Slow Starts

[runningorange]

One thing we can’t do on Saturday if we hope to win is to start slowly. While watching games I have always felt that we have a tendency to start slowly, especially in Big East Games. I decided to take a look to see if this was simply my perception or reality.

Villanova on 1/12/13: Down 29 to 27 at half (slow start, although both teams started poorly).
@Providence on 1/9/13: Down 33-24 (slow start).
@USF on 1/6/13: Down 17-7 (slow start).
Rutgers on 1/2/13: Down 20-18 but started out pretty good (average start).

Going back to last year:

Cincinnati on 3/9/12: Down 25-8 (slow start, that costs us the game).
UConn on 3/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Louisville on 3/3/12: Down 15-9 (slow start).
@UConn on 2/25/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
USF on 2/22/12: Down 18-5 (slow start).
@Rutgers on 2/19/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@Louisville on 2/13/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
UConn on 2/11/12: Down 10-5 (slow start).
Georgetown on 2/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@ St. Johns on 2/4/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
WVU on 1/28/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
@Cincinnati on 1/23/12: Down 15-6 (slow start).
@Notre Dame on 1/21/12: Down 11-2 (slow start).
Pittsburgh on 1/16/12: Up 13-0 (fast start).
Providence on 1/14/12: Up 10-2 (fast start).
@Villanova on 1/11/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Marquette on 1/7/12: Up 12-5 (fast start).
@Providence on 1/4/12: Down 14-9 (slow start).
@DePaul on 1/1/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
Seton Hall on 12/28/11: Up 12-3 (fast start).

So for Big East play so far the last two seasons I have 14 “slow starts”, 4 “fast starts”, and 6 “average starts.” We definitely are trending towards poor starts. Why is this? Here are several theories:

1. Teams have come out extremely motivated to play us since we have been ranked in the top 5 for most of this span. It takes us some time to ratchet up our intensity level.
2. Having a “starter” like DaJuan this year or Rak last year who is a starter in name only. Having them on the court early keeps the best lineup combination off the start of the floor.
3. Other teams know exactly what we will do on defense and have a few plays prepared. These often lead to some good early looks from 3. We adjust and take these looks away later in the game but fall behind early.

What we need on Saturday:

1. We need this to be at worst a 1 possession game at the first TV timeout. We can’t spot them a 15-6 lead or something like that.
2. We need to limit the second chance looks early in the game.
3. We need to make shots to keep the crowd out of it. We can’t let things snowball.

Thoughts?

 

[pfister1]

One thing we can’t do on Saturday if we hope to win is to start slowly. While watching games I have always felt that we have a tendency to start slowly, especially in Big East Games. I decided to take a look to see if this was simply my perception or reality.

Villanova on 1/12/13: Down 29 to 27 at half (slow start, although both teams started poorly).
@Providence on 1/9/13: Down 33-24 (slow start).
@USF on 1/6/13: Down 17-7 (slow start).
Rutgers on 1/2/13: Down 20-18 but started out pretty good (average start).

Going back to last year:

Cincinnati on 3/9/12: Down 25-8 (slow start, that costs us the game).
UConn on 3/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Louisville on 3/3/12: Down 15-9 (slow start).
@UConn on 2/25/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
USF on 2/22/12: Down 18-5 (slow start).
@Rutgers on 2/19/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@Louisville on 2/13/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
UConn on 2/11/12: Down 10-5 (slow start).
Georgetown on 2/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@ St. Johns on 2/4/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
WVU on 1/28/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
@Cincinnati on 1/23/12: Down 15-6 (slow start).
@Notre Dame on 1/21/12: Down 11-2 (slow start).
Pittsburgh on 1/16/12: Up 13-0 (fast start).
Providence on 1/14/12: Up 10-2 (fast start).
@Villanova on 1/11/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Marquette on 1/7/12: Up 12-5 (fast start).
@Providence on 1/4/12: Down 14-9 (slow start).
@DePaul on 1/1/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
Seton Hall on 12/28/11: Up 12-3 (fast start).

So for Big East play so far the last two seasons I have 14 “slow starts”, 4 “fast starts”, and 6 “average starts.” We definitely are trending towards poor starts. Why is this? Here are several theories:

1. Teams have come out extremely motivated to play us since we have been ranked in the top 5 for most of this span. It takes us some time to ratchet up our intensity level.
2. Having a “starter” like DaJuan this year or Rak last year who is a starter in name only. Having them on the court early keeps the best lineup combination off the start of the floor.
3. Other teams know exactly what we will do on defense and have a few plays prepared. These often lead to some good early looks from 3. We adjust and take these looks away later in the game but fall behind early.

What we need on Saturday:

1. We need this to be at worst a 1 possession game at the first TV timeout. We can’t spot them a 15-6 lead or something like that.
2. We need to limit the second chance looks early in the game.
3. We need to make shots to keep the crowd out of it. We can’t let things snowball.

Thoughts?

Slow starts are an issue with the offense, not so much the defense. Although oftentimes picking up the defense is what helps us get the offense going.

Might be the token starter slows us down a bit, as we are essentially playing 4 on 5.

Biggest issue is our half court offense has not been a strong suit. Early in games the play is more even and more measured and we are forced to play half court offense more hence we have trouble scoring and get off to a "slow" start.

Either that, or its because our Fans stand up and clap until the first bucket is scored.

 

[Gabjon]

When you don't start your best 5 players you are subject to slow starts.

 

[bballbeadle]

I like your point that because we are now ranked highly and have been for several years, we become one of the top dogs we used to gun for ourselves.

I asked this question on another thread, but too late to get a response. It may have some relevance to the "slow start" topic. MCW almost always slowly walks the ball up the court on most of our possessions. This seems deliberate, but I don't understand it. Why not move more quickly?

 

[Marsh01]

One thing we can’t do on Saturday if we hope to win is to start slowly. While watching games I have always felt that we have a tendency to start slowly, especially in Big East Games. I decided to take a look to see if this was simply my perception or reality.

Villanova on 1/12/13: Down 29 to 27 at half (slow start, although both teams started poorly).
@Providence on 1/9/13: Down 33-24 (slow start).
@USF on 1/6/13: Down 17-7 (slow start).
Rutgers on 1/2/13: Down 20-18 but started out pretty good (average start).

Going back to last year:

Cincinnati on 3/9/12: Down 25-8 (slow start, that costs us the game).
UConn on 3/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Louisville on 3/3/12: Down 15-9 (slow start).
@UConn on 2/25/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
USF on 2/22/12: Down 18-5 (slow start).
@Rutgers on 2/19/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@Louisville on 2/13/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
UConn on 2/11/12: Down 10-5 (slow start).
Georgetown on 2/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@ St. Johns on 2/4/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
WVU on 1/28/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
@Cincinnati on 1/23/12: Down 15-6 (slow start).
@Notre Dame on 1/21/12: Down 11-2 (slow start).
Pittsburgh on 1/16/12: Up 13-0 (fast start).
Providence on 1/14/12: Up 10-2 (fast start).
@Villanova on 1/11/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Marquette on 1/7/12: Up 12-5 (fast start).
@Providence on 1/4/12: Down 14-9 (slow start).
@DePaul on 1/1/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
Seton Hall on 12/28/11: Up 12-3 (fast start).

So for Big East play so far the last two seasons I have 14 “slow starts”, 4 “fast starts”, and 6 “average starts.” We definitely are trending towards poor starts. Why is this? Here are several theories:

1. Teams have come out extremely motivated to play us since we have been ranked in the top 5 for most of this span. It takes us some time to ratchet up our intensity level.
2. Having a “starter” like DaJuan this year or Rak last year who is a starter in name only. Having them on the court early keeps the best lineup combination off the start of the floor.
3. Other teams know exactly what we will do on defense and have a few plays prepared. These often lead to some good early looks from 3. We adjust and take these looks away later in the game but fall behind early.

What we need on Saturday:

1. We need this to be at worst a 1 possession game at the first TV timeout. We can’t spot them a 15-6 lead or something like that.
2. We need to limit the second chance looks early in the game.
3. We need to make shots to keep the crowd out of it. We can’t let things snowball.

Thoughts?

We were 22-2 in those games so I dont think it really matters.

 

[jec1521]

We were 22-2 in those games so I dont think it really matters.

It matters. If we could figure out why we are getting these slow starts, maybe we could be 24-0.

 

[Marsh01]

It matters. If we could figure out why we are getting these slow starts, maybe we could be 24-0.

Going undefeated in games is almost damn near impossible. I look at how the games ended up. It doesnt matter as much as people are making it out to be.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Slow starts are an issue with the offense, not so much the defense. Although oftentimes picking up the defense is what helps us get the offense going.

I think our offense relies a ton on defense playing well and getting out on the break quickly. Seems like most of our defensive adjustments come later in the first half or at the half, so that may be the reason we start slowly but then end up winning most of our games as Marsh points out.

 

[runningorange]

We were 22-2 in those games so I dont think it really matters.

I'll agree that it doesn't matter in all of the games but it will matter on Saturday a lot. We can spot South Florida or Providence 10 points and still win, but it we spot Louisville that much we are in trouble. We need to play our best for 40 minutes to win this one, and that includes not falling behind by 6 points or more by the first TV timeout. Whatever the reason, this must be avoided on Saturday. It would be great if we could jump on them a bit early, but that hasn't happened for us much recently, even with our loaded teams.

 

[runningorange]

I like your point that because we are now ranked highly and have been for several years, we become one of the top dogs we used to gun for ourselves.

I asked this question on another thread, but too late to get a response. It may have some relevance to the "slow start" topic. MCW almost always slowly walks the ball up the court on most of our possessions. This seems deliberate, but I don't understand it. Why not move more quickly?

I like this point. It also goes along well with the earlier comment about the start of games tending to be more half-court oriented while we excel in transition. I would really like to see us make an effort to dictate the tempo early in the game instead of letting teams dictate it for us.

 

[Gabjon]

The reason is starting the two bigs. The other team is generally smaller and faster, but the game is not a sprint so when we put our faster, better line-up in we are able to go on huge runs as the opposing team is going the their bench and their weaker line-up. As a result we are closing the half in the lead 9 times out of 10. If you notice when we don't have the lead at the half JB often starts the second with the smaller line-up.

 

[OttoMets]

I like your point that because we are now ranked highly and have been for several years, we become one of the top dogs we used to gun for ourselves.

I asked this question on another thread, but too late to get a response. It may have some relevance to the "slow start" topic. MCW almost always slowly walks the ball up the court on most of our possessions. This seems deliberate, but I don't understand it. Why not move more quickly?

Can't answer that, but I've also noticed that our rebounders look almost exclusively to deliver Mike the ball - we're not looking to have a wing or off-guard start the break as much this year. Don't like either trend; free transition baskets would be a welcome addition to the offense.

Good original post. Running out a token starter could contribute.

 

[OttoMets]

We were 22-2 in those games so I dont think it really matters.

Gratuitiously dismissive, no?

Playing as well as possible matters. The idea is to do the right thing in every game; just because they won some games doesn't mean it's a good idea to get behind in the first quarter. Investigating the causes for stretches of poor play is surely something the coaching staff is interested in, and probably something that's fair game to discuss on a message board.

And this symptom that has been highlighted - slow starts - has factored heavily in the end of two of the past three seasons. Spot Butler a ten-point lead right away, lose by half that. Give Ohio State a 9-2 lead, lose by that same margin.

It matters.

 

[Marsh01]

Gratuitiously dismissive, no?

Playing as well as possible matters. Investigating the causes for stretches of poor play is surely something the coaching staff is interested in, and probably something that's fair game to discuss on a message board.

Sure it is but the OP was suggesting a pattern and when the numbers are skewed so far into our favor that argument doesnt mean as much as it should. Had we gone 12-12 then I see the point.

 

[OttoMets]

Sure it is but the OP was suggesting a pattern and when the numbers are skewed so far into our favor that argument doesnt mean as much as it should. Had we gone 12-12 then I see the point.

Pattern of slow starts, I think, not a pattern of losing games

 

[Marsh01]

Pattern of slow starts, I think, not a pattern of losing games

Oh I get that. I just was stating that it really hasnt hindered our ability to win those games and if you look at those games we beat some pretty good teams in there.

 

[OttoMets]

Oh I get that. I just was stating that it really hasnt hindered our ability to win those games and if you look at those games we beat some pretty good teams in there.

I gotcha - we did beat most of the very good teams we played last year; I'm just of the mind that the slow starts hindered our ability to get those wins. Wouldn't have minded a crisp first-half effort against USF late last year in order to get a win in the bag and get rest for some starters. Recall a couple others like that.

 

[Marsh01]

I gotcha - we did beat most of the very good teams we played last year; I'm just of the mind that the slow starts hindered our ability to get those wins. Wouldn't have minded a crisp first-half effort against USF late last year in order to get a win in the bag and get rest for some starters. Recall a couple others like that.

I agree that we cant fall behind early this Saturday. Understood. Look at Pitt a couple of years ago thought. Fell behind 19-0 and scored 17 straight. We seem to respond in a funny way when we do start slow.

 

[OttoMets]

I agree that we cant fall behind early this Saturday. Understood. Look at Pitt a couple of years ago thought. Fell behind 19-0 and scored 17 straight. We seem to respond in a funny way when we do start slow.

Got to give us credit for that - when we do have apocalyptic starts, we recover just enough to get everyone thinking that we can win the game. But then we don't. Have to play very well in the first half on Saturday. We're due.

 

[MGP]

I agree that we cant fall behind early this Saturday. Understood. Look at Pitt a couple of years ago thought. Fell behind 19-0 and scored 17 straight. We seem to respond in a funny way when we do start slow.

Funny, I thought of that game immediately too and almost commented.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Good original post. Running out a token starter could contribute.

It is a possibility. But the OP cherry picked the amounts when we were down, not the scores before the first subs. And I don't know if using last years data is relevant for this years squad. Last years starting 5 really had two more explosive players on the bench.

Secondly, what if it's true? That trotting DC2 out is shown to have a small link to slow starts? Are you suggesting we don't do it for LVille? Because I disagree. This new trick has allowed JB to sub, let's keep him doing it. Going back to starting the best 5 is a recipe for very little substitutions. And those subs will mostly be for foul protection.

A lot of people have clamored for developing players and saying they would trade a couple of early games for a late run. But when JB finally adopts a strategy that develops young players, people start questioning it.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I agree that we cant fall behind early this Saturday. Understood. Look at Pitt a couple of years ago thought. Fell behind 19-0 and scored 17 straight. We seem to respond in a funny way when we do start slow.

Was at that one. Very strange 1H at the Pete. Just not enough left in the tank when you get buried like that early.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Gratuitiously dismissive, no?

Playing as well as possible matters. The idea is to do the right thing in every game; just because they won some games doesn't mean it's a good idea to get behind in the first quarter. Investigating the causes for stretches of poor play is surely something the coaching staff is interested in, and probably something that's fair game to discuss on a message board.

And this symptom that has been highlighted - slow starts - has factored heavily in the end of two of the past three seasons. Spot Butler a ten-point lead right away, lose by half that. Give Ohio State a 9-2 lead, lose by that same margin.

It matters.

You are not going to win every 5 minute segment.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

 

[realorange]

It matters. If we could figure out why we are getting these slow starts, maybe we could be 24-0.

Or maybe we could be 20-4

 

[br801]

One thing we can’t do on Saturday if we hope to win is to start slowly. While watching games I have always felt that we have a tendency to start slowly, especially in Big East Games. I decided to take a look to see if this was simply my perception or reality.

Villanova on 1/12/13: Down 29 to 27 at half (slow start, although both teams started poorly).
@Providence on 1/9/13: Down 33-24 (slow start).
@USF on 1/6/13: Down 17-7 (slow start).
Rutgers on 1/2/13: Down 20-18 but started out pretty good (average start).

Going back to last year:

Cincinnati on 3/9/12: Down 25-8 (slow start, that costs us the game).
UConn on 3/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Louisville on 3/3/12: Down 15-9 (slow start).
@UConn on 2/25/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
USF on 2/22/12: Down 18-5 (slow start).
@Rutgers on 2/19/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@Louisville on 2/13/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
UConn on 2/11/12: Down 10-5 (slow start).
Georgetown on 2/8/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
@ St. Johns on 2/4/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
WVU on 1/28/12: Down 13-7 (slow start).
@Cincinnati on 1/23/12: Down 15-6 (slow start).
@Notre Dame on 1/21/12: Down 11-2 (slow start).
Pittsburgh on 1/16/12: Up 13-0 (fast start).
Providence on 1/14/12: Up 10-2 (fast start).
@Villanova on 1/11/12: Did not start slowly (average start).
Marquette on 1/7/12: Up 12-5 (fast start).
@Providence on 1/4/12: Down 14-9 (slow start).
@DePaul on 1/1/12: Down 7-2 (slow start).
Seton Hall on 12/28/11: Up 12-3 (fast start).

So for Big East play so far the last two seasons I have 14 “slow starts”, 4 “fast starts”, and 6 “average starts.” We definitely are trending towards poor starts. Why is this? Here are several theories:

1. Teams have come out extremely motivated to play us since we have been ranked in the top 5 for most of this span. It takes us some time to ratchet up our intensity level.
2. Having a “starter” like DaJuan this year or Rak last year who is a starter in name only. Having them on the court early keeps the best lineup combination off the start of the floor.
3. Other teams know exactly what we will do on defense and have a few plays prepared. These often lead to some good early looks from 3. We adjust and take these looks away later in the game but fall behind early.

What we need on Saturday:

1. We need this to be at worst a 1 possession game at the first TV timeout. We can’t spot them a 15-6 lead or something like that.
2. We need to limit the second chance looks early in the game.
3. We need to make shots to keep the crowd out of it. We can’t let things snowball.

Thoughts?

Interesting stuff, but I would take issue with your definition of what constitutes a slow start. To me, trailing by 6 points or less in the first 10 minutes of a game (where many of your examples fall) doesn't necessarily constitute a slow start.

Basketball has always been a game of runs, and the 3-point shot has only magnified this. It only takes a few possessions (good or bad) for a game to change quickly. When runs happen early, obviously they are more noticeable on the scoreboard, but I'm not sure they are any more significant than when they occur later in a game, and I'm not sure they are directly correlated with wins and losses.