So when will teams stop trying to slow the game down against SU?

[Waltdods]

Basically every team in the ACC that is not Duke has tried to limit possessions against Syracuse. The logic is obvious - Syracuse is a more efficient team than all of them and so you want to limit the number of chances SU has to assert its superiority. Equally obvious, it hasn't actually, you know, worked.

The biggest problem with the strategy is that even teams that outplay Syracuse for the first 35 minutes (as I think Pitt clearly did yesterday) can't build up much of a lead, which leaves them susceptible to the absolutely killer play down the stretch. A two-possession lead over SU with 5 minutes to go is not particularly helpful.

The other problem with this strategy is that I think to a degree it is fighting the last war. SU for the last few years has been a team that excels in transition but often struggles in the half-court set. This year, it's basically the opposite. Slowing the game down to avoid giving up transition buckets is important if the team wants transition buckets, but not particularly helpful when that's only a marginal part of SU's offense. And Syracuse's half-court offense is really pretty good.

Would speeding up the game work? Probably not (the biggest reason being that Ennis might well just slow the game back down). But the current plan definitely isn't working. And I think Ennis is at least 8% less comfortable playing fast than slow. And both Fair and Grant can get a little turnover-prone if they're rushing things.

 

[jec1521]

Your first point doesn't make any sense though. If you were Pitt, wouldn't you rather play slow and be up 6 with 90 seconds left, then play fast and be down 10?

 

[Marsh01]

The big difference is we are now turning into the Wisconsin of the ACC. Meat grinding teams.

 

[Full_Rebar]

This bodes well for tourney as SU will be ready for the mid-major/slow paced game that seemed to frustrate teams in the past. I'm surprised at the lack of full-court pressure thrown at SU so far. You would have to think that trying to wear down Ennis would be a key strategy.

 

[zeekay]

The big difference is we are now turning into the Wisconsin of the ACC. Meat grinding teams.

Not really. The zone just means you can't control tempo and it's up to your opponent on how fast the game is. Duke wanted fast and we gave it to them. Pitt etc. teams that take up 35 seconds get slow games.

Wisc itself takes 35 seconds on THEIR offense and forces slow tempo, we don't force it.

 

[Waltdods]

Your first point doesn't make any sense though. If you were Pitt, wouldn't you rather play slow and be up 6 with 90 seconds left, then play fast and be down 10?

Well, this assumes Pitt would have been down 10 if they sped up the game. They probably would have been. But maybe they would have been up 10 - we were really struggling to stop them at times (mostly because of the offensive rebounding). To restate it a bit, I think* you're better off taking a gamble on getting a 10-point lead late, even if that means you're increasing the chances you're actually losing by 10 then.

* - I'm not sure I actually think this.

 

[HurleyForHeisman]

I agree with you. Pitt attacks the interior of the Syracuse zone better than anyone. There is no reason Pitt should wait until 10 seconds on the shot clock to run a play. Had Pitt kept pushing the ball inside they likely would've gotten Rak and Grant out of the game on fouls and been able to pull away.

Also, teams that limit possessions are helping SU, and Ennis in particular, conserve energy. I think Boeheim is loving it when other teams play slow. They're playing into SU's strength this year.

 

[TDTOrange]

The biggest problem is that most of these ACC teams are slow teams. They play slow against everyone, so it's not just against us they choose to limit possessions. I saw someone posted the stat the other day that the ACC is the slowest conference in the country at somewhere around 70 possessions. Average around the country was around 74.

We play slow because we don't force tempo, so when teams play slow, we play along. I don't think our offense is all that slow. We seem to get good shots without using all 35 seconds most possessions, we don't run a ton but I see them trying to little more recently. But on defense teams use 30+ seconds routinely.

When we played Duke, we played fast and still won. It was still a close game, but there were a lot of possessions and a lot of points scored. What it comes down to is we're pretty efficient in our offense, whether the game is a slow paced or fast paced one, and we have a knack of making the big shots and getting stops in the last few minutes.

 

[sufandu]

Honestly, I don't know that it is always an intentional slow down. Pitt was moving the ball looking for a quality shot. When we play good defense, we don't give many good looks early. Then, with all of their offensive rebounds, it extended their possessions even more.

I think some teams intentionally slow the pace, but, a lot of the time, I think it's just a function of our defense.

 

[BludOrange]

We don't play slow. Teams use the whole shot clock on offense. Sometimes like last night, teams shoot poorly and get rebound after rebound, eating up more clock before they chuck up a prayer as the clock winds down again. Others have put a soft press on us and make us burn 10 seconds walking it up the court. We also shoot a high percentage which gives the opponent even more chances to drain clock. Cuse has also had the lead at the end of most games and JB flattens the ball for the final 3-5 minutes. Lastly, the possibility of guys tiring out and losing their legs as the season goes on.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The biggest problem with the strategy is that even teams that outplay Syracuse for the first 35 minutes (as I think Pitt clearly did yesterday) can't build up much of a lead, which leaves them susceptible to the absolutely killer play down the stretch. A two-possession lead over SU with 5 minutes to go is not particularly helpful.

Yeah, part of the reason why I'm not nervous at the end of games is because it really isn't a big deal for this team to come back from a 5 or 6 point deficit, regardless of how difficult it's been to score in a given game.

 

[Tony DeFranco]

The big difference is we are now turning into the Wisconsin of the ACC. Meat grinding teams.

We are not the same transition team as with Scoop and Waiters but we are not the ones playing this slow hold the ball tempo - we are more of a half court team but we shoot as soon as we like a shot - Pitt could have a player under the basketball wide open and not pass him the ball until they waste 25 seconds of the clock

 

[chlywtr]

The big difference is we are now turning into the Wisconsin of the ACC. Meat grinding teams.

and we all see how well that has worked for them in the tournament

 

[Cowtown]

Basically every team in the ACC that is not Duke has tried to limit possessions against Syracuse. The logic is obvious - Syracuse is a more efficient team than all of them and so you want to limit the number of chances SU has to assert its superiority. Equally obvious, it hasn't actually, you know, worked.

The biggest problem with the strategy is that even teams that outplay Syracuse for the first 35 minutes (as I think Pitt clearly did yesterday) can't build up much of a lead, which leaves them susceptible to the absolutely killer play down the stretch. A two-possession lead over SU with 5 minutes to go is not particularly helpful.

The other problem with this strategy is that I think to a degree it is fighting the last war. SU for the last few years has been a team that excels in transition but often struggles in the half-court set. This year, it's basically the opposite. Slowing the game down to avoid giving up transition buckets is important if the team wants transition buckets, but not particularly helpful when that's only a marginal part of SU's offense. And Syracuse's half-court offense is really pretty good.

Would speeding up the game work? Probably not (the biggest reason being that Ennis might well just slow the game back down). But the current plan definitely isn't working. And I think Ennis is at least 8% less comfortable playing fast than slow. And both Fair and Grant can get a little turnover-prone if they're rushing things.

Mostly agree, other than I don't think it's so much that other teams are slowing play down, they just can't speed it up. SU is not turnover prone, they rebound well, and they're a better finishing team than we've seen in a long time. So the opportunity to move SU out of its comfort range just isn't there for the most part. And even after watching the Duke game I'd be asking myself, do you want to get into a track meet with a team that doesn't turn it over and finishes like that? I actually think I'd prefer to play strength against strength, and this year it seems there's more teams playing a lot more in the half-court.

 

[jordoo]

We are finally seeing the advantage of being a good halfcourt offensive team and we have the perfect PG for it whether teams take 30sec against everytime or shoot fast like Duke did. Ennis will push if its there but will slow down if he doesn't like it and hit Cooney for a late trail 3 or CJ for a late trail drive if available. If we don't have those things then he will pull it out and let us run our offense.I think efficiency wise going fast just makes SU more efficient because we already are in the halfcourt and Ennis will pick and chose the transition opportunities judiciously only fully committing the ones where we have a clear advantage situation. He is unique in that sense, always probing for an advantage in any situation, taking it if its there but content to be patient if its not.

 

[Waltdods]

We don't play slow. Teams use the whole shot clock on offense. Sometimes like last night, teams shoot poorly and get rebound after rebound, eating up more clock before they chuck up a prayer as the clock winds down again. Others have put a soft press on us and make us burn 10 seconds walking it up the court. We also shoot a high percentage which gives the opponent even more chances to drain clock. Cuse has also had the lead at the end of most games and JB flattens the ball for the final 3-5 minutes. Lastly, the possibility of guys tiring out and losing their legs as the season goes on.

We do play slow. We are 348th out of 351 D-1 teams in possessions per game. Some of this can be attributed to teams playing slow against us and that we've played some very slow teams. But not all. I agree that we don't just sit on the ball for no reason (unless we have a lead under 5 minutes) but (1) we don't run much and (2) we are very deliberate in finding a good shot opportunity. There's no shame in being a deliberate team and it's obviously a good match for this team.

 

[longislandcuse]

We do play slow. We are 348th out of 351 D-1 teams in possessions per game. Some of this can be attributed to teams playing slow against us and that we've played some very slow teams. But not all. I agree that we don't just sit on the ball for no reason (unless we have a lead under 5 minutes) but (1) we don't run much and (2) we are very deliberate in finding a good shot opportunity. There's no shame in being a deliberate team and it's obviously a good match for this team.

Slow teams deliberately take the air out of the ball and use the shot clock. We may be deliberate but were not a slow paced team.

I suspect that we'll put up a lot more points in the NCAA Tourney when were not playing a nonstop parade of grind it out, tough defensive teams.