OaktownBear;842670493 said:
Oscar Robertson was a true great and I largely agree with his statement above. I don't agree with your characterization of Cal's offense. Let's remember that Robertson played college basketball literally decades before there was either a shot clock or a three point line. The advantage of that third point from the outside shot changed the game. And 30 seconds to score vs. 20 minutes to score absolutely changes how complicated you can get trying to set up backdoors, run weaves, etc.
You've made quite an effort with this, and you've made some good points which I can agree with. Oscar made that statement in 2011, and I believe he was referring more to his long career in the NBA and not as much to his 3 years in college. The shot clock arrived in the NBA in 1954, so Oscar played his whole pro career with the shot clock. I'm not proposing we install college plays from the 1920s or 1930s when scores were low, and you had a minute or more to run a play. Pete Newell, who I often refer to, fought hard to have a shot clock introduced into the college game. He felt it would give his Cal teams a big advantage, because his offense was so well organized that they could easily get off a shot within the shot clock limit, and his defense was so good, that they often could keep teams from getting a shot off in the same time limit. It wouldn't take a Newell offense more than 10-20 seconds to run a back door, I would guess, and I would guess Oscar's Bearcat teams could do the same. You are right that the 3-point shot has changed the game, but I see plenty of teams today running back doors, back cuts, pick and rolls, double screens, give and gos, and other simple plays, but not so much from Cal now.
Quote:
You and I disagree on the best offensive strategy for Cal to use this year. I am much more in favor of the offense that Martin employed. I don't have a problem with your position or your disagreement with me. What I have a problem with is what seems to me to be an implication in your opinion that Martin's strategy this year implies selfish play or lack of a well thought out strategy. Your characterization that "those with individual talents are left to fend for themselves". I don't think that is it at all. I think that Cuonzo could employ any number of offensive strategies, and may with different personnel. Strategies that you may prefer. But he chose a specific strategy based on the personnel.
I certainly did not mean to imply that there is anything selfish with Martin's strategy or the play of Cal's players. One on one, and iso ball are strategies where a player tries to score over one or two defenders. Selfish play is when the player with the ball sees teammates with wide open high percentage shots, and ignores them and tries to score himself over his defender, for example. I suppose Cal's fast break would fall into this category, as a Cal player will often rebound the ball, drive the length of the court, and even with numbers, will try to finish himself, instead of running standard fast break plays. But I hesitate to call even that selfish, because Martin may be directing his players to just go coast-to-coast. Cal almost never passes the ball up the floor, which is much quicker than dribbling. I also did not say, "those with individual talents are left to fend for themselves". I said that "those with LESS individual talents are left to fend for themselves." The foremost examples would be Rooks or Okoroh. Last year, it would have been Behrens and to a lesser extent, Bird and Mathews. Bird and Mathews have greatly improved their ability to finish drives from last year.
Quote:
1. He does not have that point guard facilitator. Let's remember that he was not necessarily thinking of Ty becoming the point guard as a junior. That didn't appear to be where he was leaning in the offseason when he came to Cal. But Ty won the job. I'd say that was based on working with what he had as opposed to picking Ty as his ideal point guard.
2. Ty is not Jason Kidd. What Ty is good at is penetrating and getting the defense to collapse. He is good at getting to the rim. My personal opinion is that he has become good at passing out on penetration, though yes he does sometimes have tunnel vision.
I agree, but he is not that good at finishing. I think he finishes at below 50%. And at what cost does he get to the rim? He falls to the floor nearly every time he drives and I was surprised it took him nearly 4 seasons to suffer serious injuries, with play I consider pretty reckless, even in the modern game. Instead, if he or a teammate could get an uncontested layup or a dunk off a play of his, that shot has a 95% chance of scoring.
Quote:
3. With Ty as your point guard, Brown and Rabb as inexperienced freshman being your next best players, and Bird and Mathews being good outside shooters, but less good at other aspects of the offense, I think there are drawbacks to trying to run a more structured offense.
Most teams use more plays to help players with deficiencies get opportunities to be successful, don't they? I'm only asking for a little structure, a few simple plays along with all the one-on-one, not pattern offense. I can live with one-on-one, but not one-on-two, or three, which are very low percentage shots.
Quote:
4. Brown has a similar ability to penetrate, make the defense collapse, and get to the rim.
Brown only finishes 50% at best. And he had more trouble penetrating by the latter part of the season, as teams knew what was coming, and he was getting called for more charges. He really had a difficult time penetrating if he can't use his off hand to push the defender.
Quote:
5. Rabb as an inside player can also suck the defense in and either shoot or pass out.
Based on this, I think it is a reasonable strategy to run the offense through Wallace, Brown and Rabb. Far from requiring players to fend for themselves, this requires the defense to collapse and opens up Bird and Mathews on the outside to do what they do best. For me, in the half court set, Cal's best options most of the time start with 1. Wallace penetrating the lane; or 2. Brown penetrating the lane; or 3. Dumping the ball inside to Rabb. If the defense collapses, pass it out to Bird or Mathews or occasionally to Rooks (I am one of the bigger Rooks fans, but I don't see passing it to him unless the defense leaves him alone. I don't see passing to Okoroh at all). If the defense doesn't collapse - score. It may not be cerebral. It may not require a lot of discipline. It may not be a thing of beauty to a student of the game. But that doesn't mean it isn't the best strategy. Personally, I think it was.
That is your opinion, and I respect it. I don't like watching that much dribbling, very little passing, and hardly any open shots except threes. I watched Gonzaga take Utah apart the other day, and they did it with passing and very little dribbling. I think the Warriors look like they get more uncontested layups than they get open threes. I like that.
Quote:
Now, I would have liked to see Rabb used more, and maybe some more pick and rolls. I also acknowledge that Brown needed a lot of work on his passing and I've acknowledged Wallace's lapses into tunnel vision. Would they have been better running a more structured offense? I just don't think so. I especially think Brown would have suffered a great deal.
I totally agree on Rabb. If Braun was the coach, the ball would have gone in to Rabb on almost every possession, like he did with Leon Powe. That would be too much, but Rabb did need to see the ball more. I think a great player like Brown would be even better if he played in an offense which would give him some wide open lanes to the basket, and wide open 10-15 foot jumpers, a little structure, instead of just having him take it to the rim against 2-3 defenders and try to dunk. He missed 3 dunks in one game down the stretch.
Quote:
I hated Bozeman with his "Two Baskets and a Ball" scheme, otherwise known as "Jason! What do we do!?!?!?" I just don't see what Martin as doing as leaving individuals to fend for themselves as opposed to doing what was best with this particular set of guys. If Brown and Rabb don't return next year and Martin employs the same strategy with the personnel we have next year (which I think would be a disaster) I'd be on board with you. I don't think that is what we'll see.
Bozeman was a disaster, and then gave us 12 years of Ben Braun. My problem with the way we played this year was too much dribbling, too few open shots, too few assists, for all this talent. And we should have gotten much more use of Ivan Rabb. You can build a whole team around that guy, and we did not go that route. I hope Cuonzo and the players return, and I hope we can somehow pick up a point guard. Maybe Singer will have an epiphany, and realize how good he can be.
You make a good case. Thanks for the post.
