hoop vision 5-out revolution

[gt24]

With ~2 weeks off, starved for game action, some might enjoy this very brief (13 minutes) x/o video on 5-out offenses. Some elements (point series, split action, zoom, DHO, backdoors, etc) can be found in Pastner's "base" offense (Princeton). Sperber calls this the "5-out Revolution". Pastner has been running Princeton (with different wrinkles and emphases) since arriving in 2016.



(Jordan Sperber runs Hoop Vision. It is a subscription service for $10/month or $100/year. He encourages occasional sharing of material to expand his subscriber base, hence the sharing of this link.)

 

[YlJacket]

The concepts are interesting but note that several times he stated you had to have specific types of players to run this - especially shooting to keep defenses honest. We do try to run the modified Princeton based offensive set that emphasizes cutting but quite honestly we don't have enough shooting to keep the lane clear. So we have gone to an offense that tends to emphasize some strengths we do have - namely Jose as a dribble drive initiator and Moses in the midrange/midpost areas where he can use his quickness and athleticism. When DeVoe makes shots off the penetration we are a pretty good offense - when Usher can make shots we are almost a very good offense. But very different than the 5 out scheme discussed. Now next year if the shooting is as good as advertised I would expect us to do a lot more spread, pass and shoot.

 

[slugboy]

It does seem to me that we run more of a 4 out Kentucky/Calipari dribble/drive offense moderate to low motion offense than a Princeton offense.

There are definitely aspects, like camping at set points on the arc.

Pastner TRIED a 5-out offense a few years ago, and we didn’t have the shooters or the passers for it.


I’m not convinced the 4 out dribble-drive is the best for our players, but it’s been our offense for 2 1/2 years at least

 

[gt24]

Agree that with both DDM 4-out and Princeton 5-out, our mediocre 3pt shooting is a detriment to keeping the lane as open as desired. I suspect this (3pt %) is the primary reason Bubba gets far more minutes than Kyle. Agree that it will be very interesting to see how both offenses look in the years ahead with better shooters on the way.

Some might not consider Pastner's version of Princeton as truly a 5-out offense because he has Moses at the elbow and not outside the arc. In my mind it still fits the definition or categorization of 5-out because the lower ~80% of the lane is open for backdoors and because Moses ends up popping/stretching out to the arc frequently after the initial actions/cuts. The principles are the same, as are many of the actions and reads.

We tried to run a ton of 4-out DDM the first 2 games but it was very very motionless - it was dribble drive iso instead of dribble drive motion. So much so that many times it looked like we were not running any offense and just playing 1v5, but in reality it was very poor DDM. Since those first 2 games, Pastner switched to much more 5-out Princeton (his version of it) and just sprinkles in 4-out DDM occasionally. There are still plenty of times when the shot clock is running down that we give the ball to Jose and say "go make a play" but most of those are not 4-out DDM. When we do run DDM now, we are now frequently using the "thru cut" from the second guard to begin offense, which has helped with generating/manufacturing more motion and less stagnation/camping on the arc from all 4 perimeter players. I do not recall seeing the "thru cut" at all in the first 2 games.

 

[slugboy]

I definitely see where you’re coming from.

I think Calipari’s scheme is more of a dribble-drive iso, but with 5 burger boys at least, so that there are more threats to cover. He has so many blue-chip players that he can run a “create a shot” offense.

I think the FSU game is a good one to examine, because it’s well into the season, Pastner had settled on his starters and his plans, and the players were used to the scheme. When I watched the GT-FSU game, I saw two teams running a similar offense at a very high level, but not in execution. FSU had more “full team” motion—not like a Purdue or another motion team—but more screens better executed and multiple players moving to free each other up. When I first turned on the game (23” TV), I got the teams mixed up because the uniform colors were so similar.

We’re in blue. We played a good game, but we used such a short bench that we were fading going into the second half. Their defense was better than our defense. Also, FSU was giving more players time, and using the system more, whereas we were trying to feed key players. FSU’s sixth man had 11 points, and their points were more evenly distributed. Devoe had a third of our points.

We seem to go about 6 1/2 players deep. That’s hard to sustain unless you have 4-5 players with iron constitutions.

One frustration for me is that we often lack players in a position to make an offensive rebound. I think that’s a drawback to the way we execute our scheme, or maybe even part of our scheme. FSU would have three around the basket, and we’d have one on the wrong side of the basket.

At the time, I thought it was FSU’s defensive plan to take Wright away from the offense. For whatever reason, he’s not in a pivotal feed-in/feed-out role like in some center-led 4-out offenses.

I think this game shows a good compare and contrast of similar offensive schemes. FSU’s defense, when you see it, is more full-court pressure.

 

[alagold]

I definitely see where you’re coming from.

I think Calipari’s scheme is more of a dribble-drive iso, but with 5 burger boys at least, so that there are more threats to cover. He has so many blue-chip players that he can run a “create a shot” offense.

I think the FSU game is a good one to examine, because it’s well into the season, Pastner had settled on his starters and his plans, and the players were used to the scheme. When I watched the GT-FSU game, I saw two teams running a similar offense at a very high level, but not in execution. FSU had more “full team” motion—not like a Purdue or another motion team—but more screens better executed and multiple players moving to free each other up. When I first turned on the game (23” TV), I got the teams mixed up because the uniform colors were so similar.

We’re in blue. We played a good game, but we used such a short bench that we were fading going into the second half. Their defense was better than our defense. Also, FSU was giving more players time, and using the system more, whereas we were trying to feed key players. FSU’s sixth man had 11 points, and their points were more evenly distributed. Devoe had a third of our points.

We seem to go about 6 1/2 players deep. That’s hard to sustain unless you have 4-5 players with iron constitutions.

One frustration for me is that we often lack players in a position to make an offensive rebound. I think that’s a drawback to the way we execute our scheme, or maybe even part of our scheme. FSU would have three around the basket, and we’d have one on the wrong side of the basket.

At the time, I thought it was FSU’s defensive plan to take Wright away from the offense. For whatever reason, he’s not in a pivotal feed-in/feed-out role like in some center-led 4-out offenses.

I think this game shows a good compare and contrast of similar offensive schemes. FSU’s defense, when you see it, is more full-court pressure.

we are too small in the match-up with them.We have to play perfect OFF to beat them.