On these boards posters are constantly bringing up the "X's and O's" factor, especially when discussing the ability of our current coach.

As someone that has watched college basketball for about 50 years, I'd just like to say that while X/O still exists I don't believe it is as significant as once was.

Today the athletes are better, and the rules have changed from: No Shot Clock to 45 sec clock to 35 sec clock and now 30 second clock, which cuts into the X/O factor.

Example: Watch a Duke/NC game now and compare it to a game played by these teams 20 years ago. To me, these days it resembles more of an NBA game. Where coaches like Williams and Coach K were once regarded as great " XandO"guys, in reality now its more about the talent they recruit.

When watching these teams I still notice an offensive or defensive "philosophy", but the X and O factor that so many talk about is becoming less and less significant.

Anyone agree? (or disagree)?

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

On these boards posters are constantly bringing up the "X's and O's" factor, especially when discussing the ability of our current coach.

As someone that has watched college basketball for about 50 years, I'd just like to say that while X/O still exists I don't believe it is as significant as once was.

Today the athletes are better, and the rules have changed from: No Shot Clock to 45 sec clock to 35 sec clock and now 30 second clock, which cuts into the X/O factor.

Example: Watch a Duke/NC game now and compare it to a game played by these teams 20 years ago. To me, these days it resembles more of an NBA game. Where coaches like Williams and Coach K were once regarded as great " XandO"guys, in reality now its more about the talent they recruit.

When watching these teams I still notice an offensive or defensive "philosophy", but the X and O factor that so many talk about is becoming less and less significant.

Anyone agree? (or disagree)?

---

There are still teams that run "pattern" offenses, but increasingly, teams run motion of some sort or another. Steve Kerr says the Warriors run plays <30% of the time. With motion offenses, players need to understand concepts such as spacing and fundamentals such as screen setting and movement without the ball. As you notice, most teams' offenses look pretty similar.

UrsaMajor said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

On these boards posters are constantly bringing up the "X's and O's" factor, especially when discussing the ability of our current coach.

As someone that has watched college basketball for about 50 years, I'd just like to say that while X/O still exists I don't believe it is as significant as once was.

Today the athletes are better, and the rules have changed from: No Shot Clock to 45 sec clock to 35 sec clock and now 30 second clock, which cuts into the X/O factor.

Example: Watch a Duke/NC game now and compare it to a game played by these teams 20 years ago. To me, these days it resembles more of an NBA game. Where coaches like Williams and Coach K were once regarded as great " XandO"guys, in reality now its more about the talent they recruit.

When watching these teams I still notice an offensive or defensive "philosophy", but the X and O factor that so many talk about is becoming less and less significant.

Anyone agree? (or disagree)?

---

There are still teams that run "pattern" offenses, but increasingly, teams run motion of some sort or another. Steve Kerr says the Warriors run plays <30% of the time. With motion offenses, players need to understand concepts such as spacing and fundamentals such as screen setting and movement without the ball. As you notice, most teams' offenses look pretty similar.

---

I love the game, but don't really understand the fundamentals and the strategies of it- is this why slashers can be a valuable commodity? Then you need long range shooters who can space the floor so that the slashers have more room to work in?

You can roll out the balls to a certain point. Look at Cuonzo he rolled out the balls to Jabari, Jaylen, Ivan and Ty. He had a habit of losing tight games against good teams where coaching was required.

KoreAmBear said:

---

You can roll out the balls to a certain point. Look at Cuonzo he rolled out the balls to Jabari, Jaylen, Ivan and Ty. He had a habit of losing tight games against good teams where coaching was required.

---

I think the lack of coaching in Cuonzo's case had more to do with the lack of an offensive philosophy (other than "be aggressive and beat your man") in general, although I do agree that he seemed not to be able to take advantage of match-ups at the end of games.

KoreAmBear said:

---

You can roll out the balls to a certain point. Look at Cuonzo he rolled out the balls to Jabari, Jaylen, Ivan and Ty. He had a habit of losing tight games against good teams where coaching was required.

---

+1. If you have great players you don't have to be more than an average X's and O's guy. However, if you are well below average then you just end up squandering good talent.

"X's and O's" can be a catch-all phrase in this context, which can even include players' individual skill development (as it relates to fitting in with the rest of the team, on court).


As to modern offenses, the analogy can be made to music:

In "classical" music, the player plays what's written. In jazz, there's a lot more improvisation. But jazz still needs to be learned, because the player can't just do "whatever" and still needs to fit in with the others in his/her ensemble... just in more of a free-flowing way.

dbush518 said:

---

With the shot clock everybody talks about offense. But defense can be a devastating weapon. A good defensive team can consistently limit opponents to desperation bad shots.

Somebody once asked if Pete Newell's teams, that played a very deliberate style, would have been able to win in the shot clock era. The answer was they would thrive. The other team would never be able to get off a good shot.

---

You make a very good point.

Pete Newell was one of the strongest advocates for a shot clock. He was in favor of keeping the game moving and not slowing it down. He said he felt his teams would do very well with a shot clock, not only because his teams would have an easier time defending other teams, but because he felt his own teams with their well-practiced precision plays, both pattern plays and two-man plays, would easily get a good shot off before the shot clock timer had elapsed. The teams that Newell faced did not have quite such good plays, and did not work as hard to perfect them, IMO.

The "Xs and Os" are different today. They are motion offense "Xs and Os", as compared to pattern offense "Xs and Os" of yesteryear. There is more individual creativity than yesteryear and less noticeable team play. For example, today an assist is awarded for just about any pass leading to a basket, which is an effort by league governing bodies to have us believe that there is still as much team play now as ever before. Well, there is not. Today you are awarded an assist for a pass to a player who makes a three point basket, comparatively a very low percentage shot. Today you are also awarded an assist for passing the ball to a player who makes a mid-range shot, or to a player who then takes a dribble or two before making a layup. In Oscar Robertson's day, if he made a pass to a player for a perimeter shot or mid range shot, there was no assist awarded. If he made a pass to a player who took one dribble before making a layup, he was not awarded an assist. If he made a pass to a player who even took one step toward the basket before making a layup, an assist was not awarded. And Oscar's assist statistics compare quite favorably to the best point guards of today.

I feel the great majority today's players have not grown up with any kind of pattern play. The emphasis now is on the individual, not as much on the team. Players are idolized more than the team. Individual stats are more important than team stats. The game is approaching one where "the inmates are running the asylum." The emphasis is on the flashy, the entertainment value of the play, and the game now is played at high speed, with the most exciting plays the individual dunk and the three. The game is so fast, players and coaches care less about turnovers. Gone is the attention to team skills, like passing, screening, cutting, and the individual skills like shut down one on one defense. The players just have little or no interest in pattern plays now. You can barely get them interested in two-man plays, IMO. Mike Montgomery had a couple of Cal teams that he wanted to inject some life into, and he experimented with two pattern plays. The first was to set up a double screen, and have his shooter, Crabbe, Cobbs, or Jorge curl around behind the screen, catch a pass and shoot a 12 footer, often off the glass. They ran the play a few times, and it was successful nearly 100% of the time. He also tried a weave, a dribble handoff weave, where each ball handler set a screen for the player he was handing the ball off to. It is a legal moving screen, the same one Newell used at Cal, and frustrates defenses no end. After a couple of games using these plays, Montgomery abandoned them, presumably because the players were not interested in running them, or working to perfect them. Just my opinion. Why would Montgomery abandon something that was working? It made little sense. BTW, Wyking Jones' weave does not set these legal moving screens, and is less effective.

Pattern offense may be gone, but I'm not sure it is dead. One interesting thing I see now is the return of the two-hand set shot, a very accurate shot of yesteryear. I watched the Oregon-UCLA women's game in the PAC12 tournament, and nearly every player used a two hand set shot for her threes. Steph Curry uses a two hand set shot with a very early and quick release for his threes, perhaps leading more to try this method. So maybe some coach will re-introduce pattern offense and have success. I would love to see today's great athletes run pattern plays, as they could theoretically be even better at it than the less athletic players of the past.

watch the warriors. its making 3's thats paramount in todays game.

calgo430 said:

---

watch the warriors. its making 3's thats paramount in todays game.

---

Some brilliant computer programmer has to crack the code for how to defend them.

calgo430 said:

---

watch the warriors. its making 3's thats paramount in todays game.

---

And making threes opens up slashing to the basket.

There are just not a lot of X and O strategies to use when you dont have shooters.

yes, to some extent Xs and Os are less important than before. I think the biggest factors are:

- younger, less experienced players make up a bigger proportion of more teams these days
- the shorter shot clock

But they certainly are still extremely important, especially depending the make up of your team

For example, if you have a team full of 5 Star freshmen (Kentucky) than you can play fast and use size, athleticism, speed and skill to win games.

But if you have less of the above, than you need to play smarter (Xs and Os)

An example of successful team based on strong Xs and Os is Utah. Average talent, but full of experienced high hoops IQ players in a structured offensive scheme. However Utah Coach would not be successful if he had 3 freshmen starters playing 30+ minutes/game

SFCityBear said:

---

The "Xs and Os" are different today. They are motion offense "Xs and Os", as compared to pattern offense "Xs and Os" of yesteryear. There is more individual creativity than yesteryear and less noticeable team play. For example, today an assist is awarded for just about any pass leading to a basket, which is an effort by league governing bodies to have us believe that there is still as much team play now as ever before. Well, there is not. Today you are awarded an assist for a pass to a player who makes a three point basket, comparatively a very low percentage shot. Today you are also awarded an assist for passing the ball to a player who makes a mid-range shot, or to a player who then takes a dribble or two before making a layup. In Oscar Robertson's day, if he made a pass to a player for a perimeter shot or mid range shot, there was no assist awarded. If he made a pass to a player who took one dribble before making a layup, he was not awarded an assist. If he made a pass to a player who even took one step toward the basket before making a layup, an assist was not awarded. And Oscar's assist statistics compare quite favorably to the best point guards of today.

I feel the great majority today's players have not grown up with any kind of pattern play. The emphasis now is on the individual, not as much on the team. Players are idolized more than the team. Individual stats are more important than team stats. The game is approaching one where "the inmates are running the asylum." The emphasis is on the flashy, the entertainment value of the play, and the game now is played at high speed, with the most exciting plays the individual dunk and the three. The game is so fast, players and coaches care less about turnovers. Gone is the attention to team skills, like passing, screening, cutting, and the individual skills like shut down one on one defense. The players just have little or no interest in pattern plays now. You can barely get them interested in two-man plays, IMO. Mike Montgomery had a couple of Cal teams that he wanted to inject some life into, and he experimented with two pattern plays. The first was to set up a double screen, and have his shooter, Crabbe, Cobbs, or Jorge curl around behind the screen, catch a pass and shoot a 12 footer, often off the glass. They ran the play a few times, and it was successful nearly 100% of the time. He also tried a weave, a dribble handoff weave, where each ball handler set a screen for the player he was handing the ball off to. It is a legal moving screen, the same one Newell used at Cal, and frustrates defenses no end. After a couple of games using these plays, Montgomery abandoned them, presumably because the players were not interested in running them, or working to perfect them. Just my opinion. Why would Montgomery abandon something that was working? It made little sense. BTW, Wyking Jones' weave does not set these legal moving screens, and is less effective.

Pattern offense may be gone, but I'm not sure it is dead. One interesting thing I see now is the return of the two-hand set shot, a very accurate shot of yesteryear. I watched the Oregon-UCLA women's game in the PAC12 tournament, and nearly every player used a two hand set shot for her threes. Steph Curry uses a two hand set shot with a very early and quick release for his threes, perhaps leading more to try this method. So maybe some coach will re-introduce pattern offense and have success. I would love to see today's great athletes run pattern plays, as they could theoretically be even better at it than the less athletic players of the past.

---

SFCity:

Very interesting post with lots of information. I do disagree about Steph, however. If you watch his release, it's with 1 hand (his right) like everyone else, and he releases the ball while jumping (the difference between a jump shot and a set shot). What is different is that he releases the ball on the way up rather than at the top of his leap like most classic jump shooters.

I agree with Ursa.

Amazing how uncanny Steph is in getting his shot off. At his height and with a relatively low release, one would think it would be blocked now and then, whereas it almost never is.

Steph has amazing timing,vision, and concentration. Even when it is almost certain that he will get bumped or worse, he is able to concentrate and aim, as though he were alone in the gym, putting up shots where nobody could possibly bother him.