University of North Carolina Athletics
Lucas: UNC Basketball Mailbag Dec. 20
December 20, 2005 | Men's Basketball
Dec. 20, 2005
By Adam Lucas
Thanks to a variety of Tar Heels, the first annual Mailbag Holiday Project was a rousing success. Amy and Jared Henry were able to spend this past weekend in Chapel Hill, where they took in Friday's practice, met Roy Williams and most of the players, had dinner Friday night with the Tar Heel Sports Network broadcast crew, and attended Saturday's team shootaround. Then they cheered on the Tar Heels from the front row during the win over Santa Clara and went into the locker room afterwards. You might have even heard them at halftime on the radio broadcast, where they made a special guest appearance.
Too many people participated to try and name them all, but special thanks go to Eric Hoots, Steve Kirschner, Robert Crawford, Woody Durham, Eric Montross, Jones Angell, and Manish Atma at the Hampton Inn & Suites. We look forward to doing it again next year.
In other news, "points and minutes" is sweeping the nation--or at least it was until the advent of the 3-point shot. Pat Connolly of Virginia Beach says he first heard the theory espoused by Al McGuire on CBS broadcasts. And David Culp's father wanted to make sure everyone knows that it had to be a "true lead"--in other words, Carolina had to be up by the same number of points as minutes remaining and also have the ball. If the opponent had the ball, it wasn't a true lead.
We didn't realize we had so many Doctors of Dunk in the Mailbag readership. Because of the tremendous interest in great Tar Heel dunks, we're going all-dunk, all-the-time in next week's Mailbag. So if you've got one that simply has to be mentioned, drop us a line.
I have been following Carolina Basketball since around 1964. This is one of the most unselfish teams I have seen play in many years. It honestly brings back memories to me of Coach Smith's teams of the late 60's and early 70's. By that , I mean teams that were not necessarily the most talented, but extremely well coached and hungry to win. Is there a particular era or team, that this year's squad reminds you of?
Tom Chowns, Virginia Beach, Virginia
We'll admit to being more limited in our timeframe than you are, Tom, because our frame of reference only extends to roughly the 1982 championship team. During that stretch, the team that might have done the most with the least individual talent was the 1993 national championship team. In terms of raw talent, that squad was much less talented than the opponent it defeated in the championship game, Michigan's Fab Five squad. Only two members of Carolina's 93 team would go on to have productive NBA careers--Eric Montross and George Lynch. But they were a very good team defensively, keyed by the underappreciated Derrick Phelps at point guard.
Does that mean this year's team is going to win the national championship? No. In fact, if we had to compare this year's team to another Tar Heel group of recent vintage, it would probably be the 1995-96 squad. Keyed by three freshmen--Vince Carter, Antawn Jamison, and Ademola Okulaja--they started hot (9-1) before eventually finishing 21-11, good for third place in the ACC. As talented as they were, that group of rookies eventually hit a wall, and they lost three straight league games in early February. One difference, though, is that that team seemed to rely much more on emotion, whereas (to this point) this year's team has exhibited a more unflappable demeanor.
A columnist on ESPN.com wrote that he would rather see
this group of Tar Heels play than see last year's
group try to repeat, saying this year's team are
underdogs and that makes watching them win even
sweeter. I was wondering what you thought about that?
Personally, I would have loved to see last year's guys
try to repeat, but like Adam said after the Illinois
game, I was one of the many to fall in love with this
team, and I look forward to seeing good things from
these guys.
Aaron Merritt, Fargo, ND
Nobody's ever accused us of being Dean Smith, but this question does make us feel a little bit like the living legend. Smith, of course, always hated to compare teams, saying it was like picking between his children. That's the same way we feel about these two teams--although if Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants, Marvin Williams, and Sean May were really our children then we'd be rolling in a hot new Escalade right now.
Here's the thing: no one ever completely loves a giant. Last year's team was a giant. Because they were so talented and played so well together, they had to bear enormous expectations. So after every win, rather than soaking it in, it was time to start worrying about the next game.
This year's team is completely different. It had almost no expectations (other than low expectations) and through the first month of the season has benefited from a "Gee, this is great!" mentality from Carolina fans. But it won't be so sunny forever. Wins have a way of creating expectations, and what might have been seen as terrific before the year started--say, an NCAA Tournament slot and a finish in the top half of the league--might now be seen as disappointing. It's easy to say this team is fun to watch when they're winning. But will everyone still feel that way if they hit a rough patch?
Also, to say this year's team is definitely more fun to watch does a disservice to last year's group. The most important thing about the 2004-05 Tar Heels was that they brought back that air of invincibility that had been missing from Carolina basketball in recent years. Carolina basketball was a happening again last year. Teams wanted to play the Tar Heels--they knew they might get dunked on, but they still wanted to measure themselves against the best.
One other thing: last year's team seems to get some flak simply because they were so talented. But plenty of Carolina teams have been talented. The thing that's impressive is that they got the absolute maximum out of that talent--a national championship. Will this year's team get the absolute maximum out of their talent (and what, exactly, would that be)? We'll find out in March.
A friend of mine (who happens to be a Texas fan) were discussing the
defense of JJ Redick and I used your information from the 12/6 mailbag
of his stats while being defended by Jackie Manuel (15-46 field goals).
My friend said that the numbers were impressive in that JJ was held to
around 33% shooting. That got me to thinking, though, about how JJ not
only shot a low percentage but also didn't take the number of shots he
would like to have taken. And, as the saying goes, you miss 100% of the
shots you don't take. So, I proposed to him that if you adjust JJ's
numbers versus UNC to account for the number of shots he didn't take,
his fg% would have been much worse. In my hypothetical example, I said
to assume that JJ played against UNC/Manuel 7 times (six regular season
and one ACC tournament) and took four shots/game fewer than his career
average, giving him 28 more missed shots, or 15-74 (20.3%). Could the
crack research staff at the mailbag put actual numbers into this
formula?
Steven, Dalton, GA
Interesting email, Steven. We're not sure we'd completely go along with you in assuming that all untaken shots would be misses, but it's about as good an attempt as we've seen at trying to quantify good defense. To get a truly accurate reading, though, you'd have to know on which shots that Redick (who we're using as an example here simply because you mentioned him and because he takes enough shots to make this a worthwhile exercise) took that he was guarded by Manuel--remember, last year Carolina used Manuel and David Noel as a defensive tandem. So if we're going to use the cumulative shooting stats from Carolina-Duke games last year, we're actually getting a reading on the defense played by Manuel and Noel rather than just Manuel. You also need to find a way to factor in free throw trips. After all, a team could limit an opponent's shot attempts, but if they're sending him to the free throw line all game (especially a great free throw shooter like Redick), it's not really good defense.
Redick averaged 15 shots per game last year and 9.1 three-point shots per game. Against Carolina, he averaged 12.5 shots per game and 9.5 three-point shots per game. He averaged going to the line 6.3 times per game but took just five free throws per game against the Tar Heels.
Overall, Redick shot 9-for-25 against the Heels last season. That's five shots less than his average. Using your formula, his field goal percentage against Carolina last season would have been 30 percent.
Field goal percentage has always been a somewhat unfair way to judge guards, because they're taking more long-distance shots than their post counterparts. But the long-distance shots also have a higher reward--an extra point when taken from beyond the three-point line. For that reason, a stat called effective field goal percentage has grown in popularity recently, especially in the NBA. That stat tries to take into consideration the added reward of three-point shots by counting them as 1.5 field goals. The formula looks like this:
Effective field goal percentage=(FGM + .5 * 3PFGM)/FGA
Whew, you didn't know you'd get a dose of algebra in this morning's Mailbag, did you? We apologize for bringing back bad memories of TI-85 graphing calculators.
Let's look at the most recently completed season for an example. Raymond Felton shot 45.5 percent from the field last season--not that great, right? But if you plug his numbers into the effective field goal percentage formula, they look very different:
150 + .5 * 70/330=56.1 percent, which would be Felton's effective field goal percentage. That's pretty impressive, especially when you consider that Sean May's effective field goal percentage last season was 56.7%. In other words, both Felton and May were being roughly equally efficient with their shots.
To this point, non-traditional statistics such as effective field goal percentage have primarily been used in the NBA, where teams can afford to pay someone to keep track of them. But it's a measure of just how far ahead of his time Dean Smith was that one of the stats pro teams are starting to give more weight is points per possession, which is something Smith has been tracking for the past four decades.
Is there a system to determine which player will be the
in-bounder on an out-of-bounds play? There doesn't seem to be any
pattern and it's not always the person standing closest to the sideline.
Adam Beck, Chapel Hill, NC
It depends on the particular in-bounds play the Tar Heels are running. Certain plays call for certain in-bounders. We could tell you more about the specific in-bounds sets Carolina prefers to run, but then we'd have to kill you. Suffice it to say that there are numerous options, and then there are even options off of the options. There are also different in-bounds plays for specific situations, such as needing a quick two-pointer, needing a quick three-pointer, and various other circumstances.
Brownlow's Down Low
The departure of the underclassmen from the 2004-05 national championship basketball team made me wonder `'what if?'' What if they had come back for their senior years? Would it have been the first time in Carolina history that a men's basketball team defended its title?
This may be impossible to break down, but I'm hoping the Mail Bag could give it a shot: In your opinion what team which had underclassman leave early would have had the best chance of winning a title or defending a championship? As I recall, Worthy left his junior year, after the Heels beat Georgetown. Again, if I recall correctly, had he returned, we would have had Worthy, Perkins and MJ - a super nucleus. No way would we have lost the next year to Indiana in the tourney. I realize this is the stuff of fantasy, but I really believe the Heels would easily repeat this year had the juniors stayed - not that I'm saying we won't.
William Yelverton, A Florida Tar Heel
Lauren writes: Ah, the stuff of fantasy - this is like an early Christmas present. There's nothing more fun than to speculate on something that did not or will not happen, because then who can say you're wrong? I'm sure that ever since the early exodus this year, the debate was bound to come up. Assuming no Carolina player had ever left early for the draft, which would have been "the year"; "the team"? Would it have been this year's team, with Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Sean May and Marvin Williams? Or would it have been the 1995-96 or 1996-97 team, with Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, Jerry Stackhouse, and Rasheed Wallace? Which was the national championship squad that never was? More importantly, which almost-squad would have been more likely to have won the national championship?
The 1996-97 team's best players would have been, obviously, Vince Carter, Antawn Jamison, Jerry Stackhouse and Rasheed Wallace. But you also had Ed Cota, not to mention key reserves in Shammond Williams, Ademola Okulaja, Serge Zwikker, and Makhtar Ndiaye. The starting lineup, according to skill level, likely would have looked like this:
PG - Ed Cota
SG - Vince Carter
G/F - Jerry Stackhouse
F - Antawn Jamison
C - Rasheed Wallace
To be honest, I don't really see this team working. I know this is very popular amongst Tar Heels who mourned the lost opportunity to see the seniors, Stack and `Sheed, teaching the sophomore Carter and Jamison a thing or two and easily taking the national championship. I would argue, though, that the 1995-96 team had the better chance to win it than the 1996-97 team. Carter and Jamison were both awesome as freshmen, so one more year under their belt wouldn't make them any more awesome, in my opinion. Ed Cota and Jeff McInnis is probably a tossup in terms of ability, though McInnis was a better shooter. But the quality of the reserves was better in 1995-96 - instead of Mahktar Ndiaye, you had Dante Calabria. I don't care what you say about Ndiaye's leadership abilities, Dante could flat-out shoot from three-point land.
What about 2005? Most would agree that this team is an overall better defensive team than last year's team - at the very least, this team works harder. Would they have been able to effectively combine last year's sheer talent and this year's great work ethic? Felton would be backed up by Bobby Frasor and Quentin Thomas at the point; Danny Green and Tyler Hansbrough would have a year to learn from the likes of Rashad McCants and Sean May. David Noel would be perhaps one of the most important reserves, and perhaps Bryon Sanders and Wes Miller. I think that Marcus Ginyard would eventually work his way into this starting lineup, putting Reyshawn Terry on the bench and shifting Rashad to the G/F spot. Regardless, this is what the starting lineup would probably look like:
PG - Raymond Felton
SG - Rashad McCants
G/F - Reyshawn Terry
F - Marvin Williams
C - Sean May
Intangibles are perhaps the most important thing. Let's face it, at least 50% of winning a national championship is made up of intangibles: Luck. Injuries. Chemistry. You name it, the Heels (and many other teams) have encountered it. I feel that it's yet another battle of "talent" vs. "team", in a way. I think most people would accept that the talent in the '95-'96 and '96-'97 potential teams would have far exceeded this year's. But the reserves on this year's hypothetical team would be more likely to make a contribution than the reserves on the '95-'96 or '96-'97 squads. It's hard to compare statistically, and it would be unfair, considering that this year's team has the would-have-been "reserves" playing a lot more minutes than they would have been if everyone had stayed. However, I'd have to say from an intangible point of view that this year's would-have-been reserves' hard work, defensive skills and ability to learn quickly would prove more valuable. I do think that Shammond Williams and Dante Calabria would provide valuable minutes coming off the bench - but, considering they are both jump-shooters, how often would their shot have fallen when they had to come off the bench cold? Serge Zwikker would have provided a much-needed rest for Rasheed Wallace, but that would be about it. Hansbrough, comparatively, would have been an amazing backup to Sean May. Also, the older squad lacked a point guard backup for Ed Cota, while this year's team would have two capable backups.
So, to me, this year's team has a slight edge. Other would-have-been's that deserve mention are, of course, the 1982-83 team, that might have repeated with James Worthy back for his senior year to add to the already great Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, and Brad Daugherty. The 84-85 team would have added Michael Jordan to a group that still made it to the Elite Eight before falling to Villanova. The J.R. Reid-less 1989-90 Tar Heels probably wouldn't have won a championship, but King Rice, Hubert Davis, Pete Chilcutt, Rick Fox, and Scott Williams were still around, not to mention George Lynch was a freshman. A 1972-73 team with Bob McAdoo might have made the NCAA tournament when you consider the supporting staff: George Karl, Bobby Jones, and Mitch Kupchak, just to name a few.
Yes, it would have been an amazing year with Jamison, Carter, Stack and `Sheed all playing together. But what about all the egos? Yes, it would have been great if Marvin, Raymond, Sean and Rashad had stayed. But would we have gotten to know this year's team as well as we do? Would we love this team as much? That's a bad question; of course we would love them, they're Tar Heels. But would it be as easy to love this year's team? I say no.
Adam Lucas is the publisher of Tar Heel Monthly and can be reached at alucas@tarheelmonthly.com. He is the coauthor of the official book of the 2005 championship season, Led By Their Dreams, and his book on Roy Williams's first season at Carolina, Going Home Again, is now available in bookstores. To subscribe to Tar Heel Monthly or learn more about Going Home Again, click here.
