Putting a square peg in a round hole
-
Whose comparing us to Kentucky? I know it wasn’t me. I guess you missed the memo where kids are going after one year. How there being drafted on potential and not so much what they do on the court. It’s not just a Kentucky thing.
You know it’s kind of ironic you and a few others are always talking about how weak the Big 12 is and conference championships don’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Yet your more than willing to preach about staying the course. What gives? Or do you just like to argue? I figured somebody like you who is a bit of a fan of the NBA would understand the point I’m making. Guess not.
I have to be honest you put me on the defense here, as you chastise me for assuming some of my points. However aren’t you doing the same thing? I assume the high/low is hard to learn because I’ve yet to really see a freshman or even transfer come in and just pick up the HCBS High/Low system. Just something I’ve seen. Yet again I assume players will leave if giving the chance, as I have watched players that really wanted to stay in college pick up and leave like they had no choice. I don’t need some stat sheet to tell me this. It’s called watching and observing.
You assume the core of this team will back in a couple years. Ok but will it really matter? Are you assuming that Cliff will be back? are you assuming that Bragg will just pick up the HCBS High/low with ease? Is Ellis finally going to figure out how to score over three guys in the paint? Are you saying you see a team that can cut down the nets in March? You know my friend your making assumptions too.
Now if I thought it was easy to come up with a game plan I wouldn’t be sitting on a couch watching games just like you. However you can’t tell me that this KU can’t shoot the three ball and there is no reason why we shouldn’t take a few more shoots for three land. That’s just common sense. Also I never called for the end of the High/Low or HCBS’s head. Maybe you should read what I guy says before you pounce. Just saying.
-
“Dribble/Drive is an offense for OAD’s that do not need any coach. It is throwing the ball on the floor and saying, “You Are Supposedly the Most Elite - Play Ball.” I prefer not to go the way of a Kentucky that has taken the Joy and Heart out of basketball.”
Man… I about pee’d myself after reading this… BRAVO!
Dribble-drive can best be described as “cop out” offense. When you have a bunch of guys that just won’t play team offense, throw in the dribble drive and stand back. Get a guy or two out there who can drive and hope they can salvage some offense. It is often used in the NBA because there are guys who are capable of taking over offense by themselves. And if they keep shuffling lineups, it can be hard to establish team offense. It’s one of those things where they just look at the game from the point of view of opportunism… not art or theory. If you have a guy like a DWade (when he was in his prime)… you look at the stats and you see that your best option for much of the game may be to let him take over. No teaching theory here… just playing to statistics… something college basketball NEVER does.
The offense I like is similar to what the Mayor runs… a hybrid, turbocharged Princeton. Motion offense… with lots of driving and passing. Mixed. Floor spacing. Picks and backdoor cuts. Attacking match up advantages. Clearing out for isolations.
-
@DoubleDD OK, let me address some of your points/questions:
-
You say “whose comparing us to Kentucky?” I am characterizing your panic about needing to change the offense because we won’t have players in the system long enough to learn it as assuming we’re like Kentucky with such drastic turnover. No, you never say “we’re just like Kentucky with all these players leaving”, and yes good players are being drafted on potential all over, not just at UK. But UK is the only school I know of that has such a problem with it that they lose such a large core of their players every year they’d need to simplify their offense. We don’t need to do that, because we typically have a foundation of players with one or two potential OAD pieces that we don’t need “offense for dummies”.
-
“I never called for the end of the high/low offense”. No, you just say there’s no time to learn it, and that if he doesn’t change the game will pass coach Self by. I guess I just assumed that meant you were calling for a new offensive scheme that is easier to learn for all these OADs. Perhaps you should clarify for me what you are meaning. If you are not calling for the end of the high/low offense, what are you suggesting? That we keep doing it despite your assertion it takes too long to learn?
-
“Will it really matter?”, regarding whether this team’s core will be back. Of course it matters. This goes back to what I was saying about not overhauling the offense every year. Again, maybe an overhaul wasn’t what you were suggesting when you stated that the hi-lo is too hard to learn and the game is passing Self by. But if you were suggesting at least a moderate change in our offensive approach, then I would argue against that and I would argue that yes having the core of this team back for the next year or two is very important. You can re-read a lot of my previous post for the main points, but something I’d like to point out is that you are only mentioning post players - Cliff, Bragg, Ellis. In addition to what I’ve already stated about the virtue of staying the course with a consistent offensive approach, I would add that the offense is not simply ran by the post players. The perimeter players have roles as well, and that is more key to my point about not having players constantly re-learning a new offense. “Are you saying you see a team that can cut down the nets in March?” Absolutely. This year? Probably not, but that has more to do with UK being so loaded and us not having a rim protector. But as I alluded to in my reference to the '05-'06 team, it is set up with enough pieces that I can definitely see it in a year or two.
-
“Are you assuming Cliff will be back?” I’ve addressed that already (for the guy who accuses me of not reading what he wrote). I speculate that it’s 50-50.
-
“However you can’t tell me that this KU can’t shoot the three ball and there is no reason why we shouldn’t take a few more shoots for three land. That’s just common sense.” Absolutely. I have said as much in my posts (“clearly the strength of this team is in its outside shooting” and “I’m not saying there aren’t some tweaks that could be made to maximize our outside shooting” are direct quotes from my original post to you on this thread). So we’re in agreement there, right? Where we’re apart is in your characterization of the offense as too hard to learn. Again, you’ll have to clarify that statement, because one can logically infer that you do not think that is the offense we should be running, based on current personnel. And my original point to you is that you have to maintain a consistent base offense year-in, year-out and only make small modifications to fit your personnel, not wholesale changes.
(and to clarify, I’m not saying the offense isn’t “hard” to learn. I’m simply saying that other systems at elite D-1 programs are difficult to learn as well, and that we shouldn’t be going from one scheme to another every year because that would yield worse results and even more inconsistent performances).
-
-
@HighEliteMajor I agree. In fact, in my original post to DoubleDD I had said “'m not saying there aren’t some tweaks that could be made to maximize our outside shooting. We’re seeing Self do some things. Not as many as some would like, but give it time.”
So I’m in full agreement there are things we can be doing. My point was that if one argues (as DoubleDD has) that the hi-lo offense is too complex that there isn’t time to learn it then you are in essence advocating a completely different offensive scheme. I disagree. Keep the hi-lo (despite it’s apparent complexity) but have some of the things you suggest and others incorporated to maximize outside shooting, when your personnel dictates it’s prudent.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 This from the “just sayin” category – blind resumes:
Coach A: Elite 8 in 2010, Final Four in 2011, National Title in 2012, NIT 2013, and Title game 2014.
Coach B: 2nd round in 2010, Elite 8 in 2011, Title game in 2012, Sweet 16 in 2013, and 2nd round in 2014.
Choose the more masterful one.
-
@HighEliteMajor Hmm…who could those coaches be? Good thing it’s a “blind” resume
-
“Blind resumes” is pretty generous! As if we don’t know who those two are. The biggest thing that stands out to me in both resumes is NIT 2013. I know injuries and youth had a lot to do with that, but does Self underachieve in the tournament or maybe, just maybe, does he overachieve in Regular season. To me, 3 1/2 months of quality basketball is more masterful than 2-6 games in 3 weeks. I know we differ on this opinion greatly and this won’t change your mind.
Pro basketball has series for a reason. One basketball game can be very unrepresentative of who is the best team, but seven is harder to fake. I apply that same thought process to the tournament vs. conference season.
-
Several mentioned Lucas and I have to say he really stepped it up in the Baylor game. I was very happy that he had a breakout game like that. And he had some good minutes for us against WV as well. Hopefully he can continue to get those minutes and make the best of them.
-
I guess I’m the dumb one? I guess all the articles I read about how the game is changing with the influx of OAD’s is well just fabricated? Huh? All those interviews with HC’s even HCBS saying that they have to dummy down the game plan are bogus too? Huh? It must have been my imagination watching post players come to KU only to struggle in HCBS system. Wonder Why? Can’t be because the system is hard to learn or anything.
I focus on the post players because HCBS’s system focuses on post players. Or am I wrong on that one too? geez
So you think or make an assumption that KU isn’t good enough to win the title this year because UK is just so good? Yet you have no problem grandstanding and predict a title run in a couple of years. When you really don’t know what KU’s lineup will look like. Also I’m pretty sure UK isn’t just going to fall off a cliff in a couple years. Here is where you and I are different as fans. You’re thinking about two years from now. OK fine, but I think this KU team can win it this year if HCBS would starting tapping into the real strength of this team.
Also I have no panic dude. I’m sorry that my point of view goes against everything you stand for, but it’s not like I’m in panic or scared mode. I’m just doing what any good fan would do and talk about the team I root for.
I fully understand where you’re coming from. You’re a system guy. Keep doing the same thing even if you don’t have the right pieces to run it, and never ever change it to get better performance. You’re an extreme person, I get it.
Hell yea I think HCBS should change the high/low at least for this year. He is wasting the best offense KU has. But hey lets keep throwing it down low, because it worked so well in previous years. News flash it’s not working this year. That’s not an assumption or an opinion. You’re stat guy look it up.
Oh and by the way I read all you’re posts. I always do.
-
Ok, semi-blind resume.
@icthawkfan316 I guess I am a little biased in favor of the high/low scheme … after the discussion this season, I bet no one saw that comin’. But I love the scheme. It’s portable, and pliable.
However, my personal opinion is that Self’s implementation is inflexible, unnecessarily devalues the three point shot, failing to fully embrace the #powerofthree, so to speak. I guess a better way of saying it is that it is just too hyper-focused on the post feed. The three (which is really the perimeter shooting) can be embraced within the system, and that’s been my sole issue this entire season.
Seriously, if the Fool’s Gold mentality could just change a bit, just embrace the perimeter game when appropriate with his personnel, and then happily (not grudgingly) exploit it, we’d write about something else.
I respect his opinion on what wins. He needs the right personnel. He needs that big dude that can score inside. The match up advantage.
It’s like throwing a dude on the mound that throws 88, who relies on his change, and asking him to be a strike out pitcher because “that’s what we do.” Ellis is the guy that throws 88. Let him pitch to contact and he’ll get ground ball after ground ball.
@DoubleDD said, “Hell yea I think HCBS should change the high/low at least for this year. He is wasting the best offense KU has.”
The operable phrase is “for this year.” That is the discussion. Adjust to your personnel. Exploit your talent. Give yourself the better chance to win.
-
Thought maybe you guys would like this.
-
@DoubleDD - pretty funny. Read this in your link, “Systems have their advantages. The continuity from year to year means only a few new players have to learn it each year and, due to experience, the returning players are better at it. The coach, in running it year after year, gets better at making in game adjustments. The negative is that the system doesn’t always fit the personnel. Players that are mismatched for the system won’t play to their potential and will find it very difficult to fit in. Systems are great but unless you have an established feeder system or you can recruit players that allow you to choose the ones that are best suited for your system, the system becomes very difficult to continue.”
And there you have it.
-
Spot on.
-
@HighEliteMajor From the excerpt you quoted, I would agree with the negatives. But really, how bad have the negatives been, when compared with the positives? We win the Big 12 every year. No I don’t think it’s the resume sparkler some hang their hat on, but it’s also not anything to sneeze at. We’re regularly a top 1 or 2 seed in the NCAA tournament. We’ve had some successes in the dance, some disappointments.
I guess where I come out on this is that I try to take a realistic approach to things. We’re not going to win a NCAA championship every year. We have three in our history. Three. Even when we’ve had the best team we haven’t always won it. With Self, with Roy. Whoever. Winning it all is hard. And because it is hard, a big picture approach must be taken. Some years are not going to be our year, or at the very least we must acknowledge the chances are against it.
With this in mind I’ll ask this: what’s the better play? To continue to develop the players who are going to be in the system more than one year. To, as the article states, maintain consistency with the system to maximize the talents of the returning players. To develop the multi-year players and potentially pick up a OAD (or hopefully a TAD) that might be skilled enough to put you over the top. OR…to cater to the whims of the one or two OADs on your roster?
Obviously I believe in the former. Not rigidly without any adjustments, but a consistent approach year-in, year-out. Another poster is a fan of saying how frequent roster turnover dictates you should potentially change things on a yearly basis. To me, that’s the exact reason why you don’t change. You don’t know what you’re going to have year to year, so why un-track the positive of developing the players you do have (which is the majority of the roster, btw) by going back-and-forth?
-
@DoubleDD Your tone is completely non-constructive to having a debate. It started with the very glib “just saying” (I know you’re “just saying” it…I just got through reading it in your post!) And I didn’t know anybody had to be “the dumb one”; why can’t two fans have differing view points? Obviously you think one of us is…
I originally posted a very respectful response to your post, outlining why I disagreed and a bit of my philosophy. I’ve re-read it multiple times to ensure there were no personal attacks or condescending remarks. It seemed fine. To that I was told I was living in a dream.
The following posts have been dripping with snide remarks about “missing the memo”, how I “preach”, how I just like to argue, that you “guess not” that I don’t understand your point. And on and on and on.
I don’t care if we agree. There are a few on this site who I always read because I find their posts interesting and engaging, but I don’t always agree with their points of view. I believe I have demonstrated the ability to have a healthy debate with multiple posters while maintaining a level of civility. Maybe you and I are just not able to do so.
So I guess if you’re interested in having a respectful conversation between fans then feel free to respond again. Otherwise it’s not hard to ignore each other.
-
“Another poster is a fan of saying how frequent roster turnover dictates you should potentially change things on a yearly basis. To me, that’s the exact reason why you don’t change.”
I assume you’re speaking of me? ')
Let me try a different approach with you. Instead of the you said, I said game we’ve been playing. I want to ask you a few questions, of course followed with a few points I have.
I believe its safe to say you’re a firm believer in playing one system as it helps with the evolution of the team concept and the program as a whole?
So lets say you have exactly what you want. A team of 3 to 4 year players, playing the HCBS High/Low system. Lets pick a year and a team. How about 2011/12? You had everything you wanted. That was a great team, loved them guys. They played with heart and I was completely broken up when they lost. However the reality of that typical high/low HCBS team got beat by a for more talented team whose coach that tailored his game plan to fit his team.
Now weren’t you one those that said winning conferences championships wasn’t really that important? I believe you said it really means nothing as the Big 12 far is inferior to other conferences? That tournament success and winning championships is the true measuring stick? Please if I’m wrong please by all means let me know.
Now you can say hey we could’ve had better talent at this position or that position, but that is the flaw in you theory. If the talent was any better they wouldn’t be there for 3 to 4 years. Welcome to the one and done world. Last year KU lost their two best players who spent there whole freshman year learning the High/low system, and there gone. Again this year will most likely lose Oubre and yes even big Cliff. Again spending a whole year of teaching the high/low to kids that will be gone. Never really tapping into their true talent. That my friend is sad.
You see it’s not about snide remarks, it’s more about you’re a hard one to pin down. As you say one thing and believe another. And you’re about depicting what one says and play avoidance when some returns the favor. I’ve been nice sir just as nice as you.
-
What maybe we should focus on, and this general concept was just mentioned during the Louisville-Syracuse game (regarding Boeheim’s and Pitino’s sustained excellence): is recruiting to one’s system. I think Self does do that so he can continue to staff his hi-lo philosophy…but has been hurt my these early semi-surprise departures. I can think of Markieff and Embiid as guys we “almost” had penciled in for their next seasons. Again, I cannot imagine us with Embiid still with us, but that is a pointless discussion, other than saying what sort of in+out balance it would have given Self, which is where his system thrives the most (keep opponent guessing). This year, the opponent can easily gameplan the trey-bomb, so the development of “opportunistic” inside looks must continue. That IowaSt PF gets a fair amount of his paint pts with opportunistic looks. I don’t think Self is blind or inflexible enough to see that he can use his season avg3% as a feint to draw the defense, to open the inside. Opposing coaches see that 3% now, so Im sure its part of their anti-KU prep.
Also, this is a bit strange to cuss/discuss the entire system after a loss that the kids broke down defensively and BLEW a 10pt lead? Why do we go “macro” when the problem in that WVa loss was the 2 open-look 3s late, along with a late turnover by KU and a couple of late FT misses? Sure the refs may have blown a call. But KU boyz-in-uniform blew the lead. You let a poor 3shooting team get 2 late desperately-needed open 3 looks in their own gym, during a comeback? We gave them momentum and energy. We gave them… Emphasis on “we gave”. (Meanwhile, some of KU nation is discussing the hi-lo with intense vigor…).
My only point about the hi-lo is maybe Self needs to adjust his recruiting philosophy to guys that can execute it. The TrueGold, though is a kid like Okafor or Embiid, who maybe can competently execute as a frosh. But who can predict the whimsical picks that top recruits make when they pick from their final school picks. Self wont win all those battles. Nor will Coach K. Nor will Calipari. They gotta work with what they get. Its still college ball, still have to teach kids your system, just like Boeheim wont stop teaching his zone, and Hoiberg will keep recruiting to his system, etc…
Team got deficiencies? Every team does, to a degree. Remember what we thought about the '12RunnerUp team’s final four chances during the preseason, and with no bench…? Down the stretch that team executed, and in their final loss (NC), they simply did not. Too many missed shots.
-
@DoubleDD Well, I’ll respond to a few of your questions. To your first question, yes I think having one consistent system is beneficial. For consistency with returning players. The majority of our roster will most likely never be OADs. Even if players are TADs, I think teaching them the same system for two years is better than teaching them one their freshman year and another their sophomore year.
Not sure what the next question is. Pick a team of my choosing playing the hi-lo and…? What’s the question?
And I don’t understand this statement at all: “However the reality of that typical high/low HCBS team got beat by a for more talented team whose coach that tailored his game plan to fit his team.” So, you’re saying we got beat by a far more talented team? What’s your point? That the hi-lo can’t win it all? Well we won it in '08, and made it to the championship game in '12 with no bench and narrowly lost to a more talented team…
Again, maybe I’m not getting where you were going with that. Next question…
I have not said that winning the Big 12 “means nothing.” But you are right that I don’t believe it is as great as some other fans do, and I don’t believe the Big 12 is typically a strong basketball conference (this year it’s pretty decent, but historically not a lot of powerhouses). I do believe that most of what I would like the program to focus on is working to win the NCAA tournament. To view the season as a campaign to the tournament and to take measures to increase success in March, even if that means sacrificing regular season games.
Not sure that I have ever said “we could’ve had better talent at this position or that position” and what that has to do with whatever “theory” is your referencing. I will point out a flaw in your logic here: you say we spent a whole year teaching the high/low to kids that will be gone, never tapping into their true talent. However, two of the four kids you are using in your example were post players (two best players from last year Wiggins and Embiid, Embiid obviously being a post player, and Kelly and Cliff, with Cliff obviously being a post player). How is a system designed to focus on post players not tapping into their true talent?
Lastly, you’ve been nice? Again, it’s not hard to ignore each other. Hope you got the answers you were looking for.
-
Not really sure how you think I’ve been mean in my responses? I’m just dishing out like you are.
Kind of funny I haven’t said you’ve been unfair, yet with your every post you act like I have no ideal what I’m talking about and that I’m wasting your time. Yet you seem upset with everything I post. I don’t get it? I’ve neither called you names or attacked your character as a person. I’ve spent this entire post trying to build my case and you have spent you’re whole time trying to pass off my theory as lunacy.
Many times I’ve said or alluded to that we need to have an inside game to sustain any real great success. However after watching HCBS’s High/low system all these years I’ve drawn the conclusion that it doesn’t favor the outside game. As HCBS said himself 3’s should come in the flow of the game. So I’m not to far off in my thinking. Not to mention I’m not alone in my thinking.
So one last question as one KU fan to another. Am I so wrong to think that HCBS should change or at least tweak his High/low scheme? Especially in light of the team we have this year can really shoot the three? In a nut shell that’s all I’m saying.
P.S If you want to ignore me then that’s your choice. Me personally I rather enjoyed the lively debate.
-
I think you raise a great point. If you’re going to run a certain system than just recruit to your system. Even it means passing on some OAD’s. Problem is I think as a fan base and a blueblood school I’m not sure KU can pass on the OAD’s I believe we are all in on the craze.
-
@DoubleDD I think it works both ways, recruits wouldn’t come here if they didn’t think they could play in Selfs system.
-
Yea but I would raise the question. A lot of the OAD’s are going to blue blood schools. Is it just a fad among kids? You know it’s cool to go to that school or that school. I never been a OAD ok maybe have lol but I wonder how much they look at the style and system when choosing a school?
-
As a general point: the OADs may like the bigger schools, as it meets the “name school” perception requirement, if that matters (prestige cred), there usually is a well-known/respected coaching staff, and foremost: they’ll get a lot of national exposure with nationwide TV games. (lol, its how you “take” your highschool mixtape production video, to the ESPN Top10 highlight reel…).
If pure playing time was the only consideration, then OADs could go to a mid-major, be the instant Man, and put up a nightly double-double. But they’d be toiling in a low-mkt TV audience. For a kid like Mudiay, he ultimately chose foreign $ over low-market SMU (even over HOFer Larry Brown). Kids like Wiggins were simply polite and gracious enough to play-the-game, say all the right things, etc…
So how far can we get with OAD’s? Well, its a crapshoot. Sure KY won a NC (but that team had some returning talent), but then they NIT’d. Then they went to the NC game again. Now, Calipari has half a roster of NCgame/Final4 vets (returning talent)…so lets see how far they get. 26-0 is real nice, but their toughest 3 games of the season will be the Elite8 + Final4. Somebody will be equipped & battle-tested to give them a real game, and maybe a gauntlet of 3 such games in a row, making those final 3 games for KY a true “OAD” (one loss and u done) tourney.
Meanwhile, BSPN is milking the UNC-Duke game for all its worth…
-
Yea schools like KU and UK play almost every game on national televised games. I sure hope you’re right about UK losing for more than one reason.
1 I hate UK
2 I’m not a big fan of the OAD. I’m afraid if UK wins another championship then college basketball will forever be changed.
Maybe it’s to late? NBA sure seems slow footed to do anything about it.
-
@ralster are they missing dickie v?
-
Also, I keep saying that I find Calipari quite entertaining. He has proved his teams can play at a high level. His comments about his various players are spot-on, and also entertaining.
Now, as any non-KY fan, I will chuckle if/when they get beat, and would like to see them toppled in the Madness. I’d like for them to be undefeated until that loss. But until then, Im watching their run simply as most of college bball fans are.
And, lets be honest, Bill Self is in hot competition with Calipari for these top guys. Sometimes I wonder if Self’s competitive ego is taking him down this OAD-rat-race path that may not suit his system as well as it suits Calipari’s style? Just a question. Every competitive man has to decide which battles get the amped-up inner fire, & which do not. Its somewhat a quandary. Our system is definitely different than KY’s, although when the half court sets break down, sometimes it all falls back to "give the ball to Jordan/Langford/Sherron/Tyshawn/Mason, and ‘just drive it!’ ". Some of that is just basic basketball, take it to the hole. We can see when its being done well (Mason most of the season) vs when its not being done well (Mason vs 5 KY 7’-wingspan guys).
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Hmm, actually didn’t realize DukieV wasn’t a part of any of ESPN’s attention to the game…I wonder why he isn’t there? Maybe he is conflicted between his love for UNC and Duke. The on-air orgasms would be hard to handle, or maybe, more importantly: a lot of surveys of the all-important ACC TV market-audience revealed people have had their fill of DickieV? I don’t question his enthusiasm, but his schtick and clichés are just a bit worn by this point, imho…
-
@ralster he’s been crying about it all week!
-
He did the UK game last night…maybe he got snowed in?
-
No, it was planned, he went public about being upset.
-
-
@icthawkfan316 I tend to agree with the consistent approach – but like you said, “not rigidly without any adjustments.”
Do you think Self is overly rigid?
-
@HighEliteMajor I think he is a bit. I don’t think it’s as bad as some people think it is, but he’s definitely resistant to change, although not all together unwilling. I understand; he’s been wildly successful (by a lot of measures) doing things the same way - his way - for all these years.
It kind of makes me wonder if he would be more flexible had we not won 10 league titles in a row. If somewhere another team had kicked dirt in his face and made him say to himself “ya know what? Eff this! Let’s try something new.” Sometimes the best lessons are ones of humility where we are forced to self-evaluate and say to ourselves we were wrong. But we have heard his philosophy on the tournament - that if we’re the best team in our league we’re going to be in a position to play for the highest stakes. And since we’re always the best team in our league…
