Working on this post was a stark reminder that timing is everything. I started gathering the data lask week and then on Friday night I decided I would wait till after the Villanova game to post this.
My original hypothesis was that opponents have been trying to slow Pitt down since the Notre Dame game as the burn offense had become the blueprint as to how to beat Pitt. Not exactly a given when you consider that Pitt’s schedule was back loaded with slower-tempo teams.
Of course, after I gathered most of my data, Jay Wright forced the Panthers into a 56 possession crapfest low-scoring game and then admitted that he was trying to force Pitt into a limited possession game.
So much for needing statistics to prove my theory. Let’s soldier on anyway.
For the purpose of this exercise I only used conference games. My reason for doing this was that as much as I would like a larger sample-size, teams experiment too much in non-conference play and are often more focused on trying to figure out a rotation than trying to implement a strategy to control tempo. This graph shows the number of possessions Pitt’s Big East opponents had versus Pitt as opposed to their other opponents.
| Opponent | Tempo | Opp. Avg Tempo | % Diveation from Opp. Pace |
| UConn | 67 | 66 | 1.52% |
| Prov | 75 | 72.7 | 3.16% |
| Marq | 63 | 67.9 | -7.22% |
| G-Town | 61 | 64.9 | -6.01% |
| Hall | 64 | 69.1 | -7.38% |
| Cuse | 69 | 66.5 | 3.76% |
| Depaul | 68 | 69 | -1.45% |
| ND | 49 | 64.7 | -24.27% |
| Rutgers | 62 | 64.2 | -3.43% |
| Cinci | 69 | 64.1 | 7.64% |
| WVU | 63 | 63.8 | -1.25% |
| Nova | 59 | 66.6 | -11.41% |
| USF | 60 | 63 | -4.76% |
| SJU | 60 | 67.1 | -10.58% |
| WVU | 58 | 63.8 | -9.09% |
| L’Ville* | 69 | 68 | -9.54% |
| USF | 58 | 63 | -7.94% |
| Nova | 56 | 66.6 | -15.92% |
*- Game went into overtime, possessions were pro-rated accordingly.
Before the Notre Dame game, Pitt’s opponents on average played about 1.9% fewer possessions against Pitt than they had against a “normal” opponent.
However, after Notre Dame’s successful effort the set basketball back 50 years with a 49 possession victory (Pitt’s average Big East game was 62.7 possessions) at the Pete; Pitt’s opponents played 5.6% fewer possessions than usual against the Panthers. A t-test shows that this is a statistically significant decrease in tempo for Pitt’s opponents.
Now it’s entirely possible that Pitt was the team trying to slow things down and during the three games Gibbs was injured (specifically the ‘Nova game) this would certainly be a reasonable conclusions.
However, it seems foolish that after Pitt got off to a 7-0 start in conference playing at a more normal tempo and the fact that coaches like Jay Wright admit that slowing down the game was their game plan; it isn’t likely that Jamie Dixon prefers to play sub-60 possession games.
Now that we’ve established that teams try to slow the Panther’s down, does it work? And will teams try to do this to Pitt in the NCAAs.
These questions are much tougher to answer.
Lets start with how the burn effects Pitt. This graph shows how Pitt performed on a points per possession basis (margin of victory/possessions per game) versus the deviation in tempo versus an average Pitt conference game.
| Opponent | ‘+/- Points per possession | Pitt tempo Div | ||
| UConn | 0.224 | 6.73% | ||
| Prov | 0.053 | 19.47% | ||
| Marq | 0.127 | 0.35% | ||
| G-Town | 0.246 | -2.83% | ||
| Hall | 0.328 | 1.95% | ||
| Cuse | 0.116 | 9.91% | ||
| Depaul | 0.441 | 8.32% | ||
| ND | -0.102 | -21.95% | ||
| Rutgers | 0.048 | -1.24% | ||
| Cinci | 0.174 | 9.91% | ||
| WVU | 0.079 | 0.35% | ||
| Nova | 0.051 | -6.02% | ||
| USF | ‘0.200 | -4.42% | ||
| SJU | -0.017 | -4.42% | ||
| WVU | 0.224 | -7.61% | ||
| L’Ville* | -0.043 | -2.30% | ||
| USF | 0.276 | -7.61% | ||
| Nova | 0.179 | -10.80% |
This isn’t going to tell us a whole lot. When I ran a test for a correlation coefficient between tempo and Pitt’s +/- points per possession, I got a weak coefficient (about .31). This test ignores a lot of important stuff like the strength of the opponent and home court. This is also an instance where a relatively small sample rears it’s ugly head.
Qualitative analysis would say that Pitt was playing better ball before the Irish handed them their first L in conference play and that all three of Pitt’s losses came against teams playing a slow-down style. While that is all true, Pitt also played a back loaded schedule that saw it play only two of the top eight teams in the league before the ND game. Of those two games one was against a slumping Georgetown team and the other was against a Syracuse team missing Kris Joseph.
The fact that Pitt’s three losses were against strong opposition (the Big East’s #2 team at home and the #3 and #5 teams on the road) and the possibilities that shots that normally do or don’t fall went against the Panthers are too much for me to point the finger at the burn and say unequivocally “that is how you beat Pitt“.
Now, can we expect to see more burn come tourney time?
My best guess would be no. As Villanova proved, taking the air out of the ball is easier said than done, or at least done well. The burn isn’t something teams can just easily install after playing a different way for the past four months. I would expect most coaches to trust what got them to the dance as opposed to trying something different that their team might not even be able to do.
For what’s its worth. Here’s how other elite teams have handled games played at 60 or fewer possessions (the national average is 66.8)
Ohio State: 5-1, loss at Wisconsin, two non-con cupcakes then at Michigan (by 4), Penn St. (by 3) and at Northwestern (by 1)
Kansas: 1-0
Duke: 0-0, The Virginia Tech loss was their slowest game of the year (62 possessions) but they played well in other sub-65 possession games.
Purdue: 4-2
Texas: 3-0, all three games were extremely winnable
Pitt: 7-2
BYU: 0-0
San Diego State: 7-0, only one team ranked above 100 in the Pomeroy rankings (Colorado State, ranked 71)
UNC: 1-0, beat BC 48-46 at home
Essentially, if Pitt is fortunate to advance deep in the tournament then most of the other likely candidates to get there aren’t going to try to slow Pitt down. This isn’t to say I’m not concerned about teams taking the air out of the ball, Notre Dame and Wisconsin could easily burn Pitt. But aside from those two teams, there aren’t a whole lot of other likely candidates to try to make Pitt play a low-possession game.
I hypothesize that the burn is particularly painful because of our inability to force turnovers. Pomeroy’s stats rank us 284th nationally, our only red mark across his four factors.
Shady – I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Notre Dame’s success with the high ball screen had everything to do with their efficient three point shooting, and to a lesser degree, the burn offense. Because Notre Dame had at least 3 guys who were hitting from deep, Pitt could not collapse when the guard penetrated late in the game. That exposed one of Pitt’s main defensive weaknesses – guarding 1-on-1. Normally, Pitt can overcome this because of effective team defense. When multiple guys can hit from the outside, and penetrate the lane, it becomes much tougher to sag.
As for the burn, it put Notre Dame in a position to try to win a close game at the end. It also allowed their players to be relatively fresh on the defensive side since they were essentially resting for 25 seconds each offensive possession.
I agree that I’d love to see Pitt make some defensive adjustments to counter this strategy, although zone is not how I would do it, particularly against a team like Notre Dame that has multiple shooters. I’d like to see Pitt pick up their man just over half court and make them work early in the shot clock. Also, don’t hedge more than 22 feet from the hoop until the offense proves it can consistently hit NBA three pointers. Lastly, I’d like to see the guards fight through the ball screen more often rather than switching.
I’ve also learned that Jamie Dixon knows a lot more about this game than I do…
Gary has done a better job on both the hedge and defending after a switch since the ND game. But, it might have been more due to the competition than anything. ND has Hansbrough who can pull up to shoot or take it to the hoop with equal effectiveness. He wasn’t the BE POY for nothing. Kemba Walker may be the only other real threat in the BE there.
However, the thing ND has that UConn and other BE teams don’t have are dangerous shooters at three other positions. That prevented Pitt from employing any help for Gary when he was left one-on-one with Hansbrough. That still concerns me, so that’s the only reason I’d like to see a Pitt/ND BE tourney final. Would love to see Jamie find a way to force tempo in Pitt’s favor, defend Hansbrough on the high ball screen, and crush ND in the final. That would make everyone think twice about trying a slowdown game against us in the Dance.
But a zone is not the answer for ND, simply because they shoot so well from the outside. You’d be rolling loaded dice in that case, IMHO.
As mentioned, I agree with Pantherman13, if we do play ND again in one of the tournies. Pick up earlier to force the tempo and disrupt the Burn sets. Don’t hedge so far away from the basket, which is one of the big reasons for getting those cheap fouls. And, lastly, Gibbs needs to fight through the screen better, which might get a foul or two on Nash since he’s sometimes still moving when he sets it.
Oh, and a little more efficiency by Pitt on the offensive end wouldn’t hurt either. I also recall a number of forced shots and dumb turnovers in that earlier game.
1) This strategy (although not branded) was implemented last year in the BET by Brey to address the loss of his boy Harangody to injury. Keeps the game short and possession-by-possession– but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
2) I do think Gary has learned from the ND game on defending that high screen/dribble penetration. Don’t forget Gary’s amazing block of UL’s Siva late in the game (A player with far more speed than psycho B) that was a carbon copy play from the ND game. I trust Gary’s defense and I do trust him to adjust and deliver defense in that situation without help from Nas.
3) Altough I won’t rule out an early seed trying this strategy, or pressing the heck out of us to create TOs, I DO believe we will see more zone coverage against us because, for some reason, we have periods where we look completely bamboozled against a zone and cannot score. Yes, we also can look great (first 5 minutes of CUSE game, Georgetown game, some against RU)…but for some reason, if our shots are not falling and someone throws a zone on us, we tend to spiral into those long periods of stalled scoring…
But, like pantherman mentioned, I have more faith in JD knowing more about BB then me…and will always defer to an expert than my fan opinion!
Offensive Efficiency, depth disadvantage, and foul shooting advantage are where the “burn” offense comes in strong.
I’d like to see a press, but only once in a while, to break the other teams rhythm. Same goes for fighting thru ball screens but not when Gibbs is on the floor.
TampaT: For the most part, I hate it when you agree with me.
Pantherman13: Sorry, I have to agree with some of the things you bring up.
All the burn does is keep a game close. I don’t think you even ahve to have a particularly good/efficient offensive team for it to be effective. Rather, its more than operating a burn offense helps makes you a more efficient team as your taking time to shoot better shots. NDs burn of Pitt, if you recall, didn’t put them in the lead until the “4th quarter” of the game, and what swung it was their exploiting the weakness of Gary’s hedges at the time.
That weakness has since been fixed, or at least is imminently fixable. That we let it hurt us is understandable because I don’t think anyone saw Hansbrough as BE POY caliber player at the time and we were definitely more concerned with him kicking out to his wings for 3pts shots. He had poor help D on those 5 possessions that they took the lead from us — i don’t blame Gary as much as Nas and the other help defenders. Knowing what we know now (that hansborough can drive, that he’s not a great passer while driving) ND’s style doesn’t scare me.
What scares me would be the “perfect storm” of a team that plays a slow, methodical offense, happens to be shooting well when they play us and we happen to be shooting poorly. let’s face it, that ND loss would not have happened and would be less a subject of scrutiny had we shot just 65% from FT or if Gibbs or Brown would have shot anywhere close to their season avereages for 3-pointers.
The ND game is an interesting/relevant case study, but i think it’s somewhat overblown. Not to take anything away from the post or the comments — all of which are very good. I see things slightly differently — a slower paced game means only that we’d have to shoot a higher percentage (really we’d just have to hit our season averages) or figure out how to get some transition and/or post points. The “burn” offense, no matter who we play, is not our kryptonite.
He gets right in the middle of it. He gets to the basket. It’s a question of whether he finishes. Against Syracuse, Nas scored at will to start. Against Louisville, he was 1-7, missing lots of shots right at the rim.
Nas is fast enough and strong enough to get to the basket when catching the ball in the middle. He has better hands than McGhee. And simply, teams won’t collapse on him the same way they would if Wanamaker or Brown go to the basket.
I think this year’s team, much like the 2009 version, did not lose games in which they were simply outclassed from a talent perspective. We had a brain fart against ND and lost two games on tough courts over an 18 game span, which is just the cost of doing business in the Big East. Had we lost to Tennessee the way we did in, say, February, I would be more worried, but our team has grown since then.
Unlike the 2009 team, our team plays with a complete lack of ego. I think part of the problem with that team was that, on top of never having those expectations placed on us as a team, individually, we had three players playing for NBA cash. This group, by all indications, is playing for an individual goal, and that goes a long way in today’s game.
I know all you pessimist Pitt fans want to be vindicated with another early NCAA bow-out, but I hate to tell you guys, I think we’re going to get to watch Pitt play at least 5 games in the big dance.
For me, all of this conversation is about tempo and rhythm. This team is at its best when it forces tempo on the defensive end to get runouts before the other team can get totally set on defense. When they’re forcing tempo, Pitt also transitions into its offensive sets so quickly that the shooters are in rhythm and therefore more efficient.
The Burn and zone defenses are all about slowing that tempo and getting Pitt out of their offensive rhythm. That’s why I think Jamie always takes it back to Pitt’s defense. It all starts there.
Generally, a slow game between Rutgers and SJU so far…
I’ve watched a fair number of non-Big East games, and this seems to be a general problem in college ball, not a Big East problem.
