Coach Nevada Smith

[DoctorV]

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.

[Shooter McGavin]

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.

[WarriorFan]

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.

[Carl]

This is super interesting. I had no idea

[Goose]

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.

[MU82]

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."

[IrwinFletcher]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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. 

[NCMUFan]

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?

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[rocky_warrior]

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.

[brewcity77]

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

[MU82]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[JTJ3]

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.

[panda]

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.

[Herman Cain]

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%

[rocky_warrior]

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.

[JakeBarnes]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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.

[panda]

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

[MuggsyB]

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.