Tweet
I think this deserves its own topic, since it’s (1) been going on for a while, (2) been a key part of the last 2 losses, and (3) going to be the theme/s that dictate what happens and what we’re talking about in March.
Plus, the Taylor Eldridge article and Marshall quotes brought it to a head.
Plus #2, I want to hear what other long-time observers of the program in general and Marshall coaching style in particular think.
First of all, when you look at record, ranking, youth/inexperience, and some of the stats I’m going to throw out, I think a major hat tip is due to the players and Marshall for matching or exceeding the highest expectations we could have had at this point in the season. We should all keep that in mind and have faith that this is building a foundation for something special (as long as it’s used for growth).
HOWEVER
Am I nuts for thinking that on the offensive end Marshall is coaching (or otherwise allowing to happen) a completely different style of basketball than what in my opinion generated the consistent success?
(To oversimplify, that was value the ball/possessions more than your opponent, be disciplined with shot selection, share the ball, always have rebounders offensively, etc to optimize offensive possessions)
His quote about guys worrying about their stats is concerning on multiple levels.
So, I decided to see what team stats were available and if I could confirm or refute what I thought I saw/remembered with my firsthand observations over the years.
What I found was pretty interesting.
STAT ATTACK
General Success:
This is Marshall’s 13th team at Wichita State. I think all of us around at the beginning remember the general flow of success with those early teams, and then as it continued to the NCAA tournament years. But a quick recap of one stat that gives you a general idea, which is winning percentage in those 13 years, with this season’s 83 percent at the end:
36, 50, 71, 78, 82*, 77*, 97*, 86*, 74*, 86*, 76*, 60, 83 (* denotes NCAA tournament)
Offensive Rebounding (D1 Team Rank out of ~350, 13 seasons, in chronological order):
95, 115, 119, 58, 173, 4, 48, 49, 62, 22, 44, 12, 29
Conclusion: You can definitely see the migration, but this year’s team is firmly on the right side of the ledger. No problems with that part of the possession.
3 Point Shooting Percentage (D1 Team Rank, chronological order):
324, 257, 97, 115, 57*, 175*, 146*, 116*, 63*, 86*, 45*, 325, 199
Conclusion: Worst 3 point shooting team of the Marshall Era NCAA Tournament teams (if they make it).
2 Point Shooting Percentage (D1 Team Rank, chronological order):
204, 118, 117, 32, 16*, 90*, 167*, 120*, 162*, 134*, 52*, 302, 323
Conclusion: Worst of the Marshall Era. Also speaks to the outstanding nature of defense, rebounding, and other parts of the game that we could be ranked with that dynamic in play.
So, the shooting from both 2 and 3 is either worst of the Marshall Era or worst of the Marshall NCAA Tournament Era. Why? My hypothesis from observations – and backed up by Marshall quotes – is that this team doesn’t share the ball and leverage each other like historical teams. Based on my playing experience, when you play like this, everyone gets a marginally tougher shot, shooting percentages go down, and the W/L column goes the wrong way. The only other stat I had available was…
Team Assists (D1 Rank, chronological order):
230, 106, 51, 11, 52*, 25*, 53*, 63*, 86*, 14*, 8*, 66, 111
Conclusion: Whoa. If you throw the first and second seasons (which I do) when Marshall wasn’t necessarily coaching players he recruited, this team is sharing the basketball less – at least by the only statistical measure available to me – than any other Marshall team.
So – I think the conclusion speaks for itself and the stats appear to back it up. If you splice together all of the shot attempts that result from the offense, it’s pretty clear that this year’s team has far more one on one, contested, deep 3s early, etc etc etc that you wouldn’t otherwise want to happen unless it was an under 5 second situation.
The thought I would put into the head of the guys who are playing and concerned with their stats (as it pertains to earning a living playing professional basketball) is this:
I didn’t play D1 or pro and have no idea what it takes. Maybe somebody who did or is close to the program will laugh what I’m about to say.
But, my opinion is that Ron Baker doesn’t get to step on an NBA floor without that 35-0 team. I’d like to think that we live in a world where the cream rises purely and quickly to the top because there is no friction and we live in a completely pure meritocracy… but at my age/experience I know that is BS. In other words, I’m not sure Fred is where he is without the sheer number of Ws that were generated. Or Tekele, Cle, etc.
So – what I mean is that the level of professional success these guys have is a direct offshoot of program success that they were a part of , because in general and in tiebreaker situations people like winners.
And a far more eloquent way of saying it is a quote I used to give the kids that I coached:
Now this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky,
And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back,
For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
-Rudyard Kipling
Alright fellas, I have to get to the gym. I look forward to reading comments and additions/edits/etc.
Onward and Upward
Good News
Plus, the Taylor Eldridge article and Marshall quotes brought it to a head.
Plus #2, I want to hear what other long-time observers of the program in general and Marshall coaching style in particular think.
First of all, when you look at record, ranking, youth/inexperience, and some of the stats I’m going to throw out, I think a major hat tip is due to the players and Marshall for matching or exceeding the highest expectations we could have had at this point in the season. We should all keep that in mind and have faith that this is building a foundation for something special (as long as it’s used for growth).
HOWEVER
Am I nuts for thinking that on the offensive end Marshall is coaching (or otherwise allowing to happen) a completely different style of basketball than what in my opinion generated the consistent success?
(To oversimplify, that was value the ball/possessions more than your opponent, be disciplined with shot selection, share the ball, always have rebounders offensively, etc to optimize offensive possessions)
His quote about guys worrying about their stats is concerning on multiple levels.
So, I decided to see what team stats were available and if I could confirm or refute what I thought I saw/remembered with my firsthand observations over the years.
What I found was pretty interesting.
STAT ATTACK
General Success:
This is Marshall’s 13th team at Wichita State. I think all of us around at the beginning remember the general flow of success with those early teams, and then as it continued to the NCAA tournament years. But a quick recap of one stat that gives you a general idea, which is winning percentage in those 13 years, with this season’s 83 percent at the end:
36, 50, 71, 78, 82*, 77*, 97*, 86*, 74*, 86*, 76*, 60, 83 (* denotes NCAA tournament)
Offensive Rebounding (D1 Team Rank out of ~350, 13 seasons, in chronological order):
95, 115, 119, 58, 173, 4, 48, 49, 62, 22, 44, 12, 29
Conclusion: You can definitely see the migration, but this year’s team is firmly on the right side of the ledger. No problems with that part of the possession.
3 Point Shooting Percentage (D1 Team Rank, chronological order):
324, 257, 97, 115, 57*, 175*, 146*, 116*, 63*, 86*, 45*, 325, 199
Conclusion: Worst 3 point shooting team of the Marshall Era NCAA Tournament teams (if they make it).
2 Point Shooting Percentage (D1 Team Rank, chronological order):
204, 118, 117, 32, 16*, 90*, 167*, 120*, 162*, 134*, 52*, 302, 323
Conclusion: Worst of the Marshall Era. Also speaks to the outstanding nature of defense, rebounding, and other parts of the game that we could be ranked with that dynamic in play.
So, the shooting from both 2 and 3 is either worst of the Marshall Era or worst of the Marshall NCAA Tournament Era. Why? My hypothesis from observations – and backed up by Marshall quotes – is that this team doesn’t share the ball and leverage each other like historical teams. Based on my playing experience, when you play like this, everyone gets a marginally tougher shot, shooting percentages go down, and the W/L column goes the wrong way. The only other stat I had available was…
Team Assists (D1 Rank, chronological order):
230, 106, 51, 11, 52*, 25*, 53*, 63*, 86*, 14*, 8*, 66, 111
Conclusion: Whoa. If you throw the first and second seasons (which I do) when Marshall wasn’t necessarily coaching players he recruited, this team is sharing the basketball less – at least by the only statistical measure available to me – than any other Marshall team.
So – I think the conclusion speaks for itself and the stats appear to back it up. If you splice together all of the shot attempts that result from the offense, it’s pretty clear that this year’s team has far more one on one, contested, deep 3s early, etc etc etc that you wouldn’t otherwise want to happen unless it was an under 5 second situation.
The thought I would put into the head of the guys who are playing and concerned with their stats (as it pertains to earning a living playing professional basketball) is this:
I didn’t play D1 or pro and have no idea what it takes. Maybe somebody who did or is close to the program will laugh what I’m about to say.
But, my opinion is that Ron Baker doesn’t get to step on an NBA floor without that 35-0 team. I’d like to think that we live in a world where the cream rises purely and quickly to the top because there is no friction and we live in a completely pure meritocracy… but at my age/experience I know that is BS. In other words, I’m not sure Fred is where he is without the sheer number of Ws that were generated. Or Tekele, Cle, etc.
So – what I mean is that the level of professional success these guys have is a direct offshoot of program success that they were a part of , because in general and in tiebreaker situations people like winners.
And a far more eloquent way of saying it is a quote I used to give the kids that I coached:
Now this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky,
And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back,
For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
-Rudyard Kipling
Alright fellas, I have to get to the gym. I look forward to reading comments and additions/edits/etc.
Onward and Upward
Good News