Reddit mentions of Basketball's Half-Court Offense

I'm replying to this knowing that I'm probably wasting my time, but I like talking basketball so here goes -

> I've never been impressed by his in game adjustments or x's and o's.

Twenty years ago he published his first book. It consisted of nothing but diagrams of the offense he was running. It's about as x-and-o oriented as a book can get. No Calspeak. Just diagrams and strategy. I have a copy. It's a very informative book, and I've seen a play or two in Wisconsin's "swing" offense that look very similar. Somewhat ironically, Ryan had used less and less of his traditional offensive sets in the 2014-15 season in order to accommodate one-and-done Dekker. Sort of like how Calipari has to reinvent his offensive scheme annually in order to best adapt to roster turnover each year.

> If he's going to win, he'll have to do it with younger players.

That's mostly what's been happening. Sometimes young teams never fully come together (like UK's 2013 team), but for the most part, Calipari is able to have his teams playing very well by the time March rolls around.

> UW's coaching staff has had absurd success in the past 16 years or so.

I don't think "absurd success" is the right descriptor when at least 20 other teams have a better record during that same timeframe. UConn alone has won 3 titles in that period, and 4 if you go back 17 years, which is just as arbitrary a timeframe as the 16 years you chose, I'm assuming in order to include Wisconsin's 2000 Final Four. I remember watching that game live. Like most other people who watched it, I wish I didn't.


> That's sort of irrelevant though, as Calipari's strategy is clearly just to load of up on talented players

Well, yes. Every coach wants to load up on talented players, and the best ones don't stay for long. But let's not pretend it's as simple as you are making it out to be. It takes a lot of work to get those guys to one school, and even more effort to make those guys play together. Each one of them would get more minutes playing for almost any other college team. Each one of them has to adjust from being the undisputed best player on the floor to an environment where they need to learn their role among equally talented guys. It takes a lot of talent for a coach to get 18-19 year olds to check their egos and work together.

> my point is just that it looks to me like his teams underperform relative to their talent

Just like how older teams, with lots of juniors and seniors, seem to overperform relative to their talent. Talent alone doesn't win games. It certainly helps, though. Just like experience and maturity. Calipari has been able to win either way. Pat Forde is a sportswriter that hates Calipari. But even he managed to write this: Calipari's greatest strength as a coach is his ability to create teams that play together. His 1992 Massachusetts team remains one of the most overachieving units The Minutes has ever seen, featuring a shooting guard with range so limited he made one 3-pointer all season (Jim McCoy), a 6-foot-3 power forward (Will Herndon), and a left-handed center who stood all of 6–7 (Harper Williams). Somehow, that collection of marginal talent went 30–5 and advanced to the NCAA Sweet 16.

> Last year's matchup was the perfect showcase of the way UW and UK run their programs, and we did, ya know, win

I'd love to hear you go into more detail here. How can one game, standing alone, symbolize much of anything? Other than lazy analogical reasoning, that is. When UK beat Wisconsin in 2014, what did that showcase? Or better yet, pick any of the team chaos victories from this season. All that a single game shows is how well a team performed relative to another team on that day.