Does Butler need a new starting lineup?

Discussion in 'Butler Basketball' started by theenforcer13, Dec 30, 2018.

  1. Gregory Roach

    Gregory Roach Active Member

    Money:
    $345
    Let me preface the following with this, I am a HUGE fan of Jordan Tucker as a member of this team. He appears to have a huge upside. He brings size, strength, rebounding, vision that allows for potentially strong passing and eventually I presume the ability to get his own shot. However, that is NOT who Jordan Tucker is YET. He is still quite often out of position on defense and needs to find his role on the offense.

    I thought the move to start Baddley and Brunk was exactly the change that was needed. Further, like yourself, many of us where indicating that both Fowler and Jorgensen needed to come from the bench where they appear more conformable and effective. Not only was Nate effective, he appeared to be ENJOYING himself again. Jorgensen played better but still has a ways to go to be a consistent threat.

    The argument for a 3 guard lineup appears dead....as it should be. (For purposes of that statement, due to his jumping ability, I am lumping Baddley into the Forward group with McDermott, Tucker and David).

    I look forward to seeing how this starting scheme works against the Hall and the growth of Baddley as a starter and Tucker as the first big off the Bench. To me, they seem to have a lot growing room.

    Lastly, I REALLY like seeing Tucker and David together. They both have SO MUCH skill and I look forward to seeing what more PT does for their ability and contribution to team offense in particular.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
    jeff, bwesson15, MBA2003 and 4 others like this.
  2. bu1973

    bu1973 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $577
    I agree with virtually everything Gregory Roach said. As I said in a previous post, a three guard line-up with McDermott at the 4 is really a four guard lineup defensively because of his physique. Tucker needs to earn his spot because Baddley has certainly earned the chance if a change is being made. Brunk just brings so much to the table with his motor and his touch. He is so energetic that he almost looks out of control at times, but he coming fast. I would really like to see him shoot a 15 foot jumper because he is, on the whole, a good free throw shooter. I liked the rotations, I was really glad to see David get some time on Saturday, because I think he can be an asset but there are only 200 minutes to be divided per game. You really have 80 minutes at the 3-4, and a few extra ones when the guards get a blow( maybe 100 total), but you have, PJ, McD, David, Baddley and Tucker vying for those minutes. And of course, it would be nice to get Golden a few #4 minutes, IMO.
     
  3. znelson15

    znelson15 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $733
    Baddley starting was awesome let’s hope it sticks

    He is ready to be a starter and play whatever roll is need as a starter
    Very happy to see his growth defensively and offensive and get a chance to start this year
     
  4. Denverdawg

    Denverdawg Member

    Money:
    $68
    Baddley reminds me a little of Kam Woods in his defensive close outs. He oftentimes seems to fly past the offensive player. Is he just like Woods in that he’s long enough with a quick enough recovery that it works for him?

    I like Baddley so this isn’t meant to be negative, I just have the same cringe reaction that I had with Woods when it happens, but it never seems to affect his defensive effectiveness. So, I’m trying to understand why that works for Baddley and whether or not upside may still exist with tweaks to his approach.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. bubby

    bubby Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,567
    Absolutely. And I'd love to see some poster-y finishes from him off the pick-and-role. ;)
     
  6. bubby

    bubby Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $1,567
    Tucker should take McD's spot, not Baddley's.

    Thompson, Baldwin, Tucker, Baddley, Brunk.
     
  7. Insane Dawg

    Insane Dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $13,334
    Why?
     
  8. Dewars12

    Dewars12 Well-Known Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $866
    Tucker should be starting within the next two - three games. Baddley has been really good at his role and was solid vs. Creighton, but I don't trust his outside shot to be as consistent as McD's. Plus, McD has the ability to rebound just as well as HB.

    Tucker's added dimension is that defenses WILL respect his shot and passing ability - not as much with HB - so the floor is spaced better. And, Tucker rebounds and passes well. I actually think the team would be better by having a few specific plays designed for action revolved around Tucker.
     
  9. Baddley prefers to go by Hank.
     
  10. jal8908

    jal8908 Active Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $3,168
    Personally, I would roll with:

    Thompson
    Baldwin
    Tucker
    Brunk
    1 of Baddley/McDermott/Golden depending on the matchup (Baddley against a high scoring wing, McDermott against a team where we need more offense, Golden against a team that likes to play big). Henry is probably my favorite there, even though I prefer Tucker at the 3 more than the 4.

    I like Tucker over McDermott for the first forward mainly due to upside. You can see the potential to be a difference maker once he gets fully back in game shape and finds his court awareness again. And to be honest, since the IU game I haven't seen anything Sean is doing better than him. The big knock on Jordan right now is his defense, but Sean hasn't been good in that regard lately either.

    That gives you Nate at the 5, Paul at the 1-2, David at 3-4, and then a 2-3, 3-4, or 4-5 off the bench depending on who gets that 5th starting spot.
     
    estar20dawg likes this.
  11. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    I think we need to remember that Golden has played 24 minutes of college basketball.

    I think that we also need to remember that generally it’s better to play your style than the opponents style. If you’re playing the opponents style you’re unlikely to be playing to your strengths. If we vary our lineups to match the opponents style then we are going to be playing their style.

    If you don’t think Sean has a better grasp of defense than Jordan, it’s not worth my time to convince you. I think Jordan will likely eventually be ok, but we have to win now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    BUcheer likes this.
  12. jal8908

    jal8908 Active Member VIP Member

    Money:
    $3,168
    You really need to get over the condescending "I know more than everyone else here combined" attitude. For the record, I agree with a lot of the things you post, thought the Nate analysis especially was really well done. I just don't care for your tone when you disagree with people.

    Is changing a lineup really that different from game planning? I understand wanting to play your own game, but rotating one position isn't fundamentally altering your style, it's trying to give yourself a more advantageous matchup. Pretty sure we changed our defense up against Creighton to try to take away the 3-ball by switching everything, even when not completely necessary or when it created a mismatch in the post because we didn't want Creighton to beat us from the arc. An adjustment is an adjustment, whether it's a scheme change or personnel change. I tend to think those 3 guys could all play to a similar level overall, but in any given game one of their particular skill sets could be more beneficial.

    I understand Golden hasn't played much at all, but letting Sean and/or Tucker get abused in the post over and over again is not something I want to continue to watch this year. For a team that plays 2 bigs that can score (not many I know, but it's possible), yeah I'd run him out there to see if he can play defense and step out and knock down some shots to draw the defenders out.

    Where did I say Tucker has a better grasp of defense? Clearly he is still learning the system and getting used to the speed of live game action again. However, Sean hasn't been a world beater either this year on that end. He commits some of the dumbest, laziest fouls I've ever seen for a guy that seems to have a pretty high basketball IQ for the most part. I really do like both players, but I don't see much, if any, drop off overall from Sean to Tucker and I think Jordan is the kind of X-Factor that can take us from a bubble team that may or may not get in the dance to a team that can win a game or even get to the second weekend if he can get his focus and comfort built-up. From a pure talent and upside perspective (yes at this point in time it is still unrealized), I don't think anyone on the team can touch him and that includes Kamar. Tapping into that is huge for both our ceiling this year as well as going forward the next 2 years. I would risk taking on what in my opinion is a very small potential downgrade (that if he does have lapses, it's really easy to give him the hook) in exchange for possibly drawing that out.
     
    Tentozen and estar20dawg like this.
  13. estar20dawg

    estar20dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $3,979
    I definitely agree by switching lineups to matchup vs the other teams strengths is a strength for us because of our depth. Other teams don't have the luxury of throwing out 10 Div 1 capable players. It's not playing to their game, it's playing to our game. We are able to matchup and take away their strengths and then bring in more talent off the bench than the other team brings off the bench, if that's not a strategic advantage I don't know what is.
     
    Tentozen likes this.
  14. Insane Dawg

    Insane Dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $13,334
    One of the fascinating things with us humans is "confirmation bias". We see it everywhere from politics to the media to this fan board. We look for things to support our opinions and preconceived biases. I was that way with Nate Fowler. I looked for him to miss layups or whatever then blew it up in my mind and in my posts that he wasn't any good. Instead of looking at his positives on defense, kick outs , slapping rebounds out or sealing off I was looking for the next mistake and saying " see what I mean he isn't any good". I was trying to make him into something that I wanted, That is why recently I started to see his value that I hadn't seen before.

    I have a bias with AT because I want him to be a better shooter. That's on me not him. So I'm always looking for the missed free throw or jump shot to confirm my bias versus the good defense, pass or drive.

    Similarly some on here have a bias that McD is bad on defense and point to one split second delay on a switch in this last game as proof he is bad on defense when in fact that was the only mistake he made. Again I'm not singling anyone out because I have done the same thing.

    There is a reason why McD passes the ball inbounds most of the time and often helps bring the ball up the floor. There are reasons why he shades into the lane on weak side defense leaving his man open for a potential cross court pass. There are reasons why he is an outstanding rebounder for such a slight frame. There are reasons he has been a starter going back to last year. But if your belief is that he shouldn't start then LJ's bias is different than yours.
     
    PSUButlerFan, harvesting and bubby like this.
  15. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    Yes it is. The goal of gameplanning is to force the opponent into a situation that maximizes a balance of your strengths and their weaknesses because you can only be good at so many things.

    In baseball if you are a good fastball hitter facing a pitcher with a great curveball, you may make the decision that even though you like hitting early in the count, you’re going to take or foul pitches off until you get a fastball. You don’t change your swing because of the pitcher, but you may change how you attack the pitcher and still are waiting for the pitch you want. If you effectively execute this game plan, you can force the pitcher to eventually throw the pitch you want, and now you have dictated the at bat into something that you’re comfortable with.

    In basketball, think of you as the hitter and the opponent as the pitcher. How is the opponent going to attack you and what can you do to take them out of that and put them into a situation that you are more comfortable with?

    For example, a man defense doesn’t learn a zone to play a team that struggles against a zone. You review the strengths and weaknesses of the other team and schematically try to force them into situations of weakness for them or relative strength for you. You don’t want to try to effectively defend what they’re good at, you want to defend what they’re bad at.

    The tweaks come in a couple different forms.
    1) Review the opponents offensive scheme and determine what challenges it presents and how to address them. For example, the flex screens that Dayton killed us with. You want to have your scout team run those against you and practice switching against them. Conversely, you want to identify weaknesses and how you can force them into situations you’re more comfortable with. Against Georgetown it seems that we were more uncomfortable with them beating us in the post than with them shooting 3’s. Consequently, with Aaron helped off of Malinowski to give weakside post help and let them shoot 3’s. (I disagree with this schematically)

    2) You prepare how to defend unique personnel within your defensive game plan that will allow you to most effectively accomplish number 1. For example, you have a bad shooter and good driver at point guard, you’re going to practice closing out short and getting under the ball screens set by a post and switching those set by a guard. Similarly, if it’s a good shooter, you might hard hedge. Ideally you’ll play screens the same way for each position group, but sometimes you have to switch it if there are extremes like Rotnei.

    (When you face a zone or matchup zone you’ll also practice against that too)

    You’ll adjust how you play screens, how and whom you help off of, what players you let take certain shots, because you want to get them into a set of circumstances that are dictated by your decisions.

    The problem with adjusting lineups to do this is that if you play a worse overall player to better match up with the opponent, you have already allowed the opponent to force you away from what you want to do.

    (FWIW-I’ll take being abused in the post any day the opponent wants to do that. If you lose a game in this day and age because of what the opponent does with their back to the basket tip your cap and move on)


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  16. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    I believe it’s more important to try to get what you want than to take away what they want and you can’t do that unless you have perfectly interchangeable pieces. By telling me you can more effectively take away some things with different lineups than others you have already told me that they are not perfectly interchangeable.

    I’ll edit this to say it HAS to be more important to try to get what you want rather than take away the other teams weakness because otherwise you’re always in a constant state of adjustment never in your “comfort zone”.





    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  17. estar20dawg

    estar20dawg Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $3,979
    That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree losing a TON from McD or Baddley to Golden. That's my opinion. :)
     
  18. dawgs2014

    dawgs2014 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $2,589
    Absolutely. And I think there is perfectly reasonable validity to countering opinions since afterall there has to be a balance.

    I also think it’s important to understand the mental aspect of constantly changing starters. It becomes much harder to define roles when you rotate guys.

    Additionally, where they may matchup advantage, you should have one on the other end as well unless you’re playing a freak.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     
  19. Hinkle Magic2

    Hinkle Magic2 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $846
    McD isn't being removed from the starting lineup any time soon, nor should he.

    Baddley is probably the closest to being removed from the starting lineup, and he earned his spot last time. Plus, I think we place too much of an emphasis on who starts and who doesn't, as someone like Tucker could still play major minutes off the bench at the 3-4.

    Golden's path is a little more difficult as Butler seems to run with a 1 true big lineup most of the time, and he has both Brunk and Fowler ahead of him for now.
     
    Insane Dawg likes this.
  20. pjohnsto2003

    pjohnsto2003 Well-Known Member

    Money:
    $5,522
    I’ll give this post a on behalf of Sonbog. You forgot all your “Mr”s, though.


    Sent from my iPhone using Butler Hoops
     

Share This Page