Analyzing 'Style of Play'

[audacious1]

DCWildcat, did you put together some numbers comparing UK and some other programs over the past several years?

Score is just one of the data points, but I don't think there's any data easily available about average time in the shot clock for the first shot of a possession. Only looking at number of shots per game, would then have to consider missed shot percentage, rebounding and follow-up shots. I'm not sure of the best way to analyze this.

[Will Lavender]

Ken Pomeroy's measure of "tempo" is a variable that is commonly used.

I think "style of play" has been bastardized. It's an argument made by Pitino guys.

I've always contended that you can win with Tubby's style. You play in the 70s, you play hardnosed defense, you rebound -- you've got a Final Four team.

Some argue that with our style of play we'll never see a Final Four again (impossible to prove), or that recruits don't want to come here because of our style (untrue), or that we play slowdown basketball (again untrue).

These folks don't know much about the game of basketball.

Tubby plays an average pace. When he's got enough offensive weapons, and when the team buys into the "team mentality" (i.e. 1998, 2003, the regular season of 2004, some of 2005), then his teams can compete with anyone.

"Style" is a pedestal that is used by people who are only casual watchers of the game. If this were a court of law, any argument about "style" would be thrown out because of its inherent subjectivity.

[Buddah]

haven't we discussed this topic ad nauseum guys. Regardless of what you believe, per several respected national publications and reporters this summer, the perception at least of our "grind it out offense" has hurt us in the minds of many recruits, straight from the recruits mouths themselves. seems to go hand in hand with the notion i set forth that with the new NBA rules, that kids will want a style that would allow them to showcase thier talents to scouts.

now of course we can cherry pic stats and the other variables such as reaching a final four, may have nothing to do with this. regardless, it doesn't really do much in advancing the program foward and hopefully get us recruits. sadly, the notions of kentucky's offense are now teflon. recruits don't take the time to go to ken pomeroy's site and adjust our tempo, the only people that seem to do that are basketball nerds such as myself, and others who feel compelled for whatever reason to defend or deflect certain things from coach smith. if a person pefers a certain style of play, i don't think that reflects on their knowledge or lack there of on the game itself. no more than someone who would say that billy donovan and tubby smith play the almost exact same game. of course those people probably know little about the game, given that thier styles are different. who knows ?

[Will Lavender]

I actually think Billy Donovan's team last year played a lot like the 2003 version of the Kentucky Wildcats. They played good defense, especially on the perimeter (C. Brewer = K. Bogans), they had two very good post players (Noah and Horford = Estill and Hayes), and they had a very good point guard and designated three point shooter (Green and Humphrey = Hawkins and Fitch).

"Style" has become another word for "fast." You can play a nice, winning style and not play that fast. I think some of the more interesting styles in the college game are played by Pitt, UCLA, Memphis, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, and UCONN. None of those teams play particularly fast. But they all have a very interesting -- and very effective -- style of play. Style, in the cases of those teams, is not so much synonymous with tempo as it is efficiency. The key to offensive basketball is efficiency.

Buddah is right that the perception is that UK plays a slow-down "style." But I think something that pushes this perception forward is the fact that Tubby is good for four or five games in the low-60s/high-50s throughout a season. But so is any team that prides itself on defense first. Michigan State has always been sketchy offensively, and those Michigan State teams of the early 2000s is about the closest we have in the last six or seven years to a dynasty.

[Will Lavender]

Here's the thing about style, IMO.

It is about efficiency, but it's also about the three point shot. If you shoot the three well, all your other offensive ills go away. You can have a short team. You can have a fundamentally unsound team. You can have a team that doesn't pass the ball particularly well. But if they can shoot from outside, they're going to play a nice, efficient "style."

This is where Tubby's teams have stuttered, and it's why UK has the appearance of a slow-down team. Tubby's recruiting style is not necessarily geared to solid three point shooters. He prefers big, thick, strong kids on the perimeter and raw, athletic kids in the post. When we've had a plethora of good shooters, our "style" and our system work well. We get the ppg up into the high 70s, and when you're there you can win a lot of games.

OTOH, when we've been inconsistent behind the arc (2000, 2006), we've been jittery on offense and the ppg have crept down into the low 70s. Tough to win there unless you do a lot of the peripheral things -- rebounding; making free throws; etc. -- exceptionally well.

[Buddah]

Will Lavender wrote:
I actually think Billy Donovan's team last year played a lot like the 2003 version of the Kentucky Wildcats. They played good defense, especially on the perimeter (C. Brewer = K. Bogans), they had two very good post players (Noah and Horford = Estill and Hayes), and they had a very good point guard and designated three point shooter (Green and Humphrey = Hawkins and Fitch).

"Style" has become another word for "fast." You can play a nice, winning style and not play that fast. I think some of the more interesting styles in the college game are played by Pitt, UCLA, Memphis, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, and UCONN. None of those teams play particularly fast. But they all have a very interesting -- and very effective -- style of play. Style, in the cases of those teams, is not so much synonymous with tempo as it is efficiency. The key to offensive basketball is efficiency.

Buddah is right that the perception is that UK plays a slow-down "style." But I think something that pushes this perception forward is the fact that Tubby is good for four or five games in the low-60s/high-50s throughout a season. But so is any team that prides itself on defense first. Michigan State has always been sketchy offensively, and those Michigan State teams of the early 2000s is about the closest we have in the last six or seven years to a dynasty.


that is true will on many points. but michigan state from when i watched them, didn't play a ball line defense, in fact excluding this year, i can't remember a team that plays ball line d other than us.. can you ? the difference in the 03 cats and last year gators, was the big men may have been much more mobile for florida than was estill for UK

generally with the odd season as an exception. tubby's style of play is predicated patience and looking for the high percentage shot, thus there is alot of one on one and motion, roating the ball around the perimeter looking for an entry pass. inside/out can be sometimes slow and plodding and use up the full 35 second shot clockthat is why i think we struggled so much last year, and possibly this upcoming year. you have an offense predicated on a strong and mobile front line and it is simply not there. espeically since you offense goes through your center or four, espically ones that are good passers so your guards and small fowards can get the pass from coming out of the post. that is why i just don't ever see tubby's offense being like billy's or even rick's. thier fours along with their one, twos and threes can all shoot from the arc. tubby pefers bruisers and bangers for the four and the five. of course there are exceptions estill and of course prince ( who was a four in size only ) could shoot from the arc, but by and large, tubby pefers bruisers for the four and the five in a pretty conventional offense set up.

contrasted with billy in the present, not his early teams. Billy's offense reminds me of a defacto version of Memphis's offense. they both attack from the wing and attack from the wing again. they shot much quicker in the possesion than does tubby's offense. Their dribble penteration or passing into the wing in order to draw a double team. billy's teams seem to have more freedom in which to shot, which sometimes plauges us, because some players look timid. spacing is a huge factor in flordia's offense from what i have seen, HUGE, much like memphis. instead of big men, there seems to be more empahises put on guards and small fowards who are good shooters. in fact i read on another board about teams that copied pitino's style from the early 90s and had major success, all equated to shooting 40 percent as a team from the arc. so florida shot 39 percent as a team this past year. also seems to be more balanced between inside and out, than tubby which seems to always go through that frontline first and foremost.. i would write more, i am just getting started, but it is almost 1 in the morning..

i will say this, i agree alot of ills would go away by hitting three point shots, but again tubby doesn't seem to place alot of empahize on the three point shooter. it is hard to re call, when we had multiple threats from the arc. usually for rick or billy's team for example, there are four threats who could knock it down from long range... it seems if you can shot down one or two shooters, than that pretty much kills our outside shooting.

[Will Lavender]

Michigan State doesn't play a ball line defense, but they don't press much, either. The rap on the ball line defense is that it is passive. It sits back. It's not agressive. But last year, Michigan State had 214 steals to UK's 206. And last year was Tubby's worst defensive team.

[Buddah]

Will Lavender wrote:
Michigan State doesn't play a ball line defense, but they don't press much, either. The rap on the ball line defense is that it is passive. It sits back. It's not agressive. But last year, Michigan State had 214 steals to UK's 206. And last year was Tubby's worst defensive team.


yea, as i outlined in my above post, michigan state doesn't play ball line defense, nor do any other major college programs that i have seen. Uk didn't play much of it last season. i don't know about passive, but i know if a team has a couple good shooters, than the play line defense has its faults, and when it is exposed, it is exposed big time. i don't re call that i said michigan state pressed any.. from the few games i saw, they played alot of tough man to man defense.

alas i will admit i long for the days of the true 1,2,1,1 and it is just sad that our bitter boder rival, has to be the one to run it, when in the early 90s ark and uk and many other ran it, full throttle.. i never really subscribed to the notion that well other people have good ball handlers... there have always been good ball handlers and atheltes.. i think coaches don't stress shooting as much as they did back in the day.

[I. Melvin]

Isn't it really about an attacking mindset?

That permeates your overall play - offensively and defensively?

What we're doing now requires too many moons to be in alignment ...

[audacious1]

Will Lavender wrote: Ken Pomeroy's measure of "tempo" is a variable that is commonly used.

I think "style of play" has been bastardized. It's an argument made by Pitino guys.

I've always contended that you can win with Tubby's style. You play in the 70s, you play hardnosed defense, you rebound -- you've got a Final Four team.

Some argue that with our style of play we'll never see a Final Four again (impossible to prove), or that recruits don't want to come here because of our style (untrue), or that we play slowdown basketball (again untrue).

These folks don't know much about the game of basketball.

Tubby plays an average pace. When he's got enough offensive weapons, and when the team buys into the "team mentality" (i.e. 1998, 2003, the regular season of 2004, some of 2005), then his teams can compete with anyone.

"Style" is a pedestal that is used by people who are only casual watchers of the game. If this were a court of law, any argument about "style" would be thrown out because of its inherent subjectivity.

Will, we're generally on the same side of an argument. I'm looking for an Objective criterion to compare UK to other schools then modify my opinions on this particular topic. The reason that I'm thinking about it is because Recruits are saying, with seemingly more regularity that Style of Play is a factor and that they (every one who's made this distinction) are looking for an "up tempo" style that "best fits them." I've seen 3 quotes this summer from kids that Kentucky is looking at.

First, I don't think Kentucky's Style of Play is that much slower than most any other program. If I had to guess, I'd say we're above average, maybe around the 60th percentile.

Second, I do believe that Perception is ruling the roost and Kentucky doesn't do nearly the job of Marketing themselves. (Too much time practicing ball line defense? Wait... that's just a joke. ;^)

Third, I don't believe we can dismiss the topic and hope it goes away. Better still, to gather data, evaluate, strategize andthen be proactive in our marketing and performance. Until we do, everyone elsecan define us as they like.

[audacious1]

Thanks for the name, I had heard of Pomeroy before but hadn't seen his site. Here's what I gathered from this year's notables:






Maryland

75.2

8


Tennessee

72.9

22


North Carolina

72.8

24


Duke

71.8

41


Clemson

71.2

50


LSU

69.8

86


Florida

68.9

115


Indiana

68.4

138


Pittsburgh

66.6

211


Louisville

66.3

222


Kentucky

62.2

225


West Virginia

64.1

293

http://www.kenpom.com/stats.php?y=2006&s=2

I just grabbed some numbers from the schools we're in Recruiting battles with. These numbers do seem to tell a story, at least on this topic. But I don't necessarily see the correlation between Style of Play and Winning Percentage, which is really what everyone is after, right?

[Will Lavender]

Tre wrote:

Third, I don't believe we can dismiss the topic and hope it goes away. Better still, to gather data, evaluate, strategize andthen be proactive in our marketing and performance. Until we do, everyone elsecan define us as they like.

I certainly agree with this.

My post didn't mean to suggest that this is a bad topic. I've posted in the thread about five times now, so you can see that I think it's an interesting discussion.

It's just that some folks, some Kentucky fans, use style of play in an incorrect way. They say "style" when they're talking about something else entirely.

[Buddah]

I. Melvin wrote:
Isn't it really about an attacking mindset?

That permeates your overall play - offensively and defensively?

What we're doing now requires too many moons to be in alignment ...


:thumbup as i outlined you have to have many many things to work, especially a strong front line. if the moons as you say in alignment, then yep your pretty much screwed, with this particular offense. other offenses, one screw can be out of place, and you still have a fighting chance. simply because you have other shooters or whatever that can take up the slack. ultimately, i disagree that just becasue someone pefers a certain style of play, that somehow is correlated with their knowledge or lack of knowledge about the game itself. that is kind of silly in my opinion. while one style of play may not be over the other, by recruits own admissions from this past summer camps, they pefer. which again dove tails in light of the new NBA rules, and what i think you will see happen in college basektball.

we can debate adjust tempo back and forth, meanwhile the national media has only added to the perception that we are slow and plodding, which by and large are what sticks in recruits minds. i still can't recall any major program using the classic ball line defense as getting into a national championship game or for that matter winning a title. i'll guess we have to see. i love talking about this topic, just thing the reason for discussing it alot of the time is guilt or trying to prove or deflect things. no matter it is a valid topic, and one i am happy to particpate in. i particular hope this topic doesn't go away.. i am just saying some things, especially when the national media adds to notions which become teflon.. gather as much data as you like, send it to tubby and tell him to present it to the recruits in their home. kind of suprised if he hasn't already.

[RCS]

The thing I have found strange is how many big men have mentioned pace as a consideration when it does not in fact benifit them to have a fast pace. I don't know if it is the NBA, AAU or what, but these kids seem to think fast pace is the end all be all.

[AugustaDan]

RCS wrote: The thing I have found strange is how many big men have mentioned pace as a consideration when it does not in fact benifit them to have a fast pace. I don't know if it is the NBA, AAU or what, but these kids seem to think fast pace is the end all be all. And really, why would anyone associate uptempo with the NBA? Granted, they are required to change ends of the court approximately every 24 seconds, but it's definitely not uptempo.

[Chunks06]

RCS wrote: The thing I have found strange is how many big men have mentioned pace as a consideration when it does not in fact benifit them to have a fast pace. I don't know if it is the NBA, AAU or what, but these kids seem to think fast pace is the end all be all.
I think its pace mixed in with freedom to improvise. Tubby's system is pretty strict. Its been hard to tell if this is by choice or not because we have not had an offensive power forward here in a while.

[Will Lavender]

I. Melvin wrote: Isn't it really about an attacking mindset?

That permeates your overall play - offensively and defensively?

What we're doing now requires too many moons to be in alignment ...


But there's a lot to be said for grinding. It's just not as pleasing to watch. The root of a lot of "Tubby bashing" is in the aesthetics. The problem with "attacking" is that with the plethora of athletes and musclemen who now play college basketball, attacking is not nearly as effective as it used to be. Pitino used to bowl people over with the three and the press because nobody did it. By the mid-90s, everybody was shooting the three. It had gone from gimmick to strategy. And that's why I don't think he's as effective at UofL as he was earlier in his career: people assimilated his gameplan into their own.

Speaking of grinding. I can think offour or five grind-it-out teams who play a Tubbyesque style who have seen the Final Fourin the last three or four years. Texas. LSU. UCLA. UCONN.

These teams have had a crapload of talent at certain positions, though. And it's become clear to me -- and I've sort of changed my tune on this in the last threeyears -- that we just haven't had the talentthat other programs have had. We've lacked that breakthrough player who can carry a team.Tay was too tacit. Bogans was close, but he got hurt. Azubuike may have been that guy but he left. Rajonhad too many holes in his game. It's a recruiting thing, I think. A scouting thing. Tubby's inability to go out there and find the guy, that Jeff Shepherd, who will LEAD US.

So. Our Final Four drought is not a style issue; it's a personnel issue.

(I always throw out 2005, 1999,and 2003 when I'm talking talent, though. Those teams were talented enough to get to the FF, they just lost early.)