bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 968
|
Post by bill82 on Feb 3, 2019 7:10:07 GMT -8
Basketball is not played like “Ralph’s teams” anymore. Like it or not. Now, get off my lawn! Are you the real Gilligan? You’re posting like you are. Nobody play's Ralph's style anymore because it won't work. Excerpt from: www.coachdunlap.com/uploads/1/4/5/9/14592008/ralph_miller_system.pdfAccording to Coach Miller, "the chief weapon for all offensive attacks is the pass." The definition for perfect offense is, "pass the ball to an open teammate, and then, cut or revolve all other players to new open positions. Continue doing so until a desired shot is obtained." Except now, 'continue' stops at 30s. Ralph's teams would run an offense to precision until the found a defensive breakdown. Late in Ralph's career, a 45s shot clock as added, and went to 30 well after he was done. GP could break down defenses at any time, which rescued Ralph's offense from the 45s shot clock change. What happens now is if the defense doesn't have a break-down within 30s, someone has to puke something up 1:1. The (very boring) evolution of the NBA to isolation basketball was built on the premise that passing does 2 things: 1 - it often means the ball is going to an inferior offensive player, and 2, it's always a risk of a TO. Since the best players in the NBA were effectively indefensible 1:1, it statistically made more sense for them to just not pass. The rockets winning with Harden dominating the ball is exactly that - him trying to score on his own is statistically a higher overall opportunity for success than anything else his teammates can do. I understand it's not pretty to watch, and can totally understand it making the game unwatchable to you. However, the idea that the lack of success is due to not playing like RM's teams is silly - the'd be terrible if we played that style with today's rules. I went to a high school game in Iowa for the first time a few weeks ago and was surprised there was no shot clock. The last high school game I watched was in California where we had the shot clock. Based on a quick internet search it appears only 8 states have a shot clock in high school basketball. I'd think this would permit Ralph's system, or any system that focused on fundamentals, to be successful at the high school level in 42 of the 50 states. Yet, we see the elite players come into college lacking fundamentals. I'm guessing having an all-star on a high school team throws out the need for fundamentals. And college scholarships, worth tens of thousands of dollars, are based on individual offensive skills and not teamwork. The overall decline in the economy over the past 40 years, and the rising cost of tuition, makes the college scholarship for most families a lot more important today than it use to be. When the all-star arrives in college perhaps many are not grounded in teamwork, leadership and defensive fundamentals. This, combined with the shot clock limitations you mention, makes it difficult to form a team. WT seems to think teamwork and defensive fundamentals have a place in the game. He has expressed that many times in pressers - he praises his team for assists (UCLA) and laments the lack of leadership (any loss over 5 points). I have not seen the presser for the Utah game, but if he did, as one poster suggested, say he wanted his son to takeover the game, I find that inconsistent with all of his previous comments about teamwork. When your job is on the line I understand it is difficult to stay grounded in one set of principles. Nevertheless, riding TT, or ST, while it may take us to the top half of the conference, does not seem the best course to maximize the potential of the entire team.
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Feb 3, 2019 8:52:10 GMT -8
Basketball is not played like “Ralph’s teams” anymore. Like it or not. Now, get off my lawn! Are you the real Gilligan? You’re posting like you are. Nobody play's Ralph's style anymore because it won't work. Excerpt from: www.coachdunlap.com/uploads/1/4/5/9/14592008/ralph_miller_system.pdfAccording to Coach Miller, "the chief weapon for all offensive attacks is the pass." The definition for perfect offense is, "pass the ball to an open teammate, and then, cut or revolve all other players to new open positions. Continue doing so until a desired shot is obtained." Except now, 'continue' stops at 30s. Ralph's teams would run an offense to precision until the found a defensive breakdown. Late in Ralph's career, a 45s shot clock as added, and went to 30 well after he was done. GP could break down defenses at any time, which rescued Ralph's offense from the 45s shot clock change. What happens now is if the defense doesn't have a break-down within 30s, someone has to puke something up 1:1. The (very boring) evolution of the NBA to isolation basketball was built on the premise that passing does 2 things: 1 - it often means the ball is going to an inferior offensive player, and 2, it's always a risk of a TO. Since the best players in the NBA were effectively indefensible 1:1, it statistically made more sense for them to just not pass. The rockets winning with Harden dominating the ball is exactly that - him trying to score on his own is statistically a higher overall opportunity for success than anything else his teammates can do. I understand it's not pretty to watch, and can totally understand it making the game unwatchable to you. However, the idea that the lack of success is due to not playing like RM's teams is silly - the'd be terrible if we played that style with today's rules. Is the women's game fundamentally different than the Men's game? Scott Rueck has done pretty well with a pass first offense. It is enjoyable to watch (maybe because #winning) I understand the athleticism is different. But I think the principles would work. Perhaps getting 4 stars to come play in a system like that would be difficult. Or maybe we have to drop divisions to the Ivy League
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Feb 3, 2019 9:40:46 GMT -8
Is the women's game fundamentally different than the Men's game?
In a word, yes.
Bodies are bigger, so passing lanes are smaller. Players in the key are much closer to the basket, so there is a greater premium on interior play. Put those two things together: as much as we love the alley-oop or the back-door play, the best way for men to get to the basket is to drive the lane. Relatively speaking, the ladies have more success with the give-and-gos and back-door cuts and other passing plays. It's all relative, of course - but a small difference in success rates has a huge impact on the optimal strategy.
I really, really dispute this impression that the men aren't as team-oriented or as sophisticated as the women. Both teams play at a high mental level - WT's primary defensive scheme is as complex as anything SR dials for the women, and his offense is similarly multi-faceted. Of course that isn't always obvious at game time for the simple reason that the opposing coaches and players are pretty damn smart, too. The rest of the Pac has smart coaches and well-practiced players and they scout us hard. It's a chess game out there.
And I don't mean to diminish what RM accomplished, but if any modern coach played by RM's playbook, he'd get creamed. Remember, RM had a fraction of the film that we have today. His players weren't nearly as well conditioned. He had far fewer resources for scouting. There were no analytics and barely any statistics at all. And coaching concepts were, well, thirty years behind where they are today - the science has advanced. If Ralph was alive today, he wouldn't coach like Ralph.
|
|
|
Post by babeav on Feb 3, 2019 9:43:37 GMT -8
Imagine gnawitall a duck fan this morning after Altmans crews effort in Boulder........total meltdown.
|
|
|
Post by gnawitall on Feb 3, 2019 10:12:29 GMT -8
Imagine gnawitall a duck fan this morning after Altmans crews effort in Boulder........total meltdown. haaaaa... I'm rooting for them to keep it up the rest of the season.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Feb 3, 2019 11:03:32 GMT -8
As I've said before I'm a battered fan. It's not absolute when I say I don't watch because I will tune in here and there. I admit the years have worn me down. You mentioned that I missed the duck victory. The one that came down to crunch time. The one they were trying to cough up. My Beaver nervous system couldn't have taken it. The reason I started the 'complainers thread' was because I didn't want to jump in on the game thread and be a downer. I'm glad they won and I believe Tres is a good player. I just believe that if we are ever to be relevant and by that I mean a fairly consistent bubble or tourney team we are going to have to become more fundamentally sound and I believe that is on the coach. I had the same problem with CR. I'm right there with you, actually. More so in football than basketball but I have trouble watching either. I understand where you are coming from. The only difference is that I'm less likely to look for a place to lay blame. Maybe that's a problem with me. At any rate, I've become more able to watch b-ball games this season (although with the benefit of the DVR buffer so I can replay the good bits and skip the bad bits) and I'm glad I watched the Utah game.
Go Beavs! Mike '84
|
|
gzr
Freshman
Posts: 106
|
Post by gzr on Feb 3, 2019 11:40:52 GMT -8
Is the women's game fundamentally different than the Men's game?
In a word, yes.
Bodies are bigger, so passing lanes are smaller. Players in the key are much closer to the basket, so there is a greater premium on interior play. Put those two things together: as much as we love the alley-oop or the back-door play, the best way for men to get to the basket is to drive the lane. Relatively speaking, the ladies have more success with the give-and-gos and back-door cuts and other passing plays. It's all relative, of course - but a small difference in success rates has a huge impact on the optimal strategy.
I really, really dispute this impression that the men aren't as team-oriented or as sophisticated as the women. Both teams play at a high mental level - WT's primary defensive scheme is as complex as anything SR dials for the women, and his offense is similarly multi-faceted. Of course that isn't always obvious at game time for the simple reason that the opposing coaches and players are pretty damn smart, too. The rest of the Pac has smart coaches and well-practiced players and they scout us hard. It's a chess game out there.
And I don't mean to diminish what RM accomplished, but if any modern coach played by RM's playbook, he'd get creamed. Remember, RM had a fraction of the film that we have today. His players weren't nearly as well conditioned. He had far fewer resources for scouting. There were no analytics and barely any statistics at all. And coaching concepts were, well, thirty years behind where they are today - the science has advanced. If Ralph was alive today, he wouldn't coach like Ralph.
I don't argue with the point that the men's game today is vastly different from the RM days (and inferior in my opinion--actually close to unwatchable at times) but I disagree with your point that RM's players weren't as well conditioned--In my opinion, player conditioning was a huge factor in Ralph's success. Playing 20 minute halves with pressure was a big factor in cracking many opponents especially near the end of each half--My opinion is that the lack of success in tournament play can in large part be attributed to the extra timeouts that allowed the opponents to physically recover. I agree that with the timeouts every four minutes, Ralph's pressure defense approach would have been much less effective. As far as a quote above about Ralph's philosophy on how to play the game, yes, there is a limit on time of possession, but the principle of passing the ball to the open man has been operational since the game was invented and was not invented by RM--It will be true until the game dies which will probably happen because of lack of interest in what is basically a boring gym rat game that we mostly don't watch now.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 3, 2019 13:44:47 GMT -8
I remember Ralph getting quoted along the lines of "I'll put my 5 or 6 guys against any other team in the league's top 7-9 anytime" because he felt his top players were extremely well conditioned. I'm pretty sure that was when Radford and Blume were juniors or seniors and basically never left the floor. There were plenty of games those years he only played 6-7, and i think there was 1 big game he only played 5 if i recall correctly. Thing was, I think he played a full or 3/4 press pretty much the full game in those years, that takes a lot of conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Feb 3, 2019 14:00:25 GMT -8
I remember Ralph getting quoted along the lines of "I'll put my 5 or 6 guys against any other team in the league's top 7-9 anytime" because he felt his top players were extremely well conditioned. I'm pretty sure that was when Radford and Blume were juniors or seniors and basically never left the floor. There were plenty of games those years he only played 6-7, and i think there was 1 big game he only played 5 if i recall correctly. Thing was, I think he played a full or 3/4 press pretty much the full game in those years, that takes a lot of conditioning. And I also remembering him say with the media timeouts at 16, 12, 8, and 4 you no longer had to substitute for fatigue.
|
|
|
Post by bdudbeaver on Feb 3, 2019 19:31:04 GMT -8
The five starters and Jeff Stout, because Jeff was from LO and certain boosters made sure he got some minutes. But, yes, Jeff had a wicked outside shot, before the 3 point line rule... As did Radford, Blume, and Holbrook.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 3, 2019 19:53:07 GMT -8
Stout was usually fabulous for 5-6 shots then he'd get tired and miss 3-4 before getting pulled. I wondered at the time how it would be if they just let him shoot it 5 times down the court then pull him for 5 minutes and do it again. He wasn't in the kind of shape the other 5 were.
|
|
|
Post by bdudbeaver on Feb 3, 2019 20:23:03 GMT -8
How I remember it (after a long disappointing super bowl)... Blume was a pure shooter first, and a finisher on the back-door cut. Off the wrong leg (to protect the ball from being stripped) Radford was a slasher first, and an outside shooter second. Holbrook was 6-9, but really an outside set shot shooter. Would be money with the 3-point line today. But not much else. Stout was an angry shooter first, line drives like throwing darts. Not much else. Enough talent to knock my hometown out of the high school tourney, though. Without Steve Johnson that team would have been 20-10. That big guy knew how to use his assets... And because of that got these guys open.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Feb 4, 2019 8:18:21 GMT -8
There really should be a separate, Ralph Miller Nostalgia/ Still Living In The 1980’s, board.
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Feb 4, 2019 9:24:27 GMT -8
There really should be a separate, Ralph Miller Nostalgia/ Still Living In The 1980’s, board. It would go just above the Ritchie McKay Board
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Feb 4, 2019 13:53:10 GMT -8
I really, really dispute this impression that the men aren't as team-oriented or as sophisticated as the women. Both teams play at a high mental level - WT's primary defensive scheme is as complex as anything SR dials for the women, and his offense is similarly multi-faceted. Of course that isn't always obvious at game time for the simple reason that the opposing coaches and players are pretty damn smart, too. The rest of the Pac has smart coaches and well-practiced players and they scout us hard. It's a chess game out there.
I completely agree with this - although I think it's harder for fans to see this. Watching crisp ball movement on flowing offenses just looks more sophisticated than an isolated 2-man game. But in reality, the run-time reads needed to run 2-man games effectively can be much harder to actually execute. One of the most interesting things that happened last year (IMO) was the Rockets-Warriors series. The Rockets seemed to have figured out an effective way to defend the Warriors. Then the warriors figured out some of their switching strategies, and used it agains them. It resulted in some of the Rocket defenders getting really confused, and ultimate flipped the series. However, without knowing the insights into what was happening, it just looked like some Rocket players suddenly were making bad defensive decisions; in reality, what was happening was really sophisticated. This article covers some aspects at a high level, as well as some comments about how much the game has changed: fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-warriors-and-rockets-have-reinvented-modern-nba-defense-yes-defense/ However, there are more in-depth breakdowns that I geek out on as well. Unfortunately, to the casual observer, it's very hard to tell the difference between a player just playing bad defense, and a player executing the strategy by design and the offense exploiting it due to understanding the strategy. And to be clear, I'm not much more than a 'casual' observer, because I do not know the strategies OSU employs specific to the opposition's tendencies. I will say though that Rueck does a lot of this as well, and there's a lot more going on with his defense as well that is not obvious at all.
|
|