masthead.jpg

switchconcepts.com, U3dpdGNo-a25, DIRECT rubiconproject.com, 14766, RESELLER pubmatic.com, 30666, RESELLER, 5d62403b186f2ace appnexus.com, 1117, RESELLER thetradedesk.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER taboola.com, switchconceptopenrtb, RESELLER bidswitch.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER contextweb.com, 560031, RESELLER amazon-adsystem.com, 3160, RESELLER crimtan.com, switch, RESELLER quantcast.com, switchconcepts , RESELLER rhythmone.com, 1934627955, RESELLER ssphwy.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER emxdgt.com, 59, RESELLER appnexus.com, 1356, RESELLER sovrn.com, 96786, RESELLER, fafdf38b16bf6b2b indexexchange.com, 180008, RESELLER nativeads.com, 52853, RESELLER theagency.com, 1058, RESELLER google.com, pub-3515913239267445, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
March 8, 2011

Pitt By Numbers: Slow Dancing

Filed under: Basketball — Pabs @ 10:11 pm

Working on this post was a stark reminder that timing is everything. I started gathering the data lask week and then on Friday night I decided I would wait till after the Villanova game to post this.

My original hypothesis was that opponents have been trying to slow Pitt down since the Notre Dame game as the burn offense had become the blueprint as to how to beat Pitt. Not exactly a given when you consider that Pitt’s schedule was back loaded with slower-tempo teams.

Of course, after I gathered most of my data, Jay Wright forced the Panthers into a 56 possession crapfest low-scoring game and then admitted that he was trying to force Pitt into a limited possession game.

So much for needing statistics to prove my theory. Let’s soldier on anyway.

For the purpose of this exercise I only used conference games. My reason for doing this was that as much as I would like a larger sample-size, teams experiment too much in non-conference play and are often more focused on trying to figure out a rotation than trying to implement a strategy to control tempo. This graph shows the number of possessions Pitt’s Big East opponents had versus Pitt as opposed to their other opponents.

Opponent  

Tempo  

Opp. Avg Tempo  

% Diveation from Opp. Pace  

       
UConn  

67  

66  

1.52%  

Prov  

75  

72.7  

3.16%  

Marq  

63  

67.9  

-7.22%  

G-Town  

61  

64.9  

-6.01%  

Hall  

64  

69.1  

-7.38%  

Cuse  

69  

66.5  

3.76%  

Depaul  

68  

69  

-1.45%  

ND  

49  

64.7  

-24.27%  

Rutgers  

62  

64.2  

-3.43%  

Cinci  

69  

64.1  

7.64%  

WVU  

63  

63.8  

-1.25%  

Nova  

59  

66.6  

-11.41%  

USF  

60  

63  

-4.76%  

SJU  

60  

67.1  

-10.58%  

WVU  

58  

63.8  

-9.09%  

L’Ville*  

69  

68  

-9.54%  

USF  

58  

63  

-7.94%  

Nova  

56  

66.6  

-15.92%  

*- Game went into overtime, possessions were pro-rated accordingly.

Before the Notre Dame game, Pitt’s opponents on average played about 1.9% fewer possessions against Pitt than they had against a “normal” opponent.

 However, after Notre Dame’s successful effort the set basketball back 50 years with a 49 possession victory (Pitt’s average Big East game was 62.7 possessions) at the Pete; Pitt’s opponents played 5.6% fewer possessions than usual against the Panthers. A t-test shows that this is a statistically significant decrease in tempo for Pitt’s opponents.

Now it’s entirely possible that Pitt was the team trying to slow things down and during the three games Gibbs was injured (specifically the ‘Nova game) this would certainly be a reasonable conclusions.

However, it seems foolish that after Pitt got off to a 7-0 start in conference playing at a more normal tempo and the fact that coaches like Jay Wright admit that slowing down the game was their game plan; it isn’t likely that Jamie Dixon prefers to play sub-60 possession games.

Now that we’ve established that teams try to slow the Panther’s down, does it work? And will teams try to do this to Pitt in the NCAAs.

These questions are much tougher to answer.

Lets start with how the burn effects Pitt. This graph shows how Pitt performed on a points per possession basis (margin of victory/possessions per game) versus the deviation in tempo versus an average Pitt conference game.

Opponent  

‘+/- Points per possession  

    Pitt tempo Div  

         
UConn  

0.224  

    6.73%  

Prov  

0.053  

    19.47%  

Marq  

0.127  

    0.35%  

G-Town  

0.246  

    -2.83%  

Hall  

0.328  

    1.95%  

Cuse  

0.116  

    9.91%  

Depaul  

0.441  

    8.32%  

ND  

-0.102  

    -21.95%  

Rutgers  

0.048  

    -1.24%  

Cinci  

0.174  

    9.91%  

WVU  

0.079  

    0.35%  

Nova  

0.051  

    -6.02%  

USF  

‘0.200  

    -4.42%  

SJU  

-0.017  

    -4.42%  

WVU  

0.224  

    -7.61%  

L’Ville*  

-0.043  

    -2.30%  

USF  

0.276  

    -7.61%  

Nova  

0.179  

    -10.80%  

This isn’t going to tell us a whole lot. When I ran a test for a correlation coefficient between tempo and Pitt’s +/- points per possession, I got a weak coefficient (about .31). This test ignores a lot of important stuff like the strength of the opponent and home court. This is also an instance where a relatively small sample rears it’s ugly head.

Qualitative analysis would say that Pitt was playing better ball before the Irish handed them their first L in conference play and that all three of Pitt’s losses came against teams playing a slow-down style. While that is all true, Pitt also played a back loaded schedule that saw it play only two of the top eight teams in the league before the ND game. Of those two games one was against a slumping Georgetown team and the other was against a Syracuse team missing Kris Joseph.

The fact that Pitt’s three losses were against strong opposition (the Big East’s #2 team at home and the #3 and #5 teams on the road) and the possibilities that shots that normally do or don’t fall went against the Panthers are too much for me to point the finger at the burn and say unequivocally “that is how you beat Pitt“.

Now, can we expect to see more burn come tourney time?

My best guess would be no. As Villanova proved, taking the air out of the ball is easier said than done, or at least done well. The burn isn’t something teams can just easily install after playing a different way for the past four months. I would expect most coaches to trust what got them to the dance as opposed to trying something different that their team might not even be able to do.

For what’s its worth. Here’s how other elite teams have handled games played at 60 or fewer possessions (the national average is 66.8)

Ohio State: 5-1, loss at Wisconsin, two non-con cupcakes then at Michigan (by 4), Penn St. (by 3) and at Northwestern (by 1)

Kansas: 1-0

Duke: 0-0, The Virginia Tech loss was their slowest game of the year (62 possessions) but they played well in other sub-65 possession games.

Purdue: 4-2

Texas: 3-0, all three games were extremely winnable

Pitt: 7-2

BYU: 0-0

San Diego State: 7-0, only one team ranked above 100 in the Pomeroy rankings (Colorado State, ranked 71)

UNC: 1-0, beat BC 48-46 at home

Essentially, if Pitt is fortunate to advance deep in the tournament then most of the other likely candidates to get there aren’t going to try to slow Pitt down. This isn’t to say I’m not concerned about teams taking the air out of the ball, Notre Dame and Wisconsin could easily burn Pitt. But aside from those two teams, there aren’t a whole lot of other likely candidates to try to make Pitt play a low-possession game.





Pabs–Awesome, awesome post. I love sports-based statistics and you really killed it with this one. I agree with you about the other teams not slowing it down for Pitt–it seems to me like it’s something teams do when they think they don’t have the talent to beat Pitt (i.e., Nova knew they’d been playing horribly and knew they’d have to slow it down to keep it close). I think the BYU’s and Ohio St’s of the world will play THEIR game instead, since they’ll figure playing their game, their way should give them the victory.

Comment by merlin 03.08.11 @ 10:31 pm

Great, great post…definitely speaking my language. I agree with you that teams, especially the ones early on might not deviate and try to slow Pitt down, if it’s not something they readily do anyway. Once you get past the Sweet Sixteen, I would figure that better teams shouldn’t have to rely on “gimmicky” styles of play. Clearly, I think Notre Dame felt like at that point in the season, their offense couldn’t match Pitt’s high-tempo offense, and employed the burn.

Comment by Lou 03.08.11 @ 10:48 pm

Great stuff, indeed.

I hypothesize that the burn is particularly painful because of our inability to force turnovers. Pomeroy’s stats rank us 284th nationally, our only red mark across his four factors.

Comment by steve 03.09.11 @ 7:18 am

Notre Dome has written a prescription for beating us (Pitt) that has nothing to do with three point shooting or “the burn”. Screen as far away from the basket to pull the big man out from under the basket and on the switch beat him to the hoop. It has to do with our insistence on playing man-to-man defense. I’m surprised that other teams haven’t exploited that to a greater extent.

Comment by shadyforpresident 03.09.11 @ 8:10 am

Shady–to be fair to Gary, he’s been doing a lot better job rotating back to the blocks. I can’t remember specifics, but I know there were quite a few times during some of those last games where he had some nice defensive plays on guards, on switches. I’m sure Jamie noticed what teams were doing early (a la Ben Hansbrough) and made sure Gary took a different angle to the basket. Instead of trying to guard the player, he’s doing a much better job of altering the shot/drive path.

Comment by merlin 03.09.11 @ 9:48 am

Good stuff indeed. I agree that we are unlikely to see this type of offense again, unless we play one of the few teams that (i) has the personell to pull it off, and (ii) has already played this style at some point this year. The question I find intriguing is whether Notre Dame would try the “burn” style again if they play Pitt. Their offense has been very, very good of late, but then again, they have beaten Pitt three straight times with that approach.

Shady – I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Notre Dame’s success with the high ball screen had everything to do with their efficient three point shooting, and to a lesser degree, the burn offense. Because Notre Dame had at least 3 guys who were hitting from deep, Pitt could not collapse when the guard penetrated late in the game. That exposed one of Pitt’s main defensive weaknesses – guarding 1-on-1. Normally, Pitt can overcome this because of effective team defense. When multiple guys can hit from the outside, and penetrate the lane, it becomes much tougher to sag.

As for the burn, it put Notre Dame in a position to try to win a close game at the end. It also allowed their players to be relatively fresh on the defensive side since they were essentially resting for 25 seconds each offensive possession.

I agree that I’d love to see Pitt make some defensive adjustments to counter this strategy, although zone is not how I would do it, particularly against a team like Notre Dame that has multiple shooters. I’d like to see Pitt pick up their man just over half court and make them work early in the shot clock. Also, don’t hedge more than 22 feet from the hoop until the offense proves it can consistently hit NBA three pointers. Lastly, I’d like to see the guards fight through the ball screen more often rather than switching.

I’ve also learned that Jamie Dixon knows a lot more about this game than I do…

Comment by Pantherman13 03.09.11 @ 10:01 am

I agree with merlin, but shady’s point is still valid with regard to ND.

Gary has done a better job on both the hedge and defending after a switch since the ND game. But, it might have been more due to the competition than anything. ND has Hansbrough who can pull up to shoot or take it to the hoop with equal effectiveness. He wasn’t the BE POY for nothing. Kemba Walker may be the only other real threat in the BE there.

However, the thing ND has that UConn and other BE teams don’t have are dangerous shooters at three other positions. That prevented Pitt from employing any help for Gary when he was left one-on-one with Hansbrough. That still concerns me, so that’s the only reason I’d like to see a Pitt/ND BE tourney final. Would love to see Jamie find a way to force tempo in Pitt’s favor, defend Hansbrough on the high ball screen, and crush ND in the final. That would make everyone think twice about trying a slowdown game against us in the Dance.

Comment by TampaT 03.09.11 @ 10:11 am

Sorry, Pantherman13. I was typing as you were posting. As usual, we’re on the same page.

Comment by TampaT 03.09.11 @ 10:13 am

Gary is great, the best defensive player we have, and I’m not critizing his play. Ben Hansbrough was also beating Taylor. I though Taylor might be a little quicker but it didn’t help. These guys are supposed to be getting some backside help and that is where the real problem is. Not everybody that was supposed to be helping was guarding a 3pt threat. And ND’s presciption is a good way to tire and foul out our big men. They are committing a lot of fouls on the hedge. I’m not pretenting to know more than Dixon but this is a big problem that I’d also like to see solved.

Comment by shadyforpresident 03.09.11 @ 10:36 am

shady: For the most part, I agree. However, remember how the ND game went with regard to help D. Nas tried to help early and Martin spotted up and nailed several 3s. Scott was hitting 3s out of his ass and Abromaitis is always a 3-point threat. So those 3 Pitt defenders had to stay put. That only left the switch man, Gibbs, to help. Nash was taking him away from the action and Gibbs isn’t the best at help D anyway. For those reasons, ND creates a unique matchup problem for Pitt that you won’t likely see in the NCAA tourney.

But a zone is not the answer for ND, simply because they shoot so well from the outside. You’d be rolling loaded dice in that case, IMHO.

As mentioned, I agree with Pantherman13, if we do play ND again in one of the tournies. Pick up earlier to force the tempo and disrupt the Burn sets. Don’t hedge so far away from the basket, which is one of the big reasons for getting those cheap fouls. And, lastly, Gibbs needs to fight through the screen better, which might get a foul or two on Nash since he’s sometimes still moving when he sets it.

Oh, and a little more efficiency by Pitt on the offensive end wouldn’t hurt either. I also recall a number of forced shots and dumb turnovers in that earlier game.

Comment by TampaT 03.09.11 @ 11:12 am

Hope your brain doesn’t hurt too bad from all that. Sweet post.

Comment by Ron 03.09.11 @ 11:28 am

Couple points to pile on the Burn….

1) This strategy (although not branded) was implemented last year in the BET by Brey to address the loss of his boy Harangody to injury. Keeps the game short and possession-by-possession– but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

2) I do think Gary has learned from the ND game on defending that high screen/dribble penetration. Don’t forget Gary’s amazing block of UL’s Siva late in the game (A player with far more speed than psycho B) that was a carbon copy play from the ND game. I trust Gary’s defense and I do trust him to adjust and deliver defense in that situation without help from Nas.

3) Altough I won’t rule out an early seed trying this strategy, or pressing the heck out of us to create TOs, I DO believe we will see more zone coverage against us because, for some reason, we have periods where we look completely bamboozled against a zone and cannot score. Yes, we also can look great (first 5 minutes of CUSE game, Georgetown game, some against RU)…but for some reason, if our shots are not falling and someone throws a zone on us, we tend to spiral into those long periods of stalled scoring…

But, like pantherman mentioned, I have more faith in JD knowing more about BB then me…and will always defer to an expert than my fan opinion!

Comment by Pauly P 03.09.11 @ 11:42 am

If I recall correctly we did go to “our” zone and it did help but it was a case of too little to late. And it depends on the zone too. We need to mix up the zone to see what works best 2-3, amoeba, matchup, etc. And mix it up with man to man. And lets be clear Ben Hansbrough was the panther slayer that night and no one else.

Offensive Efficiency, depth disadvantage, and foul shooting advantage are where the “burn” offense comes in strong.

I’d like to see a press, but only once in a while, to break the other teams rhythm. Same goes for fighting thru ball screens but not when Gibbs is on the floor.

TampaT: For the most part, I hate it when you agree with me.

Pantherman13: Sorry, I have to agree with some of the things you bring up.

Comment by shadyforpresident 03.09.11 @ 11:44 am

I agree with much of the above. ND’s win over us has part “burn”, part exploiting a glitch in our defense. But also, slightly below ave shooting by Pitt.

All the burn does is keep a game close. I don’t think you even ahve to have a particularly good/efficient offensive team for it to be effective. Rather, its more than operating a burn offense helps makes you a more efficient team as your taking time to shoot better shots. NDs burn of Pitt, if you recall, didn’t put them in the lead until the “4th quarter” of the game, and what swung it was their exploiting the weakness of Gary’s hedges at the time.

That weakness has since been fixed, or at least is imminently fixable. That we let it hurt us is understandable because I don’t think anyone saw Hansbrough as BE POY caliber player at the time and we were definitely more concerned with him kicking out to his wings for 3pts shots. He had poor help D on those 5 possessions that they took the lead from us — i don’t blame Gary as much as Nas and the other help defenders. Knowing what we know now (that hansborough can drive, that he’s not a great passer while driving) ND’s style doesn’t scare me.

What scares me would be the “perfect storm” of a team that plays a slow, methodical offense, happens to be shooting well when they play us and we happen to be shooting poorly. let’s face it, that ND loss would not have happened and would be less a subject of scrutiny had we shot just 65% from FT or if Gibbs or Brown would have shot anywhere close to their season avereages for 3-pointers.

The ND game is an interesting/relevant case study, but i think it’s somewhat overblown. Not to take anything away from the post or the comments — all of which are very good. I see things slightly differently — a slower paced game means only that we’d have to shoot a higher percentage (really we’d just have to hit our season averages) or figure out how to get some transition and/or post points. The “burn” offense, no matter who we play, is not our kryptonite.

Comment by PantherP 03.09.11 @ 12:05 pm

Pauly – Pitt’s offense against a zone is a legitimate concern. Pitt seems to particularly struggle against a more passive zone that sags into the middle since it can take away the high post and dribble penetration. I think one of the reasons Pitt does so well against Syracuse’s zone is that there is oftentimes a lot of room in the middle (their guards and wings really extend out because they are so athletic). When teams pack it in, Pitt tends to move the ball more slowly along the perimeter, looking for lanes to the middle. When they move the ball more quickly, the lanes tend to open up a bit, both in the middle and on the baseline. Of course, hitting outside shots against a packed zone is still the most effective way to loosen it up. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a first (or even second) round NCAA opponent simply dare Pitt to beat them from the outside…hopefully it won’t be on a day/night where Pitt’s shooters are cold.

Comment by Pantherman13 03.09.11 @ 12:16 pm

At the risk of oversimplifying things, my feeling on beating the zone is this. It hinges on Nasir Robinson.

He gets right in the middle of it. He gets to the basket. It’s a question of whether he finishes. Against Syracuse, Nas scored at will to start. Against Louisville, he was 1-7, missing lots of shots right at the rim.

Nas is fast enough and strong enough to get to the basket when catching the ball in the middle. He has better hands than McGhee. And simply, teams won’t collapse on him the same way they would if Wanamaker or Brown go to the basket.

Comment by Chas 03.09.11 @ 12:34 pm

Here are another few reasons why I don’t think another team is going to try the burn…First of all, only a few teams would have the talent at their guard positions to pull off a successful burn, as in players capable of creating offense on their own. Second, it would be a poor strategic decision on an opposing coach’s part…Pitt was able to review the tape of the ND loss just as closely as any future opponents, and given our veteran leadership, you would EXPECT them to be able to adjust if they were to see it again. If anything, I would expect a team to try to outrun us to neutralize the effect of Gary in the low blocks.
I think this year’s team, much like the 2009 version, did not lose games in which they were simply outclassed from a talent perspective. We had a brain fart against ND and lost two games on tough courts over an 18 game span, which is just the cost of doing business in the Big East. Had we lost to Tennessee the way we did in, say, February, I would be more worried, but our team has grown since then.
Unlike the 2009 team, our team plays with a complete lack of ego. I think part of the problem with that team was that, on top of never having those expectations placed on us as a team, individually, we had three players playing for NBA cash. This group, by all indications, is playing for an individual goal, and that goes a long way in today’s game.
I know all you pessimist Pitt fans want to be vindicated with another early NCAA bow-out, but I hate to tell you guys, I think we’re going to get to watch Pitt play at least 5 games in the big dance.

Comment by Yi 03.09.11 @ 12:45 pm

Lots of excellent points here, I find substance in most of the comments. If we see ND in final Bray likes to show the world how smart he is so he can watch Digger praise him in national media, so we will see the burn mixed in with conventional. I say attack, we’ve got deep enough rotation and we’re much tougher inside. No question Dixon knows infinitly more than any of us, and he needs to come up big here also. He made a few mistakes this year that we know of, probably several that we don’t. He has to have a great run also.

Comment by Old School Panther 03.09.11 @ 12:59 pm

I don’t see anyone here calling for an early exit from the tourney. Most of those who posted are positive Pitt fans who called for this to be a Final Four team after the season finished last year. Folks are just voicing realistic concerns based on what they’ve seen this year so far. But most seem to think Pitt can overcome any of those concerns unless all goes wrong for Pitt and all goes right for the opponent – a perfect storm.

For me, all of this conversation is about tempo and rhythm. This team is at its best when it forces tempo on the defensive end to get runouts before the other team can get totally set on defense. When they’re forcing tempo, Pitt also transitions into its offensive sets so quickly that the shooters are in rhythm and therefore more efficient.

The Burn and zone defenses are all about slowing that tempo and getting Pitt out of their offensive rhythm. That’s why I think Jamie always takes it back to Pitt’s defense. It all starts there.

Comment by TampaT 03.09.11 @ 1:06 pm

TampaT, that was a joke. I don’t think anyone posting here would be upset with the idea of us winning 5 in the tourney.

Comment by Yi 03.09.11 @ 1:21 pm

Gotcha, Yi. I figured you might have thought we’d all become Doug Gottlieb or something. 🙂

Comment by TampaT 03.09.11 @ 1:29 pm

Although if you listen to local sports radio in Pittsburgh, you’ll hear from lots of people who are ready to declare the season a failure and Dixon overrated…

Comment by Pantherman13 03.09.11 @ 1:30 pm

Thanks to iPhone apps, I listen to a lot of Pittsburgh sports radio, Pantherman13. Fortunately, I recognize those callers as the same guys who think the Steelers failed by getting to the Super Bowl and not winning it, Arians should be fired after every game win or lose, the Pens need to trade Fleury for a winger and Crosby is faking his injury. So, I take what they say with all that in mind.

Comment by TampaT 03.09.11 @ 1:41 pm

Well said, TampaT, well said…

Comment by Pantherman13 03.09.11 @ 2:06 pm

Now that we’ve pretty much covered Notre Dame strategy, how do we deal with visually-impaired referees (a la, Dwight Hardy’s out-of-bounds no-call?)

Generally, a slow game between Rutgers and SJU so far…

Comment by Lou 03.09.11 @ 2:52 pm

Lou – you’ve hit on a much harder problem to solve. While I recognize that the game has become harder and harder to officiate (players are bigger and faster, etc.), it seems to me that officiating is in about as bad a state as I can ever remember. Very little consistency among refs, even within the same game. Too many “message” calls (either to a particular player or coach, or to alter the nature of a game). Too many times where a ref doesn’t see something that should be blatantly obvious. And frankly, too many times where a controversial call is having a large effect on the outcome of the game.

I’ve watched a fair number of non-Big East games, and this seems to be a general problem in college ball, not a Big East problem.

Comment by Pantherman13 03.09.11 @ 4:17 pm

Just to be clear, my last post (about the officials) was before the end of the St. John’s/Rutgers debacle…

Comment by Pantherman13 03.09.11 @ 5:16 pm

Powered by WordPress © PittBlather.com

Site Meter