Half Court Offense VS. Run and Gun

[#1Duke]

In watching the tournament, I have observed that the teams that "run and gun" and play with a loose free style are more effective.

Do you think that being a half court style team is a detriment come tourney time??

Also, it appears that half court style teams rarely make a comeback when taken out of their game.

What say you??

[sporthenry]

In watching the tournament, I have observed that the teams that "run and gun" and play with a loose free style are more effective.

Do you think that being a half court style team is a detriment come tourney time??

Also, it appears that half court style teams rarely make a comeback when taken out of their game.

What say you??

Butler

[proelitedota]

I disagree, I think that the team that scores more points than their opponents or limit their opponents to score less than they do is more effective.

[#1Duke]

I disagree, I think that the team that scores more points than their opponents or limit their opponents to score less than they do is more effective.

Yes, but it seems the teams that are "running and gunning" and not constantly trying to set up a half court offense ARE the " team that scores more points than their opponents."

Do you disagree with that??

[Kedsy]

I think the answer is more complicated. Fast-paced, offense-oriented, less-structured teams may have a better chance to pull off an early round upset, but I believe slower-paced, defense-oriented teams (assuming they aren't hit with an early round upset) have a better chance to advance far. Last year, all four teams in the Final Four were slower paced, defense-oriented teams. This year, all the Elite Eight teams except for UNC and Kansas play a slow tempo (according to Pomeroy).

[Devilsfan]

VCU has great speed and great shooting. I think Kyrie is the only member of our team that could play that style for 40 minutes when healthy. Key words "for 40 minutes".

[CDu]

It depends on the team. If your team is suited to run and gun, you'll be better off running and gunning. If your team is built for the half court (like Butler), you'll be better off slowing it down.

It's always nice to be able to get easy baskets when the defense isn't set (i.e., fast break/transition points). But if your team isn't suited to creating transition opportunities, it's not necessarily a good idea to force it.

I would guess that the teams that do best are generally the teams that are (a) least susceptible to struggle in a particular style of play or most able to impose their style of play on the opponent. But ultimately, in a six-round single-elimination tournament, it's not even that simple. There's also a matter of "any given day fortunes" to it.

But you have to be able to score (and to get stops) in the half-court to win in the NCAA tournament. The talent level is deep enough now that you can't win six straight games by just running and gunning alone.

[uh_no]

In watching the tournament, I have observed that the teams that "run and gun" and play with a loose free style are more effective.

Do you think that being a half court style team is a detriment come tourney time??

Also, it appears that half court style teams rarely make a comeback when taken out of their game.

What say you??

tell me, who won the 2010 national championship?

[J4Kop99]

We played last year with a slow-it-down, half-court style. We also played without a true PG...


This year, I honestly think it's as simple as this:

We ran into the wrong team at the absolute worst time. I strongly believe that if we had played Arizona at any other point, even 2 hours earlier, we would have had a great chance to win. We just played them during their teams greatest performance of the season.

Our style fits us and many other solid programs in the NCAA.


Edit:

However, I will agree with the point that once down, it is much harder for a slower-tempo team to make a comeback. Once Duke gets taken out of their game, they usually have an extremely hard time winning. Our comeback win vs. UNC this year was one of the most incredible things I've ever seen... we usually never make comebacks like that.

[Gthoma2a]

Well, Kansas just got back in a game that we might not have this year. When we go down late or by a large sum, we don't get back up the last two years. I remember the miracle minute against Maryland, and recently, we have felt very different when we go down. When we go down by points, we go to pieces unless they do first (UNC at home). I think if we would have been able to keep going the way we started (speed, speed, and more speed) we would have found a way to have Kyrie, Nolan, Kyle, Seth, Andre, and our bigs to really compliment each other in a fast pace offense/pressure defense that would have been one of our first teams THAT potent in that style in years. I say that, but it doesn't change anything. Still love the team we had. It's the result that is hard to swallow. We lost to a good team with the best team we could put out there. The season was highly disjointed, and we never had a style that used them best due to the necessary lineup changes. We came out playing the regular season style with Kyrie out there. We were at least 3 different teams this year. We were the initial superpowers, then we were the half court team with talent, but no major explosions, and then we were that team with Kyrie in the lineup (very different dynamic since we could run again, but we held back a bit due to lacking experience at it). No matter, we went down to a better team on that particular night than the team we ended up being as time ran out to figure it out.

This is not a statement about which is better overall, but you need to be dynamic in case it takes a while to click in a one and done tournament. A slow start that could bury a cumbersome offense is less of a big deal to a team that can run.

[#1Duke]

tell me, who won the 2010 national championship?

Is that all you have to add to the discussion??

I made a observation and you want to turn it into something else.

Thanks to all that have responded with good intelligent on point posts!!

[anon]

tell me, who won the 2010 national championship?

Yes, because he meant this as a hard and fast rule that could never ever be broken. Great insight.

[#1Duke]

Yes, because he meant this as a hard and fast rule that could never ever be broken. Great insight.

AND, now we hear from the mind readers!!! Another irrelevant post to the topic!

[MChambers]

Is that all you have to add to the discussion??

I made a observation and you want to turn it into something else.

Thanks to all that have responded with good intelligent on point posts!!

I thought he made a good point. If you need it spelled out, the 2010 champs never ran, because they didn't have the personnel or depth to win at a running game. Oh, and the team was Duke.

So when you say that it seems that the running teams are doing better in the tourney, you might want to consider the 2010 tourney champs.

[RoyalBlue08]

Some teams like VCU speed the game up and pull off some upsets, others like Butler slow it down and accomplish the same thing. I think what these teams have in common is that they make their 3pt shots. In a one and done situation, hot shooting wins games, bad shooting loses games. Some teams find it easier to get good looks by spreading the game out and making it full court. Others run good half court offense to get their looks. But in the end, it really comes down to making your shots.

[-jk]

AND, now we hear from the mind readers!!! Another irrelevant post to the topic!

Easy, there. You asked a general question, and were answered with a couple examples - Duke '10 and Butler (presumably '10 and '11), recent teams that have shown to be xtremely adept at winning with a half court game. History is replete with teams that have won in a half court game.

In my opinion, it's part of what makes college hoops so much fun - no single system is dominant. Whether Princeton, Cheney's Temple, Westhead's Loyola, Deano's UNC system (who's the only person that ever held Jordan to 20 a game?), Boeheim... The clash of systems - the effort to control the game - makes the game unique.

-jk

[Gthoma2a]

Easy, there. You asked a general question, and were answered with a couple examples - Duke '10 and Butler (presumably '10 and '11), recent teams that have shown to be xtremely adept at winning with a half court game. History is replete with teams that have won in a half court game.

In my opinion, it's part of what makes college hoops so much fun - no single system is dominant. Whether Princeton, Cheney's Temple, Westhead's Loyola, Deano's UNC system (who's the only person that ever held Jordan to 20 a game?), Boeheim... The clash of systems - the effort to control the game - makes the game unique.

-jk

True. Then, there is Calipari's pay em and play em! We'll see how it turns out. It is frustrating that we have the ability to teach any system, but time ran out on reassembling our system around our players. We were better with Kyrie than we were before he came back, but we still didn't have the time we needed. I think we would have owned this tournament with another week or two to get accustomed to each other again.

[BobbyFan]

It depends on the team. If your team is suited to run and gun, you'll be better off running and gunning. If your team is built for the half court (like Butler), you'll be better off slowing it down.

Agreed.


But you have to be able to score (and to get stops) in the half-court to win in the NCAA tournament.

This is true particularly because in tight games, timeouts and conservative play essentially leads to predominantly half-court sets in the last few minutes. So all thing equal, I'd take the team that operates better in the half court.

[Lulu]

My two cents is that offsense has been more valuable than defense, just due to the style of play the officiating seems to allow, though I may be focused more on certain regions. Moving screens seems like a rare call in this tournament, which clearly benefits the offense. Meanwhile, they're largely ticky-tack on the defensive players on the perimeter. And I don't know where the over-the-back call has gone in college bball. It seems like 8-10 years ago you see this call made a few times a game, maybe more; now I feel like you see it called maybe once every ten games. Offensive players really have to fly out of nowhere for the refs to make this call.

Yes, I know VCU just beat Kansas.

[loran16]

Lets look at where the Final Four teams were in Tempo according to kenpom each of the last 4 years:

2011:
VCU - 206th
UK - 208th
UConn - 225th
Butler - 270th

2010:
MSU: 224th
Duke: 249th
Butler: 292nd
WVU: 314th

2009:
UNC: 8th
Nova: 63rd
UConn: 83rd
MSU: 126th

2008:
UNC: 8th
Kansas: 136th
Memphis: 87th
UCLA: 217th

What do we learn? Well going fast and relying upon fast-break points can work, but it clearly isn't a key factor in success. The last two final fours involve Not a single team who is one of the top 200 fastest teams in the nation. In 2009, all three teams however were above average, and in 2008, it still leaned fast but not quite as fast.

Fast-break points are in theory great. And if your team is built for them, go for it. But it depends upon your personnel. And it's not something that will diminish a teams' chances on its own.

[COYS]

Lets look at where the Final Four teams were in Tempo according to kenpom each of the last 4 years:

2011:
VCU - 206th
UK - 208th
UConn - 225th
Butler - 270th

2010:
MSU: 224th
Duke: 249th
Butler: 292nd
WVU: 314th

2009:
UNC: 8th
Nova: 63rd
UConn: 83rd
MSU: 126th

2008:
UNC: 8th
Kansas: 136th
Memphis: 87th
UCLA: 217th

What do we learn? Well going fast and relying upon fast-break points can work, but it clearly isn't a key factor in success. The last two final fours involve Not a single team who is one of the top 200 fastest teams in the nation. In 2009, all three teams however were above average, and in 2008, it still leaned fast but not quite as fast.

Fast-break points are in theory great. And if your team is built for them, go for it. But it depends upon your personnel. And it's not something that will diminish a teams' chances on its own.

This is an excellent post. Another element that Kenpom's numbers don't make readily available but I remember reading about at some point this season (for the life of me, I can't find the post nor the article), but just because a team runs and guns doesn't mean they are actually an efficient fast break team. Nolan was among college basketball's leaders in fast break efficiency this year. Why? Because he almost never makes the wrong decision when running the break. He may not run as frequently, but when he did, Duke scored. It's not just how fast you run, it's how efficient you are when you run.

[Kfanarmy]

This is an excellent post. Another element that Kenpom's numbers don't make readily available but I remember reading about at some point this season (for the life of me, I can't find the post nor the article), but just because a team runs and guns doesn't mean they are actually an efficient fast break team. Nolan was among college basketball's leaders in fast break efficiency this year. Why? Because he almost never makes the wrong decision when running the break. He may not run as frequently, but when he did, Duke scored. It's not just how fast you run, it's how efficient you are when you run. Really thought Duke should try one of two completely different strategies: try to run AZ out of the gym or bore them to sleep. A really slow game would have required incredible efficiency, but might have caused AZ to go cold. making AZ go as absolutely fast as possible on D might have allowed Duke to outscore them. In the end, I think Duke stayed at just about the same pace throughout the half and had no impact on the roll that AZ was on. Sometimes dictating pace has great impact on the opposing teams mental state. Offensive and Defensive efficiency are probably more important in the long run (season) but within a game, dictating a pace that will increase your teams chance of winning seems more important to me.

[loran16]

This is an excellent post. Another element that Kenpom's numbers don't make readily available but I remember reading about at some point this season (for the life of me, I can't find the post nor the article), but just because a team runs and guns doesn't mean they are actually an efficient fast break team. Nolan was among college basketball's leaders in fast break efficiency this year. Why? Because he almost never makes the wrong decision when running the break. He may not run as frequently, but when he did, Duke scored. It's not just how fast you run, it's how efficient you are when you run.

Well, while that is TRUE, Duke was a fast team this year (51st in Tempo). So Nolan and others' fast breaks did lead to us being a "fast team" this year, though you are correct in that our efficiency on the fast break was what led us to success.

[G man]

I think there is no correct answer to this question. If one style of play was so superior to others than every coach in America would use it. It is all about maximizing the potential on the roster. I will say that teams that play fast and loose have the ability to come back more easily, but they also have the ability to get themselves blown out quickly. Teams that play slow have a difficult time coming back, but they are more often than not more capable of keeping most games close. You also play a certain way to hide weaknesses that a team may have.