Cal's offensive premise and 3 point shooting

[kyjeff1]

Just wanted to get others' thoughts on what I have noticed since Cal has been here concerning 3 point shooting.
It seems to me that he is trying so hard to keep his teams from falling in love with outside shooting that it has seemed to get to the point where three point shooting really isn't a part of his offensive scheme.
There were games where Booker or Aaron were on fire from three point range but they were stymied by our pound it in style.
It seemed like the only time our shooters got an open look was due to a broken or well defended play.
It really hurt us this year at times because there were no driving lanes and we really only had 1 true post threat (KAT). DJ either got stripped, blocked or traveled and WCS is not any kind of an offensive player beyond receiving lobs.
When you look at teams like duke*, who I think shoots too many threes, you see defenses that are spread way out to guard shooters which leaves the paint wide open. When you have Winslow and Okafor in the paint you're screwed if you help.
My point is if we get Newman and end up with 3 or 4 good shooters are we actually going to see Cal utilize the three ball more to open the paint? I hope so because our guys take a beating in the paint but if you give Ulis a lane with a big or 2 close by we can get easy buckets but if we tell opposing defenses that 3 point shooting isn't an interest than they will pack the paint and live with the 5 threes we hit.
Yes I realize we won 38 games and I loved every second of every win but it seemed like we were forcing things in the paint and I felt like our offense would have been unstoppable if we incorporated more outside shooting into our offensive scheme. Yes I know our offensive efficiency rating was top ten but I believe that was a product of our guys just being that much better individually than the teams we were playing, we could just muscle them in the paint and hit free throws but there were 3 or 4 teams out there that can deny that style and we finally ran into one of them.

 

[brianpoe]

Perhaps Cal suffers from a rare case of Threegogglephobia, usually brought on by a traumatic loss in the Elite Eight.

 

[docholiday51]

I think Cal's focus on the 3 is secondary to what happens at the rim,the 3 is a by-product of what happens in the lane.It is almost an after thought,if all else fails shoot a 3.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Yeah, Cal did not want to lose a game because we jacked up and bricked tons of 3's. UK did that a few times this year , hititng like 7/25 or 7/22 (obviously did not lose those games), but I think come NCAA Tourney time Cal knew that was the only way UK could lose. Unfortunately, our guys forgot how to drive to the hoop against Wisconsin in crunch time...and the one dimensional nature of the offense was a killer that last 4-5 minutes.

 

[mj2k10]

I understand why Cal's offensive sets are so simplistic. He has guys for 1 or 2 years, and he has guys who almost always have a physical edge over defenders. It makes sense that you just give the ball to those guys in certain spots and let them make plays.

However, if Cal is really prepping guys for the NBA, then he has to be aware of how NBA basketball is actually being played now. 19 NBA teams averaged over 20 three point attempts per game, with a league average of over 22 per team. NBA teams run pick and rolls, and try to spread the floor with the other 3 guys. And a lot of teams want 4 guys on the floor at one time who are all a threat to hit a 3, because having that helps with spacing. You're seeing a lot of lineups that basically consist of a point guard who is great off the bounce, able to penetrate and get to the rim, 2 wing guys who are mainly catch-and-shoot players, a 4 man who has size, but can also face-up and hit jumpshots, and 1 real post scoring threat (either the 4 or the 5, depending on the players involved).

An aversion to jumpshots only takes you so far. When all the action is at the rim, it's just too easy to defend. Doesn't matter if the defenders are smaller and less athletic, when they're condensed in that small of a space, it's hard to score over or around them. Which is why I really wish Cal would look to spread the floor and move the ball more, as opposed to a pure power game.

He used to do that more at Memphis, when he had less quality size on his teams. The 07-08 Memphis team took 21.6 threes per game, and the 06 and 07 teams were also over 20 attempts per game. I think Cal is suffering a little bit from Joe B Hall disease, meaning he's getting really conservative as his teams seem to get bigger and bigger.

 

[michaeluk26]

Uh, he coached the best 3 point shooting team in UK history statistically, the 2011 team.

 

[kyjeff1]

I have no idea how many threes our 2015 team took but I doubt it was anywhere near 20pg.
Some may disagree with me and I am by no means a coach but when I watched any other game it seemed like both teams on the floor had lanes to drive but when you watch UK try to run it's offense the paint seemed to be clogged and our bigs had to fight through double and triple teams to get a bucket.
We had really good shooters (Booker, Ulis, Aaron and Andrew) but I don't feel like we truly used their abilities from the outside.
Maybe the 16 team won't have a huge size advantage over everyone and incorporate more outside shooting into the offense.

 

[CUT-NETS]

Been about my only gripe with Cal in his career is that he doesn't typically have great shooting teams. 2015 was the best I can remember because he had players all over the court that could knock down shots. I think I'd kill myself if I read another description of a player that says "incredible athleticism, not a great shooter". The idea in this sport is to put the ball in the basket. Shooters >>>>>> phenomenal athletes Coach K has this figured out. 2 titles during Cal's tenure.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Cal recruits the most athletic players in each class.

When you are way more athletic than your competition night after night, you don't settle for 3's, you get to the rim.

Those guys don't have to shoot as many 3's until they get to college and face better defenses that keep them from getting to the rim.

So we have to deal with not having pure shooters.

 

[CUT-NETS]

Originally posted by bucsrule8872:
Cal recruits the most athletic players in each class.

When you are way more athletic than your competition night after night, you don't settle for 3's, you get to the rim.

Those guys don't have to shoot as many 3's until they get to college and face better defenses that keep them from getting to the rim.

So we have to deal with not having pure shooters.

This is absolutely true and I hate it. What happens when you can't overwhelm your opponent athletically? What happens when they are as strong as you and stop you from getting to the basket? The answer is, you rise up and shoot over them. But if you can't shoot then you are no better than a 90 year old grey hair sitting in the front row of Rupp Arena.


Look at Curry, would you rather have him or Andrew Wiggins? Wiggins is by far the superior "athlete" in every way possible. So why in your head is it so easy to think "Id rather have Curry"? Its because Curry can light it up, great athlete or not.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Again, I don't think there's a set philosophy beyond playing to your strengths. When you have two top-10 picks and they're both seven footers, you roll the dice thinking no one can match that. When you have a 6-10 lottery pick with tons of skills, you have to have him on the floor.

Honestly, Cal got more guys back than he expected, and it caused this team to basically be two separate rosters put together. For all of its talent, it wasn't talent that could play at once. Towns/Willie/Lyles/Poy/Dakari/Lee leaves you unbalanced and trying to make the pieces work. To a lesser extent, that hurt Arizona as well.

In the way the college game is set up and officiated, and the style most coaches play, all those bigs become a detriment. No team can match your size, so they either go small on you, or you run into a team who runs everything through perimeter oriented big men like Kaminsky and Dekker.

But to be completely blunt, there are a whole lot of other strategies and philosophies--ones that involve the press or shooting lots of threes, or mixing in some zone, or whatever else our fans yearn for on a given day--and those rarely win the title either. There's just no formula. Grab as much talent as you can, commit to defense, share the ball, and see how things go in March.

 

[EliteBlue]

Originally posted by CUT-NETS

Look at Curry, would you rather have him or Andrew Wiggins? Wiggins is by far the superior "athlete" in every way possible. So why in your head is it so easy to think "Id rather have Curry"? Its because Curry can light it up, great athlete or not.

Klay Thompson is another example of that. He's a very solid athlete but not the NBA superstar type of all world athleticism. With that said, Id rather have a team with the splash brothers and some athletic bigs for rebounding and D vs a team built soley on athleticism and reliant on the bigs scoring inside as well as the guards scoring 10ft and in. Makes for a clogged lane and one demensional team. Diversity is always better.

Our team ran this past year was actually more diverse and beat you in more ways early on. Late in the season we made the decision to reel in the shooting and pound the paint. It ultimately hurt us the same as it did the year before when Cal tried it with the twins and Randal. The "Tweak" was opening the floor back up and getting some shots up

 

[EliteBlue]

The losing streak before the SEC tournament was the best thing to happen to us last year because it forced a reevaluation. This year when we started forcing it to the block, limiting outside shots, and over penetrating we kept winning ......because we were that Damn good. But it bit us eventually.

This post was edited on 4/18 3:14 PM by EliteBlue

 

[king of cali]

Excellent post mj.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Originally posted by CUT-NETS:

So why in your head is it so easy to think "Id rather have Curry"? Its because Curry can light it up, great athlete or not.

Because one is a 27-year-old in the prime of his career on the best team in the NBA and the other isn't old enough to buy alcohol and plays for the T-Wolves? No one on planet earth would take 19-year-old Steph over 19-year-old Wiggins.

Unless you'd also take Kyle Korver over Russell Westbrook, your comparison is flawed.

 

[5iveStarRecruit]

Cal has an outdated view on the game. This years team ran heavy on post-ups and mid-range Js, which were encouraged & even mandated by the coaching staff. Those simply are inefficient looks.

Theres not many set-plays set up for 3s. That was so evident down the stretch when teams were glued on Booker and he never seemed free'd. in the final our he finished with ZERO 3PA.

Cal also seems to hate his bigs shooting. He even told Karl mid-season, if he shots another 3, he'll be headed to the bench. That just zips the versatility out of Karl's game.

 

[Aike]

Cal does his best to cater to his personnel in the short window of time he has to work with them. We were monstrously, historically big last year, so pounding it into the post made great sense, even if it was a little boring at times.

It also worked at an historically great level. Pretty sure we put together the longest winning streak of the past 25 years, and put maintained a high level of offensive efficiency throughout.

With the way our roster is currently composed, next year will look different.

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by CUT-NETS:

Originally posted by bucsrule8872:
Cal recruits the most athletic players in each class.

When you are way more athletic than your competition night after night, you don't settle for 3's, you get to the rim.

Those guys don't have to shoot as many 3's until they get to college and face better defenses that keep them from getting to the rim.

So we have to deal with not having pure shooters.

This is absolutely true and I hate it. What happens when you can't overwhelm your opponent athletically? What happens when they are as strong as you and stop you from getting to the basket? The answer is, you rise up and shoot over them. But if you can't shoot then you are no better than a 90 year old grey hair sitting in the front row of Rupp Arena.


Look at Curry, would you rather have him or Andrew Wiggins? Wiggins is by far the superior "athlete" in every way possible. So why in your head is it so easy to think "Id rather have Curry"? Its because Curry can light it up, great athlete or not.

A loss to Wisconsin and a near loss to Notre Dame happens.

 

[.S&C.]

Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Yeah, Cal did not want to lose a game because we jacked up and bricked tons of 3's. UK did that a few times this year , hititng like 7/25 or 7/22 (obviously did not lose those games), but I think come NCAA Tourney time Cal knew that was the only way UK could lose. Unfortunately, our guys forgot how to drive to the hoop against Wisconsin in crunch time...and the one dimensional nature of the offense was a killer that last 4-5 minutes.

We had been a one dimensional offense since the beginning of the year. Cal tried to win with defense only, and thats not going to happen. Defense does win championships, but then you have to score. And in deep tournaments, you need really good scheming and different looks. I knew after the Notre Dame game that we were too one dimensional on offense to win it. It would have taken free throws to off set it, and we were never going to get enough calls for that.

 

[.S&C.]

Originally posted by 5iveStarRecruit:
Cal has an outdated view on the game. This years team ran heavy on post-ups and mid-range Js, which were encouraged & even mandated by the coaching staff. Those simply are inefficient looks.

Theres not many set-plays set up for 3s. That was so evident down the stretch when teams were glued on Booker and he never seemed free'd. in the final our he finished with ZERO 3PA.

Cal also seems to hate his bigs shooting. He even told Karl mid-season, if he shots another 3, he'll be headed to the bench. That just zips the versatility out of Karl's game.

I've really seen eye to eye with you on this from the start. We saw the same things the day after the final four ended. The heavy post ups your speaking about did lots of damage and I thought it even showed in the Notre Dame game. I'm surprised there are so few people that agree.

 

[Aike]

Originally posted by .S&C.:

Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Yeah, Cal did not want to lose a game because we jacked up and bricked tons of 3's. UK did that a few times this year , hititng like 7/25 or 7/22 (obviously did not lose those games), but I think come NCAA Tourney time Cal knew that was the only way UK could lose. Unfortunately, our guys forgot how to drive to the hoop against Wisconsin in crunch time...and the one dimensional nature of the offense was a killer that last 4-5 minutes.

We had been a one dimensional offense since the beginning of the year. Cal tried to win with defense only, and thats not going to happen. Defense does win championships, but then you have to score. And in deep tournaments, you need really good scheming and different looks. I knew after the Notre Dame game that we were too one dimensional on offense to win it. It would have taken free throws to off set it, and we were never going to get enough calls for that.

You knew, or you thought? Did you know that Wisconsin would be given an extra basket late in the game? Because without that, we very likely win that game.

I don't remember you saying you knew we were going to lose, but maybe you did. Either way, we were at worst 2 coin flips away from a Title, playing the way we have played all year.

 

[5iveStarRecruit]

Originally posted by .S&C.:

Originally posted by 5iveStarRecruit:
Cal has an outdated view on the game. This years team ran heavy on post-ups and mid-range Js, which were encouraged & even mandated by the coaching staff. Those simply are inefficient looks.

Theres not many set-plays set up for 3s. That was so evident down the stretch when teams were glued on Booker and he never seemed free'd. in the final our he finished with ZERO 3PA.

Cal also seems to hate his bigs shooting. He even told Karl mid-season, if he shots another 3, he'll be headed to the bench. That just zips the versatility out of Karl's game.

I've really seen eye to eye with you on this from the start. We saw the same things the day after the final four ended. The heavy post ups your speaking about did lots of damage and I thought it even showed in the Notre Dame game. I'm surprised there are so few people that agree.

That ND game, Karl was the only one doing damage. Im was fine with him getting fed big amounts down there when a mismatch was present. It was just the endless amounts of post ups for Dakari & WCS, regardless of mismatches, became incredibly annoying and showed the lack of offensive acumen of the coaching staff.

In the F4, when we were down 3 after the Dekker dagger, the play we ran was a Lyles post-up. DOWN 3, WE RAN A LYLES POST-UP WITH A MINUTE LEFT. Lyles ended up getting charged with a offensive foul and our season was gone.

Zero creativity. Zero awareness by Cal on where the game is headed.

 

[.S&C.]

Originally posted by Aike:

Originally posted by .S&C.:

Originally posted by UKWildcats#8:
Yeah, Cal did not want to lose a game because we jacked up and bricked tons of 3's. UK did that a few times this year , hititng like 7/25 or 7/22 (obviously did not lose those games), but I think come NCAA Tourney time Cal knew that was the only way UK could lose. Unfortunately, our guys forgot how to drive to the hoop against Wisconsin in crunch time...and the one dimensional nature of the offense was a killer that last 4-5 minutes.

We had been a one dimensional offense since the beginning of the year. Cal tried to win with defense only, and thats not going to happen. Defense does win championships, but then you have to score. And in deep tournaments, you need really good scheming and different looks. I knew after the Notre Dame game that we were too one dimensional on offense to win it. It would have taken free throws to off set it, and we were never going to get enough calls for that.

You knew, or you thought? Did you know that Wisconsin would be given an extra basket late in the game? Because without that, we very likely win that game.

I don't remember you saying you knew we were going to lose, but maybe you did. Either way, we were at worst 2 coin flips away from a Title, playing the way we have played all year.

First of all I don't I can see into the future. So Sure, I "thought".

Secondly, I was on this board sounding the hell off after the Notre dame game, and stated I was hella worried about the final four due several factors, including this very thing; relying too much on one aspect of the game. I was livid in a thread about Cal posting up far too much, and thought we weren't playing through our guards nearly enough. I also thought we were playing far too slow. Basically saying things that ended up costing us huge. Some people still don't realize we could have beat Notre Dame by 10+ had we played to our strengths.

I was hammered in that thread man, lol. I think 5 star was the only person who agreed with me in it. That was a week before the final four.

 

[.S&C.]

Originally posted by 5iveStarRecruit:

Originally posted by .S&C.:

Originally posted by 5iveStarRecruit:
Cal has an outdated view on the game. This years team ran heavy on post-ups and mid-range Js, which were encouraged & even mandated by the coaching staff. Those simply are inefficient looks.

Theres not many set-plays set up for 3s. That was so evident down the stretch when teams were glued on Booker and he never seemed free'd. in the final our he finished with ZERO 3PA.

Cal also seems to hate his bigs shooting. He even told Karl mid-season, if he shots another 3, he'll be headed to the bench. That just zips the versatility out of Karl's game.

I've really seen eye to eye with you on this from the start. We saw the same things the day after the final four ended. The heavy post ups your speaking about did lots of damage and I thought it even showed in the Notre Dame game. I'm surprised there are so few people that agree.

That ND game, Karl was the only one doing damage. Im was fine with him getting fed big amounts down there when a mismatch was present. It was just the endless amounts of post ups for Dakari & WCS, regardless of mismatches, became incredibly annoying and showed the lack of offensive acumen of the coaching staff.

In the F4, when we were down 3 after the Dekker dagger, the play we ran was a Lyles post-up. DOWN 3, WE RAN A LYLES POST-UP WITH A MINUTE LEFT. Lyles ended up getting charged with a offensive foul and our season was gone.

Zero creativity. Zero awareness by Cal on where the game is headed.

And I are that clear as well. Im totally cool with Towns tearing it up and getting the touches, although I think we win that game going away using more of what we had to offer in the tool shed.

The constant post ups shouldn't have ever happened, but as I was afraid after the notre dame game, we were going to keep doing it.

I really agree with the creativity part. How can you win championships with what we offered up offensively?

 

[Beezermc]

Spot on. Cal over coaches like crazy at times. You have the best team dude, just let them play the game. Just amazing uk didn't win it all this year. Cals fault

 

[doneitall]

Originally posted by kyjeff1:
Just wanted to get others' thoughts on what I have noticed since Cal has been here concerning 3 point shooting.
It seems to me that he is trying so hard to keep his teams from falling in love with outside shooting that it has seemed to get to the point where three point shooting really isn't a part of his offensive scheme.
There were games where Booker or Aaron were on fire from three point range but they were stymied by our pound it in style.
It seemed like the only time our shooters got an open look was due to a broken or well defended play.
It really hurt us this year at times because there were no driving lanes and we really only had 1 true post threat (KAT). DJ either got stripped, blocked or traveled and WCS is not any kind of an offensive player beyond receiving lobs.
When you look at teams like duke*, who I think shoots too many threes, you see defenses that are spread way out to guard shooters which leaves the paint wide open. When you have Winslow and Okafor in the paint you're screwed if you help.
My point is if we get Newman and end up with 3 or 4 good shooters are we actually going to see Cal utilize the three ball more to open the paint? I hope so because our guys take a beating in the paint but if you give Ulis a lane with a big or 2 close by we can get easy buckets but if we tell opposing defenses that 3 point shooting isn't an interest than they will pack the paint and live with the 5 threes we hit.
Yes I realize we won 38 games and I loved every second of every win but it seemed like we were forcing things in the paint and I felt like our offense would have been unstoppable if we incorporated more outside shooting into our offensive scheme. Yes I know our offensive efficiency rating was top ten but I believe that was a product of our guys just being that much better individually than the teams we were playing, we could just muscle them in the paint and hit free throws but there were 3 or 4 teams out there that can deny that style and we finally ran into one of them.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Originally posted by Beezermc:
Spot on. Cal over coaches like crazy at times. You have the best team dude, just let them play the game. Just amazing uk didn't win it all this year. Cals fault

So Cal over coaches, but doesn't make adjustments, and doesn't have creativity, but changed our game plan from what we had done throughout the year? He has more mutually exclusive faults that are somehow all true at once than any coach in history.


When you don't get the outcome everyone wants, it's normal to blame pretty much everyone, but people are just piling on coaches and players and using the "yeah well then why didn't we win?" to counter whatever is said. That's as stupid as downplaying potential concerns just because a team is winning.

We knew all year Wisconsin was one of the top 3-4 teams in the country and was well-suited to give us trouble. We didn't play our best and still had control of the game. I'm not inclined to put that on coaching, but I do think a timeout down the stretch could have helped, just as the missed calls, random Marcus Lee fumbling of a rebound, Booker being awful on defense, etc. could have changed the outcome. That's how it goes against good teams.

Besides, if we had come out three heavy and lost, people would have crucified Cal for not dumping it in to Towns or using our size advantage. It doesn't really have to be anyone's fault or some condemnation of a strategy or philosophy every time a team loses.

 

[doneitall]

Originally posted by kyjeff1:
Just wanted to get others' thoughts on what I have noticed since Cal has been here concerning 3 point shooting.
It seems to me that he is trying so hard to keep his teams from falling in love with outside shooting that it has seemed to get to the point where three point shooting really isn't a part of his offensive scheme.
There were games where Booker or Aaron were on fire from three point range but they were stymied by our pound it in style.
It seemed like the only time our shooters got an open look was due to a broken or well defended play.
It really hurt us this year at times because there were no driving lanes and we really only had 1 true post threat (KAT). DJ either got stripped, blocked or traveled and WCS is not any kind of an offensive player beyond receiving lobs.
When you look at teams like duke*, who I think shoots too many threes, you see defenses that are spread way out to guard shooters which leaves the paint wide open. When you have Winslow and Okafor in the paint you're screwed if you help.
My point is if we get Newman and end up with 3 or 4 good shooters are we actually going to see Cal utilize the three ball more to open the paint? I hope so because our guys take a beating in the paint but if you give Ulis a lane with a big or 2 close by we can get easy buckets but if we tell opposing defenses that 3 point shooting isn't an interest than they will pack the paint and live with the 5 threes we hit.
Yes I realize we won 38 games and I loved every second of every win but it seemed like we were forcing things in the paint and I felt like our offense would have been unstoppable if we incorporated more outside shooting into our offensive scheme. Yes I know our offensive efficiency rating was top ten but I believe that was a product of our guys just being that much better individually than the teams we were playing, we could just muscle them in the paint and hit free throws but there were 3 or 4 teams out there that can deny that style and we finally ran into one of them.

have to agree with most of your thoughts and hopefully Cal learns a new way to defend the high picks. Hopefully he runs an earlier offense rather than kill 20 seconds off shot clock then go to offense set.

 

[Hoskins91]

We played to our strengths. We've always done that since he has been here. We didn't have a team like in 2011 where we had several guys who could knock threes down. If we did, I'm sure he would tell them to let it rip. Instead our guard play was never consistent, and our best offensive player was a guy who needed to be fed in the post, hence why when we needed a basket, we were feeding it to Karl down low. We were an up and down team all year. We had too many close games against bad teams for me to feel like I did during the 2012 season. In order to make the offense any better he would of had to completely stop playing certain people to play a smaller lineup. I would not have necessarily had a problem with that, but I question how much better we would have been because we had consistency issues.

 

[UK-chulo]

Keep in mind how stubborn Cal is about oh, everything.

The first half of the season when Andrew was playing poorly and having little effect on the game, he would continually build him up in the post-game pressers. We all knew what we saw didn't match up with what Cal was saying. Dakari was a liability ALL season and should not have been on the floor, but again Cal was selling that DJ was contributing. The reality is that his play didn't warrant the time he was getting in comparison to what Towns was bringing us.

So yes Cal will say no minutes are promised, but he certainly gave minutes to players who were not earning them in game situations. He is going to stick to what gets his players the best chance at a better draft position even if it costs us a loss or in the case of the Final Four, a shot at a championship and undefeated season.

In no way am I trying to be critical of Cal, because he is the coach and it his decision to do as he pleases. He is just going to stick to how he wants to do things and historically has been very slow to make any adjustments. Love to see the confidence, but every now and then even successful methods require adjustments on the fly. That is Cal's biggest weakness. In big games where he is favored, there is always a point where you can see his sphincter tightening up. At that point if the players do pull it off we are toast. Cal looks far more relaxed in the big games when he is the underdog and a loss is expected.

Looking forward to that next season, as we won't be the favorite in every game.

 

[EliteBlue]

Originally posted by 5iveStarRecruit:

Cal also seems to hate his bigs shooting. He even told Karl mid-season, if he shots another 3, he'll be headed to the bench. That just zips the versatility out of Karl's game.

This is my one concern about Skal. I hope we utilize his full skill set. I love Cal but he tends to force versatile nigs to stay on the block only allowing them to venture 5-8 feet out by the end of the season. I think it's because he's trying to develop their inside game to get them pro ready but guys like AD, KAT, and Skal can dominate all over and really open things up

 

[Blue Decade]

Calipari's offensive philosophy is to bring pressure on the other team by being able to score at the basket, either by dribble drive or by feeding a player like KAT or Cousins on the low block. Once the interior scoring threat is established, shots in the perimeter game are created by passing the basketball inside out. To win championships, you need multiple scoring threats on the floor, inside and out.

 

[FlCATFan]

I've wondered if Cal's insistence on scoring in the paint has hurt our recruiting efforts with shooting guards and wings.

 

[Blue Decade]

Originally posted by FlCATFan:
I've wondered if Cal's insistence on scoring in the paint has hurt our recruiting efforts with shooting guards and wings.

Nobody has been more successful at recruiting elite guards than Calipari. He has sent a parade of guards to the NBA, and not all were point guards. This year, he is sending 2 more wing guards to the NBA. And I don't think you are describing his offense accurately. He doesn't insist on scoring in the paint. He establishes his team's inside strength to set up all his scoring options all over the floor. Why do you think Aaron Harrison was so wide open on the wing, over and over again, when big games were decided?

 

[Aike]

Originally posted by GonzoCat90:

Originally posted by Beezermc:
Spot on. Cal over coaches like crazy at times. You have the best team dude, just let them play the game. Just amazing uk didn't win it all this year. Cals fault

So Cal over coaches, but doesn't make adjustments, and doesn't have creativity, but changed our game plan from what we had done throughout the year? He has more mutually exclusive faults that are somehow all true at once than any coach in history.


When you don't get the outcome everyone wants, it's normal to blame pretty much everyone, but people are just piling on coaches and players and using the "yeah well then why didn't we win?" to counter whatever is said. That's as stupid as downplaying potential concerns just because a team is winning.

We knew all year Wisconsin was one of the top 3-4 teams in the country and was well-suited to give us trouble. We didn't play our best and still had control of the game. I'm not inclined to put that on coaching, but I do think a timeout down the stretch could have helped, just as the missed calls, random Marcus Lee fumbling of a rebound, Booker being awful on defense, etc. could have changed the outcome. That's how it goes against good teams.

Besides, if we had come out three heavy and lost, people would have crucified Cal for not dumping it in to Towns or using our size advantage. It doesn't really have to be anyone's fault or some condemnation of a strategy or philosophy every time a team loses.

Of course it doesn't, but there are always certain posters who will be adamant that they had the fix- no matter what went wrong. It's absurdly comical.

We were the overwhelming favorite to win, not just because of our talent level, but because we had actually played greater than the sum of our parts all year. We earned immense respect because of our results.

We could have very easily dropped games to Ole Miss, Texas A &M, and LSU. Do that, and the Wisconsin game is probably a coin flip. As it played out, we were only favored by 5. The truth is that our historic run defied all the odds.

We had good talent top to bottom, but not elite talent across the board. We had 3 seven footers, only one of whom could be counted on to post up. Our best shooter was our worst defender. Our elite backup pg could also be taken advantage of by savvy guards.

Cal pushed the right buttons all year to exploit our strengths and mask our weaknesses. I always contended that 2012 was better than 2015 because of the elite talent we could put on the floor. The results vs. Wisconsin don't prove that, but they are a nod in that direction.

Do I think Cal could have done some things differently? Yes. And message boards are for discussions like that. I would love to re-write history and see what would have happened if we kept platooning. Play 5 in 5 out with Hawkins started. I thought that was our best basketball team after Poythress went down.

But I understand why Cal didn't do that. I get that he was playing the percentages that he thought gave him the best chance at victory with the least risk. At the end of the day, he was the one at practice every day. He knew the personnel better than anyone. His neck was on the line, and he has been there before.

So forgive me if I have a hard to time with the arrogance level of message board posters who race way past the "what if" line into "I'm so much smarter than Cal" territory. This board has been a piece of work these past 2 weeks.

 

[Mojocat]

Originally posted by mj2k10:
I understand why Cal's offensive sets are so simplistic..... It makes sense that you just give the ball to those guys in certain spots and let them make plays.
vs.

Originally posted by Beezermc:
Spot on. Cal over coaches like crazy at times. You have the best team dude, just let them play the game. Just amazing uk didn't win it all this year. Cals fault

heh. Cal doesn't do enough!! Cal does too much!!

either way, Cal's fault.....

 

[Mojocat]

Originally posted by GonzoCat90:
It doesn't really have to be anyone's fault or some condemnation of a strategy or philosophy every time a team loses.

Yep, been my mantra for a week now. But, we were favored by 4 points, butchered 3 out of probably 65 possessions, people are frustrated, and most only know to point fingers when frustrated. It's got to be someone's fault!!!

 

[kyjeff1]

Wow, I thought I was going to get trashed for posting this thread but it looks like there are many that agree with me.
I saw some that said that Cal was trying to play to this strengths but we had really good shooters and outside shooting COULD have been one of MANY strengths. Also, if we showed we were a good shooting team and showed that we WILL fire away if left open wouldn't that open things up in the paint and allow our bigs to get easier buckets? Our guys were having to work way too hard to get two points.
There were some games where Booker barely moved the bet because he was so on but all he ever got was 4 or 5 shots.
However, this is just one negative thing, I think Cal does some amazing things from the bench and coaches his way out of a lot of really tough situations. There's no other coach I would want to run this program.

 

[goingpostal72]

to only shoot 5 three's in that Wisconsin game is just crazy to me. We had 4 guys who can hit that shot over a third of the time. Want to open up the paint well its very easy to do if you just attempt to shoot a three. In the three point era any team should attempt no less than 12 three's a game. Dakari was a black hole every time he touched the ball in the post, which is fine if he's actually scoring, but on the offensive end he was more of a liability than a plus. I would rather the twins or devin and tyler shooting a three than have to watch us force feed Dakari or Willie in the post.

 

[3rex]

Yea I pretty much agree OP.

My opinion is that Cal's directive to Booker to take it to the hole & stop settling for threes contributed to his cooling off from 3 range later in the season.

We recruit Booker as a knock down shooter...he comes in & does just that, and we tell him to drive more.

makes no sense really.