NCAA Tournament thread

[sedz]

There are a number of points here. The clips that you provide show Grant Nelson against North Carolina and whatever teams that SDSU were playing at the time. North Carolina is not really known for its defense. So, it is not hard to see how Nelson can get to the rim or have a monster game against them. I have seen Nelson play, he is a good player. However, I do not think his defensive game is nothing like Skillings'. Nelson has the size to truly play the 4 and the 5. Sometimes Miller will play Skillings at the four, but that matchup does not favor UC. Remember, it was Skillings who was on Disu (Texas) when he hit the shot that led to the shot that lost UC the game. As for Nelson, let's see what he does against a more defensive minded team, UCONN, this weekend. There should be some really good matchups in that game. Gillis is a small forward / wing. Simas' game is much more aggressive than Gillis'. To me there is a big difference in the way Gillis plays vs Simas. Simas is much more of a volume shooter. The good thing is, we can watch Gillis play this weekend as well.

Do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that a guy's size makes him good. Even if a player is big, he still needs some skills. Nevertheless, there have been teams that won the national championship with two bigs that did NOT score, but they played defense and rebounded. The UCONN team that won the NCAA Tourney with Kimba Walker had two African big men that could NOT score a lick. However, Jim Calhoun found a way to get wins. Also, the UCONN team that won the national championship, with Shabazz Napier and Boatright (both were guards under 6'1"), had one big that scored a little but he mostly played defense and rebounded. My point is this, a team can win with bigs that are not highly skilled scorers. However, they must be good defenders and rebounders. Also, hitting free throws is always a plus. More importantly, these teams MUST have good coaching and very good guard play. I have been watching basketball a very long time and I can only remember a few smaller teams winning it all. The last NCAA team that was smallish to win it all, that I can remember, was Villanova (their last NCAA Championship). That team had a 6'9" forward that played in the paint and another 6'7" perimeter-oriented forward. As I recall, that team also had one backup big man (6'8" / 6'9" or something like that) that never shot the ball. So that team played 4 out and 1 in. One thing for sure this year, we know a big team is going to win the NCAA.

UNC has the #13 defense in the country. We're really stretching here to try to say Grant Nelson can't drive the ball. He's crossing over defenders in the sweet sixteen. Traditional bigs don't do that. Nelson and Gillis are absolutely not traditional bigs. That's the only point I'm making. Of course they aren't exactly like Skillings and Simas. But they are WAY more like them than Aziz or Jamille. They can move laterally and score from the perimeter. Focus on that. I want to bring in players who can do that. Skillings played at the 4 almost the entire season and it was great for us, much better than when we tried two bigs.

Kemba Walker won the title 13 years ago, before modern offense had really worked its way down from the NBA to college. You could afford multiple guys who couldn't score from or defend the perimeter back then. NC St is making a miracle run with two bigs. It's not a pattern.

We already have Aziz on the roster. You would call us a "big team" too. I'm arguing that we don't need multiple SLOW pure centers in the rotation. Last year Clingan only played 13 minutes per game and he was the only guy over 6'9". In 2022, McCormack was the only guy over 6'8" for Kansas. 2021 Baylor played 4 guards under 6'5". Those are all modern 4 out teams with guys at the PF position who are 6'4" to 6'8" with perimeter skillsets. We already have Aziz as a true center along with guys who can be serviceable at the 5 like McKinley or Reed if the other wings are big. I would guess we'll bring in another huge, slow center because Wes seems to want that. But teams are not winning with slow unskilled bigs.

[zykarious]

UNC has the #13 defense in the country. We're really stretching here to try to say Grant Nelson can't drive the ball. He's crossing over defenders in the sweet sixteen. Traditional bigs don't do that. Nelson and Gillis are absolutely not traditional bigs. That's the only point I'm making. Of course they aren't exactly like Skillings and Simas. But they are WAY more like them than Aziz or Jamille. They can move laterally and score from the perimeter. Focus on that. I want to bring in players who can do that. Skillings played at the 4 almost the entire season and it was great for us, much better than when we tried two bigs.

Kemba Walker won the title 13 years ago, before modern offense had really worked its way down from the NBA to college. You could afford multiple guys who couldn't score from or defend the perimeter back then. NC St is making a miracle run with two bigs. It's not a pattern.

We already have Aziz on the roster. You would call us a "big team" too. I'm arguing that we don't need multiple SLOW pure centers in the rotation. Last year Clingan only played 13 minutes per game and he was the only guy over 6'9". In 2022, McCormack was the only guy over 6'8" for Kansas. 2021 Baylor played 4 guards under 6'5". Those are all modern 4 out teams with guys at the PF position who are 6'4" to 6'8" with perimeter skillsets. We already have Aziz as a true center along with guys who can be serviceable at the 5 like McKinley or Reed if the other wings are big. I would guess we'll bring in another huge, slow center because Wes seems to want that. But teams are not winning with slow unskilled bigs.

I'm not saying we need a big unskilled center, but I'm not the least bit comfortable relying on the guys who have never played a minute of center at the college level (Reed and the Tyler's) to provide 15 minutes per game at center. If they prove they can do it, great, but that can't be the plan going into next season. It's one thing to have a veteran 6'8" PF playing center and another rely on inexperienced guys who haven't had time to get experience at the college level or bulk up. Reed (and Simas) are undersized at PF, we are going to get dominated by some teams if we run them out at center for long stretches.

Center is the toughest position in CBB to come in an play as a freshman, so I'm not counting on the Tyler's either. We don't need "another" huge, slow center (I'd argue that Aziz isn't slow), but we certainly can't feel comfortable with what we have. It's possible to find examples of teams that succeed playing virtually any style, if you have great players anything can work. There are also plenty of mid-majors who get run over by high majors because they just can't compete in terms of height, length and athleticism. It would be great to see some sort of statistical analysis of how team height effects win rate, but that's probably asking too much.

Aziz goes hard, which means he rarely plays more than 25 minutes. He was the only starter in our tournament stretch to not play over 30 minutes in any game. There's no way Wes is comfortable at center with our roster (assuming Reynolds and Sage transfer). Then you have to think about if Aziz gets injured, with the Reed, Simas and Tyler's backup plan, an Aziz injury would basically be a death knell for the season.

[sedz]

I'm not saying we need a big unskilled center, but I'm not the least bit comfortable relying on the guys who have never played a minute of center at the college level (Reed and the Tyler's) to provide 15 minutes per game at center. If they prove they can do it, great, but that can't be the plan going into next season. It's one thing to have a veteran 6'8" PF playing center and another rely on inexperienced guys who haven't had time to get experience at the college level or bulk up. Reed (and Simas) are undersized at PF, we are going to get dominated by some teams if we run them out at center for long stretches.

Center is the toughest position in CBB to come in an play as a freshman, so I'm not counting on the Tyler's either. We don't need "another" huge, slow center (I'd argue that Aziz isn't slow), but we certainly can't feel comfortable with what we have. It's possible to find examples of teams that succeed playing virtually any style, if you have great players anything can work. There are also plenty of mid-majors who get run over by high majors because they just can't compete in terms of height, length and athleticism. It would be great to see some sort of statistical analysis of how team height effects win rate, but that's probably asking too much.

Aziz goes hard, which means he rarely plays more than 25 minutes. He was the only starter in our tournament stretch to not play over 30 minutes in any game. There's no way Wes is comfortable at center with our roster (assuming Reynolds and Sage transfer). Then you have to think about if Aziz gets injured, with the Reed, Simas and Tyler's backup plan, an Aziz injury would basically be a death knell for the season.

Aziz is very slow laterally. He can't defend wings on the perimeter. We played Reed at the 5 a few times this season, and I thought it worked out great. You don't have a "center" with that lineup. Everything is doubled and switched. There's no additional pressure on one individual. You have all four wings sharing responsibility for the interior. I know that fans and even coaches are afraid to try it, but I think everyone would end up surprised at how effective it can be.

All kinds of sortable team stats can be found here: https://barttorvik.com/team-tables_each.php
Average height is weighted by minutes played. Effective height is the average of the two tallest players on the floor, so basically frontcourt height. Purdue is unsurprisingly the tallest frontcourt in the country at over 6'11". We are #14 at 6'10" (it's thrown off by Simas being listed at 6'8"). Our average height is #35 at 6'6", just one inch shorter than the average height in the NBA. Size was not our problem.

Houston had the 19th smallest team in the country with average height under 6'4". There are a bunch of good short teams with average height under 6'5" and frontcourt height under 6'9" including Houston, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Colorado St, Texas A&M, Indiana St, South Carolina, and Nebraska. We're not even close to that small. We can afford to trade some size for quickness and skill.

"There are also plenty of mid-majors who get run over by high majors because they just can't compete in terms of height, length and athleticism."
I want to add overall length and athleticism. Take minutes away from true bigs and increase minutes for long, athletic wings.

[leeraymond]

UNC has the #13 defense in the country. We're really stretching here to try to say Grant Nelson can't drive the ball. He's crossing over defenders in the sweet sixteen. Traditional bigs don't do that. Nelson and Gillis are absolutely not traditional bigs. That's the only point I'm making. Of course they aren't exactly like Skillings and Simas. But they are WAY more like them than Aziz or Jamille. They can move laterally and score from the perimeter. Focus on that. I want to bring in players who can do that. Skillings played at the 4 almost the entire season and it was great for us, much better than when we tried two bigs.

Kemba Walker won the title 13 years ago, before modern offense had really worked its way down from the NBA to college. You could afford multiple guys who couldn't score from or defend the perimeter back then. NC St is making a miracle run with two bigs. It's not a pattern.

We already have Aziz on the roster. You would call us a "big team" too. I'm arguing that we don't need multiple SLOW pure centers in the rotation. Last year Clingan only played 13 minutes per game and he was the only guy over 6'9". In 2022, McCormack was the only guy over 6'8" for Kansas. 2021 Baylor played 4 guards under 6'5". Those are all modern 4 out teams with guys at the PF position who are 6'4" to 6'8" with perimeter skillsets. We already have Aziz as a true center along with guys who can be serviceable at the 5 like McKinley or Reed if the other wings are big. I would guess we'll bring in another huge, slow center because Wes seems to want that. But teams are not winning with slow unskilled bigs.

UNC gave up 70.5 points / game this season. Also, UNC is ranked 121 by the NCAA in terms of points allowed per game. I would hardly call UNC a strong defensive team. Nelson is a good player. He looks like a pro prospect. He reminds me a little of a right-handed Toni Kukoc (Chicago Bulls). We will see what Nelson is all about this weekend when Alabama plays UCONN. Gillis is NOT a big. He is a wing, but he does not remind me of Simas. Skillings at the 4 leads to losses. UC had 15 losses this season (way too many) with guys like Skillings at the 4. UC might be better off with Skillings playing at the 2 or the 3. Also, if Skillings is drafted, do you honestly think that he would play at the 4 at the professional level? He would get run over on every possession. Even now, teams seek Skillings out because they know he is not much of a defender. Nevertheless, Skillings is my man (at least one of them). I really like that guy.

This year UC played with the wrong two bigs. Oguama should have played more minutes. That is a coaching issue.

You know Sedz, man, you have a response to every comment ha, ha. I would bet that that same UCONN team (Kemba Walker) would make it to the NCAAs with the current version of college basketball. Like Oscar says, "basketball is basketball". "At the NBA level, it is all about the players. At the NCAA level, it is all about the coaching" (Charles Barkley). Watch the types of teams that end up winning it all. I will put my money on the teams with the good size. Look at the Denver (Nuggets) last year. They killed people on the boards and in the paint with those bigs. It was like it was not fair. Now every once in a while one of those bigs would hit a three, but it was primarily Denver's size that created all of the problems.

I would never play Reed as a five. However, UC should play him as a post-up guard. Imagine all of the matchup problems that posting up Reed would cause against smaller guards.

Hey Sedz, what teams do you like to end up in the NCAA Finals? Also, what team do you like to win it all? Let us know. Later.

[sedz]

leeraymond UNC plays fast, a top 50 tempo. And they play against good offenses. After adjusting for both of those, they allow 0.94 points per possession against an average team, which is #13 in the country. They have an excellent defense. Points per game is not a good way to evaluate teams. By that measure Alabama has one of the worst defenses in the country and Houston has a bad offense. We all know that's not true.

Skillings would play 2 thru 4 in the NBA. The NBA is full of wings his size. Generally only PG and C are defined positions for most teams. His problem isn't size, it's ballhandling, passing, and shooting.

Kemba's UConn team would certainly make the NCAA tournament today. I doubt they survive several consecutive games facing modern offenses that drag those guys out to the perimeter. You think Nikola Jokic is good just because he's big? I'm not sure how to respond to that. The dude is the most offensively skilled big man the game has ever seen. Aaron Gordon is one of the best athletes in the game. They aren't any bigger than other NBA teams. They aren't even much bigger than our Bearcats. They are the same size as Jamille and Simas. It's their skill and athleticism that set them apart.

I don't like to pick teams in the NCAA tournament, it ruins the fun for me. I like to embrace the chaos. All four are good teams that are capable.

[leeraymond]

leeraymond UNC plays fast, a top 50 tempo. And they play against good offenses. After adjusting for both of those, they allow 0.94 points per possession against an average team, which is #13 in the country. They have an excellent defense. Points per game is not a good way to evaluate teams. By that measure Alabama has one of the worst defenses in the country and Houston has a bad offense. We all know that's not true.

Skillings would play 2 thru 4 in the NBA. The NBA is full of wings his size. Generally only PG and C are defined positions for most teams. His problem isn't size, it's ballhandling, passing, and shooting.

Kemba's UConn team would certainly make the NCAA tournament today. I doubt they survive several consecutive games facing modern offenses that drag those guys out to the perimeter. You think Nikola Jokic is good just because he's big? I'm not sure how to respond to that. The dude is the most offensively skilled big man the game has ever seen. Aaron Gordon is one of the best athletes in the game. They aren't any bigger than other NBA teams. They aren't even much bigger than our Bearcats. They are the same size as Jamille and Simas. It's their skill and athleticism that set them apart.

I don't like to pick teams in the NCAA tournament, it ruins the fun for me. I like to embrace the chaos. All four are good teams that are capable.

Well Alabama is sort of a bad defensive team. It gives up 81.1 points / game. According to NCAA statistical rankings, that places UA at 346 out of 351 D-1 schools that play basketball. However, UA scores a whopping 90.6 points a game. It is clear that Alabama is not trying to stop you, it is trying to outscore you. Other than the injuries that plagued Houston this post season, it had a really hard time scoring. That is what killed them this Post-Season. Houston could hardly score a point against Iowa State in the second half of the BIG 12 Tournament championship game.

Once again, I cannot see Skillings at the 4 on any pro team. By the way, alone with ballhandling, passing, and shooting weaknesses for Skillings, you forgot DEFENSE as well.

Let's get this straight, I do not think a big man is good because he is big. It would be crazy to think that. A big man must know how to play winning basketball. Denver happens to have 3 big men (Jokic, Gordon, and Porter) that know how to play basketball. A positionless team would not have a chance against them in a championship series.

I get the feeling Sedz that you are a young guy because you think that positionless basketball is something new. College teams have been playing that way since at least 1989. When I started paying attention to college basketball (1989), the 1989 Illinois Final Four team played with 4 guys at 6'6" and a center at 6'7". Kendall Gill (6'6" point guard) was on that team. They lost to a very big and physical Michigan team in the Final Four. Michigan went 6'11", 6'9", 6'7" (Glen Rice), 6'9" (Sean Higgins (guard) (I think I got his last name right)), and 6'2". Illinois was a little too small. In recent history, West Virginia (Bob Huggins' Final Four season) had a team that featured a starting five where all the starters were 6'7" (no joke). Huggins had to abandoned that lineup because it was not a stable team without a true point guard. That is when Huggins inserted Truck Robinson into the starting lineup. They lost in the Final Four after DeShawn Butler went down with a horrific leg injury (very similar to what happen to Kenyon Martin). Also, Cronin had a positionless team (Sean Kilpatrick's last year; 2013 I believe) that featured Troy Caupain 6'3", Kilpatrick 6'4", Shaq Thomas 6'7", Titus Rubles 6'7", Justin Jackson 6'8", Jermaine Sanders 6'5", and Jermaine Lawrence 6'9". That was a very good defensive team. However, they could not score.

So, positionless basketball is not new. My point is when it comes down to a championship series or single championship game, the team with the more traditional lineup (with some big men) usually wins those games from what I have seen over the years. I do not have a data set to consult. I am going from the championship games and series that I have seen over the years. Mis-matches are created and bigger teams will typically find those mis-matches and exploit them to their size advantage in championship types of games. I gotta run.

[sedz]

Right, so Alabama's defense is worse than Detroit because they give up more points per game. That makes sense.

Denver plays completely positionless when Jokic isn't on the court. Skip to 6:45 in this video: https://twitter.com/NekiasNBA/status...167902720?s=20
They switch the screen and have Gordon on Chris Paul with a guard on big man Ayton. NBA teams do this all the time. Even when Jokic is out there the 2-4 positions are fluid. Gordon and Porter are defending guards. They aren't traditional bigs. Porter especially is a perimeter player on both ends. And again, Denver isn't even big compared to other NBA teams. Jokic is 6'11", normal for a center. The wings are 6'5", 6'8", 6'10", still normal for the NBA. The only real size difference between college and the pros is that wings and guards are a couple inches taller on average. Average NBA height is 6'7".

I never said positionless is new. Shooting a ton of threes and erasing the inefficient midrange shot is what's new. If your bigs can't deal with that, your team is going to struggle. Going positionless is just one strategy to adjust to the modern game in an era where there are fewer big players with enough quickness to compete. This isn't the 90s. You can't run Greg Ostertag out there with Karl Malone anymore. Or Rik Smits with Dale Davis. I brought up our past teams without traditional bigs when we first had this discussion over a month ago:

I don't think we need traditional bigs. Even at the NBA level most big centers are one dimensional. They're either scorers like Jokic/Embiid or rim protecters like Gobert/Davis. It's hard to be versatile at that size, unless you're a wiry unicorn like Wembanyama/Holmgren. And so some teams go without a big entirely.

Most of our great Bearcat teams didn't have a true center. We had frontcourts with Corie Blount & Erik Martin, Kenyon Martin & Pete Mickeal, Jason Maxiell & Eric Hicks, Justin Jackson & Tius Rubles, Kyle Washington & Gary Clark. None of those guys were over 6'9", and they could all move laterally. That lets you play a more positionless style so you can switch screens, press, and play help defense. Having big guards makes all that even easier. Of course we have also had our fair share of big, slow centers like Fortson and Yancy, but they aren't necessary to have a great team.

We've got McKinley and Betsey coming in, and I'm hoping that lets us play more positionless. Imagine the length we could have if Skillings is at the 2 instead of the 4. And hopefully more scoring options too.

I get the feeling you are an old guy because...
Don't do that.

[leeraymond]

Right, so Alabama's defense is worse than Detroit because they give up more points per game. That makes sense.

Denver plays completely positionless when Jokic isn't on the court. Skip to 6:45 in this video: https://twitter.com/NekiasNBA/status...167902720?s=20
They switch the screen and have Gordon on Chris Paul with a guard on big man Ayton. NBA teams do this all the time. Even when Jokic is out there the 2-4 positions are fluid. Gordon and Porter are defending guards. They aren't traditional bigs. Porter especially is a perimeter player on both ends. And again, Denver isn't even big compared to other NBA teams. Jokic is 6'11", normal for a center. The wings are 6'5", 6'8", 6'10", still normal for the NBA. The only real size difference between college and the pros is that wings and guards are a couple inches taller on average. Average NBA height is 6'7".

I never said positionless is new. Shooting a ton of threes and erasing the inefficient midrange shot is what's new. If your bigs can't deal with that, your team is going to struggle. Going positionless is just one strategy to adjust to the modern game in an era where there are fewer big players with enough quickness to compete. This isn't the 90s. You can't run Greg Ostertag out there with Karl Malone anymore. Or Rik Smits with Dale Davis. I brought up our past teams without traditional bigs when we first had this discussion over a month ago:


I get the feeling you are an old guy because...
Don't do that.

Teams are NOT positionless just because they play defense with lots of cross checking and switching man-to-man principles. That is how most NBA teams play defense. It is more efficient to do that as opposed to chasing your man all over the floor. Also, switching defense is used to play against the pick and roll to take away driving lanes and open shots off of those screens. It is only coaches like Miller that does not play switching man-to-man and cross-checking defenses. Playing that way does NOT make the team positionless. Within the course of a game, especially an NBA game, anybody may end up guarding anybody else because of randomness of movement when a basketball game is in effect. That is basketball. The year that Larry Davis took over for Cronin, because of Cronin's medical issues, Davis played with nothing but switching man-to-man and hybrid man-to-man and zone defenses. It was beautiful to watch UC play defense that year. Also, UC ended up being one of the very best defenses in the country that year (ranked 6th I believe). However, UC still had a center, forwards, and guards.

Even when players are introduced before games or are listed on the roster, there is a position associated with that player or is listed next to their names.

Concerning the three-point shot versus the "inefficient mid-range shot. UCONN beat Illinois by 25 points last week and only hit 3 threes. I know that you will say that UCONN got to the rim a lot. You are right if you are thinking that. They hit for 52 points in the PAINT. However, those paint shots were an assortment of layups, floaters, and mid-range shots. A team can win by taking higher probability lower scoring shots (2 point shot). I understand the logic to taking the three instead of the mid-range. However, what happens when the three-point shot is NOT working that particular game? I guess in the world of modern basketball, the team will continue to take that low probability shot and go down with the three. "Live by the three and die by the three". I personally do not believe that is a good strategy. Different things will work on different nights. Go with what is working that game and get the win. Winning is the only thing.

[sedz]

Teams are NOT positionless just because they play defense with lots of cross checking and switching man-to-man principles. That is how most NBA teams play defense. It is more efficient to do that as opposed to chasing your man all over the floor. Also, switching defense is used to play against the pick and roll to take away driving lanes and open shots off of those screens.

This is literally positionless basketball. Your players guard every position. You can do whatever you want on offense.

Even when players are introduced before games or are listed on the roster, there is a position associated with that player or is listed next to their names.

North Korea is a democratic republic.

Concerning the three-point shot versus the "inefficient mid-range shot. UCONN beat Illinois by 25 points last week and only hit 3 threes. I know that you will say that UCONN got to the rim a lot. You are right if you are thinking that. They hit for 52 points in the PAINT. However, those paint shots were an assortment of layups, floaters, and mid-range shots. A team can win by taking higher probability lower scoring shots (2 point shot). I understand the logic to taking the three instead of the mid-range. However, what happens when the three-point shot is NOT working that particular game? I guess in the world of modern basketball, the team will continue to take that low probability shot and go down with the three. "Live by the three and die by the three".

UConn scored 48 points at the RIM. And they do it by vacating the middle. Karaban and Clingan are up high setting off ball screens and slipping. It's not an old school, back to the basket post offense. It's the horns set popularized by Mike D'Antoni. They only took 8 midrange shots all game. That's modern basketball. It's not just chuck up threes. It's avoiding the low probability midrange. Yes, most of the time it means more threes. But if you can get what you want at the rim, you don't have to shoot threes. UConn won that game with defense though. Illinois was 3 of 16 from midrange. They scored 0.38 points per possession on that shot. They would have only scored 26 points for the whole game if that was their offense over 70 possessions.

[leeraymond]

This is literally positionless basketball. Your players guard every position. You can do whatever you want on offense.


North Korea is a democratic republic.


UConn scored 48 points at the RIM. And they do it by vacating the middle. Karaban and Clingan are up high setting off ball screens and slipping. It's not an old school, back to the basket post offense. It's the horns set popularized by Mike D'Antoni. They only took 8 midrange shots all game. That's modern basketball. It's not just chuck up threes. It's avoiding the low probability midrange. Yes, most of the time it means more threes. But if you can get what you want at the rim, you don't have to shoot threes. UConn won that game with defense though. Illinois was 3 of 16 from midrange. They scored 0.38 points per possession on that shot. They would have only scored 26 points for the whole game if that was their offense over 70 possessions.

When I hear at the rim, I do not necessarily think layups. I went back and watched some replays of that UCONN game. There were many layups. There were also many shots that were NOT layups but were about 5 five feet from the rim. To me those types of shots are NOT at the rim. However, the people who define what is basketball probably would disagree with me. All close shots are NOT at the rim. A lot of the players these days just use the floater to approach that type of shot.

Yeah, UCONN did play some pretty good defense. It is going to be interesting to see what UCONN's defensive strategy will be against Alabama.

By the way, I am not that old. I just remember a lot of old stuff (some of the time). However, it sounds like I am older than you. The one thing that you will realize Sedz is that there is not a whole lot that is new about basketball. It is just repackaged and given a different name. In fact, the three-point shot is 45 years old. Thus, using the three-point shot as offensive strategy is 45 years old. Teams are just using it differently and calling it something else.

[sedz]

When I hear at the rim, I do not necessarily think layups. I went back and watched some replays of that UCONN game. There were many layups. There were also many shots that were NOT layups but were about 5 five feet from the rim. To me those types of shots are NOT at the rim. However, the people who define what is basketball probably would disagree with me. All close shots are NOT at the rim. A lot of the players these days just use the floater to approach that type of shot.

Yeah, UCONN did play some pretty good defense. It is going to be interesting to see what UCONN's defensive strategy will be against Alabama.

By the way, I am not that old. I just remember a lot of old stuff (some of the time). However, it sounds like I am older than you. The one thing that you will realize Sedz is that there is not a whole lot that is new about basketball. It is just repackaged and given a different name. In fact, the three-point shot is 45 years old. Thus, using the three-point shot as offensive strategy is 45 years old. Teams are just using it differently and calling it something else.

The "rim" is considered within 5 feet, basically in the restricted area. Tear drops, floaters, baby hooks, etc generally come from outside 5 feet. Within the rim area it's usually off glass or finger rolls. It's a significant dividing line in conversion percentage. In the NBA, within 5 ft, the median is 64% and every team makes over 58%. Between 5 and 10 ft, the median is 43% and every team makes under 50% (this is why "in the paint" is meaningless - the paint away from the rim is a bad shot). It gets worse as you move out. There's more than a 20% difference in conversion rate between the rim and all other twos.

NBA teams took less than 3 threes per game until 1985, less than 10 until 1995, and less than 20 until 2013. NBA teams shoot more than 35 threes per game today. It is not the same game. It doesn't matter how old I am. I can be 12 or 112. There are stats and video from all across basketball history that are more reliable than anyone's memory, young or old. We struggle to accurately remember what just happened a few games ago, much less 45 years ago.

[Lobot]

Pepperidge farm remembers....... (Sorry)

[leeraymond]

The "rim" is considered within 5 feet, basically in the restricted area. Tear drops, floaters, baby hooks, etc generally come from outside 5 feet. Within the rim area it's usually off glass or finger rolls. It's a significant dividing line in conversion percentage. In the NBA, within 5 ft, the median is 64% and every team makes over 58%. Between 5 and 10 ft, the median is 43% and every team makes under 50% (this is why "in the paint" is meaningless - the paint away from the rim is a bad shot). It gets worse as you move out. There's more than a 20% difference in conversion rate between the rim and all other twos.

NBA teams took less than 3 threes per game until 1985, less than 10 until 1995, and less than 20 until 2013. NBA teams shoot more than 35 threes per game today. It is not the same game. It doesn't matter how old I am. I can be 12 or 112. There are stats and video from all across basketball history that are more reliable than anyone's memory, young or old. We struggle to accurately remember what just happened a few games ago, much less 45 years ago.

It is the SAME game, just different approaches to playing it.

[Lobot]

Down to the Final. Who ya got?

I'm rooting against them because of Dan Hurley but I think UConn wins. However, I'll predict Edey is going to clean the glass against Clingan. Clingan got outrebounded by Grant Nelson 15 to 5 in the semi last night.

[bearcatbret]

I normally would say Purdue just because one of my closest friends from high school went there. However, I work for an Indiana based company where the majority of the employees are from Purdue and I really do not want to listen to them and see all of the random company-wide emails. I will not cheer for UConn though.