Clemson 91, Georgia Tech 80
Congratulations to Oliver Purnell and his staff for securing a third consecutive NCAA birth. I can't imagine this season went as planned, but through several shrewd coaching adjustments and incremental player improvement we have gotten gradually better, and just in the nick of time. I questioned whether we were really a better offensive team after running off three straight wins at home in February, but decent-to-strong performances against good defenses like Maryland, GT, and yes, even FSU have me convinced that execution (if not necessarily gameplan) has improved at least slightly. Also, give credit to the conditioning of Clemson. We've heard about Clemson's superior conditioning over the years, but I've been largely unconvinced. But last night, despite working on a day's fewer rest and playing a third game in seven days, we actually looked less tired than GT during key stretched in the second half. If this carries over to the ACC Tournament it could serve as a significant advantage.
Now, time to rain a little on everyone's parade. Not to belittle great performances on Senior Night by Trevor Booker and David Potter, but I would be careful to read Clemson's performance as a true indicator of their current ability. While GT is a solid defensive team and anytime you put 91 points on an ACC team its reason to celebrate, GT didn't bring their 'A' defensive game last night. I haven't seen that many good three-point looks since maybe the Presbyterian game. We also didn't look sharp on defense, giving up way too many good looks after penetration that was coming way to easy for GT. To their credit, GT also knocked down tough shots all night long. The first half was a nightmare on the boards for Clemson, but one of the reasons we pulled away in the second half was because we turned the tables, closing down the offensive rebounds for GT while picking up a few of our own. We've got to do a better job against Wake Forest.
I'll wait until tonight's games are over before commenting on our chances for an ACC Tournament first-round bye, but in tonight's games I'll be rooting for NC State and Wake Forest.
Showing posts with label David Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Potter. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Thursday, 11 February 2010
FSU Recap
Clemson 77, FSU 67
Renewed hope! Not because I think last night was a "turning point" or some other sports journalism buzzword, but because we gave ourselves a nice postseason boost literally providing relief and hope for the fanbase.
I'll wouldn't call the Tigers performance dominant last night, even if they clearly gave the appearance of being the better team. I think they were still pretty much the same Tigers team we've seen--struggling with turnovers and relying heavily on their opponent to be sloppy with the ball. The primary difference tonight? The three pointers were falling, and they were falling early (decent FT shooting didn't hurt, either). That coupled with the 3-point assisted run at the end of the first half put the Seminoles in a difficult position; FSU is not a team well-designed for mounting a double digit comeback. Their lack of outside shooting and their relatively slow tempo had them pressing in their play from the outset of the second half. To the chart:
(I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
Clemson was comfortably ahead through most of the second half, handily fighting off a couple of mini-runs the 'Noles made.
The overall gameplan was relatively simple from Clemson's perspective, they looked for the three early and often to try and counter the FSU's tough inside defense. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the first threes were fired up by Potter, Booker, and Jennings; all tall guys that could see over FSU's perimeter height. When they started falling, that opened up the inside a little bit, and I'll take this opportunity to thank Devin Booker for putting up 14 points in 17 (!) minutes (c'mon coaching staff--give this guy some more minutes...) The offense even showed good discipline when dealing with the FSU zone, I think it made it even easier for Clemson to execute their gameplan with Young and Stitt patiently searching for seams to penetrate halfway before kicking out for decent three-point looks when the defense collapsed on them. I'm not sure why Leonard Hamilton stuck with the zone for so long in the second half when it was pretty clear it was working in the Tigers advantage. On defense Clemson kept the press on most of the game, aware of FSU's proclivity for turnovers. I think this was a shrewd coaching move, it made it even more difficult for FSU to mount a comeback when they kept giving up the occasional possession.
As I mentioned in the preview, this game was important because it gives us our first real indication of how well Clemson will play against tall teams with exceptionally good defenses, the general profile of teams that gave us fits last year. I think Clemson showed it could handle a lot of the fundamental problems that bothered them last year, including finding clean passing lanes and shooting over the perimeter defense. Additionally, this was the first time Clemson performed well against a team that excels at limiting the opposing teams FG%. All in all, a very good sign as we move into the last six games of the season.
As a cautionary note, though, Clemson can't rely on David Potter to go 4-5 from three point land and also I thought the FSU didn't play with a lot of intensity, particularly in the second half. It still won't be easy to knock off FSU on the road or to beat another similar team, Wake Forest, on the road. But at least for now Clemson is back on track for an 8-8 ACC record, trending towards a 9-7 finish.
Renewed hope! Not because I think last night was a "turning point" or some other sports journalism buzzword, but because we gave ourselves a nice postseason boost literally providing relief and hope for the fanbase.
I'll wouldn't call the Tigers performance dominant last night, even if they clearly gave the appearance of being the better team. I think they were still pretty much the same Tigers team we've seen--struggling with turnovers and relying heavily on their opponent to be sloppy with the ball. The primary difference tonight? The three pointers were falling, and they were falling early (decent FT shooting didn't hurt, either). That coupled with the 3-point assisted run at the end of the first half put the Seminoles in a difficult position; FSU is not a team well-designed for mounting a double digit comeback. Their lack of outside shooting and their relatively slow tempo had them pressing in their play from the outset of the second half. To the chart:
(I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
Clemson was comfortably ahead through most of the second half, handily fighting off a couple of mini-runs the 'Noles made.
The overall gameplan was relatively simple from Clemson's perspective, they looked for the three early and often to try and counter the FSU's tough inside defense. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the first threes were fired up by Potter, Booker, and Jennings; all tall guys that could see over FSU's perimeter height. When they started falling, that opened up the inside a little bit, and I'll take this opportunity to thank Devin Booker for putting up 14 points in 17 (!) minutes (c'mon coaching staff--give this guy some more minutes...) The offense even showed good discipline when dealing with the FSU zone, I think it made it even easier for Clemson to execute their gameplan with Young and Stitt patiently searching for seams to penetrate halfway before kicking out for decent three-point looks when the defense collapsed on them. I'm not sure why Leonard Hamilton stuck with the zone for so long in the second half when it was pretty clear it was working in the Tigers advantage. On defense Clemson kept the press on most of the game, aware of FSU's proclivity for turnovers. I think this was a shrewd coaching move, it made it even more difficult for FSU to mount a comeback when they kept giving up the occasional possession.
As I mentioned in the preview, this game was important because it gives us our first real indication of how well Clemson will play against tall teams with exceptionally good defenses, the general profile of teams that gave us fits last year. I think Clemson showed it could handle a lot of the fundamental problems that bothered them last year, including finding clean passing lanes and shooting over the perimeter defense. Additionally, this was the first time Clemson performed well against a team that excels at limiting the opposing teams FG%. All in all, a very good sign as we move into the last six games of the season.
As a cautionary note, though, Clemson can't rely on David Potter to go 4-5 from three point land and also I thought the FSU didn't play with a lot of intensity, particularly in the second half. It still won't be easy to knock off FSU on the road or to beat another similar team, Wake Forest, on the road. But at least for now Clemson is back on track for an 8-8 ACC record, trending towards a 9-7 finish.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Virginia Tech Recap Part 2: Quick Thoughts on the Game
Virginia Tech 70, Clemson 59
I was actually pretty happy with the gameplan that Oliver Purnell assembled for Saturday. Clemson came out and used the press sparingly, a wise move since the Hokies protect the ball well and have historically shredded our press for easy points. Instead, we focused on playing aggressive half-court defense, trying to force the Hokies to beat us with their awful field goal percentage. On offense, we still looked pretty terrible but at least we looked for the three point shot early to try and soften up the inside for Booker. The main problem was that Oliver Purnell rightfully assumed the officiating would be the same that it's been all season, and Clemson would be able to throw some weight around inside the arc. Instead, we got the tightest-called game in recent memory and Clemson was essentially out of fouls to give on the inside by the ten minute mark. Coincidentally enough, that's about the point that VT started seizing control of the game as Clemson was forced to play tentatively underneath. Take a look at the chart:(I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
Clemson's back was finally broken by the possession where we had three good looks at the basket to trim the lead to four but ended up instead fouling Delaney (surprise, surprise) after VT managed to tip the ball out to midcourt. Delaney promptly sank two more free throws, effectively a four point swing that stretched the VT lead to 8 with 3:39 to go. This set up the three point shot on the next possession that lifted VT's win probability over 30%. Clemson didn't look the same again and VT never looked back. If Potter goes up and dunks one of those shots instead of flailing away from the basket and missing a three foot fadeaway maybe I'm talking about a much different result.
Anyways, I'm finding it hard to fault the coaching staff here, unless the refs decided to call a tighter game because of all the talk about "physical play", which I commented on in part one of the recap below. They came out with a good gameplan which kept them in the game up until the point the referees, really an unforeseeable factor, whistled away any chance of victory.
I'm not ready to declare Clemson's NCAA candidacy dead. They still have time to turn it around but two things are clear now: 1) we have to win all four remaining home games (literally a tall task with FSU and GT yet to come to Littlejohn) and 2) there's probably no road game left on the schedule that will be easier than the trip we just made to Blacksburg. Given our relatively weak tournament resume, we really need to steal one of the final three road games to ensure a winning record in the ACC and an invite. I've been lobbying hard all season that the back half of our schedule is just as hard, if not harder than the front half because we struggled so badly last year against teams that share a general profile like FSU, GT, and Wake Forest. Our first game against GT this season was encouraging enough to give me some hope. But if we get shoved around by FSU and lose by five, its time to start the NIT countdown.
I was actually pretty happy with the gameplan that Oliver Purnell assembled for Saturday. Clemson came out and used the press sparingly, a wise move since the Hokies protect the ball well and have historically shredded our press for easy points. Instead, we focused on playing aggressive half-court defense, trying to force the Hokies to beat us with their awful field goal percentage. On offense, we still looked pretty terrible but at least we looked for the three point shot early to try and soften up the inside for Booker. The main problem was that Oliver Purnell rightfully assumed the officiating would be the same that it's been all season, and Clemson would be able to throw some weight around inside the arc. Instead, we got the tightest-called game in recent memory and Clemson was essentially out of fouls to give on the inside by the ten minute mark. Coincidentally enough, that's about the point that VT started seizing control of the game as Clemson was forced to play tentatively underneath. Take a look at the chart:(I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
Clemson's back was finally broken by the possession where we had three good looks at the basket to trim the lead to four but ended up instead fouling Delaney (surprise, surprise) after VT managed to tip the ball out to midcourt. Delaney promptly sank two more free throws, effectively a four point swing that stretched the VT lead to 8 with 3:39 to go. This set up the three point shot on the next possession that lifted VT's win probability over 30%. Clemson didn't look the same again and VT never looked back. If Potter goes up and dunks one of those shots instead of flailing away from the basket and missing a three foot fadeaway maybe I'm talking about a much different result.
Anyways, I'm finding it hard to fault the coaching staff here, unless the refs decided to call a tighter game because of all the talk about "physical play", which I commented on in part one of the recap below. They came out with a good gameplan which kept them in the game up until the point the referees, really an unforeseeable factor, whistled away any chance of victory.
I'm not ready to declare Clemson's NCAA candidacy dead. They still have time to turn it around but two things are clear now: 1) we have to win all four remaining home games (literally a tall task with FSU and GT yet to come to Littlejohn) and 2) there's probably no road game left on the schedule that will be easier than the trip we just made to Blacksburg. Given our relatively weak tournament resume, we really need to steal one of the final three road games to ensure a winning record in the ACC and an invite. I've been lobbying hard all season that the back half of our schedule is just as hard, if not harder than the front half because we struggled so badly last year against teams that share a general profile like FSU, GT, and Wake Forest. Our first game against GT this season was encouraging enough to give me some hope. But if we get shoved around by FSU and lose by five, its time to start the NIT countdown.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Boston College Recap
I'm going to do these recaps as often as possible during the ACC season, similar to what I was doing last year...
I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
Now we're in trouble. When I said yesterday we were still on pace for 10-6 or 9-7, I neglected to mention that the margin for error was a lot thinner than three weeks ago. When you lose all the games you're supposed to lose, then you have to win the games you're supposed to win. Now we're looking at 8-8 and trending towards 7-9. I originally listed the road game at Maryland as a toss-up, but the way Maryland's been playing, that's looking more and more like wishful thinking.
Bullet points:
I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
Now we're in trouble. When I said yesterday we were still on pace for 10-6 or 9-7, I neglected to mention that the margin for error was a lot thinner than three weeks ago. When you lose all the games you're supposed to lose, then you have to win the games you're supposed to win. Now we're looking at 8-8 and trending towards 7-9. I originally listed the road game at Maryland as a toss-up, but the way Maryland's been playing, that's looking more and more like wishful thinking.
Bullet points:
- This game was lost on lax defense in the first half. Yeah, the first half offense wasn't great either, but you can't give up 42 points to Boston College of all teams in the first half and expect to win.
- I've been semi-sorta defender of Potter in the past, but that was the latest in a string of invisible to bad performances. His defense in the first half was bad and only passable in the second half. With the drop-off to from Potter to Johnson arguably non-existent right now, there's no reason not to give Johnson the playing time. The coaching staff has to think about the long-term future of the club, and giving Johnson playing time should help ensure that he develops into more than, well, David Potter. I'm not holding my breath; Purnell has always had a veteran fetish of sorts.
- I've said it since last year: Tanner Smith should be a shooter. He's not a driver. This is clearly becoming one of the worst personnel mistakes of the Purnell era. No one's saying Smith is a gifted or natural shooter, but if he had spent the last two years working on his jump-shot (not just the 3-point shot) instead of driving the lane...wouldn't that be a nice offensive skill to have right now?
- How many times did we see Dallas Elmore pull up and nail a wide-open jump shot? That's what Tanner Smith should be doing right now instead of embarking on wild lane-drive after wild lane-drive.
- I'm really tired of hearing about how difficult ACC road games are. Give me a break. Home-court advantage gives you about a three point advantage relative to a neutral court. If you are a better team by more than three points, you should beat the other team on the road, not dig yourself into 17 point halftime deficits. Losing coaches and announcers kissing up to losing coaches like to frame ACC road games as possessing some magical property that prevents better teams from winning. I find this extremely annoying. There's a much simpler and believable explanation: lots of ACC teams are losing on the road because there's a lot of parity in the conference this year.
- This, however, was not one of those games. We should have won. This wasn't a case like last year when we lost to Virginia on what I felt was a bizarre series of bad calls and bad bounces all adding up to an improbable loss. We got beat because the other team played largely solid fundamentals and we didn't. We were lax on defense in the first half. The players and coaches are to blame for not getting ready.
- But perhaps the blame should rest more on the coaches for Tuesday's debacle. Not only was the team flat, but we were outcoached. We're seeing something pretty amazing this year in the ACC: teams are all starting to add real pressure to their defensive looks. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but the coaching staff needs to adjust. We haven't gotten killed by turning the ball over (so far) but BC and GT both used the pressure to shorten the game clock against an offense that already has problems getting open shots in the halfcourt. I know Purnell's dictum is that good defense leads to good offense, but he has to adjust. There's no excuse--he has the personnel now to implement a better half-court offense.
- Along these lines, we're starting to see the template for opposing ACC coaches against Clemson: run a halfway competent full-court pressure defense and play tight man-to-man. Has the added bonus of slowing the game down and keeping the number of times you have to break Clemson's press to a minimum.
- This goes back to the point I've been worried about since the offseason. Will Purnell try to force the more gifted offensive players he's recruiting into playing his system, or will he be flexible and creative enough to bend and adjust the system to accommodate the talents he's recruited. Remember, this is the first time in his career he's recruited players on par with other more storied programs. By this point, the verdict is all but in: Purnell has opted for the less flexible route.
- Jerai Grant always "comes out" against inferior defensive teams, Len.
There's plenty more to write, but I'll try to pick something out and be a bit more coherent later in the week. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the coaching staff better make some adjustments or we're headed back to the NIT this year. Last year when it was clear the ACC had developed an effective gameplan against Clemson, I argued that Clemson's roster construction left Purnell without any real options and no way to really adjust. This year, there's no excuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)