensive efficiency.
The driving factor would have to be something else. Again, it's a statistical advantage to limit the number of possessions when you are an underdog. Maybe Buzz thinks slowing the pace down benefits Turnovers or efficiency. Who knows?
I often felt last year there were fewer possessions because Marquette was running the offense as long as possible in the shot clock to get the best possible shot. Drive kick drive kick drive kick drive kick three.
-
The more you are in a hurry, the more mistakes you're bound to make. Also it's easier for a slow tempo team to get a high tempo team to play its game than vice a versa.
Henry Sugar is correct in that if you are underdog ideally you want to slow the game down, if you are the favorite ideally you want to speed it up-----but I use the word "ideally" because I'm not sure that most teams are able to make that type of adjustment from game to game without losing synergy in between.
Hence most teams generally are rated eother uptemo or low tempo.
-
Murf, HS flat out said that according to his study of the data, the % of turnovers to posessions is a constant regardless of tempo. I don't know the exact numbers, obviously, but what he is saying that a team that averages 5 turnovers per 50 posessions will average 7 pers 70. The raw number of turnovers per game will be higher with an uptempo team, but the ratio is a constant. Henry, I am assuming you mean within a team. I.E., MU's turnover/posession ratio is constant regardless of tempo, but is an independent number from any other team's ratio.
-
A team can play at a fast pace and still not be in a hurry if they are taking good shots. Likewise, a team could play at a very slow pace and still not be composed (think the good ol' three man weave at the top of the key <shudders>). I agree with Murff's additional points too.
To clarify, turnover rate is turnovers per possessions. An average turnover rate is 20%, or turning the ball over one out of every five trips down the court. A slower team (60 possessions per game) will get 12 turnovers per game if they are average. A faster team (70 possessions) will get 14 if they are average.
I would have thought that the turnover rate goes up the faster the pace a team plays. ie - a team that plays at 70 possessions tends to have a turnover rate higher than 20%. Again, there's no proof that is the case.