|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1241]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1220
Joined: 11/30/98
|
clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 4, 2019, 10:56 PM
|
|
went thru the media guide for coaches starting with Tates. the first set of #'s is record in 3
point games out of conf, the next is in acc games, then total, and winning percentage. the obvious flaw is that these are "just numbers". for example if one coach was favored by 10 over coppin st.. and beat them by 1, he gets a "positive". if another coach was a 10 point dog to duke, and loses by 1, he gets a negative. obviously that's a problem. would be better if we knew how those games were against the spread.
tates 4/4 8/12 12/16 12 wins in 28 games= 43%
foster 11/8 7/20 18/28 18 wins in 46 games =39%
cliff 7/13 15/14 22/27 22 wins in 49 games =45%
barnes 1/1 5/7 6/8 6 wins in 14 games = 43%
shyatt 1/7 7/7 8/14 8 wins in 22 games = 36%
OP 10/1 10/13 20/14 20 wins in 34 games = 58%
BB 5/8 7/26 12/34 12 wins in 46 games = 26%
again, "raw" numbers . OP beat a lot of ooc teams to get his record. doubt many would have guessed shyatt was .500 in 3 point games in the ACC. BB numbers are not what anyone would like.. and no one is arguing that they are. but he is tied with foster for the most 3 point games and has a fairly comparable winning %. do those 46 games mean foster/BB were coaching good enough against better teams to keep us close... or coaching good enough to be close, but not win?
i think the only clear conclusion here is that our history, regardless of coach, is not very good. since the 1970 season ,we have 1 coach with a .500 or better record in 3 point games.. and we have 98 wins in 237 of those type games, 41%.
there were several diff styles and systems used by these coaches. none have sustained success, for whatever reason, but IMO the common denominator is seldom have we put better talent on the floor than our ACC opponents, across the board. better players win more. its that simple. yes, its on the HC to get/develop those players. we may be in the best shape today support/facilities wise that we've ever been in, compared to other ACC teams. maybe we can't recruit head up with duke/unc right now, but we shouldn't back down from ANYONE. recruiting must improve.
I like brad and his staff. good guys and hard workers all. I'll fight a circle saw for him as long as he's our HC. but the day someone above my pay grade makes a change, be it in 20 minutes or 20 years, I'm 100 % behind the next guy.
everyone wants our basketball program to be better. i certainly don't have the answer (other than better players). one side can make a good argument for a coaching change. the other side can make a good argument for "tough job, no history, etc". Clemson basketball is the riddle wrapped in an enigma, the Rubik's cube of the basketball world.
I urge you to support this team in whatever way you can. regardless of if you're in the "change" camp or the "stay the course camp", i encourage you to let your voice be heard. contact an IPTAY rep, call/email drad, contact the basketball staff, whatever. we all rant on message boards, and sometimes it makes us feel better, but in the big picture that changes very little if anything.
thanks for taking the time to read this. GO TIGERS
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 5, 2019, 9:10 AM
|
|
Just my way of thinking I guess, but wouldn't it have been better just to look at overall wins and losses?
I mean what difference does it matter if you win by 3 or lose by 3?
I am behind Brad as well, but there comes a point when you have to cut your losses.
But that's not my decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1241]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1220
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 5, 2019, 7:20 PM
|
|
this was in response to several other posts using "close losses", spurred by a remark by mark packer on his radio show. believe the 3 point margin was packer's benchmark
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65453]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33249
Joined: 12/3/03
|
Holy Shyatt! BB is even worse than Larry, that's bad!
Mar 5, 2019, 9:13 AM
|
|
Historically and hysterically bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Shyatt's numbers look better because even when he won A FEW
Mar 5, 2019, 11:47 AM
|
|
games, they were still close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 5, 2019, 9:28 AM
|
|
So how do you explain that BB has the best conference winning % of the group with a harder overall conference schedule? Does that means his wins are by more than 3 points and thus he is more dominant in his wins? What was the winning % of the opponents in those 3 point or less games, because if you are struggling but beating the basement dweller by 3 points vs losing to top 25 team by 3 points, that will skew things.
Also, this note scheme too. The frantic "OP" style play is going result in a lot more "who has the ball last" games with easier buckets potentially as fast reversals of fate with turnovers can create close games. This cuts both ways as OP would be in nail-biters against the sub 10w teams and top 10 teams. Se is 3pt win against SC State in 2009. Heck, it showed up with OP's weaker OOC schedule where we should have beaten weaker teams by more.
Brad's approach is more of the opposite. He is a better game manager (OP didn't even bother).
OP was a better single possession coach -won't lie he was great at that but his overall gameplay strategy struggled. He could be out-coached from the tip-off and never be in a position to win. That is why OP likely is not very flattering in the 4-10 point games. BB is the opposite as he will schematically keep us in a game to the end or be well ahead (note a lot of 10+ point wins for us) and then struggle in the last few possessions if things are close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 5, 2019, 9:39 AM
|
|
Because the second part of your assertion is demonstrably untrue. Conference expansion has not made a better basketball conference. Clemson played 3 different ACC teams with sub-100 RPIs this season. Something no other Clemson coach would have ever had the benefit of. And we rarely play the top team in the conference more than once. Another benefit most of those other coaches did not have. Less games against the top tier and a new bottom tier unlike anything prior in the ACC has made his overall conference a meaningless comparison to his predecessors. Based on the new NET rankings system the ACC is currently ranked as only the 5th best conference - http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/conferencenet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 5, 2019, 11:42 AM
|
|
Yes, the bottom of this year's conference is really weak. Historically weak. Pitt, ND, and Wake don't even have a pulse. BC and Miami might have a pulse. They have dropped games to the Big South. However, the top is even more dominant. When was the last time you had 3 ACC teams in the top 5?
However, we have added to the top. Pre-expansion it was UNC, Duke,and a plus one. Sometimes that was Sendek/G. Williams/Cremins/Odem. Even with the round robin format you played the top as much as the bottom. Now, it can vary a lot more, especially if you only play the upper 1/3 for away games. You have less chance to split 1-1. Luckily, we have dodged the top 5 teams from a round robin this year, but previous years haven't been kind. You just have slightly more variability, but still more competition.
Post expansion, we have added teams that (save for BC) invest more into basketball than we do... and a few have a NC in basketball in the last 20 years and most have a Natty... even ND/Pitt but like their other titles that was back before the advent of fire. So rather than just Duke/UNC/+1 we now have Duke/UNC/LVille/Cuse/+1(maybe +2) You have 4-5 teams that expect to have a chance at a final four run.
That is why you are seeing the ceiling of formerly being 3rd in the ACC now being 6th. Compare that to OP's best season 2008 when EVERYONE was weak, including #2 Duke. Mid/Late 90s the ACC was weak too (the Barnes years). Imagine Duke being 13-18 one year and then 18-13 the next. Wake (Duncan) was winning the ACC, even GT. Mid 90s had a near complete upheaval of the ACC powers with Smith hanging on transitioning to Guthridge. However, things have re-settled with traditional powers holding on.
And keep in mind, pre-expansion... we were the bottom tier. We did not bother to hire a true basketball coach for the first 50 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16907]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10770
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games
Mar 5, 2019, 6:41 PM
|
|
There is no comparison between the conference now and under previous coaches, no matter how you or Judge Keller® feel about it. I took some time to do some real math since your convinced that 3 ACC teams in the top 5 is uniquely impressive.
This is the only season in his career that Brownell has coached against 3 top 5 ACC teams in the same season. The previous 5 coaches all did it multiple times except for Barnes who faced 4 top 5 teams in 1998. Purnell against 3 in 2004 and 2009. Shyatt against 4 in 1999 and 2002 and against 3 in 2001 (3 out of 5 years - 60% of his seasons versus 10% for Brownell). Ellis faced 6 top 5 teams in 1986 and 4 in 1994 and 1993. Foster faced 3 or more top 5 teams in 3 seasons.
The competiveness of the ACC schedule has collapsed in the last decade.
Percent of games played against Top 25 ACC opponents (regular season)
Foster - 47%
Ellis - 42%
Barnes - 47%
Shyatt - 46%
Purnell - 30%
Brownell - 29%
Percent of games played against Top 10 ACC opponents (regular season)
Foster - 29%
Ellis - 25%
Barnes - 26%
Shyatt - 28%
Purnell - 16%
Brownell - 12%
Percent of games played against Top 5 ACC opponents (regular season)
Foster - 18%
Ellis - 17%
Barnes - 13%
Shyatt - 18%
Purnell - 13%
Brownell - 6%
These are the facts. Foster literally play 3 x the number of top 5 opponents per season that Brownell does. Everyone of the 5 preceding coaches played twice as many each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44048]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32965
Joined: 2/22/03
|
I think things are harder overall now.
Mar 5, 2019, 11:55 AM
[ in reply to Re: clemson basketball historically in 3 point games ] |
|
In the old days, the ACC was 8 teams and most of those teams were good or at least pretty good. Very few awful teams, maybe one or two at the most. Expansion has added some teams that haven't done well, but it's also added some outstanding teams. The overall quality of the ACC is better now IMO, although there are more opportunities now for easier conference wins due to expansion.
Let's not also forget that there are a lot of really good mid-major teams now that you didn't have when Ellis and Barnes coached. We actually play a real non-conference schedule now, as opposed to 10-12 patsies in the non-conference like we did in the 80s and 90s (and even under Purnell many years). I remember what a big deal it was to play Kentucky non-conference when Barnes was our coach, because non-conference games were never against ranked major conference teams, but against weak lower division teams.
Suffice to say, it is really hard to compare eras. But simply saying "the ACC was tougher in the old days" isn't entirely accurate IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1779]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3075
Joined: 11/2/00
|
Is tough to compare eras but is interesting to
Mar 5, 2019, 12:30 PM
|
|
think about. Just looking at top games don't know which is tougher, playing Duke and UNC 4 games every year vs Duke, UNC, and I guess Louisville and Syracuse. Middle of the pack and bottom of the conference are probably the same when averaged out. Some years tougher now, some years tougher back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
