Noel Johnson's Dad Leaves Clemson

Well this bites. First I am a fan of Noel Johnson as a basketball player (well as a player on this particular Clemson team). He couldn't play a lick of D or penetrate that well but he wasn't named Tanner and he has the height and ability to shoot the ball.

He didn't start the season and looked awful on the court until the past couple of games when he went from that guy on your pick up team who takes all the shots and thinks he's the man (but you were probably better off without him) to lukewarm milk. Donte Hill and now Sing Noel are gone. 9 players remain. With Booker and Grant not being able to stay on the floor we are going to be seeing a lot more Tanner, Jennings, and the frosh Stanton as well as *gasp* Narcisse and Bobo. I would gladly have TO (Terrance, Terrance) back, my goodness.

My goodness. So exploring all of our options I have a solution. DMac...He plays his senior year for the bball team and he lights it up. Won't happen because he will be trying to get ready for the draft. But it would be awesome...

Nuke--not happening and we really need wings not point guards anyway. Vic Beasley is an interesting option that could be explored.

We should also look into one of those early enrollment things--didn't Dawkins do that for Duke?? Get a kid after January? It would at least help with practice, redshirt and learn the system. We will certainly be needing a ton of help next year.

I think 8-8 in the ACC is looking more and more like a mountain to climb than an achievable goal. Tanner, please learn to shoot a 3. Jennings, rebound like a man (and shoot 3's). Booker--relearn those post moves you showed last year then forgot because Purnell put regression juice in all his new players diets. Do you remember how as a Freshman Stitt was like an 80% FT shooter?? Oh and everyone learn the motion offense.

Quick Reminder: Brad Brownell Not Really Much of an X's/O's Guy on Offense

I'm not sure where the rumor started. I just remember reading it in the blogs somewhere, and then suddenly it everyone seemed to accept it as the gospel truth. Seriously, its almost like this idea was planted by the front office and bam! pretty soon everyone is a stenographer.

In an effort to inject some data into the assessment of Brownell's hiring, I took a quick look at the statistical profiles of his past squads (this was back when I had the time for this sort of thing...) No doubt he's led some great defenses, but on offense his team finished in the top 3 in his conference only once--last year (#3!!). Other than that, his offenses have hovered right around average in both the Colonial and Horizon Leagues. Not exactly the dominant mark of a young coaching wizard. In fact, Brownell's overall statistical team profiles eerily resemble the not-so-dearly departed Oliver Purnell, despite using starkly different strategies to construct stingy defenses and middling offenses.

The Michigan game is disheartening, but it reinforces my early views that we are on a rocky road this season with our best hopes likely lying in an 8-8 ACC season. I believe we have latent offensive talent on this team, but without a coaching staff capable of scheming to fit or develop the talent we are in for a long season of crappy offensive displays. Kind of like the last several years, but less frantic. Much, much less frantic. Glacial.

Clemben Addition: This is the perfect game to shut up Tanner Smith enthusiasts. 1-7 and 0-5 from 3 pt. land. 4 fouls and beat to the basket on multiple occasions (not that anyone was rotating on defense so its not all his fault). We really need Noel Johnson to step up and take half of Tanner's minutes or ACC play will get ugly. Lucky for us Wake and GT stink. Miami, Virginia Tech and FSU are underachieving. Roy Williams has Harrison Barnes and can't right the ship (I love that Barnes was picked as a preaseason All-American??, would have been a top draft pick in NBA but is struggling in college). Maryland and NC State I don't know enough about but are beatable and only Virginia seems to have improved much since last year. Yes, Duke is back to being unstoppable but our schedule is favorable.

This loss to Michigan at home on national TV really does sting though. We have to hope that Michigan continues to improve in the Big Ten. We really need to win our next two games to stay in the NCAA hunt if we go 8-8 in ACC play. Losing to South Carolina in the 3 major sports this year is unacceptable Barker. Don't let the door hit you on the way out Terry Don. How about we get an athletic director with a normal name for a change? That would mean Billy D'Andrea would be disqualified. Hooray!

One thing to remember is that expanded brackets (which I absolutely abhor--64 was a great number) might really benefit us this year. Still unless this team improves fundamentally, its going to be a long year. Glacial sounds about right.

Western Carolina Review

Well its Basketball season already. Surprise, surprise I'm actually excited for this season. I want to see if this team will actually learn how to run some offense and pass the ball into the post. I thought the world of Purnell after Shyatt but thought we did less with more last season. I was personally looking for the Sweet 16 last year with the incoming recruits.

So this season I just want to make the tourney and go 8-8 in conference play. Kenpom currently has us at 9-7, which I think is possible for this team, and 28th overall, a little high for now but not entirely removed from the realm of possibility.

For all you stupid pundits Kenpom has the ACC dominating the BIG 10 and BIG 12. Just because sports people (I refuse to use the word journalists) come from the Big 10 doesn't mean they should let their bias show so obviously. Oh and putting the word BIG in front of your conference doesn't make it better--just silly(especially when the numbers don't add up anymore). Can't wait for the Big Ten versus ACC this year. At least in Basketball we have something like this that can shut down pundits for a little while.

Oh yeah so the game...

I keep hearing that Bobo won't/can't contribute. I don't agree and I love that the staff is committed to getting some production from him. Purnell was always clueless with big men--I think Devin Booker regressed last year. Bobo can get opposing teams big men into foul trouble, he can manufacture some points against smaller teams like VTech or Miami, and that is worth the investment. Think of Duke last year and Zoubek.

Jennings looked like he might be able to contribute and Booker looked great, lots of putbacks etc. Brownell looked to be mixing and matching and had his guys ready to play. He passes the initial smell test, unlike Wake Forest and their loss to STETSON!! hahaha.

On the not so positive side we lack depth in the backcourt. With Stitt in bad foul trouble (his play wasn't just bad, it was absent) and Young with an injured thigh bruise, we had to turn to Cory Stanton and even Anderson. That is fine in non-conf but scary for ACC play if Stitt or Young go down with an injury. Stitt seemed to be playing more of the 2 which he didn't seem to particularly care for but with a Brownell's offense it shouldn't matter. Noel Johnson has to be a big part of our offense if we are going to have success this year. He needs to be a consistent 3 pt. threat and really struggled last night. I am also worried about our ability to defend the three with such small guards on the floor.

Tanner Smith 1-6 from the FT line?? Tigers can't afford to shoot below 65% from the line this year. My same criticism of Smith remains--a great glue guy but his junk ball play won't stand up in ACC play, especially without the intentional chaos of Purnell's system. This scares me. Grant seems about the same as last year.

Now this is all after one game so feel free to laugh at these observations. Western Carolina was an above average team last year and Wofford will actual be a test next week. We will know more about the team after Wofford. Good start, hope Brownell and crew can help this offense.

Looks like Brad Brownell

I was going to do a multi-part series on TDP's train wreck of a search committee but I ended up in the ER over the weekend, complete with Desmondesque cat scan (Lost reference), but as I came to today it seems that Jeff Capel and Scott Drew turned down offers to be the next coach as well as Mississippi State coach Stansbury. Not getting a sniff from Capel and Drew really sucks--I don't think Capel is that great an X's and O's coach but would have been a high profile coach to salvage the wreckage and Drew would have been a great hire to me. I think a lot of the negativity surrounding him is sour grapes and his hiring of some AAU summer league people to staff positions but whatever--he turned us down.

I think hiring Stansbury would have been a step backwards. He can recruit pretty well but has had above average teams in the SEC and not been able to deliver down the stretch. The teams he has coached have been loaded with talent at times but I just don't see him doing much better in the ACC and taking us to the next level.

Other coaches interviewed were Jacksonville's Cliff Warren who is a Paul Hewitt protege. I think I'll pass, he has built a respectable program there after five years but sorry maybe after the jump to a mid-major or more sustained winning. Same goes for the Wofford coach Mike Young who I have great respect for but don't think has shown enough to merit a jump to the ACC just yet. His teams play hard and are well coached (Wofford also doesn't support the bball program nearly as much as it should) but it has taken awhile for him to build to this level. I would not feel confident with him taking the reigns.

Blaine Taylor is an interesting candidate to me. I like the way his ODU teams play, good enough to make it to the second round of the tournament this year, and this is the second program he has achieved success with--doing it first at Montana where he took two teams to the NCAA's. He has had some post-season success--taking his 2006 squad to the NIT semifinals and was an assistant coach for Stew Morrill in the early 90's and then Mike Montgomery from 98'-01'. Am I convinced he could lead this team to the promised land? My main question is his ability to recruit in the south and land top prospects. I think that this hire is the biggest wildcard on the table.

Herb Sendek shut us down. I would have liked to have seen us interview the Xavier coach and probably the Western Kentucky coach but other than Drew from Baylor I really don't see a coach I am thrilled about.

All that said it shouldn't matter because by all accounts and people I have talked to Terry Don is going to land Brad Brownell as his big fish. So lets take a bit closer look. He has posted twenty plus win seasons all four of his years at Wright State but only made the dance in the first year. He coaches in the Horizon league, a highly competitive mid-major that has as its main competition Butler. Most people say apart from Brad Stevens he is the best coaching talent in the league. He has done a good job with two smaller programs, first UNC-Wilmington and then with Wright State. Interesting bit of trivia, Brownell was an assistant under Jerry Wainwright who left UNC-W to go to Richmond and then to DePaul where he was fired this year. You know the rest of the story.

Oh just saw Shakin has a much better write up of this whole thing than me so check it out here. Knowing that Brad Stevens was a pipe dream I think that Brownell is the best name we have so far. I want to see him lock down Marcus Thornton and keep Booker and Johnson on the team. Johnson would flourish in Brownell's offense and hopefully he can teach the team to set some screens and shoot the ball. No more of this needing to recruit better shooters--at the very least I want a guy who can teach. I will miss the pressure D and the full court approach but this year the system looked worn out so maybe we won't miss it much. I do, however, want to win next year--so whatever it takes TDP. If you make a bad hire I want your resignation...

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.

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...

College Basketball

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.

What in Tar Nation? Clemson Spanks UNC

UPDATED BELOW, Tigermax

After Duke everyone was going to meltdown but thats because lots of football fans dont understand how to be basketball fans necessarily. Basketball season isnt about your record so much as peaking at the right time. I mean sure you want to win the conference regular season champs and have a good seed in the tourney but its about getting your team playing at the optimum level late in the season. Its also very much about match-ups, with Duke last year we matched up well against their suspect guard play--this year we dont match up well at all. However, we do match up well against UNC and made them look silly committing around 26 turnovers. TBooker at the point of the press really helps put on the pressure. It also helps him get into his offensive mindset with a couple easy flushes that come from that position.

We looked a lot better in a lot of aspects of the game but I wanted to just highlight a couple right now. FT shooting!!! We were 18-20 from the line. Hallelujah! I'll take 90% from the line any night. Stitt scored 20 points on 8-14 attempts. We need him to play well and drive the offense. He is the only player on the team with a legit first step who can drive and if he can cut down on some of the turnovers then he will be exciting.

I dont like Potter much at all and his shot selection is mind-bottling but he had 5 steals. We need him to be a legit three point shooter. I liked Noel Johnson sticking those two threes early, really set the tone but we went cold thereafter. We missed 11 threes in the second half--dont think we made one. Smith missed some open looks but had a solid game otherwise. The three point shooting has to get better if we are going to challenge in the ACC. And I do mean challenge because Duke just got beat by a manic GTech team. We beat UNC and FSU is up and down as well. Anyone can win this, Duke should be favored but I think we can beat them at home with the Freshman not looking completely shell shocked.

This was a good learning game, wish we could still get the younglings more time in the games, but a victory to relish. Its been six years since we beat these Tar Heels and I think we could have broken the curse had we played in the Dean Dome. I am looking forward to the Duke rematch. Going away to NC State, playing a lot better than I expected, and the always dangerous GTech team are two tough challenges as well. The ACC will be a dog fight but since I hate that metaphor I'll leave you to discuss what that actually means...

-------------

Tigermax adds: Not quite as satisfying as the Duke thrashing last year, but pretty darn close. This was a case of a team with a glaring weakness (UNC's turnover problem) running smack into a team perfectly tailored to take advantage of that weakness (Clemson's pressure defense). As Clemben pointed out above, Duke really had the same problem coming into their game last year.

At the same time, I would caution against viewing this as some watershed moment for Clemson basketball. They played very well against a team they match up well against. Not to underplay the victory, it's good for all sorts of reasons (NCAA tournament resume, ACC standings, ACC tournament seeding, improved FT shooting, etc.) Also, if you put stock in this sort of thing, you can certainly argue that Clemson displayed intangibles last night that haven't been present recently. But it shouldn't really change your opinion about the basic skill level of the team. We still have fundamental flaws that can be exploited by the right team. I'll be withholding any revisions in overall team skill until we play the same way against a tall team that forces turnovers and plays outstanding defense; the general profile of teams that have given us fits in the last couple of years.

Boston College Recap I

I'm going to do these recaps as often as possible during the ACC season, similar to what I was doing last year...

The first two ACC games for Clemson do a pretty good job of sketching out the basic structure of the conference this year: we were beaten soundly by a Duke team that appears to be alone at the top of the league and then our team, a leader amongst a glut of talented but flawed teams in the middle of the league, handled BC, which along with Virginia and possibly NC State bring up the rear of the league. Now, I know the GT just knocked off Duke at home, but I would put them with Clemson at the top of the middle pack; a great game at home for these teams will be enough to at least hang with Duke. (Clemson has the same shot at an upset in a couple of weeks). To the chart:

College Basketball

(Chart from Statsheet. 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.)

Not much to say about this game, as it went more or less how I envisioned it (hey, there's a first time for everything...). The biggest surprise was probably that the Tigers only managed to "force" only 14 turnovers but still cruised. BC, one of the worst stealing teams in the nation, actually managed to ring up 9 steals to our 8. We countered this somewhat by blocking 8 shots (nice showing by Booker with 4). Most pleasant surprise of the game? Probably the play of Noel Johnson. Sure, he turned the ball over 3 times but he also was responsible for 3 steals, found himself a few rebounds, and generally looked pretty confident with his positioning on the court. Also a decent looking game for Jennings. Here's why I'm pleasantly surprised: if these guys can't give quality minutes against BC, then their seasons are pretty much finished.

Onwards to UNC on Wednesday. This is probably the most intriguing match-up of the season, because I have absolutely no idea what to expect. Clemson's made some adjustments should end up countering how Roy Williams' has been playing us the last couple of years, but I'm getting ahead of myself...that's for the next post.

Duke Recap I

I'm going to do these recaps as often as possible during the ACC season, similar to what I was doing last year...

Duke 74, Clemson 53

College Basketball

(Chart from Statsheet. 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.)

It was a disappointing, if not entirely unexpected result. The game wasn't really completely out of reach until the last three minutes, but I felt like the game was out of reach after Duke used a 6-0 run to push the lead to 61-44 with about 6:00 minutes left. That came after the final time Clemson threatened to cut the lead to single digits at 55-44 but couldn't take advantage of their chances.

Quick bullet points:

• The first half was an abject disaster on offense. I give Duke credit for playing some aggressive defense and really keeping us from getting good passing lanes in the halfcourt. But Clemson didn't help it's cause at all with poor spacing, poor ball-handling, poor decision-making around the basket, flat-shooting, bad bounces, and just about anything else they could possibly have screwed up. When you score 12 points in a half, I don't care how good the opposing defense is, you've done just about everything wrong.
• I give credit to the team for coming to life in the second half. Better execution in the halfcourt pushed up above 50 for the game. You can argue that Duke let up on defense, but I doubt they could have sustained the same pace for the entire game anyway.
• The offense found success against a tall team, which is encouraging. But even in the second half Clemson was plagued by poor-decision making and poor ball handling. Too many drives right into waiting Duke players, too many forced passes leading to turnovers.
• Only problem with the second half offensive output: the freshmen, aside from Devin Booker, were conspicuously absent despite foul trouble for Potter and Young. A pretty good indication of how Purnell feels about the play from Jennings, Johnson, and Hill, who all looked utterly lost in the first half and hurt the team with exceptionally bad shot selection and turnovers. On the other hand, Cameron Indoor is a pretty difficult place to expect a freshman to play his first conference game. Could spell trouble later in the season though if Purnell is forced to rotate through essentially seven guys: Smith, Young, Stitt, Potter, Grant, and the Bookers.
• The good news is I thought the defense did a good job throughout. They minimized the play of the Plumlee's underneath and made Duke beat them around the perimeter. Of course, with the improved play of Nolan Smith in addition to Scheyer and Singler they are perfectly capable of doing this, but I think it wasn't a bad strategy going in.
• We ended up losing by 20, but we essentially played them to a draw in the second half. I think this still gives us hope of pulling the upset in the friendlier confines of Littlejohn later in the month. Hopefully Johnson or Jennings start earning some playing time by then.

Tough way to start the ACC season. We get Boston College in the home opener this Saturday, though, so we shouldn't have to wait too long for our first ACC win.

S.C. State and playing the freshmen

I'm working on the midseason basketball update, but in the meantime I thought I would comment on last night's game.

Ugly game from Clemson against, statistically speaking, arguably the worst opponent the team has faced this season. I think the tendency will be to chalk this up as the result of a rusty team looking ahead to an ACC opener against the hated Duke Blue Devils. (From the sportswriter's perspective, the storyline practically writes itself.) Clearly, it was a near-disastrous game where the Tigers played lax defense until the final minutes and failed to hit any free throws down the stretch while SC State seemed to get just about every bounce, deflection, and borderline call to go there way. Clemson is really, really lucky this didn't end up in the "bad loss" column for the selection committee to see come March. (It also raises the question as to when "near-bad losses" will start to enter the selection criteria...)

The most interesting part of the game for me, however, was Purnell's willingness to stick with a lot of freshmen on the floor for the first 10-12 minutes of the second half, even after it became clear that SC State was chipping away at the lead and primed to make a run. As we've stated before on the blog, for Clemson to really contend in the ACC this season they need at least one or two of the freshmen to get comfortable in the system and really start contributing, particularly on the offensive end. I'm wondering if the coaching staff isn't a little bit exasperated at this point. Here is the most highly-touted recruiting class in years and years at Clemson and with the possible exception of Devin Booker, we've yet to see anyone flash even the promise of becoming a star at Clemson. My sense was today Purnell was willing to risk a close(r) game in order to give Johnson and Jennings every opportunity to succeed in a sort of sink-or-swim fashion (not giving them any veteran support). Unfortunately, the strategy didn't seem to help matters and it nearly ended up costing Clemson in the win column.

So what gives? Is this a case of 1) over-hyped talent, 2) a failure on the coaching staff's part to successfully integrate new talent into the system, or 3) is everything going to be fine and we just need to accept that the learning curve is really steep for these players? If you've been following the blog, I've been more or less advocating #3 while cautioning against the possibility that #2 becomes something of a reality. Now that the ACC preseason is over, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm still leaning towards #3, but #2 is becoming more and more of a possibility. Purnell may have made a critical error by awarding scholarships to the best available talent; talent which may or may not ever really "fit" into his brand of basketball. Let's be brutally honest: Jennings and Johnson have looked more or less lost offensively--flat-footed and standing around most of the time. They've been even worse on defense, barely contributing to the press and even struggling to play solid defense in the half-court. Hill has, at least, shown flashes of being a potential contributor on defense, but again hasn't shown anything on offense. I really hope this is setting off alarm after alarm in every meeting Purnell holds with the other coaches and that this is a constant topic of discussion, because the team's prospects for the season (to say nothing of the ceiling of success for the program in the future) depend on integration of superior offensive talent.

To be clear, everything is not lost. One observation that favors #3 over #2 is that Jennings and Johnson are really being asked to do a lot all at once. This isn't a case similar to when, for example, Oglesby was brought in. When he first joined the team his primary responsibility was to get open on the offensive end and drain threes. He worked on other aspects of his game as time went on, without the pressure of being a force on defense by the time game #15 of his collegiate career came around. Another example is Trevor Booker, who was expected to provide a post presence underneath on offense while blocking a few shots on defense in his first year, while gradually building the other parts of his game. This could be an easy way for the coaches to assist Jennings, Johnson, and Hill. Give them some roles to focus on in individual games--I get the feeling these guys are just being asked to do too much at once. With a little focus they might be able to ground themselves a little better.

Unfortunately, the counter-argument to the preceding paragraph is that these freshmen are supposed to be tremendous athletes. The coaching staff could be perfectly justified in setting high expectations for their adjustment into the Clemson system. This also raises the discomforting but ultimately unavoidable notion that once you start considering #2, you have to also consider #1.

I don't have the answers, but I felt like throwing this out. The result of all this is that we may need to temper our expectations for the season. From my vantage point, 10 ACC wins is looking more and more like a goal to be achieved rather than a given. I said in the season preview that Clemson needed at least one of the four freshmen to emerge in the ACC preseason. As it turns out, I was wrong. We really need one of the three non-Booker freshmen to emerge, because Devin Booker's role is filled by Trevor. Of course it's great that Devin looks is able to come in and spell Trevor for a few minutes at a time without a significant drop-off on the offensive end, but the Tigers need someone else to provide us with an upgrade in a slot that doesn't already feature our best position player. The great news for Clemson fans, though, is Devin Booker looks like the real deal, which should relieve concerns about lack of an inside presence next season.

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.

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.

Welcome Noel Johnson

Well well well, Terrence Oglesby you genius...you knew this was for the greater good. Somehow you knew that it was your time to go, that you had to sacrifice your position so that the team could get stronger.

Thank you TO, thank you...

Out with the old, in with the nucleus (old school Simpson joke). While I am at it I would also like to thank Tim Floyd for not only staying away from Clemson but also for having yet another scandal and releasing Johnson at just the right time. If you read this post there is one thing I want you to take away from it--this is big. This is a huge, perhaps pivotal signing for Clemson. This has the potential to launch us into the upper echelon of not only the ACC but makes us a legit top 15 team. That hasn't happened at Clemson--even in the days of Dale Davis and Elden Campbell we werent complete teams. Now we can have some staying power.

Here are the reasons why I am literally drooling about the prospects for next season. Johnson is 6' 7, can play the 1, 2, or 3 positions, can shoot, can penetrate, can play D. He is ranked around the number 50 player in the nation for 2009 by rivals and scout. This is a guy that any ACC team would take, and had it not been for our good fortune and timing would have made a push for him--some say he is the best shooter in the country out of high school this year. Now obviously I am excited and overstating my case but this is the best Clemson basketball recruiting class of my lifetime and, dare I say it, perhaps the best ever. We have now filled every need we once had. We have a serviceable PG rotation, a top shooting guard, we just improved ourselves defensively, and we have a set of four players who could all have an immediate impact. Way to recruit Oliver Purnell, you sir deserve a tip of my hat.

What is there not to like...not much. He needs to get a little quicker with his footwork and keep improving ball handling and passing. While I wish he was also known for great handles I can live with it. One thing we all know is that Clemson needs to improve its ballhandling, primarily entry passing to the post. TO brought a lot to like to the table but we just got more length at the SG position, more versatility, more athleticism, more defense, more discipline. Oh and did I mention he hits free throws, hopefully around 80%??

This is a good kid from what I have seen, not a ball hawk who shoots when he wants to. He played within the Fayetteville system and is very coachable from what I know, surrounded by NBA names etc. He is a legit talent and will ease the burden already put on Milton Jennings. Jennings will be better with Johnson and no one will be able to double team or cover both of them while committing to Booker inside. Little Booker will provide some depth and skill inside, helping Grant to back-up Big Booker, and Donte Hill is a defensive stopper, perhaps one of the more underrated three star prospects. He will provide a solid contribution off the bench.

So thank you TO, we could only have gotten better without you...

Go Tigers!!