Clutch Performance

According to a study of collegiate basketball, the two statistics most correlated with winning are field goal percentage and free throws attempted. During Monday’s N.C.A.A. Final, Kansas made 53% of their shots, Memphis shot nineteen foul shots, and the Jayhawks won 75-68 in overtime. The game was close enough that a number of plays could have altered the outcome. Why did Kansas win?

A student said that the result wasn’t fair, that the Tigers only lost because Derrick Rose performed below his normal standards. The reason that Rose shot poorly and went scoreless for so long was the Jayhawks’ defensive pressure: Bill Self alternated between man-to-man with Brandon Rush on Rose, a trapping 2-3, and a box-and-1 (Mario Chalmers guarded Chris Douglas-Roberts). Team defence held Memphis to a dozen points below their average. The 2008 Title Game will become a legendary game because strategy neutralized superior individual talent, like Rick Majerus’ triangle-and-2 versus Arizona ten years ago.

A clutch performer is one who performs consistently during close games. A player who shoots fifty percent would be considered a clutch performer if they made one out of two shots when the game was on the line.

Kansas should be considered clutch performers because they performed as they did all year, for the most part. Down the stretch, Memphis’ defensive stats, such as points per possession, deflections, and stops, plummeted. Did the Tigers choke?

A subjective measure would be to evaluate technique. Irrespective of whether the shot went in, did they use the same technique as they did in previous games and practices. At the line, Memphis seemed uneasy and pulled away from the hoop. Likewise, Kansas appeared soft while boxing out in the final minutes and getting additional stops complicated the comeback attempt.

When Memphis was up 60-51 with two minutes remaining, they likely held a 95% chance or winning (or more). Tigers’ foul shooting - a blight all year – finally caught up to them as they made only three of seven shots down the stretch. But, considering the entire game, Memphis performed at their season average. The term clutch performance is so nebulous because results are totally different depending on the length of the time period considered.

In short, there isn’t any answer because sample size is too small. Mario Chalmers sent the game to overtime with a very difficult three point attempt that he might only make once for every five tries. Memphis used questionable clock management but since they played few close games they hadn’t had the chance to practice that skill (but they should have). And they should have practiced foul shots.

There’s a reason coaches insist that players work on that shot. I record every free throw taken in practice in order to evaluate players. Dean Smith believes that foul shooting is the one true individual stat in practice.

Individual Tigers didn’t work on this skill enough during the year and coach John Calipari erred by not making free throw shooting a point of emphasis until it improved beyond sixty percent. Kansas matched Memphis’ athleticism so the game came down to individual skills. Bill Self told his team that they’ll be reminded of this game for the rest of their lives and Memphis will remember their choices and lack of practice at the line.

Tourney Concerns

Last night’s narrow victory over Belmont exemplified the glaring weaknesses of Duke since J.J. Reddick was recruited in 2002. The lack of penetration and interior presence become severe obstacles when the game becomes a halfcourt contest or the Blue Devils are faced with an athletic team.

Television views have seen this situation unfold twice, during the final regular season game versus North Carolina and the 71-70 First Round victory. When pressured, Duke’s two guard front is neutralized. When Jon Sheyer and Greg Paulus dribble or pass the ball back and forth, several turnovers seem imminent. On the other hand, due their poise, the Blue Devils don’t throw the ball away often. They still throw possessions away when they force low percentage shots.

If the team does not score in transition and make a three-point shot, they have difficulty creating their own shots. Even DeMarcus Nelson and Gerald Henderson get stuck and appear not to maximize their quickness and athleticism. Kyle Singler is not a dominant big-man and would rather shoot from the outside. If outside shooting abandons the team, their motion offense is very stationary, a departure from past championship teams.

Interior defense and rebounding are question marks and the team is vulnerable to bigger opponents (losses include Pittsburgh, North Carolina, and Wake Forest). West Virginia, Purdue, and U.C.L.A. pose similar threats and Duke will not beat all three teams. This year, almost any team in the country with a winning record can beat the Blue Devils.

Yet, the demise of the Duke Men’s Basketball Programme is greatly exaggerated. Coach Krzyzewski and the team still lead the N.C.A.A. in tournament and regular season wins over the past ten years. A core of talented recruits (Brand, Williams, Battier, Dunleavy, Deng) rebuilt the team after the 1994-96 debacle and reached four Final Fours in seven seasons. Strengthening inside and wing play in order to curtail reliance on the outside shot will permit Coach Krzyzewski to repeat that accomplishment.

Carpe Diem

Brock University’s C.I.S. Men’s Basketball National Title victory on Sunday - following Acadia’s 82-80 double-overtime defeat of five-time defending champions Carleton in the semi-finals - proved again how anything is possible, in sport and life. Any Canadian team would have won out and claimed the W.P. McGee trophy. In fact, the dark jerseys won seventy percent of games played at the Final 8 Tournament.

The odds finally caught up to the Ravens. At once they faced an intransigent opponent, shot poorly, saw calls go against them, and did not recover every lucky bounce. A team can often overcome one or two critical obstacles but beating a great team while playing poorly is usually unfeasible.

Association media pundits would describe Carleton’s match-up with Acadia as a classic “trap game”, a surprisingly tough challenge to face before the main goal. The Axemen’s natural motivations to win the game were supplemented with a desire to avenge a blowout loss from the 2007 tournament. Even with the most physically talented and mentally tough team, playing at home, the Ravens fell short.

Other squads, those who can’t say that they executed every single aspect of the season to the best of their abilities have no recourse to blame but themselves. A number of teams beat the shocking champion during the regular season but none when it counted. Anyone could have won this past year but to attribute the result to fate is a mistake.

Like the N.C.A.A. Tournament, some teams lamented their exclusion from the Final 8 (some more on the Monday afterwards than before). Some teams learnt the hard way how national rankings are meaningless when not supported by wins at the end of the season. But also like the N.C.A.A. Tournament, no team with a legitimate claim to winning the entire bracket was excluded

Coaches, players, administrators, and supporters should look inward and evaluate whether they succeeded in terms of recruiting, skill development, team defence, rebounding, moving without the ball, perimeter shooting, attacking the basket, and strategies and tactics. Winning at the highest level demands severe commitment and there is always room for improvement (certainly balance is important in life but this blog entry is about self-actualization and personal development). Coaches should be at Humber College’s Lakeshore Campus for the U15 and U17 tryouts this weekend, followed by O.B.A. championships and summer leagues.

2008’s remorse and regret should fuel off-season training and in-season motivation throughout the next year. Carleton will certainly be driven to reclaim what they perceive to be their crown. Shouldn’t all teams share this mindset?

Stream of Consciousness, Part III

The second weekend of the 2006 N.C.A.A. Tournament provided pertinent coaching lessons, good and bad. Ben Howland, Jim Larranaga, and John Brady made their first Final Four and one coach (and team) will grab the brass ring for the first time.

Duke: The Blue Devils were burnt by their seven-player rotation. They rolled seven guys all year and it seemed as if they were tired and flat when they played L.S.U.. Perhaps they won a few more games in the regular season by shortening the bench but they might have been more prepared had they entered the Tournament with a 22-7 record and nine experienced players.
I thought that Duke ran some nice out of bounds stuff that kept them in the game when their half-court offence totally disintegrated when faced by L.S.U.’s shot-blocking and their own shooting woes.

L.S.U.: Coach John Brady recruited some athletic players that play well together. The team’s chemistry and the players’ talent create the energy that propelled a good (but not great) team to the Final Four. The Tigers defend well, but their offence is horrible. Excellent college players like Glen Davis (Tyrus Thomas will be a better pro) generate opportunities but the system is stagnant. They would be on a 1997 Arizona roll if they could score better.

UConn: Jim Calhoun blew Sunday’s game vs. George Mason and it had nothing to do with what happened on the court. Calhoun went on and on about George Mason’s "home court" advantage (since George Mason is located in Fairfax, Virginia). This was inaccurate; George Mason has a student population of six thousand so even if the entire school attended the game, they would not fill more than a third of the twenty thousand seat Verizon Center. No matter what the situation, Connecticut should have been a double-digit favourite against George Mason.

Due to his complaints, Calhoun gave confidence to the underdog Patriots and deflated his own team. Calhoun’s message echoed themes put forward by the media affected the mental preparation of the Huskies.

West Virginia: The Mountaineers played to the best of their abilities against Texas. Although they lost at the buzzer, they defended the last play well. Texas made a wise decision to push the ball after West Virigina’s basket. In these cases, defenders usually converge on the ball and someone stepped up to stop the ballhandler’s penetration. The ball was passed to Kenton Paulino and he made an off-balance N.B.A. distance three pointer. West Viriginia chose not to cover a shot that had a twenty percent chance of going in (which it did, one of the risks if you choose to help from the strong side) instead of a higher percentage shot by Daniel Gibson, P.J. Tucker, or LaMarcus Aldridge.

Gonzaga: Mark Few’s team gave up the last eleven points of the game and lost by two. Nice run but an unfortunate ending. Why was a post handling the ball in the back-court against pressure? J.P. Batista (or any player who coughs up the ball against pressure like that in a late-game situation) should have given the foul. There was no way Gonzaga would have recognised that turnover and been able to defend U.C.L.A.’s possession five on five. Putting U.C.L.A. on the line would have been a better option, even in a one point game.

Washington: The Huskies missed one key lesson of the 2005-2006 N.C.A.A. Men’s Basketball season: Rashard Anderson is an assassin. How could he get those two looks late in regulation? Washington lost some of their focus when Brandon Roy picked up his fourth foul early in the second half and totally collapsed as the clock wound down. Although Roy might have fouled out, sometimes you have to play a player in foul trouble because the team needs them.