NCS D4

[ballersdreams]

Ol'...Layer

What I said speed with talent kills. Speed is a major part of the game and if a teams has fast guards and fast post players makes it a lot easier to win. A team can be discipline but they have to close in speed because in the end a fast talent guard will blow by them and score or create for she team. I seen teams try to slow the pace on the offenses side to stop a run team but in the end still lose end. I seen that at Corner Bakery Showdown and both teams lost in the end.


BUT LIKE I SAID SPEEDS WITH TALENT KILLS ANY DAY OF THE WEEK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Salesian wins by 8 because last time they taught they can just walk on the court and win the game..

 

[jbvilla]

Ballerdream I don't think Salesian was that confident they could just walk on the court and win.

Regarding your prediction by 8? I would take that bet.

 

[fallensoul6]

Winetot
If SMB won its way into the open then they will be in the open
Another flaw in this system CIF continues to fumble.
I know it isn't the same team as before
It looks like they are playing well as of late

I'm not a fan of moving a non section winner to the Open
D4 was watered down last year
If Salesian, SMB, and Brookside all go up that strips the division SIGNIFICANTLY

Should be a fun one Saturday night

I'm still waiting on some kinda recap from the pundits that said SMB had the toughest matchup
This post was edited on 3/5 8:41 AM by fallensoul6

 

[remc]

The way SMB seems to be playing right now,Salesian better be ready.Like Id said in an earlies post on another thread,that last win over Salesian gave SMB a huge mental boost.Now they believe.

 

[Mo Green]

Originally posted by Ol' Brick Layer:
Counter what Guru says...It's never about the match-ups. It's always about imposing your style of play upon your opponent. If you approach a game concerned about the match-ups you are already defeated. Of course, you do have to understand some degree of the strength of the opposition, but being overly concerned with match-ups is a losing approach, Impose your style of play, and make the opponent react to you.

This worked out well for Paul Westhead.

 

[ClayK]

I have to disagree: I think when you have two evenly matched teams, then matchups are incredibly important. And speed is a tremendous asset, no doubt, but so is shooting and so is size. A team with great speed that struggles to shoot from the perimeter and doesn't have great size is relatively easy to defend, by a quality opponent.

If it were true that speed plus talent always wins, then one would expect every state champion, or at least most of them, to reflect that model -- but that's not the case. You can win in a lot of ways, though personally I prefer speed and shooting.

But a speed team vs. a power team is a different game than a speed team vs. a speed team. And a team with a player good enough to slow down Aarion McDonald (hold her to 20, say) is going to be a lot better off than a team that has no one who can stay in front of her and allows her to go wherever she wants on the court.

 

[Paytc]

While I agree with Mo Green that you don't have a game plan that puts too much focus on what another team is gonna do….

I also agree with Clay that match ups is always an important factor to consider. Matching up is critical to being able to keep up with some players/teams. That is also why player rotation can be so crucial in many games. I always like to say "The game dictates the rotation not the coach". And matching a team that may end up having an advantage is critical to making it a game, winning, or being blown out.

All players are not created equally. If that were the case there would be no need for a starting line up. You would also be able to put the ball in your worse dribblers hand and trust that like everyone else she is capable of bringing the ball up court. Or having your smallest player posting up a player who is a foot taller.

Another example is it is typical to see the team's best defender matched up with a team's best scorer.


Paytc

This post was edited on 3/5 5:34 PM by Paytc

 

[Ol' Brick Layer]

Mo- I like the Paul Westhead reference, " First team to 150 wins"

Clay, in my opinion teams are never "evenly matched". More important than match-ups is knowing your strengths and playing to them. The best example this year is on the boys side, DLS. They are averaging 20 points more a game. Why. Because they changed their style of play to match their personnel. All the years they ran there Princeton offense, they consistently beat teams both bigger and faster. It had very little to do with match-ups.

Paytc- you are right, there is no equality.

 

[ClayK]

I don't mean to claim that matchups are all that matter -- but I do think they matter a lot, especially in postseason.

If Team A can simply overwhelm Team B with talent, then the details are irrelevant, but if Team A relies on a very talented point guard and Team C has an elite defensive perimeter stopper and Team D doesn't, then Team C has an advantage over Team D. But if Team A has a 6-3 power post player, and Team D has a tall, strong girl who's a good defender in the paint, then Team D has the advantage.

And PaytC has it right: Each game at this level requires adjustment in rotation -- though that assumes the coach has options. Sometimes a team has five good players and they pretty much are going to play the whole game (Valley Christian of Dublin, for example); then there are teams like Carondelet, with lots of good players who can be deployed in different configurations.

It's a complex equation, and I don't think it can be boiled down to one or two things at this point in the season.

And in the end, the team that shoots better on that particular night is going to have a big advantage -- and my feeling is that's going to be the story with O'Dowd and Miramonte.

 

[Paytc]

Clay,

That is very close to the point I'm making about player rotation. I think when people hear the word player rotation they automatically think you mean run a 10-12 player rotation. No, when we say player rotation, it could mean as little as no rotation at all, to the extreme rotation if your players get too tired or in foul trouble. Or your starters are struggling for whatever reason. Players have bad games even in the NBA. Sometimes your opponent can shut down the system you like to run, and the players you like to use.

There could be a spark plug on the bench? A shut down defender,a big or tall body, good shooter,good ball handler, good decision maker, a calm cool player, etc...? Each game requires a different game plan especially at playoff time, or when you have two evenly matched teams.

As I have been quoted to say "the game should dictate player rotation, not the coach." Because each game presents different match ups, and different challenges. You could play the same team 10 times and each game will have a unique personality. Every game is a new circumstance and it requires a separate consideration. Obviously you don't want to get to far away from what your team does best, or rely on substitute players. But you also have to be willing to accept some games require you to alter your predictability.

In a perfect world…. Mo Green,Clay, Paytc,Ole Brick Layer, and everyone is right. But the world most of us live in is not perfect.

Therefore we must be flexible in our approach when circumstance requires us to be.

One of the main points I stress in Win Anyway is flexibility in your coaching. There will come a time when just running your system or style of play hits a wall. That is when creativity and the challenge in how good a coach you are comes into play.

How big is your coach's ego? Is it so big that you decide you will stand in the way of your team's success just to prove your system or style can work every time?

Absolutely no system,style, or philosophy works every time. Anyone who thinks they do is seriously kidding themselves and needs an ego checkup.

And I also agree with you Clay that if one team has the superior players, sure the system will work 99% of the time.

It's when there are two very well coached teams, who each have a few skilled and/or dominant players, that triggers a need
for some different and strategic coaching to be required.



Paytc

 

[Paytc]

Ol' Brick Layer,

I'm glad you used DLS as an example because they have a game tonight with Monte Vista. I understand that Monte Vista has beaten DLS both times they played this season. Here is an example of a system not working because your opponent has a counter solution and/or presents a few matchup problems that halts the system.

It sounds like a tough opponent? Frank may have to consider a change in approach?

I think it is obvious that in order for DLS to increase their odds to win they may have to change their approach. Anthony Robbins is who quickly comes to mind when I think about someone saying "change your approach".

Sure you can stick with the system and you may indeed win 1 or 2 times out of ten. But I would prefer to have my coach/team
at least consider changing our approach slightly just to improve our odds of success a little.


Again life gives us very few guarantees and nothing works every time. Flexibility will increase your chances to Win Anyway.


When we say Win Anyway we mean anyway that works without cheating. There is more than one way to win !

Now I totally agree with you on the need for a coach/leader to be willing enough to "change the style of play to match their personnel."

That is being flexible, and putting players in lanes they fit and can excel in, not forcing a system down any and every players throat regardless to their size, ability, and skill set.




Paytc

This post was edited on 3/6 11:51 AM by Paytc

 

[ClayK]

Here's the issue at the high school level, I think: Players aren't experienced enough to effectively run multiple systems.

Let's just take tempo. I much prefer my teams to play at a very high tempo, and we work hard to teach our players to do that. It takes a lot of time to learn to be aggressive all the time at both ends of the floor because players aren't used to it. It has to become second nature.

But now comes a game when playing slower would be to our advantage. I can't expect my players to suddenly learn to run 15 seconds off the clock and sit back passively in defense after a couple days' practice. Either we won't do it consistently, or far more likely, we won't do it well.

So would I rather have my team does what it does best in terms of tempo, or try to do something it doesn't really know how to do?

My answer is the former, but I can understand the reasoning by changing it up, even if it puts you at a disadvantage.

I think a senior-dominated team that is very familiar with its base system can afford to spend the time during the regular season working on alternate tempos, defenses and offenses so that it can be more flexible, but most teams really need to keep working on what they do best because they've far from mastered it.

But again, in postseason, it's a tough call. It's easier when the outcome isn't in doubt: We were going to play our uptempo game against St. Joseph Notre Dame and lose by a lot, because all we would gain by slowing it down would be to narrow their margin of victory, which proves almost nothing. But if we had a chance to win, I'm not sure I would have done the same thing.

And Miramonte faces the same problem tomorrow: Play the uptempo game BOD prefers, or slow it down, even though Miramonte is better at a faster pace.

 

[Paytc]

Clay,

Yes. We must always consider the present circumstance at hand. Because each team and each game presents a new challenge. Predictable teams, unless they have the superior athletes, are easy to game plan and beat when all else is equal.


I think half time adjustments are what helps put the other team away many times in the second half. Not necessarily doing the same thing when it's not working. How many games of two halfs have you seen?


Paytc

 

[ClayK]

There are numerous games that change drastically in the second half, but I am unconvinced that all, or even a majority, are because of tactical or strategic adjustments.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've been involved with some very successful programs, and seldom if ever did we change things at halftime. Mainly we focused on what it was we weren't doing well (rebounding, say) or what we needed to keep doing within our system.

So for me, second-half comebacks and second-half collapses are more a product of just playing better or with more energy rather than drawing something up or changing our fundamental strategy. We're going to play the way we play, and maybe we'll decide to do some minor things differently (don't come to help from the weakside block, say) but I'm of the school that prefers to do few things and do them well rather than do a lot of things.

Some coaches, of course, are successful in that, and can teach a team a lot of different stuff, so they can call up stuff in the playbook at halftime that maybe they haven't run in a couple of weeks -- but that has never really worked for me.

 

[Paytc]

Clay,

I have not ever said change your DNA. I am totally onboard with those who like to win or lose playing their style or the way we play. My point is there are some teams that matchup well or game plan well for what you like to do. That is when we make the adjustment tweaks either before the game starts or sometime during the game when we see the other team has our number.

My point again may have been demonstrated in the DLS vs Monte Vista boys game last night. Monte Vista has beaten DE La Salle 6 times straight. When you face a team that obviously matches up with you well and has your number, sometimes you have to better game plan. In my book, I say you don't coach or play every game the same because life is not a recording it plays out in real time. Each game is a new circumstance. I heard one of Monte Vista's top scorers hit 8 three pointers while DLS two top scorers appeared to have been shut down?

Now I was not at the game and heard DLS had a shot to win it in the end.

But as I have been quoted as saying "no system,style, or philosophy works every time".

All you can do is either work to take away what the other team likes to do like Monte Vista appeared to do shutting down the two top scorers and making someone else beat them. Or letting the other team's top scorer knock down approx. 8 three pointers. Of course you can keep on doing what you like to do, but if they are doing what they want to do and preventing you from "playing your game". You have to change your approach in my and a few other coaches opinions.

I am not saying my approach will work every time, none will. We just want to increase our odds ever so slightly in certain games or circumstances.

Again I was not at the game so this is hearsay.

I do agree with you that many second halves turn around when the team just plays better at doing what they like to do or continuing to run the system and/or play their style.

My point is when you know someone knows you and matches up well enough to defeat you. That's when you may want to consider adjusting or changing your approach.

To me that's "game time coaching". Running the system and doing what you do best etc… is what I call practice coaching.

We all know players who will kill you in practice(or when things are easy), but fold up like a tent under real pressure game time situations. There are what I call practice and game time coaches.

Sometimes the plan to just continue to do what you like to do but just do it better than you have been or ever could do is just not enough. And a game time coach will adjust.

Phil Jackson was a practice coach. He did all his coaching before the game and expected his team to play through it all. It worked when both Kobe and Mike were in their prime so Phil got out of the game once they were not in their prime. He was a smart and successful practice style coach.

Paytc


Paytc

This post was edited on 3/9 9:14 AM by Paytc

 

[ClayK]

All good points ... sometimes you have to change if you want to win; sometimes you just have to do what you do better.

 

[Paytc]

ClayK,

Exactly the point "Flexibility" because nothing will work all the time. That my friend is evolution at its finest.
As things change and a new challenge is presented. You have a choice to change and give your self a chance or remain the same an second guess yourself as things evolve around you.


Obviously this is just my opinion and though many times I am right, I have been wrong many times as well.




Paytc