This Week in the ACC: 1/28-2/3

[Wahoo2000]

I’ll give you the defensive changes or tweaks, but UVa is still last in the entire nation in tempo, so the offense isn’t going all that quickly.

And "quick" = "entertaining"?

I think quality makes for entertaining basketball. This stuff always gets played up (I guess naturally) after a game where we play poorly. I don't recall ANYONE who actually watched more than 30 seconds of our games where we had an off. eff. of around 1.1 or better say it was "ugly" (which is pretty much all but 2-3 game this year). Just like any team in the nation, we occasionally have really awful shooting nights. NCSU was one, Wisconsin was one. The VAST majority of our games are cleanly played, with few turnovers, and high shooting and assist percentages. I don't recall anyone saying the Duke/UVA game was "ugly" or the vast majority of our contests this year.

Would you really rather watch a UNC/KY game where the teams combine to shoot 40% from the field with 36 turnovers that ends 80-72 over a UVA-Maryland game that the teams shoot about 48% from the field with 16 combined turnovers and ends 76-71? In other words, is a sloppy game with 80 possessions more pleasing to watch than a well executed game with 60 possessions? If so, then I guess we just value different things as basketball fans (and I felt this way loooong before Bennett).

I'd say this to anybody - when UVA is executing well on the offensive end, our games ARE fun to watch. When we're not, I'll be the first to admit that it's ugly basketball, especially since we usually "double down" on defensive effort when our offense is off and it leads to BOTH teams struggling.

[Wahoo2000]

I don't buy the theory that they get out talented. Ty Jerome and DeAndre Hunter both will likely get drafted this June if they enter the NBA Draft. Kyle Guy is a poor man's JJ Redick. He can flat out rip it from deep. Jay Huff is a blossoming stud and NBA prospect. The ACC has some of the most talented teams in the country and Virginia is 24-2 in their last 26 games in the conference with an ACC Tournament title to show. They've flat out dominated, I mean absolutely owned the ACC the last two years. It's fair to criticize Bennett's lack of NCAA success. But when he finally gets to a final four, which he will eventually, and wins it all, it won't be that instantaeous moment that I call Virginia a legitimate program or have respect for their abilities. That is a program they have there.

Like, Shaka Smart and Loyola-Chicago's coach have made the final four. Are they better coaches than Tony Bennett? Heck no.

The tournament thing is just a HUGE, 100% mental hurdle at this point. People can point to the style all they want, but the truth of Bennett's tournament "failures" is this - we were beaten by a better team (or bad matchup, however you want to state it) vs MSU twice, and Florida once. Syracuse and (to a much larger extent) UMBC were flat out choke jobs. Things started going the wrong way in those games and the guys just fell apart. Does it mean that we'll ALWAYS fall apart? Possible, but I doubt it. We just have to keep knocking. It really sucks that we couldn't hold on vs Cuse a couple of years ago and it wouldn't be a mental hurdle of ANY kind now. But it is what it is.

I'm just happy that we've come far enough as a program that NOBODY talks about Sean Miller being THE coach that can't get to the FF anymore. :-)

[CameronDuke]

The tournament thing is just a HUGE, 100% mental hurdle at this point. People can point to the style all they want, but the truth of Bennett's tournament "failures" is this - we were beaten by a better team (or bad matchup, however you want to state it) vs MSU twice, and Florida once. Syracuse and (to a much larger extent) UMBC were flat out choke jobs. Things started going the wrong way in those games and the guys just fell apart. Does it mean that we'll ALWAYS fall apart? Possible, but I doubt it. We just have to keep knocking. It really sucks that we couldn't hold on vs Cuse a couple of years ago and it wouldn't be a mental hurdle of ANY kind now. But it is what it is.

I'm just happy that we've come far enough as a program that NOBODY talks about Sean Miller being THE coach that can't get to the FF anymore. :-)

LOL. The two Michigan State losses if I remember correctly were tough, gritty, grind it out games where Virginia just fell short a bit at the end by tough defensive Tom Izzo teams. The Cuse loss was weird. One of Virginia's better teams with Brogdon Gill and Perrantes. Look, Richardson for Cuse couldn't miss down the stretch. Did Virginia get rattled and did Brogdon make some bad plays down the stretch? Absolutely. But that was a legitimate squad. Same with last year. Did UMBC get hot and rattle Virginia? Yes. It happens. Again, like you said, more mental now than Virginia not being legitimately talented. A lot of things have to go right for teams to make long NCAAT runs. It just hasn't happened for Tony Bennett yet. Ask any coach in the ACC - I can virtually guarantee you they'd say he's the real deal. And a fine man who mentors his kids, too.

[NSDukeFan]

I love watching UVa. Until this year, I was wildly jealous of their ability to field a defense. But, I also enjoy a good 10-7 football game.

If Bennett's style masks a talent gap, why on earth would he not continue to use the same system when his talent catches up to top tier programs?

I like teams that are smart offensively and defensively and UVa definitely qualifies. I dislike turnovers and sloppy play. Everyone has their own preferences.

If they are reaching Final Fours, winning ACC banners, and posting great records? Who cares?

I mean, did people kvetch about the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl team powered by defense? Or the Pistons of the Bad Boy era?

(admittedly those are stretches, but you get the point... Winning staunches whining)

I believe winning trumps style. All the top players didn’t flock to VMI and Loyola Marymount when they led the country in scoring. Players would rather play for a winner. Especially if that winning program also sends players to the NBA.

My only question is, if you have great talent, wouldn't you want to maximize possessions?

That’s an interesting point that could be an issue in a one and done format where the difference in a few possessions has a greater impact and luck could become more of an issue.

True. I would assume the UVA purists wouldn't care how they get there, so long as they do.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is it would be a hard sell to get, and keep, 5 star talent with that system.

He's almost better off not getting top level talent. He gets away with tournament disappointment for now because of regular season success. If he lands top tier talent, and still continues to whiff in the tournament, the villagers will be at the gate a lot quicker.

I can’t imagine any villagers going to any gates with the type of success he has had, even if he doesn’t advance to the Final Four in the next few years (I expect a regional championship soon for them). Are UVa fans really going to complain about all those ACC championships and say Bennett isn’t doing more? Isn’t this the greatest run the program has ever had?

I hear the criticism, but honestly, the system HAS changed on both ends of the floor. On defense the team is much more active and with the addition of Clark, we even put pressure on the ball across the entire floor. The team is also changing when and how we switch, double, and help. It looks similar because they're still packing the paint and hedging hard, but even there this is a (somewhat) different defensive look than we've had in years past. Might be the kinds of differences only a homer would notice, but I'm absolutely a UVA diehard, so I'll split hairs all day.

Additionally, some of the offensive criticism strikes me as hangover gripes about prior years' teams. UVA has been scoring in the 70s and 80s this year - we struggled against a good NCSt team in their gym and against Duke in Cameron, but we've mostly been blowing teams out: scoring at a good clip, and doing so right up until Bennett clears the bench. The team is scoring fast and at all levels, with exciting dunks and alley-oops, (generally) hot three point shooting, and all three upperclassmen guards driving the lane and scoring or making a pass for an assist.

As for post-season success, the ACCT is also a single elimination tournament and we've been doing very well. The NCAAs are a high variability environment and we're working from a small sample size. If UVA keeps knocking on the door, it'll open.

With UVa having such an efficient offense and scoring more, it’s getting even harder to make the style complaint. I agree completely that the regional championship door will likely open soon.

And "quick" = "entertaining"?

I think quality makes for entertaining basketball. This stuff always gets played up (I guess naturally) after a game where we play poorly. I don't recall ANYONE who actually watched more than 30 seconds of our games where we had an off. eff. of around 1.1 or better say it was "ugly" (which is pretty much all but 2-3 game this year). Just like any team in the nation, we occasionally have really awful shooting nights. NCSU was one, Wisconsin was one. The VAST majority of our games are cleanly played, with few turnovers, and high shooting and assist percentages. I don't recall anyone saying the Duke/UVA game was "ugly" or the vast majority of our contests this year.

Would you really rather watch a UNC/KY game where the teams combine to shoot 40% from the field with 36 turnovers that ends 80-72 over a UVA-Maryland game that the teams shoot about 48% from the field with 16 combined turnovers and ends 76-71? In other words, is a sloppy game with 80 possessions more pleasing to watch than a well executed game with 60 possessions? If so, then I guess we just value different things as basketball fans (and I felt this way loooong before Bennett).

I'd say this to anybody - when UVA is executing well on the offensive end, our games ARE fun to watch. When we're not, I'll be the first to admit that it's ugly basketball, especially since we usually "double down" on defensive effort when our offense is off and it leads to BOTH teams struggling.

I’m not a fan of sloppy play, so I would agree that UVa is fun to watch because of how smart they play and how good they are.

LOL. The two Michigan State losses if I remember correctly were tough, gritty, grind it out games where Virginia just fell short a bit at the end by tough defensive Tom Izzo teams. The Cuse loss was weird. One of Virginia's better teams with Brogdon Gill and Perrantes. Look, Richardson for Cuse couldn't miss down the stretch. Did Virginia get rattled and did Brogdon make some bad plays down the stretch? Absolutely. But that was a legitimate squad. Same with last year. Did UMBC get hot and rattle Virginia? Yes. It happens. Again, like you said, more mental now than Virginia not being legitimately talented. A lot of things have to go right for teams to make long NCAAT runs. It just hasn't happened for Tony Bennett yet. Ask any coach in the ACC - I can virtually guarantee you they'd say he's the real deal. And a fine man who mentors his kids, too.

NCAAT success is tough to achieve in the one and done format, but if you keep having good teams, it comes more regularly.

[dukelifer]

Just so we are clear, Tony Bennett is a 9-minute-meltdown/15-point-blown-lead away from having a Final Four under his belt and not having to answer these "why do you always flop in March?" questions. There is a degree of randomness to the Tourney that can lay bare the best laid plans. I am not going to bet against Virginia making a deep run this season.

This UVA team has talent but I am still not convinced they can handle the top group of teams in the NCAA. I have not been impressed with the bulk of the ACC this season. Duke, UNC and UVA seem to be at another level. We will see how UVA manages UNC. I bet they lose given the short turnaround after Duke. Va Tech and Louisville will be interesting but I suspect UVA takes care of business in close games. But in the tourney they will be vulnerable to the top group of teams with good guards. UVA may get to the FF but they will be tested in a big way.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

. We will see how UVA manages UNC. I bet they lose given the short turnaround after Duke. .

This is the Swofford scheduling BS....this kind of back to back should NEVER happens, and every time it does, it helps the Cheats. Why Duke doesn't put a stop to this....I don't know...and it happens every year.

[JasonEvans]

This is the Swofford scheduling BS...this kind of back to back should NEVER happens, and every time it does, it helps the Cheats. Why Duke doesn't put a stop to this...I don't know...and it happens every year.

Notre Dame just played UVa and Duke back-to-back with a short turnaround (Saturday-Monday). I'd say that is pretty brutal for what was expected to be a middle-of-the-pack team. I'm not a big fan of the conspiracy theory when it comes to Carolina's schedule or any schedule. The conference schedule is just too complicated for someone to be intentionally manipulating it to favor one team.

If we consider Duke, UVA, and UNC to be the "big three" in the ACC this season (all three were widely picked to be among the top 5-7 teams in the land in the preseason), we can look for times teams have to play them back-to-back to see when it happens.

Notre Dame - UVA then Duke (2 days apart)
Virginia - Duke then UNC (2 days apart)
Syracuse - Duke then UNC (3 days apart)
Ga Tech - Duke then UNC (3 days apart)

It does sorta look like those double-ups favor the Heels... though I am sure that is just random.

-Jason "there is no conspiracy... there is no conspiracy... there is no conspiracy... there is no conspiracy... there is no conspiracy... there is no conspiracy... is there?" Evans

[JasonEvans]

As I happened to be looking at schedules, I noticed the brutally unfair schedule that Clemson has faced thus far. They opened with games @Duke and @Syr (remember that the Orangemen were a preseason top 15 team). They then had their first home game... Virginia. After that, a break as they got to play Ga Tech before heading on the road again for FSU and NC State. So, in their first 6 games they played 5 teams that have been ranked in the top 15 at some point this season. Ouch! No wonder Clemson started 1-5 in the conference race.

Of course, things get easier. The Tigers beat Pitt and now have Wake, Ga Tech, and Miami as well as a home date with Va Tech in their next 4. It is not at all unreasonable to look at what Clemson has left and project them to get to 8-8 in the league... which would likely put them very much in the NCAA tourney conversation.

According to the T-rank page for the ACC, Clemson's remaining schedule is the 13th toughest in the ACC (NC St and FSU are #14 and #15, look for them to rise in the standings). Conversely, Louisville, Syracuse, and UNC have the three toughest remaining schedules. I know this weekend marks the mid-point of the ACC schedule and it would be easy to see some teams as locks for high seeds and write others off, but that may be a bit premature given the way the schedule has fallen for some clubs.

-Jason "ok, enough of the schedule deep dives... get a life, Jason!" Evans

[MChambers]

And "quick" = "entertaining"?

I think quality makes for entertaining basketball. This stuff always gets played up (I guess naturally) after a game where we play poorly. I don't recall ANYONE who actually watched more than 30 seconds of our games where we had an off. eff. of around 1.1 or better say it was "ugly" (which is pretty much all but 2-3 game this year). Just like any team in the nation, we occasionally have really awful shooting nights. NCSU was one, Wisconsin was one. The VAST majority of our games are cleanly played, with few turnovers, and high shooting and assist percentages. I don't recall anyone saying the Duke/UVA game was "ugly" or the vast majority of our contests this year.

Would you really rather watch a UNC/KY game where the teams combine to shoot 40% from the field with 36 turnovers that ends 80-72 over a UVA-Maryland game that the teams shoot about 48% from the field with 16 combined turnovers and ends 76-71? In other words, is a sloppy game with 80 possessions more pleasing to watch than a well executed game with 60 possessions? If so, then I guess we just value different things as basketball fans (and I felt this way loooong before Bennett).

I'd say this to anybody - when UVA is executing well on the offensive end, our games ARE fun to watch. When we're not, I'll be the first to admit that it's ugly basketball, especially since we usually "double down" on defensive effort when our offense is off and it leads to BOTH teams struggling.

No, I was responding to a post that said that UVa's offense was quicker this year.

Yes, you can be entertaining and slow, no doubt, but you can be a lot more entertaining if you're quick when the opportunity is there. That's a large part of why this Duke team gets so much attention.

[jhmoss1812]

No, I was responding to a post that said that UVa's offense was quicker this year.

Yes, you can be entertaining and slow, no doubt, but you can be a lot more entertaining if you're quick when the opportunity is there. That's a large part of why this Duke team gets so much attention.

It is incredibly difficult to be both fast and efficient. Only 3 of the top 10 teams in offensive efficiency are also in the top 100 in tempo - Duke (16), Gonzaga (69), and Iowa (84). Kentucky is 214th in tempo and they use the OAD model. Basically, there is one team in the country that can play at a quick tempo and still be incredibly efficient - it just happens to be the team with multiple lottery picks and the GCOAT. The majority of teams can't recruit the way Duke does. Most coaches want efficient teams. Some choose to play fast and be less efficient. Some choose to slow it down and be incredibly efficient. As a UVA fan, it doesn't really bother me when people say we're boring to watch or that they hate our style of play. They wouldn't be talking about us at all if we weren't successful.

[OldPhiKap]

As a UVA fan, it doesn't really bother me when people say we're boring to watch or that they hate our style of play. They wouldn't be talking about us at all if we weren't successful.

Yup. The difference between a loved Tony Bennett and a grumbled-at Herb Sendek is about ten wins a season.

[CDu]

It is incredibly difficult to be both fast and efficient. Only 3 of the top 10 teams in offensive efficiency are also in the top 100 in tempo - Duke (16), Gonzaga (69), and Iowa (84). Kentucky is 214th in tempo and they use the OAD model. Basically, there is one team in the country that can play at a quick tempo and still be incredibly efficient - it just happens to be the team with multiple lottery picks and the GCOAT. The majority of teams can't recruit the way Duke does. Most coaches want efficient teams. Some choose to play fast and be less efficient. Some choose to slow it down and be incredibly efficient. As a UVA fan, it doesn't really bother me when people say we're boring to watch or that they hate our style of play. They wouldn't be talking about us at all if we weren't successful.

I would actually argue that it is harder to be efficient at a slow pace. Only 4 of the top-10 teams in offensive efficiency are outside the top 130 in tempo. If I were to run a regression of efficiency on tempo, I would expect a positive correlation.

Playing fast usually coincides with more fast breaks, and fast breaks are typically more efficient than half-court possessions.

That UVa is able to be efficient in spite of playing slow is impressive.

[Wahoo2000]

I would actually argue that it is harder to be efficient at a slow pace. Only 4 of the top-10 teams in offensive efficiency are outside the top 130 in tempo. If I were to run a regression of efficiency on tempo, I would expect a positive correlation.

Playing fast usually coincides with more fast breaks, and fast breaks are typically more efficient than half-court possessions.

That UVa is able to be efficient in spite of playing slow is impressive.

I would actually guess that there's not much correlation. Efficiency is largely determined by the "quality" of shot you get. A high tempo team may be getting lots of fast-break, quality chances. They may also just be running and chucking. Conversely, a slow tempo team may be throwing up bricks at the end of the shot clock all the time, or they may be waiting and looking for the best possible shot.

It would be interesting for somebody to chart tempo vs off eff (and tempo vs def eff too)... I just know *I'M* too lazy to do it! lol

[gofurman]

As I happened to be looking at schedules, I noticed the brutally unfair schedule that Clemson has faced thus far. They opened with games @Duke and @Syr (remember that the Orangemen were a preseason top 15 team). They then had their first home game... Virginia. After that, a break as they got to play Ga Tech before heading on the road again for FSU and NC State. So, in their first 6 games they played 5 teams that have been ranked in the top 15 at some point this season. Ouch! No wonder Clemson started 1-5 in the conference race.

Of course, things get easier. The Tigers beat Pitt and now have Wake, Ga Tech, and Miami as well as a home date with Va Tech in their next 4. It is not at all unreasonable to look at what Clemson has left and project them to get to 8-8 in the league... which would likely put them very much in the NCAA tourney conversation.

According to the T-rank page for the ACC, Clemson's remaining schedule is the 13th toughest in the ACC (NC St and FSU are #14 and #15, look for them to rise in the standings). Conversely, Louisville, Syracuse, and UNC have the three toughest remaining schedules. I know this weekend marks the mid-point of the ACC schedule and it would be easy to see some teams as locks for high seeds and write others off, but that may be a bit premature given the way the schedule has fallen for some clubs.

-Jason "ok, enough of the schedule deep dives... get a life, Jason!" Evans

Agree. Go Clemson It’s not totally out of pic for them to go 9-9 or so... in ACC. that would merit NCAA consideration ... like you said they started w Duke at Syracuse and UVA. Many top 25 teams would have started 0-3 w that.

[CDu]

I would actually guess that there's not much correlation. Efficiency is largely determined by the "quality" of shot you get. A high tempo team may be getting lots of fast-break, quality chances. They may also just be running and chucking. Conversely, a slow tempo team may be throwing up bricks at the end of the shot clock all the time, or they may be waiting and looking for the best possible shot.

It would be interesting for somebody to chart tempo vs off eff (and tempo vs def eff too)... I just know *I'M* too lazy to do it! lol

I just ran a regression of OEff on tempo and the coefficient was 0.147. So for a one-unit increase in pace, we would expect a 0.147 increase in efficiency. So, a small but positive effect. And I think this makes sense: in general, we know that fast-break possessions are more efficient than half-court possessions. And in general, a faster pace will tend to be a result of more fast-break possessions. So, in general, it's easier to be more efficient at a higher tempo than at a lower tempo, because you are likely getting a higher proportion of your possessions from more-efficient fast break chances.

Now, that's not a hard and fast rule obviously, nor is it a huge effect. And there is plenty of noise (plenty of teams that play fast and poorly, plenty that play slow and well). But the data do seem to suggest that teams that play faster tend to be more efficient. The data most certainly don't suggest at any level that playing slower leads to better efficiency.

Which is, of course, a compliment to Bennett. To be uber-efficient despite playing the slowest pace in college bball is really impressive. He's bucking the trend, and his UVa team is way off in the upper left on a scatter plot with efficiency as the Y-axis and tempo as the X-axis.

[BandAlum83]

I just ran a regression of OEff on tempo and the coefficient was 0.147. So for a one-unit increase in pace, we would expect a 0.147 increase in efficiency. So, a small but positive effect. And I think this makes sense: in general, we know that fast-break possessions are more efficient than half-court possessions. And in general, a faster pace will tend to be a result of more fast-break possessions. So, in general, it's easier to be more efficient at a higher tempo than at a lower tempo, because you are likely getting a higher proportion of your possessions from more-efficient fast break chances.

Now, that's not a hard and fast rule obviously, nor is it a huge effect. And there is plenty of noise (plenty of teams that play fast and poorly, plenty that play slow and well). But the data do seem to suggest that teams that play faster tend to be more efficient. The data most certainly don't suggest at any level that playing slower leads to better efficiency.

Which is, of course, a compliment to Bennett. To be uber-efficient despite playing the slowest pace in college bball is really impressive. He's bucking the trend, and his UVa team is way off in the upper left on a scatter plot with efficiency as the Y-axis and tempo as the X-axis.

When you have RJ, Zion and Tre on your team.

I have seen some pretty poor fast break finishing during some other games I have watched this year. Sure, it's anecdotal, but when the announcers talk about Duke having elite finishers, I believe it more and more.

It's gotta be no-so-easy to finish at the rim running full speed with some really big guys chasing you down the court.

[CDu]

When you have RJ, Zion and Tre on your team.

I have seen some pretty poor fast break finishing during some other games I have watched this year. Sure, it's anecdotal, but when the announcers talk about Duke having elite finishers, I believe it more and more.

It's gotta be no-so-easy to finish at the rim running full speed with some really big guys chasing you down the court.

Duke is certainly better in transition than most if not all. But you don’t have to have Barrett/Williamson/Jones to find your fast-break efficiency be better than your half-court efficiency. I would venture it is close to universally true, and am very short that it is generally true even if not universally so.

People tend to shoot better percentages at the rim than away from it, and people tend to shoot better percentages when there aren’t defenses in front of you. And both happen more frequently in fast breaks than in half-court.

[tbyers11]

I would actually guess that there's not much correlation. Efficiency is largely determined by the "quality" of shot you get. A high tempo team may be getting lots of fast-break, quality chances. They may also just be running and chucking. Conversely, a slow tempo team may be throwing up bricks at the end of the shot clock all the time, or they may be waiting and looking for the best possible shot.

It would be interesting for somebody to chart tempo vs off eff (and tempo vs def eff too)... I just know *I'M* too lazy to do it! lol

T-Rank to the rescue. Here is a link to a graph of Adj OE to Adj tempo. I limited to the top 75 teams (in overall Adj EM I think) to make it less busy. The trendline is just barely in favor of OE increasing with tempo.

Tempo v OE.jpg

Well that came out a lot smaller than I'd hoped. No time to fix it now. But follow the link and you can see it and play with it yourself

[CDu]

T-Rank to the rescue. Here is a link to a graph of Adj OE to Adj tempo. I limited to the top 75 teams (in overall Adj EM I think) to make it less busy. The trendline is just barely in favor of OE increasing with tempo.

Tempo v OE.jpg

Well that came out a lot smaller than I'd hoped. No time to fix it now. But follow the link and you can see it and play with it yourself

Yep, this is roughly the same trend as for all 353 using KenPom. I just didn’t know how to post my graph.

[wsb3]

Yup. The difference between a loved Tony Bennett and a grumbled-at Herb Sendek is about ten wins a season.

Very good OPK.
Must spread comments around...blah blah..😉