UCLA lost to ASU yesterday and went 12:00 without scoring. Of course, ASU went 6:00 with only one basket to end the game and likely had other streaks of offensive ineptitude. ASU won 61-58 in a game that went to overtime. Sounds like a battle of terrible offensive teams, right? That is the sentiment on the UCLA site and in emails I have received from UCLA alums. Everyone, it seems, thinks UCLA is a terrible offensive team, from the L.A. Times to the O.C. Register to CBS to the fans.
However, when you adjust for the pace of the game, UCLA is the 4th most efficient offense in NCAA DI basketball according to stats guru Ken Pomeroy. Guess who's #1?
Arizona State.
Take a minute for that to sink in.
The offensive juggernaut that is North Carolina is #3, trailing ASU and Utah State and just ahead of UCLA and Connecticut. Want another surprise? Pittsburgh, another team known for its defense, is sixth in offensive efficiency.
How can this be?
UCLA plays at the 283th fastest pace, while Arizona State plays at the 330th fastest pace. North Carolina, on the other hand, plays at the third fastest pace. North Carolina, on average, has 14 more offensive possessions per game than UCLA and 17 more than Arizona State.
So, what happens in a game featuring two of the slowest teams in the country?
That's right. The game is even slower. UCLA averages 64.2 possessions per game. By my quick math, using Pomeroy's numbers, yesterday's game, in overtime, had 57 possessions. FWIW, Denver and Iowa are the two slowest teams in the country, and they average 56.9 and 57.2 possessions per game.
57 possessions in a 45 minute game is about 1.2 possessions per minute. So, when UCLA goes 12 minutes without scoring, they basically went 12 possessions.
If the game was played at Carolina's pace (78.2 possessions per game), that would be a 6:00 streak. Going 6:00 without a basket is still a long streak, but certainly not unheard of.
The difference is the pace of the game. Because the game was played at such a slow tempo, every possession and every miscue is exaggerated.
The L.A. Times led with the headline that Arizona State provided the game plan to beat UCLA and spoke about Arizona State's defense. Yes, Arizona State runs a very good match-up zone. However, ASU's defense is only fifth in the Pac-10 in defensive efficiency, ranking behind Washington State, Washington, UCLA and USC.
It was not ASU's defense which decided the game, despite what people saw. The best aspect of UCLA's defense is its ability to generate turnovers. It is 21st in the country, creating turnovers on 25% of its defensive possessions. However, ASU only committed 8 turnovers (14% of possessions) and several were dead ball turnovers (shot clock violation, offensive fouls) that did not lead to lay-ups for UCLA.
ASU did provide the game plan to beat UCLA, but it probably works for almost any team. If you do not turn over the ball and you shoot twice as many free throws as your opponent, you are very likely to win almost every game. That is Duke's formula for success: make more free throws than the other team attempts and do not commit a lot of turnovers.
Now, UCLA's offense, by no means, was spectacular. They did have an off-day. However, not to the magnitude that everyone has suggested. Collison has been shooting 60% in Pac-10 games and he went 4-14. Roll has been shooting 57% from the 3-point line and he went 1-5.
UCLA took most of the same shots and played in the same, slow fashion that they usually play. The difference, however, is that they missed shots that they had been making and Arizona State did not turn over the ball,which prevented the several easy baskets UCLA typically gets because of its high turnover percentage on defense. Combined with a 17-8 free throw disadvantage, which was largely due to some silly fouls by UCLA, ASU's zone defense and the lack of steals by UCLA, you can see why UCLA lost and why the score was so low.
However, as the objective statistics illustrate, UCLA is not a terrible offensive teams and the UCLA universe is not about to implode.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Coach Brian,
Although I agree with the quantitative elements of your article that presents the 'points per possession' analysis, I have a different issue: The Bruins allowed the Sun Devil zone to look world class because they chose to 'trim the edges' rather than 'puncture' with dribble penetration or precise passes into the mid or hi-post areas. During the 12:00 minute stretch, the Bruins seemed uncharacteristically content to toss the ball around the perimeter until the lateness of the shot clock forced a contested 'pull-up' off the bounce. If a team ends up with an off-balance 3-point attempts or a contested jump shot late in the shot clock, the zone has never been attacked. Even when one is making shots on the perimeter, solid zone offensive strategy mandates purposeful, aggressive dribble penetration. I didn't see a simple screening action on the top two defenders to force some aspect of a 'two scrambling to defend three players' paradigm. I have long since accepted Coach Howland's style but, by definition, it leaves a razor thin margin of error. The fewer the aggregate possessions in a game, the heightened value of each possession. Fewer possessions demands higher team efficacy on both offense and defense executional matters. Assist-to- turnover ratios and Field Goal percentage become paramount when one chooses this style. I'm not in weeping and gnashing of teeth category, but I will reiterate: if this is the style one chooses to play, efficiency and precise execution must be the team marching orders. And, you place a onerous burden on your perimeter game if your primary zone attack is built on making passes from the 'wing to the corner to the top.'
-Lindell.
But, that is the exact point: UCLA limits possessions AND is very efficient, which is why they win.
I'm not arguing for or against their zone offense. My simple point, however, is that subjectively, everyone from the media to UCLA fans believes that UCLA is a terrible offensive team and the objective numbers state otherwise.
People believe they know what a "good" offense is when they see it. They imagine teams fast breaking and shooting quickly. But, a 17-foot jump shot off one pass with 30 seconds left on the shot clock is a ridiculously poor shot attempt whether it looks like "good" offense or not.
UCLA shoots a high percentage of three-point shots and makes a high percentage of three-point shots, and hey usually generate lay-ups off steals.
Against ASU, they did not generate lay-ups off steals because ASU had at most, 5 live ball turnovers.
And, UCLA missed shots that it had been making in previous games - Collison hadn't missed a shot like his final jumper in 10 games.
UCLA did attack the high post - Roll caught the ball, Collison caught the ball, Shipp, etc. The difference was that against Arizona, Roll was wide open and made an elbow jumper, while against ASU, Pendergraph was there with an arm up to contest. When Collison made a dribble move, his pass to Aboya was not open and he was stuck in the key with Pendergraph and had to pivot and pass out.
Now, if the argument is that ASU did a good job scouting UCLA's attack against Arizona and eliminating UCLA's initial preferences, and that Howland failed to adjust to ASU's adjustments, that's a fair argument.
However, I do not believe UCLA played differently than in previous games as UCLA always milks the clock and frequently relies on Collison getting into the lane off penetration or a high on-ball and UCLA shoots a lot of corner three-pointers against the shot clock. But, objectively, they are very efficient at the end of the shot clock.
Finally, UCLA out-scored ASU in the 2nd Half.
Again, I am not arguing subjectively for this offense or style of attack. I am simply replying to those who confuse their subjective biases with objective facts and ignore the objectivity of statistics, which illustrate that UCLA's offense - boring or otherwise - generally produces very efficient results.
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,網頁設計,網站設計,網頁設計,網站設計,网页设计,网站设计,网站设计,网页设计
Post a Comment