My Questions for tomorrow's Jim Boeheim Show

[SWC75]

First hour:

"Coach, as great as Rakeem Christmas has been, we seemed to operate pretty well without him on offense against BC and had our most balanced attack. Have we been relying on Rakeem too much? Can we combine his skills with the balance we showed in the BC game?"

Second hour:

"Coach, When Tyler Roberson and BJ Johnson shoot jump shots the results seem predictable. Tyler’s are usually short and BJ’s are usually long and to the right. Do they simply have flaws in their delivery that can be corrected or are their problems more complicated than that?"

Jim Boeheim’s radio show is on Thursdays from 7-9PM on ESPN Radio in Syracuse, which is AM1200 or FM 97.7 on the dial. The show originates from Delmonico’s Italian Steakhouse on Erie Boulevard in Syracuse. The first hour, hosted by Matt Park, the Voice of the Orange, is on their general network. The second hour, which begins with the conference season, is hosted by Gomez, a local radio personality.

You can call into the show locally at 315-424-8599 or nationally at 1-888-746-2873. For Gomez’s portion, use 315-424-8599. Or you can submit questions from this page:
http://cuse.com/sb_output.aspx?form=4

The show can be heard in Syracuse on FM 99.5. It’s sometime simulcast on AM 1200 or FM 97.7. You can also get it on: http://tunein.com/radio/WGVA-1240-s29191/

I will be posting my rough transcript the night of the broadcast focusing on my questions, the team and their last and next games and then a second post the next day on other things that were discussed.

 

[Townie72]

If what you say is correct --- that these two players miss the same way every time or almost every time --- that would suggest there is a mechanical adjustment that could be made to their shot. But it does seem far fethced that these two --- and maybe others --- could go through all the practices they have gone through without someone noticing that they miss a lot the same way. Or that they wouldn't have corrected it themselves.

The key to shooting is ... are you ready? It's elbow position. In the 1960's, a study was done of NBA "shooters" using high speed cameras that allowed detail analysis of everything they were doing. The most erratic shooters had elbow positions--- measured in degrees from 90 degrees --- that were all over the lot. The most accurate shooters invariably had their elbows in exactly position. And the easiest way to have a consistent elbow position is to keep your elbow at 90 degrees so that your forearm and wrist are perpendicular to the floor.

When your elbow is in the same position it allows the shot to be right on target laterally and not to the left or the right. Then all you have to worry about is depth or distance.

In "Bleeding Orange", JB describes Bill Bradley's approach to warming up by putting tape on the floor at different distances. What he was doing was getting his distance calibrated. He already knew he wasn't going to miss laterally because he had perfect elbow positioning.

I know this because I am a Princeton Townie and a good friend of mine became friends with Bradley and Bradley explained the rationale and his approach. This enabled me to become a much better shooter. When my shots were off laterally, I concentrated on my elbow position and it invariably corrected the problem. If you are young enough to still be playing somewhere, try it. It's guaranteed to make you a better shooter. (PS - You do only get one Meniscus layer on your knees.)

 

[SWC75]

 

[SWC75]

 

[Townie72]

The video makes the point.

The elbow positions shown are OK ... its the shot-to-shot variation that kills you. The strength of the 90 degree forearm is that its easy to remember.

By the way, your questions really aren't questions are they?

They are suggestions disguised as questions. And JB would see through that ruse quickly.

 

[SWC75]

The video makes the point.

The elbow positions shown are OK ... its the shot-to-shot variation that kills you. The strength of the 90 degree forearm is that its easy to remember.

By the way, your questions really aren't questions are they?

They are suggestions disguised as questions. And JB would see through that ruse quickly.

He sees through everything.

I'm just serving something up for discussion.

 

[tbonezone]

"coach you seem kinda cranky lately. are you getting enuf fiber ?"

 

[Deano]

"Why do you continue to let teams roll the ball to mid-court or farther instead of at least making someone come up to insure the other team touches the ball so the clock starts?"

 

[cuseincincy]

When I was coaching my kids and players when they were just starting out I made them shoot one handed in practice. Started with one foot bank shots and then kept moving them out to about 10 feet. I defy anyone to shoot one handed with their elbow not in the correct position. Tyler's positioning above is almost text book. BJ's elbow is fine but it appears his off hand is one top of the ball. That could just be a matter of the timing of the picture but as shown it looks like the ball would come out with an undesirable spin. But let me make 2 important points 1 - A HS coach I know's son played in college and was a great shooter. Ugly shot but it went in. He said he never tried to correct jump shots, he felt repetition could help kids be better shooters. 2 - I am not one to question the jump shot of a player whose father was a great college player in addition to a professional player for many years. I have no idea why BJ's shot is not falling but it is likely more involved than just his shooting stroke which he has apparently had success with in the past.

 

[SWC75]

"Why do you continue to let teams roll the ball to mid-court or farther instead of at least making someone come up to insure the other team touches the ball so the clock starts?"

Asked and answered, many times.

 

[Deano]

Asked and answered, many times.

Well maybe if he changed his philosophy the right way people wouldn't ask him.

 

[Townie72]

Well maybe if he changed his philosophy the right way people wouldn't ask him.

Pretty simple risk vs. reward proposition.

To run a couple of seconds off the clock you'd run at the player rolling the ball up court?

You are going one way and he is going the other. He picks the ball up and blows past you as your momentum is taking you towards the other basket.

You are obviously ahead in the game, or the opponent would not be doing this.

Isn't it better to stay in a sound defensive position than to risk a clock-stopping foul or creating a five versus four situation?

Fans, I'm sure, see the ball rolling up the court and say, "Get it. Get it".

I'd say that's dumb basketball.

I'd say that's why the fans are where they are ... on their couches.

 

[tbonezone]

takes 2 people to inbound a ball. are you suggesting they both easily " blow by" a defender for this "5 on 4". ridiculous really.

 

[cuseincincy]

Pretty simple risk vs. reward proposition.

To run a couple of seconds off the clock you'd run at the player rolling the ball up court?

You are going one way and he is going the other. He picks the ball up and blows past you as your momentum is taking you towards the other basket.

You are obviously ahead in the game, or the opponent would not be doing this.

Isn't it better to stay in a sound defensive position than to risk a clock-stopping foul or creating a five versus four situation?

Fans, I'm sure, see the ball rolling up the court and say, "Get it. Get it".

I'd say that's dumb basketball.

I'd say that's why the fans are where they are ... on their couches.

No one said they should run at the guy with the ball. The proper way to not let them roll the ball to 1/2 court is to position a defender at 1/4 court. Don't even have to cover the guy, just be in the area. If its the inbounders man at 1/4 there should be no way the defender can't still beat his player back up court and get set up defensively in plenty of time. Its not rocket science. High school coaches all over the country do this. JB chooses not to. He's the man and its his decision/philosophy. Risk vs reward does not explain it.

 

[SWC75]

Pretty simple risk vs. reward proposition.

To run a couple of seconds off the clock you'd run at the player rolling the ball up court?

You are going one way and he is going the other. He picks the ball up and blows past you as your momentum is taking you towards the other basket.

You are obviously ahead in the game, or the opponent would not be doing this.

Isn't it better to stay in a sound defensive position than to risk a clock-stopping foul or creating a five versus four situation?

Fans, I'm sure, see the ball rolling up the court and say, "Get it. Get it".

I'd say that's dumb basketball.

I'd say that's why the fans are where they are ... on their couches.

That's basically what Jim said. His most recent answer"

"The first of three different John’s to call in started by saying “I love you to death” and JB said “Uh Oh!” This John apologized for bringing it up again but insisted that we should challenge the other team when they roll the ball up the court. He suggested that Cooney could take three steps forward and then get back. Jim insisted “We tried that against Villanova and they got past us. You save three seconds but they run right past you.” John kept pressing the issue and JB kept telling him that that’s what we did against Villanova. Finally John gave up on that and suggested that on the in-bounds play we should have thrown it long, saying that if it went out of bounds, Villanova would have to inbound at the other end of the court. JB pointed out that the ball would be taken back to the inbound point and Villanova would have it there. “We looked for the long pass but it was covered. Then they held Rakeem’s arm and he couldn’t do anything about it. You look at the ones we lost but not at the 10 close games we we’ve won this year and last. We put ourselves in positon to win. Sometimes you can do nothing wrong but lose because the other team did something right….Our best game of the year was at Villanova. It’s a shame the way we played at the end.”

I called in my second question but prefaced it by joking that maybe JB could go out and guard the guy when the ball is rolling, or on those long shots that are my pet peeve, the inbounds guy. He laughed and said “I may have to do that.”

 

[Townie72]

No one said they should run at the guy with the ball. The proper way to not let them roll the ball to 1/2 court is to position a defender at 1/4 court. Don't even have to cover the guy, just be in the area. If its the inbounders man at 1/4 there should be no way the defender can't still beat his player back up court and get set up defensively in plenty of time. Its not rocket science. High school coaches all over the country do this. JB chooses not to. He's the man and its his decision/philosophy. Risk vs reward does not explain it.

And the reason he does not do it? (Choose as many as you like but stay consistent)

A. JB is dumb (and stubborn)

B. JB doesn't understand the value of the few seconds he is allowing the other team to get by doing this. (Similar to A above)

C. JB doesn't understand how stressful it is for some fans to see that ball rolling up the floor by itself. He's trying to stress us out.

D. We are playing a zone defense. No one has defensive responsibility for back court. (It's that dangburned 2-3 again)

E. JB believes it is better to set up the defense and pick the dribbler up when he gets the ball within 25 feet of the basket. (When we tried this against Villanova, we got burned as the guy ran by us.)

 

[Townie72]

No one said they should run at the guy with the ball. The proper way to not let them roll the ball to 1/2 court is to position a defender at 1/4 court. Don't even have to cover the guy, just be in the area. If its the inbounders man at 1/4 there should be no way the defender can't still beat his player back up court and get set up defensively in plenty of time. Its not rocket science. High school coaches all over the country do this. JB chooses not to. He's the man and its his decision/philosophy. Risk vs reward does not explain it.

In his presser when he said we tried it and the guy ran past Cooney it sounds like risk v. reward to me.

Teams spend most of the game trying to get the ball up court before we can set up the zone. Here we have the zone set up and you are suggesting we unsettle it.

When does this guy at 1/4 court get back into the defensive set?

 

[tbonezone]

mr. 1/4 court still has 2 men in front of him. each early pickup costs an easy 2 seconds. now do your risk vs reward math.

 

[TBCuse11]

Pretty simple risk vs. reward proposition.

To run a couple of seconds off the clock you'd run at the player rolling the ball up court?

You are going one way and he is going the other. He picks the ball up and blows past you as your momentum is taking you towards the other basket.

You are obviously ahead in the game, or the opponent would not be doing this.

Isn't it better to stay in a sound defensive position than to risk a clock-stopping foul or creating a five versus four situation?

Fans, I'm sure, see the ball rolling up the court and say, "Get it. Get it".

I'd say that's dumb basketball.

I'd say that's why the fans are where they are ... on their couches.

this can be easily adjusted to. There is no risk. Pressure the guy in the backcourt and the second the ball leaves the hands of the guy inbounding the ball, retreat/run to the frontcourt and get ready to play D. Any D1 player with a brain can do this without letting the guy blow by him, as Jim says would happen. This is not brain surgery. Jim wont ever do it though, so its a moot point.

 

[tbonezone]

and the craziest part of the whole argument is the apparent concession that the zone is the best defense to stop a deep three pointer.

 

[bballbeadle]

And the reason he does not do it? (Choose as many as you like but stay consistent)

A. JB is dumb (and stubborn)

B. JB doesn't understand the value of the few seconds he is allowing the other team to get by doing this. (Similar to A above)

C. JB doesn't understand how stressful it is for some fans to see that ball rolling up the floor by itself. He's trying to stress us out.

D. We are playing a zone defense. No one has defensive responsibility for back court. (It's that dangburned 2-3 again)

E. JB believes it is better to set up the defense and pick the dribbler up when he gets the ball within 25 feet of the basket. (When we tried this against Villanova, we got burned as the guy ran by us.)

D & E. But I really really liked C!

 

[Townie72]

this can be easily adjusted to. There is no risk. Pressure the guy in the backcourt and the second the ball leaves the hands of the guy inbounding the ball, retreat/run to the frontcourt and get ready to play D. Any D1 player with a brain can do this without letting the guy blow by him, as Jim says would happen. This is not brain surgery. Jim wont ever do it though, so its a moot point.

You must not have read SWC's post above when he wrote ""The first of three different John’s to call in started by saying “I love you to death” and JB said “Uh Oh!” This John apologized for bringing it up again but insisted that we should challenge the other team when they roll the ball up the court. He suggested that Cooney could take three steps forward and then get back. Jim insisted “We tried that against Villanova and they got past us. You save three seconds but they run right past you.” John kept pressing the issue and JB kept telling him that that’s what we did against Villanova."

Does this mean that in your opinion that Cooney is a D-1 player without a brain?

 

[Townie72]

and the craziest part of the whole argument is the apparent concession that the zone is the best defense to stop a deep three pointer.

OK.

Seems to me SU is #2 in the ACC in terms of 3-pt shot defensive percentage.

What's that tell you?

 

[Deano]

You must not have read SWC's post above when he wrote ""The first of three different John’s to call in started by saying “I love you to death” and JB said “Uh Oh!” This John apologized for bringing it up again but insisted that we should challenge the other team when they roll the ball up the court. He suggested that Cooney could take three steps forward and then get back. Jim insisted “We tried that against Villanova and they got past us. You save three seconds but they run right past you.” John kept pressing the issue and JB kept telling him that that’s what we did against Villanova."

Does this mean that in your opinion that Cooney is a D-1 player without a brain?

I think what TBCuse is saying, is that you don't need to be on top of the player, just insure he at least touch's the ball in the back court so the clock starts, then get your a@@ back on D.

 

[Townie72]

I think what TBCuse is saying, is that you don't need to be on top of the player, just insure he at least touch's the ball in the back court so the clock starts, then get your a@@ back on D.

We'll have to get you a job in DC clarifying what Joe Biden meant to say.

Seriously, what part of "We tried it against Villanova and it didn't work. The Villanova guy ran past Cooney" is it that you and TBCuse don't understand.

I mean, its not like we are behind in the game so that we have to try something desperate. We are ahead. The other team is trying whatever it can to lengthen the game. Why would we help them out by getting out of defensive position and maybe by fouling the guy bringing the ball up stopping the clock and putting then on the foul line?