SBNation.com User Blog: oldcat'69

Shooters, Pure Shooters, and Others (An Offensive Model)

oldcat'69 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:01:40 -0000

Why is it that some guys shoot well, some guys shoot a lot (but not necessarily well), and others shoot very little, but generally have a high FG percentage? The following model helps me and my little pea brain understand most basketball players, what motivates them, and how they and their coaches could perhaps help them improve. (Disclaimer: I know the model is overly simplistic and that there are a lot of players who may not fit cleanly into it, but bear with me and I think you'll see that it might be useful in thinking about this UK team that we're watching this year.

SHOOTERS. Shooters gotta shoot. The classic Shooter is a cold-blooded guy who has no conscience about how many shots he misses. He's usually not a very good passer, and probably doesn't care, deep down, whether he's liked or not. Regardless of his motivation, whether it's ego or whether his mother told him to do it, he's going to shoot the rock. He may even be streaky good. A classic example of a shooter was one of my high school teammates. One Friday night, I saw him make seven jumpers in a row to start the second half (Heck, I had assists on five of them!!). The next night (yes, we had back-to-back games), he made EIGHT straight to start the second half. Of course on the year, he had the lowest FG percentage on the team, but he was a SHOOTER.

PURE SHOOTERS. These are guys who surprise you when they miss. Their form is great, they always go straight up and their alignment is super. The beauty of their follow-through is enough to make a real basketball fan cry. But they are a sensitive lot, and it hurts them when they miss a few. Even if it's not deserved, they sense the disapproval of their teammates when they miss an opportunity to help the team because they miss a shot. They are nice guys. Their conscience is overactive, and they lie awake all night after a game agonizing about the ones they missed. Their game is technically superb, but they are sometimes perceived as not trying because they're not aggressive enough. They probably look to pass first in order to help others, but may be a little cautious even in their passing so as not to create a turnover. These guys are usually very good free throw shooters, because, on the line, there's time to be perfect.

OTHERS. These guys really don't have very good shots, but they know it and they don't take many unless it's a pretty sure thing. Whether it's lack of coordination, poor technique, or lack of practice, they know their limitations and really don't press the point. They frequently are big men who don't have a mid-range or outside shot, but who rely on the dunk for many of their points. They generally try to make up for lack of a great shooting touch by working really hard on defense and rebounding. They also are nice guys, but sometimes they're so aggressive under the basket that you don't think so.

So what happens when you have the first two of these circles overlap? Man, it can be incredible if it's the Shooter/Pure Shooter intersection. That's where your Rick Barrys and Jerry Wests live. Little conscience, but pure shooting touch. At Kentucky, Dan Issel lived at this intersection, as did Louie Dampier, Goose Givens, and lots of others who scored a lot.

Now if the Shooter/Other circles overlap in one guy, it can be a disaster. He doesn't know when to quit shooting, and he doesn't give a darn if he misses. This guy can shoot you out of a game in a heartbeat.

Of course, there's no overlap between the Pure Shooter/Other circles because they are mutually exclusive by definition.

Through hard work, a player can certainly move into a different circle. Take Anthony Davis for example. I would contend that, at the beginning of the season last year, he was an Other. Very poor mid-range shot. By the end of the season, though, he made teams honor him at the line, and it opened up the baseline and lane for others to take advantage of.

So where are this year's players in this model? I would contend that Harrow is a Shooter, but sometimes overlaps into Pure Shooter. He's had a few games where he's taken pretty nice jumpers from mid-range and even outside the arc. Most of the time, however, he fits pretty well toward the center of the Shooter circle.

Certainly Wiltjer is a Pure Shooter, and Mays and Harrow also fit in this area. They look good shooting, even if they miss. After watching Poythress' two threes lst night and thinking back some over the first few games, I think he's probably a Pure Shooter, too. For all these guys, we'd like to see them be more aggressive about looking for their shots, and taking the opportunities when they present themselves. The team needs them to use what they've got a little better.

That leaves Nerlens and Willie. Watching them take a pass at the high post and seeing their defensive man drop off, I'm not sure how anyone could consider them anything but an Other. These two guys would triple their value to the offense if they could shoot a jumper from the FT line like the Brow did. The impact on the other bigs would be dramatic, as would their own scoring line.

So why is this current crop struggling to win games that should be no problem? I think because it's because they have always had success working in their own circle and haven't been pressed to improve by becoming more versatile. Can you imagine how it would look if you went to a HS game and saw Archie blow by every defensive man time after time, and score on most of them. Or how Nerlens must have looked to a 6'5" post player for some average HS team?

As I say in my profile, I believe the basic requirement for an effective college player is to be able to put the ball in the hole. I know everyone isn't going to be a three-point ace, but mid-range shots aren't beyond most good athletes, so that Pure Shooter circle is the one I'd advise guys who are buried in the Shooter and Other camps to strive for. At least get to an intersection so the defense can't ignore you when you have the ball.

Go Cats!

Of course, there's no overlap between the Pure Shooter/Other circles because they are mutually exclusive by definition.

Go Cats!

My Holiday Jones Experiment.

oldcat'69 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:24:11 -0000

I've been defending Terrence Jones for his unusually bad ballhandling and shooting since he badly dislocated his pinkie, so, after my workout a couple of days ago, I decided to test my hypothesis that the reduction of hand "spread" with the pinkie taped to the ring finger on one's dominant hand can severely decrement the ability to shoot and handle the ball.

Some background: I'm almost 65, an old ball player, can't run for crap, can barely get both feet off the ground and have the relfexes of a sloth. But I can still shoot, as long as the range is five or six feet inside what it used to be.

So my experiment went like this:

I taped my right-hand pinkie to my ring finger and went to work shooting free throws. Normally, after a little warm-up, I can hit aboutt 17-19 out of 20 (no pressure, no defense, remember). Well, with the two fingers taped together, and after warming up, I hit one, missed one, hit 11, missed one, and hit six. Looks like I disproved my own theory, or did I?

Jump shots were another matter (realizing that "jump" in my case is a gross exaggeration). Very tough to get the ball into shooting position on the impaired hand without taking a lot of time. Two-handed rebounds were tough, too. Too much instinct and not enough time to position the hand to control the ball. And think about the pain involved with dislocating the proximal interphalangeal joint (I looked it up!!!!!) on the pinkie to the point that it would point sideways about 45 degrees.

So, while I went into my experiment with an outcome in mind (the surest sign of a terrible researcher, or one with an agenda), and seemed to disprove my own theory, in the end, I stick by my defense of Terrence. I think his progress in rebounding in the Loo (you do know what that means in the UK, don't you?)-uh-ville game shows that the pinkie is making progress.

So, I ain't giving up on the kid yet. And when Miller re-gains his shooting touch (progress there, too), Teague becomes a college point guard (more progress, although slower than Cal wants), and Wiltjer gets a confidence booster shot, LOOK OUT.

The Incredible Adventures of Oldcat'69 (A daily diary)

oldcat'69 — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:11:03 -0000

I realize that ~~many most~~ all of you are not as excited about my next four days as I am, but just ignore me while I blubber along. As long as I've been a Wildcat fan (since 1953 at least), I've never seen a game live in Rupp Arena. Thanks to the generosity of a friend (and my incredible luck at having his son's girlfriend fit into my golf rain pants-another story for another day), I have seats in the first row on Tuesday night against Vandy.

Since I'm unable to contain my ~~enthusiasm~~ delerium, I'm gonna drop in a little addendum to this post each day from now through the game night. I know my faithful readers will be excited to follow Ms Oldcat and myself as we experience the trip. The days follow after the jump:

Day One. Worked half a day and left Williamsburg at quarter past noon. Six hours later, we were in Bristol, TN, for our first of two consecutive nights in enemy territory. Tomorrow morning, it'll be check the oil in the engine, the air in the tires, and the gas in the tank for a quick sprint through Orangetown enroute to Doreville.

That's right, the Ms and I are gonna sashay right through the enemy's camp about 10:00 tomorrow morning. Suffice to say that if bobothevol sees a silver blur running through town about that time, it'll be us.

Should we escape the orange clutches of that depraved place, it'll only be further into the outback as we're going to visit the Ms's sick aunt in the Tennessee capital and, yes, tempt fate by spending the night there tomorrow night.

Then, thankfully, Sunday morning (coming down!), we will again point the oldcatmobile toward the land of light, crossing over the state line into the Bluegrass at a high rate of speed. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights in Lexington, and it'll be back to the nation of wahoo and hokie on Wednesday as I'm sure my fellow staff members won't be able to get the job done one more day without me.

As for tonight, I've booby-trapped the car and barricaded the door to protect Ms Oldcat's ~~chastity~~ honor and will hopefully survive the night and the subsequent 30 hours or so. At the risk of violating a community guideline, pray for us.

If you don't hear from me again, look for an East Tennessee Neanderthal driving a silver Highlander with Virginia tags. If there are two pale skins, one with very gray hair, tacked onto boards and salted down in the back, knock Bubba in the head and get the tickets out of the glove box. Enjoy the seats.

The Three "Os" of a loss.

oldcat'69 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:27:42 -0000

In watching and reviewing last night's game, I believe we were outcoached, outplayed, and outshot. The first two would not have mattered if we hadn't been beaten in the third area.

First things first, though. This year was an unbelievable sequel to last year's fiasco. This team did not peak in the pre-conference season. In fact they got better at the end until last night. I would never have believed that Coach Cal could have forged these talented young players into a cohesive, selfless team that COULD have gone the route. That they didn't diminishes to only a small degree what has been accomplished to resurrect the program and bring the Wildcats back to the top of the "relevance" pyramid. Except for the hated Dukies and Coach Tom Izzo's team, is there any probability that the teams that remain, and made headlines in the tourney, will stay at the top? Little, in my opinion.

Now, to the three Os. First, we were outcoached. I don't say that Coach Huggins is a better coach than Cal, but he was last night. The 1-3-1 kept UK out of its offensive rhythm and the adjustment in the second half to get his (and therefore our) bigs out from under their offensive basket made room for all those cuts, picks, and layups that they scored. A simple reminder that their ONE point guard was far less effective going right could have saved us at least 10 points. Overplaying a guard to his strong side is simple, but we failed to execute that last night.

It is important to note that hitting all those 3s in the first half enabled the drives in the second. I believe our staff, having adjusted to the barrage of outside shots in the first half, and seeing two early in the second half, was slow to get our guys to drop back inside where they could help on the cuts. Coach Huggins' move to a 50-60s style offense with cuts and picks to free drives and drop passes was enabled because the Wildcats were trying to stay so tight on the perimeter.

The Mountaineers very high FG% in the second half was because of so many layups, plain and simple. I don't know what Huggins said, but it probably went like this: "Whoever is being guarded by Cousins, Orton, or Patterson, get your butt as far away from the lane as you can on our end and pick for our dribblers." Whatever he said, this is what happened, and it worked.

We were outplayed. I do not doubt the heart or effort of the 09-10 Wildcats. In fact, they have been able to dig deep every time but three all year. It was an amazing record for a bunch of underclassmen, simply amazing. But, perhaps because of their extreme talent and their experience in AAU ball, some of our players simply do not possess certain skills that were considered basic in years past: pick and roll, defending the pick and roll, inside switches on deep cuts, and weak side help from anyone other than Patterson, Orton, and Cousins. For example, how many times in the second half did you see John Wall inside and not helping when another defender's man drove to the basket?

One area, of course, in which we definitely were not outplayed was in rebounding. That is, of course, an "effort" area and we did very well, but because of the third O, we were not able to take advantage of the extra possessions.

Finally, we were outshot. Now, that is kind of like saying that the sky is blue when it's not cloudy or dark. But what can be done about it? Aren't even the best shooting teams going to have cold nights? Of course. That is true, and, to a degree, that is what happened last night. I kept expecting to see a breakout string of threes, but all we came up with until the endgame was bricks. It can happen, and it now appears that our fears from earlier in the season were somewhat founded, despite some very good efforts along the way.

One area of shooting for which there is no excuse, however, is the free throws. Seventy-five percent free throws last night would have given us five more points and that would have affected the endgame play to a great degree. Because some of our poorer FT shooters did not change technique during the year, I would suggest that free throws do not occupy a high rung on the ladder of Coach Cal's priorities. Given his teams' results in NCAA games previously and last night, I would humbly suggest that that importance be elevated.

In my opinion, free throw shooting is 50% technique, 25% mental focus, and 25% confidence under pressure. Technique is the easy part, and yet I see a number of our players with bad FT shooting technique. Poor alignment, straight knees, low arc, poor wrist flex in the pre-release, etc. Want to see good technique? Look at some old tape of Kyle Macy. You don't have to wipe the hands on the socks, and you don't have to bend the knees so much in the pre-shot routine, but the rest of the moves Macy made were textbook. And those moves are no secret.

The mental focus and confidence under pressure can be trained into players during practice. There's nothing a player hates after a two-hour practice more than laps and/or wind sprints. Believe me, with your teammates on the lane and you on the line, there's "game" pressure to make FTs if the result of misses is sprints/laps. It worked for my unathletic high school team, and it will work for the infinitely more talented Wildcats. I just don't understand why Wall, Bledsoe, Liggins, etc can't shoot FTs better, and I don't understand why Demarcus Cousins continues to swing the ball into shooting position from the left side of his head. Is nobody on the staff looking?

Sorry for the venting. I let myself fill the glass too full, perhaps, with this team. The way we all "know" these kids made the emotional involvement inevitable, I suppose. What a fine group of young men. I haven't heard any really derogatory character-related information about any of them, and there are few teams that can say that, I would guess.

With the season over, I wish all these guys well. Mark Krebs can now deal with his mother's illness, Ramon can spend more time with his daughter, and the more talented guys on the team can deal with the life-changing decisions about when to make the jump to the next level in their basketball careers. Regardless of how they choose, they will always be Wildcats, and, for this old guy they will always be my second favorite squad, right behind the Runts. Godspeed guys.

Now, how many days is it till next season?

In watching and reviewing last night's game, I believe we were outcoached, outplayed, and outshot. The first two would not have mattered if we hadn't been beaten in the third area.

Now, how many days is it till next season?

"What's it all about, Alfie?

oldcat'69 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:47:02 -0000

Is it just for the moment we live? . . .are we meant to take more than we give?"

Or is our present point time just an instant in a continuum that extends from somewhere in the past and leads somewhere else in the future? I know, it's kind of a deep subject for an engineering major, but past the jump are my thoughts on where we've been and the direction we're going, player by player (plus the coach), and as a unit.

Is it just for the moment we live? . . .are we meant to take more than we give?"

I will probably get little disagreement when I state that this season is an abrupt departure from a depressing four-year trend, and, while most of us expected a change, the suddenness of the change of direction has some of us suffering from whiplash and all of us giddy with the prospects. How did it happen? And, as we take a deep breath before the most important parts of the season, where do we go from here? Here are the actors and what I see as their prospects:

The Coach-I think all of us expected to see DDMO to the exclusion of all else, but, to Coach Cal's eternal credit, he let this team play a style that took advantage of their talents, even when his "system" had to be put on hold. He was right when he said we'd see few picks (heightening my frustration!!!), but this group has the ability to work without that particular basic skill. He is the most at-ease-in-his-own-skin Kentucky coach I've ever seen, particularly with the media. Coach Smith was a very close second, with nobody else even close, but Cal presents an apparently honest, open front to the cameras and seems to appreciate his part in the long thread of Kentucky basketball. I say he stays a few more years.

Patrick Patterson-One of the most versatile, hard-working players I've had the pleasure of seeing. Does what the coach asks him to do (regardless of who is the coach) and what he has to do. A great young man, a great Wildcat, and, oh, yeah, a great basketball player. If we get in a crunch in the NCAA tournament, give him the ball.

Demarcus Cousins-A huge surprise (pun intended). All of us expected him to be good, but, my goodness, THIS GOOD? Soft hands, exceptional quickness for one his size, and an aggressiveness that strikes fear in opponents. When he comes out of his little two-game mini-slump, don't be the guy guarding him. If he stays next year, wonderful. If he goes to the NBA, it has been great having him. Thanks, D. You're a good guy.

John Wall-Most explosive speed I've ever seen, and the willingness to take the team on his shoulders. Still a little eager to take the ball into congestion, but gets by with it most of the time because of his incredible athleticism. If we get into a running game in the Dance, I say JW gets the win for us.

Eric Bledsoe-Great skills, but tries a little too hard to run the DDMO when there's no opening. Still, a great asset for the team and will grow in skills and maturity next year. We'll welcome him back.

Darius Miller-Maybe one of the nicest kids ever to wear the uniform. Just now learning to be nice off the court/aggressive on the court. Great skills. Gaining confidence every game. I say he has a great shooting game sometime in the next 9 games, and we win because of it.

Daniel Orton-Also a nice kid who's discovering his grrrrr. With work, has the potential to be as good as Cousins, but is just now making up for missing his last year in high school. Needs to do some work between seasons, but I, for one am darned glad he's coming back next year. He and Miller will be the foundations around which next year's success will be built. And I'm not giving up on this year, either. He can be the defensive stopper for an opponent's big man if DCuz gets in trouble. A very bright future for this kid. I'm glad he'll be wearing blue.

Darnell Dodson-Nice shooter (when he doesn't drift sideways), and just now learning to play defense in order to stay on the floor. More work on his shot and a bigger dose of hustle next year and he'll be out there more. Could be the shot in the arm we need on a cold shooting night this next month.

DeAndre Liggins-Coach Cal's biggest success story, by far. I don't know why his minutes went down against Florida, but he provides a spark of hustle greater than anyone else on this team. We need him on the floor when the opponent gets to shooting well.

Ramon Harris and Perry Stevenson-Limited quality minutes by both these guys, but there's little letdown on defense when they're in there, and sometimes we need that. They both are just somewhat below their teammates on offense, and the flow shows that when they're in.

The "H" guys-Harrellson and Hood-Both good shooters, but can't yet carry the load on defense like Harris and Stevenson. Might get some PT in the tournament, but it'll be very limited.

Mark Krebs-I love walk-ons, even after they go over to the dark side and get a scholarship!!!!

The TEAM. I'm still a little apprehensive about their unwillingness to stomp when they have their foot on the opponent's neck. On the other hand, they work pretty well when the game is close, and that could be a real big point now that we're in tournament time. When this team is on a spurt, nobody else in the country can stay with them, even Kansas/Syracuse/Duke/etc. It's the periods between the spurts that worries me a little. They seem to assume that they're better players than anyone else. So far, with two exceptions, they have been, but the gap will narrow after Round One and will continue to narrow right up to the final game, so Coach Cal has some motivational work to do.

Thanks to Jon Scott's site, I know that we have six of our regular nine players that are shooting 33%+ from three-point land. That's pretty tough to handle when an opposing coach starts tailoring a defense against us. Our offensive rebounding ability adds to the problem. Alas, we have only two guys who have an A:TO ratio greater than 1:1. That's another area of concern.

Still, regardless of how this season ends up, with two, three, or four losses, it's been as good of a ride as I can remember in the regular season. Let's hope it continues and becomes one of the really high points in the long history we all love. GO CATS!

Promise Fulfilled

oldcat'69 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:23:46 -0000

In one of the wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth threads following the loss to USC, there was some disagreement as to how many "shoulda made" inside shots the Cats missed during that game. I promised Tru that, if I had time, I would go back through the game slowly and get a number. I did that this morning. In summary, I found six and one-half crip shots that UK should have made.

In fairness, I omitted all the inside shots on which the UK player was fouled, but, in truth, I felt some of them should have been made despite the foul. Putting them into the count, however, gets really messy, since then you have to count the free throws made following the foul, and so forth.

Following the jump is a list of the ones I felt should have been made:

First Half

18:50-Wall missed a "drag" shot on the left side that had moderate defense. This one was 50-50, so I count a half.

15:25-Cuz-great fake, poor follow, defense completely off balance. One 1/2

14:45-Wall-great drive down lane to the right; passed both defenders at last second; poor finish. Two 1/2

Second Half

16:15-Wall drove baseline left; under basket; poor finish (Orton also missed a fairly easy tip on this one and the non-existent goaltending was called on UK, but real goaltending missed on USC. Three 1/2

9:18-Bledsoe-great drive to the left, totally unguarded; undecided between bank and dunk. Four 1/2

7:47-Wall-ankle-breaking crossover to left down lane; backhanded a RH layup and missed instead of using his left hand. Five 1/2

5:34-The infamous Dodson steal/missed dunk. Six 1/2

In retrospect, after watching almost nothing except our offensive possessions, it initially seemed like a lot more missed crips because we forced so many that were blocked or altered because of heavy defense. I omitted those. On that point, Tru was spot on. They defended the drive pretty well, but the instances above were (mostly) just lack of focus/finish.

Also other observations: Downey wasn't the only one drawing multiple defenders resulting in USC put-backs. Cuz played an even better game than I thought at first. At 6:57 of the second half, after being fouled, reading his lips yielded this, "GIMME THE BALL; I WANT . .) interrupted by a commercial. What a kid. PPAT was open several times with his defender blocked out, or "on his hip" as we used to say. Nobody got him the ball.

I think Tru was closer to the real number of missed crips than the rest of us. I think he said six; most of us said eight or so. Still, it was too many.

On to the Rebel game.

With a grain of salt . . .

oldcat'69 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:36:09 -0000

I don't profess to be the world's greatest basketball mind, nor do I claim to understand in great detail the "modern" game or the DDMO, but it seems to me, watching this UK team all year that there are some things that they have not yet perfected, such as:

Stuck in the middle-we do not yet have the knack of creating open shots by causing the defense, particularly zones, to contract and expand. When the ball goes into the middle, even when PPat is the guy there, the defense generally has time to collapse and normally doesn't have to worry about a quick kick-out to an open shooter on the elbows. It just doesn't happen much, and the result is that, even with Cousins' quick moves and soft hands, we have lots more shots blocked inside than I see other teams having. Dribbles and fakes take time, and time is the ally of the defense. I guess we are trying too hard to be like NBA teams where the bigs bump and buck each other inside all the time.
Moving to the open spot. When one of the guards starts to drive or Big Cuz gets the ball inside, some of our players stay in their spots glued to the floor instead of moving to open spots for a possible pass. Now, given the "stuck in the middle" syndrome and the propensity of the guards to force the ball into crowds, this might be understandable, but if you aren't open you certainly aren't going to get that pass.
Taking the open jumper. We have two people shooting over 40% threes and four over 37%, even after last night. Yet, I saw Bledsoe, Miller, and Dodson passing up what appeared to be open threes/long twos when it appeared we had good inside coverage for an offensive rebound. I don't know if they had been instructed not to shoot or not, but if you're a good shooter, put the darned thing up. I guess, in summary, I think we have become predictable by going inside too much. It lets the defense ignore open shooters and focus on the bigs. Taking a few of those shots will actually help Cuz/Orton/PPat inside.
Allowing the opposition to shoot. Now, this is not what it sounds like. I don't like giving up open shots. What I mean is that sometimes you have to allow a teammate to defend the shooter and devote your attention to getting the rebound if he misses. Because we are such a good shot-blocking team, we all-too-often, particularly last night, have had more than one guy going after the shooter. The put-backs on Downey missed fall-down shots last night got disgusting.
Finally, bringing intensity on every play. We did this pretty well against Pelphrey's team, but in most games this year have turned our intensity on and off, depending on whether we felt threatened or not. Trouble was last night, the opposition didn't just wilt when we decided to play hard the last four minutes or so. When we turned it up, so did USC. They won't be the last to do that, so it would behoove our guys to treat every possession like it mattered.

All that said, this team now has the opportunity, with the undefeated monkey off its back, to do some serious work and realize their almost unlimited talent. If they do, they could move from being very good to being outstanding.

Stuck in the middle-we do not yet have the knack of creating open shots by causing the defense, particularly zones, to contract and expand. When the ball goes into the middle, even when PPat is the guy there, the defense generally has time to collapse and normally doesn't have to worry about a quick kick-out to an open shooter on the elbows. It just doesn't happen much, and the result is that, even with Cousins' quick moves and soft hands, we have lots more shots blocked inside than I see other teams having. Dribbles and fakes take time, and time is the ally of the defense. I guess we are trying too hard to be like NBA teams where the bigs bump and buck each other inside all the time.
Moving to the open spot. When one of the guards starts to drive or Big Cuz gets the ball inside, some of our players stay in their spots glued to the floor instead of moving to open spots for a possible pass. Now, given the "stuck in the middle" syndrome and the propensity of the guards to force the ball into crowds, this might be understandable, but if you aren't open you certainly aren't going to get that pass.
Taking the open jumper. We have two people shooting over 40% threes and four over 37%, even after last night. Yet, I saw Bledsoe, Miller, and Dodson passing up what appeared to be open threes/long twos when it appeared we had good inside coverage for an offensive rebound. I don't know if they had been instructed not to shoot or not, but if you're a good shooter, put the darned thing up. I guess, in summary, I think we have become predictable by going inside too much. It lets the defense ignore open shooters and focus on the bigs. Taking a few of those shots will actually help Cuz/Orton/PPat inside.
Allowing the opposition to shoot. Now, this is not what it sounds like. I don't like giving up open shots. What I mean is that sometimes you have to allow a teammate to defend the shooter and devote your attention to getting the rebound if he misses. Because we are such a good shot-blocking team, we all-too-often, particularly last night, have had more than one guy going after the shooter. The put-backs on Downey missed fall-down shots last night got disgusting.
Finally, bringing intensity on every play. We did this pretty well against Pelphrey's team, but in most games this year have turned our intensity on and off, depending on whether we felt threatened or not. Trouble was last night, the opposition didn't just wilt when we decided to play hard the last four minutes or so. When we turned it up, so did USC. They won't be the last to do that, so it would behoove our guys to treat every possession like it mattered.

999 Wins Ago

oldcat'69 — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:17:51 -0000

First of all, I have to tell you that I wasn't there for #1000, but I saw #999 and #1003, although I didn't know it at the time. No, I wasn't drunk and I knew I was in Memorial Coliseum; there just wasn't any mention of it at the time, that I recall. No big deal. We were expected to win. Now, if my math and Jon Scott's site are both correct, here's the way it played out:

Georgia was in Lexington on January 13, 1969. The Cats had a relatively easy time of it, winning 88-68. Five days later, they traveled to Knoxville and beat the Volunteers 69-66 for win #1000. That's right, friends, our landmark win came at the expense of our oldest, if not most virulent, rival. If that doesn't warm the cockles of your heart, I don't know what would.

Continuing their road trip, UK won #1001 at LSU on Jan 28, #1002 at Alabama on Jan 27, and returned home on February 1 to beat Vanderbilt 103-89 for #1003.

The starters on that 1969 team were:

- The late Mike Casey-drafted102 in the NBA draft, but didn't play, probably because of the horrible leg injury that delayed his senior year and slowed him to a great degree his last year at UK. Great guy-a fraternity brother of mine.

-Mike Pratt-undrafted. Later coached at ECU and is now a color announcer for UK. Strong as a bull; and also a nice person.

-Phil Argento-drafted in the 10th NBA round. Did not play in the league. High school coach in the Cleveland area. Good guy, but fairly quiet-played on the Kittens with him as he set scoring records.

-Larry Steele-drafted in the 3rd round and played 9 seasons with Portland, averaging 8.2 points and 2.9 rebounds per game. Another super guy. Sat next to him in a history class. Funny person with whom I shared class notes.

-Dan Issel (you may have heard of him!!)-Drafted NUMBER 122 OVERALL (you read that correctly) proving that the NBA scouts sometimes have their reports wrong. Naismith Hall of Fame. Over 27,000 points in the ABA and NBA combined, averaging over 20 ppg in nine seasons in the NBA after averaging over 25 ppg in six seasons in the ABA. Another super person-gentle giant off the court-another fraternity brother.

So why was there little/no hoopla over win #1000? Who knows? Marketing and sports information functions were far less developed than they are now, and the internet did not exist.

My purpose in putting out this little bit of information is so Tink and whomever else is going to the Drexel game will be well-equipped with a sense of history-where we've been and where we're going. Good luck, guys, and yell a little louder for those of us who can't be there.

Continuing their road trip, UK won #1001 at LSU on Jan 28, #1002 at Alabama on Jan 27, and returned home on February 1 to beat Vanderbilt 103-89 for #1003.

The starters on that 1969 team were:

-Mike Pratt-undrafted. Later coached at ECU and is now a color announcer for UK. Strong as a bull; and also a nice person.

-Phil Argento-drafted in the 10th NBA round. Did not play in the league. High school coach in the Cleveland area. Good guy, but fairly quiet-played on the Kittens with him as he set scoring records.

So why was there little/no hoopla over win #1000? Who knows? Marketing and sports information functions were far less developed than they are now, and the internet did not exist.

Upon Further Review . . .

oldcat'69 — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:40:44 -0000

[Promoted from the FanPosts. Great stuff in here -- ed.]

I just took a look at the last six minutes or so of yesterday's game against UNC, and it was like a Clint Eastwood movie: we had the Good, Bad, and Ugly side of this team.

First, the Good: We won, and our two freshman guards went 7-8 from the free throw line in the last two and a half minutes, Bledsoe's miss on the second of a 1+1 being the only miss. Also, we kept fighting for rebounds and got several good calls. Wall's strip/steal was also brilliant as was his ball-handling for the most part.

Now, the Bad: On successive trips down the floor, Wall tried to take over the game, resulting in two turnovers. First was an ill-advised shot in the lane that got blocked, resulting in a UNC FG. The second was the charge, also in the lane. To be fair, he did it on the third trip, too, and got a tripping foul called which resulted in free throws for us. Also bad was the possession in which we missed two consecutive 3-pointers by Miller and Bledsoe. Despite the nice percentage we're shooting from beyond the arc, this was one of our worries at the beginning of the year, and, while both were open, squared-up shots, both were missed.

Still in the Bad category, we got exactly one field goal in the last five minutes (Bledsoe's in-bounds reverse layup), and that won't cut it. And we were darned lucky that Bledsoe's little ill-advised jump-hook in the lane was knocked out by a Tarheel.

And the Ugly: Our big players were non-existent on offense. For whatever reason, Patterson seldom touched the ball in crunch time, and when he did, it was way out on the floor. We depended entirely on our guards and were lucky they got it done. We also threw the ball around like we didn't want it, Bledsoe's baseline drive-kickout over Wall's head being the ugliest. Where were the adjustments when UNC was coming back? Coach Rupp used to say that the coaches play the first three minutes of the second half. Based on that, I'm not sure Ol' Roy didn't beat Coach Cal a little yesterday.

All in all, I'm incredibly glad to get the win. It makes 1996, puts us five ahead of UNC, and resulted in THE CALL being made from my Tarheel son to me instead of from me to him.

But despite all the encouraging signs, I'm still not comfortable with this team. We didn't react well either to Wall's absence or to UNC's picking up the defensive pressure in the second half. We took our foot off their throats when we had them down. Many of these issues are signs of immaturity, so I hope we outgrow them. But I'm still not comfortable.

[Promoted from the FanPosts. Great stuff in here -- ed.]

I just took a look at the last six minutes or so of yesterday's game against UNC, and it was like a Clint Eastwood movie: we had the Good, Bad, and Ugly side of this team.

All in all, I'm incredibly glad to get the win. It makes 1996, puts us five ahead of UNC, and resulted in THE CALL being made from my Tarheel son to me instead of from me to him.

Were this year's turnovers really that bad?

oldcat'69 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:23:03 -0000

We've all been complaining about how many turnovers this year's edition of the Cats have had. But has it really been bad? And has it been worse than most years? I decided to take a look at Jon Scott's site to gather a little data.

Turnover information is only available on the site starting with the '79 team. For the thirty years since then, not including this year, UK has averaged just under 14.5 turnovers per game. The best years were '81, '85, and '86 with around 12.5 per game. The worst years, prior to the '09 team, were '80 with 16.1, '91 and '94 with 15.6 each, and '93 with 15.9. Last year's team was high also with 15.8. Interestingly, '05 and '06 were fairly low, with about 13 per game.

So, how about this year? The current team has averaged 17.2 turnovers per game, the highest on record. I would argue that 2.5 turnovers per game over the team's historical average is pretty significant.

Can we blame this turnover rate on the lack of a top-notch point guard? Probably in part, but the entire team has done its share contributing to the total. This team just has not handled the ball well, either dribbling or passing in traffic. I would propose to my fellow Wildcat fans that this is one, but only one, issue that must be solved before next season.

Where have all the "players" gone?

oldcat'69 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:14:10 -0000

In the aftermath of the UK-UL game, I find myself wondering why it is that players today get so damned specialized? Is it because they have it drilled into them (not necessarily by their coaches) that they do a certain thing well and someone else does something else well, and never the twain shall meet? I just don't know.

Here's what I saw today:

-Good college players who can't, or won't, pull up and shoot a mid-range jump shot. Instead, they drive into traffic, allowing the defense to collapse and double/triple team them, and then put up a "leaner". Hansbrough can do that leaner, but he shoots from above his head, not waist level. Our guys don't know how to do that.

-An outstanding outside shooting guard who can't, or won't, help bring the ball down the court. Is there any doubt that Meeks is faster than Porter? Can he not dribble the ball at all? While Porter played an outstanding game today, with the exception of not looking to shoot enough, I was holding my breath as he was working one-on-one with a guy who was quicker than he was.

-A "point" guard who made two nice threes (OK, one was a heave), but repeatedly passed up open shots from right on the arc. Wasn't Mike recruited as a shooter? Why won't he look to shoot?

-Perry Stevenson begging with confidence for the ball, then making the three. Then, he made a decent little jumper from the lane, almost apologetically. Finally, when left completely open from the free throw line, he looked everywhere and finally, as a last resort, put up a hesitant shot that missed. The kid can shoot--why isn't he encouraged to shoot more?

-Only one good, solid screen by UK. Naturally enough, it was by our MAN among boys, Patrick Patterson, on the left side to free Meeks for a three. That pick should be shown about 30 times each practice. Most other attempted picks were half-hearted affairs that resulted in exactly no advantage. The pick and roll is still good basic basketball. Why won't players use it?

I guess that last thought is my real problem. Today's players are indisputably quicker, faster, and better athletes than they were several years ago, but many of them simply don't possess enough of the basic skills to provide the versatility that gives opponents fits. As much as I love Perry Stevenson and his great effort level, that baseline drive/charge epitomizes what drives me nuts. Where was the pull-up jumper when he got open? Same goes for Meeks on the fake/high-step/jumpstop in traffic that he got blocked late in the game. His first dribble got him open, with two defenders adjusting. Why not just pull up for the jumper?

Is there a rule that "point" guards can't shoot? That "shooting" guards can't dribble? That good defending forwards can't shoot the J? That nobody can set picks? There must be, because I just don't see that kind of versatility on our team. And it breaks my heart, 'cause while they're getting better, they COULD be GOOD.

Here's what I saw today:

-A "point" guard who made two nice threes (OK, one was a heave), but repeatedly passed up open shots from right on the arc. Wasn't Mike recruited as a shooter? Why won't he look to shoot?