The difference there is that Dayton actually played well.
CMU was just as horrible, if not worse, than Miami tonight, and we lost.
This was atrocious basketball all around
Honest question for the board:
For various reasons, I gave up watching basketball long ago; the NBA about 25 years ago, and college about the time Charlie retired.
Why is the quality of the game overall (and this loss to CMU, which I didn’t watch) so bad? Shouldn’t the players now, who have practiced their whole lives and have the benefit of 100 years of basketball innovation, modern coaching and analytics, be better than in the past? Shouldn’t D1 college players be able to play a competent game of basketball? Where did it all go wrong?
1 Like
Last night was really bad - by both teams. Tough to watch. That being said, plenty of Miami’s other games (even when they lost) were much more enjoyable - or at least watchable. I don’t have a problem with the “state of the game” - just for some reason, last night was really ugly.
2 Likes
It was shocking just how badly we finished each half. At the last media TO in the first half, we were up 9, then got outscored 8-2 the rest of the half. With under 3 minutes to go we were up 2, then got outscored by 14 the rest of the way.
Lol. What a clown post
The game’s pace is too fast. That’s my honest opinion. Fundamentals have been lost in the speed of the current game.
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but as I try to continue to follow the game, these are my observations, and I’ll try to be concise.
- The quality of youth coaching has deteriorated. Too much focus on winning and not enough on fundamentals. I watch my old high school play on Youtube and if Northmont 25 years ago played like they played, there would be massive consequences. Also, there are no consequences for poor decision-making and immaturity.
- Related to #1, it seems that there’s a greater focus on AAU tournaments and less on going to camp to keep working on fundamentals. Yes, you get better by playing games against good competition. But I think there should be a balance where you have some time devoted to working on fundamentals.
- Too many 3s and layups and not enough in between. I understand the analytics. But, keeping the number of shots of equal, shooting 35% from 3 can be overcome by shooting 55% from a particular spot inside the arc in the mid-range.
You can find good basketball but it’s not in the most obvious places. You have to find more experienced, well-coached teams to watch, which takes you off the beaten path somewhat.
I will say that I think the NBA product has improved. Since the 2020 bubble when I was forced to watch it because there was nothing else, I was pleasantly surprised and looked forward to it. I’ve watched more regular season NBA in the last 3 years than in the previous 22 years combined.
2 Likes
I agree with @mz343 on all points. I was never a fan of Kobe, but he was spot on with his assessment that AAU has been bad for basketball. It’s just up and down the court playing games but little-to-no skill development.
Defenders of AAU hang their hats on how kids are playing more basketball than they ever have. Detractors say when a kid plays thousands of hours and still can’t dribble with their weak hand, then what good was all the hours of playing?
Standing in the corner, not moving and making a 3 when someone passes you the ball is A skill. One. Way too many kids don’t have anything besides that one skill.
2 Likes
Serious question why did Mabry and Lairy continue to get minutes last night?
I’m a novice at nuance so I’ll go only with my 30,000 foot observation: Lairy has been pretty great for much of his career at MU. The freshman made the game winner against our best win of the year. Why not play them. They’re good. Just had a sub par night.
Ps, if they play lights out at Kent and somehow the game is closer than you think, I wouldn’t be shocked. I would imagine this week is a tough run at practice and they come out ready to roll next game.
4 Likes
Since I’m not a little kid or a giant tech dork, I blame Steph Curry for ruining basketball. Also Daryl Morey can eat shit.
1 Like
I coached three summers of AAU ball long ago. The criticism of the coaches is spot on. One of the biggest compliments I got from players and parents was that the players learned fundamentals they were not taught in high school. One of the biggest complaints I got from parents was that they were not given enough one v one freedom. I was confused ( not really), I thought the goal was to make better players, not win games by talent alone. My best player was poached by another program-not given enough shots. I actually had a college coach ask if I could feature one player more the next game so he could get a better feel for the talent. I laughed. Then I considered the college. I laughed more. We won. He did not get his wish. The player went on to D1 but looked on tv as if defending was still a foreign concept. Oh well, I tried.
5 Likes
Go look up the research on what happens when you pull kids because they had a bad night.
2 Likes
I didn’t do the research but I’m guessing it all leads back to the same thing…quiet quitting.
Me, too. With a Miami buddy. We stayed long enough to see if we broke 20. Both of us had long drives after game. Most pathetic display of alleged basketball I’ve ever seen. Hope to never see on like that again.
1 Like
That’s one of the outcomes. The other is players take longer to make decisions (the theory is second guessing if that decision will get them yanked), causing their development to plateau. Turns out it’s much better to let athletes be athletes and teach them in a positive way.
Lairy has had multiple 30 point games and a handful of 20 point games. That was the worst game I’ve ever seen him play. I think he’s earned the right to work through a bad night.
Mabrey simply couldn’t hit. Steele will tell you he’s the best shooter on the team. Outside of his bad shooting night, he actually played a decent game. Had some rebounds, Safford was the only player to have as many minutes with less turnovers. Played ok defense against some guys that were more athletic and older.
2 Likes
This is a pretty egregious logical fallacy. Shooting shooting 36.7% from 3 can overcome shooting 55% from mid-range. This season, the D1 average for 3’s from the corner is 36.2% (1.086 points per shot). For 3’s above the break it’s 33.5% (1.005 points per shot). For shots outside of the paint but inside of the 3 pt line, it’s 34.9% (.698 points per shot). You’re saying, “if they shot 20.1% above the D1 average, it would overcome an average 3 point shooting night.” “If Miami’s players just did something that only generational talents do, they can overcome something that is average.”
Here’s an article from 2012 when the midrange game still existed, how many are shooting 55% in a league that people claim has no defense: Ranking the NBA's Deadliest Midrange Assassins | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report
Kevin Durant might be the best midrange shooting in the NBA today, and even he says it’s not the shot he wants, but a wide open midrange jumper is better than a contested 3 or backing someone down in the post, and he’s right.
You can’t just say, if we shot some percentage that nobody shoots, it would make up for it.
I also want to make it clear, I’m not against the midrange. It has a place, but there’s a reason it’s been entirely deprioritized. Open, feet set, in rhythm midrange jumpers are decent shots.
3 Likes
I was only joking about quiet quitting. I find it comical.
The “Is a 2 actually better than a 3” conversation was taking place on the previous board when I first found it. I’d highly recommend we revisit that debate.
Very misinformed take. The nadir of the NBA was the mid 2000s and the nadir of college basketball was 2010ish.
Analytics showed the value of shooting three pointers. Players subsequently got too good at shooting three pointers, so they had to move the line back. This created a lot more space that needed to be defended and created openings for offenses. The increased emphasis on perimeter play also meant that teams started getting more big guys who can shoot and handle the ball. This created more threats and meant that teams had to be super aggressive about switching on defense, creating more mismatches for the offense. It’s incredibly difficult to play good defense in the modern game, and it’s because the players got a lot better at basketball.
The increased talent on offense (along with updated rules for the shot clock and freedom of movement) also means that teams are being more aggressive on offense. They’re more willing to play fast and try to get points in transition. They’re more willing to take on defenders off the bounce to get to the rim. They’re more willing to try to move defenses around to create open looks for three. Along with creating a lot more points, it also creates more turnovers and more hectic play. An uninformed observer might mistake that as being less fundamentally sound than a team that executes clean chest passes around the perimeter for 35 seconds and then takes a contested mid range jumper to beat the shot clock, but it’s a more efficient style of play and it’s certainly more entertaining to watch.
I guess people will get nostalgic for anything, but it’s still bizarre to see people longing for the days of Bo Ryan ball. Also, we really shouldn’t be making these massive extrapolations about the state of modern basketball because a team that’s been together for only a couple months had a cold shooting night while their point guard had an uncharacteristically bad performance.
2 Likes