As I said at halftime of the Michigan loss...it was going to take me awhile to stomach this loss. So after a brief hiatus I think it is time to appropriately lay this season to rest(cue the music). So we need to begin to look forward and what team we can expect in 2010.
First I want to be clear that this is not some Gamecock exercise in looking toward next year because the current year sucked and you have nothing else but to look forward. This was a better than expected season. I repeat THIS WAS A BETTER THAN EXPECTED SEASON!! Coming into the season we were an unknown and for most unproven commodity. Most believed our run to the ACC Championship was a aberration at best, most considered it more of a fluke. So the line-up was not going to be as good defensively without Mays and would lack the leadership, ball handling , and shooting of Hammonds. The season depended on the emergence of Booker and Stitt. Booker was not the manbeast last year like he was this year, and that was due mostly to getting into foul trouble too often especially on the back line of the press (same problem Grant had this year). Booker was the reason this year was a success as his rebounds, points, and blocks were all up. Its true he faded(I think he got tired) and got more frustrated towards the end of the season but when guards cant throw you the ball in the post, you deserve to be a little frustrated. He single handedly brought Clemson back to almost beat Michigan. I love that he is coming back and will hopefully fast-track the education of his little brother, T-Book was a solid performer his freshman year--lets hope his brother will be even better.
So Booker was better, and the team did not take a step back--maybe they didnt take a step forward but not much was expected in the beginning of the year--to go 9-7 with a chance to reasonably go 10-6 or 11-5 in the last week...I think any of us take that at the beginning of the year. We had ACC title hopes and were a projected 4 seed, now obviously we performed the classic Clemson fade and fizzled with another winnable loss in the tourney but we had a good season, a building season. One of the measuring sticks is in recruiting and I think this season helps to continue the improvement of the caliber recruit we are bringing in to Clemson.
So in the spirit of moving forward we are going to breakdown the team by position to look at where we stand in regards to next year and beyond. The three recruits we have coming in are solid--and thats not just through orange colored glasses.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
STATE OF CLEMSON BASKETBALL: 2008-2009 end-of-season update
Again, with these posts I'm mostly interested in trying to discern any statistical trends in Clemson's play, and see if they are trending in the right or wrong way.
In the ACC season midseason update, I showed this chart plotting the division I rank of Clemson's adjusted offense and defense efficiencies as calculated at KenPom.com:
Aaah, the good old days when things were looking really good. Defense efficiency was more or less holding steady in the top 30, and you can't be unhappy with the offensive efficiency trend. Unfortunately, here's what the same plot looks like now at (post-)season's end:
I think there are two ways of interpreting these charts: 1) the first chart was a result of an extended statistical fluctuation that overvalued Clemson's defense, and the second chart is actually a closer approximation of Clemson's true talent level for the season. 2) Something happened midway through the ACC season, whether it be team chemistry-related or the league suddenly discovering how to break Clemson's defensive scheme, causing Clemson to play dramatically worse on defense the remainder of the season.
I tend to favor the latter interpretation for several reasons: 1) twenty-two games is probably enough data to give you a pretty good measure of the team's talent level, 2) I think there are obvious adjustments the rest of league made that we've pointed out on the blog before, and 3) subjectively I think we can all agree that Clemson just played like a different team in the second half of the ACC season, putting forth a much "sloppier" effort over the last 8 games and the postseason.
At any rate, to dig a little deeper into the defensive decline, I plotted some of the component defensive statistics over the years since Purnell has taken the helm. First, how the defense fared against the four factors of opposing offenses. The four factors (effective FG%, turnover%, offensive rebounding%, and FT attempts) were determined by Dean Oliver as the most important factors in predicting basketball success:
Right away we can can see where Oliver Purnell's defenses have made their mark: forcing turnovers. Clemson has consistently been amongst the best in division I at forcing turnovers since Purnell took over. The other difference between 2008 and 2009 that jumps out at me is the slight rise in effective FG% against rank. At first glance it might not seem like much, but what this chart fails to capture is the relative importance of each factor. As it turns out, FG% is by far the most important factor, generally twice as important in determining success as the turnover% and also about twice as important as offensive rebounding% and FT attempts combined. In other words, a rise in FG% against is twice or four times as bad as comparable increases in the other factors.
Looking deeper still, we can break the first two factors down a little more by looking at 3-point and 2-point FG% against, as well as steal% and block% against:
Here we again see some Oliver Purnell staples: steal% ranking in the top ten in division I and block% typically ranking in the top twenty or so. We can also possibly see a little more of the problem, the sudden jump in 3-point% against increased rapidly. This may have been negated somewhat by the drop in 2-point% against, but again, the 3-point% would probably have to be weighted as more important. Now, its true that the 2007-08 team was superhuman at guarding against the three, so we could have expected some regression coming into this year based on previous performances. But this is clearly the worst 3-point% against since Purnell took the helm.
One last chart to look at, this one breaks down how teams scored their points against Clemson into the percentage of points from the 3-point, the 2-point, and the FT shot:
Here we see the total percentage of points coming from 3-point shots taking a larger chunk of the points we gave up over the course of the year. This doesn't mean that we gave up more points, it just means that teams appear to have been looking more to the three point shot to put points on the board against our defense.
While none of the above three charts are particularly convincing on their own, I think they all add up to a pretty strong argument that Clemson's defensive struggles were directly related to a much poorer 3-point shooting defense. While this is worrying, it takes more than one point to indicate a trend. Definitely something to watch for next year, however, because over the course of an entire season that kind of 3-point defense could land us back in the NIT.
In the ACC season midseason update, I showed this chart plotting the division I rank of Clemson's adjusted offense and defense efficiencies as calculated at KenPom.com:
Aaah, the good old days when things were looking really good. Defense efficiency was more or less holding steady in the top 30, and you can't be unhappy with the offensive efficiency trend. Unfortunately, here's what the same plot looks like now at (post-)season's end:
I think there are two ways of interpreting these charts: 1) the first chart was a result of an extended statistical fluctuation that overvalued Clemson's defense, and the second chart is actually a closer approximation of Clemson's true talent level for the season. 2) Something happened midway through the ACC season, whether it be team chemistry-related or the league suddenly discovering how to break Clemson's defensive scheme, causing Clemson to play dramatically worse on defense the remainder of the season.
I tend to favor the latter interpretation for several reasons: 1) twenty-two games is probably enough data to give you a pretty good measure of the team's talent level, 2) I think there are obvious adjustments the rest of league made that we've pointed out on the blog before, and 3) subjectively I think we can all agree that Clemson just played like a different team in the second half of the ACC season, putting forth a much "sloppier" effort over the last 8 games and the postseason.
At any rate, to dig a little deeper into the defensive decline, I plotted some of the component defensive statistics over the years since Purnell has taken the helm. First, how the defense fared against the four factors of opposing offenses. The four factors (effective FG%, turnover%, offensive rebounding%, and FT attempts) were determined by Dean Oliver as the most important factors in predicting basketball success:
Right away we can can see where Oliver Purnell's defenses have made their mark: forcing turnovers. Clemson has consistently been amongst the best in division I at forcing turnovers since Purnell took over. The other difference between 2008 and 2009 that jumps out at me is the slight rise in effective FG% against rank. At first glance it might not seem like much, but what this chart fails to capture is the relative importance of each factor. As it turns out, FG% is by far the most important factor, generally twice as important in determining success as the turnover% and also about twice as important as offensive rebounding% and FT attempts combined. In other words, a rise in FG% against is twice or four times as bad as comparable increases in the other factors.
Looking deeper still, we can break the first two factors down a little more by looking at 3-point and 2-point FG% against, as well as steal% and block% against:
Here we again see some Oliver Purnell staples: steal% ranking in the top ten in division I and block% typically ranking in the top twenty or so. We can also possibly see a little more of the problem, the sudden jump in 3-point% against increased rapidly. This may have been negated somewhat by the drop in 2-point% against, but again, the 3-point% would probably have to be weighted as more important. Now, its true that the 2007-08 team was superhuman at guarding against the three, so we could have expected some regression coming into this year based on previous performances. But this is clearly the worst 3-point% against since Purnell took the helm.
One last chart to look at, this one breaks down how teams scored their points against Clemson into the percentage of points from the 3-point, the 2-point, and the FT shot:
Here we see the total percentage of points coming from 3-point shots taking a larger chunk of the points we gave up over the course of the year. This doesn't mean that we gave up more points, it just means that teams appear to have been looking more to the three point shot to put points on the board against our defense.
While none of the above three charts are particularly convincing on their own, I think they all add up to a pretty strong argument that Clemson's defensive struggles were directly related to a much poorer 3-point shooting defense. While this is worrying, it takes more than one point to indicate a trend. Definitely something to watch for next year, however, because over the course of an entire season that kind of 3-point defense could land us back in the NIT.
Friday, 20 March 2009
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT WRAPUP
Well, the official ClemBenTigerMax bracket is busted. I'm never one to let statistics or projection systems get in the way of irrational fanhood. Let's go the the chart:
(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.)
I thought we came out with a solid game plan on both sides of the court. On defense, we might have pressed a little longer than I would have liked, but it didn't matter much since Michigan wasn't really looking for the shot in transition. They got a couple of early open looks from behind the arc but for the most part, it looked like they were really trying to slow the game down (which they successfully did) and run their set offense. I thought we generally did a good job in the halfcourt defense, much better than some recent outings. In the first half I we were collapsing too much on drives into the lane, leaving guys open out on the perimeter. But in the second half we adjusted, and I thought the perimeter defense was as good as I've seen it this year. Manny Harris was the only reason Michigan was scoring in the second half; he's a great talent and his driving, shooting, and passing almost exclusively led to Michigan's second half points.
On offense, the plan seemed to boil down to getting it inside to Booker. No one could really guard him, and when they brought the double team, Booker was finding wide open shooters who knocked down some of our only outside shots. We even did a great job of not turning over the ball--first time I can say that since the Boston College game, I think. Unfortunately, there was a span of about 15 minutes between the last five minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half where we just executed poorly on offense and made bad decisions. A lot of crazy, well-guarded three point shots (even when the pass inside was open) were taken, sprinkled in with some ill-considered drives to the basket. I thought Michigan was doing well defending against anyone slashing to the hoop, and when that's happening you have to wonder who is drawing up the Tanner Smith-driving-to-the basket plays. I know Booker was looking winded during some of that same stretch, but even a winded Booker could have drawn in the defense, opening up the outside a little more.
None of this touches on Terrence Oglesby. All season I have tried to hold my peace on his extreme lack of poise. But after tonight, I have to wonder out loud if he will be back on the team next year. Purnell must be seething right now, not just about the intentional foul and ejection, but the overall sloppy play leading up to it. I think Oglesby is a valuable role player when used in the right way, and he even has some upside suggesting he could be something more, but last night makes you wonder if someone else can't do the same job without bringing the same baggage.
Its a shame the season ended the way it did. All in all, the coaches did something amazing with a set of players who were arguably less talented than a year before. I'm glad they managed to come back and make it close, showing flashes of the team that had everyone's hopes up back in January.
(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.)
I thought we came out with a solid game plan on both sides of the court. On defense, we might have pressed a little longer than I would have liked, but it didn't matter much since Michigan wasn't really looking for the shot in transition. They got a couple of early open looks from behind the arc but for the most part, it looked like they were really trying to slow the game down (which they successfully did) and run their set offense. I thought we generally did a good job in the halfcourt defense, much better than some recent outings. In the first half I we were collapsing too much on drives into the lane, leaving guys open out on the perimeter. But in the second half we adjusted, and I thought the perimeter defense was as good as I've seen it this year. Manny Harris was the only reason Michigan was scoring in the second half; he's a great talent and his driving, shooting, and passing almost exclusively led to Michigan's second half points.
On offense, the plan seemed to boil down to getting it inside to Booker. No one could really guard him, and when they brought the double team, Booker was finding wide open shooters who knocked down some of our only outside shots. We even did a great job of not turning over the ball--first time I can say that since the Boston College game, I think. Unfortunately, there was a span of about 15 minutes between the last five minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half where we just executed poorly on offense and made bad decisions. A lot of crazy, well-guarded three point shots (even when the pass inside was open) were taken, sprinkled in with some ill-considered drives to the basket. I thought Michigan was doing well defending against anyone slashing to the hoop, and when that's happening you have to wonder who is drawing up the Tanner Smith-driving-to-the basket plays. I know Booker was looking winded during some of that same stretch, but even a winded Booker could have drawn in the defense, opening up the outside a little more.
None of this touches on Terrence Oglesby. All season I have tried to hold my peace on his extreme lack of poise. But after tonight, I have to wonder out loud if he will be back on the team next year. Purnell must be seething right now, not just about the intentional foul and ejection, but the overall sloppy play leading up to it. I think Oglesby is a valuable role player when used in the right way, and he even has some upside suggesting he could be something more, but last night makes you wonder if someone else can't do the same job without bringing the same baggage.
Its a shame the season ended the way it did. All in all, the coaches did something amazing with a set of players who were arguably less talented than a year before. I'm glad they managed to come back and make it close, showing flashes of the team that had everyone's hopes up back in January.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Halftime Ramblings: Pass to Booker Inside
How many layups can one team blow in a half?? So the officiating really sucked--case in point, Michigan was trying to foul in the end and tey dont call it, KC got manhandled a couple times...we should be ahead but if we play the same kind of half we are going to hit the road. Give OP a lot of credit for sitting Terrence Oglesby on the bench where he belongs tonight...he is so cold and is hurting the team right now.
We have played some alright defense and Booker is a personal offensive rebounding machine, so some good points to build on. But we are still leaving a lot of threes open and the manny harris show is killing us. If I hear "thats just MANNY BEING MANNY" one more time...
On a personal note I am so emotionally invested into the outcome of this game...if we bite the dust here its going to take me awhile to recover...ahhh...the life of a loyal clemson tiger!!
Go Tigers! Please, please you can loose in the second round--just please win this one!!
We have played some alright defense and Booker is a personal offensive rebounding machine, so some good points to build on. But we are still leaving a lot of threes open and the manny harris show is killing us. If I hear "thats just MANNY BEING MANNY" one more time...
On a personal note I am so emotionally invested into the outcome of this game...if we bite the dust here its going to take me awhile to recover...ahhh...the life of a loyal clemson tiger!!
Go Tigers! Please, please you can loose in the second round--just please win this one!!
Sneak Peek at the Tigers before the game
I had the opportunity to see the Tigers practice this morning (Through the looking glass) in advance of their game tonight. They looked to have more focus and a higher intensity than yesterday. My goal was to take many pictures, but I did not want to be a source of distraction. I did manage to take a few through the glass into the gym. I apologize that they are not of a higher quality. I also captured them loading up their bus for their return to the hotel.
My highlight came as they were leaving the court. I was standing off to the side in my Clemson Orange, looking to take some pictures. Coach Purnell came up to me and asked if I was a fan – I don’t think they’ve seen a whole lot of orange and tiger paws here in Kansas City. I introduced myself, told him I was an alumnus, and that I lived and worked here where they were practicing. He told me that this was a very nice area and inquired if I was going to be at the game.
So, until the game tonight, here are a few photos to tide everyone over.
Everyone is loading up the bus - I only got the last of the team getting on.
These are from my phone, through the glass.
Team meeting -- Coach Purnell in the middle
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
The Tigers Come to Kansas City
Being a Tigers fan living in Kansas City has its distinct disadvantages. Foremost among them is the fact that you are nowhere near anywhere the Tigers play. Once in a great while the sports gods shine favor in your direction and send the team right to you. This is one of those times. The team has been sent right to my Kansas City to play in the Sprint Center arena in round one of the tournament, and yours truly has scored tickets (even though it is “sold out”) and will be at the game to take it all in. For all of you who are too far away from here to join, I understand your loneliness.
Of more importance to most is information on how the team is doing here. I am sure you are all aware of the official team video diary and reporting on the trip here in Kansas City. What isn’t well known is that Clemson held their private, closed practice today in the Associate Gym on the Cerner Corporation campus. The sports gods must really be pleased with me because I just so happen to work for Cerner. I was able to observe the team from outside the court, through the glass today. My overall impression of them today is that they look to be relaxed. I watched as they worked plays, ran sprints, stretched, and loosened up after their travels here yesterday. They looked to be upbeat and not visibly stressed about tomorrow’s game. Coach Purnell and his staff were observing, but not pushing the team very hard today. This was undoubtedly more of a warm-up practice to get loose and ready for the public practice they had this afternoon in the Sprint Center.
Unfortunately, I did not have my camera with me today (I wasn’t expecting them to be at my work). They will be back tomorrow for another practice, and I hope to get a few shots of the team. I will provide as many pics as I can during tomorrow night’s game as we power through Michigan for a victory
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!
Of more importance to most is information on how the team is doing here. I am sure you are all aware of the official team video diary and reporting on the trip here in Kansas City. What isn’t well known is that Clemson held their private, closed practice today in the Associate Gym on the Cerner Corporation campus. The sports gods must really be pleased with me because I just so happen to work for Cerner. I was able to observe the team from outside the court, through the glass today. My overall impression of them today is that they look to be relaxed. I watched as they worked plays, ran sprints, stretched, and loosened up after their travels here yesterday. They looked to be upbeat and not visibly stressed about tomorrow’s game. Coach Purnell and his staff were observing, but not pushing the team very hard today. This was undoubtedly more of a warm-up practice to get loose and ready for the public practice they had this afternoon in the Sprint Center.
Unfortunately, I did not have my camera with me today (I wasn’t expecting them to be at my work). They will be back tomorrow for another practice, and I hope to get a few shots of the team. I will provide as many pics as I can during tomorrow night’s game as we power through Michigan for a victory
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: First Round Preview
I've uploaded two consecutive posts laden with optimism about Clemson's chances of making a run; now its time to throw a little reality onto any expectations I might have raised. Michigan is going to cause some very difficult matchup problems for Clemson, and honestly, given Purnell's coaching tendencies, I think we're in for a battle.
Clemson on Defense
There are two main areas of concern for Clemson's defense, first, Michigan is 16th best in the country at not turning the ball over, an obvious problem for a team that thrives on creating turnovers. Granted, a low turnover rate does not necessarily guarantee a team will handle a full-court press as good as Clemson's, but we can safely view this as a pretty good indicator that the press isn't going to be exceptionally effective. Second, Michigan shoots the three to the tune of 6th most in country. Clemson can expect roughly one of every two Michigan shots to come from behind the arc.
Now, these two points have been made here and around the Clemson blogosphere over the last couple of days, usually with the qualification that while Michigan likes to shoot the three they aren't particularly good at it; ranking well below average for division I (207th). But what I haven't seen anyone point out in the same breath is the rapid decline of Clemson's three-point shooting defense. We have gone from being pretty good at defending the three to slipping to average to free-falling into downright atrocious. We now rank 263rd in the country at defending the three. That's really just embarrasing for a team playing in a top conference. If you've read the blog at all, we've been pounding the same theme over and over--teams that break Clemson's press have been pulling up for open three-point looks instead of driving to the basket (which often allows a very athletic Clemson team to get back and defend or block layup-attempts). This strategy has really cut into Clemson's defensive efficiency, dropping our ranking from the inside the top ten to 52nd in the country.
If and when Michigan breaks the press, I expect nothing but three point attempts. And therein lies the real problem for Clemson, giving up open 3-point looks will substantially improve every shooter in the Michigan lineup and negate their overall poor 3-point shooting percentage. If, as is customary, Purnell and Clemson insist on running the press full time, the team will almost certainly look to the scoreboard at the five minute mark in the first half and find themselves staring down a 10-15 point deficit. To be clear, I'm not advocating complete abandonment of the press; I think Purnell just needs to be more judicious in its application during this game. Use it as a weapon, attack them for the first few minutes of each period, try to catch them by surprise by using it out of timeouts, and try different variations to slow them down.
Now, admittedly, Clemson's halfcourt defense has been way too porous of late, particularly around the perimeter. This has undoubtably also contributed to their declining defense. From my vantage, I feel this is more a product of a frustrated team losing its discipline. If playing in the NCAA tournament isn't enough to motivate Clemson into tightening up the defense, we can fold up the tents right now.
Clemson on Offense
The good news: Clemson should more or less have its way on offense. They should control the boards (on both ends of the court), hopefully leading to a few highlight Booker/Sykes dunk put-backs. Michigan does defend the three fairly well, 42nd best in the country, but they struggle against the inside shot. This leads to one fairly obvious conclusion--everything will run through Booker. Because Michigan lacks a significant height advantage, we can hope for the love of all that's holy that feeding the post won't be as difficult as in recent games. Eventually this will open up the perimeter for some bombs from Oglesby and Rivers. I don't think Michigan will be quick to double-team Booker, they might instead try to neutralize him with 6'10 Zack Gibson. This will certainly be a matchup to watch, but Booker isn't slowed by just height, tall players also must play excellent defense to keep him in check and I don't think Gibson is quite that caliber of a defender. If he does manage to slow Booker, Clemson can always turn to Stitt and Potter to open up the offense by slashing to the hoop.
Summary
This is fairly straightforward for Clemson. The only way I see Michigan winning is by getting into a situtation where they are trading threes for twos with Clemson's offense. If we relax the full-court press and concentrate on getting some stops in the half-court, we should win fairly handily. The question is, will Purnell turn down the press early and often enough? I don't know too many Clemson fans willing to place a "yes" bet.
Clemson on Defense
There are two main areas of concern for Clemson's defense, first, Michigan is 16th best in the country at not turning the ball over, an obvious problem for a team that thrives on creating turnovers. Granted, a low turnover rate does not necessarily guarantee a team will handle a full-court press as good as Clemson's, but we can safely view this as a pretty good indicator that the press isn't going to be exceptionally effective. Second, Michigan shoots the three to the tune of 6th most in country. Clemson can expect roughly one of every two Michigan shots to come from behind the arc.
Now, these two points have been made here and around the Clemson blogosphere over the last couple of days, usually with the qualification that while Michigan likes to shoot the three they aren't particularly good at it; ranking well below average for division I (207th). But what I haven't seen anyone point out in the same breath is the rapid decline of Clemson's three-point shooting defense. We have gone from being pretty good at defending the three to slipping to average to free-falling into downright atrocious. We now rank 263rd in the country at defending the three. That's really just embarrasing for a team playing in a top conference. If you've read the blog at all, we've been pounding the same theme over and over--teams that break Clemson's press have been pulling up for open three-point looks instead of driving to the basket (which often allows a very athletic Clemson team to get back and defend or block layup-attempts). This strategy has really cut into Clemson's defensive efficiency, dropping our ranking from the inside the top ten to 52nd in the country.
If and when Michigan breaks the press, I expect nothing but three point attempts. And therein lies the real problem for Clemson, giving up open 3-point looks will substantially improve every shooter in the Michigan lineup and negate their overall poor 3-point shooting percentage. If, as is customary, Purnell and Clemson insist on running the press full time, the team will almost certainly look to the scoreboard at the five minute mark in the first half and find themselves staring down a 10-15 point deficit. To be clear, I'm not advocating complete abandonment of the press; I think Purnell just needs to be more judicious in its application during this game. Use it as a weapon, attack them for the first few minutes of each period, try to catch them by surprise by using it out of timeouts, and try different variations to slow them down.
Now, admittedly, Clemson's halfcourt defense has been way too porous of late, particularly around the perimeter. This has undoubtably also contributed to their declining defense. From my vantage, I feel this is more a product of a frustrated team losing its discipline. If playing in the NCAA tournament isn't enough to motivate Clemson into tightening up the defense, we can fold up the tents right now.
Clemson on Offense
The good news: Clemson should more or less have its way on offense. They should control the boards (on both ends of the court), hopefully leading to a few highlight Booker/Sykes dunk put-backs. Michigan does defend the three fairly well, 42nd best in the country, but they struggle against the inside shot. This leads to one fairly obvious conclusion--everything will run through Booker. Because Michigan lacks a significant height advantage, we can hope for the love of all that's holy that feeding the post won't be as difficult as in recent games. Eventually this will open up the perimeter for some bombs from Oglesby and Rivers. I don't think Michigan will be quick to double-team Booker, they might instead try to neutralize him with 6'10 Zack Gibson. This will certainly be a matchup to watch, but Booker isn't slowed by just height, tall players also must play excellent defense to keep him in check and I don't think Gibson is quite that caliber of a defender. If he does manage to slow Booker, Clemson can always turn to Stitt and Potter to open up the offense by slashing to the hoop.
Summary
This is fairly straightforward for Clemson. The only way I see Michigan winning is by getting into a situtation where they are trading threes for twos with Clemson's offense. If we relax the full-court press and concentrate on getting some stops in the half-court, we should win fairly handily. The question is, will Purnell turn down the press early and often enough? I don't know too many Clemson fans willing to place a "yes" bet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)