Team Makeup vs Theory

[MO]

The Starters and Theory

I'm just a fan, so my question is directed at those of you who understand the game. Why couldn't you play WW at the three? I know it's abnormal to play someone that short at the three, but with the players we have, could it make sense?

WW's offensive game to me is not that different from the typical three. He makes a living taking the ball to the hole with a decent ability to shoot from the outside. I know the negative would be on the defensive side, but that be checked by WW quickness and two big bodies on the interior.

TMG is clearly the point guard. Pledger might be the best shooter on the team and seems to have enough athletic ability to guard the position. Pledger is perhaps your best two. Willie takes the three position and then you put the available options in at the 4 and 5 and that gets your best talent on the court.

 

[OUguy11]

On offense the 2 and 3 are basically the same in our system. Willie is running a lot of point though too. Steve is a better defender at the 3. So in a sense what you are saying is already happening.

 

[12th Street Baller]

Coach will at some point have this lineup on the court but only when he's giving Crocker a rest. There is no way that you put your best defender on the bench IMO and I don't think coach will do that since Crocker is not only a great defender but also can be a prolific scorer.

 

[McJacknife]

Crocker is not only a great defender but also a prolific scorer.

I'm as big a Crocker supporter as anyone, but you and I have different definitions of 'prolific scoring'...

 

[MO]

I assumed that the 2 and the 3 were essentially the same in our system. That's why I could see Pledger and WW on the court at the same time and not necessarily just when Willie was at the point.

What does coach mean when he indicates that he would eventually like a team that played two point guards? Does that mean two identical role guards and three bigger people for more power and rebounding. Something like TMG and Ray McCallum/Doron Lamb plus three bigs? or Does he just mean two guys with point guard skills, a small forward scorer and two bigs?

 

[SoonerinNC]

One year Kansas would have three point guards in the game at the same time.

And I am sure that two at the same time is not that rare.

Pledger does seem to have that magic stroke. And a quick release. If the Sooners can get their running game going a guy like Pledger can be deadly with his spotting up on the break.

I agree that Tony is going to be in the lineup. You don't bench a senior with his defensive ability and at time good scoring ability for any freshman not named Warren.

 

[12th Street Baller]

I'm as big a Crocker supporter as anyone, but you and I have different definitions of 'prolific scoring'...

We've all seen Tony drop two dozen or more on a good night and he does average ten a game. To me, at this level of competition, that is prolific - "producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer".

I'm sure you'd prefer 20 per game and of course that would be more prolific, but how many points do we give up to the other team w/o Tony guarding and w/o his leadership?

 

[campbest]

We've all seen Tony drop two dozen or more on a good night and he does average ten a game. To me, at this level of competition, that is prolific - "producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer".

I don't care what dictionary you use, the word "prolific" does not define Crocker's scoring in any sense. That being said, he brings other intangibles to the floor, hence why he plays so much.

 

[Sam]

I love the way Tony plays defense and does the little things (SR leadership factor included) but he is a streaky scorer not a prolific scorer. He is the type that could explode for 15-20 on any given night but his lack of consistency keeps him from being prolific.

 

[MO]

I didn't really mean for this to become a discussion about Tony Crocker. Nevertheless, if you make a post about a starting lineup that does not include Tony, I guess the discussion naturally evolves in that direction.

Backed into that corner, I think you suggest that Tony is an ideal 6th man. He is a high effort guy with skills and defensive ability. He has shown to be inconsistent in his level of production. Maybe his intensity, which is his best attribute, is best realized as a 6th man. A burst of energy when the team needs it.

I understand that is not the role we will see Crocker play. His coach has made that clear and undoubtedly with good reason.

 

[campbest]

I didn't really mean for this to become a discussion about Tony Crocker. Nevertheless, if you make a post about a starting lineup that does not include Tony, I guess the discussion naturally evolves in that direction.

Backed into that corner, I think you suggest that Tony is an ideal 6th man. He is a high effort guy with skills and defensive ability. He has shown to be inconsistent in his level of production. Maybe his intensity, which is his best attribute, is best realized as a 6th man. A burst of energy when the team needs it.

I understand that is not the role we will see Crocker play. His coach has made that clear and undoubtedly with good reason.

I disagree, bring a scorer off the bench to give you a lift when you need it. Have your best defender start from the get-go, set the tone for whatever defense you're looking to run.

 

[MO]

But, Tony is a scorer. He's a hot and cold scorer. That's why he would be great at coming off the bench. It wouldn't take much time to figure out what position the switch was set on any given night.

Secondly, if Tony is an excellent defender (and I'm not necessarily willing to concede that point), but if he is, then you get to see the flow of the game and insert him in the lineup to stop the player that is giving you trouble.

He ends up playing just a many minutes, but now you have him in a specific time and place role that can compensate for the so called inconsistencies in his game.

I was hoping to draw some of the big guns on this site to discuss a three guard or small lineup as an "improve your understanding of the game" exercise. Perhaps the thread devolving into a discussion about Tony spooked them away. Maybe the question is too elementary. Maybe they don't trust my motives, but I don't see why a discussion about an unusual lineup needs to be a slam against anyone. It's certainly not intended to be one.

 

[campbest]

But, Tony is a scorer. He's a hot and cold scorer. That's why he would be great at coming off the bench. It wouldn't take much time to figure out what position the switch was set on any given night.

Secondly, if Tony is an excellent defender (and I'm not necessarily willing to concede that point), but if he is, then you get to see the flow of the game and insert him in the lineup to stop the player that is giving you trouble.

He ends up playing just a many minutes, but now you have him in a specific time and place role that can compensate for the so called inconsistencies in his game.

I was hoping to draw some of the big guns on this site to discuss a three guard or small lineup as an "improve your understanding of the game" exercise. Perhaps the thread devolving into a discussion about Tony spooked them away. Maybe the question is too elementary. Maybe they don't trust my motives, but I don't see why a discussion about an unusual lineup needs to be a slam against anyone. It's certainly not intended to be one.

Sorry I guess I don't qualify as one of the "big guns", but here is my $0.02:

Tony is the best defensive player on the team, that's been proven over the past two years and Capel openly says so everytime Crocker's name comes up. Makes little sense to bring him off the bench to guard a guy that is "giving you trouble" on the perimeter, when in reality, you know who that is going to be in advance because the staff have seen hours of game tape. Why wait for someone to get hot? Why bring a cold body of the bench to slow down a supposed hot player?

Offensively, your team gets more of a lift with an offensive player coming off the bench...if you already have some weapons on the floor. In OU's case, I would concede WW, TMG, Tiny can all score (even though I think Tiny is still learning how at this level). Crocker can, but we all know he is inconsistent, yada yada yada. If you're struggling at home and your starters are having trouble putting the ball in the hoop, who is going to give your team a bigger boost, Crocker coming off the bench or Davis/Pledger? On the road, you want your best defender in from the get go because your offense isn't guaranteed when you hop from gym to gym...the coach mantra is defense travels.

Example #1 - a healthy Marcus Ginyard and Danny Green at North Carolina. I don't think many people will argue that Ginyard was a better player than Danny Green at UNC, he definitely wasn't a better scorer. However, Ginyard started over Green their entire career together, that is until Ginyard got hurt last year. Why so? Because Ginyard was their defensive presence, someone who helped dictate UNC's tempo on the defensive end of the floor. Then about four minutes in, here comes Green off the bench to add some more offensive punch. So whether your starters are getting it done or struggling offensively, it's a win/win scenario with Green coming off the bench.

As for your original question, it has already been answered...the 2 and 3 in our system are pretty much interchangable on the floor. The bottom line is that we have only played one exhibition game against a team my juco team would have probably beaten...let's not look to far into the idea of putting 3-4 freshmen on the floor at once. Is it possible at times? Sure, but will be the exception to the norm. College basketball has and will be about great players, but experience matters significantly...especially when you get into conference play and the NCAA tourney.

But hey, I may be wrong.

 

[12th Street Baller]

I LOVE the way you guys take one word out of my original post and jump on it like a pack of ravenous wolves... it has been edited to express what I actually meant. Now can we dispense with the semantics and get to the point?

myopinion suggests that we should bench Crocker for Pledger, whether that was his intent or not that would be a direct result of his suggested lineup. I have two problems with that and you have all pretty much (prolific) agreed with the first. Tony is our best on-ball defender and he is good for at least ten points a game.

My second problem with this idea has to do with experience. What incentive do you give a kid to return for a second, third or fourth season if you show him that you are able and willing to take away his starting role for some highly-recruited new kid on the court?

Until Tony is proven undeserving of his starting role, he should keep it.

 

[MO]

Sorry, it never occurred to me that writing about the "big guns" might be insulting to someone already posting on the discussion. It was sort of a play on words for some of the people that I assumed started the board.

You have reasonable concepts, campbest. Maybe you're right on a lot of what you say, but two comments help me to make my points:

"your offense isn't guaranteed when you hop from gym to gym...the coach mantra is defense travels."

And, why is that? It's because the ability to score is a more elusive and unique skill. In other words, it a lot easier to find 5 guys that can play defense than can play skilled offense. All the more reason that if you have a skilled offensive player, you find a way to play him.

"College basketball has and will be about great players, but experience matters significantly."

So, "when" you can get all around contribution equal to what "experience" provides, identifying and getting the best talent on the floor is what the game has always been about.

Which brings me to 12th Street. Sure he should keep it. At least until someone is better, in which case you have to play your best

Obviously, I don't know how to do the quotes. Can someone provide instruction?

 

[McJacknife]

First of all, I didn't mean to spark a fire with the commentary on the definition of 'prolific'...

"your offense isn't guaranteed when you hop from gym to gym...the coach mantra is defense travels."

And, why is that? It's because the ability to score is a more elusive and unique skill. In other words, it a lot easier to find 5 guys that can play defense than can play skilled offense. All the more reason that if you have a skilled offensive player, you find a way to play him.

To me, scoring requires a mix of both skill and rhythm. Even skilled players slump from game to game. Very, very few people can 'effort themselves into rhythm' in hostile environments.

Great defense, on the other hand requires tremendous effort, play in and play out, and doesn't disappear when 'it's not your day'. This is something that you can control. And when you can count on the defensive end, you're much more likely to settle into a groove as a team, perhaps opening the lid for your scorers. As such, 'defense travels'.

 

[12th Street Baller]

To me, scoring requires a mix of both skill and rhythm. Even skilled players slump from game to game. Very, very few people can 'effort themselves into rhythm' in hostile environments.

Great defense, on the other hand requires tremendous effort, play in and play out, and doesn't disappear when 'it's not your day'. This is something that you can control. And when you can count on the defensive end, you're much more likely to settle into a groove as a team, perhaps opening the lid for your scorers. As such, 'defense travels'.

This is exactly what I was trying to get across.

 

[MO]

I would say knife is completely accurate, but it still does not negate the notion that all things being equal, i.e. effort/defense, the more rare skill is on the offensive side. Execution of the skill varies from game to game, but a more skilled player will achieve more.

I guess I just couldn't resist your previous statement 12th street about why would someone return if the new player started. First of all, you are creating a problem where there isn't one. I don't know your competitive background and mine is confined to different sports, but from my experience, one thing is universal. You know when someone is better than you. You might not like it, but you understand the reality.

Secondly, if someone passes you on a college team, you are still playing BB, still traveling, still eating well and living a life that most anyone would enjoy. Beyond that, hopefully most of these guys are in school to finish college and prepare for the working world. Your statement suggests that all these kids are in school for is to play basketball. They would come back to live the life and prepare for the future. That's a good deal and the ones that aren't interested for the right reasons won't fare as well as someone like Tony Crocker, who, because of character and dedication, would come back.

This discussion has never been about knocking TC personally. It was about strategy and putting together the best team.

 

[MNsooner]

I would say knife is completely accurate, but it still does not negate the notion that all things being equal, i.e. effort/defense, the more rare skill is on the offensive side.

There are shooters every where. To be a top defender takes more than effort. It is a mentality and Crocker is our only guy on the floor that has the mentality of top perimeter defender. Game in and game out in the Big XII we will be player the nations best guards and small forwards. Crocker is our guy that can really get in there and make those guys uncomfortable. I like Pledger as much as anyone, but we would be crazy not to start our best perimeter defender. Plus. it isn't like Crocker can't score. He has and will come up huge for us scoring. But he is the only guy on our team at this point that can do that while defending at an extremely high level.

 

[campbest]

Sorry, it never occurred to me that writing about the "big guns" might be insulting to someone already posting on the discussion. It was sort of a play on words for some of the people that I assumed started the board.

You have reasonable concepts, campbest. Maybe you're right on a lot of what you say, but two comments help me to make my points:

"your offense isn't guaranteed when you hop from gym to gym...the coach mantra is defense travels."

And, why is that? It's because the ability to score is a more elusive and unique skill. In other words, it a lot easier to find 5 guys that can play defense than can play skilled offense. All the more reason that if you have a skilled offensive player, you find a way to play him.

"College basketball has and will be about great players, but experience matters significantly."

So, "when" you can get all around contribution equal to what "experience" provides, identifying and getting the best talent on the floor is what the game has always been about.

Which brings me to 12th Street. Sure he should keep it. At least until someone is better, in which case you have to play your best

Obviously, I don't know how to do the quotes. Can someone provide instruction?

If you don't understand the idea that "defense travels", then I don't know what to say. I guess you don't believe in home court advantage or it is more difficult to play in hostile environments then in your own arena. It's elementary, go into any high school, college or pro locker room and every basketball coach will tell you the key to getting off to a good start is establishing yourself defensively, take the crowd out of the game and put the opposing offense on their heels. Lots of teams establish their offense off their defense.

As for your second point, you're right, it is about putting the most talent on the floor. But I'll add one additional point, it's about putting the best talent on the floor at the RIGHT TIME. This goes back to the previous point I made about establishing defenses and so on. Hey, if Pledger is a better defender than Crocker this year, sure, start him. However, younger players are more likely to have errors in understanding and executing a gameplan put forth by their coach...I doubt Crocker will have much trouble due to his experience.

Your first post asked for "those who understand the game" to respond. I'm just telling you what I have experienced first hand or observed over the years. The Ginyard/Green example is probably the best illustration.