Pat Baldwin Jr
- Thread starter The Purple Knight
- Start date
You resulted in an insult despite your inability to complete a discussion. That’s grounds for ignore in my book. When they go low, we stay high.
Awesome. I'm still waiting for you to actually answer the original question, but if you need that security blanket to comfort you, I think that's a good move on your part.
You didn’t read closely.
Whether you or I like it or not, the (and my) answer is what the recruits (and others) have said it is - fast-paced with guards who can handle multiple positions. I just wanted to hear how things have changed in your mind (not an unreasonable request by me and I even said “please”).
Whether you or I like it or not, the (and my) answer is what the recruits (and others) have said it is - fast-paced with guards who can handle multiple positions. I just wanted to hear how things have changed in your mind (not an unreasonable request by me and I even said “please”).
Willy has previously undervalued Lumpkin's contribution and value to the Tourney team, with his incredulity when I had prior made the claim that without Lumpkin, there would be no Tourney bid.
And pretty sure he was part of the cabal that predicted that Lumpkin would lose his starting spot, along with seeing dwindling minutes, with each successive recruiting class.
Besides being the floor general on D, people forget how important Lumpkin was during the 8 game stretch that Pardon was out, often manning against the opposing center.
With Pardon, Lumpkin and Skelly - the Cats had the beef in the front court not to be pushed around.
The past several years, we haven't seen the ability to bang with/be physical in league play.
Last edited:
With all due respect, I never understand why sports debates on these boards start wandering into the realm of personal insults. It just seems so unnecessary. Gordie has consistently been a supporter of Collins. There's nothing wrong with that. Collins seems like a good guy overall. Now, I probably tend to come down on your side more in the should he stay or should he go debate. However, those of us who support moving on are mostly banking on the somewhat irrational thinking that if the status quo isn't good, then any change must be good.He's staying high.
None the less, let's stick to making basketball points and not personal ones, you big jerk! 😜
As I sit here drinking from my purple NU coffee mug, this is what would make me most pleased about participating on an NU message board. Thanks, TheC.
You're awesome and I appreciate your perspective. It sure seems that Gordie was giving (some pretty gentle stuff) as good as he was getting (some likewise pretty gentle stuff), but that's okay. Gordie should probably avoid me and I'm totally cool with him having me on ignore.
I'm just looking for someone to answer the question "What's the program's template for success?" And, respectfully, "playing fast" isn't an answer any more than saying "typing fast" is a template for consistently designing good phone apps and computer programs.
Playing fast is such an overused meaningless expression in today's basketball. Everyone wants to play fast. Of course. Why not? If you can get a good shot quickly, why roll the dice and hope you can get a good shot later? When, there's a chance you will settle for a contested one?
Problem is, you only play as fast as the other team lets you. Man, did we play fast again AK-Pin Bluff and Chicago State. Amazingly you can beat teams down the court if you are faster and stronger than them. Problem is when you get kicked in the teeth because the other team's transition defense nullifies your dreams of speed. So you either end up playing good old 5 on 5, or you jack up bad shots. We saw a lot of the latter last year.
You can only say you want to play fast if you are going to be a Mike D'Antoni type of team. Fast and furious. Fast, regardless of opponent, period of play, etc.
Otherwise, all you are doing is catching up to what good coaches understood a long, long time ago. Push the transition tempo. It might give you 2-6 extra points a game, even if you are not that good a team. It might, additionally, give you open 3's, which, at a 33% clip is just as good as shooting 50% from two. Otherwise, and if the opportunity is not there, run the offense and explore your relative advantages.
It reminds me of finding out that a 3 after an offensive rebound is a good shot. It's open, it has a high chance of another offensive rebound. It was not always understood, but this is not 1980 (for the offensive rebound 3) or 2010 (for the "play fast").
Oh, and there's VA, pretty successful playing at a snail's pace. Knowing that playing fast requires a deeper rotation, relying less on your "best 5" players. And, while not giving up open fast breaks, just choosing to preserve energy.
Problem is, you only play as fast as the other team lets you. Man, did we play fast again AK-Pin Bluff and Chicago State. Amazingly you can beat teams down the court if you are faster and stronger than them. Problem is when you get kicked in the teeth because the other team's transition defense nullifies your dreams of speed. So you either end up playing good old 5 on 5, or you jack up bad shots. We saw a lot of the latter last year.
You can only say you want to play fast if you are going to be a Mike D'Antoni type of team. Fast and furious. Fast, regardless of opponent, period of play, etc.
Otherwise, all you are doing is catching up to what good coaches understood a long, long time ago. Push the transition tempo. It might give you 2-6 extra points a game, even if you are not that good a team. It might, additionally, give you open 3's, which, at a 33% clip is just as good as shooting 50% from two. Otherwise, and if the opportunity is not there, run the offense and explore your relative advantages.
It reminds me of finding out that a 3 after an offensive rebound is a good shot. It's open, it has a high chance of another offensive rebound. It was not always understood, but this is not 1980 (for the offensive rebound 3) or 2010 (for the "play fast").
Oh, and there's VA, pretty successful playing at a snail's pace. Knowing that playing fast requires a deeper rotation, relying less on your "best 5" players. And, while not giving up open fast breaks, just choosing to preserve energy.
To me, it seemed like CCC thought the template would be to recruit a bunch of long guys who could shoot from anywhere on the floor. I don't know if that was the plan going in or the response to the kind of recruit he was getting to sign on the dotted line. It's a chicken or egg thing.... did Collins go out looking for all these 6-8+ guys who had some form of an outside shot or are those the top-rated recruits that agreed to come?
Either way, the template didn't work very well I think because we lacked a ball handler and all those big shooters tended to stand around a lot on offense. On defense, their length was disruptive, but they lacked the foot speed to guard on the perimeter and the strength to guard on the interior. So... back to the drawing board, perhaps.
We just need good players, period. Good guards, good wings, good big men. The problem is that the players aren’t good, not what their body type is. If Robbie Beran’s ability was closer to Klay Thompson, we don’t have as much of an issue. Same playing style, completely different result.
Any coach worth their salt can make any team composition work if the players on it have sufficient basketball ability. But no coach can manufacture talent out of thin air.
Hey Gato:
Another insightful, realistic post. I was wondering about the stats on offensive rebounds. It makes sense from the physics that a 3 pointer "should" generate more rebounds for the offense, but not especially for the big guys, simply because the ball is going to a wider range of places on the court (the worse your guys shoot it, the better your chances of getting the rebound based on quickness)
Do you have a source or some more specific percentages on this? Rebounds on 2's versus 3's, I mean.
One additional factor that shouldn't be ignored in the "how to play" discussion is that guys tend to draw fouls on the opposition when closer to the basket. Drawing a foul, of course, is a good result, as it affects the amount of time an opponent can play against you. Have you ever seen any studies on the relative value of drawing a foul?
I'd say our talent last year was just below the Big Ten average. You point out Beran specifically, but he didn't deserve more than half of the minutes he got. There were more talented guys sitting while he played.
We generally played the wrong style and specifically got destroyed when Beran and Nance were out there together. It is really that simple. I'm not saying we were as good as Michigan or Illinois, possibly Iowa, but we had the talent to compete against the rest.
Thanks! But no, don't know where to get data on offensive rebounds off 3/long shots or the value of a foul.
But those are good questions. And there's probably super analytics out there with numbers on them.
I've tried to keep up with a minimum of information regarding analytics. But have not gone balls deep into it. My day to day life is analytics though.
I remember getting kind of a wake up call to analytics when listening to Lawrence Frank, at the time coaching the Nets, a few years back. And, at the same time, getting a bit turned off by the idea that the future would overly rely on them. Because, as valuable as they are, they can't replace all/near all aspects of coaching.
Well sure if you assume the coaches have nothing to do with the results, then the talent determines the scores, within some margin of error.
Thats a terrible assumption.
Well that assumption is what reality seems to support. Otherwise, all-time great coaches would never have a down year to the extent that Duke did this year. And yet. Same goes for Izzo/MSU, etc etc.
Coaches matter for recruiting, player development, program consistency, etc. Once the players are on the court, the coach's impact is relatively minor.
Not to be pedantic, but anybody can shoot from anywhere on the floor. Can you make those shots at a high enough rate and defend effectively enough with those same shooters to win? My template could be putting out all guys who are 7'10" and taller and saying that my plan is to block every shot the opposing team took while we dunked every shot. But it's not a template for success if I can't bring in guys who can make that plan a reality.
Peaty:
We just have very different opinions on the effect of a coach during the game.
To me basketball is all about matching up your guys versus the opponent.
Lets say Tom Izzo is handed the Michigan roster and goes up against Chris Collins with the identical Michigan roster.
Somebody wins that game.
Then lets say Izzo and Collins are handed identical Iowa rosters and they play a game against each other with those players.
And so on... for a total of 10 games.
I think Izzo wins 9 out of 10.
Sounds a bit confusing. Do they wear different uniforms?
I mean, ok. I think 9/10 is seriously exaggerating it as data tells us that the average margin of victory for relatively equally talented teams is pretty slim. In the NBA, for example, I believe over the course of all the games played in a season, the average margin of victory is <5 points out of a total of ~210+ points scored.
Let's play your thought exercise with Carmody - what do you think Carmody could do with the same roster against Izzo? Probably 5-5 or close to it I would guess. And yet Izzo was taking MSU to Final Fours when Carmody was going to the NIT with NU. Why do you think that is?
I don’t like when things get personal, but I do enjoy the opinions. Since things have become more constructive, I will try to add
more context to my prior comments.
Unlike his predecessor, Collins is simply appealing to recruits by running a pro-style offense. That means fast (when you can) and position-flexible (when you constantly switch on D, or get/take open shots or open lanes to drive on O). I’m not a coaching guru, so I also believe the announcers when they say Collins runs great offensive sets. He also mixes up D - sometimes it doesn’t work well, but he’s willing to try. While we can debate his lineup usage, I cannot accept that he is a coaching slouch.
I presume it’s the only way he can see success in his future; get kids who want to be pros. Add the school, facilities, his family pedigree, personal charisma, etc., and I think you have something that has and can still work. It won’t always (no one’s template does), because they are just not inherently unique. (This is kids’ basketball, not rocket science). And ours is just likely to work even less frequently because of academics. But I think he’s trying to do the right things to get the best players and has shown he can get results from those with sufficient talent.
more context to my prior comments.
Unlike his predecessor, Collins is simply appealing to recruits by running a pro-style offense. That means fast (when you can) and position-flexible (when you constantly switch on D, or get/take open shots or open lanes to drive on O). I’m not a coaching guru, so I also believe the announcers when they say Collins runs great offensive sets. He also mixes up D - sometimes it doesn’t work well, but he’s willing to try. While we can debate his lineup usage, I cannot accept that he is a coaching slouch.
I presume it’s the only way he can see success in his future; get kids who want to be pros. Add the school, facilities, his family pedigree, personal charisma, etc., and I think you have something that has and can still work. It won’t always (no one’s template does), because they are just not inherently unique. (This is kids’ basketball, not rocket science). And ours is just likely to work even less frequently because of academics. But I think he’s trying to do the right things to get the best players and has shown he can get results from those with sufficient talent.
What makes you think Carmody was a great in game coach outside the Princeton offense/1-3-1? Did he ever run anything else in his career?
Because it’s basketball, not theoretical physics. Carmody, for all his faults, was a good in game tactician.
I also don’t think Collins is terrible in that regard. I just think Collins is terrible at talent identification, doesn’t know how to build a team, is mediocre at best at player development, and runs a below average program.
I think Izzo beats Carmody 6-4 or maybe 7-3... probably 6-4.
I think Carmody was (significantly) more capable "in-game" than Collins. Collins is a better recruiter.
Back in those days Carmody had the worst facilities in the league by a lot. Academic standards also held him back. Izzo had better facilities, lower academic standards and was also a better coach...
Carmody was TERRIBLE at defensive adjustments. TERRIBLE. There was a game against Lickliter's 10-win Iowa team where it was clear that Iowa had prepared very well for the 1-3-1 zone and they blew NU out of the water with open shot after open shot. Carmody had no answer, no adjustments on defense; NU ran the 1-3-1 and they would die by it, damn it. A competent man-to-man defense would have stopped them. But Carmody's teams lacked the toughness to play man because he was too enamored with schemes.
Carmody's defensive schemes resulted in mismatches, sometimes in NU's favor and sometimes against, and his teams' inconsistency on that side of the court and his stubbornness was what held him back from punching a ticket to the Dance.
It wasn't that he was enamored with schemes, it was that he didn't think he had the athletic talent to play man. He said as much on more than one occasion in interviews/pressers. I remember one in particular where he said something like "every coach would play man if they could."
Won't argue with you about defensive adjustments, though. That was not his strong suit, to put it kindly.
A 6-4 discrepancy shouldn’t be the at the root of the difference between a consistent Final 4 team and a team that is lucky to make the NIT. As you admit...
These things matter because they affect the quality of talent you can recruit. Which matters way more than a coach’s in game abilities.
I am not saying you are wrong. There's no way of knowing. But, as I never saw him making adjustments, at any place he was at, I have my doubts.
He knew the Princeton offense well, he knew the 1-3-1 well. And he taught it well. That's all I have proof of. Running anything else, adjusting to specifics of other teams? I just don't know and have my doubts. It's not like when he was at Princeton or Holly Cross he necessarily needed the offense/defense combo. The disparity of size and speed was not the same as it was at NU. So I remain skeptical.
Beyond the recruiting part, obviously the most important part of fielding a good team, I don't even think in game coaching is as important as player development, game prep or strategy of how to play according to roster. I think Carmody was a mediocre recruiter (for as much as we had Shurna, Coble, etc, we never, ever got any decent depth in the roster), great with player development, had a good strategy for the caliber of players he had. But I just don't know about game prep or the genius x's and o's level that is often bestowed upon him. Just never saw it beyond the obvious well oiled PO and 1-3-1.
Again, not saying you are wrong. Just saying he knew what he showed us well. And never showed us anything else.
Related to PBJ, here's the portal for UWM as of now:
(-) - Min/Pts/Rbs/Ass
Senior Guard - Te'Jon Lucas (Brigham Young) - 32/14.9/4.6/5.8
Sophomore Guard - Courtney Brown Jr. (St. Thomas) - 21.8/5.4/3.9/0.4
Sophomore Forward - C.J. Wilbourn (Wright State) - 20.9/5.6/3.1/0.5
Freshman Forward - Grant Coleman (Bryant) - 18.2/5.1/2.8/0.5
Freshman Guard - Kaleim Taylor (?) - 7.5/0.8/0.9/0.3
(+)
Junior Center - Samba Kane (San Francisco) - 9.6/2.7/2.3/0.1
Junior Center - Moses Bol (UCF) - No stats, red shirted 2 years, previous at CC - 18.3/5.2/5.7/2.2 blocks
Sophomore Forward - Vincent Miszkiewicz (Purdue Northwest) - 29.5/12.3/11.5/2.3
Seems to me, from their current roster, they lost more than they gained as their best player, Te'Jon Lucas, went to BYU. And Lathon becoming elegible is not exactly something to get excited about
Sophomore Guard/UTEP - 25.5/5.0/4.6/3.1
Gonna make a bold prediction and say UWM does not win Horizon League conference or tournament
(-) - Min/Pts/Rbs/Ass
Senior Guard - Te'Jon Lucas (Brigham Young) - 32/14.9/4.6/5.8
Sophomore Guard - Courtney Brown Jr. (St. Thomas) - 21.8/5.4/3.9/0.4
Sophomore Forward - C.J. Wilbourn (Wright State) - 20.9/5.6/3.1/0.5
Freshman Forward - Grant Coleman (Bryant) - 18.2/5.1/2.8/0.5
Freshman Guard - Kaleim Taylor (?) - 7.5/0.8/0.9/0.3
(+)
Junior Center - Samba Kane (San Francisco) - 9.6/2.7/2.3/0.1
Junior Center - Moses Bol (UCF) - No stats, red shirted 2 years, previous at CC - 18.3/5.2/5.7/2.2 blocks
Sophomore Forward - Vincent Miszkiewicz (Purdue Northwest) - 29.5/12.3/11.5/2.3
Seems to me, from their current roster, they lost more than they gained as their best player, Te'Jon Lucas, went to BYU. And Lathon becoming elegible is not exactly something to get excited about
Sophomore Guard/UTEP - 25.5/5.0/4.6/3.1
Gonna make a bold prediction and say UWM does not win Horizon League conference or tournament
I agree with you about the relative importance of recruiting. The players themselves are clearly the dominant determinant of success. After that it is player development. Then strategy and in-game coaching, which is adjusting the strategy based on what you see happening.
The reason I look back at Carmody with some respect is that I often watched games and asked myself "how did we just beat that team?" Sometimes it was "Shurna is unbelievable" but often I just attributed it to Carmody's offense or defense. Then when we'd get slaughtered, I'd attribute that to our lack of rebounding or talent.
People obviously have different opinions on how well an individual player developed, but guys like Olah and Mirkovic definitely improved in their time at NU, especially Olah. Carmody gets some credit for that, presumably.
Lumpkin was a significant contributor on the tourney team. He improved a lot, particularly in his final year, and became an efficient (but limited) offensive player. He brought toughness to the team, was a good rebounder and could guard multiple positions. Before his final year, he was more of a luxury that only a team with multiple offensive weapons could afford to play much. It's hard to play a guy 30 minutes who is contributing 3 or 4 points a game, especially since he didn't generate a lot of steals or blocks and wasn't a dominant rebounder. The tourney team needed all the pieces to succeed. Even I. Brown made significant contributions in a few games.
And because he never had any depth when he was coaching at NU, there were never any debates about who should be playing like today. He had 5-7 guys each year at best who were B1G quality players and he had to play them as much as he could. A certain poster keeps talking about lineups and how Collins is the dumbest coach in America because of who he plays. And Carmody was such a great tactician. Like you said, he rarely made any in-game adjustments. He recruited some really good players - just not enough of them. Substitute Shurna, VV or Coble for Kopp or Beran last year and we would have had a very good year. The Shurna, Thompson, Crawford, Marcotullio team was very talented offensively. When they lost in the NIT in overtime, Thompson and Shurna played the entire game (you read correctly) and Marcotullio and Crawford played 42 and 43 minutes. Curletti played 12 minutes, Cobb played 4 and Capocci played 1 minute. If in-game coaching is primarily about exploiting matchups, Carmody didn't do much in-game coaching most seasons.
Sure I think what you're saying is reasonable. And ultimately as fans it's really hard to know for sure. But we do know that other top coaches routinely praised Carmody for his basketball acumen. Example: https://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-...13/03/big-ten-coaches-izzo-matta-carmody-127/
And even if they are exaggerating a little, I think it's fair to say they weren't completely making shit up wholesale. There has to be a baseline of professional respect there for Matta to call Carmody the best offensive mind of any coach he's come across.
On the Princeton Offense stuff, I think Carmody was the foremost expert on the PO in the world, after Pete Carrill. That's where his comparative advantage lay, compared to other coaches. It doesn't mean that he was incapable of teaching or implementing other systems. It's just what he felt he was able to coach that would squeeze the most wins out of his team. It's like saying that Boeheim only knows how to teach a 2-3 zone. We know that's not the case. These coaches (including guys like Carmody and Collins) are all at the top of their profession. They have a deep knowledge of the game. Even poorly regarded tacticians like Calipari have forgotten more about basketball schemes than the average fan will ever know.
Well regarding Collins and his lineups...
I took a little time to see if the coach "learned" from the first half matchups when he deployed his players in the second half. I used the last 15 games against Big Ten teams.
Real simple analysis - find out which group of 5 players was our most successful in the first half in each game and see how much and how well they played in the second half of that same game.
My assumption has always been that Collins substitutes so frequently because he is searching for that group of 5 guys that best can succeed against our opponent.
What I learned really surprised me...
In most games, coach Collins did not even use the most successful first half lineup in the second half.
In other words, the group of 5 guys who performed the best in the first half usually did not play together in the second half.
I find that impossible to explain in a positive light.
Lathon is a good point guard, a great passer. I'm a UTEP fan and I watched him both seasons. There was a confluence of factors (some personal/family issues, some apparent bullying from Nigel Hawkins who thought that he should be running the offense that was locker room poison behind the scenes) that contributed to a shooting slump his second season, but Lathon is still effective at running the offense, he shows big-time hustle, and he plays good defense. I think he will thrive.
Similar threads
