NCC 80- CARTHAGE 105
71 FGAs
31 Threes
31% ORBs (24% in second half)
35 Turnovers
+3 Shots
The good news is that we did improve parts of our defense, forcing 35 turnovers, and taking the lead with a 10-0 run coming out in the second half. The bad news is that we committed 33. That explains why we had just 71 shots and a +3 Shot Differential, while getting off only 31 threes.
One other quick comment about the defense. Yes, we forced turnovers and seemed to be rotating better, especially in the early part of the game. But as I mentioned yesterday, the back end is suspect because we aren't transitioning with any sort of plan to generate chaos or force the tempo... in effect just running back into a 3-2 zone. Obviously this is not going to work until the players start to understand that it makes no sense to rest on defense when they are only playing for 40 second shifts. Offensively, 31 three point attempts tells a story too. We cannot seem to create enough open looks for our three point shooters when playing a sound defensive team like Carthage.
In talking with Gary Smith yesterday, we concluded that at ONU (where we averaged 57 threes a game last year, and broke our college women's basketball record with 621 makes), we were a very athletic team, and could therefore get away with using a simple drive-and-kick spot-up game. This allowed us to successfully execute the Olivet offense that I explain in our book and DVD series. Since our offense was loosely patterned after Paul Westhead's LMU attack, (likewise, a simple approach that requires better than average athleticism to score if the initial break is stopped), it's not as good a fit for a team like NCC with a roster of more average athletes.
The moral of this statistical story? Coach Arseneault's Grinnell offense will counter these problems, and might be something we'll have to look at in the future. 31 threes is not System basketball, and our 33 turnovers (24 by non-point guards!!!) is not any kind of basketball. The Grinnell offense will definitely result in more 3FGAs, and is designed to limit penetration by anyone except the PGs and a few other proven ball-handlers. Maybe when the story of NCC basketball is finally told, the Grinnell attack will end up becoming our future Prince Charming.
But not this year. I know Michelle agrees with me that February is no time to tinker with wholesale changes to the offense. Am I disappointed in our performance last night? Yes... it's getting frustrating to once again play well for a half against a good team, only to implode later in the game. But I'm optimistic that all good stories (after some plot twists) eventually have a happy ending... we just don't know when that will be.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
How do we cover that?
Talking with Michelle yesterday, she was concerned about the press break used by our next opponent, Carthage College, currently in first place and undefeated in the league. I won't go into details of their attack, but Michelle asked me to help her figure out how we should cover the intial cuts.
After experimenting with a few variations, she commented, "Yes, but if we take this away, who will cover that?" In other words, she was realizing that there is literally no way to guard everyone when using a trapping defense, unless we put six defenders on the floor (which against Carthage might be a good plan.) "Well, Coach," I replied, "I guess we will just have to figure they are going to break our press, and our job will then be to force them into mistakes via our defensive transition."
Given that there is no way to cover everyone, new System coaches eventually come to understand that it's what happens after the opponent beats your press that counts. Are you really sprinting back to recover? Are players looking for opportunities to back-tap the ball, and/or aggressively pursuing the dribbler? Are defenders running to the lag and middle areas, or are they overly worried about moving back inside the arc to establish a defensive perimenter? Bottom line: are your really making a point of "attacking from behind?"
These are critical--and often overlooked--defensive concepts. Most of us think in terms of Xs and Os, and drawing up who covers who on the front of the press is a well-defined situation that we think we can control. But remember: for every steal your team generates out of the initial trap, there will be ten situations where the opponent will dribble-escape or pass-escape, and then you must have a recovery plan. All too often, your kids' plan (unless you teach them otherwise) will be "Oh well, they beat our trap again... I'll guess I'll jog back and hope our safety makes a play." Probably not a great plan.
The better plan in response to the question, "How do we cover that?" is, "Do the best you can, anticipate and gamble, but accept the reality that you'll get beat most of the time, and when that happens just attack from behind, cover lags and middle, and make something happen!"
Unfortunately, "Attack from behind!" is hard to draw up.
After experimenting with a few variations, she commented, "Yes, but if we take this away, who will cover that?" In other words, she was realizing that there is literally no way to guard everyone when using a trapping defense, unless we put six defenders on the floor (which against Carthage might be a good plan.) "Well, Coach," I replied, "I guess we will just have to figure they are going to break our press, and our job will then be to force them into mistakes via our defensive transition."
Given that there is no way to cover everyone, new System coaches eventually come to understand that it's what happens after the opponent beats your press that counts. Are you really sprinting back to recover? Are players looking for opportunities to back-tap the ball, and/or aggressively pursuing the dribbler? Are defenders running to the lag and middle areas, or are they overly worried about moving back inside the arc to establish a defensive perimenter? Bottom line: are your really making a point of "attacking from behind?"
These are critical--and often overlooked--defensive concepts. Most of us think in terms of Xs and Os, and drawing up who covers who on the front of the press is a well-defined situation that we think we can control. But remember: for every steal your team generates out of the initial trap, there will be ten situations where the opponent will dribble-escape or pass-escape, and then you must have a recovery plan. All too often, your kids' plan (unless you teach them otherwise) will be "Oh well, they beat our trap again... I'll guess I'll jog back and hope our safety makes a play." Probably not a great plan.
The better plan in response to the question, "How do we cover that?" is, "Do the best you can, anticipate and gamble, but accept the reality that you'll get beat most of the time, and when that happens just attack from behind, cover lags and middle, and make something happen!"
Unfortunately, "Attack from behind!" is hard to draw up.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
One Good Opportunity...
NCC 78- WHEATON 118
82 FGAs
41 Threes
25 TOs
41% ORBs
-1 Shots
Hard to believe we were only down 4 at the half, 50-46. But our defense did a great imitation of a sieve after intermission, forcing only 9 turnovers while allowing Wheaton to shoot 65% from the floor (26-40 in the final 20 minutes). Yes, we want to force the tempo, and yes teams will shoot a high percentage at a result of our extended defensive perimeter. But, no, 65% is not what we had in mind, given our futility on the offensive end (7-41 from the arc). Instead of trading an opponent's two-point basket for a three on our end, we were trading twos for zero.
Men often shoot in the 60 percent range against System teams, but our women at ONU typically limited opponents to 40-45%, while anyone shooting over 50% was a rarity. So in my mind, 40-50% is a realistic standard. With that said, what's our problem defensively this year at NCC? If my little speech yesterday about the value of "antifragility" meant anything, it was that painful losses like this are opportunities to learn something. So what did I learn?
Well, first of all, I'm learning that size matters when it comes to the back of the press. Our safeties are 5-7, 5-9, and 5-8, and we haven't factored that reality into our defensive scheme as much as we should have. At ONU last year they were 6-1, 6-0, and 6-2, allowing us to play it safe, leaving our safeties back where they could challenge shooters and wrap up the rebound. But with our smaller safeties at NCC, when we "play it safe," we are sitting ducks in a 2 on 1 situation.
Solution? Our safeties must become much more aggressive in going for steals. What does it really matter if we gamble and then give up a layup... we are giving up layups anyway, despite being parked in the lane! Our safeties and interceptors have become too rigid in their roles, and as a result aren't working together to move up and back to help each other. They need go gamble more and learn to trust each other.
Second point: conversion matters... a lot. When our front line gets beat, all too often they are not sprinting to recover, but instead are leaving our safeties to their own devices. The key to playing this sort of high-risk defense is forcing the offense to react to you, not you reacting to them! In System basketball, the initiator wins the battle. If our opponent has time to catch and see the floor because we haven't sprinted back into recovery positions, then our defense becomes vulnerable to good passing teams like Wheaton or Illinois Wesleyan.
What it boils down to is the old System maxim: It's okay to give up a layup, just so long as your defense first creates at least one good opportunity for a steal. One good opportunity. Sure, it's tough to get hammered, but I've always felt that it's okay to lose to a good team as long as you go down swinging. But if none of our defenders will gamble and avail themselves of that one good opportunity, we aren't exactly "going down swinging"... we aren't even throwing a punch.
82 FGAs
41 Threes
25 TOs
41% ORBs
-1 Shots
Hard to believe we were only down 4 at the half, 50-46. But our defense did a great imitation of a sieve after intermission, forcing only 9 turnovers while allowing Wheaton to shoot 65% from the floor (26-40 in the final 20 minutes). Yes, we want to force the tempo, and yes teams will shoot a high percentage at a result of our extended defensive perimeter. But, no, 65% is not what we had in mind, given our futility on the offensive end (7-41 from the arc). Instead of trading an opponent's two-point basket for a three on our end, we were trading twos for zero.
Men often shoot in the 60 percent range against System teams, but our women at ONU typically limited opponents to 40-45%, while anyone shooting over 50% was a rarity. So in my mind, 40-50% is a realistic standard. With that said, what's our problem defensively this year at NCC? If my little speech yesterday about the value of "antifragility" meant anything, it was that painful losses like this are opportunities to learn something. So what did I learn?
Well, first of all, I'm learning that size matters when it comes to the back of the press. Our safeties are 5-7, 5-9, and 5-8, and we haven't factored that reality into our defensive scheme as much as we should have. At ONU last year they were 6-1, 6-0, and 6-2, allowing us to play it safe, leaving our safeties back where they could challenge shooters and wrap up the rebound. But with our smaller safeties at NCC, when we "play it safe," we are sitting ducks in a 2 on 1 situation.
Solution? Our safeties must become much more aggressive in going for steals. What does it really matter if we gamble and then give up a layup... we are giving up layups anyway, despite being parked in the lane! Our safeties and interceptors have become too rigid in their roles, and as a result aren't working together to move up and back to help each other. They need go gamble more and learn to trust each other.
Second point: conversion matters... a lot. When our front line gets beat, all too often they are not sprinting to recover, but instead are leaving our safeties to their own devices. The key to playing this sort of high-risk defense is forcing the offense to react to you, not you reacting to them! In System basketball, the initiator wins the battle. If our opponent has time to catch and see the floor because we haven't sprinted back into recovery positions, then our defense becomes vulnerable to good passing teams like Wheaton or Illinois Wesleyan.
What it boils down to is the old System maxim: It's okay to give up a layup, just so long as your defense first creates at least one good opportunity for a steal. One good opportunity. Sure, it's tough to get hammered, but I've always felt that it's okay to lose to a good team as long as you go down swinging. But if none of our defenders will gamble and avail themselves of that one good opportunity, we aren't exactly "going down swinging"... we aren't even throwing a punch.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Are you Antifragile?
During my free time before we head out on the road to play Wheaton today, I've been reading the book Antifragile, by Nassim Taleb. Taleb also wrote The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness which, like Antifragile, are heavy on philosophy but really make you think about the way we view our modern world.
No, I wouldn't suggest you go right out and buy his books unless you are willing to do some heavy slogging through Teleb's dense prose. But the reason I bring up this book is that his concept of "antifragility" is one you'll find fascinating, and which can best be summarized with the following quote:
When you are fragile, you depend on things following the exact planned course, with as little deviation as possible--for (you incorrectly assume) deviations are more harmful than helpful... (But) if every trial provides you with information about what does not work, you start zooming in on a solution--so every attempt becomes more valuable, more like an expense than an error. And of course you make discoveries along the way. (p. 71)
The application to System basketball is obvious. His concept of "antifragility" is that chaos, randomness, volatility actually are good things because they lead to the improvement. Playing it safe, on the other hand, may seem smarter but in the long run makes something (your team?) more fragile, more prone to breaking.
It's no secret that you might lose by bigger than normal margins using the System. But you can win by bigger margins, too. That's volatility, and volatility (according to Taleb) is good, not bad... as long as you keep your job. We lost a game by 50 during my first System year. Bad? No, good. From that loss, I learned how not to lose by 50 again, and by the end of that season we won some games by the same margin... something we'd have never accomplished had we not learned and grown via the System cauldron.
That's why System teams are a lot better at the end of the season than at the beginning, better than they would have been had they played it safe... again assuming the thing doesn't blow up in your face.
But if you can make it to February, you'll be Antifragile.
No, I wouldn't suggest you go right out and buy his books unless you are willing to do some heavy slogging through Teleb's dense prose. But the reason I bring up this book is that his concept of "antifragility" is one you'll find fascinating, and which can best be summarized with the following quote:
When you are fragile, you depend on things following the exact planned course, with as little deviation as possible--for (you incorrectly assume) deviations are more harmful than helpful... (But) if every trial provides you with information about what does not work, you start zooming in on a solution--so every attempt becomes more valuable, more like an expense than an error. And of course you make discoveries along the way. (p. 71)
The application to System basketball is obvious. His concept of "antifragility" is that chaos, randomness, volatility actually are good things because they lead to the improvement. Playing it safe, on the other hand, may seem smarter but in the long run makes something (your team?) more fragile, more prone to breaking.
It's no secret that you might lose by bigger than normal margins using the System. But you can win by bigger margins, too. That's volatility, and volatility (according to Taleb) is good, not bad... as long as you keep your job. We lost a game by 50 during my first System year. Bad? No, good. From that loss, I learned how not to lose by 50 again, and by the end of that season we won some games by the same margin... something we'd have never accomplished had we not learned and grown via the System cauldron.
That's why System teams are a lot better at the end of the season than at the beginning, better than they would have been had they played it safe... again assuming the thing doesn't blow up in your face.
But if you can make it to February, you'll be Antifragile.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Day's Off
As we stood around the center circle for our regular pre-practice team huddle, I could sense the player's weariness. They have come to workouts all year with a good attitude and a willingness to learn, but it was clear that they were drained after last night's astounding come-from-behind second half performance.
As we broke the huddle, I quietly said to Michelle, "Hopefully you won't think this is too 'off the wall' right now, but what would you think of shooting some free throws and giving them the rest of the day off?"
She looked at me with a smile and said, "I was thinking exactly the same thing... let's do it."
So, she called them back together, spoke for a few minutes about what we'll need to do to attack Wheaton on Saturday, and then announced, "Shoot 25 free throws, and then go home. Have a nice day!"
From the players response, you would have thought they'd won the lottery! But this time of the season is when they need extra days off the most. The last time we played Wheaton, we were completely worn out, and it showed in our lopsided loss, one in which we were obviously a step behind all night.
We won't make that mistake again. Less is more.
As we broke the huddle, I quietly said to Michelle, "Hopefully you won't think this is too 'off the wall' right now, but what would you think of shooting some free throws and giving them the rest of the day off?"
She looked at me with a smile and said, "I was thinking exactly the same thing... let's do it."
So, she called them back together, spoke for a few minutes about what we'll need to do to attack Wheaton on Saturday, and then announced, "Shoot 25 free throws, and then go home. Have a nice day!"
From the players response, you would have thought they'd won the lottery! But this time of the season is when they need extra days off the most. The last time we played Wheaton, we were completely worn out, and it showed in our lopsided loss, one in which we were obviously a step behind all night.
We won't make that mistake again. Less is more.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
A Tale of Two Halves
NCC 92- MILLIKIN 68
93 Shots (37 at halftime)
37 Threes (16 at half)
40% ORBs (26% 1st half, 50% 2nd half)
47 Turnovers (18 at half)
+19 Shots (-6 at half)
If anyone can explain to me how a team can score 27 in one half and a team record 65 in the second, I'm all ears.
The first half we spent sleepwalking on the offensive boards, and shooting like the backboard was our true target; our 10-37 shooting performance was an insult to bricklayers everywhere. But amazingly once again the team changed personalities at halftime and played like a team possessed for the final 20 minutes.
Why the discrepancy? My only guess is that dysfunctional old-school basketball habits and attitudes are so deeply ingrained in our players that--for entire halves at a time--they forget all they've been taught about what it takes to win in the System. When you've played a conventional style in which lack of effort is easier to disguise, it takes multiple wakeup calls to understand that in the System, you can run (and gun), but you cannot hide, as long as you insist on just going through the motions. And when it comes to offensive rebounding and attacking the rim (as opposed to attacking a spot on the court about eight feet from the rim), there is no substitute for effort and desire.
I recall the 1987 movie classic Broadcast News in which the character played by Albert Brooks plaintively quips to his beautiful young co-worker (played by Holly Hunter) on whom he has an unrequited crush, "Wouldn't this be a great world if insecurity and desperation made us more attractive? If 'needy' were a turn-on?"
In much the same vein, "Wouldn't this be a great world if you could play great System ball without really giving much effort?"
Sadly, you can't. Gladly, we figured that out at halftime.
93 Shots (37 at halftime)
37 Threes (16 at half)
40% ORBs (26% 1st half, 50% 2nd half)
47 Turnovers (18 at half)
+19 Shots (-6 at half)
If anyone can explain to me how a team can score 27 in one half and a team record 65 in the second, I'm all ears.
The first half we spent sleepwalking on the offensive boards, and shooting like the backboard was our true target; our 10-37 shooting performance was an insult to bricklayers everywhere. But amazingly once again the team changed personalities at halftime and played like a team possessed for the final 20 minutes.
Why the discrepancy? My only guess is that dysfunctional old-school basketball habits and attitudes are so deeply ingrained in our players that--for entire halves at a time--they forget all they've been taught about what it takes to win in the System. When you've played a conventional style in which lack of effort is easier to disguise, it takes multiple wakeup calls to understand that in the System, you can run (and gun), but you cannot hide, as long as you insist on just going through the motions. And when it comes to offensive rebounding and attacking the rim (as opposed to attacking a spot on the court about eight feet from the rim), there is no substitute for effort and desire.
I recall the 1987 movie classic Broadcast News in which the character played by Albert Brooks plaintively quips to his beautiful young co-worker (played by Holly Hunter) on whom he has an unrequited crush, "Wouldn't this be a great world if insecurity and desperation made us more attractive? If 'needy' were a turn-on?"
In much the same vein, "Wouldn't this be a great world if you could play great System ball without really giving much effort?"
Sadly, you can't. Gladly, we figured that out at halftime.
Doug Porter-System Heretic?
In the aftermath of our meltdown in the last two minutes of Saturday's game at North Park, Michelle and I have been brainstorming ideas for how to protect a lead.
Many System coaches just play through, trusting that the approach that got them the lead will keep the lead. I don't like this method for one simple reason: the System is based on numbers, playing the percentages. And the percentages only hold true with a large statistical population. In other words, over the course of a 100 possession game, yes, the odds favor you. Things even out. Over 5 posssessions at the end of a game, anything can happen: you could score 15 points, or you could give up 5 layups and get beat, with time running out before you have a chance to even the odds.
It's like flipping a coin; with 100 flips, chances are you'll get pretty close to 50 heads. But in 5 flips, you might very possibly get only one or two heads (and you'll never get 2 1/2). The more possessions, the better the likelihood of things going in your favor. The fewer the number of possessions, the more random the outcome. And I don't like random outcomes when we've spent 38 minutes building a 10 point lead.
That's why I'd prefer to limit the number of possessions late in a game, and wrap up the victory. Does this make me a System Heretic? No, Coach Arseneault does much the same thing, using his "finishing group" and taking longer to create a shot at whatever point he thinks he has enough of a margin to win. Game over.
So, we've done some tinkering about how we want to play this situaition. I won't go into details, because my attitude about this non-System stuff is "whatever works." Your ideas are probably as good as mine: some varation of holding the ball and playing more conservatively on defense, combined with getting certain personnel on the floor to wrap up the victory.
Bottom line: You are not a heretic if you "pull in your horns" near the end of the game. Use your best coaching judgment... win the game and go get some pizza.
Many System coaches just play through, trusting that the approach that got them the lead will keep the lead. I don't like this method for one simple reason: the System is based on numbers, playing the percentages. And the percentages only hold true with a large statistical population. In other words, over the course of a 100 possession game, yes, the odds favor you. Things even out. Over 5 posssessions at the end of a game, anything can happen: you could score 15 points, or you could give up 5 layups and get beat, with time running out before you have a chance to even the odds.
It's like flipping a coin; with 100 flips, chances are you'll get pretty close to 50 heads. But in 5 flips, you might very possibly get only one or two heads (and you'll never get 2 1/2). The more possessions, the better the likelihood of things going in your favor. The fewer the number of possessions, the more random the outcome. And I don't like random outcomes when we've spent 38 minutes building a 10 point lead.
That's why I'd prefer to limit the number of possessions late in a game, and wrap up the victory. Does this make me a System Heretic? No, Coach Arseneault does much the same thing, using his "finishing group" and taking longer to create a shot at whatever point he thinks he has enough of a margin to win. Game over.
So, we've done some tinkering about how we want to play this situaition. I won't go into details, because my attitude about this non-System stuff is "whatever works." Your ideas are probably as good as mine: some varation of holding the ball and playing more conservatively on defense, combined with getting certain personnel on the floor to wrap up the victory.
Bottom line: You are not a heretic if you "pull in your horns" near the end of the game. Use your best coaching judgment... win the game and go get some pizza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)