Over the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of buzz in regards to playing for the National Team in basketball. Paul George's compound fracture and then Kevin Durant dropping his name out of the competition has made the upcoming World Cup of Basketball a huge question mark for the US team.
It's an honor to be able to wear anything with a USA across your chest. That should say it all but it certainly doesn't. Up until recently stars were unlikely to ever wear USA on the chest. They need a break, they have too much going on during the summer, they can't commit to that specific time frame, and/or they don't like the other guys that could potentially be their teammates.
In our country, the guys that play for the national team get paid big time money to compete for their respective NBA teams. It's can be tough to justify risking a ton of money to play for the good ol' USA. Even though their contracts are guaranteed, some players don't want to risk money in their next contract. It makes sense to an extent but the glory to wear the red, white, and blue should trump anything else.
When watching other countries play you will notice that ALL their top players play in all big competitions. Why? Their passion for their country trumps dollar signs. Even Manu Ginobili wanted to play for Argentina this summer even though he has a stress fracture in his leg. It could've been his last international competition and he wanted to make sure he gave it all for country, stress fracture or not. The Spurs quickly said no, because they were risking losing one of their best players for the upcoming season.
The US has done a very good job lately of structuring the National Team system at all levels. They are getting the best players in the country to wear the USA jersey from the time they are 15 years old. It'll be interesting to see how the best players react to the Paul George injury (or any injury for that matter) in the future.
I don't think it bodes well for the US now that Kevin Durant dropped out on top of Lebron, Carmelo, and Kevin Love not wearing the jersey this summer. The World Cup of Basketball (formerly the World Championships) are a HUGE deal for the rest of the world. It's the only competition that has all the teams in the world playing in it instead of the Olympics, which limits teams based of geography. Passion and intensity will be at an all time high. Will the US be able to match other teams? It'll be interesting to find out.
Last thing I'll talk about is the amount of games that NBA players could play during their season compared to other countries. If you are on a good team in the NBA, you will play roughly 100 games during the season. The good teams in Europe will play at the roughly 85 games (from the info I gathered, couldn't find any teams exact record). The toll that amount of games takes on players' bodies is HUGE. Their bodies need a break and the summer time is the ideal time to take that break, so it isn't always feasible to play in another 12-15 games.
In closing, I don't think I could pass up an opportunity to play for the US but I don't make $12 million a year. Hopefully the US can continually pull in the best players in the NBA for the national team, if not, then we can talk about the Dream Team for the rest of our lives.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Actions Not Words
Over the past two years I've gone through a lot in regards to my professional career. I was thinking about it this morning on my walk with my dog and how much the craziness of two winters ago completely changed my life. I won't go into details but it seemed like national news and I was completely engulfed in it. It was all a bad movie with me being a co-star.
I'm just going to go over all the things that I've learned over the course of the last two years.
Too many times in our lives we "talk the talk" but we rarely "walk the walk." What I mean by this is, most people preach about doing the right thing but rarely will they do the it especially in a group setting. Rarely will others come before the individual when times get rough or a tough decision needs to made. It's simply self-preservation.
Most people will never admit that they are looking out for themselves but that has become the norm. You would hope that the "leader" in whatever organization you belong to looks out for everyone rather than themselves. If you find that out that "your leader" operates like this, it might be a good idea to try and find a good organization.
As a leader, it is your job to make tough decisions. It's really hard to make the right decision when the decision process is rushed. Leaders shouldn't be making decisions that are rushed because they can't properly gather all the facts. I'm not saying that ever decision should take two weeks to resolve but all the facts need to be gathered to make an informative decision.
When dealing with bad decision making of high school or college students, the number one goal for administrators should be to educate. I'm certainly not saying that there shouldn't be consequences (suspensions) for their actions but administrators need to make sure that something is learned even if it's not the person that made the wrong decision. Below is a statement made by Oklahoma State after the Marcus Smart and Texas Tech fan altercation this past basketball season:
The above incident is a perfect example of how social media has created many firestorms over incidents like this. Social media can be a great thing but with how quickly word travels now, incidents like this or the one that I was a part of, there tends to be an overreaction from people that aren't truly "in the know." I'm not downplaying what happened or what happens in the future but opinions are thrown out there by the media and/or people that don't know or will never know the facts.
Last but certainly not least, this point hits home the most. If you know someone that has gone through a tough situation, contact them. It means a lot. Even if you don't know what to say, say something. The people in the situation will appreciate it greatly. Over time people that go through something life changing will learn who their friends truly are. I can honestly say that I learned a lot about a lot of different people. I also distanced myself from people after they distanced themselves from me.
I truly feel that I'm in a much better place now after what went down two winters ago. I have a beautiful wife, a couple of great jobs, and a wonderful dog that greets me every time I get home.
I'm just going to go over all the things that I've learned over the course of the last two years.
Too many times in our lives we "talk the talk" but we rarely "walk the walk." What I mean by this is, most people preach about doing the right thing but rarely will they do the it especially in a group setting. Rarely will others come before the individual when times get rough or a tough decision needs to made. It's simply self-preservation.
Most people will never admit that they are looking out for themselves but that has become the norm. You would hope that the "leader" in whatever organization you belong to looks out for everyone rather than themselves. If you find that out that "your leader" operates like this, it might be a good idea to try and find a good organization.
As a leader, it is your job to make tough decisions. It's really hard to make the right decision when the decision process is rushed. Leaders shouldn't be making decisions that are rushed because they can't properly gather all the facts. I'm not saying that ever decision should take two weeks to resolve but all the facts need to be gathered to make an informative decision.
When dealing with bad decision making of high school or college students, the number one goal for administrators should be to educate. I'm certainly not saying that there shouldn't be consequences (suspensions) for their actions but administrators need to make sure that something is learned even if it's not the person that made the wrong decision. Below is a statement made by Oklahoma State after the Marcus Smart and Texas Tech fan altercation this past basketball season:
Oklahoma State coach Travis Ford, whose voice cracked with emotion as he answered questions for some 20 minutes, called it a "serious mistake" but a learning experience for a 19-year-old.
"I know Marcus Smart. I know his family. I know what he stands for, and I know he made a mistake. But that doesn't keep me from loving Marcus Smart, supporting him, loving him. Part of our job is to help him learn from this so it doesn't happen again."
The above incident is a perfect example of how social media has created many firestorms over incidents like this. Social media can be a great thing but with how quickly word travels now, incidents like this or the one that I was a part of, there tends to be an overreaction from people that aren't truly "in the know." I'm not downplaying what happened or what happens in the future but opinions are thrown out there by the media and/or people that don't know or will never know the facts.
Last but certainly not least, this point hits home the most. If you know someone that has gone through a tough situation, contact them. It means a lot. Even if you don't know what to say, say something. The people in the situation will appreciate it greatly. Over time people that go through something life changing will learn who their friends truly are. I can honestly say that I learned a lot about a lot of different people. I also distanced myself from people after they distanced themselves from me.
I truly feel that I'm in a much better place now after what went down two winters ago. I have a beautiful wife, a couple of great jobs, and a wonderful dog that greets me every time I get home.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Strengths and Weaknesses
Too many times I see things on social media regarding players' strengths and weaknesses. Here is some food for thought on that.
Lately, I've seen a ton of coaches writing on twitter about "What did you do to get better?" "Work now, playing time later." Etc. Now, I totally agree that the summer is a time that you NEED to work to become a better player, but here is a little different thinking on the subject.
Have you worked on your weaknesses this summer? I would hope that every player has worked on their weaknesses but sometimes they need to continue to work on their strengths and that may be more important for them to get playing time for their upcoming season. Players who are great shooters should continue to work their tails off by shooting. They can't neglect working on their shooting or that could become like other parts of their game.
You look at a player like Nik Stauskas and see his development over the summer of his freshmen and sophomore seasons. If you noticed, he worked on all types of shots and worked on taking more contested shots because he knew that he would have the ball in his hands at the end of the shot clock. He also worked on his handle but he knew that if he wanted to play at the next level he had to work on his shooting even more. I feel from watching some of his high school games that he had a really good handle in high school as well but his role changed once he got to college and then it changed after his first year. Now, he's a lottery pick after being an afterthought by many after he signed with Michigan. His confidence increased, how do you work on that?
I'm going to drop some old school knowledge on people here. I remember when Chris Porter came to Auburn after a couple of years of JUCO. His hype was huge. He had a great junior year and was named SEC Player of the Year as well as All-American. At 6'7", he was a power forward at Auburn. He wanted to play in the NBA and not many 6'7" power forwards get there. He needed to become a small forward and his game suffered his senior year because he tried to become a 3pt shooter. He was drafted late in the second round and has bounced around the world since. I'm not saying that he hasn't been successful but he tried to make himself into something that he is not.
And then there is...
Malik Rose
He was a also 6'7" power forward but he played at Drexel. He was also an All-American. He thought about entering the NBA Draft after his junior year but decided against it work on his game. The difference is, he continued to work on his strengths which was low post play, rebounding, and defense rather than try to become a jump shooter. He ended up becoming a serviceable 15'-17' jump shooter after working on it but he knew his bread and butter was in the paint. He had a successful NBA career as a bruising power forward for 13 seasons.
The lesson of the these two stories is...be you. Don't try to be something you aren't. Does this mean don't work on other aspects of your game? No. It means that you have to whatever you can to help your team. If that means you are the guy that does the dirty work then be the very best at that. If that means you are a spot-up shooter, then be the best spot-up shooter you can be. Love your role and force your coach to play you by dominating your role.
Lately, I've seen a ton of coaches writing on twitter about "What did you do to get better?" "Work now, playing time later." Etc. Now, I totally agree that the summer is a time that you NEED to work to become a better player, but here is a little different thinking on the subject.
Have you worked on your weaknesses this summer? I would hope that every player has worked on their weaknesses but sometimes they need to continue to work on their strengths and that may be more important for them to get playing time for their upcoming season. Players who are great shooters should continue to work their tails off by shooting. They can't neglect working on their shooting or that could become like other parts of their game.
You look at a player like Nik Stauskas and see his development over the summer of his freshmen and sophomore seasons. If you noticed, he worked on all types of shots and worked on taking more contested shots because he knew that he would have the ball in his hands at the end of the shot clock. He also worked on his handle but he knew that if he wanted to play at the next level he had to work on his shooting even more. I feel from watching some of his high school games that he had a really good handle in high school as well but his role changed once he got to college and then it changed after his first year. Now, he's a lottery pick after being an afterthought by many after he signed with Michigan. His confidence increased, how do you work on that?
I'm going to drop some old school knowledge on people here. I remember when Chris Porter came to Auburn after a couple of years of JUCO. His hype was huge. He had a great junior year and was named SEC Player of the Year as well as All-American. At 6'7", he was a power forward at Auburn. He wanted to play in the NBA and not many 6'7" power forwards get there. He needed to become a small forward and his game suffered his senior year because he tried to become a 3pt shooter. He was drafted late in the second round and has bounced around the world since. I'm not saying that he hasn't been successful but he tried to make himself into something that he is not.
And then there is...
Malik Rose
He was a also 6'7" power forward but he played at Drexel. He was also an All-American. He thought about entering the NBA Draft after his junior year but decided against it work on his game. The difference is, he continued to work on his strengths which was low post play, rebounding, and defense rather than try to become a jump shooter. He ended up becoming a serviceable 15'-17' jump shooter after working on it but he knew his bread and butter was in the paint. He had a successful NBA career as a bruising power forward for 13 seasons.
The lesson of the these two stories is...be you. Don't try to be something you aren't. Does this mean don't work on other aspects of your game? No. It means that you have to whatever you can to help your team. If that means you are the guy that does the dirty work then be the very best at that. If that means you are a spot-up shooter, then be the best spot-up shooter you can be. Love your role and force your coach to play you by dominating your role.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Las Vegas
Now that fall sports have started here in Minnesota, I'm going to go into why Las Vegas is a terrible place for AAU basketball and why teams shouldn't go there.
Vegas is an absolute disaster for college coaches
Depending on what colleges are looking for, it's the worst place to go watch games. Why?
1) There isn't a central location for games. Yes, all the tournaments have a headquarters but the chances of all a team's games to be at that spot are extremely slim. Coaches are driving for up to an hour to get to a game and games are NEVER on time and that puts even more stress on coaches trying to see prospects.
There was one time a few years ago that a whole tournament was on UNLV's campus in their Rec Center. It was perfect for coaches because all the coaches could sit tight for a majority of the day. That next year, the NCAA decided that it wasn't a good idea to have D1 colleges to host AAU tournaments. Even though, they generally have the best facilities to host large tournaments.
2) Would you want your 14-17 year old walking around the Vegas Strip after 10pm unsupervised? I'm not a parent but I have to think most parents would say no, especially if a scholarship is potentially on the line. I've even seen recruits out past midnight when they play at 8am the next morning. Not sure if I would want that kid on my team as a college coach.
3) There are a lot of gyms that will never see a college coach walk through the door. Why? These tournaments want an entry fee from the team and will take ANY team in order to fill their tournament. If a team goes there, with exception of the new Adidas Super 64, the chances of a team playing a team that is AWFUL is very high. I spent many hours in a gym by myself with no other college coaches in sight.
4) Tournaments are diluted. When a specific tournament crowns a total of 35 champions then there is an issue. I get that you want as many programs to be successful in order for them to come back next year but three divisions is enough for ANY tournament. Like I talked about in AAU Economics, if you crown 35 champions, someone is making a TON of money and it's not any of the kids or parents there.
5) It costs way too much money for any family to send their child there. You have to think about the flight out there, five days in a hotel, and potentially all the admission fees that the tournaments will charge throughout a weekend. Imagine if a family of four goes out there for "vacation" to watch their son play. $2000 in flights, $600 in hotels, $200 in rental car, $150 on gas, and probably close to $200 in admission fees. That's roughly $3000 (without food) for a trip. That's a little much if you ask me. Kansas City and/or Chicago would be MUCH cheaper.
6) It's way too hot there. The air conditioners are on way too high in the gyms. Nothing like a 40 degree temperature change when going in and out of the gym.
Vegas is an absolute disaster for college coaches
Depending on what colleges are looking for, it's the worst place to go watch games. Why?
1) There isn't a central location for games. Yes, all the tournaments have a headquarters but the chances of all a team's games to be at that spot are extremely slim. Coaches are driving for up to an hour to get to a game and games are NEVER on time and that puts even more stress on coaches trying to see prospects.
There was one time a few years ago that a whole tournament was on UNLV's campus in their Rec Center. It was perfect for coaches because all the coaches could sit tight for a majority of the day. That next year, the NCAA decided that it wasn't a good idea to have D1 colleges to host AAU tournaments. Even though, they generally have the best facilities to host large tournaments.
2) Would you want your 14-17 year old walking around the Vegas Strip after 10pm unsupervised? I'm not a parent but I have to think most parents would say no, especially if a scholarship is potentially on the line. I've even seen recruits out past midnight when they play at 8am the next morning. Not sure if I would want that kid on my team as a college coach.
3) There are a lot of gyms that will never see a college coach walk through the door. Why? These tournaments want an entry fee from the team and will take ANY team in order to fill their tournament. If a team goes there, with exception of the new Adidas Super 64, the chances of a team playing a team that is AWFUL is very high. I spent many hours in a gym by myself with no other college coaches in sight.
4) Tournaments are diluted. When a specific tournament crowns a total of 35 champions then there is an issue. I get that you want as many programs to be successful in order for them to come back next year but three divisions is enough for ANY tournament. Like I talked about in AAU Economics, if you crown 35 champions, someone is making a TON of money and it's not any of the kids or parents there.
5) It costs way too much money for any family to send their child there. You have to think about the flight out there, five days in a hotel, and potentially all the admission fees that the tournaments will charge throughout a weekend. Imagine if a family of four goes out there for "vacation" to watch their son play. $2000 in flights, $600 in hotels, $200 in rental car, $150 on gas, and probably close to $200 in admission fees. That's roughly $3000 (without food) for a trip. That's a little much if you ask me. Kansas City and/or Chicago would be MUCH cheaper.
6) It's way too hot there. The air conditioners are on way too high in the gyms. Nothing like a 40 degree temperature change when going in and out of the gym.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Evaluating Prospects
As the July recruiting period concludes, let's take a look at all the things that go with evaluating high school prospects. We've already taken a look at recruiting sites, this is not what will be talking about. What we will talk about is how different schools evaluate talent throughout the year.
Casting a Large Net
Most schools function this way, especially early in the recruiting process. You want to be able to find as many prospects as you can and hope that certain one stick. Depending on the level some of this evaluation begins during the AAU or high school season of their junior year. If the school sees a intriguing prospect at a game, they'll add that prospect to their database and start the process.
You'll see D3 coaches at some of the bigger tournaments throughout the country and they are evaluating as many prospects as they can. Seeing as many teams as they can that are from their recruiting area.
Let's say there is 100 prospects on the school's recruiting list. The hope that you can get 25 (that might be high) to visit. 15 will probably apply and you might get three of those kids when school starts. You may look at those numbers and think that I'm absolutely nuts. Ask most D3 coaches and their lists start with much more than 100, especially when they have to bring in high numbers every year.
There are also many high level schools that will offer a lot of prospects in order to get their name involved in the process. There are times that those offers really don't mean anything especially when the coaches don't talk to the prospects (offers are through AAU coach).
Babysitting
You'll see this after legitimate scholarship offers are out. Coaches from D2 and D1 levels will basically follow a prospect around the area or country in order to now that the prospect is a priority. Some of the high level coaches have their own private plane, owned by school or booster(s), that they travel around in order to see prospects. Here's a little article about Kentucky basketball and another one about Alabama football.
I've seen numerous articles and tweets regarding the NSIC schools traveling to Vegas (I'll have another article on this place soon) to see prospects. For the most part, they are going there to "babysit" guys they have offered or have extremely high interest in. Like I've said before, I've never coached at the D2 level, I am not exactly sure this is a great investment for these programs unless they are starting to recruit out of state prospects. One thing is does do is it tells the prospects how important they are if they are spending half or more of their recruiting budget by heading to "City of Sin."
Conclusion
Every college program has a different idea on how to recruit. There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. The same as different offensive and defensive systems. The hope is that each program finds the best way for them to compete in recruiting and on the floor for their school.
Casting a Large Net
Most schools function this way, especially early in the recruiting process. You want to be able to find as many prospects as you can and hope that certain one stick. Depending on the level some of this evaluation begins during the AAU or high school season of their junior year. If the school sees a intriguing prospect at a game, they'll add that prospect to their database and start the process.
You'll see D3 coaches at some of the bigger tournaments throughout the country and they are evaluating as many prospects as they can. Seeing as many teams as they can that are from their recruiting area.
Let's say there is 100 prospects on the school's recruiting list. The hope that you can get 25 (that might be high) to visit. 15 will probably apply and you might get three of those kids when school starts. You may look at those numbers and think that I'm absolutely nuts. Ask most D3 coaches and their lists start with much more than 100, especially when they have to bring in high numbers every year.
There are also many high level schools that will offer a lot of prospects in order to get their name involved in the process. There are times that those offers really don't mean anything especially when the coaches don't talk to the prospects (offers are through AAU coach).
Babysitting
You'll see this after legitimate scholarship offers are out. Coaches from D2 and D1 levels will basically follow a prospect around the area or country in order to now that the prospect is a priority. Some of the high level coaches have their own private plane, owned by school or booster(s), that they travel around in order to see prospects. Here's a little article about Kentucky basketball and another one about Alabama football.
I've seen numerous articles and tweets regarding the NSIC schools traveling to Vegas (I'll have another article on this place soon) to see prospects. For the most part, they are going there to "babysit" guys they have offered or have extremely high interest in. Like I've said before, I've never coached at the D2 level, I am not exactly sure this is a great investment for these programs unless they are starting to recruit out of state prospects. One thing is does do is it tells the prospects how important they are if they are spending half or more of their recruiting budget by heading to "City of Sin."
Conclusion
Every college program has a different idea on how to recruit. There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. The same as different offensive and defensive systems. The hope is that each program finds the best way for them to compete in recruiting and on the floor for their school.
Monday, July 28, 2014
The Shot Clock
Every year there is a debate in many states in regards to putting in a shot clock for high school basketball. This year, in the Hopkins vs. Shakopee Minnesota State Semifinal led more people to believe that a shot clock would be a good idea in Minnesota. I'm a firm believer that having a high school shot clock would be good for the game.
I grew up in New York and around the time I was 10 (might've been earlier), the state decided that a shot clock would be a good idea for high school basketball. The initial plan was to go with a :45 shot clock (the college game was also :45 at that time). After the college game moved it down to :35, then New York followed as well. So, I never played a high school game without a :35 shot clock.
Obviously, it was a little different playing with one compared to middle school ball but, you learn to adjust as a player and then a coach. If you didn't get anything in the first :20 then we would run a set around :15 in order to try and get a shot. As you moved to the varsity level, that timeline shifted a little more and we would try to get into our set around :12.
One thing I really liked with the shot clock is that the players and coaches are forced to make quick decisions on a consistent basis. Coaches have to become creative with their sets and the players are forced to make plays. I think this encourages better coaching because teams can't just rely on continuous offenses, like the flex, for extended periods of time.
I understand that the this will lead to some forced shots by some bad players but sometimes that happens in high school basketball. It will also widen the gap between the good and the bad teams because there will be more possessions (which hopefully forces all coaches to work with their youth programs more, which equals, better basketball).
Two bad teams square off and then shot clock forces bad players into a bunch of bad shots. That happens without a shot clock. I've seen a lot of really bad games at the high school level and it wouldn't matter if there was one or not. Maybe they would make more shots if they actually attempted more.
Another issue is the cost behind installing the shot clock and then having competent shot clock operators. For a lot of schools there are a lot budget issues and doing this would cause more of a hassle. I would say installment is a one time fee ranging from $1500-$5000 with then $25 per game to the shot clock operator. That's a lot of money for some schools but if you go into a lot of gyms throughout the state of Minnesota you will notice that the shot clocks are already installed on top of the baskets, they just aren't in use.
At one point the PSAL (NYC's public school league) decided that only certain levels would be using the shot clock. For example, in Minnesota only 3A and 4A schools would be required to use them during games. Maybe a conference would be forward thinking enough to force schools to use them for conference games.
The last thing I want to bring up about the shot clock is how it is used on the international level. The shot clock is used at ALL levels international. We are the only country in the world that doesn't use it consistently through all ages. Even at lower age groups they use a :24 shot clock. It would make sense to have universal rules but we want to make our own rules in the US that truly don't have a rhyme or reason behind it (:30 shot clock for women and :35 for men).
Make the game universal.
I grew up in New York and around the time I was 10 (might've been earlier), the state decided that a shot clock would be a good idea for high school basketball. The initial plan was to go with a :45 shot clock (the college game was also :45 at that time). After the college game moved it down to :35, then New York followed as well. So, I never played a high school game without a :35 shot clock.
Obviously, it was a little different playing with one compared to middle school ball but, you learn to adjust as a player and then a coach. If you didn't get anything in the first :20 then we would run a set around :15 in order to try and get a shot. As you moved to the varsity level, that timeline shifted a little more and we would try to get into our set around :12.
One thing I really liked with the shot clock is that the players and coaches are forced to make quick decisions on a consistent basis. Coaches have to become creative with their sets and the players are forced to make plays. I think this encourages better coaching because teams can't just rely on continuous offenses, like the flex, for extended periods of time.
I understand that the this will lead to some forced shots by some bad players but sometimes that happens in high school basketball. It will also widen the gap between the good and the bad teams because there will be more possessions (which hopefully forces all coaches to work with their youth programs more, which equals, better basketball).
Two bad teams square off and then shot clock forces bad players into a bunch of bad shots. That happens without a shot clock. I've seen a lot of really bad games at the high school level and it wouldn't matter if there was one or not. Maybe they would make more shots if they actually attempted more.
Another issue is the cost behind installing the shot clock and then having competent shot clock operators. For a lot of schools there are a lot budget issues and doing this would cause more of a hassle. I would say installment is a one time fee ranging from $1500-$5000 with then $25 per game to the shot clock operator. That's a lot of money for some schools but if you go into a lot of gyms throughout the state of Minnesota you will notice that the shot clocks are already installed on top of the baskets, they just aren't in use.
At one point the PSAL (NYC's public school league) decided that only certain levels would be using the shot clock. For example, in Minnesota only 3A and 4A schools would be required to use them during games. Maybe a conference would be forward thinking enough to force schools to use them for conference games.
The last thing I want to bring up about the shot clock is how it is used on the international level. The shot clock is used at ALL levels international. We are the only country in the world that doesn't use it consistently through all ages. Even at lower age groups they use a :24 shot clock. It would make sense to have universal rules but we want to make our own rules in the US that truly don't have a rhyme or reason behind it (:30 shot clock for women and :35 for men).
Make the game universal.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Basketball Analytics
We live in a world of data and sports are no exception. The first introduction into sport analytics for most people was "Moneyball," which profiled the Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane and his approach for team success through innovative ways. Basketball analytics is a newer concept that more and more information is being put out there. From the NBA to high school basketball, stats are forcing coaches to adjust.
According to analytic data there are two different shots that are considered good shots for your team. Those two shots are 3's and lay-ups/dunks. 3's are considered a good because of the stat that gives you eFG%, which is effective field percentage. The formula is eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 x 3PTM) / FGA. So, in not math genius terms. Player A is 2-6 from 3 for 6 points. Player B is 3-6 from 3 for 6 points. Both point totals are the same thus having the same eFG which is 50%. In the NBA, the metric is slightly different because corner 3's are a little bit shorter than anywhere else on the floor, therefore that is considered a high percentage shot.
One of the known leaders in basketball analytics is Daryl Morey, the general manager for the Houston Rockets. He has come up with innovative ways to implement to what data suggests is the right way to play. His biggest experiment is the Rockets' D-League the Rio Grande Vipers. They are coached by Nevada Smith who is bound to be the old guy at the gym that gets a rebound and sprints out to the three point line to shoot a three (He actually would do that in the North Country coaches' noon time hoops.). Nevada is a former D3 player and coach (imagine that, back to the D3 love) that loves to play fast and shoot threes. Here is a great Grantland article on his team from this past season. If you don't want to read, here is a video example of the way they play.
The Portland Trailblazers are also another example of a team that has completely bought in to the analytics craze. They have coach and general manager that are on the same page, which is the key. Everyone needs to "buy in" in order for it to work. Here is an article regarding their approach from ESPN Insider. Trailblazers.
If you look at the college ranks, the only team that really uses analytics that I can think of is Grinnell and "their system." Their coach has created his own formula to order to win games. While, I'm not a huge fan of the way they do things (that's a whole different entry), he has created a buzz about the program and they've won more games than they have before. Here is a inside look at what they do.
Analytics at the high school and college level are a little different. Why? Zone defense. It forces teams to attempt mid-range shots which, according to analytic data, is a bad shot. Now, I know that certain coaches have their own metrics which could include getting 15 offensive boards, holding team to under 40%FG, etc. It's just really hard to get 15-22 year olds to be consistent enough to get the same results all the time.
I really like analytic data and I think over the course of time you can come up with some great data. My biggest issue is that none of the teams that I mentioned above have actually won a championship. Then the question becomes, why haven't they won more? I think the answer to that is analytic data doesn't always carry over in a one game series. That's why "the best team" doesn't always win the NCAA tournament or the State Basketball Tournament.
You would think that a seven game series like there is in the NBA and MLB would give you enough time for the analytic stuff to work but things are just a little different in the post-season. What it boils down to is, you have to put the ball in the basket or have guys cross the plate. In the playoffs, scouting is enhanced and adjustments have to be made. And it's tough to make adjustments to the way you have played for the whole season for a short period of time to get wins.
According to analytic data there are two different shots that are considered good shots for your team. Those two shots are 3's and lay-ups/dunks. 3's are considered a good because of the stat that gives you eFG%, which is effective field percentage. The formula is eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 x 3PTM) / FGA. So, in not math genius terms. Player A is 2-6 from 3 for 6 points. Player B is 3-6 from 3 for 6 points. Both point totals are the same thus having the same eFG which is 50%. In the NBA, the metric is slightly different because corner 3's are a little bit shorter than anywhere else on the floor, therefore that is considered a high percentage shot.
One of the known leaders in basketball analytics is Daryl Morey, the general manager for the Houston Rockets. He has come up with innovative ways to implement to what data suggests is the right way to play. His biggest experiment is the Rockets' D-League the Rio Grande Vipers. They are coached by Nevada Smith who is bound to be the old guy at the gym that gets a rebound and sprints out to the three point line to shoot a three (He actually would do that in the North Country coaches' noon time hoops.). Nevada is a former D3 player and coach (imagine that, back to the D3 love) that loves to play fast and shoot threes. Here is a great Grantland article on his team from this past season. If you don't want to read, here is a video example of the way they play.
The Portland Trailblazers are also another example of a team that has completely bought in to the analytics craze. They have coach and general manager that are on the same page, which is the key. Everyone needs to "buy in" in order for it to work. Here is an article regarding their approach from ESPN Insider. Trailblazers.
If you look at the college ranks, the only team that really uses analytics that I can think of is Grinnell and "their system." Their coach has created his own formula to order to win games. While, I'm not a huge fan of the way they do things (that's a whole different entry), he has created a buzz about the program and they've won more games than they have before. Here is a inside look at what they do.
Analytics at the high school and college level are a little different. Why? Zone defense. It forces teams to attempt mid-range shots which, according to analytic data, is a bad shot. Now, I know that certain coaches have their own metrics which could include getting 15 offensive boards, holding team to under 40%FG, etc. It's just really hard to get 15-22 year olds to be consistent enough to get the same results all the time.
I really like analytic data and I think over the course of time you can come up with some great data. My biggest issue is that none of the teams that I mentioned above have actually won a championship. Then the question becomes, why haven't they won more? I think the answer to that is analytic data doesn't always carry over in a one game series. That's why "the best team" doesn't always win the NCAA tournament or the State Basketball Tournament.
You would think that a seven game series like there is in the NBA and MLB would give you enough time for the analytic stuff to work but things are just a little different in the post-season. What it boils down to is, you have to put the ball in the basket or have guys cross the plate. In the playoffs, scouting is enhanced and adjustments have to be made. And it's tough to make adjustments to the way you have played for the whole season for a short period of time to get wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)