Pressing

[MU Chi_IL]

I know the board is split on Bill Simmons, but I thought one topic in his exchange with Malcolm Gladwell today is an interesting change of pace for the board, maybe we can even discuss basketball strategy rather than recruiting...Anyway, I took this from their email exchange:

Gladwell

I am a bit obsessed with the full-court press at the moment. I just did a story for The New Yorker about how underdogs beat favorites, which had a lot about basketball in it. For the story, I went down to Louisville and had a long chat with Rick Pitino. He argued that the press is the best chance an underdog has of being competitive with stronger teams, and I think his record proves the case. That Providence team he took to the Final Four in 1984 has to have been just about the least talented team EVER to reach that level. (One of the forwards on that team was Dave Kipfer, who grew up just down the road from me, in the southwestern Ontario Mennonite country. He was considered slow for our high school league.) Then, of course, Pitino takes one of his first Louisville teams to the Final Four in 2006 and this season's team to the Elite Eight, and no one's going to argue that either of those teams were filled with future Hall of Famers. Given that, then, why do so few underdog teams use the press? Pitino's explanation is that it's because most coaches simply can't convince their players to work that hard. What do you think of that argument?

There are two other things here that fascinate me. After my piece ran in The New Yorker, one of the most common responses I got was people saying, well, the reason more people don't use the press is that it can be beaten with a well-coached team and a good point guard. That is (A) absolutely true and (B) beside the point. The press doesn't guarantee victory. It simply represents the underdog's best chance of victory. It raises their odds from zero to maybe 50-50. I think, in fact, that you can argue that a pressing team is always going to have real difficulty against a truly elite team. But so what? Everyone, regardless of how they play, is going to have real difficulty against truly elite teams. It's not a strategy for being the best. It's a strategy for being better. I never thought Louisville -- or, for that matter, Missouri -- had a realistic shot at winning it all in the NCAAs this year. But if neither of those teams pressed, they wouldn't have been there in the first place. I wonder if there isn't something particularly American in the preference for "best" over "better" strategies. I might be pushing things here. But both the U.S. health-care system and the U.S. educational system are exclusively "best" strategies: They excel at furthering the opportunities of those at the very top end. But they aren't nearly as interested in moving people from the middle of the pack to somewhere nearer the front.

The other, related question is whether you can ever truly run the press with elite players. Pitino did it once, with that stacked 1996 Kentucky team. But I think even he realizes that was a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. Think about it: He got Antoine Walker to play defense for 94 feet. And John Wooden used the press a lot with some of his great teams at UCLA. But he was John Wooden, and that was another era. Realistically, could you convince a couple of McDonald's All-Americans, who have been coddled and indulged their whole lives, to play that way today? When we were talking, Pitino called over Samardo Samuels, who is, of course, Jamaican -- his point being that this was his ideal kind of player, someone who substituted for a lack of experience with a lot of hunger. There is something weird, isn't there -- and also strangely beautiful -- about a coach who deliberately seeks out players who aren't the most talented? I know you have very, um, complicated feelings about Pitino. I love the man.

The biggest question, though, is whether there is any way to apply the press at the pro level. Thoughts?

Murf...coaches of any level,thoughts?

Here is the full exchange if you are interested
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090513/part1

[MR.HAYWARD]

While I agree in general with the article his example is pretty stupid...

"Realistically, could you convince a couple of McDonald's All-Americans, who have been coddled and indulged their whole lives, to play that way today? When we were talking, Pitino called over Samardo Samuels, who is, of course, Jamaican -- his point being that this was his ideal kind of player, someone who substituted for a lack of experience with a lot of hunger. There is something weird, isn't there -- and also strangely beautiful -- about a coach who deliberately seeks out players who aren't the most talented? I know you have very, um, complicated feelings about Pitino. I love the man."

Ahh there are not too many kids in college more talented than Samardo Samuels ...who coincidentally was a McDonalds AA.

[MU Chi_IL]

The conversation was really geared toward pressing in the NBA, and the motivation level of top NBA talent to press verse having your 10th-12th guys become press specialist to change the pace of the game. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090513/part2

[GGGG]

The press can be used to change the pace, or catch people when they are not ready for it.  I don't think it can work in college basketball today as a base defense.  Pitino's press, or even Anderson's "40 Minutes of Hell," are not used nearly as often as they were in their heydey in the late 80s / early 90s.  I think this is because kids in college basketball today have seen presses for years, and have been coached well on how to attack them.

[MR.HAYWARD]

the game has also changed many more teams play the 3 guard lineups or have guys that can beat the press on the wings.  gone are the days of one and a half ball handlers and 3 plodders.  Evena team like the 77 national Champs.  boylan and Butch but then 3 non real good ball handling bigs are much more suseptible to the press than the teams you see today look ta a Purdue with guys like Hummel at the 3 or 4, hayward at the 4, wes at the 3.  louisville with williams at the 3 or 4.   pretty darn hard to press a team like that ball rotaion a wing pass a dunk.  now the undermanned team is playing catchup. 

personally i think the bigger more athletic teams should press more that has been the key to pitions sucess the 1996 team with 3-4 -5-6 future Pros bigger, taller, stronger, faster, quicker and now they are going to press you!!!  Same with the Arkansas teams with all theire talent and now they are going to press you!!  Yikes

[lab_warrior]

IMO, the problem with pressing is that you leave yourself vulnerable to giving up easy baskets.  I am not sold on the premise that the press INCREASES odds of and underdog winning...I don't think that George Mason or Davidson pressed (or NC State, or Villanova, etc...), quite the opposite, they slowed the game down, and didn't turn it over, and had great offensive efficiency.  I like the press as a pace-changer, and something that can get you turnovers when you have to get them, but not as a base defense. 

[77ncaachamps]

At the NBA level, pressing will not work against players who can break down their defenders one-on-one, not to mention the high speed of the game.

If you press in the NBA, you allow speedy, adept ball-handlers to space out and push the ball up the floor very easily.

So, not ideal at that level.

[Henry Sugar]

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=253

Basketball Prospectus did a really nice job commenting on the original New Yorker article.  It's well worth reading. 

I've commented multiple times on "risky", or high variance strategies.  Basically, the premise is that a risky strategy increases the variance of your points per possessions or your defensive points per possessions.

• Shooting lots of threes - increases variance of offense
• Slowing down the tempo - increases variance of offense and defense through fewer possessions
• Pressing - increases variance of defense and offense, but can be offset by increased possessions

The "dominant" underdog strategy is the press because it generally has the highest variance.  The press is like buying 25 stocks that are each under a dollar and hoping one goes through the roof.

The problem is that when the talent level increases, the overall league variance begins to get closer together.  For example, the difference between the best and worst teams in the NBA is a lot closer than the difference between, say, a #3 and a #14 seed in the NCAA tournament.

Therefore, at some point, a team is just incorporating a higher variance strategy unnecessarily.  In other words, an underdog NBA team can increase their odds more efficiently by just taking more threes instead of running a full press.  It's the same type of benefit (increased odds of winning) for less risk.

IMO, the reason the press doesn't work in the NBA is because it doesn't provide an appropriate level of benefit for the effort required.

[RawdogDX]

sports guy mentioned having players 7-12 on the rotation all be press experts. 

This would allow you to run you substitutions much more like hockey lines.  Run your starters out there and have them press on offence and than run your press line out there and give everyone a breather.

[GGGG]

sports guy mentioned having players 7-12 on the rotation all be press experts. 

This would allow you to run you substitutions much more like hockey lines.  Run your starters out there and have them press on offence and than run your press line out there and give everyone a breather.

That's what Grinnell College does...and to Henry's point, the strategy becomes much less effective the more talented team they play.  They may have one three conference titles, but they have never advanced very far in the DIII tournament.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30122-2004Dec2.html

[DaCoach]

The essence of success in a particular game begin with matchups. On both sides the equation, good teams attempt to maximize their advantages and minimize their deficiencies. If the opposition has good ball handlers, it will disadvantage a weaker team to press. There is no one size fits all situations game plan. Quite often a well designed trap defense will yield a better net result than a full court trap because it doesn't allow for as many easy baskets.

To say that a press offers a better chance for an upset seems a generalization that is unsupportable. What if the weaker team has slower players? In the NBa it just ain't gonna happen. To suggest that there is some sort of ignorance among coaches at the highest level seems delusional.

[MU Chi_IL]

You can easily find 10th, 11th and 12th men to make that press work. You know how many athletic swingmen are out there? Oodles. There's always another Dahntay Jones or Josh Powell killing himself in the D-League hoping for a chance. It's just a logical way to use your roster. You could build the press around one scorer (one of your top-five guys) and the ninth, 10th, 11th and 12th guys on your team. Like the 2008-09 Clippers. Couldn't they have pressed for 10 minutes a game with Al Thornton, Mike Taylor, DeAndre Jordan, Fred Jones and Mardy Collins? Why the hell not?

The point was really about NBA teams using the tail end of the roster to create a pressing group that comes in when other teams are resting the starters as a change of pace unit.  These guys would basically practice the press and kill themselves for a few mins to distrubt the game flow.  I don't think this works starter v starter for a full game. 

[wildbillsb]

The point was really about NBA teams using the tail end of the roster to create a pressing group that comes in when other teams are resting the starters as a change of pace unit.  These guys would basically practice the press and kill themselves for a few mins to distrubt the game flow.  I don't think this works starter v starter for a full game. 

"Scrambled Eggs!  Scrambled Eggs!"  (MU/AM, circa late 60"s?)

[Mufflers]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell

I'm not sure if this link has been posted, but it's the link to the Malcolm Gladwell story in the New Yorker.  It has interesting mentions of Rick Pitino.

[MU Chi_IL]

gladwell is what start this whole thing.  Murf, aka coach, let's hear the your take!

[jmayer1]

I agree with most of what people have said.  I think they (Simmons and Gladwell) were a little too general in saying pressing is the best chance for an underdog to win.  IMO, if you are an underdog, the best way to beat the other team is take them out of their element. 

If an underdog tries to press a team like UNC this year, they'll get their doors blown off.  The best chance for a an underdog win against NC would be to slow it down and grind it out every possession. 

However, if you were an underdog playing a team that likes to slow it down (ie-Wisky or UCLA the past few years), then I think your best chance to win is to speed up the game (possibly invoking the press).

Obviously, not all underdogs are created equal.  Some play fast and some play slow.  I think the best chance for an upset is when the teams have differing styles and the underdog is the team that is able to impose their preferred pace.

[Murffieus]

I disagree with Pitino when he says the 'press is the best way for an underdof to win"------yea if you have the old UAB type talent that MU faced a press can overwhelm superior talent-----but how many teams have that kind of quickness?

Also to run a press a team has to be deep ----- an effective press need a high energy level therefore fresh bodies.

NBA teams can't press effectively because they play too many games (3-4 week and after all that traveling)----they'd be burnt out by midway in the season----then too, how to you get multi millionaires to expand that type of energy night after night?----hard enough to get them to play good half court defense.

IMO, the best way for an underdog to win is to slow the game down-----go deeper into the possession cycle thereby limiting the number of possessions the favorite team gets meanwhile hoping that the slower pace will frustate them into mistakes and subpar shooting------also hoping that the underdog has a better than average shooting night.

[avid1010]

I disagree with Pitino when he says the 'press is the best way for an underdof to win"------yea if you have the old UAB type talent that MU faced a press can overwhelm superior talent-----but how many teams have that kind of quickness?

Also to run a press a team has to be deep ----- an effective press need a high energy level therefore fresh bodies.

NBA teams can't press effectively because they play too many games (3-4 week and after all that traveling)----they'd be burnt out by midway in the season----then too, how to you get multi millionaires to expand that type of energy night after night?----hard enough to get them to play good half court defense.

IMO, the best way for an underdog to win is to slow the game down-----go deeper into the possession cycle thereby limiting the number of possessions the favorite team gets meanwhile hoping that the slower pace will frustate them into mistakes and subpar shooting------also hoping that the underdog has a better than average shooting night.

I understand it's not apples to apples, as Bo came first, but Pearl's style of play was more effective than Bo's at UWM when it came to the underdog role.  Obviously you have to recruit certain players for each style of play, but I don't believe athletic players lacking good skills are any more difficult to find than the type of players Bo recruits.  IMO the best way to win when you're an underdog is to have a team that plays a unique style of basketball well, and to hope that your team is able to force that style of play upon the other team.  I think you saw Bo and Bruce both succeed because of this reason at UWM, but the perspective/expectations now change when you become a UW or Ten. coach. The question becomes, can you win a championship with that style of play?

[Marquette84]

I took a quick peek at how MU performed against less talented teams and compared their pace.  Given that MU was a faster paced team, I wanted to see if there was greater success by teams that were faster paced versus those who were slower.

Conclusion--I don't think you can state with any authority on whether a slower pace is better or a faster one is better.

Using Ken Pom's adjusted tempo rankings, Presbyterian's tempo was ranked 314 last year, and we beat them by 29.  Chicago State was ranked 4th and we won by 19.  Those are about as extreme as you can get, and our margin of victory was nearly equal. 

I'd say the conclusion is that the faster pace seemed to give Chicago State a better chance at victory.  However, Houston Baptist--another faster pace team (#17) lost to us by 31.  And Wisconsin, a slow pace team, lost by only 3. 

Was the Wisconsin game close because it was a slow pace game?  Or was it because they were simply more talented than, say Presbyterian or Chicago State?

I think this is purely a matter of preference.  Pitino feels a faster pace approach is better--Murff thinks a slower pace is better.  In reality, neither is best--they're just two different ways of approaching the same problem.

[Murffieus]

I guess a good example of what I am referring to is UW's march to the final 4 ten years ago. He had decent talent, but nowhere near final 4 type talent-----probably the worst personnel ever for a final 4 team. so how did he do it-----he did it by slowing the game down going deep into the possession cycle thereby limiting the number of possessions the more talented opposition got----and playing tough half court D. Meanwhile his team was very mythodical on offense and made every possession count with a high percentage shot------drove the opposition nuts.

[Marquette84]

I guess a good example of what I am referring to is UW's march to the final 4 ten years ago. He had decent talent, but nowhere near final 4 type talent-----probably the worst personnel ever for a final 4 team. so how did he do it-----he did it by slowing the game down going deep into the possession cycle thereby limiting the number of possessions the more talented opposition got----and playing tough half court D. Meanwhile his team was very mythodical on offense and made every possession count with a high percentage shot------drove the opposition nuts.

Neither Wisconsin's slow pace nor Florida's fast pace managed to have much of a difference on Michigan State, who beat both teams rather handily.

As I said, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.  Wisconsin came no closer to beating MSU than Florida.

[RawdogDX]

NBA teams can't press effectively because they play too many games (3-4 week and after all that traveling)----they'd be burnt out by midway in the season----then too, how to you get multi millionaires to expand that type of energy night after night?----hard enough to get them to play good half court defense.

In the NBA you couldn't for the entire game, but if you have players 8-12 on the roster trained to be press experts, chosen specifically for that.  This wouldn't be hard.  Then you would play a normally paced game with your starters on and run it when a few of them need a break or to just change up the pace.   It can't be worse than what teams normally get out of their 10-12 players.

[Murffieus]

Using the scrubs to press in the NBA would be a minority amount of the game's time-----and the reserves would have to have the quickness.

There is something to be said about the use of a conservative press in the NBA not to force turnovers, but to consume time for the offense to get the ball into scoring position and with only 24 seconds it could make the offense short circuit their regular offense somewhat which would give that offense a different rythem for that game, which could throw them off kilter.

But a full time UAB type pressing game in the NBA is out of the question----both from the fatique standpoint and also NBA guards are too adept at seing the floor and handling the ball to be forced into multiple mistakes.

[RawdogDX]

Using the scrubs to press in the NBA would be a minority amount of the game's time-----and the reserves would have to have the quickness.

100 % agree with everything you said.  As for finding the right, quick, hardworking players to make up the press line up, that would be easy.  Both JM and DJ would be perfect, add two quick 6-7 swing men and done.  Those are easily found in the NBA, just a matter of picking out ones with heart.  And since they are comming off the bench to do just one thing, and since they really aren't good enough to get playing time otherwise, they'll be ferocious for those 4 minutes.

The lenght and intensity of the season is a reason to do it really.  Teams should really be searching for ways to limit star's minutes during a 90 game season.

[Murffieus]

Sounds like you're proposing a reincarnation of the scrambled eggs!