College hoops pace stats can be found here. Ohio State clocks in at 221st out of 336 Division I programs (may I note that this is an absurdly high number and part of why amateur ball ain't shit?) so when we look at Greg Oden's numbers we don't seem to be looking at a dude whose numbers are spiking because he plays on a fast team.
« Someone Set Up Us The Bomb | Main | The Ad's The Thing »
Ohio State's Pace
01 Mar 2007 11:07 am
Comments (58)
Am I missing something? You don't like college basketball becayse Ohio State plays a (comparatively) slow style of game? Surely there is some logical leap in here that you just didn't explain, but from where I stand, it must be a doozie.
Can it possibly be right that VMI is playing basketball at a freakish pace?
I think you can take Kevin Durant at #1 and not feel bad.
You don't like college basketball becayse Ohio State plays a (comparatively) slow style of game?
No, no. The absurdly large number of programs is (part of) the problem, leading to a laughably diluted talent pool.
Adding, Durant has is 24-and-11 playing 35 minutes a game. Oden is 15-and-9 playing 30 minutes a game. If Oden played 25 minutes a game he'd be at 17.5-and-11 ... still very very good.
Texas plays at a higher pace (ranked 78th in raw pace) than OSU. And I think Oden's teammates are better than Durant's, which probably means they're not feeding him the ball as much (hard to measure). Oden's shooting 60% ... with one hand.
From the title I thought it was going to be about Orlando.
I think you can take Kevin Durant at #1 and not feel bad.
I don't think that's true. You have to pick the potentially great big man first. Size matters too much, post play matters too much. Before Houston won a title, people did, in fact, second guess Houston's 1984 pick. But that required a player picked later who was widely considered the greatest player of all time. If Durant turns into the greatest player of all time, and Oden tops out as Ewing, then the team that passed on Durant is going to catch a lot of hell. But the likelihood that Durant will be that guy seems small.
How many D-I programs were there in the 1980s, a glory era for college hoops? My recollection is something like 215. But I'm not sure it truly dilutes the talent pool that much when a bunch of small schools move up from the lower divisions to D-I, because playing at an unknown D-I school isn't that much different from playing D-II.
And as for the argument that you always have to take the big man who has star potential, you guys are making Joe Dumars feel a lot better.
I appreciate the take-the-big-guy argument, and I think Oden will be a star, but I'm flabbergasted by Durant's game. He's going to change the league. What if Lebron was long and skinny and could shoot the 3 and play defense? That's what we're looking at here.
On the other hand, I think I've seen each guy play 2 whole games, so it's hard to judge. Oden seems particularly handicapped by dipshit teammates who won't give him the ball. College ball is just hard to watch after you get used to seeing the pros.
I don't think that's true. You have to pick the potentially great big man first. Size matters too much, post play matters too much. Before Houston won a title, people did, in fact, second guess Houston's 1984 pick. But that required a player picked later who was widely considered the greatest player of all time. If Durant turns into the greatest player of all time, and Oden tops out as Ewing, then the team that passed on Durant is going to catch a lot of hell. But the likelihood that Durant will be that guy seems small.
Yeah, but the question isn't regretting getting Hakeem. The question is regretting getting Sam Bowie. I'm not suggesting Oden is a Bowie, but I am questioning the "size at all costs" logic.
There's got to be no more than 60 or so decent college programs. The fact that Florida Atlantic or Stephen F. Austin State is in Division I doesn't really dilute the talent pool very much.
I am questioning the "size at all costs" logic.
But this is what I'm saying. Oden has the #s of a college freshman who grows up to be an All-Star center. And he's doing so while playing with his bad hand.
The fact that Florida Atlantic or Stephen F. Austin State is in Division I doesn't really dilute the talent pool very much.
It's the availability of another option--the pros--that dilutes the talent pool.
What if Lebron was long and skinny and could shoot the 3 and play defense?
He wouldn't be a player of astonishing promise; he might be Garnett. What makes LeBron a freak is his combination of weight and speed (and skill). Same with Shaq. I've come to this realization slowly--I still can't stand thick guards---but weight matters. That's also why the Darko decision is an inapposite comparator to the Oden decision.
Weight matters, yes - but isn't Yao pretty much a stick? I wouldn't have seen any reason to predict that he would be a superstar and Darko would be a stiff.
Seriously, to follow on with a question that Nick Beaudrot asked, is the gap in pace b/t VMI at #1 and Texas State at #2 really bigger than the gap between #2 and #321!?! If so, they are literally the biggest outlier in all of college basketball in just about any style of play category.
Wiki has Yao (at 7'6", I think) at 310 lbs, and Shaq at (7'1") at 325 lbs. I think both are significantly heavier now.
Weight definitely matters, especially with bigs. (Although "thick" guards like say Billups and Marbury might compromise some speed, they definitely gain some stability and power in their moves to the basket; back when he was Starbury, you basically had to commit a flagrant to stop Stephon from just getting the "and one" on a drive. OTOH, Baron Davis looks better for having lost weight.) Height, I think, is really in and of itself the least important factor in terms of physical gifts, it's just a convenient shorthand proxy that kind of averages together things like "how heavy are you" and "when you jump, how high can you touch" and "what's your wingspan". (The funniest thing I remember reading in a scouting report was one on Sheldon Williams after his measurements were taken, bemoaning the fact that his height and wingspan are "wasted" because his head is so long.) But how much does Darko weigh - 245? 250? That puts him in range with most of the rest of the 4/5 type guys, no? And yeah, it's LeBron's sheer bulk that's so astounding; physically he's like Ben Wallace, with some buffness (but only some!) sacrificed in favor of crazy hops/quickness/etc.
I didn't mean "skinny" as some advantage Durant has over LeBron, just an important difference between them. I don't think LeBron is actually a great comparison -- he's way more explosive, way less smooth, plus Durant can really shoot. Really, I haven't seen anybody quite like Durant. You hear TMac, and there's some resemblance (at least to young, pre-inury TMac), but Durant does a lot more.
And Yao's not a stick at all. Dude has tree-trunk legs, which are often more important for a big man than a yoked upper body.
...and Darko's not really a stiff anymore (there I go again!) - he'll probably never come close to as good as Chad Ford thought, but as I said in the other thread, if your #2 pick of a big man ends up being as good as, say, Wayman Tisdale, you've done ok. (And rehashing from some time ago my Darko Draft Defense: drafting with the knowledge available at the time, Darko was a gamble but an explicable one. There appeared to be reasons to think he'd be a good choice. Looking back with hindsight you'd rather the Pistons had taken Melo, or Bosh, or Wade, but then you significantly decrease the chances of making the Sheed trade [especially with Bosh or Melo], and consequently DON'T WIN A TITLE. Darko's career in Detroit was horribly mismanaged, though, including his exit.)
Wiki has Yao (at 7'6", I think) at 310 lbs, and Shaq at (7'1") at 325 lbs. I think both are significantly heavier now.
Yeah, I gotta think Yao is heavier than that. He's not BIG like Shaq always was, but he's not Shawn Bradley either. (Bradley, FYI, listed at 275 lbs.) Yao's pretty well proportioned.
Durant=Poor Man's Dirk.
Seriously, to follow on with a question that Nick Beaudrot asked, is the gap in pace b/t VMI at #1 and Texas State at #2 really bigger than the gap between #2 and #321!?! If so, they are literally the biggest outlier in all of college basketball in just about any style of play category.
I think ESPN should try to get a VMI - Princeton game on TV. I'd watch that.
Also, agree with the above that Matthew's wrong in saying the number of teams dilutes the talent pool of college basketball. VMI doesn't really compete for talent with UVa. It's like saying adding the NBDL (the NBA developmental league) diluted the talent pool for the NBA.
I rarely watch an NBA game outside of the playoffs/finals while I watch a ton of college ball.
MY complains about the talent of the college game, but I think the intestity of effort more than makes up for any drop in talent. The college game much more resembles the games I play/played. The shorter college season also make each game, especially in league play, much more important than most NBA games. And the 'one and done' nature of the league and NCAA tournament is very exciting.
For my money, the college game is just more entertaining than the NBA.
If you watched the Texas-Texas A&M epic last night you know that the Horns' offense doesn't always run through Durant. He plays on a team with other freshmen who are still developing their basketball savvy (particular the guards), and Rick Barnes for whatever reason doesn't stress Durant in the O as much as he should. The result is that Durant disappears from the offense for long stretches. He didn't even attempt a field goal in either overtime. And, yet, he still scored 30. If the Texas offense was specifically geared toward him, he'd have even gaudier numbers.
The POY should end up looking like this:
Kevin Durant
Acie Law IV
Greg Oden
BobT,
You're missing someone in your POY -- Alando Tucker. He is by far the most valuable player to his team. He has also put up some nice numbers.
How I'd have it:
Kevin Durant
Alando Tucker
Acie Law
Two of VMI's recruits come from central Texas. Both are very respectable players but are very much fringe D1 recruits. VMI is a military academy and not for the usual kid. And yes, VMI is an incredible offensive stat outlier for a team made up of not-Durants.
And this Austinite has been extremely impressed with the Aggie's Law, and coach Gillespie's program in general.
It must be March because once again Matt is trolling for comments by bashing college hoops. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone is an idiot about something and with Matt it's basketball.
The NBA puts out a product that is inferior to the NCAAs in almost every respect except for the individual athletic ability of the players. The interminably long NBA season made up of 82 near-meaningless games (most of which individually contain no real drama outside a few isolated fourth quarters) that decide which half of the league gets to play an additional 20 games of playoffs makes the NBA regular season unwatchable. It's the NHL sans ice. Combine that with the 24 second shot clock, stupid anti-defense rules, NBA egos and a free agency system that encourages teams to ship away 1/3 of their roster every year and you get exactly what the NBA has become: a league of chuckers in which the first coach to convince at least some of his players to play defense wins.
It's no wonder that the arenas feel it necessary to pipe in music and have a team of frisbee dogs on hand to leap through rings of fire during every time out. It's the only way to keep spectators from falling asleep. Check out a Maryland/Dook game sometime and see if there's a different feel to the experience.
Maybe your real problem here is that Harvard has had a perpetually crappy team even by Ivy League standards?
The NBA puts out a product that is inferior to the NCAAs in almost every respect except for the individual athletic ability of the players.
...and the basic morality of the enterprise.
College basketball is immoral? Wow. Just . . . wow.
Well, yes. It's a multi-million-dollar enterprise that relies on slave labor. Volunteer labor is more accurate, I guess, but still.
Um, I just read mxh's entire comment, and I think we can pretty much disregard him. The NBA is a league of no-defense chuckers? Have you watched a game since 1990? The big problem the league has been trying for the past decade to fix is not enough scoring.
Also, the 24-second shot clock is almost as perfect as the 10-foot basket, 90 feet between bases and 60 feet, 6 inches to home plate.
And anybody whose big complaint is "there's too much basketball" (regular season and playoffs are too long) isn't as big a basketball fan as I am. Personally, I think they should play year-round, just for my enjoyment.
Even granting that players in the NCAA try harder (which, if true, nonetheless fails to do anything for me), and granting that March Madness is more exciting than just about anything (which I think it is, even though I don't like college basketball):
NBA players are more athletically gifted. They're also more skilled. They're, on average, smarter as basketball players. They play, offensively and defensively, at a higher level. Gameplay is more complex. In my opinion, the best NBA coaching is better than the best NCAA coaching (although really it's almost like you need a totally different skillset to succeed as a coach between the two leagues).
And, absolutely, college basketball is an immoral enterprise. So is college football. I can't speak to other NCAA sports, but just on the strength of these two the NCAA as an organization is worthy of nothing but my contempt and disgust. The whole enterprise is sickly dishonest in its presentation, its basic assumptions, and its conduct.
But March Madness is REALLY fun.
First, slave labor and volunteer labor are not the same thing, are not comparable, and are not even in the same ballpark. Second, it's not even really volunteer labor. It's playing a game that you love at the highest level that you are capable of playing it and in return getting a scholarship to attend a school that (usually) you otherwise wouldn't be able to attend. A kid who gets a band scholarship is not a slave to his tuba.
That's another thing that's great about college basketball. Most of the kids are not going to play professionally, but they will (if they want) get a free education. It's the same with all college athletics. The only difference is that most college sports are not financially self-sustaining. All the money-losing sports depend on revenues from football, mens and (sometimes) womens basketball.
I prefer college basketball for two reasons: (1) I actually like to watch set offenses, and (2) March Madness is the most exciting sports playoff format around.
The only way college basketball or football can be considered immoral is if the free market defines morality. Nonsense.
"what the NBA has become: a league of chuckers in which the first coach to convince at least some of his players to play defense wins."
That's not even close. Back in the 80s and probably before, NBA players and teams did play defense. It's just that everybody (players, coaches, officals, league executives) understood that offense sold tickets. So there was a gentleman's agreement that players played, coaches coaches and officials officiated with a bias toward offense. Then, as the league was faced with the greatness of Jordan and an expansion that diluted the overall quality of the league, defense infected the NBA mindset. Instead of trying to score, game plans focused on stopping the other team from scoring. The league has only started to recover from that.
Mike
The most important difference between college and NBA is the atmosphere. I find the NBA lacks it, and college has plenty. My college alma mater didn't have a big time team, but it was still always fun. And my law school's team was very good when I was there, and the atmosphere was always great, even though we played in a crappy building. I can't stand the dance teams, loud music during the game, lack of cheering, etc. that infects so many NBA games.
"Most of the kids are not going to play professionally, but they will (if they want) get a free education. It's the same with all college athletics. The only difference is that most college sports are not financially self-sustaining. All the money-losing sports depend on revenues from football, mens and (sometimes) womens basketball."
And how many of those kids who don't play professionally use that free education to make up for the millions (billions?) of dollars the NCAA makes off them? Even the best teams in college basketball will have 3 or 4 players who'll never be able to make a living at the game. Yet college basketball could not exist without their participation. College football is even worse. There are several dozen players on even the best Division I football team that won't make any money playing the game, yet their labor is essential to generating hundreds of millions of dollars for their schools and the NCAA.
Mike
Also, I fail to see why college BBall is immoral. The kids get a free ride in exchange for playing. But my impression is that most of the kids would like to play ball even if they didn't get a free ride.
Last comment from me on this topic until next year when Matt pulls it out again.
Too many steves says:
"The big problem the league has been trying for the past decade to fix is not enough scoring."
>>>>The lack of scoring comings more from horrible jump shooting and bad ball movement than good defense. Witness how our pros play against international teams that are less athletic put more of an emphasis on those skills.
"Also, the 24-second shot clock is almost as perfect. . ."
>>>>If you like watching people run up an down the court an take the first open shot. Not so much if you like watching teamwork.
"And anybody whose big complaint is "there's too much basketball" (regular season and playoffs are too long) isn't as big a basketball fan as I am."
>>>>If you enjoy watching some team in the middle of a ten-day, 20,000 mile road trip half-ass it up and down the court so that it can complete its sub .500 season and still go to the playoffs, well the NBA is perfect for you. More isn't better.
You can easily have an 80-84 game without many shot clock violations. Is that slow enough for you?
"Taking the first open shot" is good basketball. Your fg% on shots in the first 10 seconds is way higher than it is on shots later in the clock.
And if you don't like watching people run up and down the court, then we're just not speaking the same language.
I agree that the NBA could use to get rid of some of the stupid arena "entertainment."
On Sunday, Oden had about 5 traveling turnovers, and he wasn't exactly trying to get away from Bill Russell (Wisconsin's starting center got hurt early in the game). No one who is still trying to figure out how to play within the rules of basketball when he is potentially 2-4 weeks from the end of his pre-professional career is a serious candidate for maturing into historical greatness. Especially traveling! No one gets called for traveling, and Oden got called 5 times! He's effective, but he's got an awful good team around him. Perhaps the attempt to slow down the average pace of the game is part of a strategy by OSU to get the fast baskets easier, thus keeping the defense off balance?
On VMI, the Washington Post had an informative write-up last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901704_pf.html
Baucom believed the best way to keep games close would be to wear down teams with conditioning and increased possessions. That would make points less valuable, a sort of hard-court inflation. If VMI trailed 50-35 in the second half, it would be like being down 30. If VMI trailed 90-75, it would be like being down eight or so.VMI would create this pace using constant full-court pressure, trapping the ball wherever it went. On offense, the Keydets would freewheel, launching every open shot they found. They would sub in a fresh five players every two minutes, like hockey shifts, to maintain the frenzy. They would need to create extra possessions to make up for all the missed shots, so all but one player would crash the offensive boards.
Sounds like VMI is using the Grinnell system.
The first time Durant blows by my small forward and goes to dunk, I stick him into the basket supports.
You are not going to be able to physically intimidate Ogden and his chance of getting injured are less than Durant.
No one who is still trying to figure out how to play within the rules of basketball when he is potentially 2-4 weeks from the end of his pre-professional career is a serious candidate for maturing into historical greatness.,/i>
Well done. I always find that making sweeping generalizations on the basis of a single game is the best way to evaluate a player too. How could all the professional scouts that watch Oden all the time (and unanimously see him as the #1 pick) have missed this?
I like both college and pro basketball and I agree with Al that the atmosphere is a big part of college sports. Watching the Florida-Kentucky game a few weeks back, I could not believe the crowd at Rupp Arena. I thought they were going to bring the house down. Florida was up by 10 and the crowd was so intense it looked as if some of the Gators were going to start crying. They were absolutely desperate for every loose ball while fighting off both the Wildcats and their fans. The crowd increases the pressure on kids who are less mature and less skilled than professionals. I think that makes for interesting and upredictable outcomes.
There are plenty of actors who prefer the stage to film precisely because of the interaction of the audience.
""Taking the first open shot" is good basketball. Your fg% on shots in the first 10 seconds is way higher than it is on shots later in the clock."
Of course, but only because shots are forced up later in the shot clock because of the threat of loss of ball. If there were, say, 35 seconds on the shot clock, many, many good shots would be taken in the 20-30 second range. You're using circular logic.
And that's not even considering the fact that a key reason that the shooting % is so high in the first 10 seconds is that it includes all the excellent shots resulting from fast breaks.
Raising the shot clock to, say, even 30 would result in more good shots, not less, would result in more interesting ball movement, and would barely slow down the game. 24 was arbitrary from the beginning.
It was sort of arbitrary. Some dude figured out how many shots you should have in a game in which nobody is screwing around and playing 4 corners crap, and then he divided by the number of seconds in a game, and he got 24. I don't know how to make it any more scientific.
And if you don't like watching people run up and down the court...
Hell, I can do that at the local Y - but it ain't much fun to watch.
"Taking the first open shot" is good basketball. Your fg% on shots in the first 10 seconds is way higher than it is on shots later in the clock.
Well the first GOOD open shot maybe, but settling for an long jumper early in the clock won't raise your fg% - and the long rebound that leads to a dunk at the other end doesn't help the cause much either. Of course my thinking could be tainted by my local teams performances. Are the Warriors and the Trailblazers typical NBA team?
I'm a purist, I guess. Dr. Naismith thought his game didn't need coaches, and I agree. Run, run, run!
i love the nba playoffs, just about as much as march madness. but i really can't watch the nba regular season, cause they just so obviously don't really care all that much. obviously some games are really good, particularly some of zero's finishes this year, but it's pretty rare, and i generally only want to see the last quarter.
by contrast, duke/MD last nite? sick game. crowd going nuts, tense, you never know whether the kids are going to lose their heads and lose or keep their heads and win. and you can actually watch the game. e.g., the last 2 minutes don't take 30 minutes. sometimes the nba comes down to the last few seconds and the changes in fortune are really exciting. but i'd more often prefer the college style, you can call time but still have to get the ball up the court, etc.
so i now see why so many people prefer NCAA hoops, though i'm still unlikely to really focus on college until february/march.
I like both college and pro basketball and I agree with Al that the atmosphere is a big part of college sports. Watching the Florida-Kentucky game a few weeks back, I could not believe the crowd at Rupp Arena. I thought they were going to bring the house down.
I wonder if part of Matthew's problem with college basketball derives from where he went to college. I went to a, um, competitor of Matthew's school, and I know first hand that those crowds are are just not as exciting as in the bigger conferences. I mean, they make an attempt, but it isn't the same. But if you go a a school in a big conference and you attend the games at places like Rupp, you really can get into it.
re your comment on crowd dynamic, i really dislike duke, being a UMD fan, but their crowd is just awesome. i can't really think of any other sport where the crowd is that into it, maybe soccer in BZ or some of europe, but that seems less directed towards what's going on on field.
How could all the professional scouts that watch Oden all the time (and unanimously see him as the #1 pick) have missed this?
First of all, even if only one professional scout believed that Oden was not the #1 pick, he would not be unanimous. When you misuse language you rob it of its power-- as Matt demonstrated earlier, with his misuse of "ironic".
Secondly-- it's not even close to unanimous. The majority of scouts certainly seem to prefer Oden, sure. But there are many, many scouts who would pick Oden. Calling it unanimous fails even as hyperbole.
"Travelling"? Oden gets brutallized every game (wait...he just got fouled again!)--were you watching the Wisconsin game? He gets pulled, tugged, abused with elbows to the head, and Oden is the one who gets called for the foul. One imagined Big Ten refs trying to drive Oden to the NBA...
Is he great? Not yet. But he will be.
It's very rare to see an NBA regular season game with even half the intensity of a typical college game. The regular season is really sort of absurd -- a long exhibition season. They should halve the number of games in the regular season and halve the number of teams who get into the playoffs off it. Then the NBA would be the greatest spectacle on earth.
The College Gaime ain't shit?!?
Not a Big East alum are you, Matt?
Tell you what, come to the Petersen Event Center next year when my beloved Panthers are hosting, oh, say, Syracuse or G-town. You might not change your mind, but that's how the smart money'll be betting if you do show.
Comments closed March 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Numbers are numbers, but I think other people have touched on the worrisome point to Memphis or Boston fans. Oden doesn't look that dominant in Ohio State's games. Or actually, he looks like he should be more dominant than what he is. Which means you really can't be 100% sure what he'll become. Oden hasn't shown us a lot of 30+ point, 15+ rebound, 7+ block flashes that make you imagine what he might eventually be. As opposed to Durant, who you could quite easily imagine sliding into the small forward position and quickly becoming a dominant scorer and rebounder even if he struggles defensively.
You do have to take Oden at #1, but that team will have to cross its fingers on what he will eventually become.
Mike
Posted by MBunge | March 1, 2007 11:37 AM