So, since the great guys (PU Basketball) are scoring LOTS of points in the WUG, and since the shot clock is less there ... hmmm ... will this do good things to speeding-up our high-octane scoring machine in the regular season??? THOUGHTS...
Bored mind rambling
- Thread starter Do Dah Day
- Start date
I have always thought teams get bogged down and lose when they go away from their success and start trying to do things they are not designed to do. time and time again, I've seen teams go into a run out the clock mode to try and preserve a victory and then end up losing. or a football l teams goes away from their strength and goes into the prevent defense mode and the other team scores and they lose.
I would hope we would learn something from our success here. but I fully expect once we return home, we'll go back to that old school, of building a lead and then sitting on it in an attempt to secure a victory. .
I would hope we would learn something from our success here. but I fully expect once we return home, we'll go back to that old school, of building a lead and then sitting on it in an attempt to secure a victory. .
I think this team is inherently built to score and score lots of points. Biggie's attitude and leadership was a traditional B1G grind it out style...which worked. I think with Carsen's attitude being strong and vocal...I think the team takes on more of his style and Purdue looks to be more offensively styled (although that is much more opinion than fact because Painter's teams have always been good offensively.
IF.....we lead the B1G in scoring this year - we likely win it again, as of the contenders we often have the better defensive team, and the D, with seniors-that is likely again over the course of the season.
But no one is discussing the effect of playing multiple games successfully with the shorter shot clock. That's the point I'm curious about.
I like this style of play and believe we are very successful at it. it's the Golden St Warriors style of play. bring it down court. take a shot. if you miss, get the rebound and take another shot. Sort of like Gonzaga too, and like a few other schools.
to be able to do this, you have to have a deep bench, a long rotation of players, and multiple guys who can make those outside shots with at least 40% efficiency.
I believe we have the talent to pull it off.
However, I believe once we return, Painter will take us back to that slow ball style of 69- 58 games once more. We have the horses to pull it off, but I believe a victory is more important than our scoring average.
to be able to do this, you have to have a deep bench, a long rotation of players, and multiple guys who can make those outside shots with at least 40% efficiency.
I believe we have the talent to pull it off.
However, I believe once we return, Painter will take us back to that slow ball style of 69- 58 games once more. We have the horses to pull it off, but I believe a victory is more important than our scoring average.
I HOPE victory is more important than our scoring average. But as much as I love and support and am fine with PU basketball. I do get frustrated when we get down around 9 seconds and it is clear we are going to puke something up. Perhaps CE (and all the great, but new unknowns) can change that ... but I am hoping we see the value and success of getting into our REAL offense quicker.
I think depends on a coaches faith in the offensive decision making and defensive capabilities of his team on the floor. If you can't stop people well you want to shorten the game. If you make silly turnovers or fouls you want to shorten the game. If your guys do those things well you tend to let them play abut more.
OK. but if I (as a coach)) have a team on the floor that can't stop the other team, or are making silly turnovers and fouls, I probably/hopefully have better solutions than telling them to run the clock even if it means puking something up at the end.
On the other hand, I totally agree that if a coach has a team who is simply not very competitive and tends toward turnovers and fouls, then yes, the best coaching decision is to reduce the amount of time the other team has the ball. But, if my team tends toward turnovers, I suspect the other coach will take advantage of that weakness, which translates to when I have the ball and am running the clock down, I am trying my best to avoid a turnover rather than get a good shot.
there are so many times I throw my hands up and scream, it was working, why did we have to change it and go into our slow motion, run out the clock offense .
Changing what worked into our slow-mo offense takes the entire team out of their rhythm and often cost us the game.
my thought is if it works, keep doing it, and if we're up by 30, so be it. That's what the good teams do in football. When they have a 40 point lead , and the y bring in their 3rd string, they don't go into a stall run out the clock mode. You press on.
I can agree with substitution like Taylor for has on defense, or putting in all of our best Ft shooters. But I prefer to keep going with what got you to that point. if you're successful, don't try to change and break it.
Changing what worked into our slow-mo offense takes the entire team out of their rhythm and often cost us the game.
my thought is if it works, keep doing it, and if we're up by 30, so be it. That's what the good teams do in football. When they have a 40 point lead , and the y bring in their 3rd string, they don't go into a stall run out the clock mode. You press on.
I can agree with substitution like Taylor for has on defense, or putting in all of our best Ft shooters. But I prefer to keep going with what got you to that point. if you're successful, don't try to change and break it.
I got you. I'm thinking best solution is to run normal offense but not take a contested shot early in the clock. Kind of how a team should always play (duh). I agree that just standing and holding the balk outside to burn time or weaving for 20 seconds is not good. If your team has the discipline to run offense to find a really good shot without panicking, do it.
Regarding your football analogy, consider that a team up by 40 likely has better talent on there 3rd string than the opponent starts. Also consider that up 40 it likely doesn't matter what you do (within reason). In football the situation that matters is when you are up by two with 3:00 minutes and have the ball. If you keep throwing but don't manage a first down you give the ball back with maybe 2:00 minutes on the clock. Now your cheeks are clenched tightly.
But if you run three times without a first down you will leave them only one minute. Fans have the luxury of always being right. Coaches have to make decisions and live with it.
Similar considerations in hoops. Just playing "normally" works great until it doesn't. Then that coach becomes the "F-ing moron" who can't manage the clock.
I do understand your perspective but it feels different when you have the play board in your hands.
As a simple rule I tend to tell my teams to run offense but no long jump shots outside of 8 seconds and our goal each possession is to get a shot going to the basket. You can usually get good drives because the defense is a bit desperate. That's where the ball handlers, athletes, and free throw shooters you mentioned are good to have in the game!
You do know Purdue led the Big Ten in scoring in conference play and averaged 79.7 points per game on the season, right?
yes, I know that. but if we didn't play so much slow ball at the end of our games, we could have easily averaged 85-90 games. and I believe we lost 1-2 games or made them a lot closer than they should have been by slowing down and trying to run out the clock.
.
How do you know the team wouldn't have lost more of these close games had they not slowed down the game? The objective is to be at least 1 point ahead when time hits zero. Unless you're going for style points and hoping to benefit from a BCS-like mentality in Monday's rankings, it's a perfectly fine strategy to take the air out of the ball and make the clock and enemy of your opponent. Like anything else, it of course has to be calculated and executed properly to work. It's not always pretty or fun to watch, but you also don't register wins and losses by "pretty" and "fun".
I don't. but a lot endings to games have given me a heart attack,, especially with the Johnsons trying their best to make a FT.
Four years ago, you may have had a point. The last couple of years....not so much.
Perhaps in the past Wole, but I think it's been more of defensive lapses and turnovers/poor execution rather than clock milking/slowing the pace that has cost the Boilers some close games. JMO.....if you're thinking of particular games in the last couple of years, maybe that would shed some light.
Also, Purdue's improved FT shooting the last couple of years has really helped in those situations and has been a key component in some good wins.
I second the poor execution. Trying, and trying, and trying to enter the ball to Hammons, then Biggie, when the opponent's primary goal was to stop that entry pass resulted in either a TO or a bad final shot. We now have far more options and should not see this execution (pun intended) again. And YES on the improved FT shooting.
Overall, I am excited about our guys playing many games with a shorter shot clock. I can't imagine it doesn't force us to get into the good part of our offense quicker. I TOTALLY support swinging the defense side to side as a beginning. It just seems like it can be done more crisply. Just my humble thought on going from great to incredible ...
I'll mention two games. Michigan and ISU. We should have beaten Michigan if we had stayed to our game. We almost lost to ISU trying to milk the clock. if Swanigan hadn't got that rebound, and PJ made that play, we would have lost.
the more you try to milk a clock, the more chance you have to turn the ball over or score 1 point on Fts to their 3 point shots.
it was nail biting cringe worthy watching our 80% FT shooters miss down the stretch of both games. it brought back some really bad memories.
DDD,
You've reminded me of one of the classics attributed to John McKay:
“What do you think of your team’s execution coach?”
“I’m in favor of it.”
note: there's some discrepancy as to whether Coach McKay actually said that in the press conference, or something akin to "It's a good idea."
I think with late game leads most of us would rather keep the metal to the pedal and be aggressive, especially with 4 seniors leading the way.
Appreciate the feedback/response. There is sometimes a fine line between letting your foot off the gas, staying assertive, and being too reckless when time/score/match-up suggests a more strategic approach.
I agree those games brought back some shall we say "uncomfortable" emotions. Iowa State was such a crazy game because of the multiple swings/emotions in that contest.....the Cyclones got back in the game so quickly in the second half.....Burton was just a beast for a while, IIRC. Perhaps there was some "playing not to lose" there; I recall it more as couldn't get any stops for a while with Morris and Burton. Maybe that's my B & G glasses.
What impressed me more was that in the past, once Purdue lost a lead like that in the NCAA tournament with a less-than-favorable crowd, you'd figure the Boilers were toast. Yet they were resilient and found a way to pull it out even with a key member of the team missing a front-end.
Against Michigan, they couldn't overcome misses at the FT line. I thought that game was more of Michigan knowing they were playing well and also being familiar with the opponent. Maybe Michigan took Purdue out of its game....maybe Purdue could have played differently.....it was a close game throughout.....even then, the Boilers had every chance to win. Maybe we see it differently.
Either way, I'd like to think CMP and the team are learning from those types of situations, and it's not as much of a trend as in the past. We shall see.
the Michigan game brought back too many bad memories that I thought we had solved. but it served as a n example if you don't hit your Fts in crunch time against a good opponent, you will lose. We sometimes forget when you get to the second round of any tourney, the opponents are good and the games will be close. if you get out of your rhythm, you could lose. and missed one and one Fts will kill you every time.
There are a lot of fans that will agree with you and football I believe is rewarded by the margin of win more than basketball. That said, there are many times a person does in fact see the MO altered with the change up. The shot clock prevents some of this, but there still comes a time the math with clock can almost guarantee a win "IF" the clock is ran down and we can't lose track of the alternative. I also think every team needs to take time off the clock in some games and some situations becasue there will be a close game that not turning the ball over and forcing a foul may be much more beneficial that just taking a good shot early. ADvantages both ways depending on clock and situation. Since there are advantages of both ways in various circumstances I think it helps a team to work on it even if the win is by a less margin than "perhaps" otherwise...
it just seems like in some games, we build a lead, and then we take a breather and allow our players to sit, and we then lose the big lead and when our players return, they've lost what they had that built that lead. it's as if by sitting and taking a breather, our players have lost their groove thing, and sometimes it takes 3-5 minutes to find it.
I don't think there is a question that "THAT" happens many times. However, what coach wants a team running up and down the court unrestrained hopeful that the groove continues. I think all coaches want a machine...a machine that always does the right thing regardless of score or groove...something more predictable and controllable than an unrestrained court play. The degree between that chasm differs in coaches
yeah.....a missed front-end is an instant remote basher if I'm not careful.
I understand that frustration.
Walking the fine line of fatigue (including mental) and needed rest and losing momentum can be dicey....that's where some of the mental toughness brought up in another thread can play out. You'll have ebbs and flows to the game...some times the opponent has figured it out too....keep em guessing I suppose. CMP is in a better position to do that with his line-ups this year. We'll see what happens.....VE, DM, IH, and LT have played together 3 full seasons....enough to know what to try to do......so long as they MOVE!
Similar threads
