Clemson 53, Florida St. 50
I said at the end of the preview that if we didn't make our three-point shots, couldn't force turnovers at a reasonable clip, and couldn't get offensive rebounds we'd be in for a slog. If anyone was confused about the definition of a "slog", that was not only a prototypical slog, it was something close to the paragon of a slog. Check out the rate of scoring (or lack thereof) in the chart:
And we managed to win. I'm still not sure how. It's strange, but I didn't think the defense was anything special. They were solid, but not spectacular. A lot of times FSU looked as lost running their halfcourt offense as we did, they missed makeable shots, and a lot of their turnovers were of the unforced variety. No, I think the game was somehow won on the offensive side of the ball. I don't often applaud individual efforts, mainly 'cause the college game ain't the same as the NBA game, but tonight I'll give big helpings of credit to Trevor Booker for finding ways to get close to the basket and to Andre Young for finding ways to get open at key points in the game (and draining a halfcourt jumper). It's particularly impressive because FSU stuck to more or less the same strategy as game 1, collapsing on Trevor Booker. In this game they seemed to be rolling over a man from the basket side to double team instead of collapsing in on Booker from the three-point line. This lessened the number of good looks we got around the perimeter. Normally Booker is still good at finding the open man in those situations, but against FSU's inside height he fired quite a few errant passes, particularly in the early going. But he settled down and ended played one of the best offensive games of his career against one of the better defenses in the country.
This win also opens the door to a first-round ACC bye, something no one in their right mind was talking about a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news here ClemBen, Clemson basically still needs to win both of their remaining games or hope for a bunch of other things to happen if they split their final two games. FSU has the upper hand right now with the easiest schedule by far of the five teams vying for the last two spots. If they were to win out, they would finish 10-6 and leave four teams vying for one slot.
The way I see it now, barring any strange upsets (like VT losing at home to NC State or something), if we win both of the final two games we grab the three seed (if VT loses to GT) or the four seed (if VT beats GT). If we finish 9-7, I only see two longshot scenarios. If we beat GT instead of WF, we also need FSU to beat WF and lose to Miami and GT to beat VT. That would give us the four seed. If we beat WF instead of GT, we need WF to beat FSU, FSU to beat Miami, and VT to beat GT. That would also give us the four seed.
There's probably a few other wild scenarios in there, but those are the most realistic I'm seeing right now. Simply put, Clemson still needs to win out. Lots of strange things could still happen, but the losses to VT and GT coupled with FSU's likely 10-6 finish put us in a relatively weak position because our two victories over FSU don't mean anything in any tie-breakers if they finish above us.
Lastly, it's time to update the list from the beginning of yesterday's post:
Number of games Clemson has led by 10 or more points and lost this season: 2 (Illinois, Maryland)
Number of games Clemson has trailed by 10 or more points and won this season: 2 (Butler, FSU)
I don't know if a team that can rally as often as "collapse" can really be labeled as a team prone to the collapse, but just so everyone is on the same page with the numbers...
GO TIGERS!!
Showing posts with label Andre Young. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andre Young. Show all posts
Monday, 1 March 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
State of Clemson Basketball: 2010 mid-ACC update
With National Signing Day out of the way and Clemson basketball in the middle of a 6 day break, its a good time to reflect on the team's performance halfway through ACC play. Again, the point of these posts is just to try and discern any interesting statistical trends, taking advantage of the statistics over at Kenpom.com.
I don't think it's any secret that Clemson is underperforming this season. The obvious culprit is the offense, which has struggled in just about every imaginable way to put points on the board. The statistics agree with this sentiment pretty strongly. First I'm going to show charts that are slightly different from previous charts I've shown, these track differences in offensive/defensive efficiencies across the last two years:
I don't have the data from midseason 2009, so that point is interpolated by averaging the bookending points. Clearly, we are struggling on offense this year. But what's I really find interesting is the relationship between offense and defense over the past two years. In 2009, the defense steadily declined while the offense steadily improved. This year, the defense has steadily improved while the offense has steadily declined. Last year, the defense fell apart largely because Clemson became too predictable in their pressure defense over the course of a game, allowing teams to routinely break the press and score. Often teams weren't settling for a drive to the basket, either, but were looking for (and making) wide-open threes. This year, Purnell came out with a clear plan to counter the defensive struggles of last year by mixing up pressure looks not just during blocks of possessions but even from individual possession to individual possession. The results have been fantastic and are clearly evident from the forced turnover rates--Clemson's defense ranks 4th in the country in opposition turnovers and 5th in steals. Make no mistake, rate of forced turnovers is driving the defense--our effective FG% defense is a respectable 50th in the country, but that lags well behind the other strong defenses in the ACC.
On the other hand, I imagine Oliver Purnell was not counting on the complete implosion of the offense. I'm not showing the overall efficiency data relative to recent years, but we are currently as bad as we've been since 2006. Let's look at the four factors the offense to try and get some answers:
It looks all four factors have gotten slightly worse across the board. I would wager the fluctuations in FT attempts/FG attempts and offensive rebounding percentage are little more than noise and not much to be concerned about. However, the turnover% and FG% (the two most important factors), while up only slightly, still look troublesome. Here are the component offensive factors:
Now we see something emerge. Our drop in effective FG% appears to be directly related to our struggles from behind the arc since the start of ACC play. Also, our rate of having the ball stolen has gone up slightly, although I doubt that alone explains the increase in turnovers. The other factors don't worry me too much, and unbelievably our FT% has actually gotten better since the start of ACC play (must be that flukish 18-20 UNC performance).
I think our offensive troubles since the start of ACC play can be traced primarily to 3-point problems and to a lesser extent, an increase in both forced and unforced turnovers. I've been pretty adamant since the start of the year that our three-point shooting would be fine, but I can't ignore the data any longer--we need more threes to start falling. I didn't anticipate Young's struggles. He's not missing shots, but he's having a hard time getting open looks against the taller ACC competition. Potter has regressed substantially, and while Johnson hasn't been a disaster as a freshman (35%), I was hoping (probably too much) for more. Stitt has improved from around a 30% shooter in his first two years to 35% this year, but his injury has left him out or hobbled through most of ACC play. Tanner Smith has been a catastrophe, shooting below 30% now on just 61 shots. All of this adds up to a markedly below-average three-point shooting team for the ACC.
Meanwhile, on the turnover front, while Stitt has actually marginally improved a couple of percentage points, overall he still sports an ugly turnover rate of 23.1 (meaning he turns the ball over 23.1% of the time he is involved in a possession). This gain has been offset, however, by Young's increase from 16.9 a year ago to 21.9 this year. With our two primary ball-handlers giving the ball back in one out of five personal possessions, Clemson's having a tough time just letting plays develop long enough to get looks at the basket.
There's not much I can see Clemson doing to improve their problems behind the arc. Minor tweaking is probably all Purnell has at his disposal now, something along the lines of 1) letting Johnson shoot as much as possible hoping he develops into a more reliable shot by the end of the season, 2) relegating Tanner Smith to defensive specialist, and 3) figuring out ways of ensuring Andre Young is open at least a few times a game. The turnover problems are even worse. While I believe Andre Young's true turnover rate lies closer to 16.9 than 21.9, he's done little since Stitt's injury to support this. Its a difficult problem to solve midseason.
The most frustrating aspect of these offensive struggles is that we could be better now with a little more emphasis on fundamentals. We have the shooting skills to be better than 64.2% from the line. While our 2P FG% is keeping us afloat, everyone knows from watching the games that we could be even better. And of course, if we could just stop dribbling the ball off our legs, we'd cut a good 5% off our turnover rate. All of these little things would add up to at least a respectable ACC-level offense.
You would think Purnell might turn his attention to these offensive fundamentals. However, watching the team (particularly since Stitt went down) and listening to Purnell's recent statements to the media, its pretty clear Purnell has gone in the opposite direction: he's looking to further improve the defense. I think this also explains the increase in defensive efficiency since the start of ACC play (second chart above).
If true, it's an interesting gambit and I actually kind of like it. The key selling point for me is Stitt's injury. While Young has filled in reasonably well in his absence, without Stitt we almost entirely lose the ability to penetrate on offense. Given Stitt's poor all around play after returning from injury last year, its difficult to count on him being the same player when he finally does return. With that in mind, if our half-court offense is going to essentially consist of Trevor Booker underneath and Grant cleaning up on misses, we might as well focus on defense to keep the other team's points down and try to score some easy points off turnovers.
There's been a lot of chatter around the blogosphere about discontent with Purnell. This puts me in a rather odd position where I feel compelled to defend Oliver Purnell; long-time readers will know we've been critical of Purnell when the situation warrants. I don't feel like this is the time. To me, the first two charts indicate that the program is not necessarily plateauing, we just haven't been able to combine excellent offense and defense at the same time since the end of 2008. Right now, we have room to grow on the offense (even in the remainder of this season) until we get closer to previous seasons. Its tough to fault Purnell for the perfect storm of 1) Booker taking small steps back in productivity both at the FT line and in 2-pt shooting, 2) the failure of Jennings and Johnson to develop into useful players, 3) Andre Young's battle with turnovers, and 4) Stitt's injury. Even with only one or two of these, the offense is good enough to win a couple of the close games we've already lost.
Purnell did a good job of adjusting to our problems in the offseason, I suspect he'll do the same in offense in the coming months, spilling into next season. I can easily see this group of players providing equally efficient offensive and defensive production, even though it is taking longer than any of us would have liked.
I don't think it's any secret that Clemson is underperforming this season. The obvious culprit is the offense, which has struggled in just about every imaginable way to put points on the board. The statistics agree with this sentiment pretty strongly. First I'm going to show charts that are slightly different from previous charts I've shown, these track differences in offensive/defensive efficiencies across the last two years:
I don't have the data from midseason 2009, so that point is interpolated by averaging the bookending points. Clearly, we are struggling on offense this year. But what's I really find interesting is the relationship between offense and defense over the past two years. In 2009, the defense steadily declined while the offense steadily improved. This year, the defense has steadily improved while the offense has steadily declined. Last year, the defense fell apart largely because Clemson became too predictable in their pressure defense over the course of a game, allowing teams to routinely break the press and score. Often teams weren't settling for a drive to the basket, either, but were looking for (and making) wide-open threes. This year, Purnell came out with a clear plan to counter the defensive struggles of last year by mixing up pressure looks not just during blocks of possessions but even from individual possession to individual possession. The results have been fantastic and are clearly evident from the forced turnover rates--Clemson's defense ranks 4th in the country in opposition turnovers and 5th in steals. Make no mistake, rate of forced turnovers is driving the defense--our effective FG% defense is a respectable 50th in the country, but that lags well behind the other strong defenses in the ACC.
On the other hand, I imagine Oliver Purnell was not counting on the complete implosion of the offense. I'm not showing the overall efficiency data relative to recent years, but we are currently as bad as we've been since 2006. Let's look at the four factors the offense to try and get some answers:
It looks all four factors have gotten slightly worse across the board. I would wager the fluctuations in FT attempts/FG attempts and offensive rebounding percentage are little more than noise and not much to be concerned about. However, the turnover% and FG% (the two most important factors), while up only slightly, still look troublesome. Here are the component offensive factors:
Now we see something emerge. Our drop in effective FG% appears to be directly related to our struggles from behind the arc since the start of ACC play. Also, our rate of having the ball stolen has gone up slightly, although I doubt that alone explains the increase in turnovers. The other factors don't worry me too much, and unbelievably our FT% has actually gotten better since the start of ACC play (must be that flukish 18-20 UNC performance).
I think our offensive troubles since the start of ACC play can be traced primarily to 3-point problems and to a lesser extent, an increase in both forced and unforced turnovers. I've been pretty adamant since the start of the year that our three-point shooting would be fine, but I can't ignore the data any longer--we need more threes to start falling. I didn't anticipate Young's struggles. He's not missing shots, but he's having a hard time getting open looks against the taller ACC competition. Potter has regressed substantially, and while Johnson hasn't been a disaster as a freshman (35%), I was hoping (probably too much) for more. Stitt has improved from around a 30% shooter in his first two years to 35% this year, but his injury has left him out or hobbled through most of ACC play. Tanner Smith has been a catastrophe, shooting below 30% now on just 61 shots. All of this adds up to a markedly below-average three-point shooting team for the ACC.
Meanwhile, on the turnover front, while Stitt has actually marginally improved a couple of percentage points, overall he still sports an ugly turnover rate of 23.1 (meaning he turns the ball over 23.1% of the time he is involved in a possession). This gain has been offset, however, by Young's increase from 16.9 a year ago to 21.9 this year. With our two primary ball-handlers giving the ball back in one out of five personal possessions, Clemson's having a tough time just letting plays develop long enough to get looks at the basket.
There's not much I can see Clemson doing to improve their problems behind the arc. Minor tweaking is probably all Purnell has at his disposal now, something along the lines of 1) letting Johnson shoot as much as possible hoping he develops into a more reliable shot by the end of the season, 2) relegating Tanner Smith to defensive specialist, and 3) figuring out ways of ensuring Andre Young is open at least a few times a game. The turnover problems are even worse. While I believe Andre Young's true turnover rate lies closer to 16.9 than 21.9, he's done little since Stitt's injury to support this. Its a difficult problem to solve midseason.
The most frustrating aspect of these offensive struggles is that we could be better now with a little more emphasis on fundamentals. We have the shooting skills to be better than 64.2% from the line. While our 2P FG% is keeping us afloat, everyone knows from watching the games that we could be even better. And of course, if we could just stop dribbling the ball off our legs, we'd cut a good 5% off our turnover rate. All of these little things would add up to at least a respectable ACC-level offense.
You would think Purnell might turn his attention to these offensive fundamentals. However, watching the team (particularly since Stitt went down) and listening to Purnell's recent statements to the media, its pretty clear Purnell has gone in the opposite direction: he's looking to further improve the defense. I think this also explains the increase in defensive efficiency since the start of ACC play (second chart above).
If true, it's an interesting gambit and I actually kind of like it. The key selling point for me is Stitt's injury. While Young has filled in reasonably well in his absence, without Stitt we almost entirely lose the ability to penetrate on offense. Given Stitt's poor all around play after returning from injury last year, its difficult to count on him being the same player when he finally does return. With that in mind, if our half-court offense is going to essentially consist of Trevor Booker underneath and Grant cleaning up on misses, we might as well focus on defense to keep the other team's points down and try to score some easy points off turnovers.
There's been a lot of chatter around the blogosphere about discontent with Purnell. This puts me in a rather odd position where I feel compelled to defend Oliver Purnell; long-time readers will know we've been critical of Purnell when the situation warrants. I don't feel like this is the time. To me, the first two charts indicate that the program is not necessarily plateauing, we just haven't been able to combine excellent offense and defense at the same time since the end of 2008. Right now, we have room to grow on the offense (even in the remainder of this season) until we get closer to previous seasons. Its tough to fault Purnell for the perfect storm of 1) Booker taking small steps back in productivity both at the FT line and in 2-pt shooting, 2) the failure of Jennings and Johnson to develop into useful players, 3) Andre Young's battle with turnovers, and 4) Stitt's injury. Even with only one or two of these, the offense is good enough to win a couple of the close games we've already lost.
Purnell did a good job of adjusting to our problems in the offseason, I suspect he'll do the same in offense in the coming months, spilling into next season. I can easily see this group of players providing equally efficient offensive and defensive production, even though it is taking longer than any of us would have liked.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Re-emerging for a post or two
I've been working the 12-14 hour day again the past three weeks or so. I'm still lacking much of any free time, but things have calmed down a bit and I thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts here and there. It sucks to condense the last few seismic weeks in Clemson sporting into bullet points, but it also sucks I was stuck in working hell at the same time.
- I'll just go ahead and say what everyone else is thinking: we have no chance on Sunday against Kentucky. It doesn't even matter we match up fairly well against Kentucky, after this season's colossal collapse, I can't see the team showing up motivated for a semi-away game in the Gaylord's Bowl. It would take a miracle motivator; and even though that's one of the reasons why we hired Swinney, I don't see it.
- I think this season has once again exposed the fallacy of hiring based on intangibles. We can all agree that the coaching got better as the season progressed, and by and large this was a more satisfying style of play for Clemson fans to watch, but Swinney did little to alleviate the problem with the team not inexplicably showing up to play certain weeks (see Maryland, Sakerlina). 2 times this season (plus a likely third in the bowl game), including a game against a team that failed to beat another ACC team, that's not much better than a Tommy Bowden season.
- Dabo Swinney has his work cut out for him. Ultimately, an 8-6 season is acceptable given this was basically the expectation going in (with a Division title added in as a bonus). But he really could have used something more to help him ride out next year. With the talent coming off the roster in various skill positions combined with a cratering in recruitment efforts (documented by ClemBen in the previous posts), he's gonna be relying solely on his and his staff's coaching ability to somehow improve the team next season. Heaven help us. Something north of .500 next year will be an accomplishment.
- I fully believe Swinney will have three seasons to establish himself, but his final record in season 3 will be a big part of how long he lasts at Clemson. Unfortunately, as far as having the players needed to address the teams' shortcomings, things aren't looking much better for season 3 than season 2.
- On to basketball: ClemBen's been covering things just fine in my absence. I would just echo that this team can get better and should get better as the season progresses. To be honest, I think Purnell has struggled a bit to get the freshmen to fit in the system. While these are talented freshmen, they are not the kind of talent that Purnell has picked up in the past.
- There's still time for the freshmen to improve this season. Obviously we didn't see as much as we would have liked in the pre-ACC season. But Jennings and Devin Booker have looked slightly better as the season has progressed (albeit against vastly inferior opposition). Johnson needs to find his shot, its taken him way too long to get calibrated to the college game.
- Purnell is spreading the minutes around even deep into the pre-ACC season. I really hope this pays dividends at the end of the season and we don't see a drop-off in energy level as the season progresses, particularly with so many freshmen unaccustomed to the longer seasons.
- Kenpom's player ratings are out, and have been updated now through the College of Charleston game. A summary really deserves a post of its own, but just to hit some highlights:
- Tanner Smith has the second best offensive rating on the team. This highlights 2 problems, first, as ClemBen has hit on, Tanner Smith is not the team's answer on offense. He plays okay against inferior competition, but if you recall he completely disappeared in league play last year. To my eyes, he's really not much better this year. He's playing a little sharper in defense and maybe passing the ball a bit better, but he's not shooting the ball particularly well, handling the ball well, and he's completely out of control when he goes to the hoop. Second, Tanner Smith's rating highlights the problems Booker has had getting out of the blocks this season. He's been trying to expand his role by driving to the hoop and its hurting the team. He needs to get back into the blocks and concentrate on finishing plays. As ClemBen said, more solid 4/5 play, please.
- Andre Young is crushing Demontez Stitt in just about every measurable category except one: percentage of minutes played. This is disappointing, because it reinforces the image of Purnell as a coach who tends to favor veterans even when they are not the best performers. In fairness its not completely one-sided. Stitt is sitting at 68.3% minutes played while Yound is at 57.5%. As we've documented before, Stitt has his uses; he's the best option for Clemson when they need to create off the dribble, and his assist total this year is starting to reflect the fact that he's looking to pass at the rim instead of looking for the shot. But his turnover rate is right where it was last year, before ACC play even begins. I'd like to see the minute percentages between the two at least flipped by the end of the season.
- Despite the wailing about the lack of three-point shooting, we've actually been doing pretty well. Despite his recent struggles, Potter is at .478 for the season and Andre Young is the best player at .404. Great numbers all around, really, with Stitt unexpectedly logging a .353 and Noel Johnson sitting at 11-31. The only difference is the drop in the total number of shots, but I think we expected that coming in and I don't think its necessarily a bad thing. We need to work more off Booker inside. I expect Potter to regress much more as the season goes along, but hopefully Johnson or Smith pick up the slack.
- On the team level, Kenpom has Clemson ranked 6. Pay no attention, its still too early.
- FT% is back to 2007-2008 levels. Very disappointing--this team has the skill to be a better FT shooting team. The excuses I gave last year don't hold water anymore. Hopefully this is just related to the recent swoon we've seen from Trevor Booker at the line, and hopefully he rights himself soon.
- The win over Western Carolina is nice, I think they will be serious contenders for the Southern Conference title, which could add a footnote to our tourney resume come March.
- To again echo ClemBen, when someone asks me the biggest problem facing the basketball team, I don't hesitate to say "turnovers, turnovers, turnovers". Got to hang on to the ball in the halfcourt set. We are giving up way too many possessions. Switching out Young for Stitt helps, but Smith and Young need to improve as well.
- I'm not as optimistic as ClemBen on our prospects for the ACC season. I felt in order to really contend we needed a freshmen or two to quickly become significant contributors, which hasn't happened yet. Right now, I think a 10-6 ACC finish is a realistic expectation.
Merry Christmas/Happy New Year everyone. And GO TIGERS!!!!
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Illinois Preview
ACC-Big10 Challenge, Illinois vs. Clemson, Dec. 2, 7:15pm, Littlejohn
As I wrote in the last post, Clemson is in the midst of a crucial five game stretch. After Illinois on Wednesday and South Carolina on Sunday, there are exactly zero non-conference games that will catch the attention of the selection committee come March. We can always hope that a team like Long Beach State or, I don't know, Western Carolina get hot and convincingly win their conference but the odds against that appear pretty long at the moment. That's why the win against Butler was so important, the next two games are no longer essential for resume-padding.
That being said, the next two games are both winnable games for Tigers. I probably won't have time to squeeze in a post about South Carolina between the ACC Championship Game and Sunday, but let me just say something right now: thank you, Oliver Purnelll, for amassing a 5-1 record against the Gamecocks. Lord knows I have trouble sleeping some nights knowing I might die with Clemson trailing the overall series in one of the three main sports (of course we have historically dominated football and baseball) but through your efforts, Mr. Purnell, I can rest a little easier. Still trailing 86-73, though, so please, please keep up the good work.
Back to Illinois and the ACC-Big Ten "challenge". Fun fact: since it's inception in 1999, the ACC has yet to lose this competition, compiling a 62-35 overall record. But it's still fun to hear ESPN hype every year as the year the Big10 will once again become the best league in the country. On a related note Clemson is 8-2 in the challenge while Illinois has managed a 3-7 mark. That pretty much tells the story in a small capsule right there, because while Clemson has never been viewed as an ACC powerhouse, Illinois has often been right around the top of the class in the Big10. This is also a rematch of last year's pretty memorable game at Illinois, which saw Clemson eke out a victory in a seesaw match, ultimately winning after the Illini couldn't get a shot off in the final seconds.
The early returns for Bruce Weber's Illinois team this year have not been kind. After destroying four paperweights, they are coming off back-to-back losses against Utah and Bradley. Its too early to say how good those teams are, but Utah did manage to lose to Seattle University. (Yes, that's right, Seattle apparently has their own University (not Washington University) and their own Division I basketball team with no conference affiliation. They are going around this year and providing filler relief to teams from various conferences across the country whenever its convenient for their schedule. Kind of like Notre Dame in football.) Anyways, once again back to Illinois. Still extrapolating from small sample sizes, but Illinois seems to be struggling quite a bit on defense. They've been holding teams to a reasonable FG%, although teams haven't been shooting the three much against them, but they've really struggled to force turnovers. That would be good news for Clemson, if we weren't so adept at handing the ball over to the other team with out any help. On offense, the bad news for Clemson is Illinois has done a tremendous job of not turning the ball over. On the other hand, they haven't shot the ball particularly well, particularly from beyond the arc.
As for Clemson, after the 76 Classic we are seeing some troubling trends emerge. First, poor guard play, specifically the inability of either Stitt, Smith, or Young to hang onto the ball. While this is par for the course for Stitt and Smith, I'm really disappointed thus far in Young. Additionally, we've really been giving up a lot of trips to the foul line, most since 2006. And we're still hovering around 64.6% from the line, in spite of Stitt's heroics.
The good news is that despite the fact we've looked lost in the halfcourt set for stretches at a time, we're still shooting a decent effective FG% (54.7%). I think this really underscores what we've said since the season preview--this team is a work in progress. Give the youngsters time to adjust to the system, we should get quite a bit better. Hopefully we don't need the improvement to take out Illinois and South Carolina at home and as long as Illinois doesn't come out shooting extremely well from the field (reversing their performance from the last two games), I think we've got a good chance to continue our recent run of success against the Big10.
As I wrote in the last post, Clemson is in the midst of a crucial five game stretch. After Illinois on Wednesday and South Carolina on Sunday, there are exactly zero non-conference games that will catch the attention of the selection committee come March. We can always hope that a team like Long Beach State or, I don't know, Western Carolina get hot and convincingly win their conference but the odds against that appear pretty long at the moment. That's why the win against Butler was so important, the next two games are no longer essential for resume-padding.
That being said, the next two games are both winnable games for Tigers. I probably won't have time to squeeze in a post about South Carolina between the ACC Championship Game and Sunday, but let me just say something right now: thank you, Oliver Purnelll, for amassing a 5-1 record against the Gamecocks. Lord knows I have trouble sleeping some nights knowing I might die with Clemson trailing the overall series in one of the three main sports (of course we have historically dominated football and baseball) but through your efforts, Mr. Purnell, I can rest a little easier. Still trailing 86-73, though, so please, please keep up the good work.
Back to Illinois and the ACC-Big Ten "challenge". Fun fact: since it's inception in 1999, the ACC has yet to lose this competition, compiling a 62-35 overall record. But it's still fun to hear ESPN hype every year as the year the Big10 will once again become the best league in the country. On a related note Clemson is 8-2 in the challenge while Illinois has managed a 3-7 mark. That pretty much tells the story in a small capsule right there, because while Clemson has never been viewed as an ACC powerhouse, Illinois has often been right around the top of the class in the Big10. This is also a rematch of last year's pretty memorable game at Illinois, which saw Clemson eke out a victory in a seesaw match, ultimately winning after the Illini couldn't get a shot off in the final seconds.
The early returns for Bruce Weber's Illinois team this year have not been kind. After destroying four paperweights, they are coming off back-to-back losses against Utah and Bradley. Its too early to say how good those teams are, but Utah did manage to lose to Seattle University. (Yes, that's right, Seattle apparently has their own University (not Washington University) and their own Division I basketball team with no conference affiliation. They are going around this year and providing filler relief to teams from various conferences across the country whenever its convenient for their schedule. Kind of like Notre Dame in football.) Anyways, once again back to Illinois. Still extrapolating from small sample sizes, but Illinois seems to be struggling quite a bit on defense. They've been holding teams to a reasonable FG%, although teams haven't been shooting the three much against them, but they've really struggled to force turnovers. That would be good news for Clemson, if we weren't so adept at handing the ball over to the other team with out any help. On offense, the bad news for Clemson is Illinois has done a tremendous job of not turning the ball over. On the other hand, they haven't shot the ball particularly well, particularly from beyond the arc.
As for Clemson, after the 76 Classic we are seeing some troubling trends emerge. First, poor guard play, specifically the inability of either Stitt, Smith, or Young to hang onto the ball. While this is par for the course for Stitt and Smith, I'm really disappointed thus far in Young. Additionally, we've really been giving up a lot of trips to the foul line, most since 2006. And we're still hovering around 64.6% from the line, in spite of Stitt's heroics.
The good news is that despite the fact we've looked lost in the halfcourt set for stretches at a time, we're still shooting a decent effective FG% (54.7%). I think this really underscores what we've said since the season preview--this team is a work in progress. Give the youngsters time to adjust to the system, we should get quite a bit better. Hopefully we don't need the improvement to take out Illinois and South Carolina at home and as long as Illinois doesn't come out shooting extremely well from the field (reversing their performance from the last two games), I think we've got a good chance to continue our recent run of success against the Big10.
Monday, 16 November 2009
3 BBall Questions
So we are underway with the Clemson bball season and after watching the Presb. game I find myself returning to three key themes for this season. I know its a trite formulation but here are 3 Keys (more like questions though) for the early season. Right now I really think UNC and Duke are overrated and that this is our best season to date for winning the ACC. We are picked to finish third and no team below us scares me too much--Wake has Aminu, GT has potential and FSU has an athletic giant, but none of the teams above us strikes any fear. Duke has no guards and problems against the press (Scheyer and Singler playing almost the whole game, every game??) and UNC is the shell of its former self. They play Ohio St., Michigan St., Kentucky, and Texas in the next month or so. After that tell me if they will take the ACC??
So what must Clemson do to improve enough to win the ACC--I think the Liberty game will be a good gauge for how far along we are, how far we need to go. This team will be a work in progress all year, so we need to treat it as such--there will be some growing pains. The key is how we improve in these areas
1. Ball Handling/Turnovers--This is really about whether or not Stitt progressed enough this off season to be the explosive player we need him to be. We need him to be able to drive the lane consistently and dish. I thought he was getting there last year till he hurt his ankle and that slowed him a bit all year. Look for Andre Young to step up if Stitt stalls.
2. 3pt Shooting/Identity--We need to have Smith and Johnson or even Potter be able to consistently knock down threes this year. But I am concerned with the identity of this team. Even without TO we could rely too much on the three because we still cant pass the ball into the post enough. Booker has always been stalled by inept guards unable to pass him the ball. That has got to change, and thats a tough thing for Freshman to do.
3. Rebounding--When Booker is motivated he is the best rebounder in the ACC but he will need some help. Grant needs to elevate his game to be a stronger rebounder insider. Sykes ended up doing a good job for us as well as Rivers but we need some of the freshmen to step in. Booker Jr. and Jennings will be called upon. I am really disappointed that Bobo Baciu has not progressed much, thought he would be that tenth guy to come in and provide some rebounding and defense but it hasnt materialized yet. With the press and all the 3's we just need to stay even with teams but we cant play soft and have a weak mentality that I am afraid is the result of tentative freshman play.
So what must Clemson do to improve enough to win the ACC--I think the Liberty game will be a good gauge for how far along we are, how far we need to go. This team will be a work in progress all year, so we need to treat it as such--there will be some growing pains. The key is how we improve in these areas
1. Ball Handling/Turnovers--This is really about whether or not Stitt progressed enough this off season to be the explosive player we need him to be. We need him to be able to drive the lane consistently and dish. I thought he was getting there last year till he hurt his ankle and that slowed him a bit all year. Look for Andre Young to step up if Stitt stalls.
2. 3pt Shooting/Identity--We need to have Smith and Johnson or even Potter be able to consistently knock down threes this year. But I am concerned with the identity of this team. Even without TO we could rely too much on the three because we still cant pass the ball into the post enough. Booker has always been stalled by inept guards unable to pass him the ball. That has got to change, and thats a tough thing for Freshman to do.
3. Rebounding--When Booker is motivated he is the best rebounder in the ACC but he will need some help. Grant needs to elevate his game to be a stronger rebounder insider. Sykes ended up doing a good job for us as well as Rivers but we need some of the freshmen to step in. Booker Jr. and Jennings will be called upon. I am really disappointed that Bobo Baciu has not progressed much, thought he would be that tenth guy to come in and provide some rebounding and defense but it hasnt materialized yet. With the press and all the 3's we just need to stay even with teams but we cant play soft and have a weak mentality that I am afraid is the result of tentative freshman play.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Clemson 2009 Basketball Preview: Demontez Stitt
To supplement the team overview published earlier, I'm going to sporadically post player previews through the early stages of the season. This will probably supplant detailed game previews for the time being because, well, its hard to get worked up over playing Presbyterian...
I have to believe that right now the point position is Stitt's to lose. But hints from the coaching staff over the offseason and lack of development in key areas last season have seemingly made his grasp on the position rather tenuous. It didn't help that he was outshined by backup Andre Young over limited stretches last season. Let's just say that Stitt not only has to come out firing on all cylinders, but he has to show consistency every night he takes the floor.
The biggest concern surrounding Stitt is turnovers. While last season's 25.5 turnover rate (the number of turnovers on personal possessions) is a step down from 2008's 28.4 rate, it still ranks among the highest at the point across the ACC. To put it in perspective, other players in the ACC with less-than-stellar reputations for holding onto the ball like Greivis Vasquez and Greg Paulus posted rates of 16.7 and 18.0, respectively. For every 40 personal possessions, Stitt is turning the ball over 10 times while Vasquez and Paulus are looking at 6-7. May not seem like much, but that's likely going to have an impact on a particular game and certainly over the course of a season. Stitt has to bring that number down, or the 16.9 rate Young posted last season is going to get a long look.
Other offensive areas of Stitt's game have rated around average in both of his seasons. Nothing outstanding, but nothing else that really drags him down, with the glaring exception of his below-average 27% shooting from 3-point land. Also, his FT% has inexplicably trended down last season--too much of a drop to simply pass off as statistical noise. I'll be watching to see where his FT rate stabilizes early on. If we see an improvement (or at least a return to his freshman campaign), it could bode well for his 3-point FG%; Ken Pomeroy previously found an association between improved FT shooting and 3-point FG% (insider subscription required).
While having a point guard that is around or close to league average is generally nothing to get particularly upset at, Oliver Purnell has the responsibility to weigh upgrade options at every position. Andre Young lacks Stitt's height and ability to gash to the hoop, but he could represent a moderate to substantial upgrade in every other facet of the game. I would list this as the backstory to watch as the pre-ACC season unfolds.
I have to believe that right now the point position is Stitt's to lose. But hints from the coaching staff over the offseason and lack of development in key areas last season have seemingly made his grasp on the position rather tenuous. It didn't help that he was outshined by backup Andre Young over limited stretches last season. Let's just say that Stitt not only has to come out firing on all cylinders, but he has to show consistency every night he takes the floor.
The biggest concern surrounding Stitt is turnovers. While last season's 25.5 turnover rate (the number of turnovers on personal possessions) is a step down from 2008's 28.4 rate, it still ranks among the highest at the point across the ACC. To put it in perspective, other players in the ACC with less-than-stellar reputations for holding onto the ball like Greivis Vasquez and Greg Paulus posted rates of 16.7 and 18.0, respectively. For every 40 personal possessions, Stitt is turning the ball over 10 times while Vasquez and Paulus are looking at 6-7. May not seem like much, but that's likely going to have an impact on a particular game and certainly over the course of a season. Stitt has to bring that number down, or the 16.9 rate Young posted last season is going to get a long look.
Other offensive areas of Stitt's game have rated around average in both of his seasons. Nothing outstanding, but nothing else that really drags him down, with the glaring exception of his below-average 27% shooting from 3-point land. Also, his FT% has inexplicably trended down last season--too much of a drop to simply pass off as statistical noise. I'll be watching to see where his FT rate stabilizes early on. If we see an improvement (or at least a return to his freshman campaign), it could bode well for his 3-point FG%; Ken Pomeroy previously found an association between improved FT shooting and 3-point FG% (insider subscription required).
While having a point guard that is around or close to league average is generally nothing to get particularly upset at, Oliver Purnell has the responsibility to weigh upgrade options at every position. Andre Young lacks Stitt's height and ability to gash to the hoop, but he could represent a moderate to substantial upgrade in every other facet of the game. I would list this as the backstory to watch as the pre-ACC season unfolds.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
More Quick Thoughts on Noel Johnson
- Wooooooooooooooo!
- Clemben is more of the recruiting guru 'round these parts, but I'm just going to say it: Best. recruiting. class. ever.
- While I stand by my earlier statement that the team was actually slightly better without TOgglesby, before the news about Johnson I had been mulling over the loss of height resulting from his departure. As we talked about ad nauseum here during the season, Clemson really struggled against tall teams, particularly with delivering entry passes into the post. The thought of losing another 5 inches with the 5'9" Andre Young (relative to the 6'2" Oglesby) on the court had me concerned to say the least, although I would argue Young has the potential to be the better passer despite his height. But with the 6'7" Johnson on board as well as the 6'4" Donte Hill, we suddenly could be causing some match-up difficulties of our own next season.
- Notice I didn't mention Tanner Smith. While I love his grit and he's got a great story, after watching him fade with the tougher competition last season I'm hoping we are now assured of a significant drop in his playing time. He just looked lost on the court after ACC play started. Now, if he finds that 3-point stroke we heard about as he was coming out of high school, that's a different story...
- Its good to hear about Johnson's shooting abilities. While I think we would have been more or less fine with some combination of Young, Smith, Potter, and Jennings taking 3s (with the occasional contribution from Booker Sr.), Johnson has the potential to again make our 3-point game something the opposing team will have to specifically plan for.
- Come to think of it, with the bulk of our talent arguably in the front court this season, why is everyone so worried about the 3-point game anyway? As long as it's around league average (a good bet in my estimation) and we can get the ball inside, I think we'll end up with a stronger offense than last year. And that's saying something for 16th best offense last year in Division I.
- Obviously, I'm still on a high after hearing the news. But there will be growing pains for this squad with so much contribution expected from the rookies. In other words, I don't think we'll get through the non-conference schedule undefeated. We'll have stupid lapses (10:1 this is related to sloppy ball-handling) that cost us games. But for once, the upside of the squad is such that we can actually expect the team to get better as the season progresses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)