Over at Shakin the Southland Dr. B has a great post on getting to the root causes of Clemson's collapse. He says it much better than me but I already had this post so here it is. I basically was griping about Bateson and thinking that he has had enough time here at Clemson. Maybe he can get an admin job too...haha. (the title of the post is an old Simpsons quote by the way)
Is Bateson in any danger of losing his job? I ask because I really hope
we get a change here. I want a complete re-tooling of our conditioning
with support staff focused on diets, weight, eating healthy, etc. I
think our strength program is outdated and teams like Bama, LSU, and now
USC are way ahead of us.
USC changed its S&C coach three years ago which corresponds with our
losing streak to them. Coincidence? Maybe but part of playing soft is
the offseason conditioning. Too many players never gain the muscle they
need or they turn into being too muscular (or something)and become slow
like Goodman this year. Its problematic.
I'm also sick and tired of seeing players put on FAT during the season.
Way too many examples and stories of guys admitting to it over the
years. You can't rely on personal responsibility when you want to be a champion, you need to demand personal responsibility through accountability! Part of it is a dedication from the athlete but mostly it is not
having a structure in place that regulates these things. That is reason
enough for me to show Bateson the door.
In my last post I was venting and said Dabo meet the hot seat, blah. That kind of talk is counterproductive and I know it. But I maintain that beating USC is one of the main criteria for being the head coach at Clemson. He must not lose for a fourth straight year. That being said Dabo needs to continue to make the changes necessary to be a championship team. Last year he earned all of our respect by hiring Morris and Caldwell. This offseason (or even after the ACC Champs game) we need to make our team stronger and tougher--make the changes needed in the S&C program.
The other day I watched the video of the Power Hour for the redshirt frosh. Why is this something new? It boggles my mind how little investment we make in those redshirting. I am also amazed at how little historically (well the past 10 years) our players have benefited from the redshirt year. That has got to change as well.
Showing posts with label Clemson collapses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clemson collapses. Show all posts
Monday, 28 November 2011
Sunday, 28 February 2010
More on "Collapses"; FSU Preview 2
Following up on yesterday's post wherein I tried to counter some of the prevailing wisdom out there in TigerLand, I decided to look at how many times Clemson has blown a "significant" lead this year, and compare that to the number of times they have overcome a "significant" lead. I set the threshold at 10 points. That's a completely arbitrary number, it would be better to look at total points scored and have some kind of sliding scale where less than 10 points might be significant in a low-scoring game and more than 10 points would be significant in a higher-scoring game. But I haven't got that kind of time right now and 10 points is useful as a quick proxy. I might have missed a game or two (let me know if you find one), but as you'll see, it doesn't matter much:
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: 1 (Butler)
Yep, that's a whole lot of collapsin' by the Tigers right there. Like I said yesterday, I'm not sure where this notion comes from, but there's no basis for it in the numbers. Looking back over the game logs, I was actually pretty surprised at how infrequently we've played games where there were a lot of lead changes--the times we've lost this year we've typically trailed throughout and the times we've won we've led more or less from start to finish. Of course, there are occasionally runs by the opposing team to make things closer, but that happens to every team in college basketball.
Now to the preview:
Clemson vs. Florida State, 02/28, 5:30, Donald L. Tucker Center
No one needs to be told how important this game is to the Tigers. I've become more and more convinced that Clemson is going to struggle mightily against Georgia Tech on Tuesday because 1) GT is, at this point, a seriously underrated team that's played a conference schedule with the same degree of difficulty as Clemson and 2) Clemson will be coming off a 2 days rest vs. three days for GT. As laughable as this might have sounded just a few weeks ago, Clemson's easiest path to 9 wins might be to win at both FSU and Wake Forest. Translation: we have our work cut out for us.
I don't have a lot to add to the last FSU preview. The short version: our defense matches up well with their offense because they feature one of the worst turnover rates in the entire country (not just the ACC) while we run out one of the best turnover-causing defenses in the country. On the other hand, FSU's defense is better than our offense, right now ranking #1 against the inside shot and #8 in the country in effective FG% against. Their weakness, however, is defending the three, in which they are markedly below ACC-average. Teams that have beaten them this year, including us, have made lots of three-pointers. FSU also struggles to keep other teams off the offensive glass, which, given their height, is kind of baffling.
This is a game where I would absolutely expect the Tigers to run the press all evening long. Don't give FSU any breathing room, because every possession is a turnover waiting to happen. One possible complication is whether Oliver Purnell wants to try and hold back some to ensure we have any energy on Tuesday night against a GT team that also frequently turns the ball over. Unless we're down by an absolutely unwinnable margin, I wouldn't recommend it, because this is the kind of game that could turn in our favor quickly even if we are trailing by double digits at some point. Against GT you just hope that Senior Night provides enough adrenaline to fuel our insanely energy-expensive defensive pressure.
I would look for FSU to try and limit Clemson's three point looks by leaving Alabi 1-on-1 against Booker. I was really surprised that FSU continually collapsed on Booker when he got the ball in game 1 at Littlejohn considering how Alabi manhandled Booker by his lonesome last year. I think that was a real key for Clemson, they got a lot of good three-point looks I wasn't counting on going into the game with the inside-out play of Booker. As far as adjustments go, this seems like a no-brainer for FSU to at least try at the beginning of the game.
If Clemson can shoot the three ball at a roughly a 35-40% clip, get a few easy putbacks from Booker/Grant, and force the expected amount turnovers, they can win the game. If not, its going to be a slog. GO TIGERS!!
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: 1 (Butler)
Yep, that's a whole lot of collapsin' by the Tigers right there. Like I said yesterday, I'm not sure where this notion comes from, but there's no basis for it in the numbers. Looking back over the game logs, I was actually pretty surprised at how infrequently we've played games where there were a lot of lead changes--the times we've lost this year we've typically trailed throughout and the times we've won we've led more or less from start to finish. Of course, there are occasionally runs by the opposing team to make things closer, but that happens to every team in college basketball.
Now to the preview:
Clemson vs. Florida State, 02/28, 5:30, Donald L. Tucker Center
No one needs to be told how important this game is to the Tigers. I've become more and more convinced that Clemson is going to struggle mightily against Georgia Tech on Tuesday because 1) GT is, at this point, a seriously underrated team that's played a conference schedule with the same degree of difficulty as Clemson and 2) Clemson will be coming off a 2 days rest vs. three days for GT. As laughable as this might have sounded just a few weeks ago, Clemson's easiest path to 9 wins might be to win at both FSU and Wake Forest. Translation: we have our work cut out for us.
I don't have a lot to add to the last FSU preview. The short version: our defense matches up well with their offense because they feature one of the worst turnover rates in the entire country (not just the ACC) while we run out one of the best turnover-causing defenses in the country. On the other hand, FSU's defense is better than our offense, right now ranking #1 against the inside shot and #8 in the country in effective FG% against. Their weakness, however, is defending the three, in which they are markedly below ACC-average. Teams that have beaten them this year, including us, have made lots of three-pointers. FSU also struggles to keep other teams off the offensive glass, which, given their height, is kind of baffling.
This is a game where I would absolutely expect the Tigers to run the press all evening long. Don't give FSU any breathing room, because every possession is a turnover waiting to happen. One possible complication is whether Oliver Purnell wants to try and hold back some to ensure we have any energy on Tuesday night against a GT team that also frequently turns the ball over. Unless we're down by an absolutely unwinnable margin, I wouldn't recommend it, because this is the kind of game that could turn in our favor quickly even if we are trailing by double digits at some point. Against GT you just hope that Senior Night provides enough adrenaline to fuel our insanely energy-expensive defensive pressure.
I would look for FSU to try and limit Clemson's three point looks by leaving Alabi 1-on-1 against Booker. I was really surprised that FSU continually collapsed on Booker when he got the ball in game 1 at Littlejohn considering how Alabi manhandled Booker by his lonesome last year. I think that was a real key for Clemson, they got a lot of good three-point looks I wasn't counting on going into the game with the inside-out play of Booker. As far as adjustments go, this seems like a no-brainer for FSU to at least try at the beginning of the game.
If Clemson can shoot the three ball at a roughly a 35-40% clip, get a few easy putbacks from Booker/Grant, and force the expected amount turnovers, they can win the game. If not, its going to be a slog. GO TIGERS!!
Saturday, 27 February 2010
On the Clemson "Collapse" Meme
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's just something I've noticed that seems to dominate every discussion board, comment thread, or blogpost, or newspaper article about a Clemson basketball game, regardless of the situation. Every time Clemson blows a lead, every time another team makes a run, even every time Clemson manages to build a lead, people either reflexively label it a "collapse" or they start talking about the coming collapse. To me, a "collapse" implies a series of inexplicable events wherein a big lead evaporates while the team looks on wide-eyed in disbelief. Like the Illinois game earlier this year. That was undoubtedly a "collapse".
But this past Maryland game was completely different, and in the name of reasoned analysis I think it's important to distinguish between collapses and non-collapses. We lost to a better team. We did a great job coming out and taking advantage of a what, in retrospect, was a bad opening strategy for Gary Williams as he tried to slow us down with some pressure defense similar to what other teams had been doing early in the year against us. But we turned the tables by attacking the press without turning the ball over (too many times, at least) and getting good looks at the other end underneath and from long range. But once Gary Williams called off the press, we struggled in the half-court set to get good looks. Meanwhile, we struggled to get any stops on defense throughout the entire game, even when we were leading by 15 points. The only time Maryland didn't score is when they stopped themselves by throwing the ball away or missing a layup. There was no way to watch that game and not realize with five minutes left in the first half that Maryland was going to close the gap, not for reasons inexplicable but because they made a adjustment to their strategy that played to their strengths and our weaknesses. The rest of the game was like watching a rising tide against the banks of that 15-point Clemson lead. Maryland overcoming the Tigers was inevitable unless a) we made some miraculous adjustment of our own, or b) the 15 point lead could somehow hold up through a series of stupid Maryland mistakes. Since Maryland doesn't make mistakes and Purnell isn't known for in-game adjustment, you could call the game for Maryland with Clemson leading by 12 with five minutes left in the half.
Moreover, and I hate to break it to people here, but a 15-point lead in a game with 167 total points ain't that much of lead, particularly when the lead comes at the 12/13 minute mark in the first half. If the final score ends up 65-60, then maybe its something of a lead. But we were on a near NBA pace in 40 minutes of basketball. That's too many points and too much time remaining to consider 15 points any kind of definitive lead--its completely within the realm of expected score deviation for two teams given the final result.
We were beaten by a better team that matches up particularly well with us in their home arena. Just because they essentially spotted us a fifteen point lead doesn't mean we collapsed. I, for one, am unconvinced that we are prone to collapse more than any other given team. For every Illinois game there are dozens of games when Clemson has held a 12+ point lead (Virginia, Miami, and Florida State are three games just in the last two weeks) and every team across college basketball inexplicably loses games from season to season. Maybe its the lack of outstanding successes punctuated by occasional heartbreaking losses, but for whatever reason the myth of the Clemson collapse has just lodged itself in the collective psyche of the Clemson basketball fanbase. I'm just trying to say that while some blown leads are collapses, others are a result of fundamental roster or coaching problems.
But this past Maryland game was completely different, and in the name of reasoned analysis I think it's important to distinguish between collapses and non-collapses. We lost to a better team. We did a great job coming out and taking advantage of a what, in retrospect, was a bad opening strategy for Gary Williams as he tried to slow us down with some pressure defense similar to what other teams had been doing early in the year against us. But we turned the tables by attacking the press without turning the ball over (too many times, at least) and getting good looks at the other end underneath and from long range. But once Gary Williams called off the press, we struggled in the half-court set to get good looks. Meanwhile, we struggled to get any stops on defense throughout the entire game, even when we were leading by 15 points. The only time Maryland didn't score is when they stopped themselves by throwing the ball away or missing a layup. There was no way to watch that game and not realize with five minutes left in the first half that Maryland was going to close the gap, not for reasons inexplicable but because they made a adjustment to their strategy that played to their strengths and our weaknesses. The rest of the game was like watching a rising tide against the banks of that 15-point Clemson lead. Maryland overcoming the Tigers was inevitable unless a) we made some miraculous adjustment of our own, or b) the 15 point lead could somehow hold up through a series of stupid Maryland mistakes. Since Maryland doesn't make mistakes and Purnell isn't known for in-game adjustment, you could call the game for Maryland with Clemson leading by 12 with five minutes left in the half.
Moreover, and I hate to break it to people here, but a 15-point lead in a game with 167 total points ain't that much of lead, particularly when the lead comes at the 12/13 minute mark in the first half. If the final score ends up 65-60, then maybe its something of a lead. But we were on a near NBA pace in 40 minutes of basketball. That's too many points and too much time remaining to consider 15 points any kind of definitive lead--its completely within the realm of expected score deviation for two teams given the final result.
We were beaten by a better team that matches up particularly well with us in their home arena. Just because they essentially spotted us a fifteen point lead doesn't mean we collapsed. I, for one, am unconvinced that we are prone to collapse more than any other given team. For every Illinois game there are dozens of games when Clemson has held a 12+ point lead (Virginia, Miami, and Florida State are three games just in the last two weeks) and every team across college basketball inexplicably loses games from season to season. Maybe its the lack of outstanding successes punctuated by occasional heartbreaking losses, but for whatever reason the myth of the Clemson collapse has just lodged itself in the collective psyche of the Clemson basketball fanbase. I'm just trying to say that while some blown leads are collapses, others are a result of fundamental roster or coaching problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)