Over the last 24 months or so, something schematically has seemed different about the Tech defense compared to the rest of the sport. I initially attempted to call it the “the half court Press Virginia” or the inverted packline Then eventually settled on pairing it with our methodical offense in giving it the moniker, The Meat Grinder. (See: https://texastech.forums.rivals.com...ions-key-stats-very-long.117078/#post-2976195).
It’s a beautiful thing to watch.
Ken Pomeroy began charting the outcome of every college basketball possession in the early 2000s and, as a result, was able to generate per-possession ratings for teams, specific lineups, and individual players. His formula for rating defenses — now widely accepted as the standard by betting markets and the coaches themselves — measures how many points a defense would give up over 100 possessions to an “average team.”
In the kenpom era (since 1999), The Meat Grinder was the best per-possession defense ever measured. That‘s #1 out of 6,000+ defenses or approximately the top 99.998 percentile.
It wasn’t just effective at stopping entire teams or systems. Zion Williamson had one of the most statistically impressive & efficient seasons in college basketball history. His offensive efficiency rating against Tech was roughly 24% below his season average, no one forced him into more turnovers, and it’s the only game that he fouled out , primarily because of offensive charges. The Meat Grinder was, arguably at least, even the best at limiting Coach K with the biggest freak since Lebron.
Admittedly, I may have an understanding of ~5% of what went into constructing The Meat Grinder, but I'm convinced that we scout & scheme for each opponent with as much (but mainly more) information than anyone in the country. In the mold of the Moneyball As, Jeff Luhnow’s stros, or Darryl Morey’s rockets.
Basketball is similar to football, in that everyone’s scheme is simply a numbers game. Teams seek a numbers opportunity by running offense that forces helpers to rotate. If rotations occur, an exploitable numbers advantage should present itself somewhere.
So it makes sense that most defenses attempt preventing situations when rotations might arise, like switching on every ball screen. Tech’s scheme does the opposite — it actively seeks rotations; really, one particularly kind of rotation. Beard & Mark Adams ingrain into players the day they step on campus to rotate early & often, and to arrive at the ball in a really pissed off mood.
A college defense will face a 100+ variations of offensive sets or actions over the course of a season. That’s a lot of nuanced defensive reads & rotations to prepare for. Not Tech. And the “no middle” concept is the pillar behind this.
Culver wasn’t merely indifferent about allowing guards to drive past him baseline. He rode their ass into a frantic & rushed baseline drive. By cramming the same thing (the baseline drive) over and over down opponents’ throats, Tech only needed to be precise on a few different rotations.
Quite frankly, no one figured out how to solve it. You either have a guard that’s good enough to beat our defense into the middle (good luck finding one of those at K-Mart), or you need to man up and take advantage of the baseline drive opportunities we give you (I guess you could also pray that The Meat Grinder is asleep because it already choked you out by 50, so you dominate the offensive glass like WVU in the conf tournament).
My hunch is that our staff possesses data on every college basketball possession from the last 20 years or so. And it’s likely that those numbers indicate baseline drives are the least efficient way to score the basketball.
By forcing dribblers that way, and having a helper immediately stop the ball just outside the paint, the driver tends to get pinned against the base line — almost behind the goal & backboard so there’s not an angle to even attempt a shot.
It’s not a fun place to find yourself offensively. Culver is mounted on your ass and will deflect most shots as he trails from behind, a helper has formed a wall in front of you to draw a charge or deflect a pass, Tariq is hovering to erase any shot at the rim, and Mooney could've been mistaken for Troy Polamulu defending passes to shooters in the corner or at the top-of-the-key.
I bet historical data shows that all elite scorers made most their money from the middle of the paint. And if a heat map was drawn showing how efficient offenses are at each square foot of the court, that specific area near the baseline where we funnel drivers is the least dangerous place for the ball to be in the half court. For those reasons, I think simple arithmetic supports an argument that our scheme is the most effective way to defend a team in the half court.
However, you’ll never hear Beard give the system any credit. In fact, for as vibrant and engaging as he is with the media, he rarely, if ever, talks substantive Xs and Os. Even when he’s publicly heaping praise on Mark Adams, Beard references his work ethic, consistency, and ability to motivate.
I predict that basketball teams all over the country, especially at the HS level, will be attempting to run a system similar in the near future, if not already. In the meantime, Beard will continue to act like a moronic shooty-hoops coach, claiming to be a C student and feigning surprise when Fran Fraschilla correctly pronounces a big word in a question. In reality, Beard knows there aren’t many people in this business smarter than him, and he’ll continue to protect any easily-replicated advantages that he possesses like Fort Knox.
While the math behind the system certainly appears strong, it’s not an immovable object. As mentioned above, it’s designed to create rotations and a numbers advantage for the offense. So it can be scored on, theoretically, even when we play it perfectly. Spoiler alert: we play it perfectly most of the time. Our on-ball defenders’ foot angles are so extreme that it’s nearly impossible for drivers to beat us to the middle (and equally impossible to stop the ball from driving baseline!). And if they do try to fight it and go through us, we draw a charge.
Speaking of charges, the system requires extremely tough players, especially at the guard spots because the frequent rotations often leave them boxing out and defending the other team’s big right under the basket. It also demands the ultimate buy-in from guys to defend the ball with the right foot angles or attack the shooter’s outside shoulder on closeouts (so only a shot fake and drive baseline is available). Perhaps most importantly, though, each player must have 100% faith that the other cogs in The Meat Grinder behind them will do their job when they inevitably get beat on a baseline drive.
That’s the magic. It's Beard’s ability to whip his guys into a frenzy playing this unorthodox system to perfection, every night, regardless of the stakes or situation. Leaving gods in the sport like Bill Self to delay his charter back to Lawrence so he can gather up the shredded morsels of his high-low offense. The F’kin Meat Grinder.
Ultimately, while math was certainly in Tech’s favor last year, I think it was the magic that made The Meat Grinder the best defense of the century.
“Playing Texas Tech is like going to the dentist without Novocaine” – Kevin Willard, Seton Hall.
“What makes them so good defensively? Intensity and buy-in. We gained nothing from this game and will just have to try and put it behind us.” – Bob Walsh, Maine.
“Maybe I should have picked out tape of the best defense [in the country] and look[ed] at how we should attack them a few months ago, and in the off- season. Hard with a one day prep. You got one day between games and you got to figure out how to beat the number 1 defense in the country.” – Nate Oats, Buffalo
“They just make you run very bad offense.” – Matthew Graves, South Alabama.
It’s a beautiful thing to watch.
Ken Pomeroy began charting the outcome of every college basketball possession in the early 2000s and, as a result, was able to generate per-possession ratings for teams, specific lineups, and individual players. His formula for rating defenses — now widely accepted as the standard by betting markets and the coaches themselves — measures how many points a defense would give up over 100 possessions to an “average team.”
In the kenpom era (since 1999), The Meat Grinder was the best per-possession defense ever measured. That‘s #1 out of 6,000+ defenses or approximately the top 99.998 percentile.
It wasn’t just effective at stopping entire teams or systems. Zion Williamson had one of the most statistically impressive & efficient seasons in college basketball history. His offensive efficiency rating against Tech was roughly 24% below his season average, no one forced him into more turnovers, and it’s the only game that he fouled out , primarily because of offensive charges. The Meat Grinder was, arguably at least, even the best at limiting Coach K with the biggest freak since Lebron.
Admittedly, I may have an understanding of ~5% of what went into constructing The Meat Grinder, but I'm convinced that we scout & scheme for each opponent with as much (but mainly more) information than anyone in the country. In the mold of the Moneyball As, Jeff Luhnow’s stros, or Darryl Morey’s rockets.
Basketball is similar to football, in that everyone’s scheme is simply a numbers game. Teams seek a numbers opportunity by running offense that forces helpers to rotate. If rotations occur, an exploitable numbers advantage should present itself somewhere.
So it makes sense that most defenses attempt preventing situations when rotations might arise, like switching on every ball screen. Tech’s scheme does the opposite — it actively seeks rotations; really, one particularly kind of rotation. Beard & Mark Adams ingrain into players the day they step on campus to rotate early & often, and to arrive at the ball in a really pissed off mood.
A college defense will face a 100+ variations of offensive sets or actions over the course of a season. That’s a lot of nuanced defensive reads & rotations to prepare for. Not Tech. And the “no middle” concept is the pillar behind this.
Culver wasn’t merely indifferent about allowing guards to drive past him baseline. He rode their ass into a frantic & rushed baseline drive. By cramming the same thing (the baseline drive) over and over down opponents’ throats, Tech only needed to be precise on a few different rotations.
Quite frankly, no one figured out how to solve it. You either have a guard that’s good enough to beat our defense into the middle (good luck finding one of those at K-Mart), or you need to man up and take advantage of the baseline drive opportunities we give you (I guess you could also pray that The Meat Grinder is asleep because it already choked you out by 50, so you dominate the offensive glass like WVU in the conf tournament).
My hunch is that our staff possesses data on every college basketball possession from the last 20 years or so. And it’s likely that those numbers indicate baseline drives are the least efficient way to score the basketball.
By forcing dribblers that way, and having a helper immediately stop the ball just outside the paint, the driver tends to get pinned against the base line — almost behind the goal & backboard so there’s not an angle to even attempt a shot.
It’s not a fun place to find yourself offensively. Culver is mounted on your ass and will deflect most shots as he trails from behind, a helper has formed a wall in front of you to draw a charge or deflect a pass, Tariq is hovering to erase any shot at the rim, and Mooney could've been mistaken for Troy Polamulu defending passes to shooters in the corner or at the top-of-the-key.
I bet historical data shows that all elite scorers made most their money from the middle of the paint. And if a heat map was drawn showing how efficient offenses are at each square foot of the court, that specific area near the baseline where we funnel drivers is the least dangerous place for the ball to be in the half court. For those reasons, I think simple arithmetic supports an argument that our scheme is the most effective way to defend a team in the half court.
However, you’ll never hear Beard give the system any credit. In fact, for as vibrant and engaging as he is with the media, he rarely, if ever, talks substantive Xs and Os. Even when he’s publicly heaping praise on Mark Adams, Beard references his work ethic, consistency, and ability to motivate.
I predict that basketball teams all over the country, especially at the HS level, will be attempting to run a system similar in the near future, if not already. In the meantime, Beard will continue to act like a moronic shooty-hoops coach, claiming to be a C student and feigning surprise when Fran Fraschilla correctly pronounces a big word in a question. In reality, Beard knows there aren’t many people in this business smarter than him, and he’ll continue to protect any easily-replicated advantages that he possesses like Fort Knox.
While the math behind the system certainly appears strong, it’s not an immovable object. As mentioned above, it’s designed to create rotations and a numbers advantage for the offense. So it can be scored on, theoretically, even when we play it perfectly. Spoiler alert: we play it perfectly most of the time. Our on-ball defenders’ foot angles are so extreme that it’s nearly impossible for drivers to beat us to the middle (and equally impossible to stop the ball from driving baseline!). And if they do try to fight it and go through us, we draw a charge.
Speaking of charges, the system requires extremely tough players, especially at the guard spots because the frequent rotations often leave them boxing out and defending the other team’s big right under the basket. It also demands the ultimate buy-in from guys to defend the ball with the right foot angles or attack the shooter’s outside shoulder on closeouts (so only a shot fake and drive baseline is available). Perhaps most importantly, though, each player must have 100% faith that the other cogs in The Meat Grinder behind them will do their job when they inevitably get beat on a baseline drive.
That’s the magic. It's Beard’s ability to whip his guys into a frenzy playing this unorthodox system to perfection, every night, regardless of the stakes or situation. Leaving gods in the sport like Bill Self to delay his charter back to Lawrence so he can gather up the shredded morsels of his high-low offense. The F’kin Meat Grinder.
Ultimately, while math was certainly in Tech’s favor last year, I think it was the magic that made The Meat Grinder the best defense of the century.
“Playing Texas Tech is like going to the dentist without Novocaine” – Kevin Willard, Seton Hall.
“What makes them so good defensively? Intensity and buy-in. We gained nothing from this game and will just have to try and put it behind us.” – Bob Walsh, Maine.
“Maybe I should have picked out tape of the best defense [in the country] and look[ed] at how we should attack them a few months ago, and in the off- season. Hard with a one day prep. You got one day between games and you got to figure out how to beat the number 1 defense in the country.” – Nate Oats, Buffalo
“They just make you run very bad offense.” – Matthew Graves, South Alabama.
Last edited:
