So I have been an anti-Mooney guy so I figured I'd come on here and let you know I am not hiding now that we are winning. Some observations from just looking and some advanced statistical stuff too.
First off is this simple one - - we are winning (duh) - this is the metric that above all others is the one (and only one really) that counts. I had issues with not winning over last few years and back-to-back 20 loss seasons, so I have to give credit when we win. Whether its the talent level of the players themselves, how well they play/improve or the schemes we play, that's all on the coach (and I pointed fingers at him on all three). With wins this year, all three look better. The schedule makes it sorta tough to know exactly where we stand, but I have long preached that the formula for success is that you have to win ALL the one's you are supposed to win, MORE than your fair share of swing games and steal one or two that you probably don't realistically expect to win. We have certainly won all the ones we are supposed to win and I'd say Wisco was a good steal. Not sure we have had a lot of swing games especially with Vandy and BC having been home games, but overall we have done what we needed to do that's for sure. Alabama will be a swing game and probably the only one in the OOC portion of schedule so it may help us understand a little bit better where we are, although i wouldn't want to over value one game.. Conference will have a lot of swing games and we will still need to show we can win these at above average levels.
More than just results though, are what I have seen. As we were losing, I felt what I saw tended to confirm the results and that our inability to effectively make changes was frustrating. We seem to have changed some things this year that I would say point to continued success if they can be maintained or improved.
First, is that I think for the first time since the sweet 16 year, this team has an identity. By that I mean we have things that we do well, know we do them well, and do those things to dictate to other teams how the game will be played etc. Back in the day, I think that identity was really centered around our defense which was very different and stumped a lot of people - along with a complimentary offense that wasn't spectacular but was efficient and didn't turn it over. I think this teams identity is much more centered on offense - - move the ball and really spread you out with our shooting and try to take take advantage offensively of making people cover us - really cover us - - out to 25 feet for the full shot clock every possession. And our defense is unspectacular, but efficient (more on this later). With this identity, I have started to see some swagger too, which is a really good sign. The last few teams I thought really expected to lose a good bit and often played not to lose. The swagger shows a team that expects to win which is a nice step on the way to winning and will be especially important I think in those "swing" games.
While the offense has become our identity, what I have seen that impresses me the most (and might lead me to say I was wrong on CM on some things) is on defense. Its not just that we are improved - - - its that we are doing something very different and something that I think fits our personnel really well. Yeah, we are man-to-man, but man comes in a lot of forms and our old defense was man too (even if a bunch of folks liked to call it a match-up zone). But what we are doing now is very different. I called on us to find a defense that covered up some of our weaknesses (inability to stop dribble penetration or defend the 3 point line being the key) and played to our strengths (quickness of our smaller players). I have stated many times I am a packline guy, but also wasn't sure it was really right for this group because it really wastes quickness and can be vulnerable to 3 point shooting where we already were weak. I also suggested some sort of trapping system that enabled Jake and Blake to use quickness to get some steals and force teams to use passing to beat us rather than dribble penetration, but worried overall about that due to size and overall athleticism concerns. I was totally opposed to a denial man defense because I don't think we have a lot of things that would require for us to be good.
What we are doing right now is none of those things but incorporates some of each in a way that benefits our group in a way I like. CM and staff seemed to have selected and built something that gives this group a good chance (maybe their best chance) to be competitive. Its still very early, but its the kind of thing I just hadn't seen over an extended period of time and didn't expect he'd be able to pull off.
As for what we are doing, we are using gap positioning off the ball (not much denial) to aid in our help defense to stop penetration and provide help (and help high out on the floor not in the paint) - - this is very packline like. From there though we do some things very differently from the packline behind that action. In the packline (and some other, but not all forms of man defense) you recover to your own man after helping in virtually all circumstances, (making closeouts very important and we sucked at them). We are turning a lot of those help situations into true double teams or traps and rotating defenders behind it to cover the helper's man. Jake, Blake and Nathan are all pretty good at this. In addition, Jake in particular seems to have some freedom to just go make plays where he sees the chance and it gives us a chance at some steals and to generate some turnovers (although statistically we are not very good at generating turnovers yet). Overall, evryone, but especially Jake and NAthan looks far mor intuitive and less mechanical on defense. Collectively we look at times likes we are constantly chasing the ball, but that is exactly how its designed I think and the rotations have looked better by the game.
There are some things that can be done to try and exploit this defense that no one has tried yet and that's because in OOC, most teams don't gameplan as much etc. and just focus on doing their own things etc., Not sure how quickly, teams in conference will adapt because what they have been doing against us the last few years has worked, so I'd actually suspect we might be better early on defensively until their is enough action on tape and time to adjust. We're not all great on defense, but we are average (and may not be a finished product yet) and that's a good step up! Elite offensively and avg. to maybe slightly above defensively is a decent recipe. Rebounding is the third element and that has changed little (the state point to some improvement, but I think thats totally a product of better defense means the other team is missing more and there are more defensive rebounds to go get.
But these are eye test things I like seeing and while we wont know how they and we hold up for the longer term, there is certainly some reason for optimism.
So that's just a couple of eye test things I see. I'll continue later in another post with some early season advanced stats stats and what I think they might say about us moving forward!
First off is this simple one - - we are winning (duh) - this is the metric that above all others is the one (and only one really) that counts. I had issues with not winning over last few years and back-to-back 20 loss seasons, so I have to give credit when we win. Whether its the talent level of the players themselves, how well they play/improve or the schemes we play, that's all on the coach (and I pointed fingers at him on all three). With wins this year, all three look better. The schedule makes it sorta tough to know exactly where we stand, but I have long preached that the formula for success is that you have to win ALL the one's you are supposed to win, MORE than your fair share of swing games and steal one or two that you probably don't realistically expect to win. We have certainly won all the ones we are supposed to win and I'd say Wisco was a good steal. Not sure we have had a lot of swing games especially with Vandy and BC having been home games, but overall we have done what we needed to do that's for sure. Alabama will be a swing game and probably the only one in the OOC portion of schedule so it may help us understand a little bit better where we are, although i wouldn't want to over value one game.. Conference will have a lot of swing games and we will still need to show we can win these at above average levels.
More than just results though, are what I have seen. As we were losing, I felt what I saw tended to confirm the results and that our inability to effectively make changes was frustrating. We seem to have changed some things this year that I would say point to continued success if they can be maintained or improved.
First, is that I think for the first time since the sweet 16 year, this team has an identity. By that I mean we have things that we do well, know we do them well, and do those things to dictate to other teams how the game will be played etc. Back in the day, I think that identity was really centered around our defense which was very different and stumped a lot of people - along with a complimentary offense that wasn't spectacular but was efficient and didn't turn it over. I think this teams identity is much more centered on offense - - move the ball and really spread you out with our shooting and try to take take advantage offensively of making people cover us - really cover us - - out to 25 feet for the full shot clock every possession. And our defense is unspectacular, but efficient (more on this later). With this identity, I have started to see some swagger too, which is a really good sign. The last few teams I thought really expected to lose a good bit and often played not to lose. The swagger shows a team that expects to win which is a nice step on the way to winning and will be especially important I think in those "swing" games.
While the offense has become our identity, what I have seen that impresses me the most (and might lead me to say I was wrong on CM on some things) is on defense. Its not just that we are improved - - - its that we are doing something very different and something that I think fits our personnel really well. Yeah, we are man-to-man, but man comes in a lot of forms and our old defense was man too (even if a bunch of folks liked to call it a match-up zone). But what we are doing now is very different. I called on us to find a defense that covered up some of our weaknesses (inability to stop dribble penetration or defend the 3 point line being the key) and played to our strengths (quickness of our smaller players). I have stated many times I am a packline guy, but also wasn't sure it was really right for this group because it really wastes quickness and can be vulnerable to 3 point shooting where we already were weak. I also suggested some sort of trapping system that enabled Jake and Blake to use quickness to get some steals and force teams to use passing to beat us rather than dribble penetration, but worried overall about that due to size and overall athleticism concerns. I was totally opposed to a denial man defense because I don't think we have a lot of things that would require for us to be good.
What we are doing right now is none of those things but incorporates some of each in a way that benefits our group in a way I like. CM and staff seemed to have selected and built something that gives this group a good chance (maybe their best chance) to be competitive. Its still very early, but its the kind of thing I just hadn't seen over an extended period of time and didn't expect he'd be able to pull off.
As for what we are doing, we are using gap positioning off the ball (not much denial) to aid in our help defense to stop penetration and provide help (and help high out on the floor not in the paint) - - this is very packline like. From there though we do some things very differently from the packline behind that action. In the packline (and some other, but not all forms of man defense) you recover to your own man after helping in virtually all circumstances, (making closeouts very important and we sucked at them). We are turning a lot of those help situations into true double teams or traps and rotating defenders behind it to cover the helper's man. Jake, Blake and Nathan are all pretty good at this. In addition, Jake in particular seems to have some freedom to just go make plays where he sees the chance and it gives us a chance at some steals and to generate some turnovers (although statistically we are not very good at generating turnovers yet). Overall, evryone, but especially Jake and NAthan looks far mor intuitive and less mechanical on defense. Collectively we look at times likes we are constantly chasing the ball, but that is exactly how its designed I think and the rotations have looked better by the game.
There are some things that can be done to try and exploit this defense that no one has tried yet and that's because in OOC, most teams don't gameplan as much etc. and just focus on doing their own things etc., Not sure how quickly, teams in conference will adapt because what they have been doing against us the last few years has worked, so I'd actually suspect we might be better early on defensively until their is enough action on tape and time to adjust. We're not all great on defense, but we are average (and may not be a finished product yet) and that's a good step up! Elite offensively and avg. to maybe slightly above defensively is a decent recipe. Rebounding is the third element and that has changed little (the state point to some improvement, but I think thats totally a product of better defense means the other team is missing more and there are more defensive rebounds to go get.
But these are eye test things I like seeing and while we wont know how they and we hold up for the longer term, there is certainly some reason for optimism.
So that's just a couple of eye test things I see. I'll continue later in another post with some early season advanced stats stats and what I think they might say about us moving forward!
