Not much. I mean, he's a Hall of Fame Coch, sure to win another championship or two, which would place him squarely in college basketball head coaching royalty- not just at present (he's already there, among active coaches), but all time. But, for whatever reason, he's lost a disproportionate number of Tournament games to mid major schools. He's even worse in games on the second day of a Tournament weekend.
The good news, for Jayhawk fans, is that Self seems aware of his weaknesses. His most recent news conference, he looked at a loss for words, but spoke of "48 hours", and his team being "loose" (earlier in the season he had described his team as playing "tight" against lesser competition). But he couldn't come up with a reason as to why this is the case for so many of his teams.
I think the two are connected, and I think it has much to do with his coaching style. I wrote, in my last post, about how KU's guards, in 2011, vis a vis 2008, didn't get to the foul line. After I got off, I looked up the number of 3 pt. FG attempts on each team. What I found, was that while players like Brady Morningstar hit a high percentage of 3 pointers, they didn't really take that many. The '08 group had several players attempt over 100 3's. Brady and Reed were the only such players on this team. The result is that, despite a team that, on paper shot the ball well, especially from 3, the number was misleading, because the sample size was, relatively, small.
Why is this a problem? What does it have to do with Self losing second games? What does it have to do with him losing to mid majors?
I don't think it's the 48 hour turnaround. Self's won, probably, more Big Monday games than anyone in America, usually after a Saturday game. So, I don't think it's routine or preparation or fatigue. I also don't think his teams overlook mid major teams. He still has a .750 win percentage against double digit seed mid majors. So I don't think he overlooks these teams. I have a theory.
Rockhurst High School has 9 state championships in football (including my senior year), to go along with 5 2nd places, and nearly 40 playoff appearances (which, considering 1968 was the first year they had a tournament, is quite impressive). Tony Severino, who has 6 of the Hawklets' titles, used to tell us this about winning: "There are only 3 ways you can beat somebody in a contact sport- you can out-finesse them, you can overpower them, or you can out-athlete them. If you're bigger, you might want to overpower them, but, for various reasons, you may want to out finesse them instead, and vice versa. But any time- any time- you have superior athletic talent, that's where you try to win the game. You let your athletes make plays." He was- and still is- notorious for putting the best athlete at a given position. He wants playmakers. Sometimes this has cost him, but I also can't help but think it has something to do with him winning so many titles. Or, as one of his assistants likes to put it, "When God deals you aces, you play aces and double down."
Let me put this differently. You're a track coach. You've got two sprinters. One who has great form, practices hard, does everything you ask, never makes a mistake, and consistently runs the 100m in 11s. It's like clockwork. The other guy is undisciplined, messes up exchanges, sometimes has great form, and sometimes just completely lacks concentration. Sometimes he's over 11s, but, when he wants to, he can break 10s. If you're in a dual meet, you might run the 11s guy, just because you'll know exactly what you'll get from him. You can plan everything else in your other races and events, because you know what you can expect from Mr. 11s. But, now suppose you're in a relay meet, and you have to win the 4x100m, in order to have a chance of placing at/winning the meet. You have a choice between the two runners as to which will run your anchor leg. It's a no brainer. You run the guy who can break 10s. Maybe he gets a DQ, but that's the risk you'll have to run. This guy is your best chance of winning. There's simply no way of coaching Mr. 11s any faster. It's easier to coach the other guy to not be as erratic.
That, in a nutshell, is Self's problem. When it's KU vs. Texas, the athletic talent is similar, and he's able to out-finesse Rick Barnes. Teams like MU, while he may have the better athletes, he still either out finesses or overpowers. In Big XII play, it was "Get the ball to Marcus/Markieff/Cole/Wayne". As a result, he played guys like Morningstar who he could count on to just not mess up.
Comparing VCU to KU, player by player: Marcus vs. Skeen, Marcus had 20 points, 16 Rebounds (8 offensive), and 1 turnover and 1 dime; Skeen had 26/10/4/2/2. Skeen outscored Marcus by a few points, and Marcus dominated everything else. Markieff vs. Haley, Markieff had 13/12/5/8/0; Haley had 2/1/0/0/0. So, despite Markieff's 8 turnovers, he clearly dominated his mirror. Taylor vs. Rodriguez, Taylor had 14 pts., 3 dimes, and 2 TOs; Rodriguez had 9/4/5. The stats don't lie. KU's top three players owned their VCU mirrors by 10 points. The problem is that the rest of KU's team scored a whopping 14 pts. on 6 dimes, and was outscored by 20. Who cares that they only turned it over 3 times? Selby had 2 points in 15 minutes. EJ had one shot in his 6 mins. (he was fouled; Brady never did get to the line).
If you were playing pickup basketball, who would you pick first out of Brady, Reed, Selby, Little, Travis, T-Rob, and EJ? If Brady and EJ or Selby were playing 21, and you had to put money on one, who would you take?
Why was arguably the best player on the floor for either team only on the floor for 15 mins.? Who knows how many points EJ or Selby could've had in 25+ mins.? As a rule, the more mins. Selby played, the more points he scored- and when he scored, he scored a lot more. He had 9 games where he was in double digits in points (consider, also that he missed 9 games, and played limited minutes in many more). As many minutes as Brady played, and he played in every game, he only had double digit points in 8 games. EJ had 4; he played in all but 2 games, but, like Selby, had limited minutes, compared to Brady. What's important is, unlike Brady, when EJ played 20+ or so minutes, he was much more likely to get double digit point totals. Brady, despite averaging upwards of 30 mins., especially as the season wore on, only had double digits when his 3 pt. game was working. This isn't rocket science. You want to let your athletes win these games. You can't do that if they're riding the bench. You want to create as many mismatches as possible.
Josh Selby may have been a lot of things, but he could create mismatches. Mario Little created mismatches. Same with EJ. They scored the basketball. They can be taught to play defense and not turn it over. Reed and Brady were auxiliary. They were guys you should be looking to when you want to go with a smaller lineup, or when you have a guy in foul trouble, or when you need a shot, and you want to have as many shooters on the floor as possible, or when you want to close out a game and need another ball handler or foul shooter. The were NOT players you would want to call upon to outplay somebody else on a Tournament team. I understand Reed hit a big shot against MU. I also understand that KU had the lead on that play; that Reed was passed the ball and wide open; that he did not create the play he made. When KU needed a play- not just a shot, but a play- against USC, who did they give it to?
Put simply, Self's job is NOT to try and coach up Brady and Reed into being Selby. His job is to recruit and coach Selby. His job is to make Selby fit. You know how you beat a team that you're athletically superior to? You don't try and outfinesse them. You put your athletes in position to win. When you're playing Virginia Commonwealth, you don't need to run 20 seconds off the play clock looking for the perfect shot. You line your players up against theirs and say, "I'm better than you." When you only have 48 hours to prepare for a team, it's not like in the regular season when you know the team you're playing like the back of your hand; you don't, really, even know which team you'll be playing. You have a day or so to make a key adjustment here or there; to put in a play or so. But, more than anything, you let your better ballplayers just go out and play. Self hampers his team by hampering his better players.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Why KU Lost
First I'll start with why they did NOT lose.
1. They Choked. This is ridiculous. Since 2008, KU has played 12 Tournament games against lower seeded teams. They're 10-2 in those games. The whole "clutch players make clutch plays and pretenders come up short" theory is a bunch of sports bunk. Yes, big players make big plays, but they make them all the time, not just in the clutch. They make clutch plays...but they also make ordinary ones as well. George Brett hit .375 in "the clutch"- with runners on base and in scoring position. Thing is, he also hit .305 for his career as a whole, and almost every hitter hits better, as a rule with runners in scoring position. When runners are on base, the pithcer must pitch from the stretch position, and he is less effective. Brett didn't hit better in the clutch than other hitters because he was a better clutch hitter- he hit better in the clutch because he was just a better hitter, period, in ANY situation, clutch or not. Jordan wasn't a better shooter in the clutch because he was a better clutch shooter- he was just a better shooter period.
National championships are the product of getting to the Final Four a lot of times. Get there a lot, and win a few. Final Fours are the product of 25+ win seasons. You win some, and you lose some- and KU has won more than its fair share. Anyone who thinks KU choked this year should take a head count of other big name programs present in this Final Four. Since only one team can win every year and only four teams can make the Final Four, any big name program- Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, etc., will almost invariably "fail" more often than it "succeeds". Something tells me we've not seen the last of the 'Hawks.
2. They didn't impose their will. Against UNI, yes; against VCU, no. If both teams shoot their average from 3, the field, the line- KU wins by 20. That wasn't the case against UNI. KU had opportunities that it didn't capitalize.
3. VCU was lucky/KU was unlucky. Certaily a contributing factor. KU has a good 3 pt FG defense, and was a good 3 pt FG shooting team. If this game were played out 20 times, exactly as it were, KU's shots go in, and they win 16 or 17 of them. And absent this, they likely do win....but not why they lost.
Now, for reasons they actually did lose.
1. Refs. Hold your contempt, please. The refs in this particular game did NOT cost us. It's refs at Allen Field House. This is something difficult for KU fans to comprehend. They watch KU home games, and they see calls go KU's way, and agree with the calls; and when you look at the replay, the call looks good, and KU fans convince themselves calls are fair. It's true, the calls are correct enough. That's not the problem.
The problem is illustrated in two plays in the VCU game, one in each half. The first was Tyshawn Taylor's second foul, a charge, that most clearly was a block. Taylor was in the air, the VCU player slid underneath. 10 refs out of 10 will call that play a block, when looking at it on a replay. Full speed, it's still a block 6 or 7 times out of ten. The problem is that 10 times out of 10, it's a block in AFH.
The other play was the block on Markieff. Same thing. KU just isn't accustomed to not getting the call. Tiger and Wildcat fans are wrong that KU gets all the calls, and that's why they win. KU wins because they're good. And it isn't that they don't get all the calls. But, they're at least half right in that when there's something that can be called, when KU's playing at home, especially in conference, it is called. KU is disadvantaged in Tournament games, because of this.
2. The Big XII. By the way, I'm not listing these in any particular order. 2011 reminds me a lot of 2007. KU had a good team, and lost an Elite Eight game in which they didn't shoot particularly well. Also, both years, they won the conference and the conference tournament- and it was a weak conference. I've never put a whole lot of stock in a team's non con. This is partly because it's a bit of a crapshoot in that when you schedule the games, you have no idea whether the teams you're playing are even good. KU played half of the Big 10, half of the Pac 10, several Tournament teams, including Arizona, UCLA, Michigan, and Memphis, and really didn't have a strong non con- but not for lack of trying. The other reason I put little stock in it, is because the games are played in November and December. The teams you play may be day and night different then, than what they may later become (think Arizona).
The hard part of your shedule is supposed to be in conference. For what it's worth, I do think it's possible for a team to play too difficult of a schedule and be too beaten up to compete in the Tournament. I think this is a problem with several Big East teams. Regardless, you're supposed to be challenged. In 2007, KU, Texas, and Texas A&M were the only good Big XII teams, and KU only had three games against them. It wasn't that there weren't other decent teams; just that those three were head and shoulders above the others.
Unfortunately, 2011 wasn't much different. KU had a cakewalk through conference play. They were challenged exactly 5 times since January 1- Nebraska, K-State, Texas, Oklahoma State, and VCU. I don't recall but maybe one game all year where Kansas trailed by more than 10 points and won. Bottom line: winning is dealing with adversity. If you never face it, you can never deal with it.
3. Free Throws. Many consider the 2008 team to be superior from the foul line, vis a vis the 2011 group. Yes...and no. The former shot about 70%, while the latter only about 67.5%. Also, comparing the shooters' percentages, by position (if you were to compare Chalmers to Taylor, Morris to Jackson, for example), there isn't much difference. The difference is in who is taking the shots. The twins led the team in free throw attempts, which is telling (Mc with 207, Mk with 149). In 2008, Jackson led the team with 149 (Think about that- either of the Twins would've led the 2008 group in attempts.). Chalmers, Robinson and Rush followed, respectively, with 130, 113, and 86 (Arthur and Jackson came in behind Chalmers and ahead of Robinson). It's also worth pointing out that Rush missed part of the season with an injury- as the season wore on, he took on an increasing percentage of the team's attempts. Kaun, who shot worse than T-Rob was down on the list. Taylor was the only guard in 2011 who broke 100 attempts. Reed was the only guard who broke 90.
Selby, Little, Morningstar, and Johnson shot 37, 36, 35, and 13 attempts, respectively. By comparison, Rodrick Stewart....RODRICK STEWART...had 28. KU was a poor foul shooting team because its poorer shooters got to the stripe- and their better ones didn't. Bad as KU's foul shooting was, I never worried when KU had a late lead in a close game about how their guys would perform on the foul line. In those situations, they always got the ball to their better shooters. I always worried about games they might not be in, solely due to bad foul shooting. A two point deficit that could've been a two point lead. A ten point deficit that could've been four. Didn't it feel that way today?
Not only was it a problem against VCU, it was a symptom of a larger issue- not attacking the rim. Our guards never got to the line because they were always shooting from the outside. Taylor was fine (much to the chagrin of many KU faithful). He attacked the rim. He got to the line. The other guards, great as they were at not turning it over and hitting threes and playing defense, were never a threat to score off the dribble. They were relegated to living on the perimeter- where they ultimately died.
4. Transition. This is a difficult statistic to measure. It's something that almost never shows up in a box score. Many think that fast break points and transition points are synonymous- they aren't. Bill Self, in his postgame, noted that KU had, at halftime, given up 0 fast break points and 14 transition points. Point is, all year, KU hasn't defended well in it, and they haven't scored well in it.
That's the thing about the Tournament. Sometimes it's about how good you are on your worst day. If you have a weakness, you inevitably will run into a team who can exploit it. KU's weaknesses were hidden deep inside the stat lines. VCU found them, and exploited them- and they caught KU on a really bad day- and it was enough.
1. They Choked. This is ridiculous. Since 2008, KU has played 12 Tournament games against lower seeded teams. They're 10-2 in those games. The whole "clutch players make clutch plays and pretenders come up short" theory is a bunch of sports bunk. Yes, big players make big plays, but they make them all the time, not just in the clutch. They make clutch plays...but they also make ordinary ones as well. George Brett hit .375 in "the clutch"- with runners on base and in scoring position. Thing is, he also hit .305 for his career as a whole, and almost every hitter hits better, as a rule with runners in scoring position. When runners are on base, the pithcer must pitch from the stretch position, and he is less effective. Brett didn't hit better in the clutch than other hitters because he was a better clutch hitter- he hit better in the clutch because he was just a better hitter, period, in ANY situation, clutch or not. Jordan wasn't a better shooter in the clutch because he was a better clutch shooter- he was just a better shooter period.
National championships are the product of getting to the Final Four a lot of times. Get there a lot, and win a few. Final Fours are the product of 25+ win seasons. You win some, and you lose some- and KU has won more than its fair share. Anyone who thinks KU choked this year should take a head count of other big name programs present in this Final Four. Since only one team can win every year and only four teams can make the Final Four, any big name program- Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, etc., will almost invariably "fail" more often than it "succeeds". Something tells me we've not seen the last of the 'Hawks.
2. They didn't impose their will. Against UNI, yes; against VCU, no. If both teams shoot their average from 3, the field, the line- KU wins by 20. That wasn't the case against UNI. KU had opportunities that it didn't capitalize.
3. VCU was lucky/KU was unlucky. Certaily a contributing factor. KU has a good 3 pt FG defense, and was a good 3 pt FG shooting team. If this game were played out 20 times, exactly as it were, KU's shots go in, and they win 16 or 17 of them. And absent this, they likely do win....but not why they lost.
Now, for reasons they actually did lose.
1. Refs. Hold your contempt, please. The refs in this particular game did NOT cost us. It's refs at Allen Field House. This is something difficult for KU fans to comprehend. They watch KU home games, and they see calls go KU's way, and agree with the calls; and when you look at the replay, the call looks good, and KU fans convince themselves calls are fair. It's true, the calls are correct enough. That's not the problem.
The problem is illustrated in two plays in the VCU game, one in each half. The first was Tyshawn Taylor's second foul, a charge, that most clearly was a block. Taylor was in the air, the VCU player slid underneath. 10 refs out of 10 will call that play a block, when looking at it on a replay. Full speed, it's still a block 6 or 7 times out of ten. The problem is that 10 times out of 10, it's a block in AFH.
The other play was the block on Markieff. Same thing. KU just isn't accustomed to not getting the call. Tiger and Wildcat fans are wrong that KU gets all the calls, and that's why they win. KU wins because they're good. And it isn't that they don't get all the calls. But, they're at least half right in that when there's something that can be called, when KU's playing at home, especially in conference, it is called. KU is disadvantaged in Tournament games, because of this.
2. The Big XII. By the way, I'm not listing these in any particular order. 2011 reminds me a lot of 2007. KU had a good team, and lost an Elite Eight game in which they didn't shoot particularly well. Also, both years, they won the conference and the conference tournament- and it was a weak conference. I've never put a whole lot of stock in a team's non con. This is partly because it's a bit of a crapshoot in that when you schedule the games, you have no idea whether the teams you're playing are even good. KU played half of the Big 10, half of the Pac 10, several Tournament teams, including Arizona, UCLA, Michigan, and Memphis, and really didn't have a strong non con- but not for lack of trying. The other reason I put little stock in it, is because the games are played in November and December. The teams you play may be day and night different then, than what they may later become (think Arizona).
The hard part of your shedule is supposed to be in conference. For what it's worth, I do think it's possible for a team to play too difficult of a schedule and be too beaten up to compete in the Tournament. I think this is a problem with several Big East teams. Regardless, you're supposed to be challenged. In 2007, KU, Texas, and Texas A&M were the only good Big XII teams, and KU only had three games against them. It wasn't that there weren't other decent teams; just that those three were head and shoulders above the others.
Unfortunately, 2011 wasn't much different. KU had a cakewalk through conference play. They were challenged exactly 5 times since January 1- Nebraska, K-State, Texas, Oklahoma State, and VCU. I don't recall but maybe one game all year where Kansas trailed by more than 10 points and won. Bottom line: winning is dealing with adversity. If you never face it, you can never deal with it.
3. Free Throws. Many consider the 2008 team to be superior from the foul line, vis a vis the 2011 group. Yes...and no. The former shot about 70%, while the latter only about 67.5%. Also, comparing the shooters' percentages, by position (if you were to compare Chalmers to Taylor, Morris to Jackson, for example), there isn't much difference. The difference is in who is taking the shots. The twins led the team in free throw attempts, which is telling (Mc with 207, Mk with 149). In 2008, Jackson led the team with 149 (Think about that- either of the Twins would've led the 2008 group in attempts.). Chalmers, Robinson and Rush followed, respectively, with 130, 113, and 86 (Arthur and Jackson came in behind Chalmers and ahead of Robinson). It's also worth pointing out that Rush missed part of the season with an injury- as the season wore on, he took on an increasing percentage of the team's attempts. Kaun, who shot worse than T-Rob was down on the list. Taylor was the only guard in 2011 who broke 100 attempts. Reed was the only guard who broke 90.
Selby, Little, Morningstar, and Johnson shot 37, 36, 35, and 13 attempts, respectively. By comparison, Rodrick Stewart....RODRICK STEWART...had 28. KU was a poor foul shooting team because its poorer shooters got to the stripe- and their better ones didn't. Bad as KU's foul shooting was, I never worried when KU had a late lead in a close game about how their guys would perform on the foul line. In those situations, they always got the ball to their better shooters. I always worried about games they might not be in, solely due to bad foul shooting. A two point deficit that could've been a two point lead. A ten point deficit that could've been four. Didn't it feel that way today?
Not only was it a problem against VCU, it was a symptom of a larger issue- not attacking the rim. Our guards never got to the line because they were always shooting from the outside. Taylor was fine (much to the chagrin of many KU faithful). He attacked the rim. He got to the line. The other guards, great as they were at not turning it over and hitting threes and playing defense, were never a threat to score off the dribble. They were relegated to living on the perimeter- where they ultimately died.
4. Transition. This is a difficult statistic to measure. It's something that almost never shows up in a box score. Many think that fast break points and transition points are synonymous- they aren't. Bill Self, in his postgame, noted that KU had, at halftime, given up 0 fast break points and 14 transition points. Point is, all year, KU hasn't defended well in it, and they haven't scored well in it.
That's the thing about the Tournament. Sometimes it's about how good you are on your worst day. If you have a weakness, you inevitably will run into a team who can exploit it. KU's weaknesses were hidden deep inside the stat lines. VCU found them, and exploited them- and they caught KU on a really bad day- and it was enough.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)