On this very website, I have often been sold as the resident college basketball hater. Admittedly, the majority of that reputation was self-induced. The reality, which I mostly knew at the time, is that I don't hate college basketball, I hated BeardBall (the charge rule alteration helps a lot too). His, and his followers, brand of anti-basketball is a crime against the sport itself. The goal was to turn basketball into some kind of combination of basketball and rugby where a team full of long athletes could compete with actual skilled basketball players. Yeah yeah I know there was a run to a national championship game in there, and not to yada yada that because the Michigan State win was one of the best sports nights of my life, but that was an outlier (that team had several actual basketball players). The standard was losing to a team that could, you know, play basketball. The Sweet-Sixteen Duke loss was a perfect example of this, the defense was GREAT in that game, but it ultimately didn't matter. They could figure out a way to score, you couldn't.
All that ancient history to say, I'm all in Grant McCasland. I wanted to write a couple reasons as to why that has changed.
1) Modern Offense
I'm not talking about some spread pick and roll, although there are elements to that, I mostly mean in application. McCasland has built an efficient offense out of what this team can do, and limits opportunities for them to be caught in situations where their weaknesses are prevalent. According to https://evanmiya.com/, Tech ranks 3rd in the Big 12 in OBPR (Team Offensive Bayesian Performance Rating reflects a team’s expected offensive efficiency. This is interpreted as the points per 100 possessions better than average expected when playing against an average D1 team. A higher rating is better) with 11.0, last year Tech was at 6.3. This is not all down to the perception of increased tempo either, https://evanmiya.com/'s True Tempo (a measure of a team’s true game pace. This number reflects the estimated number of possessions played in a game against an average paced D1 opponent) has this year's team at 67.4, second to last in the Big12, compared to last year at 68.2.
https://haslametrics.com/ratings.php's analysis of this team's offense also shows the growth we've seen, "Texas Tech showcases one of the country's most efficient offenses. Racking up about 118 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO (Average Opponent), the team is nationally rated 17th in efficiency on that end of the floor. Texas Tech is deadly accurate at the free throw line. Making 78.7% of their attempts from the stripe, they are ranked 12th nationally in free throw percentage. Moreover, they get ample opportunity to beat you from the line, as the ball-club falls in the top-100 in free throw attempt rate with a rating of 28.63 vs. AO. Texas Tech is also one of the nation's most effective teams finishing close to the iron. The team is ranked 25th in the country in near-proximity field goal percentage, making approximately 65.0% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO."
This team may still struggle from the 3 point line, overall, but they are making up for that with getting to the basket.
There's also an aesthetic element here, I know that doesn't really matter, but it kind of does. To me, an aesthetically pleasing offense is all about putting up ridiculous numbers, it's about having an obvious plan and executing it, even when things get tight down the stretch of games.
2) Evidence of coaching
To me, a lot of this can't be quantified, you just know it when you see it. Effort, fight, togetherness, execution, evidence of a plan... if I see these things, I can handle some growing pains/losses.
A couple of things that stand out to me about improved coaching that I think can be quantified, a) play out of timeouts, and b) improvement of individual players.
a) Going back through every time Tech inbounded the ball after a timeout (in Big 12 play), I found that the Red Raiders were successful (scored, drew a foul) on 9/17 possessions, 8/11 before the Kansas State game. That's not even counting "good looks" as successful possession, even though I do think that counts as good coaching (putting a guy in a position to be successful). This team was absolutely lost in out of timeout situations under the regime of BeardBall, which is why they were so bad in close/OT games (see last play of regulation in the National Championship game as example). I expect McCasland to give these guys every chance to be more successful in those same situations, we have kind of seen it already.
b) Again, this is something that is difficult to quantify with numbers, we've seen how different Kerwin Walton looks, and we've even, anecdotally, seen WVU faithful marvel at what real coaching did to Joe Toussaint.
Here are some numbers, first two photos are from https://evanmiya.com/ using the following metrics.
23-24
The overall team effeciency really sticks out to me on these metrics, getting the most out of your guys, that's coaching.
From https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/texas-tech/men/2024.html, focusing on PER.
23-24
PER isn't perfect, but it's interesting to see Kerwin and Pop's improvement.
3) Good, not gimmicky, Defense
I might be accused of bias (because of BeardBall being so dependent on not playing defense, aka, taking a charge) or reaching here, but the eye test really shows a defense that is adaptable, high-energy, and disruptive. They do not let team get comfortable, they do not allow them to do what they want to do, and it's gameplan dependent because each team is different. The "no middle" defense never really changed, so teams could get used to/comfortable playing it. It also gave teams the corner three, the most efficient shot in basketball.
Maybe the KenPom rankings and the analytics won't show it, but my eyes tell me this defense is doing more with less (talent wise), that the past few BeardBall teams.
I'm a fan of how https://haslametrics.com/ratings.php's analysis describes Tech's defense "Texas Tech plays at roughly the same level defensively as they do offensively. The team ranks 58th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 98 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Texas Tech is a superior unit when it comes to preventing opponents from getting to the foul line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 20.70 vs. AO, they are currently rated 20th in the country in that category. Texas Tech has also been pretty good preventing teams from hitting shots in the paint. They are ranked 57th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 53.4% of their attempts from close-up. Because of this, AO takes nowhere near as many inside shots as they typically would -- just 30.4% of AO's field goal attempts will come from short-distance."
Yeah, I wasn't fully convinced of the McCasland hire, yeah I was concerned about how boring his UNT teams could be, but I don't think I (or the other non-believers) should be treated like morons for initially having questions. The questions about McCasland's style were legitimate, and to act like they weren't is disingenuous. With evidence, we now know that he was making the most out of what he had, just like he is doing here, and will hopefully do with improved talent year over year.
There will be frustrating times with this team for sure, heck, the season may crash and burn from here, but none of that will change what I seen. Texas Tech has a damn good basketball coach, and for the first time in a long time, I look forward to watching Texas Tech play.
All that ancient history to say, I'm all in Grant McCasland. I wanted to write a couple reasons as to why that has changed.
1) Modern Offense
I'm not talking about some spread pick and roll, although there are elements to that, I mostly mean in application. McCasland has built an efficient offense out of what this team can do, and limits opportunities for them to be caught in situations where their weaknesses are prevalent. According to https://evanmiya.com/, Tech ranks 3rd in the Big 12 in OBPR (Team Offensive Bayesian Performance Rating reflects a team’s expected offensive efficiency. This is interpreted as the points per 100 possessions better than average expected when playing against an average D1 team. A higher rating is better) with 11.0, last year Tech was at 6.3. This is not all down to the perception of increased tempo either, https://evanmiya.com/'s True Tempo (a measure of a team’s true game pace. This number reflects the estimated number of possessions played in a game against an average paced D1 opponent) has this year's team at 67.4, second to last in the Big12, compared to last year at 68.2.
https://haslametrics.com/ratings.php's analysis of this team's offense also shows the growth we've seen, "Texas Tech showcases one of the country's most efficient offenses. Racking up about 118 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO (Average Opponent), the team is nationally rated 17th in efficiency on that end of the floor. Texas Tech is deadly accurate at the free throw line. Making 78.7% of their attempts from the stripe, they are ranked 12th nationally in free throw percentage. Moreover, they get ample opportunity to beat you from the line, as the ball-club falls in the top-100 in free throw attempt rate with a rating of 28.63 vs. AO. Texas Tech is also one of the nation's most effective teams finishing close to the iron. The team is ranked 25th in the country in near-proximity field goal percentage, making approximately 65.0% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO."
This team may still struggle from the 3 point line, overall, but they are making up for that with getting to the basket.
There's also an aesthetic element here, I know that doesn't really matter, but it kind of does. To me, an aesthetically pleasing offense is all about putting up ridiculous numbers, it's about having an obvious plan and executing it, even when things get tight down the stretch of games.
2) Evidence of coaching
To me, a lot of this can't be quantified, you just know it when you see it. Effort, fight, togetherness, execution, evidence of a plan... if I see these things, I can handle some growing pains/losses.
A couple of things that stand out to me about improved coaching that I think can be quantified, a) play out of timeouts, and b) improvement of individual players.
a) Going back through every time Tech inbounded the ball after a timeout (in Big 12 play), I found that the Red Raiders were successful (scored, drew a foul) on 9/17 possessions, 8/11 before the Kansas State game. That's not even counting "good looks" as successful possession, even though I do think that counts as good coaching (putting a guy in a position to be successful). This team was absolutely lost in out of timeout situations under the regime of BeardBall, which is why they were so bad in close/OT games (see last play of regulation in the National Championship game as example). I expect McCasland to give these guys every chance to be more successful in those same situations, we have kind of seen it already.
b) Again, this is something that is difficult to quantify with numbers, we've seen how different Kerwin Walton looks, and we've even, anecdotally, seen WVU faithful marvel at what real coaching did to Joe Toussaint.
Here are some numbers, first two photos are from https://evanmiya.com/ using the following metrics.
- OBPR: Offensive Bayesian Performance Rating reflects the offensive value a player brings to his team when he is on the court. This rating incorporates a player’s individual efficiency stats and on-court play-by-play impact, and also accounts for the offensive strength of other teammates on the floor with him, along with the defensive strength of the opponent’s players on the floor. OBPR is interpreted as the number of offensive points per 100 possessions above D1 average expected by the player’s team if the player were on the court with 9 other average players. A higher rating is better.
- DBPR: Defensive Bayesian Performance Rating reflects the defensive value a player brings to his team when he is on the court. This rating incorporates a player’s individual efficiency stats and on-court play-by-play impact, and also accounts for the defensive strength of other teammates on the floor with him, along with the offensive strength of the opponent’s players on the floor. DBPR is interpreted as the number of defensive points per 100 possessions better than (below) D1 average expected to be allowed by the player’s team if the player were on the court with 9 other average players. A higher rating is better.
- BPR: Bayesian Performance Rating is the sum of a player’s OBPR and DBPR. This rating is the ultimate measure of a player’s overall value to his team when he is on the floor. BPR is interpreted as the number of points per 100 possessions better than the opponent the player’s team is expected to be if the player were on the court with 9 other average players. A higher rating is better.
23-24
The overall team effeciency really sticks out to me on these metrics, getting the most out of your guys, that's coaching.
From https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/texas-tech/men/2024.html, focusing on PER.
- The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance."
23-24
PER isn't perfect, but it's interesting to see Kerwin and Pop's improvement.
3) Good, not gimmicky, Defense
I might be accused of bias (because of BeardBall being so dependent on not playing defense, aka, taking a charge) or reaching here, but the eye test really shows a defense that is adaptable, high-energy, and disruptive. They do not let team get comfortable, they do not allow them to do what they want to do, and it's gameplan dependent because each team is different. The "no middle" defense never really changed, so teams could get used to/comfortable playing it. It also gave teams the corner three, the most efficient shot in basketball.
Maybe the KenPom rankings and the analytics won't show it, but my eyes tell me this defense is doing more with less (talent wise), that the past few BeardBall teams.
I'm a fan of how https://haslametrics.com/ratings.php's analysis describes Tech's defense "Texas Tech plays at roughly the same level defensively as they do offensively. The team ranks 58th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 98 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Texas Tech is a superior unit when it comes to preventing opponents from getting to the foul line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 20.70 vs. AO, they are currently rated 20th in the country in that category. Texas Tech has also been pretty good preventing teams from hitting shots in the paint. They are ranked 57th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 53.4% of their attempts from close-up. Because of this, AO takes nowhere near as many inside shots as they typically would -- just 30.4% of AO's field goal attempts will come from short-distance."
Yeah, I wasn't fully convinced of the McCasland hire, yeah I was concerned about how boring his UNT teams could be, but I don't think I (or the other non-believers) should be treated like morons for initially having questions. The questions about McCasland's style were legitimate, and to act like they weren't is disingenuous. With evidence, we now know that he was making the most out of what he had, just like he is doing here, and will hopefully do with improved talent year over year.
There will be frustrating times with this team for sure, heck, the season may crash and burn from here, but none of that will change what I seen. Texas Tech has a damn good basketball coach, and for the first time in a long time, I look forward to watching Texas Tech play.
