|
Post by cageybeav on Feb 4, 2019 15:35:13 GMT -8
I must have heard it wrong but I thought the announcers for the Utah game said that the Beavers were second in the conference on defensing 2 point shots. They must not come to this board enough because "They don't play defense". I am 66 so maybe it was my hearing.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 4, 2019 15:55:11 GMT -8
I must have heard it wrong but I thought the announcers for the Utah game said that the Beavers were second in the conference on defensing 2 point shots. They must not come to this board enough because "They don't play defense". I am 66 so maybe it was my hearing. They give up the 3 pretty readily. While we are #112 in the nation in scoring defense, we are #277 in the nation in 3 point defense %. It is a visible and noticeable thing to give up the long ball, particularly when nursing leads late in the game and opponents are trying to rally. We have talked about it in the thread. I am no basketball guru, but I can get behind an "inside out" defensive philosophy. If teams are forced to be taking perimeter jumpers, you are generally doing well. And as a note, while #112 in scoring defense (out of 350 or whatever) doesn't sound great, it should be noted once you get outside of the top 20 or so really elite defensive teams, we are talking about 2 points a game separating the #30 team from the #100 team... so, not a ton of real world difference. Heck the difference between #100 and #112 is like .2 points per game.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 4, 2019 16:17:21 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. I admit, I am a marginal basketball fan at best. I like to go to the occasional Blazer's game, and I follow Oregon State. I feel that I know way more about football than I know about basketball. But what I have noticed, by reading and listening is this strange dichotomy among fans in Basketball vs. Football. On this board, heck from the OP, and several others there is a pervasive ongoing complaining about the direction of basketball, the loss of the "team game" and generally feelings of discontent about how the game is not played like Ralph Miller coached it. Posters continually point out "poor fundamentals" or sloppy play in some way or another, but all of these assessments are rooting in an idea that there is a "correct" way to play basketball. And that correct way is the Ralph Miller way. The dichotomy comes when we compare this to football conversations, particularly of a few years ago when there was a never ending stream of belly aching about how the game has passed Riley by. He isn't changing or adapting to the new world of football. A daily chorus about how we need a dual threat QB and need to change our offense to keep up. Why is it that we can accept the changing face of football, and all the changes it brings to strategy, and fundamentals of the sport... but it appears that we struggle with the notion of a changing sport of basketball? Is it because people generally like spread offensive in football and the changes we see have moved us out of an era of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, out of precision 5 yard curl route passing, and in to an exciting wide open playground style era? And on the converse, it appears that basketball has devolved to handing your star player the ball so he can go score 50 points? I dunno. What I know is it seems like from more than just OP, people seem to struggle with the fact basketball has changed and approach the game as how it was years ago. I could be talking out of my ass here. But your point about how there IS new schemes being use and new defensive ideas really is the outlier type comment compared to what I feel is the consensus opinion of "our fundamentals suck".
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Feb 4, 2019 16:51:57 GMT -8
Here's my take:
The media has done a pretty good job of showing fans how complex football really is. We see plays getting dissected almost in real time and even the most casual fan understands that there is a hell of a lot going on in every play. So even the biggest blithering idiot understands that often the interception isn't the QB throwing a bad pass, it's the receiver on the wrong route or the defense disrupting the timing.
But we don't see that same sort of instant film-study in basketball, so fans don't realize that basketball is just as complex in its way as football. All we get from the color commentators is, "that was great ball-movement", or, if Bill Walton is on duty, "such a beautiful drive, Highway 20 through the Cascade Mountains, from the High Desert to the Pacific Coast." They only have time for one quick blurb and then it's on to the next play.
So people understand that football is complex, but they think that basketball is just a matter of getting the right combination of 7-footers and 3-point shooters and telling them, "move the damn ball around!"
|
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 971
|
Post by bill82 on Feb 4, 2019 18:09:57 GMT -8
WT complains about his team not listening, not following game plan, etc. He complains as much as we do on this board. Well, not as much because we also complain about him not getting the players to followi his coaching.
|
|
|
Post by albanianbeav on Feb 4, 2019 18:41:56 GMT -8
These last few posts are not giving the complainers enough credit (not you billochodos), nor coach WT. The team is improving, certainly not by leaps and bounds (see ua, asu, is), but certainly enough to get road wins. It comes down to three simple stats From my perspective; shooting %, assists, and TOs, or said another way, making quality passes to get easy shots. You can also gloat about our d, and yes it has improved, but we still have some serious liabilities in our perimeter d and rebounding. Big G and KK deserve much credit for the inside d and ET and AH are doing their part. The rest leads to foul trouble and opponents hitting a high percentage of 3s.
|
|
gzr
Freshman
Posts: 106
|
Post by gzr on Feb 5, 2019 11:58:05 GMT -8
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. I admit, I am a marginal basketball fan at best. I like to go to the occasional Blazer's game, and I follow Oregon State. I feel that I know way more about football than I know about basketball. But what I have noticed, by reading and listening is this strange dichotomy among fans in Basketball vs. Football. On this board, heck from the OP, and several others there is a pervasive ongoing complaining about the direction of basketball, the loss of the "team game" and generally feelings of discontent about how the game is not played like Ralph Miller coached it. Posters continually point out "poor fundamentals" or sloppy play in some way or another, but all of these assessments are rooting in an idea that there is a "correct" way to play basketball. And that correct way is the Ralph Miller way. The dichotomy comes when we compare this to football conversations, particularly of a few years ago when there was a never ending stream of belly aching about how the game has passed Riley by. He isn't changing or adapting to the new world of football. A daily chorus about how we need a dual threat QB and need to change our offense to keep up. Why is it that we can accept the changing face of football, and all the changes it brings to strategy, and fundamentals of the sport... but it appears that we struggle with the notion of a changing sport of basketball? Is it because people generally like spread offensive in football and the changes we see have moved us out of an era of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, out of precision 5 yard curl route passing, and in to an exciting wide open playground style era? And on the converse, it appears that basketball has devolved to handing your star player the ball so he can go score 50 points? I dunno. What I know is it seems like from more than just OP, people seem to struggle with the fact basketball has changed and approach the game as how it was years ago. I could be talking out of my ass here. But your point about how there IS new schemes being use and new defensive ideas really is the outlier type comment compared to what I feel is the consensus opinion of "our fundamentals suck". In a post above, I conceded that the Ralph system was not built for the modern game. However, I would like to comment on your statement "that we struggle with the notion of a changing sport of basketball" which I think is true. Why do we struggle? Because the modern game is an inferior game. It is basically NBA lite. No doubt the players are more skilled than the players 30 years ago, just like the players of the OrangeExpress days were better than the great players of the mid 50's--Just go back and watch the OSU/USF classic with Bill Russell and Swede Halbrook. No way were these players as good as the 80's players and the modern athletes are great no doubt. But today's game is not as good-(my opinion) It has to do with the stategy of the game. The old game was basically "Don't get behind"--if you did, you deserved to get beat and if the team ahead was well coached, you were toast. That meant that every possession, as long as you were in contact, was crucial. It was important not to squander possessions, it was important to get stops, it was not possible to catch up three points at a time. The modern game is basically the opposite--Try to score points as fast as you can and get ahead as far as you can because the team that is behind is able to take giant steps in a comback. Plus, with the shot clock, you have to slop up something at the time limit even if you are flat on your back. I think the word sloppy is the right word to describe the new game. It has elements of beauty in the skill of the players abilities to one-on-one, but it has elements of ugly in the exection of the play--It is harried, hurried and sloppy all at the same time. So, they call it basketball, but it really is gunner ball. It is just a different game.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Feb 5, 2019 12:56:46 GMT -8
I admit, I am a marginal basketball fan at best. I like to go to the occasional Blazer's game, and I follow Oregon State. I feel that I know way more about football than I know about basketball. But what I have noticed, by reading and listening is this strange dichotomy among fans in Basketball vs. Football. On this board, heck from the OP, and several others there is a pervasive ongoing complaining about the direction of basketball, the loss of the "team game" and generally feelings of discontent about how the game is not played like Ralph Miller coached it. Posters continually point out "poor fundamentals" or sloppy play in some way or another, but all of these assessments are rooting in an idea that there is a "correct" way to play basketball. And that correct way is the Ralph Miller way. The dichotomy comes when we compare this to football conversations, particularly of a few years ago when there was a never ending stream of belly aching about how the game has passed Riley by. He isn't changing or adapting to the new world of football. A daily chorus about how we need a dual threat QB and need to change our offense to keep up. Why is it that we can accept the changing face of football, and all the changes it brings to strategy, and fundamentals of the sport... but it appears that we struggle with the notion of a changing sport of basketball? Is it because people generally like spread offensive in football and the changes we see have moved us out of an era of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, out of precision 5 yard curl route passing, and in to an exciting wide open playground style era? And on the converse, it appears that basketball has devolved to handing your star player the ball so he can go score 50 points? I dunno. What I know is it seems like from more than just OP, people seem to struggle with the fact basketball has changed and approach the game as how it was years ago. I could be talking out of my ass here. But your point about how there IS new schemes being use and new defensive ideas really is the outlier type comment compared to what I feel is the consensus opinion of "our fundamentals suck". In a post above, I conceded that the Ralph system was not built for the modern game. However, I would like to comment on your statement "that we struggle with the notion of a changing sport of basketball" which I think is true. Why do we struggle? Because the modern game is an inferior game. It is basically NBA lite. No doubt the players are more skilled than the players 30 years ago, just like the players of the OrangeExpress days were better than the great players of the mid 50's--Just go back and watch the OSU/USF classic with Bill Russell and Swede Halbrook. No way were these players as good as the 80's players and the modern athletes are great no doubt. But today's game is not as good-(my opinion) It has to do with the stategy of the game. The old game was basically "Don't get behind"--if you did, you deserved to get beat and if the team ahead was well coached, you were toast. That meant that every possession, as long as you were in contact, was crucial. It was important not to squander possessions, it was important to get stops, it was not possible to catch up three points at a time. The modern game is basically the opposite--Try to score points as fast as you can and get ahead as far as you can because the team that is behind is able to take giant steps in a comback. Plus, with the shot clock, you have to slop up something at the time limit even if you are flat on your back. I think the word sloppy is the right word to describe the new game. It has elements of beauty in the skill of the players abilities to one-on-one, but it has elements of ugly in the exection of the play--It is harried, hurried and sloppy all at the same time. So, they call it basketball, but it really is gunner ball. It is just a different game. Good post GZR. The game is different. I like the current game more, but the difference is huge. With the shot clock and zone defenses there is an enormous premium on guys who can create their own shot and make them. I don't like the OSU 18 Stanford 16 game in 1981. I just read about the North Carolina State 12 Duke 10 game in 1968. Those are not basketball either.
|
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 971
|
Post by bill82 on Feb 5, 2019 17:24:26 GMT -8
I was at the Stanford game. It was exciting to me. Same way as a 0-0 baseball game where every mistake is amplified. I get the game has changed, but WT has called out the team for basic fundamentals. Making crisp passes, blocking out, not crossing your feet on defense, not turning your back to the ball. You can play gunner ball on offense and have Ralph Miller discipline at the same time - especially on defense.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 6, 2019 7:44:45 GMT -8
I watched that Stanford game on TV and thought it was great. For me, it was a teeth clencher for pretty much the entire second half of the game. Personally I think the shot clock hurt college basketball. It reduced the reliance on coaching and strategy and increased the reliance on athletic ability. Coaching and strategy used to be a huge equalizer, nowadays it’s more about getting a stable of thoroughbreds on the roster and getting them to play well together.
|
|