My way too early, possibly problematic look at potential GT Hoops roster management

Jack

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
203
I love your analysis. I just have one point of disagreement and one question as food for thought.

First, Ben Lammers was excellent operating as a facilitator, shooter, and scorer from the high post in a Princeton style offense. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that he could have been equally good in a high ball screen and roll style offense.

Second, why not have ndongo continue to work the middle ball screen and roll game on offense as a 4 and get a bigger 5 to roam the baseline between the short corner and the dunker spot for dump offs and rebounds? Then you could have a traditional big man to defend the low post on defense and ndongo could match up with a smaller 4 on defense. I realize this won’t happen if cds is 100% committed to 4 out/5 out style offense.
Lammers did something simple that really boosted that offense.
He simply turned and shot the ball and made a high percentage of his shots.
That forced the post defense up and the side defense over at him
and opened up many scoring possibilities.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,209
I love your analysis. I just have one point of disagreement and one question as food for thought.

First, Ben Lammers was excellent operating as a facilitator, shooter, and scorer from the high post in a Princeton style offense. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that he could have been equally good in a high ball screen and roll style offense.

Second, why not have ndongo continue to work the middle ball screen and roll game on offense as a 4 and get a bigger 5 to roam the baseline between the short corner and the dunker spot for dump offs and rebounds? Then you could have a traditional big man to defend the low post on defense and ndongo could match up with a smaller 4 on defense. I realize this won’t happen if cds is 100% committed to 4 out/5 out style offense.
I buy one of your arguments but not the other. So I guess I’m batting 500 which puts me in the Hall of Fame😎

Lammers was very good at getting the ball at the high post and facilitating. But he was getting it with his back to the basket and turning and shooting or looking to pass after that. He was not getting it on a roll where he has to make an immediate decision on what he can do depending on where the help is coming from. That is a really hard skill for a big to have. Not very many can do it and I don’t really think Lamers could do it

On the other hand I should have considered your argument that a rim protecting 5 who could shoot 3’s could man the corner spot instead of doing a pick and pop up high. It could well work and would have an upside of drawing out the other five from the paint. Would not expect a lot of drives but it’s got potential.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,520
Location
Oriental, NC
Rant away.

But, first, when was the golden era of college basketball ? Or, if you had a favorite decade, when would that be?
I know that my favorite decade has to be when Cremins was riding high at GT. But, apart from that, I loved college hoops around the time MJ was at UNC. I spent a ton of money in NOLA going to the Final Four and saw Jordan hit the jumper that beat Georgetown and Patrick Ewing. The ACC and Big East were so competitive and there were so many great coaches in those two conferences. Maybe we will see that level again, but I am skeptical.

Edit: I am not saying the players were better in those days, just that I enjoyed the game more.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,766
I know that my favorite decade has to be when Cremins was riding high at GT. But, apart from that, I loved college hoops around the time MJ was at UNC. I spent a ton of money in NOLA going to the Final Four and saw Jordan hit the jumper that beat Georgetown and Patrick Ewing. The ACC and Big East were so competitive and there were so many great coaches in those two conferences. Maybe we will see that level again, but I am skeptical.

Edit: I am not saying the players were better in those days, just that I enjoyed the game more.
Those were good times.

Help me with this. Back in those days I could more easily identify the style of play of particular teams, and the plays that were run were easier to follow. Overall, the impression was of good team execution. Today, outside of a few really good teams, I can’t tell what teams are doing and it comes across as a lot of one on one play.

I suspect that this may be a product of not having kept up with the sport but I really enjoyed watching a Dean Smith coached team or, back in the day, Phil Wooden.

The Celtics with Larry Bird were so much fun to watch for their team play.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
813
The games are still interesting to watch. I still enjoy the contests, especially the conference games.

Following the "off season" is different. The "watching the sausage get made" analogy becomes more applicable as time goes by. I think it is actually worse in football right now.

I wonder how much of it is information overload. Prior to the internet and broadband information flows, off season and recruiting information was scant. There was great sense of anticipation about getting any tidbit of information. There was the ACC Poop Sheet, Barry Jacobs Yearbook. For the really hard core, we could subscribe to Bob Gibbons Blue Ribbon report for like 4 little newletters in a year.

While getting our hunger for information sated in this broadband era satisfies the hunger for fast and real time information, it has not enhanced the enjoyment of the sport. The more information we get, the more chaotic it all seems.

Information flows like water, it has a velocity and volume. And just like a flooded river, the high volume and velocity of information flow results in turbulence: the chaos of white water. Could chaotic voluminous information flows actually be the cause of social chaos?
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,520
Location
Oriental, NC
The players were better in those days. You can say it. The best players played three or four years instead of one or zero. It isn't really controversial.
I refuse to be one of the guys who is always talking about the old days and how much better things were. The athletes today are better trained and more skilled than the athletes of that era.
 

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
14,492
Location
Atlanta
I refuse to be one of the guys who is always talking about the old days and how much better things were. The athletes today are better trained and more skilled than the athletes of that era.

I think you're both right (wrong?).

I do think an argument can be made that players are more individually skilled today. And that they are more athletically gifted overall.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they're better players. I think there are a lot of really skilled yet tone deaf players nowadays. Like they can't 'read the room' on the court sometimes, which hampers them to a degree.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,497
The players were better in those days. You can say it. The best players played three or four years instead of one or zero. It isn't really controversial.
Truth. The ACC in the 1980s was simply great basketball. We all know about GT BB in the 1980s. UNC, Duke and NCST won National Championships. UVA mad a Final Four. Wake made an Elite Eight. Maryland made 7 straight NCAATs until the Len Bias death blew up Maryland sports. Even Clemson made 3 NCAATs reaching one Elite Eight.

Players stayed 3-4 years regularly as ESPNJ pointed out. We knew the 7 other ACC teams rosters and the 14 game round robin schedule was great! The current ACC basically sucks compared to the 1980s ACC Basketball. All in the name of "Money" driven by football TV money. A 17 team ACC Conference is absurd! The level of basketball is not close to what it was in the 1980s. Individual players have more individual skill as long range shooters due to the 3 point line but as far as teams go the current era sucks in comparison.

Rant finished!
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
813
I don't think the players have changed that much. They have bulked-up. Otherwise I don't see a huge difference on the court.

The game has changed some. The game has spread out with a much greater emphasis on perimeter jump shooting. The officiating is much more permissive of "creative" ball handling. The games are slower, with more breaks in the action and it takes forever to get free throws up.

What has changed is everything around the game. Administration of the sport and the social changes around that administration is totally different and changing fast.
 

ESPNjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,504
I think you're both right (wrong?).

I do think an argument can be made that players are more individually skilled today. And that they are more athletically gifted overall.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they're better players. I think there are a lot of really skilled yet tone deaf players nowadays. Like they can't 'read the room' on the court sometimes, which hampers them to a degree.
I think you are mistaking a lack of experience for something else. There is a difference between playing 4 years of top college basketball and playing 1.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,209
Players overall are more athletic and skilled (handle / shooting) than they were in the 80's.

Agree that players who stay 4/5 or Covid 6 years are more physically developed than one and done guys but IMHO that isn't the biggest issue.

The much more widespread ability to shoot from beyond the 3 point line combined with more widespread ability to handle the ball has led to the analytics driven focus on 3 point shots or layups. Analytics is simply picking up on a reasonably widespread ability to make 30-35% or more of the 3 point shots. That leads to playing for the 3 point shot and spreading the floor to allow players to drive in space - the 4 and 5 out style offenses we have now. It is simply a much different game than it was in the 80's - and that is before any of the major changes in officiating come into play - with a caveat that every now and then I think I am watching an old Big East game even now.

The 80's were focused on mid range shots and layups with the 3 being a less utilized game changer shot generally from one or two players. So scoring came from all 3 levels and necessitated a lot of "plays" to free players for shots in the 15-18 foot range or a backcut to the basket. Now it is spacing and shooting with a high ball screen or zoom action but focused on the 3 point line. Midrange is generally frowned upon. I enjoyed the 80's game more than I do today - especially the ACC of the 80's versus the ACC of today - but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the skill today's players bring.

As for NIL and open portal - Get off my lawn :mad:
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,369
Location
Maine
Rant away.

But, first, when was the golden era of college basketball ? Or, if you had a favorite decade, when would that be?
90s without question. I LOVED Mike Patrick calling ACC games. Halston Lane against UK? No, UNC. Crap i cant remember. Shaun Fein baseline leaner against UK. Tony MF***inv Akins. The Comeback against Wisconsin.that may have been 2001 actually.

Anderson, Marbury, Harpring oh my…
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,369
Location
Maine
The players were better in those days. You can say it. The best players played three or four years instead of one or zero. It isn't really controversial.
This is the truth and also what makes me sad about the current state of CBB. Players like Matt Harpring are the reason I love CBB more than anything. There will never bee another Matt Harpring, only AJ Storr’s
 

ESPNjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,504
This is the truth and also what makes me sad about the current state of CBB. Players like Matt Harpring are the reason I love CBB more than anything. There will never bee another Matt Harpring, only AJ Storr’s
Right. I have no argument about today's players being "better" or not in whatever way because I just don't care. I don't find it relevant to anything.

As a college basketball fan, just picking a couple of random guys, would you rather have Anthony Edwards play for you one year or Travis Best play four? Those years aren't coming back and it's a shame for the game.
 

Peacone36

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,369
Location
Maine
Right. I have no argument about today's players being "better" or not in whatever way because I just don't care. I don't find it relevant to anything.

As a college basketball fan, just picking a couple of random guys, would you rather have Anthony Edwards play for you one year or Travis Best play four? Those years aren't coming back and it's a shame for the game.
I guess we just have to watch HSBB now. Better for y’all in the south than me in rural Maine
 

ESPNjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,504
I guess we just have to watch HSBB now. Better for y’all in the south than me in rural Maine
I still like college basketball but it isn't as good as it was and the reason is less experience at the collegiate level. I don't think this is an unusual or controversial take.

Since we're already off topic by quite a bit, it used to be quite popular to blame AAU basketball for all kinds of alleged offenses of the modern player. I haven't heard much of that lately.
 

MtnWasp

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
813
Player mobility must reflect a mindset that places no value on rootedness/affiliation/kinship.

Fans of the previous generations can't relate to this mindset, and they lament.

Is there a generation coming up behind us that finds this all exciting, or do all fans think this sucks? Just when the players start chasing the money is when the money is going to dry up? Wouldn't that be ironic!
 
Top