Question from something Harve posted
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
Artis seems to have no interest in playing D. Jeter has improved but is still not great, I think he will keep improving. Jones was beyond awful to start the year, now he's just not very good. Mike Young is pretty good but obviously he's sometimes at a size disadvantage.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Reply
I hope he is dead wrong. But he very well could be 100% right. My view is it is going to depend almost completely on what Dixon is able to add to the equation the next two years with new blood. Add a couple of big men that can have an impact, and throw in a guard that can shoot, and this sophomore class will look pretty darn good when they depart in two years. Jamie is also going to have to find a PG to take over once James finishes next year--I do not see one on the roster today. I'd love to see Jamie change his base defense to some form of a zone for his present talent, but I do not expect that will happen. Time will tell. Hail to Pitt!
I hope he is dead wrong. But he very well could be 100% right. My view is it is going to depend almost completely on what Dixon is able to add to the equation the next two years with new blood. Add a couple of big men that can have an impact, and throw in a guard that can shoot, and this sophomore class will look pretty darn good when they depart in two years. Jamie is also going to have to find a PG to take over once James finishes next year--I do not see one on the roster today. I'd love to see Jamie change his base defense to some form of a zone for his present talent, but I do not expect that will happen. Time will tell. Hail to Pitt!
Re: Reply
Wilson and Nix will have to be at least average defensively, because Jones should be better at the 3 than the 2 and Young should be better at the 4 than the 5. Robinson is ok, hopefully Jeter improves. We will have to live with Artis' defense because his shooting is needed. I don't think Durand is particularly good, but he gives it good effort. That should at least make him adequate.
If Wilson and Nix are busts we are in trouble.
Wilson and Nix will have to be at least average defensively, because Jones should be better at the 3 than the 2 and Young should be better at the 4 than the 5. Robinson is ok, hopefully Jeter improves. We will have to live with Artis' defense because his shooting is needed. I don't think Durand is particularly good, but he gives it good effort. That should at least make him adequate.
If Wilson and Nix are busts we are in trouble.
Jeter, Jones, and Artis are very bad defensively. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say they're all about 2's. Newkirk is slightly better. Maybe about a 4. Young is pretty good defending the post so he's not a problem there, plus skilled big men in college basketball are few and far between. However, Young is not a good help defender, not a shot blocker, and not an intimidating presence, so while he can guard his man, he doesn't have the other physical attributes that guys like McGhee and Gray had. Even Blair was a terrible defender, maybe our worst post defender, but he was so intimidating, guys were afraid to get into the paint.
Right now, their bad defense more than offsets the offense they bring. I do think that with more seasoning, they will become better defenders, but not much better. And please forget Nix. He's going to get Uchebo minutes. Lets get real here. He's nothing more than a reach. The big addition next year is Durand Johnson. Jamie has noted his defense over the last couple years which says a lot considering how much defense means to Jamie. He said before the season D.J. was their best defender. Now, he's not an excellent defender but he's "good," which is light years better than Jones, Newkirk, and Wright (can't figure out why Cam was so bad defensively this year).
So, to answer your question, you have to define "markedly." For me, this is a 10-8 team that will get an 11 seed next year. Is that markedly improved? Is that good enough?
As another poster put it, "pray for Diallo."
People had clear impressions of Doorsen and Haughton before they got here and those impressions proved right.
I trust Lett. If Lett told Pitt Nix can play, I would believe him. I expect Nix to contribute but not start. I hope Wilson can also contribute. I am not as sure on that happening.
I trust Lett. If Lett told Pitt Nix can play, I would believe him. I expect Nix to contribute but not start. I hope Wilson can also contribute. I am not as sure on that happening.
Unless Nix transforms into Shaq Mike Young is gonna still see plenty (and I'd guess the majority) of time at the 5.
I'd say that it's a possibility.
We have to keep in mind that we weren't bad defensively. Bad defensively would be a ranking of something like #130-#140 in the country in defensive efficiency.
We are #220 in defensive efficiency. Last year, we were #29 in defensive efficiency.
I'm still kind of at a loss to understand how we could plummet so far just from eliminating Zanna and Patterson. I think experience and maturity will make some difference. And Nix should help by adding some size. Maybe one could look at it as hopeful that we went from #149 in defensive efficiency to #21 from 2012 to 2013. But adding Steve Adams was a HUGE part of that improvement.
And like Pittlaw said, maybe Jamie with the length these guys have (but the inability to stay in front of people), maybe a zone is a better option next year (even though zone was as bad and often worse this year).
Like I said -- I think our defense will improve. But the problem is that it could improve quite a bit and still be bad. It could be for the team to be markedly improved, we might need to replicate ND's kind of numbers.
ND is #130 in defensive efficiency. But they are #4 in offensive efficiency (making them #16 overall). Could be this may be the road we need to take.
We have to keep in mind that we weren't bad defensively. Bad defensively would be a ranking of something like #130-#140 in the country in defensive efficiency.
We are #220 in defensive efficiency. Last year, we were #29 in defensive efficiency.
I'm still kind of at a loss to understand how we could plummet so far just from eliminating Zanna and Patterson. I think experience and maturity will make some difference. And Nix should help by adding some size. Maybe one could look at it as hopeful that we went from #149 in defensive efficiency to #21 from 2012 to 2013. But adding Steve Adams was a HUGE part of that improvement.
And like Pittlaw said, maybe Jamie with the length these guys have (but the inability to stay in front of people), maybe a zone is a better option next year (even though zone was as bad and often worse this year).
Like I said -- I think our defense will improve. But the problem is that it could improve quite a bit and still be bad. It could be for the team to be markedly improved, we might need to replicate ND's kind of numbers.
ND is #130 in defensive efficiency. But they are #4 in offensive efficiency (making them #16 overall). Could be this may be the road we need to take.
I said in another thread that I can see the 2015-2016 Panthers mirroring the 2014-2015 Irish.
2014: Irish missing a key offensive weapon (Jerian Grant) due to suspension.
2015: Pitt missing a key offensive weapon (Durand Johnson) due to suspension.
2015: Irish very good offensively and below average defensively... but managed 3rd-place finish in ACC and likely a protected seed.
2016: Pitt very good offensively and below average defensively.... ?????
Re: Reply
But, likely most of the "usual suspects" return. Josh rivals John Johnson for the most unlikely to be worst defender to wear a Panther uniform in this era. It is unbelievable to me that guys who are good athletes with quickness, and TRY to play defense, like Josh and JJJ could be so bad at it.
Our stretch forwards were pretty much universally bad. They didn't defend the dribble, couldn't be in position in the zone and didn't rotate.
Chris Jones lacks a step or two but had at least ONE good defensive game. JRob is similar but perhaps even more puzzling because in previous seasons he was at least serviceable.
Mike would seem to be the best but the talking heads spend a lot of time talking about him taking the wrong man or wrong side of the screen. Since most of them are former players or coaches, I assume they know what they are talking about on defensive assignments anyway.
Wright regressed although a broken foot and bad ankle probably have much of the blame for that.
Is some combination of Durand, Slim and Damon Wilson going to improve on Wright defensively? I don't see how.
The current sophomores have to "grow a set" and decide they're not gonna be responsible for missing another NCAAT. The guards have to reduce dribble penetration and the forwards have to step in and cut off angles and pick up the man left open when somebody steps in to stop the dribbler. That has to happen even if we signed Bill Freaking Russell as a rim protector or we will see another succession of open dunks when the big leaves his man.
Nix will play a back-up roll and help with rebounding and clogging up the middle. But, he's NOT a rim protector.
I don't think we're signing any defensive specialist perimeter players in these next two classes. The guys we have just have to stop ignoring that end of the court.
The current and likely near future roster will not be getting top 25 AdjD rankings. Maybe getting top 100 with a good AdjO can get us back to the Dance.
I hope I'm dead wrong too.
But, likely most of the "usual suspects" return. Josh rivals John Johnson for the most unlikely to be worst defender to wear a Panther uniform in this era. It is unbelievable to me that guys who are good athletes with quickness, and TRY to play defense, like Josh and JJJ could be so bad at it.
Our stretch forwards were pretty much universally bad. They didn't defend the dribble, couldn't be in position in the zone and didn't rotate.
Chris Jones lacks a step or two but had at least ONE good defensive game. JRob is similar but perhaps even more puzzling because in previous seasons he was at least serviceable.
Mike would seem to be the best but the talking heads spend a lot of time talking about him taking the wrong man or wrong side of the screen. Since most of them are former players or coaches, I assume they know what they are talking about on defensive assignments anyway.
Wright regressed although a broken foot and bad ankle probably have much of the blame for that.
Is some combination of Durand, Slim and Damon Wilson going to improve on Wright defensively? I don't see how.
The current sophomores have to "grow a set" and decide they're not gonna be responsible for missing another NCAAT. The guards have to reduce dribble penetration and the forwards have to step in and cut off angles and pick up the man left open when somebody steps in to stop the dribbler. That has to happen even if we signed Bill Freaking Russell as a rim protector or we will see another succession of open dunks when the big leaves his man.
Nix will play a back-up roll and help with rebounding and clogging up the middle. But, he's NOT a rim protector.
I don't think we're signing any defensive specialist perimeter players in these next two classes. The guys we have just have to stop ignoring that end of the court.
The current and likely near future roster will not be getting top 25 AdjD rankings. Maybe getting top 100 with a good AdjO can get us back to the Dance.
Reply
We will have to trust the coaches. But to your point, if you are going by the eye test...many of Pitt's current line up are very athletic and reasonably long...yet they are not defending for crap! Some times looks are deceiving. Hail to Pitt!
We will have to trust the coaches. But to your point, if you are going by the eye test...many of Pitt's current line up are very athletic and reasonably long...yet they are not defending for crap! Some times looks are deceiving. Hail to Pitt!
Maybe the fact that we play so many sophomores at the same time plays into it. Sophomores aren't usually the best defenders in the world but most improve markedly as they get older.
Its a number of factors
These guys aren't "good athletes" so they don't have, for example, a Julius Page kind of quickness to lock people up man to man. Only good athlete for his position is Young. Newkirk is OK, but looks a lot better relative to what the Panthers have had at guard over recent years as athletes.
But, this group is collectively the keystone cops.
The last FSU game, they were coming down the court after a miss.
Everyone picked up a man except for Jones. Now, I think Artis took the wrong man which threw him off, but CLEARLY, the other four players had taken a guy.
The FSU guy who rebounded the ball was trailing, but instead of going out to get him, Jones, for some reason I can't fathom, just started backing up to the point where he was literally standing under the basket guarding no one.
The FSU big man got the ball just inside the three point line on the left side of the court completely open, and could have held the ball for 10 seconds while everyone chased the guy they picked up and Jones guarded the basket before he hit the open shot.
This stuff happened consistently, pretty much every game. Man AND zone. There were games where teams would have wide open jumpers off the left side when they played 2-3, at will ...
Not only did the lack the capacity to slap the court and play straight man, they collectively were as functional as congress is right now.
Can they improve?
Maybe. They ARE a young team, and if they really work at it, they can at least know what they are doing and have more awareness.
But, there is a ceiling ...
These guys aren't "good athletes" so they don't have, for example, a Julius Page kind of quickness to lock people up man to man. Only good athlete for his position is Young. Newkirk is OK, but looks a lot better relative to what the Panthers have had at guard over recent years as athletes.
But, this group is collectively the keystone cops.
The last FSU game, they were coming down the court after a miss.
Everyone picked up a man except for Jones. Now, I think Artis took the wrong man which threw him off, but CLEARLY, the other four players had taken a guy.
The FSU guy who rebounded the ball was trailing, but instead of going out to get him, Jones, for some reason I can't fathom, just started backing up to the point where he was literally standing under the basket guarding no one.
The FSU big man got the ball just inside the three point line on the left side of the court completely open, and could have held the ball for 10 seconds while everyone chased the guy they picked up and Jones guarded the basket before he hit the open shot.
This stuff happened consistently, pretty much every game. Man AND zone. There were games where teams would have wide open jumpers off the left side when they played 2-3, at will ...
Not only did the lack the capacity to slap the court and play straight man, they collectively were as functional as congress is right now.
Can they improve?
Maybe. They ARE a young team, and if they really work at it, they can at least know what they are doing and have more awareness.
But, there is a ceiling ...
Re: Reply
Harve,
While I completely agree that the whole team needs to get better defensively I would not agree on JROB.
I thought he was the only guy that would at least try to stay with his man and not leave him for some unknown reason.
I also thought he started to draw the toughest offensive player as the year went on, rather than Cam. Maybe it was the injuries.
I do think Durand can be a very good defensive player. Before he got hurt he was causing a lot of turnovers on the wing. I just think everybody thinks of him as only an offensive threat.
I think Dixon's problem is that he has too many kids that don't want to dig in for 35 seconds and play defense. In the old days he would have benched them. This year he couldn't bench them all.
I still think Pitt was probably the worst team in the ACC defensively at the 5. Young in his defense is just not a 5. Especially defensively.
One last thing. If the shot clock goes to 30 seconds or less what impact will it have on defenses. Will it become more or less important.
Harve,
While I completely agree that the whole team needs to get better defensively I would not agree on JROB.
I thought he was the only guy that would at least try to stay with his man and not leave him for some unknown reason.
I also thought he started to draw the toughest offensive player as the year went on, rather than Cam. Maybe it was the injuries.
I do think Durand can be a very good defensive player. Before he got hurt he was causing a lot of turnovers on the wing. I just think everybody thinks of him as only an offensive threat.
I think Dixon's problem is that he has too many kids that don't want to dig in for 35 seconds and play defense. In the old days he would have benched them. This year he couldn't bench them all.
I still think Pitt was probably the worst team in the ACC defensively at the 5. Young in his defense is just not a 5. Especially defensively.
One last thing. If the shot clock goes to 30 seconds or less what impact will it have on defenses. Will it become more or less important.
Without good additions Harve's assertion is likely correct. The roster is flawed. Mike may hold his own offensively at C but defensively he's not the intimidating presence we need. With Nix and DJ, plus experience from others, we'll probably only see incremental improvement next year.
If we land Diallo and then have a lineup of C-Diallo/PF-Young/SF-Artis/SG-DJ/PG-JRob, that scenario probably makes us overall better defensively although Artis and DJ will then be out of position. Artis' offense improved at the #4 while he struggled at the #3. No one knows if DJ can defend at the #2, let alone if he has the ball handling skills for it. So, this lineup presents other question marks.
Again, roster is flawed. Still, I'd take my chances with the Diallo scenario over the one we're likely looking at now.
If we land Diallo and then have a lineup of C-Diallo/PF-Young/SF-Artis/SG-DJ/PG-JRob, that scenario probably makes us overall better defensively although Artis and DJ will then be out of position. Artis' offense improved at the #4 while he struggled at the #3. No one knows if DJ can defend at the #2, let alone if he has the ball handling skills for it. So, this lineup presents other question marks.
Again, roster is flawed. Still, I'd take my chances with the Diallo scenario over the one we're likely looking at now.
My only quibble with Harve's point is:
This team is flawed defensively doing what we've typically done on defense.
But COULD in theory do something less awful defensively if we stuck to a new scheme and identity, which they COULD execute.
This team is flawed defensively doing what we've typically done on defense.
But COULD in theory do something less awful defensively if we stuck to a new scheme and identity, which they COULD execute.
Reply
Very valid point. But my guess is that Harve74 knows Dixon pretty well...and does anyone really expect Jamie to move from his base man-to-man defense? He has certainly used more zone the past couple years than ever before...but I do not see him changing. But absolutely think he should consider doing so given the present players he has to work with. Hail to Pitt!
Very valid point. But my guess is that Harve74 knows Dixon pretty well...and does anyone really expect Jamie to move from his base man-to-man defense? He has certainly used more zone the past couple years than ever before...but I do not see him changing. But absolutely think he should consider doing so given the present players he has to work with. Hail to Pitt!
Re: Reply
I think he was trying to find some defense that would work with this group.... and he just couldn't. Players like Artis and Jones, who have are both 6'6 or 6'7 and have pretty good length need to commit themselves to playing better defense. Defense is as much "want-to" as it is talent. Any player can get better on defense with hard work, any player can make themselves better at help defense, any player can put in the effort to get loose balls and rebound better.
Defensive improvement can happen in ANY player... offensive improvement, on the other hand, is hard to accomplish at this level of development - you're not going to improve a player's shooting much now. You can get them to make better decisions, but you're aren't going to mess with their shooting mechanics at this point.
The other thing Dixon did a few times this year was throw in the full-court press early in games. Pitt almost never used the press in any circumstance other than losing in the final minute.
I think he was trying to find some defense that would work with this group.... and he just couldn't. Players like Artis and Jones, who have are both 6'6 or 6'7 and have pretty good length need to commit themselves to playing better defense. Defense is as much "want-to" as it is talent. Any player can get better on defense with hard work, any player can make themselves better at help defense, any player can put in the effort to get loose balls and rebound better.
Defensive improvement can happen in ANY player... offensive improvement, on the other hand, is hard to accomplish at this level of development - you're not going to improve a player's shooting much now. You can get them to make better decisions, but you're aren't going to mess with their shooting mechanics at this point.
Re: Reply
We pressed and trapped way more than ever before, and way earlier to change tempo.
SO, I suspect you're wrong.
Dixon tried almost everything this year on defense..including a 3-2 zone which we haven't run before.
We pressed and trapped way more than ever before, and way earlier to change tempo.
SO, I suspect you're wrong.
Reply
You suspect I am wrong that Dixon will change his base defense from man-to-man next year? I'd take that bet...and we will not have long to wait. I hope I lose the bet...as with the kids he has...he should change to some form of zone. Hail to Pitt!
You suspect I am wrong that Dixon will change his base defense from man-to-man next year? I'd take that bet...and we will not have long to wait. I hope I lose the bet...as with the kids he has...he should change to some form of zone. Hail to Pitt!
Re: Reply
Any time they have played the zone against a worthwhile team, it has been an unmitigated disaster. I want to say they played a good bit of it with success against one of the mid major teams...Bryant or Oakland or someone like that. Otherwise, the 3 and 4 spots playing zone somehow managed to be worse than the 3 and 4 spot guys playing man to man. That is not easy to do.
The full court pressure this year was a bit unprecedented, but there were more than a few times that it was a total embarassment.
Just stick to man to man, please.
Any time they have played the zone against a worthwhile team, it has been an unmitigated disaster. I want to say they played a good bit of it with success against one of the mid major teams...Bryant or Oakland or someone like that. Otherwise, the 3 and 4 spots playing zone somehow managed to be worse than the 3 and 4 spot guys playing man to man. That is not easy to do.
The full court pressure this year was a bit unprecedented, but there were more than a few times that it was a total embarassment.
Just stick to man to man, please.
Re: Reply
Bingo on the zone. It often gave us a couple decent possessions, maybe before the opponent figured out that we were in zone and switched to their zone offense.
But once they did, we were even worse. I agree that our 3 and 4 positions were the major offenders. Young was at fault on some ball screen and pick and roll plays, but he almost always stepped up to challenge the dribble penetrators. The problem was nobody stepped over to guard HIS man, resulting in an open lay-up or dunk.
Artis and Jeter were horrible in the zone and Jones nearly as bad. At least Jones has the excuse of primarily being a guard before this season and not being familiar with zone assignments.
The problems the guards faced were primarily physical. Robinson played defense as hard as he could. He just had trouble staying in front of quicker guys.
But for the forwards, it has to be mental, whether concentration or effort. The best hope we have is that experience and maturation improve those factors.
Bingo on the zone. It often gave us a couple decent possessions, maybe before the opponent figured out that we were in zone and switched to their zone offense.
But once they did, we were even worse. I agree that our 3 and 4 positions were the major offenders. Young was at fault on some ball screen and pick and roll plays, but he almost always stepped up to challenge the dribble penetrators. The problem was nobody stepped over to guard HIS man, resulting in an open lay-up or dunk.
Artis and Jeter were horrible in the zone and Jones nearly as bad. At least Jones has the excuse of primarily being a guard before this season and not being familiar with zone assignments.
The problems the guards faced were primarily physical. Robinson played defense as hard as he could. He just had trouble staying in front of quicker guys.
But for the forwards, it has to be mental, whether concentration or effort. The best hope we have is that experience and maturation improve those factors.
Reply
Honestly, how much zone does Dixon practice? Think it would be just as bad if it became his base defense for 2015-16? I personally do not pretend to know the answer. But I do know that the man-to-man that Pitt played this season was horrible. Expecting the same guys to magically get better because they are one school class year "older" seems like a pretty risky gambit. Guess we will see. Hail to Pitt!
Honestly, how much zone does Dixon practice? Think it would be just as bad if it became his base defense for 2015-16? I personally do not pretend to know the answer. But I do know that the man-to-man that Pitt played this season was horrible. Expecting the same guys to magically get better because they are one school class year "older" seems like a pretty risky gambit. Guess we will see. Hail to Pitt!
Re: 30 second shot clock
Well, if they do it, the intent is certainly to raise scoring. So is the idea of increasing the 3-pt distance and the diameter of the no-charge circle.
I don't necessarily agree with any of them.
A shorter shot clock will lead to more and faster shots. Are they BETTER shots? Quite possibly not. It should be EASIER to play good defense for only 30 seconds. If anything, a 30 second shot clock could gave the result in putting MORE emphasis on rebounding so the game could get more physical, not less. It's almost certain to lower shooting percentages and offensive efficiency. Scoring may increase but teams which now play good defense may dominate MORE.
I'm not a fan of the trend of mindlessly attacking the rim off the dribble. I'd seriously consider making the current no-charge zone a no-shooting zone, or at least award only one point for short range shots inside that arc. It would bring back the old playground half-court "you gotta take it out" rule, and promote the much maligned mid-range jumper.
I know everybody loves the dunk but eliminating or reducing the impact of an all but automatic shot and promoting a learned skill instead of a physical advantage would seem to be good for the game. It should also have the same effect of reducing overly physical play under the rim.
I think the diversity of the college game, not in terms of PC diversity but if true differences in style and abilities is why many prefer it to the NBA. I oppose any effort to homogenize the game or to make the rules more alike between pros and college.
Well, if they do it, the intent is certainly to raise scoring. So is the idea of increasing the 3-pt distance and the diameter of the no-charge circle.
I don't necessarily agree with any of them.
A shorter shot clock will lead to more and faster shots. Are they BETTER shots? Quite possibly not. It should be EASIER to play good defense for only 30 seconds. If anything, a 30 second shot clock could gave the result in putting MORE emphasis on rebounding so the game could get more physical, not less. It's almost certain to lower shooting percentages and offensive efficiency. Scoring may increase but teams which now play good defense may dominate MORE.
I'm not a fan of the trend of mindlessly attacking the rim off the dribble. I'd seriously consider making the current no-charge zone a no-shooting zone, or at least award only one point for short range shots inside that arc. It would bring back the old playground half-court "you gotta take it out" rule, and promote the much maligned mid-range jumper.
I know everybody loves the dunk but eliminating or reducing the impact of an all but automatic shot and promoting a learned skill instead of a physical advantage would seem to be good for the game. It should also have the same effect of reducing overly physical play under the rim.
I think the diversity of the college game, not in terms of PC diversity but if true differences in style and abilities is why many prefer it to the NBA. I oppose any effort to homogenize the game or to make the rules more alike between pros and college.
I 100% agree with Harve! A true big may help, but we still have to improve a hell of a lot. Problem is, these sophomores have no concept of help defense. They are painfully slow in terms of quickness as well. Seems to me, and maybe it is just me, but they lack vision and awareness of what is going on around them.
Even when we play an ultra quick guard like Cat Barber it is understandable that you can't keep him from getting around you.
We can and should be able to get some help in a timely manner from another teammate. Jamie has had great success in the past teaching this concept. What worries me most is these guys just do not get it! Not sure if it is because they are to slow, or because they refuse to believe it can make the team better!
Even when we play an ultra quick guard like Cat Barber it is understandable that you can't keep him from getting around you.
We can and should be able to get some help in a timely manner from another teammate. Jamie has had great success in the past teaching this concept. What worries me most is these guys just do not get it! Not sure if it is because they are to slow, or because they refuse to believe it can make the team better!
A couple things....
first of all, if they do shorten the shot clock then they need to go back to the quickly abandoned idea that they have to call fouls on defenders who restrict the free movement of offensive players who don't have the ball. The rules say that things like bumping cutters, which we used to be so good at, are fouls. So start calling them. The rules say that if a defender is guarding someone with the ball and they are hand checking them, even with just one hand, it's a foul. So start calling it. When they tried to make those changes last year we heard so much bitching and moaning from the coaches that things started reverting back to the old ways very quickly, and now the game is called no different than it was two years ago. The biggest thing that would help bring more offense into the game is to stop allowing defenders to manhandle offensive players with near impunity. Do that AND shorten the shot clock to 30 seconds and scoring will soar.
Secondly, the notion that giving only one point for shots that guys make 60% of the time (numbers made up for illustrative purposes and should not be considered factual) and two points for shots that guys make 40% of the time will somehow open up the game or be good for the game is absurd. Harve, you come up with some ideas that are kind of out there sometimes (and believe me, I am saying that as a good thing) but this one is so far out there that you are bordering on SMF territory! Giving only one point for dunks, layups and other short shots surely isn't going to help scoring, it would depress scoring and make the game much worse to watch. Unless you like watching guys miss shots. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the solution to the lack of offense in the game is to promote shots that are "much maligned" because many players don't make them at a high enough rate to make shooting them a good idea, while simultaneously discouraging players from shooting shots that they actually make at a high percentage.
Although the oddball defensive strategies that such a system would cause could be kind of interesting. For instance a team that has a five or six point lead with one minute left in the game could (correctly, I think) completely leave the "one point zone" unguarded. If you are down six with one minute to go and you want to take a one point shot, by all means, have at it. But we aren't going to let you get off any decent looks on a two or a three point shot. Of course that would have the effect of making late game comebacks more rare, and I'm not sure that's something that anyone wants to promote.
first of all, if they do shorten the shot clock then they need to go back to the quickly abandoned idea that they have to call fouls on defenders who restrict the free movement of offensive players who don't have the ball. The rules say that things like bumping cutters, which we used to be so good at, are fouls. So start calling them. The rules say that if a defender is guarding someone with the ball and they are hand checking them, even with just one hand, it's a foul. So start calling it. When they tried to make those changes last year we heard so much bitching and moaning from the coaches that things started reverting back to the old ways very quickly, and now the game is called no different than it was two years ago. The biggest thing that would help bring more offense into the game is to stop allowing defenders to manhandle offensive players with near impunity. Do that AND shorten the shot clock to 30 seconds and scoring will soar.
Secondly, the notion that giving only one point for shots that guys make 60% of the time (numbers made up for illustrative purposes and should not be considered factual) and two points for shots that guys make 40% of the time will somehow open up the game or be good for the game is absurd. Harve, you come up with some ideas that are kind of out there sometimes (and believe me, I am saying that as a good thing) but this one is so far out there that you are bordering on SMF territory! Giving only one point for dunks, layups and other short shots surely isn't going to help scoring, it would depress scoring and make the game much worse to watch. Unless you like watching guys miss shots. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the solution to the lack of offense in the game is to promote shots that are "much maligned" because many players don't make them at a high enough rate to make shooting them a good idea, while simultaneously discouraging players from shooting shots that they actually make at a high percentage.
Although the oddball defensive strategies that such a system would cause could be kind of interesting. For instance a team that has a five or six point lead with one minute left in the game could (correctly, I think) completely leave the "one point zone" unguarded. If you are down six with one minute to go and you want to take a one point shot, by all means, have at it. But we aren't going to let you get off any decent looks on a two or a three point shot. Of course that would have the effect of making late game comebacks more rare, and I'm not sure that's something that anyone wants to promote.
I posted this on another site, but it is relevant to this thread.
As I said, the defense has been "off the charts bad". We really could not do one thing decently. No one could keep themselves in front of the guy with the ball, our help defense was horrible, and when we went to a double team, the lack of rotation and quickness to be able to rotate to the perimeter guys, invariably left a man wide open. Oh and add to that, absolutely no shot blocker to clean up mistakes and alter shots. Did I sum that up well?
What I don't see between this year and next is any of the players getting appreciably quicker and more athletic. I mean we all hear how fast Josh Newkirk is supposed to be and how athletic, but he made Kat Barber look like a world class sprinter in comparison.
What I see next year, you have a backcourt of a combination of these guys: JRob 6'3" and slow. Newkirk 6'0" quick but low BB IQ. C. Jones 6'6" and average foot speed. Durand Johnson 6'6" long arms, but again average footspeed. Damon Wilson 6'5" and again, rumored to not be particularly quick.
Up front, Jamel Artis 6'7" and horribly defensively, especially at the 3, Michael Young 6'9" out muscled down low, and just overworked, Sheldon Jeter 6'9" athletic, but again far from a defensive stopper, Cam Johnson 6'7", long but average foot speed, and Rozelle Nix 7'0 wall, but the opposite of quick.
That lineup to me seems tailor made to play a 2-3 Zone. Tailor made. You got size and length at every position, hands up, making it difficult to throw over, of course you lose a little rebounding, but we weren't particularly strong on the boards anyway.
Even though we have played much more zone each of the past years, I think this is the defense that needs to be the primary focus going into next year. Because our lineup looks more like a Syracuse team (save for the white punkass shooter) than any team I can remember.
As I said, the defense has been "off the charts bad". We really could not do one thing decently. No one could keep themselves in front of the guy with the ball, our help defense was horrible, and when we went to a double team, the lack of rotation and quickness to be able to rotate to the perimeter guys, invariably left a man wide open. Oh and add to that, absolutely no shot blocker to clean up mistakes and alter shots. Did I sum that up well?
What I don't see between this year and next is any of the players getting appreciably quicker and more athletic. I mean we all hear how fast Josh Newkirk is supposed to be and how athletic, but he made Kat Barber look like a world class sprinter in comparison.
What I see next year, you have a backcourt of a combination of these guys: JRob 6'3" and slow. Newkirk 6'0" quick but low BB IQ. C. Jones 6'6" and average foot speed. Durand Johnson 6'6" long arms, but again average footspeed. Damon Wilson 6'5" and again, rumored to not be particularly quick.
Up front, Jamel Artis 6'7" and horribly defensively, especially at the 3, Michael Young 6'9" out muscled down low, and just overworked, Sheldon Jeter 6'9" athletic, but again far from a defensive stopper, Cam Johnson 6'7", long but average foot speed, and Rozelle Nix 7'0 wall, but the opposite of quick.
That lineup to me seems tailor made to play a 2-3 Zone. Tailor made. You got size and length at every position, hands up, making it difficult to throw over, of course you lose a little rebounding, but we weren't particularly strong on the boards anyway.
Even though we have played much more zone each of the past years, I think this is the defense that needs to be the primary focus going into next year. Because our lineup looks more like a Syracuse team (save for the white punkass shooter) than any team I can remember.
Re: A couple things....
I threw out the no-shooting zone mainly to make fun of the no-charge zone and the suggestion to expand it. I think the arc stinks. I figured I'd get some more irate responses from banning lay-ups and dunks than that...
We've seen football change the rules to promote offense and watched football run up scores like basketball used to have. I don't want to see basketball go the same way as the NBA and NHL when both sports became one dimensional offensively.
If the players don't have the skills to score enough for TV , maybe something like my no-shooting zone proposal should be tried to improve those skills. I'm only partly facetious.
I think there have already been enough tweaks to help offenses for TV. I don't like pro basketball going to either attacking the rim or shooting treys as the main offensive strategy. I like it even less when that's what I see all the AAU kids doing most if the time.
Kids learning how to actually play basketball instead of just drive and dunk or shoot treys would be nice. And, it might prevent further dumbing down of the game.
I threw out the no-shooting zone mainly to make fun of the no-charge zone and the suggestion to expand it. I think the arc stinks. I figured I'd get some more irate responses from banning lay-ups and dunks than that...
We've seen football change the rules to promote offense and watched football run up scores like basketball used to have. I don't want to see basketball go the same way as the NBA and NHL when both sports became one dimensional offensively.
If the players don't have the skills to score enough for TV , maybe something like my no-shooting zone proposal should be tried to improve those skills. I'm only partly facetious.
I think there have already been enough tweaks to help offenses for TV. I don't like pro basketball going to either attacking the rim or shooting treys as the main offensive strategy. I like it even less when that's what I see all the AAU kids doing most if the time.
Kids learning how to actually play basketball instead of just drive and dunk or shoot treys would be nice. And, it might prevent further dumbing down of the game.
Similar threads
