Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

Mar 25, 2023, 6:02 AM

I don't remember this being bandied about much, but it is meaningful to me: when Clemson beat Auburn in the 2nd round of the 2018 NCAAT, Gabe DeVoe led the team in scoring with 22 points. Overall he was 6 for 9 on Three's. When people bring that game up, this is what they talk about, in part because DeVoe went off on Kansas as well a week later for 31 points and 3 more Three's. The problem with this analysis is that DeVoe only had 8 points at halftime of the Auburn game, and Clemson already led by 24 (43-19). The remainder of DeVoe's points were somewhat superfluous then, and the fact that he led us in scoring was effectively meaningless. Indeed, in another oddity, if you take away all of Clemson's 10 Three-pointers that day (30 points), with 6 by DeVoe, even then we still win the game by 1 point. Further, of Clemson's 13 1st half FG's that day, 6 were from Eli Thomas and David Skara, and from inside the paint. At the half, while Auburn was 6 for 31 overall and having shot 13 three's, we were an efficient 7 for 8 from inside the arc, not including Free Throws. That's how we got up by 24 at the half, and to put it succinctly, we didn't win the game by chucking outside jumpers.

But I'm not at all sure that Clemson's braintrust understands this perspective of the Auburn game. This seemingly because ever since (and before) Brad Brownell and his offensive architects have been supremely wedded to a 3-guard offense as if it were some magic NCAAT potion.

I can understand enjoying a big win, but plotting strategy based on one game's success, or some other predetermined notion seems highly suspect.

Take this year for instance. What did we start the season off in but a 3-guard lineup, playing the highly immobile Alex Hemenway at the wing. It's notable then that in the highly discussed South Carolina loss, we benefitted from playing 3 guards by having a 13 to 19 advantage in turnovers, and 25 to 16 advantage in Points off Turnovers. How did we lose then, one might ask? Well, in part because we played the small lineup, we also got out rebounded that day 50-32, and gave up 19 Offensive rebounds to Carolina. Really.... say it out loud - 19. As it turns out the difference in the game came down to Carolina having 3 more extra shots in total than we did - 3 extra possessions from 10 more Offensive rebounds less 6 more turnovers. They shot essentially the same percentage that we shot, but they just had more shots to take. It's also ironic then that Carolina won by 2 points, and held an exactly 2 point advantage in 2nd chance points (8 to 6).

And yet, while we were getting out rebounded by 19 for the game, we played a 3-guard lineup for all but 5 total minutes. And that's counting Wiggins as a Forward, and not a wing.

As the season progressed, many observers noted that the team truly started playing well when Hemenway first got hurt, Schieffelin began starting, and Godfrey began to get more minutes. We immediately got bigger on the wing for defense against the three, though it was too late for the Loyola game. We also began to rebound more effectively, both defensively and offensively. And finally, the defense just got better all-around. All these things could have been predicted in simply postulating the replacement of Hemenway with Schieffelin. And yet we stuck with the 3-guard starting lineup until we couldn't do it anymore for injury. For what it's worth, we likewise played 37 minutes against Loyola with 3 guards in another key losing effort.

I apologize for all this meandering but these thoughts creep back in when I hear discussion of portal activity. The loss of Middlebrooks seems entirely senseless at this point, and even losing a 6'5" backup SG creates discomfort. That we then seem to be "in on" multiple possible Point Guards is almost too much to bear. With both the Hunter's coming back, and Beadle presumptively so as well, where exactly does the Braintrust expect to play another PG? None of this makes any sense, and it hasn't ever since Reed, Shelton, and DeVoe benefitted from Grantham going down with his knee injury some 5 seasons ago. For whatever reason, Brownell seems intent on applying a small line-up, and as example, he's shafted lengthy Wing players like O-max Prosper and Wiggins with limited minutes in the process.

I don't know; maybe we should just give up and recruit Honor and Dawes back so we can go with the full-on Midget lineup from now on, chucking Three's until we wipe the 3-point line clear off the court. Eff me....

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

I’ve held this opinion for years . I played my share of ball in the day and I can tell you that building a team inside out is the most dependable thing you can do. We must make teams play us in the paint for 40 minutes and when we do, we won’t have 10 minute scoring droughts . We will be able to dictate the pace of play and force teams to defend us every possession. By default, we’ll be a better rebounding team and get more shots. This whole mentality of taking every open 3 you can take is complete BS. Brad lives by the 3 and more often than not we die by the 3. When you go cold from distance, it becomes infectious and when that happens, you have bad losses. That’s been our history his whole career.

Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

Re: Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

Re: Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

If we become less dependent on the 3 then….

Re: Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

I’ll be succinct this time

Keep in mind, the other teams are paying the players much

Re: Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

I’ve long time said Devoe helped kill Clemson BB

ANY team that lives by the three, will eventually die by the

Actually not to cut too fine a point - we certainly died by

Re: Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

hail, I'll do it for what I make now....

Re: Basketball: a failed and offensive perspective... (long)

TigerBoard POTD