Houston 2/27 7:00 ESPN2

[Lobot]

Someone call Pedro Cerrano and have him conjure Jobu.

Hats for Bats!

[leo from jersey]

Someone call Pedro Cerrano and have him conjure Jobu.

not by quoting stats about how bad they will be beaten before the game even starts.

[leeraymond]

Right, you remove the UCF game and we're being outscored by 26 points in the first half. I don't know the exact totals, but you mentioned our average margin is zero in the second half. Remove the UCF game and we're being outscored by about 23 in the second half. So both halves are about the same if you remove the UCF outlier. My point in all this is looking at individual segments (whether opening 4 minutes, halves, or anything less than a full game) is mostly random variation that evens out over a season. What really matters is our overall efficiency. We're a top 50 team, but not top 30-ish where we need to be. That's what it boils down to.

I would like to see more consistent lineups. Cronin ran a distinct second group in 2011 that was sometimes called the goon squad. I think we could do that with the depth we have now. We don't have much offensive chemistry, and creating two groups that play a lot together could help. Miller has always had deep teams with lots of subbing though. His UNCG teams were like that too.

It's hard to say what our best lineup is though. Sometimes two bigs gets us in trouble against a quick stretch 4. Our PGs and Skillings aren't efficient scorers, and Newman/Aziz don't do much on offense. It's hard to score when three of them are on the floor at the same time, but we don't have much choice. Vik, Simas, and Jamille are the only guys capable of producing consistent efficient offense. We haven't tried them on the floor all together much, but I would try it.

Jizzle/Simas/Skillings/Vik/Jamille is probably our best offensive lineup. Then the defensive goon squad would be Day Day/Newman/Reed/Ody/Aziz. That lineup would struggle to put up 40 points against anyone. So we'd have to mix it up. Jizzle and Skillings are both one man shows on offense, so maybe try throwing them out there with three high energy defenders? So starters Day Day/Simas/Newman/Vik/Jamille, reserve unit Jizzle/Skillings/Reed/Ody/Aziz.

It's tough to piece something good together. Lots of one dimensional players.

Sometimes random variation can lead to wins or losses. A freak play here, a lucky shot there, unusually bad defense on a night, unusually good three-point shooting in a game. Before you know it, all of these so-called random variations begin to produce noticeable patterns and data points that can be used to measure wins or losses. Hey, I get what you are saying.

Looking at the ever-changing lineups, the best teams are the ones with the most cohesiveness and togetherness. It is difficult to build any cohesiveness into your lineups when there is a different one on the floor every 3 minutes. Also, if you look at Newman's conference stats, he is shooting 49%. However, among the guards, he takes the fewest shots. Getting Newman to be more aggressive could lead to some extra scoring. Last comment, with the game that Lakhin had the other night, it makes me wonder why was he really riding the bench. If he was in the doghouse, make him run suicides or something. Sometimes coaches hurt the team when they refuse to play a player. Imagine the points that WERE NOT scored because Lakhin was on the bench.

I want your honest opinion here. What do YOU think about Miller as a coach so far? Do not pull any punches.

[leo from jersey]

Seriously people have you never played for a coach who steadied you before a game especially a big one. Bear Catlett was a master at that -- wink wink nod nod ---- seriously besides that, many are very good at doing that - they are winners.

[leo from jersey]

A few examples -- Before the Super Bowl Paul Brown did the Icky shuffle and Sam Wyche did magic tricks --- There was a certain Bearcat assistant (name only known to those who know) that dressed up like a chicken and then arm wrestled. Many just use verbal methods. Depends on the coach.

[Rufus]

Quote "I want your honest opinion here. What do YOU think about Miller as a coach so far? Do not pull any punches ". Unquote

I was telling this to another poster just the other day. I think it is a bad time in collegiate sports to be an up and coming coach. CWM had success in the Southern conference recruiting kids that were grateful to obtain a scholarship to play basketball for the most part, and teaching them how to win. He would have these kids for several years to teach them his system. And I even remember saying that it still took him 4-5 years of making mistakes to figure out what worked and what didn't. But now it's a different animal. He has to convince these AAU kids who all have been told that they are the best thing since sliced bread, promising them that they can play a wide open style, then you have the NIL, the transfer portal, and having to find a way to keep kids for more than one year, added to that the best competition that college basketball has to offer so even the best of coaches have it hard to navigate this. See Jay Wright as example # 1. So yes I think Wes Miller is in over his head at this time. I don't think He's capable of coaching at this level right now. Plus I think the staff he has assembled is inadequate to compete at this level. I don't see DS or JJ or DayDay, playing with the energy and tenacity or the toughness as Bobby Brannen, or Justin Jackson, or Eric Hicks, guys that imposed their will on the opponent. Miller keeps talking about being bearcat tough but these kids wilted against the #1 team until they finally reorganized themselves.

[sedz]

not by quoting stats about how bad they will be beaten before the game even starts.

Do you really think I'm suggesting that a coach just read stats to the players before the game, and that's it? Coaches should use stats to develop strategy. How they go about implementing that strategy is a skill in itself.

Honestly, I think I give the players more respect as people than you do. You seem to think they are easily manipulated and controllable. That they will drastically change their level of focus and effort each game based on what the coach says or does. Like they're robots that need the right stimulus. I don't think that's true. I think these guys are generally trying hard all the time and human unpredictability is what causes randomness from game to game. And that randomness that can't be controlled is what makes sports so exciting.

[Gmann]

Quote "I want your honest opinion here. What do YOU think about Miller as a coach so far? Do not pull any punches ". Unquote

I was telling this to another poster just the other day. I think it is a bad time in collegiate sports to be an up and coming coach. CWM had success in the Southern conference recruiting kids that were grateful to obtain a scholarship to play basketball for the most part, and teaching them how to win. He would have these kids for several years to teach them his system. And I even remember saying that it still took him 4-5 years of making mistakes to figure out what worked and what didn't. But now it's a different animal. He has to convince these AAU kids who all have been told that they are the best thing since sliced bread, promising them that they can play a wide open style, then you have the NIL, the transfer portal, and having to find a way to keep kids for more than one year, added to that the best competition that college basketball has to offer so even the best of coaches have it hard to navigate this. See Jay Wright as example # 1. So yes I think Wes Miller is in over his head at this time. I don't think He's capable of coaching at this level right now. Plus I think the staff he has assembled is inadequate to compete at this level. I don't see DS or JJ or DayDay, playing with the energy and tenacity or the toughness as Bobby Brannen, or Justin Jackson, or Eric Hicks, guys that imposed their will on the opponent. Miller keeps talking about being bearcat tough but these kids wilted against the #1 team until they finally reorganized themselves.

I think you summarized very well the coaching challenges in the current environment. That's why I think a relatively younger coach needs strong assistants maybe even a seasoned guy who has done it all to be the associate head coach. I don't see that in Miller's assistants and I think it is a problem.

[sedz]

Sometimes random variation can lead to wins or losses. A freak play here, a lucky shot there, unusually bad defense on a night, unusually good three-point shooting in a game. Before you know it, all of these so-called random variations begin to produce noticeable patterns and data points that can be used to measure wins or losses. Hey, I get what you are saying.

Looking at the ever-changing lineups, the best teams are the ones with the most cohesiveness and togetherness. It is difficult to build any cohesiveness into your lineups when there is a different one on the floor every 3 minutes. Also, if you look at Newman's conference stats, he is shooting 49%. However, among the guards, he takes the fewest shots. Getting Newman to be more aggressive could lead to some extra scoring. Last comment, with the game that Lakhin had the other night, it makes me wonder why was he really riding the bench. If he was in the doghouse, make him run suicides or something. Sometimes coaches hurt the team when they refuse to play a player. Imagine the points that WERE NOT scored because Lakhin was on the bench.

I want your honest opinion here. What do YOU think about Miller as a coach so far? Do not pull any punches.

Random variation can't be controlled. Overall strategy can. That's when you get into noticeable patterns.

If Newman is shooting 49% with low usage, that would most likely go down with increased usage. Yes, he would score more, but at a lower efficiency. I have said several times that the wings need to be more aggressive because our PGs are the most inefficient scorers on the team but they take a lot of shots. So I agree that Newman should be more aggressive, but that alone won't fix our offense. The average offense scores 1.06 points per possession. So if you're getting one shot per possession (offensive and rebounds and turnovers are even), then you need a true shooting percentage of 53 (or an effective field goal percentage around 51). Here's our team's true shooting percentages in conference:
63 Aziz (low usage)
60 Jamille
58 Newman (low usage)
52 Simas
49 Reed (low usage)
49 Skillings
47 Vik
46 Jizzle
42 Day Day

Jamille is our only efficient, high usage scorer. Simas is close. Aziz and Newman are efficient but low usage. Vik is capable when he's in the right place. Our PGs are bad, but they have the highest usage rates on the team. Skillings is third highest. That's a big problem. We've got to find a way to transfer shots from our poor shooters to our good ones. I think it starts by playing Jamille and Simas together a lot, and ideally Vik when he's in the right headspace. And Newman increasing his usage could be an important piece too.

[Rufus]

I think Miller has that in a way with R. Williams. It's just that the transfer portal and the NIL has created something not ever seen before, and has become going where no one has had to go before.

[leo from jersey]

Do you really think I'm suggesting that a coach just read stats to the players before the game, and that's it? Coaches should use stats to develop strategy. How they go about implementing that strategy is a skill in itself.

Honestly, I think I give the players more respect as people than you do. You seem to think they are easily manipulated and controllable. That they will drastically change their level of focus and effort each game based on what the coach says or does. Like they're robots that need the right stimulus. I don't think that's true. I think these guys are generally trying hard all the time and human unpredictability is what causes randomness from game to game. And that randomness that can't be controlled is what makes sports so exciting.

yes - BTW why do you surmise what I do. It is easy to get into your head. Didn't your coaches teach you how to reject that?

[leo from jersey]

I think Miller has that in a way with R. Williams. It's just that the transfer portal and the NIL has created something not ever seen before, and has become going where no one has had to go before.

as George Harrison sang " I got my mind set on you
I got my mind set on you
I got my mind set on you
I got my mind set on you

But it's gonna take money
A whole lotta spendin' money
It's gonna take plenty of money
To do it right, child"

Rufus it is a help to know that you may be replaced if money is there to buy your replacement. Plus if you are getting paid someone is in your ear (agent, parent) and they often correct your behavior. If not and if you have money, buy a winner. That is the way that tune is sung today sadly. I still think you can help most by wise coaching and confidence building. Plus cash. Things may go worse as only time will tell as you alluded to. Money isn't the only incentive. At least the business profs at UC taught that. We can look to the NBA to see how it has worked.

[sedz]

I want your honest opinion here. What do YOU think about Miller as a coach so far? Do not pull any punches.

Obviously I'm an analytics guy. I didn't like the Wes hire from the start because all of his UNCG teams shot a bunch of midrange shots, the most inefficient shot in baskeball. And they rarely got to the free throw line, the most efficient shot in basketball. It's really hard to have a good offense like that. Wes didn't have a a single team at UNCG that was above average in free throw rate. His final year there they were #333 in the country. That year, Isaiah Miller put up a ridiculous 9 midrange shots per game, making only 38%. He had a usage rate of 35 (higher than anyone we've ever had, even 2019 Jarron), but a true shooting percentage below 50. You can't just let your guards go out there and chuck up midrange stepbacks and fadeaways like it's the playground or 1985. Offenses have become much more efficient over the last couple decades because teams have learned that midrange is bad offense. The NBA has increased its average efficiency from 1.06 to 1.17 points per possession in just the last 10 years. College basketball is similar but not quite to the same degree (in 2013 average scoring was 1.02 points per possession, now it's up to 1.06). If you don't adapt, you'll get left behind.

Guards shooting bad midrange shots is a pattern with Wes Miller. Day Day and Jizzle are doing it now. David DeJulius did it the last two years. Isaiah Miller did it at UNCG. Kayel Locke and Kyle Cain did it before that. If that's always going to be a Wes Miller hallmark, he's got to make up for that in other areas. So far we haven't been able to on the offensive end (we don't shoot well from the rim or three either). The defense is much better this year though, so I have hope that if we get better offensive players in here we can become more efficient. But unless our shot selection changes, it's going to be tough. Maybe we just need to figure out what motivational tactics make midrange shots go in the basket. No other coach has figured that one out yet.

[swilsonsp4]

I'm not of the mind to kick Miller to the curb. This team has been competitive in every B12 game, except two (ISU and at TCU). And that's without an alpha scorer. Even down in Houston, after getting off to a poor shooting start that left them chasing for a good part of the game, they went toe-to-toe with the Cougars. Would I prefer that the Cats be on the right side of the bubble? Sure.

Without inferring that Miller will become a legendary coach or Hall of Famer, since no one knows his future, he's actually well ahead of the first three years of one. Fortunately for Mike Krzyzewski, who came to Duke in 1980, shortly after the Blue Devils had gone to their fifth Final 4 in 19 years, there wasn't any social media. His teams' records stood at 38-47. Duke didn't fire him.

Perhaps Miller's tenure won't reach the stature of that of Huggins or Cronin, perhaps it will. But he inherited a terrible situation in the wake of Brannen's firing. His second team was better than the first and this one's better than his second. I look forward to seeing next year's squad.

But first, I plan to cheer this current team down the stretch and into the postseason, whatever that entails.

[leo from jersey]

Random variation can't be controlled. Overall strategy can. That's when you get into noticeable patterns.

If Newman is shooting 49% with low usage, that would most likely go down with increased usage. Yes, he would score more, but at a lower efficiency. I have said several times that the wings need to be more aggressive because our PGs are the most inefficient scorers on the team but they take a lot of shots. So I agree that Newman should be more aggressive, but that alone won't fix our offense. The average offense scores 1.06 points per possession. So if you're getting one shot per possession (offensive and rebounds and turnovers are even), then you need a true shooting percentage of 53 (or an effective field goal percentage around 51). Here's our team's true shooting percentages in conference:
63 Aziz (low usage)
60 Jamille
58 Newman (low usage)
52 Simas
49 Reed (low usage)
49 Skillings
47 Vik
46 Jizzle
42 Day Day

Jamille is our only efficient, high usage scorer. Simas is close. Aziz and Newman are efficient but low usage. Vik is capable when he's in the right place. Our PGs are bad, but they have the highest usage rates on the team. Skillings is third highest. That's a big problem. We've got to find a way to transfer shots from our poor shooters to our good ones. I think it starts by playing Jamille and Simas together a lot, and ideally Vik when he's in the right headspace. And Newman increasing his usage could be an important piece too.

sometimes we need to make a poor shooter a good one - example Kenyon Martin -- hours in the gym and someone willing to shag the balls. That is for next year though. Plus do all have Kenyon's work ethic. I have discovered that many do like to shoot. It is the other tools that many ignore.