Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

run and gun

Expand Messages
  • Michael Tamada
    This isn t about pro hoops, but it s of some analytical interest: Most of us probably remember Paul Westhead s ultra-run-and-gun strategy at Loyola Marymount
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      This isn't about pro hoops, but it's of some analytical interest:
       
      Most of us probably remember Paul Westhead's ultra-run-and-gun strategy at Loyola Marymount in the 1990s (Hank Gathers, Bo Kimble).  USIU also followed that strategy for awhile.  It failed miserably when Westhead tried it with the Nuggets.  That was about the last that I heard of such strategies until recently.
       
      Grinnell College (an NCAA Div III small college) has been gaining some notice lately with its run-and-gun strategy, Ira Berkow even wrote an article in the NY Times about it (it's now in the pay-to-read archive but if you have access to LexisNexis or other NYTimes archives you can read it)
       
      But it turns out that the Univ of Redlands (another Div III school) is also using that strategy, they beat La Sierra College 172-107 last night
       
      I think the NY Times article mentioned that the Grinnell coach got the idea from some college in Canada (I didn't know they even had college basketball in Canada, but hey basketball was invented by a Canadian), and apparently the Redlands coach is emulating Grinnell.
       
      Moreover, he says that what he and Grinnell do is different from what LMU did.
       
      That's where my question is:  what are the differences?
       
      The NY Times article I thought summed up the whole strategy pretty well when a Grinnell player described what they do on defense:  press like crazy, if we fail and give up an easy layup and two points, no problem because we're going to shoot a 3-pointer about five seconds later anyway.
       
      I'm not sure how that differs from what LMU was trying to do. 
       
      Maybe the Grinnell strategy puts more emphasis on pressing, and on the 3-pointer?  LMU relied a lot on Gathers, who I don't recall as being a big 3-point shooter, though Kimble and Jeff Fryer certainly jacked them up.
       
       
      --MKT
    • Dean Oliver
      Mike -- I ve been hearing about this for a while now and talked to some coaches (including someone at Redlands) about it. In general, it is a high risk
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike --

        I've been hearing about this for a while now and talked to some
        coaches (including someone at Redlands) about it. In general, it is a
        high risk approach. It can work pretty well if you just have one or
        two outside shooters. Those small number of guys can get a lot of
        shots out of the system. The Grinnell team did well when they had
        their best guy shooting over 40% of their shots. Despite the supposed
        chaos, it really is pretty well geared to getting open shots for a
        couple guys and defenses are just too tired to take that away. Bad
        teams do it because they usually have a lot of equally bad guys that
        can get a lot of time -- and the high risk nature brings them better
        odds of winning. Also, these coaches have less to lose. It's a good
        recruiting tool, too.

        I did hear a little bit about why the systems differ, but it's in
        fairly small ways. I remember a midcourt trap in one system vs
        another trying to force things to corners for traps. How you set up
        the offense can definitely vary depending on your personnel.

        That Denver team of 1991 that used it was simply horrible defensively
        and didn't have the horses to make the offense work. It's hard to
        look back now and guess at whether they could have implemented the
        press differently so that it would actually work. The common wisdom
        is that you can't press the NBA's guards. That Denver team didn't
        force turnovers well -- on about 16% of their possessions, which was
        about average. That lends some support to the thought that a gimmick
        isn't enough.

        It is a fun style and I'd love to do some more research on it, why it
        works, what conditions it may work better, and so forth. This hybrid
        stats-traditional coaching stuff is what is most fun to me.

        DeanO

        Dean Oliver
        Consultant to the Seattle Supersonics
        Author, Basketball on Paper
        http://www.basketballonpaper.com
        "Oliver goes beyond stats to dissect what it takes to win. His breezy
        style makes for enjoyable reading, but there are plenty of points of
        wisdom as well. This book can be appreciated by fans, players,
        coaches and executives, but more importantly it can be used as a text
        book for all these groups. You are sure to learn something you didn't
        know about basketball here." Pete Palmer, co-author, Hidden Game of
        Baseball and Hidden Game of Football


        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
        wrote:
        > This isn't about pro hoops, but it's of some analytical interest:
        >
        > Most of us probably remember Paul Westhead's ultra-run-and-gun
        strategy at Loyola Marymount in the 1990s (Hank Gathers, Bo Kimble).
        USIU also followed that strategy for awhile. It failed miserably when
        Westhead tried it with the Nuggets. That was about the last that I
        heard of such strategies until recently.
        >
        > Grinnell College (an NCAA Div III small college) has been gaining
        some notice lately with its run-and-gun strategy, Ira Berkow even
        wrote an article in the NY Times about it (it's now in the pay-to-read
        archive but if you have access to LexisNexis or other NYTimes archives
        you can read it)
        >
        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482
        <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482&incamp=archive:search>
        &incamp=archive:search
        >
        > But it turns out that the Univ of Redlands (another Div III school)
        is also using that strategy, they beat La Sierra College 172-107 last
        night
        > http://www.redlands.edu/x8806.xml
        >
        > I think the NY Times article mentioned that the Grinnell coach got
        the idea from some college in Canada (I didn't know they even had
        college basketball in Canada, but hey basketball was invented by a
        Canadian), and apparently the Redlands coach is emulating Grinnell.
        >
        > Moreover, he says that what he and Grinnell do is different from
        what LMU did.
        >
        > That's where my question is: what are the differences?
        >
        > The NY Times article I thought summed up the whole strategy pretty
        well when a Grinnell player described what they do on defense: press
        like crazy, if we fail and give up an easy layup and two points, no
        problem because we're going to shoot a 3-pointer about five seconds
        later anyway.
        >
        > I'm not sure how that differs from what LMU was trying to do.
        >
        > Maybe the Grinnell strategy puts more emphasis on pressing, and on
        the 3-pointer? LMU relied a lot on Gathers, who I don't recall as
        being a big 3-point shooter, though Kimble and Jeff Fryer certainly
        jacked them up.
        >
        >
        > --MKT
      • Coach McCormick
        Clovis West High School played for the CA State championship using a similar, if more defensive style, Fresno City played for the CA JuCo State Championship
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 8, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Clovis West High School played for the CA State championship using a similar, if more defensive style, Fresno City played for the CA JuCo State Championship with the same system (and coach and PG) and U. Puget Sound made the DIII Elite Eight with the Clovis/FCC system. St Mary's College uses some of the offensive systems this season with the originators' son as a back-up SG.
           
          This system, which I wrote about last season for Basketball Sense magazine, is similar but less all-or nothing.
           
          The Grinnel system, from what I've heard, basically presses with 5 players. They dare teams to go over the top and they are okay giving up quick lay-ups. They want to force tempo and get up a number of threes. They also have certain gals and if they reach all their goals, they are ndefeated. however, they rarely do. i believe they want to get 30 steals, and get offensive rebounds on 40+% of their shots. I forget the other stats, but one is 3 point attempts or makes, I'm sure.
           
          the fresno city system combines maryland's press, run n jump press, kentucky's system, ralph miller's philosophy and the idea that you shoot threes or lay-ups and nothing else.
           
          B

          Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:


          Mike --

          I've been hearing about this for a while now and talked to some
          coaches (including someone at Redlands) about it.  In general, it is a
          high risk approach.  It can work pretty well if you just have one or
          two outside shooters.  Those small number of guys can get a lot of
          shots out of the system.  The Grinnell team did well when they had
          their best guy shooting over 40% of their shots.  Despite the supposed
          chaos, it really is pretty well geared to getting open shots for a
          couple guys and defenses are just too tired to take that away.  Bad
          teams do it because they usually have a lot of equally bad guys that
          can get a lot of time -- and the high risk nature brings them better
          odds of winning.  Also, these coaches have less to lose.  It's a good
          recruiting tool, too.

          I did hear a little bit about why the systems differ, but it's in
          fairly small ways.  I remember a midcourt trap in one system vs
          another trying to force things to corners for traps.  How you set up
          the offense can definitely vary depending on your personnel.

          That Denver team of 1991 that used it was simply horrible defensively
          and didn't have the horses to make the offense work.  It's hard to
          look back now and guess at whether they could have implemented the
          press differently so that it would actually work.  The common wisdom
          is that you can't press the NBA's guards.  That Denver team didn't
          force turnovers well -- on about 16% of their possessions, which was
          about average.  That lends some support to the thought that a gimmick
          isn't enough. 

          It is a fun style and I'd love to do some more research on it, why it
          works, what conditions it may work better, and so forth.  This hybrid
          stats-traditional coaching stuff is what is most fun to me.

          DeanO

          Dean Oliver
          Consultant to the Seattle Supersonics
          Author, Basketball on Paper
          http://www.basketballonpaper.com
          "Oliver goes beyond stats to dissect what it takes to win.  His breezy
          style makes for enjoyable reading, but there are plenty of points of
          wisdom as well.  This book can be appreciated by fans, players,
          coaches and executives, but more importantly it can be used as a text
          book for all these groups. You are sure to learn something you didn't
          know about basketball here."  Pete Palmer, co-author, Hidden Game of
          Baseball and Hidden Game of Football


          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
          wrote:
          > This isn't about pro hoops, but it's of some analytical interest:

          > Most of us probably remember Paul Westhead's ultra-run-and-gun
          strategy at Loyola Marymount in the 1990s (Hank Gathers, Bo Kimble).
          USIU also followed that strategy for awhile.  It failed miserably when
          Westhead tried it with the Nuggets.  That was about the last that I
          heard of such strategies until recently.

          > Grinnell College (an NCAA Div III small college) has been gaining
          some notice lately with its run-and-gun strategy, Ira Berkow even
          wrote an article in the NY Times about it (it's now in the pay-to-read
          archive but if you have access to LexisNexis or other NYTimes archives
          you can read it)
          >
          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482
          <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482&incamp=archive:search>
          &incamp=archive:search

          > But it turns out that the Univ of Redlands (another Div III school)
          is also using that strategy, they beat La Sierra College 172-107 last
          night
          > http://www.redlands.edu/x8806.xml

          > I think the NY Times article mentioned that the Grinnell coach got
          the idea from some college in Canada (I didn't know they even had
          college basketball in Canada, but hey basketball was invented by a
          Canadian), and apparently the Redlands coach is emulating Grinnell.

          > Moreover, he says that what he and Grinnell do is different from
          what LMU did.

          > That's where my question is:  what are the differences?

          > The NY Times article I thought summed up the whole strategy pretty
          well when a Grinnell player described what they do on defense:  press
          like crazy, if we fail and give up an easy layup and two points, no
          problem because we're going to shoot a 3-pointer about five seconds
          later anyway.

          > I'm not sure how that differs from what LMU was trying to do. 

          > Maybe the Grinnell strategy puts more emphasis on pressing, and on
          the 3-pointer?  LMU relied a lot on Gathers, who I don't recall as
          being a big 3-point shooter, though Kimble and Jeff Fryer certainly
          jacked them up.


          > --MKT




          Do you Yahoo!?
          Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

        • Michael Tamada
          ... From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:13 AM Clovis West High School played for the CA State
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
            Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:13 AM

            Clovis West High School played for the CA State championship using a similar, if more defensive style, Fresno City played for the CA JuCo State Championship with the same system (and coach and PG) and U. Puget Sound made the DIII Elite Eight with the Clovis/FCC system. St Mary's College uses some of the offensive systems this season with the originators' son as a back-up SG.
             
            This system, which I wrote about last season for Basketball Sense magazine, is similar but less all-or nothing.
             
            The Grinnel system, from what I've heard, basically presses with 5 players. They dare teams to go over the top
            [Michael Tamada] ***  One thing which I remember from an article, I think it was the NYTimes article:  Grinnell substitutes in lines, like in hockey.  5 men at a time, and they use *three* lines!  I.e., 15 players, subbing in and out 5 at a time.  Part of the idea is to bring up pace to such a high level that the other team's players get exhausted -- they'll have subs on the bench, but not an entire 2nd line and 3rd line.
             
             
             and they are okay giving up quick lay-ups. They want to force tempo and get up a number of threes. They also have certain gals and if they reach all their goals, they are ndefeated. however, they rarely do. i believe they want to get 30 steals, and get offensive rebounds on 40+% of their shots. I forget the other stats, but one is 3 point attempts or makes, I'm sure.
             
            the fresno city system combines maryland's press, run n jump press, kentucky's system, ralph miller's philosophy and the idea that you shoot threes or lay-ups and nothing else.
             
            [Michael Tamada]  *** This brings up an NBA item (as well as other leagues) that I've been wondering about.  Despite the dismay over today's players who stereotypically can dunk and shoot 3s but cannot hit free throws or the midrange jumper, I think an argument can be made that most teams shoot too few 3s.  Or should get more players who are capable of hitting them.  Because in the most simplistic analysis, you only need to hit 33% of them to equal a 50% percentage on 2-point shots, and most halfway decent NBA 3-point shooters are well over that (and most teams shoot less than 50% on their 2-pters).  A more sophisticated analysis would have to take into account the extra offensive rebounds one gets from the missed 3-pointers, balanced against the lack of fouls that most 3-point shooters draw.  (Plus possible variations in rebounding percentages and fastbreaks off of misses.)  I think it's no coincidence that the teams shooting the most 3-pointers, Phoenix and Seattle, are also the two most efficient offensively (according to knickerblogger.net).
             
            I agree with what DeanO calls the conventional wisdom that a LMU/Grinnell/FCC strategy is unlikely to work in the NBA, but parts of it, namely the 3-point philosophy, may work, and we may be seeing Seattle and Phoenix reaping the benefits right now.
             
             
            --MKT
             
             
             
            B

            Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:


            Mike --

            I've been hearing about this for a while now and talked to some
            coaches (including someone at Redlands) about it.  In general, it is a
            high risk approach.  It can work pretty well if you just have one or
            two outside shooters.  Those small number of guys can get a lot of
            shots out of the system.  The Grinnell team did well when they had
            their best guy shooting over 40% of their shots.  Despite the supposed
            chaos, it really is pretty well geared to getting open shots for a
            couple guys and defenses are just too tired to take that away.  Bad
            teams do it because they usually have a lot of equally bad guys that
            can get a lot of time -- and the high risk nature brings them better
            odds of winning.  Also, these coaches have less to lose.  It's a good
            recruiting tool, too.

            I did h! ear a little bit about why the systems differ, but it's in
            fairly small ways.  I remember a midcourt trap in one system vs
            another trying to force things to corners for traps.  How you set up
            the offense can definitely vary depending on your personnel.

            That Denver team of 1991 that used it was simply horrible defensively
            and didn't have the horses to make the offense work.  It's hard to
            look back now and guess at whether they could have implemented the
            press differently so that it would actually work.  The common wisdom
            is that you can't press the NBA's guards.  That Denver team didn't
            force turnovers well -- on about 16% of their possessions, which was
            about average.  That lends some support to the thought that a gimmick
            isn't enough. 

            It is a fun style and I'd love to do some more research on it, why it
            works, what conditions it may work better, and so forth.  This hybrid
            stats-traditional coaching stuff is what is most fun to me.

            DeanO

            Dean Oliver
            Consultant to the Seattle Supersonics
            Author, Basketball on Paper
            http://www.basketballonpaper.com
            "Oliver goes beyond stats to dissect what it takes to win.  His breezy
            style makes for enjoyable reading, but there are plenty of points of
            wisdom as well.  This book can be appreciated by fans, players,
            coaches and executives, but more importantly it can be used as a text
            book for all these groups. You are sure to learn something you didn't
            know about basketball here."  Pete Palmer, co-author, Hidden Game of
            Baseball and Hidden Game of Football


            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
            wrote:
            > This isn't about pro hoops, but it's of some analytical interest:

            > Most of us probably remember Paul Westhead's ultra-run-and-gun
            strategy at L! oyola Marymount in the 1990s (Hank Gathers, Bo Kimble).
            USIU also followed that strategy for awhile.  It failed miserably when
            Westhead tried it with the Nuggets.  That was about the last that I
            heard of such strategies until recently.

            > Grinnell College (an NCAA Div III small college) has been gaining
            some notice lately with its run-and-gun strategy, Ira Berkow even
            wrote an article in the NY Times about it (it's now in the pay-to-read
            archive but if you have access to LexisNexis or other NYTimes archives
            you can read it)
            >
            http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482
            <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482&incamp=archive:search>
            &incamp=archive:search

            > But it turns out that the Univ of Redlands (another Div III school)
            is also using that strategy, they beat La Sierra College 172-107 last
            night
            > http://www.redlands.edu/x8806.xml

            > I think the NY Times article mentioned that the Grinnell coach got
            the idea from some college in Canada (I didn't know they even had
            college basketball in Canada, but hey basketball was invented by a
            Canadian), and apparently the Redlands coach is emulating Grinnell.

            > Moreover, he says that what he and Grinnell do is different from
            what LMU did.

            > That's where my question is:  w! hat are the differences?

            > The NY Times article I thought summed up the whole strategy pretty
            well when a Grinnell player described what they do on defense:  press
            like crazy, if we fail and give up an easy layup and two points, no
            problem because we're going to shoot a 3-pointer about five seconds
            later anyway.

            > I'm not sure how that differs from what LMU was trying to do. 

            > Maybe the Grinnell strategy puts more emphasis on pressing, and on
            the 3-pointer?  LMU relied a lot on Gathers, who I don't recall as
            being a big 3-point shooter, though Kimble and Jeff Fryer certainly
            jacked them up.


            > --MKT




            Do you Yahoo!?
            Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

          • Mike G
            [--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Michael Tamada ... 3s. ...take into account the extra offensive rebounds one gets from the missed 3-pointers,
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 8, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              [--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada"
              <tamada@o...> wrote:
              >... I think an argument can be made that most teams shoot too few
              3s. ...take into account the extra offensive rebounds one gets from
              the missed 3-pointers, balanced against the lack of fouls that most
              3-point shooters draw.]

              Do missed 3's result in likelier offensive rebounds? I didn't think
              so.

              The league is shooting .347 from the arc this year; equivalent
              to .520 from 2-land. Inside the arc, it's only .466.

              But if you assign all FT/FTA to the 2-pt shooting, the eff% on all-
              but-3s is .514. That's hardly compelling reason to shoot more 3s.

              Unmeasured (here) is the effect that drawing fouls has on the
              opposition, i.e., depleting their personnel via foul trouble.

              Throw in the common wisdom that the inside game "opens up" the
              outside game (and vise-versa), and it looks as though the
              inside/outside balance is pretty close to optimal, at least by
              league-wide averages.
            • Michael Tamada
              ... From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 6:32 AM [...] ... Nice analysis, but not all FTAs can be credited to the 2-point
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 8, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@...]
                Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 6:32 AM

                [...]

                >The league is shooting .347 from the arc this year; equivalent
                >to .520 from 2-land. Inside the arc, it's only .466.
                >
                >But if you assign all FT/FTA to the 2-pt shooting, the eff% on all-
                >but-3s is .514. That's hardly compelling reason to shoot more 3s.
                >
                >Unmeasured (here) is the effect that drawing fouls has on the
                >opposition, i.e., depleting their personnel via foul trouble.
                >
                >Throw in the common wisdom that the inside game "opens up" the
                >outside game (and vise-versa), and it looks as though the
                >inside/outside balance is pretty close to optimal, at least by
                >league-wide averages.

                Nice analysis, but not all FTAs can be credited to the 2-point
                shooters. Nor to the 3-point shooters -- instead, a good number
                are due to loose ball fouls; and the occasional hand check,
                reach-in, etc. (i.e. to a non-shooting ballhandler). 3-point
                shooting teams would be drawing these free throws, just as
                other teams do.

                A rough guess? Maybe 1/5 of FTAs.


                Also, you've left out the extra offensive rebounds that
                the 3-point shooting team gets. If one team is shooting
                50% on 2pointers, and the other is shooting 33% on 3-pointers,
                then the 3-point shooting team get an extra 1/3 offensive
                rebound opportunities.

                Why? Because the 2-point team literally gives the ball
                to the oppostion 50% of the time (due to making a basket),
                and only gets an offensive rebound opportunity on the other
                50% (the missed FGAs). Whereas the 3-point team
                only gives the ball away 1/3 of the time, and gets an
                offensive rebound opportunity 2/3 of the time.


                --MKT
              • Coach McCormick
                I think Phoenix and Seattle s offensive efficiency is because they always have at least four offensive players who can run, pass, drive and shoot. Very few
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 8, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think Phoenix and Seattle's offensive efficiency is because they always have at least four offensive players who can run, pass, drive and shoot. Very few other teams possess this.
                   
                  Offensively speaking look at either team matched up against the likely NBA Champion Spurs:
                  Parker, Ginobili and Barry fit the bill, but Bowen gets a lot of PT and he is a stand-still shooter and not much else offensively. Duncan has the ability and Horry to an extent, but Rasho is inconsistent and Rose moreso. But, Nash, Richardson, Johnson, Marion, Stoudemire put a ton of pressure on the D, whether they penetrate or shoot the 3. Similarly, Ridnour, Allen, Lewis, Radmanovic put pressure on a defensive unit. The KIngs and Mavs and to a lesser extent the Wiz and Magic are similar. And, these teams commt to fastbreaking more than the slow it down van gundy or brown teams. and transition opportunities provide better three-point looks and better offensive rebounding opportunities than half court sets.

                  Michael Tamada <tamada@...> wrote:
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
                  Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:13 AM

                  Clovis West High School played for the CA State championship using a similar, if more defensive style, Fresno City played for the CA JuCo State Championship with the same system (and coach and PG) and U. Puget Sound made the DIII Elite Eight with the Clovis/FCC system. St Mary's College uses some of the offensive systems this season with the originators' son as a back-up SG.
                   
                  This system, which I wrote about last season for Basketball Sense magazine, is similar but less all-or nothing.
                   
                  The Grinnel system, from what I've heard, basically presses with 5 players. They dare teams to go over the top
                  [Michael Tamada] ***  One thing which I remember from an article, I think it was the NYTimes article:  Grinnell substitutes in lines, like in hockey.  5 men at a time, and they use *three* lines!  I.e., 15 players, subbing in and out 5 at a time.  Part of the idea is to bring up pace to such a high level that the other team's players get exhausted -- they'll have subs on the bench, but not an entire 2nd line and 3rd line.
                   
                   
                   and they are okay giving up quick lay-ups. They want to force tempo and get up a number of threes. They also have certain gals and if they reach all their goals, they are ndefeated. however, they rarely do. i believe they want to get 30 steals, and get offensive rebounds on 40+% of their shots. I forget the other stats, but one is 3 point attempts or makes, I'm sure.
                   
                  the fresno city system combines maryland's press, run n jump press, kentucky's system, ralph miller's philosophy and the idea that you shoot threes or lay-ups and nothing else.
                   
                  [Michael Tamada]  *** This brings up an NBA item (as well as other leagues) that I've been wondering about.  Despite the dismay over today's players who stereotypically can dunk and shoot 3s but cannot hit free throws or the midrange jumper, I think an argument can be made that most teams shoot too few 3s.  Or should get more players who are capable of hitting them.  Because in the most simplistic analysis, you only need to hit 33% of them to equal a 50% percentage on 2-point shots, and most halfway decent NBA 3-point shooters are well over that (and most teams shoot less than 50% on their 2-pters).  A more sophisticated analysis would have to take into account the extra offensive rebounds one gets from the missed 3-pointers, balanced against the lack of fouls that most 3-point shooters draw.  (Plus possible variations in rebounding percentages and fastbreaks off of misses.)  I think it's no coincidence that the teams shooting the most 3-pointers, Phoenix and Seattle, are also the two most efficient offensively (according to knickerblogger.net).
                   
                  I agree with what DeanO calls the conventional wisdom that a LMU/Grinnell/FCC strategy is unlikely to work in the NBA, but parts of it, namely the 3-point philosophy, may work, and we may be seeing Seattle and Phoenix reaping the benefits right now.
                   
                   
                  --MKT
                   
                   
                   
                  B

                  Dean Oliver <deano@...> wrote:


                  Mike --

                  I've been hearing about this for a while now and talked to some
                  coaches (including someone at Redlands) about it.  In general, it is a
                  high risk approach.  It can work pretty well if you just have one or
                  two outside shooters.  Those small number of guys can get a lot of
                  shots out of the system.  The Grinnell team did well when they had
                  their best guy shooting over 40% of their shots.  Despite the supposed
                  chaos, it really is pretty well geared to getting open shots for a
                  couple guys and defenses are just too tired to take that away.  Bad
                  teams do it because they usually have a lot of equally bad guys that
                  can get a lot of time -- and the high risk nature brings them better
                  odds of winning.  Also, these coaches have less to lose.  It's a good
                  recruiting tool, too.

                  I did h! ear a little bit about why the systems differ, but it's in
                  fairly small ways.  I remember a midcourt trap in one system vs
                  another trying to force things to corners for traps.  How you set up
                  the offense can definitely vary depending on your personnel.

                  That Denver team of 1991 that used it was simply horrible defensively
                  and didn't have the horses to make the offense work.  It's hard to
                  look back now and guess at whether they could have implemented the
                  press differently so that it would actually work.  The common wisdom
                  is that you can't press the NBA's guards.  That Denver team didn't
                  force turnovers well -- on about 16% of their possessions, which was
                  about average.  That lends some support to the thought that a gimmick
                  isn't enough. 

                  It is a fun style and I'd love to do some more research on it, why it
                  works, what conditions it may work better, and so forth.  This hybrid
                  stats-traditional coaching stuff is what is most fun to me.

                  DeanO

                  Dean Oliver
                  Consultant to the Seattle Supersonics
                  Author, Basketball on Paper
                  http://www.basketballonpaper.com
                  "Oliver goes beyond stats to dissect what it takes to win.  His breezy
                  style makes for enjoyable reading, but there are plenty of points of
                  wisdom as well.  This book can be appreciated by fans, players,
                  coaches and executives, but more importantly it can be used as a text
                  book for all these groups. You are sure to learn something you didn't
                  know about basketball here."  Pete Palmer, co-author, Hidden Game of
                  Baseball and Hidden Game of Football


                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                  wrote:
                  > This isn't about pro hoops, but it's of some analytical interest:

                  > Most of us probably remember Paul Westhead's ultra-run-and-gun
                  strategy at L! oyola Marymount in the 1990s (Hank Gathers, Bo Kimble).
                  USIU also followed that strategy for awhile.  It failed miserably when
                  Westhead tried it with the Nuggets.  That was about the last that I
                  heard of such strategies until recently.

                  > Grinnell College (an NCAA Div III small college) has been gaining
                  some notice lately with its run-and-gun strategy, Ira Berkow even
                  wrote an article in the NY Times about it (it's now in the pay-to-read
                  archive but if you have access to LexisNexis or other NYTimes archives
                  you can read it)
                  >
                  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482
                  <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F11F7385C0C7A8EDDA80894DC404482&incamp=archive:search>
                  &incamp=archive:search

                  > But it turns out that the Univ of Redlands (another Div III school)
                  is also using that strategy, they beat La Sierra College 172-107 last
                  night
                  > http://www.redlands.edu/x8806.xml

                  > I think the NY Times article mentioned that the Grinnell coach got
                  the idea from some college in Canada (I didn't know they even had
                  college basketball in Canada, but hey basketball was invented by a
                  Canadian), and apparently the Redlands coach is emulating Grinnell.

                  > Moreover, he says that what he and Grinnell do is different from
                  what LMU did.

                  > That's where my question is:  w! hat are the differences?

                  > The NY Times article I thought summed up the whole strategy pretty
                  well when a Grinnell player described what they do on defense:  press
                  like crazy, if we fail and give up an easy layup and two points, no
                  problem because we're going to shoot a 3-pointer about five seconds
                  later anyway.

                  > I'm not sure how that differs from what LMU was trying to do. 

                  > Maybe the Grinnell strategy puts more emphasis on pressing, and on
                  the 3-pointer?  LMU relied a lot on Gathers, who I don't recall as
                  being a big 3-point shooter, though Kimble and Jeff Fryer certainly
                  jacked them up.


                  > --MKT




                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

                • Mike G
                  ... I dunno. Handchecking beyond the arc? You re right on the matter of more missed shots = more offensive rebounds. How about the Suns Quentin Richardson?
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jan 8, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                    wrote:
                    >... not all FTAs can be credited to the 2-point
                    > shooters. .. -- instead, a good number
                    > are due to loose ball fouls; and the occasional hand check,
                    > reach-in, etc. (i.e. to a non-shooting ballhandler). 3-point
                    > shooting teams would be drawing these free throws, just as
                    > other teams do.

                    I dunno. Handchecking beyond the arc?

                    You're right on the matter of more missed shots = more offensive
                    rebounds.

                    How about the Suns' Quentin Richardson? -- In his last 7 games he's
                    shot as well or better from 3, as from 2:

                    opp. 3FG 2FG

                    Mem: 4-9 2-8
                    Tor 4-11 2-7
                    SA : 0-4 0-3
                    NO: 9-16 2-7
                    Por: 4-7 4-7
                    Min 4-17 1-5
                    Hou 4-11 3-9

                    Over this span, 87 of his 112 points are from bombs. Only the Spurs
                    game was a loss.
                  • Michael Tamada
                    ... From: Michael Tamada Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:49 AM ... From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 08,
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jan 20, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Michael Tamada
                      Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:49 AM

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
                      Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:13 AM
                      [...]
                       
                      >> The Grinnel system, from what I've heard, basically presses with 5 players. They dare teams to go over the top
                      [Michael Tamada] ***  One thing which I remember from an article, I think it was the NYTimes article:  Grinnell substitutes in lines, like in hockey.  5 men at a time, and they use *three* lines!  I.e., 15 players, subbing in and out 5 at a time.  Part of the idea is to bring up pace to such a high level that the other team's players get exhausted -- they'll have subs on the bench, but not an entire 2nd line and 3rd line.
                       
                       
                      This is really college stuff, not pro, but hey it's fun and certainly lends itself to analysis, so ...
                       
                      Last night I watched the Univ of Redlands at Oxy game, and Redlands does indeed appear to be using the Grinnell system, as described in the NYTimes.  The parts that I already knew about:
                       
                      1.  Shoot quickly, often a 3-pointer.
                      2.  Press relentlessly, 100% of the time. If this gambling results in an easy layin for the opponent, go right back downcourt and score 3 on them.
                      3.  Substitute often, and in waves of 5.
                       
                      Some other aspects that I observed about Redlands' strategy, which weren't covered in the NY Times article (or maybe this is what Redlands does, and is different from Grinnell):
                       
                      4.  In halfcourt defense, double team and trap all the time.  In almost all cases, an Oxy player who held the ball more than 1-2 seconds would find a second defender racing toward him.
                      5.  Try not to foul?  I'm not 100% sure if this is part of Redlands' strategy.  But they commited only 7 team fouls in the first half, which is very few given the furious pace of the game and the number of plays being made.  On the other hand, they had about 12 in the second half, not counting a few deliberate fouls they commited during the last minute.  12 still's not that many considering the pace.  It would make sense not to foul, because free throws would give the opponent precious time to rest and catch their breath.
                      6.  Redlands usually substituted about every minute (according to the game clock, not actual elapsed time).  E.g. their first wave of subs came in at 19:05 in the first half.  Sometimes the line would stay in only about 30 seconds or so -- but I think most of those situations were caused by free throws, so even though only 30 seconds of game time passed, enough real time passed that the coach felt it desirable to send in the next wave of subs.
                      7.  Although the waves of subs stayed pretty stable, with the same personnel, they did not stay completely unchanged.  A playeer or two would sometimes bounce from one wave to another. 
                      8.  Redlands didn't shoot that often within the first 5 seconds of a possession (unless it was a quick steal and layup).  But they almost always did shoot within the first 12 seconds.  There was one highly unusual possession where the Oxy defense stopped them from shooting until the 29th second (6 seconds left on the shot clock); one of Redlands' main 3-point shooters finally got a shot off, which was an airball.  But a Redlands player got the offensive rebound and put up another 3-pointer with 2 seconds on the shot clock.  He made it, giving Redlands something like a 3-point lead; for awhile it looked like that play would be back-breaking, but Oxy came back.
                      9.  Redlands' emphasis on 3-pointers, and the defense's resulting adjustments, meant that there were a good number of driving layins available to Redlands ballhandlers.
                      10.  Some of the main 3-point shooters, later in the game, shot from a good 3-4 feet behind the 3-point line.
                       
                      After the first 5 minutes, Oxy was up 24-17.  After 10 minutes, Oxy was up 37-34.  Redlands tied it a few seconds later and had a brief lead but at halftime Oxy was up 70-58.  In the second half Oxy's lead never got much bigger than that, and Redlands took a lead 99-97 with about 9 minutes left.  Their lead got as big as about 4 points, but Oxy came back and won something like 125-121 (I didn't have a pen so this is all from memory). 
                       
                      Keys to Oxy's victory:  Oxy has a good team with both athletic ability and skills, including forwards who can dribble and pass (and no one who plays like a traditional center), and decent depth with subs who can come in and give the starters a breather.  Probably even more important:  Oxy showed a lot of signs of having drilled and practiced in preparation for Redlands.  Getting the ball inbounds against Redlands is not easy:  the ball defender turns his back to the inbounder and helps cover cuts to the ball, while the defenders covering the guards will front them -- so the first two cuts to the ball, usually by guards, were almost always well covered.  But Oxy'd often succeed by inbounding the ball to a 3rd cutter, a forward cutting from midcourt who would sprint toward the ball (with a Redlands defender right on his back), or by doing a sort of long-distance backcut:  turn and sprint downcourt for a fullcourt inbounds pass.  The Oxy players knew who would be inbounding the ball, and what cuts the other 4 should make.  After the inbounds pass, they showed excellent skill at breaking the press and double-teams of Redlands, with both passing and dribbling.
                       
                      Those two ingredients meant that Oxy has a good fastbreaking and press-breaking team, and they were clearly looking to run against Redlands, despite how this might seem to play into Redlands' hands. Oxy commited a lot of turnovers with their rushed play, but they also broke the Redlands press time and again and got a ton of layins and dunks too, thanks to their good ballhandling skills by guards and forwards alike.
                       
                      I don't think Oxy attempted a single 3-point shot.
                       
                      I don't know if Oxy was doing something special on defense, but they usually managed to stay reasonably close to the Redlands 3-point shooters.  Oxy was excellent at getting back on defense, and not overcommiting by having 5 men rush downcourt on fastbreaks.  I don't think Oxy gave up a single uncontested layin or wide-open 3-pointer.
                       
                      Late in the game, curiously it looked like it was Redlands who may've run out of gas a little.  There were a few key possessions in which Oxy ran a high-post offense, and the man in the post rather than being double-teamed instantly was left unmolested for a few seconds, and could look for a cutter.  Other times, when an Oxy player got the ball while wide open (due to Redlands double-teams leaving him open), there was an interval in which the Oxy player had a number of choices available:  shoot the ball (but if the player was a non-shooter, or outside of his range, he wouldn't want to do this), or pass the ball, or dribble closer.  Again, the Redlands defense, instead of quickly sending 2 defenders to the ball, seemed to hesitate, giving the Oxy player the luxury of time to wait for a play to develop.  Oxy got some key baskets on these possessions, which were among the very few in which the Redlands defense didn't instantly put maximum pressure on the ball.
                       
                      It'll be interesting to see how this strategy evolves in the SCIAC (the conference that Oxy and Redlands play in).  As time passes, opposing players and coaches will have more time to study and prepare for the Redlands onslaught.  But the Redlands players over time will also have more time to learn the offense and improve their 3-point shooting.  My guess is that the key will be the opposing coaches becoming more familiar with the Grinnell/Redlands strategy and thus being better able to prepare their teams for it, as the Oxy coach evidently did.  Thus my guess is that this will reduce the long-run effectiveness of the strategy, over the years.
                       
                       
                      --MKT
                    • Coach McCormick
                      If you get a chance try to check out Fresno City play if they return to the SoCal area this season. It ounds like they employ a similar, but different style.
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jan 20, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If you get a chance try to check out Fresno City play if they return to the SoCal area this season. It ounds like they employ a similar, but different style. Similar in tempo, different in execution. They also shoot deep threes and substitute at almost every dead ball, but they only play 9-10 players and don't sub in waves. I've heard Moorpark College runs the FCC system, but I'm not sure if it is true. FCC is again #1 in the state and I don't think they have anyone over 6'5; Antelope Valley, otoh, who is #2 or 3, has a 6'5 SG...

                        Michael Tamada <tamada@...> wrote:
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Michael Tamada
                        Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:49 AM

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
                        Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:13 AM
                        [...]
                         
                        >> The Grinnel system, from what I've heard, basically presses with 5 players. They dare teams to go over the top
                        [Michael Tamada] ***  One thing which I remember from an article, I think it was the NYTimes article:  Grinnell substitutes in lines, like in hockey.  5 men at a time, and they use *three* lines!  I.e., 15 players, subbing in and out 5 at a time.  Part of the idea is to bring up pace to such a high level that the other team's players get exhausted -- they'll have subs on the bench, but not an entire 2nd line and 3rd line.
                         
                         
                        This is really college stuff, not pro, but hey it's fun and certainly lends itself to analysis, so ...
                         
                        Last night I watched the Univ of Redlands at Oxy game, and Redlands does indeed appear to be using the Grinnell system, as described in the NYTimes.  The parts that I already knew about:
                         
                        1.  Shoot quickly, often a 3-pointer.
                        2.  Press relentlessly, 100% of the time. If this gambling results in an easy layin for the opponent, go right back downcourt and score 3 on them.
                        3.  Substitute often, and in waves of 5.
                         
                        Some other aspects that I observed about Redlands' strategy, which weren't covered in the NY Times article (or maybe this is what Redlands does, and is different from Grinnell):
                         
                        4.  In halfcourt defense, double team and trap all the time.  In almost all cases, an Oxy player who held the ball more than 1-2 seconds would find a second defender racing toward him.
                        5.  Try not to foul?  I'm not 100% sure if this is part of Redlands' strategy.  But they commited only 7 team fouls in the first half, which is very few given the furious pace of the game and the number of plays being made.  On the other hand, they had about 12 in the second half, not counting a few deliberate fouls they commited during the last minute.  12 still's not that many considering the pace.  It would make sense not to foul, because free throws would give the opponent precious time to rest and catch their breath.
                        6.  Redlands usually substituted about every minute (according to the game clock, not actual elapsed time).  E.g. their first wave of subs came in at 19:05 in the first half.  Sometimes the line would stay in only about 30 seconds or so -- but I think most of those situations were caused by free throws, so even though only 30 seconds of game time passed, enough real time passed that the coach felt it desirable to send in the next wave of subs.
                        7.  Although the waves of subs stayed pretty stable, with the same personnel, they did not stay completely unchanged.  A playeer or two would sometimes bounce from one wave to another. 
                        8.  Redlands didn't shoot that often within the first 5 seconds of a possession (unless it was a quick steal and layup).  But they almost always did shoot within the first 12 seconds.  There was one highly unusual possession where the Oxy defense stopped them from shooting until the 29th second (6 seconds left on the shot clock); one of Redlands' main 3-point shooters finally got a shot off, which was an airball.  But a Redlands player got the offensive rebound and put up another 3-pointer with 2 seconds on the shot clock.  He made it, giving Redlands something like a 3-point lead; for awhile it looked like that play would be back-breaking, but Oxy came back.
                        9.  Redlands' emphasis on 3-pointers, and the defense's resulting adjustments, meant that there were a good number of driving layins available to Redlands ballhandlers.
                        10.  Some of the main 3-point shooters, later in the game, shot from a good 3-4 feet behind the 3-point line.
                         
                        After the first 5 minutes, Oxy was up 24-17.  After 10 minutes, Oxy was up 37-34.  Redlands tied it a few seconds later and had a brief lead but at halftime Oxy was up 70-58.  In the second half Oxy's lead never got much bigger than that, and Redlands took a lead 99-97 with about 9 minutes left.  Their lead got as big as about 4 points, but Oxy came back and won something like 125-121 (I didn't have a pen so this is all from memory). 
                         
                        Keys to Oxy's victory:  Oxy has a good team with both athletic ability and skills, including forwards who can dribble and pass (and no one who plays like a traditional center), and decent depth with subs who can come in and give the starters a breather.  Probably even more important:  Oxy showed a lot of signs of having drilled and practiced in preparation for Redlands.  Getting the ball inbounds against Redlands is not easy:  the ball defender turns his back to the inbounder and helps cover cuts to the ball, while the defenders covering the guards will front them -- so the first two cuts to the ball, usually by guards, were almost always well covered.  But Oxy'd often succeed by inbounding the ball to a 3rd cutter, a forward cutting from midcourt who would sprint toward the ball (with a Redlands defender right on his back), or by doing a sort of long-distance backcut:  turn and sprint downcourt for a fullcourt inbounds pass.  The Oxy players knew who would be inbounding the ball, and what cuts the other 4 should make.  After the inbounds pass, they showed excellent skill at breaking the press and double-teams of Redlands, with both passing and dribbling.
                         
                        Those two ingredients meant that Oxy has a good fastbreaking and press-breaking team, and they were clearly looking to run against Redlands, despite how this might seem to play into Redlands' hands. Oxy commited a lot of turnovers with their rushed play, but they also broke the Redlands press time and again and got a ton of layins and dunks too, thanks to their good ballhandling skills by guards and forwards alike.
                         
                        I don't think Oxy attempted a single 3-point shot.
                         
                        I don't know if Oxy was doing something special on defense, but they usually managed to stay reasonably close to the Redlands 3-point shooters.  Oxy was excellent at getting back on defense, and not overcommiting by having 5 men rush downcourt on fastbreaks.  I don't think Oxy gave up a single uncontested layin or wide-open 3-pointer.
                         
                        Late in the game, curiously it looked like it was Redlands who may've run out of gas a little.  There were a few key possessions in which Oxy ran a high-post offense, and the man in the post rather than being double-teamed instantly was left unmolested for a few seconds, and could look for a cutter.  Other times, when an Oxy player got the ball while wide open (due to Redlands double-teams leaving him open), there was an interval in which the Oxy player had a number of choices available:  shoot the ball (but if the player was a non-shooter, or outside of his range, he wouldn't want to do this), or pass the ball, or dribble closer.  Again, the Redlands defense, instead of quickly sending 2 defenders to the ball, seemed to hesitate, giving the Oxy player the luxury of time to wait for a play to develop.  Oxy got some key baskets on these possessions, which were among the very few in which the Redlands defense didn't instantly put maximum pressure on the ball.
                         
                        It'll be interesting to see how this strategy evolves in the SCIAC (the conference that Oxy and Redlands play in).  As time passes, opposing players and coaches will have more time to study and prepare for the Redlands onslaught.  But the Redlands players over time will also have more time to learn the offense and improve their 3-point shooting.  My guess is that the key will be the opposing coaches becoming more familiar with the Grinnell/Redlands strategy and thus being better able to prepare their teams for it, as the Oxy coach evidently did.  Thus my guess is that this will reduce the long-run effectiveness of the strategy, over the years.
                         
                         
                        --MKT


                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
                      • Michael Tamada
                        Alas, it looks like the farthest south they will get is Coalinga. 20-0 is mighty impressive, eyeballing their scores however it looks like their typical score
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jan 20, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Alas, it looks like the farthest south they will get is Coalinga.  20-0 is mighty impressive, eyeballing their scores however it looks like their typical score is about 110-85.  Impressive victory margin, but not as many points as Redlands and Grinnell typically score.
                           
                          Moorpark College of course is in southern Calif (albeit out toward Ventura County), but their scores look less impressive; 6-10 record and a typical score of perhaps 80-80 -- an appreciably faster pace (judging from the scores anyway) than say the 59-58 victory of Kansas over Nebraska last night, but not even as fast as Duke's 92-83 win over UMiami.  So uptempo, yes, but not the frantic frenetic tempo of Redlands.
                           
                           
                          --MKT
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:25 AM
                          To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: run and gun

                          If you get a chance try to check out Fresno City play if they return to the SoCal area this season. It ounds like they employ a similar, but different style. Similar in tempo, different in execution. They also shoot deep threes and substitute at almost every dead ball, but they only play 9-10 players and don't sub in waves. I've heard Moorpark College runs the FCC system, but I'm not sure if it is true. FCC is again #1 in the state and I don't think they have anyone over 6'5; Antelope Valley, otoh, who is #2 or 3, has a 6'5 SG...

                          Michael Tamada <tamada@...> wrote:
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Michael Tamada
                          Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:49 AM

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
                          Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:13 AM
                          [...]
                           
                          >> The Grinnel system, from what I've heard, basically presses with 5 players. They dare teams to go over the top
                          [Michael Tamada] ***  One thing which I remember from an article, I think it was the NYTimes article:  Grinnell substitutes in lines, like in hockey.  5 men at a time, and they use *three* lines!  I.e., 15 players, subbing in and out 5 at a time.  Part of the idea is to bring up pace to such a high level that the other team's players get exhausted -- they'll have subs on the bench, but not an entire 2nd line and 3rd line.
                           
                           
                          This is really college stuff, not pro, but hey it's fun and certainly lends itself to analysis, so ...
                           
                          Last night I watched the Univ of Redlands at Oxy game, and Redlands does indeed appear to be using the Grinnell system, as described in the NYTimes.  The parts that I already knew about:
                           
                          1.  Shoot quickly, often a 3-pointer.
                          2.  Press relentlessly, 100% of the time. If this gambling results in an easy layin for the opponent, go right back downcourt and score 3 on them.
                          3.  Substitute often, and in waves of 5.
                           
                          Some other aspects that I observed about Redlands' strategy, which weren't covered in the NY Times article (or maybe this is what Redlands does, and is different from Grinnell):
                           
                          4.  In halfcourt defense, double team and trap all the time.  In almost all cases, an Oxy player who held the ball more than 1-2 seconds would find a second defender racing toward him.
                          5.  Try not to foul?  I'm not 100% sure if this is part of Redlands' strategy.  But they commited only 7 team fouls in the first half, which is very few given the furious pace of the game and the number of plays being made.  On the other hand, they had about 12 in the second half, not counting a few deliberate fouls they commited during the last minute.  12 still's not that many considering the pace.  It would make sense not to foul, because free throws would give the opponent precious time to rest and catch their breath.
                          6.  Redlands usually substituted about every minute (according to the game clock, not actual elapsed time).  E.g. their first wave of subs came in at 19:05 in the first half.  Sometimes the line would stay in only about 30 seconds or so -- but I think most of those situations were caused by free throws, so even though only 30 seconds of game time passed, enough real time passed that the coach felt it desirable to send in the next wave of subs.
                          7.  Although the waves of subs stayed pretty stable, with the same personnel, they did not stay completely unchanged.  A playeer or two would sometimes bounce from one wave to another. 
                          8.  Redlands didn't shoot that often within the first 5 seconds of a possession (unless it was a quick steal and layup).  But they almost always did shoot within the first 12 seconds.  There was one highly unusual possession where the Oxy defense stopped them from shooting until the 29th second (6 seconds left on the shot clock); one of Redlands' main 3-point shooters finally got a shot off, which was an airball.  But a Redlands player got the offensive rebound and put up another 3-pointer with 2 seconds on the shot clock.  He made it, giving Redlands something like a 3-point lead; for awhile it looked like that play would be back-breaking, but Oxy came back.
                          9.  Redlands' emphasis on 3-pointers, and the defense's resulting adjustments, meant that there were a good number of driving layins available to Redlands ballhandlers.
                          10.  Some of the main 3-point shooters, later in the game, shot from a good 3-4 feet behind the 3-point line.
                           
                          After the first 5 minutes, Oxy was up 24-17.  After 10 minutes, Oxy was up 37-34.  Redlands tied it a few seconds later and had a brief lead but at halftime Oxy was up 70-58.  In the second half Oxy's lead never got much bigger than that, and Redlands took a lead 99-97 with about 9 minutes left.  Their lead got as big as about 4 points, but Oxy came back and won something like 125-121 (I didn't have a pen so this is all from memory). 
                           
                          Keys to Oxy's victory:  Oxy has a good team with both athletic ability and skills, including forwards who can dribble and pass (and no one who plays like a traditional center), and decent depth with subs who can come in and give the starters a breather.  Probably even more important:  Oxy showed a lot of signs of having drilled and practiced in preparation for Redlands.  Getting the ball inbounds against Redlands is not easy:  the ball defender turns his back to the inbounder and helps cover cuts to the ball, while the defenders covering the guards will front them -- so the first two cuts to the ball, usually by guards, were almost always well covered.  But Oxy'd often succeed by inbounding the ball to a 3rd cutter, a forward cutting from midcourt who would sprint toward the ball (with a Redlands defender right on his back), or by doing ! a sort of long-distance backcut:  turn and sprint downcourt for a fullcourt inbounds pass.  The Oxy players knew who would be inbounding the ball, and what cuts the other 4 should make.  After the inbounds pass, they showed excellent skill at breaking the press and double-teams of Redlands, with both passing and dribbling.
                           
                          Those two ingredients meant that Oxy has a good fastbreaking and press-breaking team, and they were clearly looking to run against Redlands, despite how this might seem to play into Redlands' hands. Oxy commited a lot of turnovers with their rushed play, but they also broke the Redlands press time and again and got a ton of layins and dunks too, thanks to their good ballhandling skills by guards and forwards alike.
                           
                          I don't think Oxy attempted a single 3-point shot.
                           
                          I don't know if Oxy was doing something special on defense, but they usually managed to stay reasonably close to the Redlands 3-point shooters.  Oxy was excellent at getting back on defense, and not overcommiting by having 5 men rush downcourt on fastbreaks.  I don't think Oxy gave up a single uncontested layin or wide-open 3-pointer.
                           
                          Late in the game, curiously it looked like it was Redlands who may've run out of gas a little.  There were a few key possessions in which Oxy ran a high-post offense, and the man in the post rather than being double-teamed instantly was left unmolested for a few seconds, and could look for a cutter.  Other times, when an Oxy player got the ball while wide open (due to Redlands double-teams leaving him open), there was an interval in which the Oxy player had a number of choices available:  shoot the ball (but if the player was a non-shooter, or outside of his range, he wouldn't want to do this), or pass the ball, or dribble closer.  Again, the Redlands defense, instead of quickly sending 2 defenders to the ball, seemed to hesitate, giving the Oxy player the luxury of time to wait for a play to develop.  Oxy got some key baskets on these posses! sions, which were among the very few in which the Redlands defense didn't instantly put maximum pressure on the ball.
                           
                          It'll be interesting to see how this strategy evolves in the SCIAC (the conference that Oxy and Redlands play in).  As time passes, opposing players and coaches will have more time to study and prepare for the Redlands onslaught.  But the Redlands players over time will also have more time to learn the offense and improve their 3-point shooting.  My guess is that the key will be the opposing coaches becoming more familiar with the Grinnell/Redlands strategy and thus being better able to prepare their teams for it, as the Oxy coach evidently did.  Thus my guess is that this will reduce the long-run effectiveness of the strategy, over the years.
                           
                           
                          --MKT


                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

                        • Michael Tamada
                          This Sunday s LA Times had a big article by Bill Plaschke about the University of Redlands and their Grinnell-style strategy; the article coincidentally
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 25, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This Sunday's LA Times had a big article by Bill Plaschke about the University of Redlands and their Grinnell-style strategy; the article coincidentally centered around the Redlands at Occidental game that I attended.
                             
                             
                            The online version of the article doesn't have a graph showing Redlands' game-by-game scores, which also says that at 139 points per game, they're on a pace to set an NCAA record for points per game.
                             
                             
                            --MKT
                          • Coach McCormick
                            is it true they are 0-4 in league. I read that on another web site. B Michael Tamada wrote: This Sunday s LA Times had a big article by Bill
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 25, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              is it true they are 0-4 in league. I read that on another web site.
                               
                              B

                              Michael Tamada <tamada@...> wrote:
                              This Sunday's LA Times had a big article by Bill Plaschke about the University of Redlands and their Grinnell-style strategy; the article coincidentally centered around the Redlands at Occidental game that I attended.
                               
                               
                              The online version of the article doesn't have a graph showing Redlands' game-by-game scores, which also says that at 139 points per game, they're on a pace to set an NCAA record for points per game.
                               
                               
                              --MKT


                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

                            • Michael Tamada
                              Yup, the article and Redlands website both say 0-4. I conjecture that the rest of the conference is better prepared each year for them ... non-conference
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jan 25, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yup, the article and Redlands' website both say 0-4.  I conjecture that the rest of the conference is better prepared each year for them ... non-conference teams would have a tougher time, not seeing them twice every year.  Or maybe the teams they've played just happen to be the tough ones in the league, I don't know. 
                                 
                                --MKT
                                 
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Coach McCormick [mailto:highfivehoopschool@...]
                                Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 8:24 AM
                                To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: run and gun

                                is it true they are 0-4 in league. I read that on another web site.
                                 
                                B

                                Michael Tamada <tamada@...> wrote:
                                This Sunday's LA Times had a big article by Bill Plaschke about the University of Redlands and their Grinnell-style strategy; the article coincidentally centered around the Redlands at Occidental game that I attended.
                                 
                                 
                                The online version of the article doesn't have a graph showing Redlands' game-by-game scores, which also says that at 139 points per game, they're on a pace to set an NCAA record for points per game.
                                 
                                 
                                --MKT


                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

                              • Dean Oliver
                                ... that the rest of the conference is better prepared each year for them ... non-conference teams would have a tougher time, not seeing them twice every year.
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jan 25, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > Yup, the article and Redlands' website both say 0-4. I conjecture
                                  that the rest of the conference is better prepared each year for them
                                  ... non-conference teams would have a tougher time, not seeing them
                                  twice every year. Or maybe the teams they've played just happen to be
                                  the tough ones in the league, I don't know.

                                  The SCIAC page hasn't been updated, interestingly.

                                  That style should keep a team competitive and Redlands' conference
                                  games have all been quite tight. Losses of 1, 4, 7, and 16 points.
                                  They have been blown out of only one game seemingly, 1 28 pt loss to
                                  CA Baptist, a good team (153-181!). Caltech plays them this weekend
                                  and, though Tech is not the lowest rated team in D3 this year, it
                                  should be ugly. But, wait, we actually played Whittier to a 70-76
                                  game the other night and Whittier is 11-4! Here comes the Beavers!

                                  DeanO

                                  Dean Oliver
                                  Consultant to the Seattle Supersonics
                                  Author, Basketball on Paper
                                  http://www.basketballonpaper.com
                                  "Basketball on Paper is a revolutionary strike for statistical
                                  analysis of the game of basketball..." Hoopsworld.com's Kevin Pelton
                                • Michael Tamada
                                  ... From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@rawbw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:24 PM [...] ... I might go to the Caltech game, since it s so nearby and it s
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jan 25, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@...]
                                    Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:24 PM


                                    [...]

                                    >That style should keep a team competitive and Redlands' conference
                                    >games have all been quite tight. Losses of 1, 4, 7, and 16 points.
                                    >They have been blown out of only one game seemingly, 1 28 pt loss to
                                    >CA Baptist, a good team (153-181!). Caltech plays them this weekend
                                    >and, though Tech is not the lowest rated team in D3 this year, it
                                    >should be ugly. But, wait, we actually played Whittier to a 70-76
                                    >game the other night and Whittier is 11-4! Here comes the Beavers!

                                    I might go to the Caltech game, since it's so nearby and it's
                                    interesting to watch the Redlands O and D in action. The annoying
                                    part is that I think Caltech charges $5 to enter their gym. If
                                    Oxy's got free admission, Caltech should be giving money to us to
                                    watch!

                                    I was on the verge of predicting a score like 180-30, but last
                                    year the Redlands vs Caltech scores were 127-32 and 120-43, so
                                    those are probably more realistic.


                                    --MKT
                                  • Michael Tamada
                                    ... From: Michael Tamada Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:26 PM ... If anyone s interested (probably only DeanO), here s my report from the Redlands @
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jan 31, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Michael Tamada
                                      Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:26 PM


                                      >-----Original Message-----
                                      >From: Dean Oliver [mailto:deano@...]
                                      >Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:24 PM
                                      >
                                      >[...]
                                      >
                                      >>That style should keep a team competitive and Redlands' conference
                                      >>games have all been quite tight. Losses of 1, 4, 7, and 16 points.
                                      >>They have been blown out of only one game seemingly, 1 28 pt loss to
                                      >>CA Baptist, a good team (153-181!). Caltech plays them this weekend
                                      >>and, though Tech is not the lowest rated team in D3 this year, it
                                      >>should be ugly. But, wait, we actually played Whittier to a 70-76
                                      >>game the other night and Whittier is 11-4! Here comes the Beavers!
                                      >
                                      >I might go to the Caltech game, since it's so nearby and it's

                                      If anyone's interested (probably only DeanO), here's my report
                                      from the Redlands @ Caltech game.

                                      The score was pretty lopsided, but not as lopsided as I'd been
                                      expecting; 155-107. Redlands looked sloppier and less accurate
                                      at 3-pointers than they had in the game I saw earlier, at least
                                      early on (looking at the box scores though, they shot 33% or 34%
                                      in both games). Caltech stayed quite close early on, but around
                                      the middle of the first half, Redlands' 3-pointers started
                                      falling, the Caltech turnovers started increasing (they finished
                                      the game with 52, compared to 18 for Redlands), and Redlands
                                      led at halftime 77-51. Second half was more of the same.

                                      Some differences between this game and the Oxy game:

                                      The Caltech game was a foul-fest; 74 fouls total. Caltech
                                      attempted more free throws (62) than field goals (54)! The
                                      Oxy game had only 42 fouls total, including the deliberate
                                      fouls late in the gmae.

                                      Bad blood between the teams? There was at least one flagrant foul
                                      (or whatever they call it in the NCAA -- a foul on a breakaway),
                                      and 2 technical fouls called on both Redlands and Caltech. I
                                      couldn't figure out what a single one of the technicals was for
                                      however; and I didn't see or hear any unusual woofing amongst
                                      the players (this being Caltech, I was able to sit in the second
                                      row from the court). Some annoying hecklers among the Caltech
                                      crowd was all I could detect (one of the Redlands fans took to
                                      calling one of the Caltech hecklers "7-Up", for the 7-Up bottle
                                      he was carrying around and swilling from, and which pretty
                                      clearly did not contain 7-Up).

                                      Redlands initially treated the inbounder the way they did
                                      against Oxy: that inbounder's defender would turn his
                                      back to the ball and look for cutters to run out and cover.
                                      But after maybe the first two minutes, Redlands switched to
                                      the more common tactic of having the defender face the
                                      inbounder and try to block his pass directly. Why they
                                      did this I don't know; it didn't seem to me to be more
                                      effective than their back-to-the-inbounder tactic.

                                      Caltech attempted only one 3-pointer during the entire game,
                                      similar to Oxy (which attempted none). It's not clear to
                                      me that this is a good strategy; on the other hand, Oxy
                                      shot 74% on 2-pointers and even Caltech shot 63%, so these
                                      could be teams who, by going for the break-the-trap-and-
                                      get-a-layin strategy, shoot so well on 2-pointers that
                                      the 3-pointer becomes a useless weapon.

                                      I'd been expecting about a 70-point blowout but Caltech
                                      made it a lot closer than that, thanks mainly to their
                                      three best players:

                                      Jordan Carlson, who I'd seen as a freshman two years ago.
                                      At 6'5" he's one of Caltech's tallest players, but even
                                      as a freshman he frequently served as a PG.

                                      Bryan Hires is a 6'6" freshman; he doesn't have Carlson's
                                      PG capabilities, but can still dribble and pass in the
                                      open court. More importantly, both are athletic and
                                      skilled; they blocked 6 shots between them and were
                                      among Caltech's top 2 or 3 scorers and rebounders.
                                      Carlson's 13 turnovers (ouch) were not a positive, but
                                      I don't know how many of them were literally his fault
                                      vs. Caltech's general wilting against Redlands' press
                                      and traps.

                                      What I didn't see either of them do was hit many
                                      outside shots; on the other hand Caltech was clearly
                                      concentrating on looking for layins, so they didn't
                                      attempt many.

                                      The third player was junior Day Ivy, at 5'11" (meaning
                                      he's probably actually 5'9") he is short even for a Caltech
                                      player. But being from Inglewood and evidently African
                                      American makes him even more unusual for a Caltecher. He's
                                      got very good quickness and athleticism. His 5th foul
                                      with about 10 minutes left, along with Hires foulling out
                                      at about the same time, put the final nails in Caltech's
                                      coffin; albeit their doom had been pretty much sealed in
                                      the first half anyway.

                                      The bleachers were almost full -- of course these are
                                      very small bleachers, I estimate attendance at about
                                      300, which was still about twice as many as I was
                                      expecting.


                                      --MKT
                                    • Mike Harris
                                      ... Not to be a wet blanket, but that wouldn t work. You can t buzz in until Alex is done reading and a little light comes on. If you do buzz before that,
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Feb 1 7:44 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mike G wrote:

                                        >The Grinnell style makes me think of how I was thinking of getting
                                        >on Jeopardy and playing: just press the buzzer every time,
                                        >immediately. Shut out the other players; hit and miss a bunch. The
                                        >competition might get frustrated, copy my style, and do even worse.
                                        >
                                        >At some point the "travesty" laws might be invoked. When a strategy
                                        >just buries your chances, and yet you persist, what else would it be
                                        >called?
                                        >
                                        Not to be a wet blanket, but that wouldn't work. You can't buzz in
                                        until Alex is done reading and a little light comes on. If you do buzz
                                        before that, you're locked out of buzzing (for a certain number of
                                        seconds I believe). That's why the ability to time the buzzer is so
                                        important.
                                      • John Hollinger
                                        For those who somehow have missed all the promos, Grinnell will be on ESPN2 tonight at 9, which I guess is 6 for practically everyone else here except Dan and
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Feb 3 11:08 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          For those who somehow have missed all the promos, Grinnell will be on ESPN2 tonight at
                                          9, which I guess is 6 for practically everyone else here except Dan and me.


                                          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Mike Harris <GENIE@p...> wrote:
                                          > Mike G wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >The Grinnell style makes me think of how I was thinking of getting
                                          > >on Jeopardy and playing: just press the buzzer every time,
                                          > >immediately. Shut out the other players; hit and miss a bunch. The
                                          > >competition might get frustrated, copy my style, and do even worse.
                                          > >
                                          > >At some point the "travesty" laws might be invoked. When a strategy
                                          > >just buries your chances, and yet you persist, what else would it be
                                          > >called?
                                          > >
                                          > Not to be a wet blanket, but that wouldn't work. You can't buzz in
                                          > until Alex is done reading and a little light comes on. If you do buzz
                                          > before that, you're locked out of buzzing (for a certain number of
                                          > seconds I believe). That's why the ability to time the buzzer is so
                                          > important.
                                        • Coach McCormick
                                          my take: http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com John Hollinger wrote: For those who somehow have missed all the promos, Grinnell will be
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Feb 3 11:22 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            my take: http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com

                                            John Hollinger <alleyoop2@...> wrote:

                                            For those who somehow have missed all the promos, Grinnell will be on ESPN2 tonight at
                                            9, which I guess is 6 for practically everyone else here except Dan and me.


                                            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Mike Harris <GENIE@p...> wrote:
                                            > Mike G wrote:
                                            >
                                            > >The Grinnell style makes me think of how I was thinking of getting
                                            > >on Jeopardy and playing: just press the buzzer every time,
                                            > >immediately.  Shut out the other players; hit and miss a bunch.  The
                                            > >competition might get frustrated, copy my style, and do even worse.
                                            > >
                                            > >At some point the "travesty" laws might be invoked.  When a strategy
                                            > >just buries your chances, and yet you persist, what else would it be
                                            > >called?
                                            > >
                                            > Not to be a wet blanket, but that wouldn't work.  You can't buzz in
                                            > until Alex is done reading and a little light comes on.  If you do buzz
                                            > before that, you're locked out of buzzing (for a certain number of
                                            > seconds I believe).  That's why the ability to time the buzzer is so
                                            > important.




                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.