Why We Didn't Win -- Look Beyond Made Threes
-
Villanova did not make “lucky” shots. By and large, their threes in the first half were either wide open or open shots. KU insisted on doubling the post, and Villanova has been deadly all year when they get the defense rotating. KU closed out late and Villanova punished them for it.
That’s where the lack of adjustments hurt us. Once we saw that Nova was able to diagnose the double team and swing the ball to open shooters, we should have called off the double teaming. We didn’t and the Wildcats feasted.
That’s not luck. That’s making open shots. Had we gotten that same quality of looks for our guys, we could have shot that way. We have shot that well for stretches, but typically when we have gotten hot, teams take away the highest quality looks.
Remember from Friday when one of our Bucketeers was mentioning how Svi hit some pretty ridiculous shots (10 in a row if I remember correctly) at the end of the shootaround.
We gave Villanova shootaround quality shots and they made them. That isn’t lucky. That isn’t even surprising. Give good shooters good looks and they will make them.
-
Some are under the impression that KU did not have a plan or had the wrong plan and will not even consider that maybe the players either did not follow the game plan or were just not a good match for Villanova’s personnel. This story illustrates Coach Self’s frustration by the lack of execution.
-
You to are making the point clearly.
There was almost no luck involved in Nova’s performance, except the good fortune of Self and KU electing a drive strategy that magnified the advantage of the strategy that Nova has won with all but 4-5 times this season.
Frankly, Nova only shot a little above its season average for the game.
This game could have been a MUCH bigger blow out, if KU had had one of its 19% trey games, of if Nova had had one of its peak shooting games.
KU was very, very VERY fortunate to “only” be beaten 95-79.
Self is going to learn something crucial from this experience.
This was a wood shed lesson that no one could overlook.
The lesson is college basketball is increasingly about:
a.) who can shoot the most open look 3ptas with the best shooters that are the hardest for defenders to alter their shots (tallest); and
b.) who can force the opposing team out the farthest with defense, while still being able to deny blow bys at the rim.
The game is now first and foremost about using point guards and drivers to force help NOT to take short threes, but to create wide open kick outs.
EVERYTHING offensive action that does NOT contribute to creating an open look trey EVERY possession is to be jettisoned.
Except when defending a huge lead with ten to go, no 2 point dunk should EVER be taken instead of a 3 PTA. Period.
What Nova did to KU means the cat is out of the bag.
Every coach with a bunch of long three point shooters and a guard that can drive it can win any game simply by taking 10 more 3ptas than an opponent.
Over the next five years, we can expect the average number of 3 PTAs to climb steadily from 25 to 35 to 45 to 55per game.
Three point shooting attempts are headed for the asymptote of the possible curve of total possessions.
Hide bound thinking is the only thing that has made it take so long to occur.
Balance between inside and outside scoring is obsolete.
Balance between corner treys from both corners is the new balance to achieve.
The new stressor of offense is the long corner shooter–the corner shooter that is too tall for his defender to block, even if he gets to the corner in time with a hand up.
The new stressor of defense is the defense that can guard trey shooters out to 30-35 feet to deny them open looks.
-
Only idiots claim Self had no plan for the Nova game.
Self had the exact wrong plan for what Wright schemed for Nova: 40 3PTAs on offense, and stretching to take away KU’s uncontested treys and giving them the mid range 2. Self told his players to take what they gave KU, as was his custom, and hoped that their ball screen defenses could deny the guard penetration that collapsed KU’s help defense for kicks to completely open looks at high percentage spots.
Wright was right. Self was wrong.
Even when KU executed what Self wanted it could not close the gap, even when Nova cooled to 35% for the entire second half!
Even genius makes mistakes.
Self gambles everything on a strategy he thinks has big risks, but big return.
Thus, he wins often and often beats teams that can’t counter what he does.
Wright took him one better. Wright gambled everything on a strategy that couldn’t lose with Self having KU drive. Wright even upped the ante by shooting more than their average number to 3ptas in expectation of Self driving, and as a hedge against Nova having an off shooting night.
Likely as not, if Nova had shot 35% the first half, Wright would have had them shoot even more treys.
This is where Self has to get to.
The worse KU’s three point shooting is, the more 3pt shots KU should take, when KU is playing another 3 point shooting team.
-
I’m amazed you watched the game a second time! I, true confessions here, turned it off shortly after Doke blocked a shot and they scooped it up and made a 35 footer. My only quibble with your excellent post @HighEliteMajor is that Nova made way above their season average percentage wise in the first half when they built the huge lead.
-
Frankly, Nova only shot a little above its season average for the game.
This game could have been a MUCH bigger blow out, if KU had had one of its 19% trey games, of if Nova had had one of its peak shooting games.
Villanova’s 3 point shooting percentage for the game is misleading. It was the 13 of 21 or insane 62% that it shot in the first 17 minutes of the game that allowed it to build a 17 point lead that basically won the game.
In the second half Nova shot 5 of 14 or 36% while KU shot 5 of 15 or 32% and the score for the second half was a measly 1 point difference or 48-47. Can you find another game where Nova shot 62% for most of one half and I don’t mean by taking a few but 21 shots? The first half of the game Nova shot way, way, way above its average and that decided the game. Had Nova shot its average during that time, say 9 of 21 or 42% that is a 12 point difference and this is a close game.
KU was very, very VERY fortunate to “only” be beaten 95-79.
I believe it is more correct to say that Nova was VERY fortunate to shoot that ridiculous % in the first half, which it obviously could not maintain in the second half, otherwise this is a different game.
-
@HighEliteMajor Like @wissox i thought the most amazing thing about your top notch post was that you had the stomach to watch the game again. It was one of those games were you could just feel it was over VERY early on. I will admit in an effort to not embarrass myself and lose my mind, i watched very little of the 2nd half and watched a movie instead.
What bothers me so much is that it is becomming a habit for us to lose in such a way that we humiliate ourselves on a national stage. Vick falling down and rolling around muliple times is the perfect example of not showing the world who we really were all year. 3 years in a row we have done this. I dont mind losing to a better team. I hate it but i can live with it. Laying a total egg in the E8 or F4 not so much. Maybe that is why we don’t get more national respect.
I do find it ironic that the only way to win this game would have required Bill to adopt the ultimate fools gold game plan. I know he was saying Let if fly, but deep down i bet Wright knew bill well enough that bill would never launch 50 3s. He still wanted to pound the post. Wright appears to own bill at this point. He has embarrased him twice now on the big boy stage.
It was brutal to watch the first time. You are a better man than me to watch it a second.
-
@jaybate-1.0 But don’t you think they will move the 3 pt line back…which might change that strategy?
-
@Fightsongwriter I Think we got too satisfied with being there and slept walked for the first 8 minutes. They got 22-4 early but once we settled in even with their hot shooting, they never really got us down more. That first wave won them the game. It’s pretty normal normal to see some beat downs in the EE and FF, lots of teams are just happy to be there (we’ve been on both sides of them). I disagree that we laid a total egg vs Nova in 16, that was damn good game, now we did against Oregon last year and Nova Saturday.
-
@Fightsongwriter @wissox It was actually easier to watch the second time. I was watching to see if what I initially thought was true. It seemed to me that Nova’s looks were amazingly clean, many uncontested in large part. I was also looking at something really worse – how easily Nova shut down our three point shooting, and how little we did to try to create those looks.
The fact is that Nova did both – they had a gameplan to shut our three point shooting down. And they had a plan to create open looks.
The fact is that we did neither – we did not stop their open looks, we did not get open looks.
So, some simply cite Villanova’s first half shooting percentage, and we walk away? That’s it, game over?
@JayHawkFanToo Do you ever ask the question “why?” Do you ever try to look deeper? Do you want to look deeper? Do you ever, in the deepest corners of your mind, consider for a moment that there is a reason why teams make shots? @justanotherfan said, “We gave Villanova shootaround quality shots and they made them. That isn’t lucky. That isn’t even surprising. Give good shooters good looks and they will make them.” That is the painful truth. It should resonate. It is a crisp analysis that resulted in a big loss.
And there is a “why” attached to that.
The results, what we saw on the court, and demonstrates what @jaybate-1-0 said. We just had the wrong game plan for this game. That happens sometimes.
@KUSTEVE Said, “We thought we could beat them with Doke on the inside.” Right, we did. I didn’t see that as a flawed gameplan before the game. I thought our normal mix of inside and out, and driving aggressively was how we played. It just didn’t work out.
In the end, in hindsight, the volume of threes shot by Nova, based on them making at or near their season percentage, was nearly possible to overcome given our volume of threes.
One thing I wish we had an answer for, that we saw in 2016, was how aggressively they played our offense around the three point circle, attacking handoff’s etc. I wish we’d had some looks to make them pay for the overplays.
-
mayjay said:
kjayhawks said:
@HighEliteMajor I agree for the most part, rewatched some of the game this morning. I’ve mentioned it several times the last few years and I believe it to be true, we do not have the athletes that we need to win in the NCAA tournament (outside of JJ and Mason). Before 2014 very seldom did I come into a games thinking the other team is just better than us in terms of athletic ability, since 2014 it’s almost every game vs power 5 comp. Whomever is evaluating these guys isn’t doing anywhere near as good as Villanova, our recruiting classes have been better more often than not but they look like they have more talent and athletic ability than us.
Wow, a team hitting a lot more shots in one game than they did any other time becomes an indictment of recruiting for a period of years?
I think some people here need a major dose of overreaction antidote.
I must have glazed over kjayhawks post before.
Some comments…
Long have KU fans bemoaned the lack of trey ballers. Well it’s hard to find elite athletes that are also elite shooters. They tend to end up in the NBA quickly.
So would you rather have Svi or Jamari?
To have guys that stay around, they need some kind of NBA deficiency. Dedric for instance is a terrible athlete* or he’d already be in the NBA. Like Perry he doesn’t really have a position in today’s NBA.
*FOR THE NBA LEVEL before anyone wants to tell me he’s a great athlete compared to 99% of the planet
Also if we are being completely honest, kids like Graham and Svi were not first choices. In their same class alone KU offered the likes of Stanley Johnson, Rashad Vaughn, Tyus Jones, Mudiay etc…
So many of these Nova players redshirted. KU fans would LOSE their mind if that happened here. Also Wright has been lucky with guys coming back. Mikal Bridges belongs in the NBA right now.
-
TL;DR KU’s recruiting and who they are targeting is fine, but you don’t always land your top targets unless you are Duke.
-
I heard Self say we’d need to play a near perfect game and Nova would have to be about average. I think, in hindsight, his offensive game plan was good.
KU shoots 40% average from three, we’d have two more makes: +6 pts
Doke gets at least 10 touches instead of 6, that’s at least three more makes: +6 pts
Guards only get blocked 3 times instead of 5 driving (or have fouls called): +4 pts
So, there’s 16 points right there without changing the game plan.
Nova shot 5% better than average from three… thats 2 extra makes: take off that 6 pts and it’s a totally different ballgame.
So, yes, KU had a very reasonable chance to win shooting half as many threes as Nova
-
jaybate 1.0 said:
The worse KU’s three point shooting is, the more 3pt shots KU should take, when KU is playing another 3 point shooting team.
Nope. Shooting 2s at 51% is slightly better than shooting 3s at 33%.
Unless you have a plan to get more possessions than the other team, there is no advantage in shooting more threes the way KU shot against Nova.
-
The KU offensive gameplan was actually quite good. KU took a couple of bad (i.e. quick) shots, but overall, what KU was doing (and trying to do) was both sound and effective.
My criticism is the defensive game plan. As @jaybate-1-0 said, the gameplan now offensively is to drive and kick to open shooters. Make guys chase the ball.
Daryl Morey (Houston Rockets GM) introduced a theory a few years ago that you basically want three types of shots - dunks/layups, three pointers and free throws. You want to minimize shots that aren’t one of those three types. The goal is to have roughly 80% of shots coming from either at the rim, or from three point range, with 20% or less being 2 point shots outside the restricted area.
Basically, it’s a mathematical argument. For good shooters, they won’t shoot all that much better from 15 feet in a game situation than they will from three point range - maybe 2-5 percentage points. So a guy that is a 45% three point shooter is likely only a 50% two point jump shooter at his best. The thing is, because of that, a guy that is a 45% three point shooter would need to shoot above 60% to make it worthwhile to shoot more than a few 2 point jumpers. It’s not just “long twos” that are bad. It’s the 14 and 15 footers, too.
Here’s a visual of the NBA shot chart from 2012-13:
Notice that shots from outside the paint are hovering just under 40%, while threes are just a few percentages below that.
Given that threes are worth 50% more, taking a two point jump shot is basically a fool’s errand if you have three point range. With the shorter college three point line, that matters double.
-
@DanR And remember, you have to play to your percentages. It is the correct answer of the course of a season. And what has been shown over the course of Self’s time at Kansas, the volume of threes doesn’t move the arrow on percentages much over the course of a season. The implication that fewer may mean better looks is proven to be fallacy (and I know you’re not saying that it isn’t). @justanotherfan, I think you are spot on here. Taking a two point jumper, if scripted, would never happen but for the flow of the game. I saw a number of HS game this season. It is just amazing how the game has totally changed since I played. the shot between 5 - 19 feet is a rare occurrence (and given what you’ve posted, it should be).
Like most everyone else, I guess I don’t fault our gameplan offensively going in. We played like we’ve always played. In fact, I’d begun to feel like Malik attacking the hoop was option 1.
-
Just curious what people’s opinions are on the several quick threes Newman and Devonte took. On one hand you see a guy dribble down the court and pull a moderately guarded three without any passes and think bad shot. I think I even heard self get on one of them after such a shot. But it’s not like moving the ball and running offense got any better looks. I don’t know if they are actually bad shots or not in the context of that game. Any thoughts?
-
benshawks08 said:
Just curious what people’s opinions are on the several quick threes Newman and Devonte took. On one hand you see a guy dribble down the court and pull a moderately guarded three without any passes and think bad shot. I think I even heard self get on one of them after such a shot. But it’s not like moving the ball and running offense got any better looks. I don’t know if they are actually bad shots or not in the context of that game. Any thoughts?
I thought they were bad shots. I believe Kenny Smith pointed out those two shots in particular on the broadcast as saying nobody had even stepped foot in the paint when they shot them. The Newman one was worse as the defender got his hand right there as went up with it. Graham has made that shot plenty over his career but I always thought they were low percentage shots. Hero Ball at its worst
-
@BeddieKU23 yeah. That was my initial reaction too. I believe the commentator pointed out you can “get that shot anytime” but the problem is we couldn’t. Whether it was our offense or their defense, the ball never made it inside out. I think I counted 3-4 of those hero ball thees. Take those away and out inabilities to create open looks from three is even more problematic.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I think you (perhaps not intentionally) highlight the more overlooked aspect of the game. Yes, Villanova opened up a big lead early with the onslaught of made 3s - and carried a 15 point lead at halftime with 13 made 3s. But, as you note, Villanova scored 1 more point in the second half - 48 - with just 5 made 3s. While Villanova is a VERY good offensive team, we managed to make them look GSW-like with really bad defense. They lit us up in the second half with only 15 of their 48 points coming from 3s. This was statistically the worst defensive team under Self (by far) and it showed in this game (painfully so).
The other issue that decided the game was how poorly we played in the first 8 minutes on the offensive end. Getting down 22-4 was a function of them not only making shots (22-2 run after Doke’s first score of the game), but our inability to do so. We played them even after the initial onslaught, but just couldn’t get the stops necessary to ever really close the gap.
-
@benshawks08 I think the feeling of desperation inspired those shots. We weren’t getting good looks as you noted.
@DCHawker Right, I think Nova exposed our defensive deficiencies. I think we could have really focused on guarding the three point line, during their hot stretch, perhaps playing a zone much like Duke did to us. Our zone didn’t cover the line.
It’s not that we lost. It’s just the way we lost that creates this entire discussion and has us scratching our heads. Looked like the KU/Duke semi in 1988 in the domination to start.
-
Doesn’t it make you wonder why we didn’t run the same defense Nova ran?
Why did we give away a dozen or so trey baskets in that first half, when the game was really on the line?
We always had a player or two floating around in between their man and the goal… floating in “weak-side help” land.
We needed to “man up” and each player be responsible for defending 1-on-1 on their man. It sure worked with Nova… they didn’t even double down on Doke most of the time (when he got the ball in the low post).
We were well-rested for this game, but we weren’t prepared for this game. At least, that is my humble opinion.
-
@benshawks08 I remember Malik taking at least 2 and Graham taking 1 3 pt shot without even passing the ball early in the possession. I also remember Newman taking 2 looong 2s with 1 foot behind the 3 pt line. Sure enough both shots were just a tad long. IIRC this was all before under 10 minutes in the 1H.
-
benshawks08 said:
@BeddieKU23 yeah. That was my initial reaction too. I believe the commentator pointed out you can “get that shot anytime” but the problem is we couldn’t. Whether it was our offense or their defense, the ball never made it inside out. I think I counted 3-4 of those hero ball thees. Take those away and out inabilities to create open looks from three is even more problematic.
In the first 7-8 minutes of the game we had 8 shots total and a bunch of turnovers ( I want to say 4/5 by that point). I believe Nova had already made 6 three’s and we hadn’t even attempted one. Once it hit 22-4 panic really set in. We made that run for a few possessions going to zone but as soon as they made an open 3 panic just set right back in and we left the zone.
The team was neutralized and it didn’t seem like anything KU did to adjust was working or even looked like there was an attempt to adjust. It just felt like once the score was getting out of hand the players were unable to mentally shake the deficit and play 0-0 ball which led to forced shots. Honestly I don’t know many that could just black that out after being hit with haymaker after haymaker. There was a point in the 2nd half Graham made a 3, Nova answers with one, Graham hits another, I believe Nova hit another shot. Graham shoots another shot (without passing that clanks off the back rim). That kind of basketball probably doesn’t happen if KU is in a manageable situation to comeback from which never felt like the case.
-
@benshawks08 There were 6 or 7 “hero” shots where we tossed it up from the Alamo, and hoped it would go in. Things like that happen when you fall behind 22-4. The entire year, our coaching staff has been imploring the whole team to help on defense, and then we run into a team that turns that against you when you do help. Give the devil his due- Villanova lost two starters during the year ( which is the ONLY reason they didn’t win the Big East ), and we caught them at full strength, going full bore. The things we used during the year that worked against other teams don’t work against Villanova. So, I sure hope when they come into AFH next year, we have a distinct strategy to take them down, because I’m sure getting tired of losing to them.
-
This was the best chance we had to get it under 10 and make it a ballgame. Down 14 at the 9:23 mark. Then… missed three threes in a row. (That one by Malik at 9:05, might have been one of his hero attempts.)
It’s worth noting that we should have fouled them a lot more, but that goes along with playing better perimeter D and contesting shots.
OK, I’m ready to move on.
-
Was that the one Garrett three that hit side backboard instead of rim? Man he’s got some work to do. Sounds like they will be changing his shot this summer
-
@HighEliteMajor I turned it off when we were down by 20. I’m on a spring break vacation with my son in the mountains of Montana. I figured no need to make myself miserable watching the rest of the game.
-
@DanR Very nice … excellent analysis. we’re down 14 and Marcus Garrett shoots twice. I wouldn’t want him shooting a water pistol. While I love the rest of his game, if he can’t shoot, he’ll be a liability.
@wissox In the mountains, with your boys. Very envious. Hope you are enjoying it.
@drgnslayr Plagiarism is an essential element of coaching.
-
The offense wasn’t the problem.
Here’s a couple of stretches where KU was scoring, but made up almost nothing on the deficit.
First one, KU down 13 after Silvio gets a putback. KU scores 10 points in five possessions. The deficit goes from 15 to 14.
Second one, KU scores 8 points in 4 possessions. Deficit goes from 14 to 12.
At the end of the second spurt, KU had scored 21 points in 7 minutes, which is good offensive work. They had given up 18 points. They played good offense and made up basically no ground. That’s a defensive problem.
Look at the three back to back to back possessions in the first chart starting at 10:27. On KU’s possessions, they get layups from Newman, Vick and Newman again. Villanova gets threes from Paschall, Booth and Bridges. KU got three consecutive layups, and yet lost three points in the exchange.
In the second one, there’s a similar rapid fire exchange. Azubuike dunk, Graham three, Vick jumper. 7 points in 3 possessions. That’s great, except Brunson hit two threes in that same stretch to give Villanova six points in two possessions.
KU had the right offensive gameplan.
-
@justanotherfan One point of clarification … they did not have the right gameplan if Nova was shooting 40 three pointers. If you take all of the averages, in that scenario, we lose. The “average” is the most likely result. If we knew Nova was going to shoot 40 three pointers, and we assume 40%, how could shooting 20 threes be the right offensive gameplan? That means if we shoot our average, also 40%, we’re down 24 points, having to make that up in extra possessions with two point baskets or free throws. Am I wrong there?
-
@HighEliteMajor I think your analysis pretty much nailed it.
We didn’t defend the three and they did – like crazy. That defense was the reason we took fewer 3pt attempts and that, in turn, reduced our opportunity for winning dramatically.
We have shooters that can make it from NBA and beyond range. I was hoping at some point the guys would take an open shot or two from 3 - 6 ft beyond the arc just to prove that we’re willing to shoot a 3 and not settle for 2s.
There was a matchup issue with Spellman, as you noted, but we’ve dealt with matchup issues previously.
The real reason for losing was the game plan, which was devised to give them a chance even if Kansas was hitting at it’s average clip of 40% from beyond the arc.
Nova just needed to hit near their average 3pt average to compete with that gameplan. Smart plan.
Of course, they shot even better than average and shackled us effectively.
I’m very proud of our team and glad that HCBS is adapting his game… This season’s results show he is on the right track and must continue that journey. The game is headed in a new direction fast.
-
To add to why we didn’t win beyond them hitting 3s, Sosinski had more points than Garrett and Lightfoot combined.
-
We didn’t defend period. This was our 2nd worst defensive night of the season. We didn’t just allow a great 3pt shooting night. Nova was 18/25 from 2pt range. I talked about this when Jaybate had his “trough” hypothesis that I vehemently disagree with.
Here are the scoring advantage breakdowns:
- KU scored 1 point per 3pt Attempt vs. Nova scoring 1.44 per 2pt attempt. Nova gained a 15 point advantage on us with the 2pt shot.
- KU scored 1.02 points per 2pt Attempt vs. Nova scoring 1.35 points per 3pt attempt. Nova gained a 12 point advantage with the 3pt shot.
- KU did win the Free Throw battle by 11. And that is how you get a 16 point loss.
All season long, we have been able to gain an advantage over our opponents by scoring more points from the 3 point shot than they can the 2 point shot. Had we held Nova to a 50% 2pt shooting night, even on the same exact attempt numbers, we still could have been in the game at the end. Even with them shooting red hot from 3. That was our biggest problem last night. Again, only once this season did we shoot poorly and defend well. When we lost, we LOST this year.
From my view, doubling the post is the single dumbest thing you can do unless a player is going to beat the man guarding him more than 70% of the time. We needed to DARE Nova to take more 2pt shots. Instead we let them rotate the ball and shoot open shots when they would have willingly taken contested 2s. Bill made the right call to double the week before on Bagley. But the wrong decision Saturday night. If we don’t double team them in the post, I would bet this game was at least 10 points closer, imo.
-
I didn’t realize we won free throws by 11.
And here, I thought the game would come down to who shot better at the line. I guess that’s why I’m not a coach.
-
And somwere we the ACC champs?
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Also, does this mean Villanova are the real Big 12 champs this year? They beat the top 3 teams in the Big 12 3 straight games from the Sweet 16 through at night.
-
I don’t think Nova went into the game intending to shoot 40 threes. Every three they took in the first 15 minutes, with the exception of the one Brunson hit over Doke off the dribble, was an open shot in the flow of the offense. Once they went solarflare hot, there was no reason to stop shooting.
When Nova hit their fifth three of the game, I said KU needed to go small. As Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith sometimes say, you can’t let the house burn down before you get the kids out. Self should have called timeout right then and gone either to De Sousa, Lightfoot, or (my personal preference) go super small with Garrett.
Instead, the house burned down around KU. Villanova got too hot, and once everyone was hot, there was literally no way to defend them.
If, in another universe, KU comes out and defends the three point line rather than trying to hang back in the paint with Doke, Villanova probably shoots closer to their average number of attempts - let’s say 30 or 31 (averaged 29 attempts). That gives them 12 or 13 makes.
If Villanova makes 12 or 13 threes instead of 18, and if KU can get one or two stops besides that, it’s a whole different ball game.
When I was in HS, a teammate of mine once hit seven threes in the first half of a game. His first three were open looks in the flow of the offense. His last two were ridiculous, including a 26 footer at the buzzer. The two in between were somewhat more closely guarded, but the other team let him get hot and get his rhythm and that was it. We were up 20 at the break (I think he may have outscored the other team by himself) and the game was basically over. You can’t let good shooters get their confidence going because they will eat you alive.
-
@justanotherfan No, I agree totally. I had no real issue with our offensive gameplan
You said KU had the right gameplan. My point was that given Nova’s 40 threes, it wasn’t the right gameplan. I stated that “they did not have the right gameplan if Nova was shooting 40 three pointers.”
Thus my initial point in this thread about our lower volume of threes being an important reason “in hindsight” as to why we didn’t win.
I don’t think Nova planned on 40 three pointers. I do think they planned on a high volume though. It would make sense given their team construct, and our strengths.
From a scheme standpoint, I’m puzzled by our passivity at defending the three point light, particularly once the “solarflare” you mentioned was evident.
-
@bskeet It easily could have, had we not just been completely incompetent on D. I’ll probably rewatch the game at some point and see how many points they scored off of possessions where we double teamed.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@justanotherfan No, I agree totally. I had no real issue with our offensive gameplan
You said KU had the right gameplan. My point was that given Nova’s 40 threes, it wasn’t the right gameplan. I stated that “they did not have the right gameplan if Nova was shooting 40 three pointers.”
Thus my initial point in this thread about our lower volume of threes being an important reason “in hindsight” as to why we didn’t win.
I don’t think Nova planned on 40 three pointers. I do think they planned on a high volume though. It would make sense given their team construct, and our strengths.
From a scheme standpoint, I’m puzzled by our passivity at defending the three point light, particularly once the “solarflare” you mentioned was evident.
Villanova always plans to shoot a high volume of 3’s. KU’s help defense was obviously an issue from the beginning because it runs counter to what Nova does so I’m not gonna harp on that because we all know ignoring the defensive scouting report was the reason KU got smoked.
KU’s offensive gameplan was a good one had they stuck with it. Pounding it in to Doke early would force Nova to either start doubling Doke leaving a capable 3 point shooter wide open, or they man up on Doke and Doke keeps abusing the rim. That was the match up advantage KU had against Nova and exploiting that match up to open up other parts of the offense was the right game plan on offense. After Nova hit KU in the nose though, KU completely abandoned that game plan along with any chance of winning.
I know this is going to sound harsh, but this loss is on Devonte to me. I was in the Alamodome Saturday night and Self was pissed the entire game. We almost never see Self use 2 timeouts in the first half and he used 2 in the first 8 minutes or so trying to get KU to execute their gameplan. At that point, it’s on the players to execute and they didn’t do it. Since Graham is the leader, that’s his responsibility to run the sets they needed to on offense.
-
Hey everybody, my name is JT. I’ve posted here a few times under a few different accounts. I wonder if anyone read the post from Jesse Newell that was posted yesterday? Judging from numerous Self reactions, it seems that double teaming the post was not KU’s game plan.
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article207598239.html
It seems that with the way that KU plays defense and the amount of time that they spend learning it that old habits die hard. Maybe with 38 games in it was like teaching an old dog to learn a new trick. Not just Doke, but De Sousa and Garrett as well. I do wonder why, like others, we didn’t see Mitch or a five guard line up when what we were doing was clearing not working. Maybe Self thought with Lightfoot or Garrett in that they would win pounding the ball in the basket instead? Maybe he thought his players would eventually start playing to the game plan? Maybe he thought that Nova would eventually come down from three point heaven? I don’t know. But this is where I would like to see Self start improving: In games that we are surely going to win or surely going to lose (like OK State twice, Arizona State, Washington, Texas Tech), do something he doesn’t think will work but try anyways. Play a 5 guard line up for 10 minutes. Invent a weird new zone. Tell Doke, hey you’re not going to guard the paint anymore, you’re going to stand in this corner and keep anyone from making a three at this here corner and everyone else will guard the rest of the floor. Get comfortable being uncomfortable. Even though it probably won’t work, maybe you’ll get a new creative inspiration. Maybe you’ll see something different. Maybe your players will surprise you. Although, I guess Self already did try something crazy this year with Doke at the end of a game in Oklahoma…
I also was in favor of pounding the ball inside heading into the game. Not just to foul up their players, but also for lobs when the opponent tries to help, and because I thought we would have a better rebounding advantage with Doke and De Sousa and shots closer to the basket. I wonder if we could have done a high zone with Doke in the paint, since that was what he was going to do anyways and best equipped to do. But whatever we would have done differently would have just been a different reason why we lost. Villanova was one of the best teams most of the regular season and all of the NCAA tourney. They had the 2nd best offense in the KenPom era, with a heck of a defense as well. We played not good defense all year and overachieved. Villanova was clearly the best team in the country Saturday night. Nothing to be ashamed there.
-
As a matter of fact I do ask why but you are so close minded that cannot see anything tha does not agree with your opinion.
You say that KU had the wrong game plan but did you bother to read the Jesse Newell link I posted? Coach Self was frustrated because the players were not following the game plan and kept reverting to the old ways and leaving shooters open; that is not a bad plan, that is bad execution. If KU had such a bad plan, the lead would have continued to increase throughout the entire game and not just the first half of the first half.
Villanova won the first 7 minutes of the game 22-4 and after that ubber hot start, KU actually got it together and won the last 33 minutes of the game 75-73; in fact, Villanova missed its last 5 3-point shots of the half and shot only 36% from the 3 the second half.
Think about it, KU outscored Villanova the last 33 minutes of the game…
Doesn’t sound right, does it? So much for a bad game plan and the numbers do tell a story. If not for the first 7 minutes of the game when the execution was extremely poor, the result could have been quite different
Unfortunately, KU dug itself a big hole and even when it got its game plan going could not make up the deficit.
-
@JayHawkFanToo You don’t ask why. More precisely, you ask why only within a very small bubble. You don’t consider the fact that perhaps another coach’s game plan might be better than coach Self. You don’t consider that another coach might get his team ready to play in a better manner. You don’t consider Self’s role in things, other than the credit end of it. This limits your objectivity, and limits your ability to analyze. It’s like believing man-made global warming is true, but refusing to look at past historical climate data, or failing to consider that folks might have falsified data.
Look, this is the old hat. You will never consider, acknowledge, reference or admit that on some occasions, Self has been outcoached. Even in the most obvious situations. And no matter what has been presented to you. And I personally don’t think that this game is one of those situations, for whatever that is worth, where that should be our focus. But it is quite clear that Nova shot open threes, and shot a lot of them. And we shot about half the number of threes, and a much higher rate were contested. Perhaps … just perhaps … that had to do with gameplan. And if it did, then their gameplan was better. I would remind you that a game is 40 minutes. Small detail. Games aren’t 7 minutes, or 33 minutes, they’re 40 minutes. And we made no progress against the early deficit as it turned out. Even when we saw what they were doing, we made no progress. An early, big lead in a CBB game can be a curse. Many, many times it is lost. We never even got it to single digits. We never even had much of a hot streak the entire game.
My overall belief is that Nova is just a better team. An excellent team that we could probably beat 1 out of 3 times. Just my belief. They destroyed this tournament, winning all games by double digits. So coaching is really not my concern on this day, unlike our final games of 2013, 2014, and 2016. Of course, in 2013, we were up 14 with under 7 minutes to go.
But you also put in bold something that is just not true. Please quote from the story where Self was “frustrated the players were not following the game plan.” I’ll help you. There is no such quote, nor anything close to it. And there is not one reference to “gameplan.” Not once in your cited story. Not once does it mention reverting to old ways. Not once does it mention Self saying we had poor execution. Your typical m.o. is to respond to folks and ask if they read your post, which is nothing of substance anyway. You might read your own link.
Your next move is usually to lash out, tell me I think I know more than coach Self, and if I knew so much, I’d be a major college coach. So, if you’d like, feel free.
-
I don’t have access to the Star, so I don’t know what Newewll said. But I don’t really care either. If it says that the gameplan wasn’t to double the post, than it is a lie by someone.
We CLEARLY made doubling the post a part of our gameplan. Especially Brunson. I’m sure that changed in the huddle after they knocked down the first 7 or 8 threes. Then the guys might have messed it up from there. But for anyone to claim that wasn’t the gameplan at the beginning is kind of ludicrous. There were several games we never once doubled the post. And the games we did, it was clear because we did it the second their big touched the ball. We didn’t even double Delgado as he was actively destroying us. The double team was the gameplan. And a poor one.
Sure we played even with them after the first 7 minutes. Give Bill another shot at them today, and I think we could make it a game. But Jay’s gameplan was better. He spaced the floor even more than normal, basically never posting up and forcing our bigs to run all over the floor. We in turn, played into that gameplan by doubling the post and forcing our Big to run from the opposite short corner all the way across the court to wing to try and contest a shot. That forced horrible rotations and easy looks.
-
9-25 would’ve given KU a chance. 13-21 didn’t.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
I don’t have access to the Star, so I don’t know what Newewll said. But I don’t really care either. If it says that the gameplan wasn’t to double the post, than it is a lie by someone.
We CLEARLY made doubling the post a part of our gameplan. Especially Brunson. I’m sure that changed in the huddle after they knocked down the first 7 or 8 threes. Then the guys might have messed it up from there. But for anyone to claim that wasn’t the gameplan at the beginning is kind of ludicrous. There were several games we never once doubled the post. And the games we did, it was clear because we did it the second their big touched the ball. We didn’t even double Delgado as he was actively destroying us. The double team was the gameplan. And a poor one.
Sure we played even with them after the first 7 minutes. Give Bill another shot at them today, and I think we could make it a game. But Jay’s gameplan was better. He spaced the floor even more than normal, basically never posting up and forcing our bigs to run all over the floor. We in turn, played into that gameplan by doubling the post and forcing our Big to run from the opposite short corner all the way across the court to wing to try and contest a shot. That forced horrible rotations and easy looks.
You’re a hard man to argue with.
-
Accusing someone of being unable to accept something regardless of the evidence presented while using an analogy that denies human impact on climate change is…an interesting (?) argumentative choice.
But the game plan was to double at the beginning. I believe Self said something about adjusting mid game but the adjustment never really happened or worse only half happened with our players ending up somewhere between a double team and their man making it completely useless.
-
@HighEliteMajor The “155 seconds” article from Newell refers to repeated expressions of frustration by Self when players started doubling on a drive to the post, leaving their man open on the perimeter. And he specifically says “old habits die hard” while quoting both the players and Self about having to cover everyone, not just the guards, as shooters. I don’t know if you missed it, or if you are thinking Newell wrote that article for some reason other than to show how the players were not doing what Self wanted.
Whether Self’s desire to not help on drives was adapted to Nova’s early success, or planned for before the game, is irrelevant: the thrust of the article is manifestly that the players getting drawn back toward the lane were not following instructions. And that was @JayHawkFanToo’s point.
-
First, here is the link to the story in question.
And here is what it said…
==========
SAN ANTONIO Udoka Azubuike couldn’t help himself.
Villanova had already set a Final Four recor d for three-point makes with 15:17 still left in the game — but old habits die hard.
When Phil Booth drove to the lane — Kansas’ Malik Newman stuck to his hip — Azubuike stayed anchored on the charge semicircle, waiting for a potential block attempt.
It was simple from there. Booth fired out to Omari Spellman in the corner, who made the wide-open three.
That was Azubuike’s man.
A few seconds later, KU coach Bill Self screamed at his big man from the sideline.
“Doke!” he hollered, his palms toward the sky.
It didn’t make things better for Self in KU’s 95-79 loss to Villanova on Saturday night in the Final Four.
From that same spot, he had to watch as the next few possessions played out in similar ways.
Less than a minute later, Booth drove the middle. KU’s Lagerald Vick was next to him, but teammate Marcus Garrett took a half-shuffle toward the rim to help.
That was enough. Quick pass to the wing. Donte DiVincenzo open for three.
“What are you doing?” Self yelled to Garrett as he crossed half-court.
A media timeout wasn’t beneficial either. Next possession, when DiVincenzo started to put up a three with KU’s Svi Mykhailiuk right next to him, Silvio De Sousa raised a hand more than 5 feet away, as if he were trying to feign interest.
DiVincenzo didn’t shoot, though. He pulled it down and passed to Spellman, who had a full second to set up for another three when De Sousa turned his head to grab the rebound.
Self’s refrain was familiar but intended for De Sousa: “What are you doing?”
“We’ve been playing teams that usually the guards can shoot, but not the big men. That was just a lot different,” De Sousa said later in the locker room. “It’s hard to guard a team where everybody can shoot.”
Self would see that again on the next possession. DiVincenzo faked a drive in transition with Mykhailiuk in good defensive position, but De Sousa went back to instincts, falling behind his teammate to protect the rim.
Quick pass to Spellman. Late closeout by De Sousa. And after a pump-fake, Spellman had an open lane before De Sousa fouled him.
Self looked to the bench, pulling his thumb toward his body.
Azubuike knew what that meant. He checked in for De Sousa.
“If you help, somebody’s going to be open,” De Sousa said. “Today, as much as we tried, we just couldn’t match up with them.”
Azubuike coming in didn’t provide the defensive answer either.
On the ensuing possession, Spellman received a pass before facing up Azubuike on the baseline, putting in an 18-footer over the top of him.
It became too painful for Self the next time down.
Villanova’s Collin Gillespie drove baseline on Vick. And starting nearing the elbow, Azubuike took two steps back, his feet once again resting on the charge semicircle.
Everyone knew what was next. Quick pass to wing. Spellman open for three.
Self couldn’t take it. He turned his back on the play, flailing his hand in the air in frustration.
There was 12:42 left on the clock. The shot missed, but that wasn’t the point.
Self knew, just like everyone watching.
This was how Villanova had beaten KU.
=============
"Doke!" he hollered, his palms toward the sky.
"What are you doing?" Self yelled to Garrett as he crossed half-court.
Self’s refrain was familiar but intended for De Sousa: "What are you doing?"
Self would see that again on the next possession. DiVincenzo faked a drive in transition with Mykhailiuk in good defensive position, but De Sousa went back to instincts, falling behind his teammate to protect the rim. Quick pass to Spellman. Late closeout by De Sousa. And after a pump-fake, Spellman had an open lane before De Sousa fouled him. Self looked to the bench, pulling his thumb toward his body.
Now, does it sound like the players were following the game plan or going back to what they had done before?
"If you help, somebody’s going to be open," De Sousa said. "Today, as much as we tried, we just couldn’t match up with them."
Does it sound like they were told to double team and leave their man unguarded which is what they did?
Does it not sound to you like Coach Self was frustrated?
If you read my other posts, I never said that KU was a better team; in fact, I wrote that from half way into the season, it was obvious that Villanova was the best team and should have been the overall #1 because I thought Virginia was overrated and very vulnerable and unlike @jaybate-1-0 l believe the Big East is not only a major conference but a very good one to boot.
I also wrote that Villanova was a bad matchup for KU since it did not have the personnel to matchup up with Villanova’s outside shooting or inside speed.
If the game plan was so flawed why is it that the lead keep not increasing? Villanova was shooting out of its mind at the start of the game and KU players were not doing what they were told, as it is very obvious in the Newell article copied verbatim above. In fact, after KU settled down Villanova’s shooting went down missing the last 5 3s of the first half and shooting below its season average in the second half. After the first 7 minutes of the game and even while Villanova was still shooting well, KU outscored Villanova for the last 33 minutes of the game; so much for a bad game plan…and yes, I do know the games is 40 minutes long but KU just dug itself too deep of a hole at the start of the game and could not catch up and Villanova deservedly won the entire game, but you do know that is not the point I was making.
Sometimes it is not the instructor or the range or the gun but the shooter’s fault that the target is not hit.
-
@JayHawkFanToo So, you made incorrect statements about the article. Post it now in total. All to show that you made incorrect statements about the article. See, you saw what you wanted to. There was not even any reporting in the article that Self said he was “frustrated”; there was no reporting in the article that Self said we didn’t follow the “gameplan”; there was no reporting in the article that Self commented that we reverted to our "old ways."
Oh, so now you say it’s “very obvious” they were not doing as they were told. What it sounds to me like is Bill Self complaining. And whether he’s frustrated or not doesn’t mean anything related to a gameplan. I would suspect he was frustrated. Everyone was. Guys are many times out of position in every game. And Bill Self complains every game as does most every other coach. I sat near the bench earlier this season when we won easily and you’d think our guys were incompetent oafs based on his commentary. But coaches do that.
If you would watch what @Kcmatt7 was referring to, our doubles in the post, leaving players open. Do you deny that? Will you answer that question? Do you deny that we were doubling the post? That is a very tangible and undeniable element of a gameplan that helps create open looks on the three point line.
My belief is that perhaps Self thought, reasonably, that Nova might have difficult time initially shooting in a dome, that if he forced them to shoot threes, that the result would likely be in our favor. That if we defended the paint hard, they’d fall into the trap of being a shooting team. That seems very reasonable to me. It seems a very low probability that Novo would light it up like they did. It was a calculated risk, it appears, that failed.
In fact, I’m not really that critical. If we actually score the ball a bit and Nova shoots only 40% on their first 18 attempts, that’s a 12 point swing.
To use the analogy in your last sentence, sometimes it is the instructor’s fault – he can substantially contribute to failure. Perhaps the instructor places a gun that is inaccurate, or that kicks too hard, or that is too heavy, in the hands of the student. Does that instructor place the student in the best position to succeed? Is it the student’s fault he missed the target? If the golf pro fits your clubs incorrectly, does he contribute to your failure? If he fits them correctly, does he contribute to your success?
This is the old refrain. With you, it is never the coach’s fault in any degree. You always blame the players. With most folks, the coach’s role is considered a contributor. I know, it’s never coach Self’s fault. He doesn’t contribute to our losses.
@mayjay Thanks for you attempted defense.
