University of North Carolina Athletics
Lucas: UNC Basketball Mailbag
February 12, 2008 | Men's Basketball
Feb. 12, 2008
By Adam Lucas
First, the obligatory injury updates: Ty Lawson did not practice on Monday. On his Monday teleconference, Roy Williams said there was no official timetable for Lawson's return. "We just have to wait until he starts feeling better with it," the head coach said. When will that happen? Hopefully sooner rather than later.
The larger story, considering that Sean Singletary is looming in Charlottesville, is the status of Marcus Ginyard. Without Ginyard, the Tar Heels would make their first trip to John Paul Jones Arena with a major point guard problem and without their main perimeter defensive stopper. The Carolina junior was very limited in what was already a limited practice on Monday but did participate in some shooting drills. "They did an x-ray at 10 a.m. this morning, but I haven't heard anything back. I assume that means everything is OK," Williams said Monday around lunch.
Now that the Super Bowl is over, the world at large is starting to pay attention to college basketball. Although I'll admit it was a little jarring to turn on SportsCenter on Monday and hear the anchor say, "We're in the heart of the sports dead season now that the Pro Bowl is over." Sometimes here in the heart of ACC country we forget that people in less fortunate sports areas think February and early March are boring. To the contrary, it's one of my favorite times of the year.
In the national spotlight last week, Illinois hosted Indiana. The Hoosiers feature freshman Eric Gordon, and there's a considerable amount of bad blood between the Illini and Gordon. He received some rough treatment in Champaign, and Illinois eventually had to apologize. In all the stories about that incident, however, I saw only one that mentioned Indiana wasn't exactly new to that type of behavior. After all, their fans did the very same thing to Sean May when the Tar Heels went to Bloomington during the 2004-05 season.
As usual, the Mailbag filled quickly after the game against Duke. Emailer Chip Millikan of Greensboro brought up a subject that has frequently been discussed among Carolina fans over the past 40 years--timeouts. Specifically, how and when to use them. As anyone reading this column is well aware, Roy Williams is a charter member of the Dean Smith School of Timeout Hoarding. If there's a test to determine whether you're a true Tar Heel fan, then one of the questions is definitely, "Have you ever screamed at the television for Coach Smith and/or Coach Williams to stop saving his timeouts?"
I have long contended that there is no definite benefit to a timeout in terms of stopping momentum. I have contended this in the most infallible way possible--without any sort of research whatsoever. Personally, I didn't believe that simply calling a timeout was enough to squelch a run by the opponent. But Chip (and others) got me thinking: maybe today's game is different. Maybe today we're living in a modern world of timeouts in which Pete Gillen is the forefather of wise TO distribution.
The trick was establishing criteria for whether a timeout provided any benefit in terms of stopping the opponent's momentum or changing the flow of the game. But how do you do that? It's completely arbitrary, actually. My criteria were simple: I looked at the score when a timeout was called, and then I looked at the score two minutes later. If the team calling the timeout had either improved on its lead (if it was the leading team) by more than a basket or cut into the lead (if it was the trailing team) by more than a basket, I considered that timeout to have a positive impact. If the lead wasn't changed by more than a basket, I considered the timeout to have no impact.
The numbers might surprise you. Throw out the NC State game, because that one was a blowout in which no Sidney Lowe timeout was going to make a difference. Over the other eight league games, 36 timeouts have been called. Only 11 had a positive impact as charted above.
What does that mean? To me, it means two things. First, it's possible that the criteria might have been too strict. But second, especially looking at the games as a whole, it appears that timeouts have much more value in late-game situations than they do as a momentum-stopper during the first 15-16 minutes of either half. In an overwhelming number of games, timeouts called to "stop a run" didn't stop a run at all.
The timeouts that had the most impact were almost always the ones taken in the final three minutes of the second half, when you would assume there were some significant strategical changes being made. In other words, while most of us were gnashing our teeth and wondering why Williams wouldn't call a timeout as Clemson stretched its lead to 15 midway through the second half, he was right to let his sophomore- and junior-heavy team play through it, conserving his timeouts for when they would be most useful. This is also known as the "Why Roy Williams Is In The Hall Of Fame And We Are Sitting There In The Stands" principle.
Also, something fans forget--there are times when a team will actually need two timeouts in the final seconds rather than one. Why? Because of the exact situation that came up at the end of the first overtime, when the Tar Heels wanted to call one timeout, then advance the ball to midcourt and call another one. They didn't score, of course, but I'd much rather have 1.2 seconds to get a shot from 50 feet away than 2.0 seconds to get a shot from 94 feet away.
Through twenty games this year we have already allowed six teams to score 80+ points including the last three games. The 2005 team only allowed six teams score 80+ points the entire season which included a much more difficult ACC schedule and both the ACC and NCAA tournaments. Both rosters are incredibly similar with a dominant big man averaging a double-double (May and Hansbrough), a phenomenal PG (Felton and Lawson), a defensive stopper (Manuel and Ginyard), a "slasher/scorer" (McCants and Ellington), and a solid big man role player (Jawad Williams and Deon Thompson). What is holding the '07-'08 team back from becoming as efficient on the defensive side of the ball as the 2005 National Championship team? Does it simply come down to experience? Or can our defensive struggles be attributed to something else?
Rob
Durham, NC
First, I'd take issue with Rob's assertion that the rosters are "incredibly similar," especially as it pertains to defense. I'll give you Manuel and Ginyard. I'll even give you May/Hansbrough. But at point guard, the 2005 team was significantly better defensively than the current edition. Fans liked Raymond Felton because he was a reliable scorer, quick with the dribble, and a savvy passer. His teammates and coaches loved Felton because--as a junior--he set the tone defensively from the minute the ball was inbounded. So far, Ty Lawson has not done that consistently. When he does, you'll see a significantly improved UNC defense.
As we get further from the '05 season, certain myths about that team have become very popular. One of them is the following: the 2005 team wasn't very good on defense until the NCAA Tournament, when Roy Williams took the rims off and--presto!--turned them into ball-hawking demons.
Let's take a look at the 2005 team through 24 games as compared to the 2008 team through 24 games:
|
CATEGORY | 2005 | 2008 |
|---|---|---|
| Def. FG% | 39.7% | 42.5% |
| Def. 3FG% | 32.5% | 33.1% |
| Reb. Margin | +8.0 | +11.5 |
| Steals | 259 | 215 |
It's notable that the '05 team had played 11 ACC games in its first 24 contests; in those 11 games, league foes were shooting just 37.9% from the field. In nine ACC games so far this year, opponents are hitting 43.8% from the field.
In other words, Rob is right. As of right now, the 2008 team isn't as good as the 2005 team--at least statistically--on defense. The '05 team was better against the dribble, in part because they had athletes like Marvin Williams and David Noel coming off the bench. They also, at least at this point in the season, were less prone to the type of mental lapses that have plagued the '08 squad.
If you're looking for a very close comparison to the current team, take a look at the 2006 Tar Heels. Through 24 games, they had picked off 194 steals and opponents were shooting 42.1% from the field and 34.9% from the 3-point line.
By the way, there's a growing undercurrent in the Mailbag that maybe Williams-coached teams simply aren't very good defensively. After all, the current team is ranked 120th in the country in field goal percentage defense. But in four of the last six seasons, Williams-coached teams have ranked in the top 15 percent in the country in FG% defense, and they've been in the top quarter of the country in all six of those seasons.
Brownlow's Down Low
Are three-point plays tracked, and if so, I'd be interested to know if Hansbrough has as many three-point play opportunities as we have made three-point baskets? It seems like that would be the best option late in the game when we're down, especially when the threes aren't falling.
Dave Harryman
urlington, NC
Lauren writes:
Three-point plays aren't tracked in the sense of being able to look up the statistic somewhere (at least, nowhere that I know of), but you can go through any Carolina play-by-play and it. The best I could come up with to determine how much Hansbrough helps this team by getting to the line was using Ken Pomeroy's free-throw rate, which is:100*FTA/FGA
That puts Hansbrough at 81, which going into Sunday's game had him ranked at 26th in the country. Tyrelle Blair of Boston College actually ranked higher than Hansbrough in the ACC at 86.0.
On the season, Hansbrough has converted 18 three-point plays and has had a chance to convert 25. He is shooting 72% from the line (18-of-25) after being fouled after a made basket and 82.8% in all of his other attempts, 81.3% on the season.
Hansbrough began this season against Davidson with no chances for three-point plays. He followed that up with three against Iona (and missed all three fouls shots), two against South Carolina State (making both free throws) and two against Old Dominion (missing both). So he began the year with seven chances in the first four games and made just 2-of-7 free throws on the three-point try. He followed that up in the rest Carolina's non-conference schedule by having at least one three-point play chance in six of ten non-conference games (10 total, including three chances against Nevada) and missed only one of the chances to convert. He went without a three-point play chance at Kentucky, at Rutgers, and at home against UC-Santa Barbara and Valparaiso. His most in a game in that span (and all season) was three three-point plays against Nevada, all of which he converted.
In ACC play, he did not have a three-point play chance in the first Clemson meeting or the first NC State meeting. However, he has had at least one three-point play chance in six of the last seven ACC games. He converted both of his three-point plays against Georgia Tech, his only three-point play against Maryland and two more three-point plays against Miami. He did not convert any against Boston College and converted his only three-point play against Florida State. He has three three-point play opportunities in the last three games and has converted on two of the three free throws. He was fouled on a score against Duke, but his subsequent free throw didn't fall. It was the first time Hansbrough missed a free throw on a three-point play opportunity since the Penn game, when he converted on one of two three-point play chances.
Originally, I thought the notion of Hansbrough ever having as many chances for three-point plays as the Tar Heels had made three-point shots in any game this season seemed far-fetched. However, in five games this season, Hansbrough had nearly as many three-point play attempts as Carolina did made three-pointers. Against BYU, Carolina shot 2-of-11 from beyond the arc and Hansbrough converted his only three-point play try. At Penn, Carolina was 2-of-10 from beyond the arc and Hansbrough converted one of two three-point play tries. Against Nicholls State, Carolina shot 3-of-12 from the three-point line and Hansbrough converted both three-point play tries. At Georgia Tech, despite being covered in scratches and bruises after the game, Hansbrough converted both of his three-point play tries while Carolina hit just 2-of-10 three-pointers. At Miami, Carolina hit 4-of-10 three's and Hansbrough converted two three-point plays.
Adam Lucas most recently collaborated on a behind-the-scenes look at Carolina Basketball with Wes Miller. The Road To Blue Heaven is available now. Lucas's other books on Carolina basketball include The Best Game Ever, which chronicles the 1957 national championship season, Going Home Again, which focuses on Roy Williams's return to Carolina, and Led By Their Dreams, a collaboration with Steve Kirschner and Matt Bowers on the 2005 championship team.
