2014-15 college basketball

[MakeItRain]

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

on some level it was. i can remember seeing a documentary on LMU where opposing coaches were like, "Man, we were not ready for THAT kind of speed. We could not simulate that. It caught us off guard. We weren't ready." also, these up tempo teams were typically deep teams, and had great endurance. if you were matched up against an opponent with minimal depth, you could wear them out and run them into submission.

by the way, nolan richardson's final season was in 2002. his arkansas team played at a 73 tempo on the season, and a 70 tempo in league. six SEC opponents forced him into games of 65 possessions or less. mike anderson, whose style is the same, is playing at a 70 tempo (69 in league). not a tremendous difference.

Again there were plenty of teams that ran back then, not all of them were good. Westhead only won when he had two nba players. He wasn't any good at his college stops before LMU, he wasn't any good at LMU before Gathers and Kimball and he wasn't good at his college stops after Gathers and Kimball. He had two very dominant players in the West Coast Conference and I will attest to you the WCC was nothing close then to what it is now. If you put two NBA players on a team in America East today they'd beat the crap out of everyone too.

[j rake]

Again there were plenty of teams that ran back then, not all of them were good. Westhead only won when he had two nba players. He wasn't any good at his college stops before LMU, he wasn't any good at LMU before Gathers and Kimball and he wasn't good at his college stops after Gathers and Kimball. He had two very dominant players in the West Coast Conference and I will attest to you the WCC was nothing close then to what it is now. If you put two NBA players on a team in America East today they'd beat the crap out of everyone too.

HE WON A WNBA TITLE WITH THE MERCURY!!! 

[MakeItRain]

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/11/sports/going-for-broke-bradshaw-pouring-it-on-in-us-international-s-last-season.html

I mean look at this crap, they gave up 140 to a defunct school playing in a warehouse without assistant coaches.

[pissclams]

mods, can we rename this thread "basketball science", or "what happens when a bunch of internet people think that they're smart" ?  either would work fine.

[GregKSU1027]

TEXAS SOUTHERN IS GONNA MAKE THE TOURNEY BUT WE AREN'T.

[Rage Against the McKee]

TEXAS SOUTHERN IS GONNA MAKE THE TOURNEY BUT WE AREN'T.

Well, they did beat us.

[GregKSU1027]

TEXAS SOUTHERN IS GONNA MAKE THE TOURNEY BUT WE AREN'T.

Well, they did beat us.

They are good though in conference.

[Cire]

CBB has great parity right now.

I feel like less physical play, lower shot clock would give the more talented teams a wider advantage.

[nicname]

TEXAS SOUTHERN IS GONNA MAKE THE TOURNEY BUT WE AREN'T.

Not incredibly surprising.

[j rake]

CBB has great parity right now.

I feel like less physical play, lower shot clock would give the more talented teams a wider advantage.

yup. harder for k-state to beat ku. 

[michigancat]

There would still be plenty of upsets.

the number would go down significantly. i'd guess that a theoretical 10 extra possessions per game (from 35 second clock to 24 second clock) would lead to point spreads of at least three more points in games involving an athletic team, such as kentucky, against an execution team, such as northern iowa.

if the NBA switched to a 35-second clock, rather than the current 24-second clock, you'd see more parity and far more upsets on a nightly basis.

You're saying that those teams would have a .3PPP advantage over those 10 possessions?

Interesting to note that of the kenpom top 10 teams, only Arizona and Duke play at an above average pace. A lot of it is obviously due to teams trying to slow it down on them, but if playing fast gives them a huge advantage, you'd think more would try to play faster. Wisconsin, Virginia, Baylor, and Utah all play ridiculously slow on offense.

Also interesting to note that our last two victories over Kansas were the faster paced games in the series.


What I'm getting at is I understand your theory, but I don't think data supports it.

[michigancat]

What prompted coaches like Jerry Tarkanian, Nolan Richardson, Billy Tubbs, etc. to go to a more uptempo style than teams play today? How can we get it back?

tarkanian was told by boosters upon his hiring at UNLV that they wanted a fast, up-tempo, exciting team. he was more than happy to oblige. paul westhead, the fastest coach ever, played at his furious tempo in part to increase his chances of landing on TV (i think i read that once, but maybe i'm misremembering).

nowadays, almost every game involving big conference teams are on TV. if you want to differentiate yourself and get noticed, paint your court to look like a rainforest or have your overaggressive fanbase rush the court after big victories.

Very interesting, but that can't be the main reason. These coaches wanted to play fast, because of a tactical advantage? What has changed that causes fewer coaches to want to employ an uptempo style? That's what we have to figure out.

Everyone keeps talking about the shot clock, but the game was faster when it was still 45. I can't back this up, but I feel there were a lot of uptempo teams even before there was any shot clock, though I'm sure average pace was weighed down by some teams really taking the air out of the ball.

Playing fast back then wasn't a tactical advantage, plenty of teams did it. It isn't a tactical advantage now because no team has seemed to be able to accumulate enough talent to play fast but guard well. Kentucky exempted of course.

It can be a tactical advantage. I don't think you need unique skill sets or elite talent to take advantage of playing at a faster pace, and I don't think your defense needs to suffer, either.

[j rake]

You're saying that those teams would have a .3PPP advantage over those 10 possessions?

no, i'm referring more to the cumulative effect of the way the game would have to be played. it's not just those theoretical 10 extra possessions, it's all possessions, over the entirety of the game. a team like northern iowa, which plays a very specific, very deliberate style, would undoubtedly be less efficient if forced to play a more up-tempo game. their average possession length is 21 seconds per possession. using a 24-second clock, they'd be shooting against the horn on nearly every possession. i'm sure they can make some adjustments, but the end result would likely be a less efficient offense.

of course, you could also argue they'd be less efficient defensively. their slow pace forces opponents to exert lots of energy on defense, which makes them more tired offensively, and when teams are shooting poorly against UNI, it's hard to get into a rhythm when shot attempts are always 40 to 50 seconds apart.

my 3-point difference on spread in the hypothetical kentucky-UNI game is honestly probably too low.

[Yard Dog]

TEXAS SOUTHERN IS GONNA MAKE THE TOURNEY BUT WE AREN'T.

Shouldn't this eliminate them as a "bad loss" on our resume?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

You're saying that those teams would have a .3PPP advantage over those 10 possessions?

no, i'm referring more to the cumulative effect of the way the game would have to be played. it's not just those theoretical 10 extra possessions, it's all possessions, over the entirety of the game. a team like northern iowa, which plays a very specific, very deliberate style, would undoubtedly be less efficient if forced to play a more up-tempo game. their average possession length is 21 seconds per possession. using a 24-second clock, they'd be shooting against the horn on nearly every possession. i'm sure they can make some adjustments, but the end result would likely be a less efficient offense.

of course, you could also argue they'd be less efficient defensively. their slow pace forces opponents to exert lots of energy on defense, which makes them more tired offensively, and when teams are shooting poorly against UNI, it's hard to get into a rhythm when shot attempts are always 40 to 50 seconds apart.

my 3-point difference on spread in the hypothetical kentucky-UNI game is honestly probably too low.

JRake, you can't talk subjectives with the stat psuedo-wonks. They live in a unchangeable static world

[j rake]

You're saying that those teams would have a .3PPP advantage over those 10 possessions?

no, i'm referring more to the cumulative effect of the way the game would have to be played. it's not just those theoretical 10 extra possessions, it's all possessions, over the entirety of the game. a team like northern iowa, which plays a very specific, very deliberate style, would undoubtedly be less efficient if forced to play a more up-tempo game. their average possession length is 21 seconds per possession. using a 24-second clock, they'd be shooting against the horn on nearly every possession. i'm sure they can make some adjustments, but the end result would likely be a less efficient offense.

of course, you could also argue they'd be less efficient defensively. their slow pace forces opponents to exert lots of energy on defense, which makes them more tired offensively, and when teams are shooting poorly against UNI, it's hard to get into a rhythm when shot attempts are always 40 to 50 seconds apart.

my 3-point difference on spread in the hypothetical kentucky-UNI game is honestly probably too low.

JRake, you can't talk subjectives with the stat psuedo-wonks. They live in a unchangeable static world

well, objectively speaking, if you were to take tonight's kentucky-georgia game for example (projected 62 pace), then it would look something like this:

Kentucky 1.1 ppp x 62 poss = 68 pts
Georgia 0.94 ppp x 62 poss = 58 pts

that gets you to the current spread and total (kentucky -10, 126).

if the game were played with a 24-second shot clock, at a pace of 75 possessions (league average of WNBA), with everything remaining constant, the new spread would be kentucky -12.5 with a total of 153. again, i'd assume kentucky's athletic/depth advantage would win out to a larger extent in the end, which would likely make them an even larger favorite.

[michigancat]

You're saying that those teams would have a .3PPP advantage over those 10 possessions?

no, i'm referring more to the cumulative effect of the way the game would have to be played. it's not just those theoretical 10 extra possessions, it's all possessions, over the entirety of the game. a team like northern iowa, which plays a very specific, very deliberate style, would undoubtedly be less efficient if forced to play a more up-tempo game. their average possession length is 21 seconds per possession. using a 24-second clock, they'd be shooting against the horn on nearly every possession. i'm sure they can make some adjustments, but the end result would likely be a less efficient offense.

of course, you could also argue they'd be less efficient defensively. their slow pace forces opponents to exert lots of energy on defense, which makes them more tired offensively, and when teams are shooting poorly against UNI, it's hard to get into a rhythm when shot attempts are always 40 to 50 seconds apart.

my 3-point difference on spread in the hypothetical kentucky-UNI game is honestly probably too low.

Northern Iowa is a crazy outlier that wouldn't play the way they play with a quicker shot clock (I mean, it's ridiculous to think they would still average 21 second possessions with a 24 second clock). They just wouldn't exist. They're also the slowest team in conference only games (by a fairly wide margin), where you would assume they would not need to slow down the game to make up for a major talent deficiency.

There are plenty of mid-major teams that have been successful without playing at a pace similar to Virginia or Northern Iowa (WSU, Butler, Gonzaga, BYU, and VCU immediately come to mind - actually most successful mid-majors play at a near-average pace)  (although BYU is usually one of the fastest offenses)

The theory about slow offensive pace leading to better defensive efficiency has no data to back it up, does it?

[kso_FAN]

The theory about slow offensive pace leading to better defensive efficiency has no data to back it up, does it?

No, but it creates the illusion with traditional stats because of "holding" teams to the 50s/60s.

[michigancat]

You're saying that those teams would have a .3PPP advantage over those 10 possessions?

no, i'm referring more to the cumulative effect of the way the game would have to be played. it's not just those theoretical 10 extra possessions, it's all possessions, over the entirety of the game. a team like northern iowa, which plays a very specific, very deliberate style, would undoubtedly be less efficient if forced to play a more up-tempo game. their average possession length is 21 seconds per possession. using a 24-second clock, they'd be shooting against the horn on nearly every possession. i'm sure they can make some adjustments, but the end result would likely be a less efficient offense.

of course, you could also argue they'd be less efficient defensively. their slow pace forces opponents to exert lots of energy on defense, which makes them more tired offensively, and when teams are shooting poorly against UNI, it's hard to get into a rhythm when shot attempts are always 40 to 50 seconds apart.

my 3-point difference on spread in the hypothetical kentucky-UNI game is honestly probably too low.

JRake, you can't talk subjectives with the stat psuedo-wonks. They live in a unchangeable static world

well, objectively speaking, if you were to take tonight's kentucky-georgia game for example (projected 62 pace), then it would look something like this:

Kentucky 1.1 ppp x 62 poss = 68 pts
Georgia 0.94 ppp x 62 poss = 58 pts

that gets you to the current spread and total (kentucky -10, 126).

if the game were played with a 24-second shot clock, at a pace of 75 possessions (league average of WNBA), with everything remaining constant, the new spread would be kentucky -12.5 with a total of 153. again, i'd assume kentucky's athletic/depth advantage would win out to a larger extent in the end, which would likely make them an even larger favorite.

everything would not remain constant

[j rake]

if everything did remain constant, the above projection would be the by-the-book, on paper adjustment. obviously things would not remain constant. less athletic, execution-based teams (i used UNI as an example, but you can replace UNI with countless low-major teams such as cal poly or drexel or towson or wofford or whoever) would be at an extreme disadvantage if forced to play a speed game against superior teams (i used kentucky as an example, but you can replace them with iowa state or oklahoma or villanova, etc.)

[j rake]

The theory about slow offensive pace leading to better defensive efficiency has no data to back it up, does it?

if you are playing superior opponents who are super efficient offensively, it would make sense to try to reduce their number of possessions to give yourself the best chance of winning. one way to do that is to possess the ball for longer periods of time, the other obviously is to force the opponent into longer possessions.

the fewer the possessions, the more chance of variance (i.e., luck) playing a role...and most underdogs need a little luck to pull off the kind of upsets you typically see in the ncaa tourney. if a 24-second clock existed, the greatest asset of many lesser teams (the shot clock) would become their greatest enemy.

[Mixed-Nutz]

if everything did remain constant, the above projection would be the by-the-book, on paper adjustment. obviously things would not remain constant. less athletic, execution-based teams (i used UNI as an example, but you can replace UNI with countless low-major teams such as cal poly or drexel or towson or wofford or whoever) would be at an extreme disadvantage if forced to play a speed game against superior teams (i used kentucky as an example, but you can replace them with iowa state or oklahoma or villanova, etc.)

Pushing the pace against a team that can shoot can really back fire. Pushing against teams like Kentucky, Arizona can be advantage because their length and atheism can make it a bitch to score in the half court.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320830096

UI tired to do this against one of the better UK teams we have seen.

[j rake]

if everything did remain constant, the above projection would be the by-the-book, on paper adjustment. obviously things would not remain constant. less athletic, execution-based teams (i used UNI as an example, but you can replace UNI with countless low-major teams such as cal poly or drexel or towson or wofford or whoever) would be at an extreme disadvantage if forced to play a speed game against superior teams (i used kentucky as an example, but you can replace them with iowa state or oklahoma or villanova, etc.)

Pushing the pace against a team that can shoot can really back fire. Pushing against teams like Kentucky, Arizona can be advantage because their length and atheism can make it a bitch to score in the half court.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320830096

UI tired to do this against one of the better UK teams we have seen.

the teams that have tried to run on this year's kentucky team haven't had much luck with it. in theory, it's a great idea to try to beat them down the floor so their defense can't get set up. in reality, it's hard to pull off because kentucky is freakishly long and athletic. they chase you down from behind, swat your layup attempt off the backboard and start a fastbreak the other way.

i do agree that a team like indiana (particularly this year's team) would give itself its best chance to win against kentucky by trying to beat them down the floor and splashing transition 3's (40 percent on the year). few teams can shoot it like they can, and few teams are as terrible in the halfcourt as them - at least when forced to run some semblance of structured offense.

[Mr Bread]

if everything did remain constant, the above projection would be the by-the-book, on paper adjustment. obviously things would not remain constant. less athletic, execution-based teams (i used UNI as an example, but you can replace UNI with countless low-major teams such as cal poly or drexel or towson or wofford or whoever) would be at an extreme disadvantage if forced to play a speed game against superior teams (i used kentucky as an example, but you can replace them with iowa state or oklahoma or villanova, etc.)

Pushing the pace against a team that can shoot can really back fire. Pushing against teams like Kentucky, Arizona can be advantage because their length and atheism can make it a bitch to score in the half court.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320830096

UI  IU tired to do this against one of the better UK teams we have seen.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2011/12/10/kentucky-72-indiana-73

vs.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2012/03/23/indiana-90-kentucky-102

[michigancat]

The theory about slow offensive pace leading to better defensive efficiency has no data to back it up, does it?

if you are playing superior opponents who are super efficient offensively, it would make sense to try to reduce their number of possessions to give yourself the best chance of winning. one way to do that is to possess the ball for longer periods of time, the other obviously is to force the opponent into longer possessions.

the fewer the possessions, the more chance of variance (i.e., luck) playing a role...and most underdogs need a little luck to pull off the kind of upsets you typically see in the ncaa tourney. if a 24-second clock existed, the greatest asset of many lesser teams (the shot clock) would become their greatest enemy.

I know why it makes sense in theory, there's just so few cases where an inferior team wins due to slowing the pace (that also would have lost with a few more possessions). You keep mentioning NCAA upsets, but I don't see many examples among recent notable upsets where a deliberately slow pace was a factor. There are plenty where it wasn't a factor.

College basketball would not be anything close to "unwatchable" with a 24 second clock.