Offense Efficiency - Mens Team

[spider23]

Making a new thread so not to infest the women's thread. Number 1 offensive efficiency for the woman - unbelievably great. Watching that UCLA game, I will say I was super impressed with the offense, and just the lack of wasted motion, and the purpose with which they generated shots or made moves to get to the rim. Just like watching some of the high operating mens teams this year, the ball movement and purpose just a start contrast to a Mooney coached team.
I used to kind of discredit the guys that said Mooney could only operate well with a stud PG that can do everything. But you look at the years we don't have such a player, and the offense looks like a hot steamoing mess. Lots of movement 40 feet from the hoop without generating any offense. Center catches the ball but not looking at the hoop. Lots of dribbles without crisp ball movement to move the defense.
Well I digress, looking up some rankings from KenPom 0ur men's teams offense and D ratings:

This season , our offensive efficiency rank for mens was 241. Defense wa 229.
Last year offense was only 156. Defense was 34 - pretty darn good. So this year we ignored replacing players defensive ability, and both dropped like crazy. Wild.
in '23 we were 202 on offense, and 117 on Defense.

I think it's time for Hardt to mandate Moon to have some film sessions with Roussell. I know the mens and womens games are a bit different. But other than a coach from 30 years ago, I wonder who Mooney consults with or studies? LIke with everything he seems very insular and set in his ways, SLOW to adapt.
I really don't think Moon reaches out and explores ways to fix issues. As you can see our fluid offense is not that great, averaging 199 in the country for a three year period. And this is supposedly his strong point, offense. Wild.

Source: Kenpom Adjusted Defensive Ratings and Adjusted Offensive Ratings from 23,24 and 25. I have noted on this board, and I know others have to - how bad our movement is on offense - these numbers support my observation. Wonder what Mooney has gone in the lab to do to fix this over the last 1000 days or so? 17 - any thoughts?

 

[spiderstudent17]

Nice post 23, lots of good thoughts. I think for me there are a lot of little things a Roussell coach team this year did better than a Mooney coach team that led to these stark differences in efficiency that go beyond just recruiting. I'll boil it down to just 2: Being flexible with a scheme and grit.

1. Being Flexible with a scheme.

I agree with you when watching the women's team, there is not a wasted motion, pass, shot, and that is something that comes from coaching. However, when something is off they are able to adjust well and go to plan B, plan C, or plan D. The women's team had a great balance of having both a scheme and way of doing things and also flexibility to adjust in the way they score or defend. I remember Davidson one game was guarding the 3 point line very well, so what did we do? We drove to the basket more. UCLA was giving the ball to Betts more so what did we try defensively? Double team down low even when that's not our usual scheme. Roussell also does an excellent job of flexibility with scheme on the talent he has. On the men's side, Mooney wants to implement a scheme but almost to a fault. There was a JOC article a couple months ago where Mooney said he did not consider adapting his system.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there, but if he truly believes that the system he has is perfect and the only issue is the players executing it, that is just a fundamentally wrong perspective. Our 3's weren't falling many games so what did we do? It wasn't drive to the basket more, create different match-ups, it was shooting more 3's and hoping they would go in. Hope should not be in the vocabulary of a coach. So what I think a Mooney led team next year can do better is have the Princeton offense system (that has worked for us very well in the past) but also develop different variations of it so players/coaches can have more flexibility in games to respond to the way opponents adjust to us. We should also make those modified variations on the personnel we have.

2. Grit.

Grit is all encompassing, but it is a mental toughness, fortitude, and will. Wording it politely, Mooney led teams are "finesse". Another more blunt way of putting it is we play soft. I agree with that sentiment. On the women's team, every single player boxes out for rebounds. It has become 2nd nature for them. We crash the board offensively and had the same amount of rebounds as UCLA in the first half. Going off of point 1, grit also means the confidence that if one aspect of the game isn't executing well that something else will work. Mooney led teams rely way to much on "finesse" or "skill". It works great if you bring in the right finesse/skillset but even that doesn't work all the time. Bad shooting nights happen, teams adjust to defend the guy with the hot hand. We don't play tough. We don't get rebounds which has been something that I wish was different in the approach.

We get frazzled when a team punches in the mouth. We are too robotic in our scheme without instilling the confidence in players to score in different ways. The men's team that personifies grit the most in my opinion is Houston. Watch this video below on one of their practices. Its an instilled mentality. Our coaches should take it personally, when Burton commented how Villanova practice intensity was way harder than ours. Finesse works well when it works if that makes sense. But humans are not perfect and are bound to have bad shooting nights or something like that. Grit should be a constant no matter what. So what I think a Mooney led team next year can do better is start with having practices like Houston below. Prioritize rebounding, physicality, and mental fortitude that when one thing fails there is more than one path to success.

 

[spider23]

Thanks 17. I do think there is a happy medium, but agree we seem to lack toughness and grit. I do think Mooney coached to toughness more in the early years. I recall, following a win early in the season - Mooney actually mentioned how tough he was on the team leading up to the game. Really, it leads me to ask why it wasn't happening before.

I will say, playing for a Frank Martin or Dan Hurley can wear on a player and team I'm sure. But on the other side, when I see interviews with players from Houston or SDSU and they understand the benefit and look forward to the challenge.

I do think Mooney has gone to the softer, more player friendly side too far in the last 10 years. But again, the supposed fluidity of the offense is not working.

 

[Section 204and5]

I generally don't listen to podcasts but I listened to one where Roussell was being questioned - the link is somewhere on this board. What struck me was Roussell is constantly looking to adapt and evolve. He talked about watching a lot of NBA and Euro basketball and picking up ideas he could implement. By contrast, it looks like Mooney has made one change in 20 years - ditching the zone for man-to-man. And last year we were back to constant switching. IMO, Roussell's approach to the game makes Mooney look like a rec league coach.

 

[spider23]

That is my point on the offensive efficiency. When I would read articles about other coaches, especially the up and comers - they often speak of some of the same stuff sec204, how they have taken different aspects and ideas from other coaches and leagues. I bet if you did a half hour interview with Kenny Atkinson and just asked him to speak about how his coaching philosophy has evolved, he could speak to all kinds of Euro coaches, Kerr, other NBA coaches, Tarrant, etc etc, and give a ton of detail. If you were to ask Mooney who his influenced his philosophy and how it has evolved, have a feeling it would still point to his playing days with Pete Carrill. I think that is evidenced by watching our tape and looking at the hard cold numbers for our offensive efficiency.

 

[97spiderfan]

I generally don't listen to podcasts but I listened to one where Roussell was being questioned - the link is somewhere on this board. What struck me was Roussell is constantly looking to adapt and evolve. He talked about watching a lot of NBA and Euro basketball and picking up ideas he could implement. By contrast, it looks like Mooney has made one change in 20 years - ditching the zone for man-to-man. And last year we were back to constant switching. IMO, Roussell's approach to the game makes Mooney look like a rec league coach.

Every great coach is constantly learning, adapting, evolving. Roussell is just that. And yeah, it is well established that Mooney clings to what he knows and every once in a while he makes one change (remember when Grant started hedging out on 3 point shooters) and then he goes with that one change so much that other constantly evolving coaches realize it and then uses his one change against him.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Every great coach is constantly learning, adapting, evolving. Roussell is just that. And yeah, it is well established that Mooney clings to what he knows and every once in a while he makes one change (remember when Grant started hedging out on 3 point shooters) and then he goes with that one change so much that other constantly evolving coaches realize it and then uses his one change against him.

What's the expression - "if it ain't broke then don't fix it"? No...sorry...meant to say - "if it ain't working then stick with it".