Month: March 2010 (Page 50 of 59)
Bill Simmons wrote a long column that compares Tiger’s eventual comeback to those of some of sport’s other iconic athletes. One point jumped out at me…
At gunpoint, if I could wager on any conceivable scenario, I would wager on Tiger coming back in severe Eff You Mode, like a seething MJ in Game 1 of the 1992 Finals. The greatest ones have a way of channeling negativity and fueling it toward whatever makes them great. Jordan made a habit of it. So did Ali. But they were also larger-than-life personalities, whereas Tiger was always just someone who was freakishly good at golf and that’s it.
I can see Tiger coming back with a vengeance, but basketball (and boxing, for that matter) is unlike golf in that pure effort and energy can overcome one’s opponent. Typically, in basketball, an athletically inferior team can be victorious if they outhustle its opponent. Defense, rebounding, loose balls — success in these areas depends largely on a team’s effort. So if MJ’s shot wasn’t falling, he could take his “Eff You Mode” and apply it elsewhere and dominate the game. And when the best athlete on the court is playing harder than anyone else, good things will happen.
I don’t think Tiger can do that in golf. Effort is only going to matter when he’s practicing, and while this is vitally important to a successful comeback, effort is not going to matter much when it comes time to play a tournament. Golf is a game of millimeters, and passion isn’t going to help much when titles are on the line. If channeled, this passion and determination can help in the form of focus, but there is also the chance that Tiger becomes too focused and it pushes him off the rails.
Whatever happens, it’s going to be interesting to watch.
In the most recent issue of ESPN The Magazine, Jay Bilas makes a strong argument for the 2-3 zone defense — Jim Boeheim’s zone D, that is. (Insider subscription required.)
So why don’t more coaches follow a strategy that has helped Boeheim win 800-plus games and a national title? It mostly comes down to myths and machismo. For instance, a common perception is that a 2-3 yields open three-pointers, and yet somehow Syracuse has held opponents to 30.6 percent shooting from deep this season, 36th in the nation. “When teams hit a few threes on Bob Knight’s man-to-man, nobody told him to get out of his defense,” Boeheim says. “They just needed to play it better. And if a team is beating our zone, we need to play it better.” Coaches also cite the fact that it’s tougher to rebound out of a zone than with man, but that’s a minor trade-off, especially since those offensive boards tend to be long ones that don’t lead to easy putbacks.
And the machismo? Many coaches believe that if they’re not running man-to-man they’re not coaching at all. They also worry about the blame game. Says UConn associate head coach George Blaney: “Jim Calhoun believes in man-to-man. The reasons are position, strength and that he can hold our defenders accountable.” But Boeheim understands his zone so well that he knows exactly who’s accountable, even if it’s hard for outsiders to see.
Heading into last weekend, I felt pretty good about picking Kentucky and Kansas to meet in the title game, but now I’m not so sure. Kentucky is young and has had mental lapses at times, while Kansas has looked pretty shaky in the few big games I’ve seen. I still think both teams have a terrific shot at the Final Four, but the more I see of Syracuse, the more I like the Orangemen.
I played for Bo Ryan at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, and anyone who follows Wisconsin hoops knows that he wouldn’t touch a 2-3 with a ten-foot pole. He won all of those D3 championships with stingy man-to-man defense, and we would always fillet any teams that tried to zone against us, so the idea of sitting in a 2-3 generally doesn’t appeal to me.
But that’s just it — Syracuse doesn’t sit in a zone. They play a matchup 2-3 with man-to-man principles, which means there’s always a man pressuring the ball. It’s tough to prepare for because, no matter what, an opponent’s scout team isn’t going to be able to resemble Syracuse’s zone. It also eliminates about 90% of an opponent’s offensive playbook and reduces the mileage that players cover on defense, so they should have more energy for other parts of the game, like ball pressure, rebounding, and transition defense.
I think the problem with zone is that teams that play it sporadically aren’t very good at it, so the perception is that it’s ineffective. That’s where the rebounding becomes a major issue and shooters are inexplicably left open; players miss their assignments because they aren’t used to playing zone. But teams that play zone all the time — like Syracuse, John Chaney’s Temple squads, early ’90s UNLV — had plenty of athleticism and were extremely difficult to score on. Even Mike Krzyzewski — a devotee to tough man-to-man defense — has played some zone the last couple of seasons after spending time with Jim Boeheim as part of the duo’s Team USA duties.
Whether or not Syracuse makes the Finals may very well depend on their offense, not their defense. This year’s team is leading the Big East in FG% (52%) and is fourth from long range (38%). Their biggest offensive flaw is their inaccuracy at the free throw line (67%), which is worrisome, but not a deal-breaker.
They only have two losses all season. In early January, they lost to Pitt, shooting 1-13 from long range while allowing the Panthers to hit 10-24 from deep. They also lost to Louisville, who has beaten Syracuse five straight times. The two teams meet again on Saturday. If Syracuse can get a win there, and go into the NCAA tournament coming off a Big East Championship, I’m pretty sure they’ll be my pick to win a national title as well.
Photo from fOTOGLIF
Baylor’s Brittney Giner punches Texas Tech’s Jordan Barncastle right in the kisser.
Let’s not go off the deep end here. Duke junior Kyle Singler is still having a good year. He’s averaging 17-7-2 and is shooting 38% from long range. Those numbers are virtually identical to his sophomore season. The difference is in his overall FG%, which dropped from 44.1% last season to 40.7% this year.
Having watched at least half of Duke’s games this season — including last night’s 79-72 loss to Maryland — I think Singler is struggling with his accuracy because he is now playing a ton of minutes at small forward. Over his first two seasons, he played mostly power forward and even some center, and while he was at a disadvantage on Duke’s defensive glass, he had a big advantage on the offensive end.
Singler is a classic face-up forward. He has a very nice perimeter game in that he is accurate from long range and can take it to the basket when he gets his defender out of position. And over his first two seasons, he faced a lot of opposing 4s and 5s that weren’t comfortable covering someone on the perimeter. This season, in addition to Lance Thomas, Duke is giving big minutes to Brian Zoubek, Miles Plumlee and Mason Plumlee, which means that Singler is playing more small forward than ever. This allows the defense to cover him with their own small forward, who is generally quicker and far more comfortable defending on the perimeter.
As a result, Singler is getting far fewer good looks on penetration than he has in years past. During his first two seasons, it was relatively easy to get a bigger defender out of position on the wing and drive past him for a layup or short jumper. Now, his defenders are sticking with him on those drives and forcing tougher shots. Hence, the reduction in field goal percentage.
Duke certainly has more size this season, and that’s helping on the glass, but it’s hurting Singler’s efficiency on the other end of the court. It’s a trade-off that Coach K is apparently willing to live with, but I’m guessing that if Singler shoots 41% or less in the NCAA tournament, the Blue Devils won’t be making a Final Four appearance this season.
Photo from fOTOGLIF
FOLLOW US!
CATEGORIES
© 2026 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑