What are the characteristics of a team that can make a run?

Donate To GopherHole
3

37score

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
436
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Along with bubble teams, this is the other popular topic that pops up around tournament time.

"Not only will this team get in, they're the type of team that could go on a run".

With my definition of a "run" meaning they make it to the Sweet Sixteen, what are the characteristics of a team that could make a run?

In 1989, the Gophers got their first bid in 7 years, and I felt (as did others) the team could make a run, and they did. Not sure if it was just the optimism of being back in the tournament, but I hadn't felt that as much with the Gopher bubble teams in the past.


So in your own words, what is it about a tournament team that makes them likely to "make a run"?
 

1. Good guard play: low turnovers, good shooting percentage, good on-ball defense.
2. Go-to Scorer: Gotta have someone to go to in the clutch. Past Gophers Willie Burton, Bobby Jackson, Sam Jacobsen, Hoffarber and of course Miles Tarver!
3. Defense: Have to be able to shut down the other team for at least part of the game.
 

Otis said:
1. Good guard play: low turnovers, good shooting percentage, good on-ball defense.
2. Go-to Scorer: Gotta have someone to go to in the clutch. Past Gophers Willie Burton, Bobby Jackson, Sam Jacobsen, Hoffarber and of course Miles Tarver!
3. Defense: Have to be able to shut down the other team for at least part of the game.
Click to expand...

Agree with these. Will add a stable of competent bigs to clean up the boards, alter or block shots and clog the lane.
 

The two main indicators historically are offensive rebounding and three-point shooting. (Not just 3pt %, but also volume of 3pt shots.) Also, pressing/trapping teams that can throw off their opponents and generate lots of steals is another good indicator.

It's not an exact science -- teams that don't fit that mold at all can go on runs too. But those have been the main characteristics historically.
 

A guy that can shoot with a hand in his face. ....
Make your free throws....
Low turnovers.......
Key players stay out of foul trouble.......( Cue up Lynch )
Focus ......( Something the Gophers seem to lose each game )
A good region......( Some teams just match up better to what you do )
Mental toughness.....
 


#1 on my list is the ability to hit clutch free throws. When the tournament rolls around you always end up with those tight games, the teams that can hit their foul shots usually comes out on top.
#2 would be strong guard play

Unfortunately both of those don't bode super well for the Gophers as the free throw shooting can be really up and down and Mason is the only true ball handler on the squad right now. Looking ahead to next year if Washington is as good as it looks like he might be a combo of him and Mason could be deadly.
 

Otis said:
1. Good guard play: low turnovers, good shooting percentage, good on-ball defense.
2. Go-to Scorer: Gotta have someone to go to in the clutch. Past Gophers Willie Burton, Bobby Jackson, Sam Jacobsen, Hoffarber and of course Miles Tarver!
3. Defense: Have to be able to shut down the other team for at least part of the game.
Click to expand...

The go-to scorer is huge. Also, confidence, resilience and the killer mentality. Not sure our team has that.
 

ANY TEAM that is in the top 20 of Kenpom defense. Without that your in trouble. Gophers will be a huge problem for teams because they have four tough guards, length and experience in tight games. The improved defense is what is winning games.
 

builtbadgers said:
ANY TEAM that is in the top 20 of Kenpom defense. Without that your in trouble. Gophers will be a huge problem for teams because they have four tough guards, length and experience in tight games. The improved defense is what is winning games.
Click to expand...

While defense wins games, I wouldn't say improved defense is what is winning games. Unless you're comparing this year vs. last year, then yes defense has been big. But in the most recent 3-game winning streak, I'll attribute the wins more to an improved offense - specifically Mason and Murphy. Our defense is decent, but if scoring becomes a grind a good defense doesn't matter. We have at times had very nice balance on offense, but do not have that go to guy.
 



builtbadgers said:
ANY TEAM that is in the top 20 of Kenpom defense. Without that your in trouble. Gophers will be a huge problem for teams because they have four tough guards, length and experience in tight games. The improved defense is what is winning games.
Click to expand...

Last year's lowest seed to make it to the sweet 16 -
Gonzaga final KENPOM D ranking - 27

2015 Lowest seeds
Michigan State - 30,
NCST - 76

2014 -
Dayton - -72
Stanford - 53
Conneticut (champs) - 10
Tennessee (11 seed, big surprise)- 20
 

We don't have a go to scorer but we do have several guys who could get hot at tournament time. Springs, Mason, McBrayer, Coffey and Murphy have all done it at times this year.
 

Otis said:
1. Good guard play: low turnovers, good shooting percentage, good on-ball defense.
2. Go-to Scorer: Gotta have someone to go to in the clutch. Past Gophers Willie Burton, Bobby Jackson, Sam Jacobsen, Hoffarber and of course Miles Tarver!
3. Defense: Have to be able to shut down the other team for at least part of the game.
Click to expand...

Guards, guards, guards. Multiple significant upsets in the last couple of years came in games in which the losing team didn't have guards who could handle the pressure and blew big leads. Boilers last year are people's exhibit one. This year's Boiler fans are worried again. Their guard play is upgraded but they still lack that one guy you can give the ball to who won't make a mistake.

I would add to this list the ability to be flexible in style of play. If you run, you need to be able to play half-court. If you slow down, you have to be able handle the pressure and play a slightly faster game if the situation dictates.
 

Vast majority of teams that get there are top 20 kenpom and the next round even higher percentage. Gophers are top 20 now in defense with a very poor offense. Jay wright built it that way, uva is built that way , they are both top 20 on offense as well now but they were built on defense. Coach K has had clinics on this for 30 years. Rick Pitino lectures on it as offense has off nights because shots do not fall but contesting every shot should never fail. Bob Knight taught the same thing, keady, Ryan Sean Miller, Bill SELF.
 



One thing I used to hear was that a team HAD TO WIN ON THE ROAD. But the 1989 Gophers lost almost every single conf road game they played, and the 1990 team only won 4 conf road games and got to the Elite 8. So not sure how vital it is to be a good road team???
 

builtbadgers said:
Vast majority of teams that get there are top 20 kenpom and the next round even higher percentage. Gophers are top 20 now in defense with a very poor offense. Jay wright built it that way, uva is built that way , they are both top 20 on offense as well now but they were built on defense. Coach K has had clinics on this for 30 years. Rick Pitino lectures on it as offense has off nights because shots do not fall but contesting every shot should never fail. Bob Knight taught the same thing, keady, Ryan Sean Miller, Bill SELF.
Click to expand...

Completely agree about defense being the key here the ability to go on run, along with a couple of guys who can bury the three ball... that said how many top 20 Ken Pom defensive teams are not near top 20 offensively? Teams like Louisville and WVU might be examples of teams that are traditionally better at defense than offense. Cincinnati a few years back - with that short bald coach who I liked a lot also comes to mind. Without doing the research, however, I would wager that teams in top 20 defensively are also top 20 offensively, just by shear talent. So just saying that most sweet sixteen teams are top 20 in defense doesn't really tell the whole story. It's basically saying that good teams get to the sweet sixteen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

37score said:
Along with bubble teams, this is the other popular topic that pops up around tournament time.

"Not only will this team get in, they're the type of team that could go on a run".

With my definition of a "run" meaning they make it to the Sweet Sixteen, what are the characteristics of a team that could make a run?

In 1989, the Gophers got their first bid in 7 years, and I felt (as did others) the team could make a run, and they did. Not sure if it was just the optimism of being back in the tournament, but I hadn't felt that as much with the Gopher bubble teams in the past.


So in your own words, what is it about a tournament team that makes them likely to "make a run"?
Click to expand...

A little luck is helpful. For example, both of Clem's legal Sweet 16 runs got a huge boost from upsets of high seeds. In 1989, they got to play Siena after Siena dispatched Stanford. In 1990, they got to play Northern Iowa after Northern Iowa knocked out Missouri.
 

Nomellini said:
A little luck is helpful. For example, both of Clem's legal Sweet 16 runs got a huge boost from upsets of high seeds. In 1989, they got to play Siena after Siena dispatched Stanford. In 1990, they got to play Northern Iowa after Northern Iowa knocked out Missouri.
Click to expand...

Missouri? In retrospect I wouldn't say team's needed luck to beat Missouri. They have been one of the biggest underachieving programs in modern cbb history, when it comes to the NCAA tourney.

I guess you could call it luck that we got into the same bracket as Missouri, as we would have beaten them, too, had they not been upset.

And honestly, even getting to play Siena doesn't seem to me, in retrospect, to have been "luck", because "in retrospect", the PAC hasn't done much in the NCAA tournament, either. So if Siena could beat Stanford, and we beat Siena, why wouldn't the Gophers have been able to beat Stanford???
 

Nomellini said:
A little luck is helpful. For example, both of Clem's legal Sweet 16 runs got a huge boost from upsets of high seeds. In 1989, they got to play Siena after Siena dispatched Stanford. In 1990, they got to play Northern Iowa after Northern Iowa knocked out Missouri.
Click to expand...

I thought they also got lucky when Iowa State beat Cincinnati in 1997. Had Cincy gotten to the regional final, I would have been pooping. Clem never ever beat Huggins in all his career.
 

Bad Gopher said:
I thought they also got lucky when Iowa State beat Cincinnati in 1997. Had Cincy gotten to the regional final, I would have been pooping. Clem never ever beat Huggins in all his career.
Click to expand...

He never had Final Four caliber talent on his roster the years he played Cincinnati before that.

So we would have beaten Cincy in 97 had we met them. Remember, we did a lot of things in 97 that we had not done before or in a very long time before that.
 

KillmeNow said:
Missouri? In retrospect I wouldn't say team's needed luck to beat Missouri. They have been one of the biggest underachieving programs in modern cbb history, when it comes to the NCAA tourney.

I guess you could call it luck that we got into the same bracket as Missouri, as we would have beaten them, too, had they not been upset.

And honestly, even getting to play Siena doesn't seem to me, in retrospect, to have been "luck", because "in retrospect", the PAC hasn't done much in the NCAA tournament, either. So if Siena could beat Stanford, and we beat Siena, why wouldn't the Gophers have been able to beat Stanford???
Click to expand...

I don't care about conferences or team histories, I was just referring to seedings. Both of the upsets to which I referred were a 13 over a 4 over something close to it. Had Minnesota played either Stanford or Missouri they would have been certain underdogs. Expecting the Gophers to have beaten either of those high seeds is a stretch.
 

Nomellini said:
I don't care about conferences or team histories, I was just referring to seedings. Both of the upsets to which I referred were a 13 over a 4 over something close to it. Had Minnesota played either Stanford or Missouri they would have been certain underdogs. Expecting the Gophers to have beaten either of those high seeds is a stretch.
Click to expand...

Correct. They were actually both 14 over 3. Huge upsets. They definitely helped. And we took advantage. Good for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Nomellini said:
I don't care about conferences or team histories, I was just referring to seedings. Both of the upsets to which I referred were a 13 over a 4 over something close to it. Had Minnesota played either Stanford or Missouri they would have been certain underdogs. Expecting the Gophers to have beaten either of those high seeds is a stretch.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that Missouri almost always bowed out of the NCAA tourney WAY too early. They are one of the only #2 seeds ever to lose to a #15 seed.

I mean, I get your point, and at the time it did seem like luck. What I am talking about is looking back in retrospect, certain patterns can be seen, and one of those patterns is West Coast teams more often than not got overrated, or got higher seeds than their following performances show they deserved. And the same can be said about Missouri.

If you don't care about such things, that's your right, so you can go on believing the 89 and 90 teams simply got lucky. I choose to believe that the 90 team could have easily beaten Missouri, who was obviously overrated, and that the 89 team may have struggled more vs Stanford than they did against Siena, but we really don't know that for sure now do we? Because all we know is that Stanford wasn't good enough 2 days prior, to the 2nd round game, to beat Siena, so maybe they wouldn't have been good enough to beat the Gophers 2 days later, when the Gophers were good enough to beat Siena.
 

KillmeNow said:
Except for the fact that Missouri almost always bowed out of the NCAA tourney WAY too early. They are one of the only #2 seeds ever to lose to a #15 seed.

I mean, I get your point, and at the time it did seem like luck. What I am talking about is looking back in retrospect, certain patterns can be seen, and one of those patterns is West Coast teams more often than not got overrated, or got higher seeds than their following performances show they deserved. And the same can be said about Missouri.

If you don't care about such things, that's your right, so you can go on believing the 89 and 90 teams simply got lucky. I choose to believe that the 90 team could have easily beaten Missouri, who was obviously overrated, and that the 89 team may have struggled more vs Stanford than they did against Siena, but we really don't know that for sure now do we? Because all we know is that Stanford wasn't good enough 2 days prior, to the 2nd round game, to beat Siena, so maybe they wouldn't have been good enough to beat the Gophers 2 days later, when the Gophers were good enough to beat Siena.
Click to expand...


I loved those teams but if you think the 89 team didn't benefit from luck you're dreaming. We got hammered in the S16 in 89 by Duke. There was no run in 89.. it was fun, but our two wins to get to the S16 don't qualify as a run. 90 was different.

The point of luck wasn't that a team has no talent but that a run of some kind is often helped by luck of seeding and upsets. That's a fact for any team so it is a valid ingredient for a run in the tourney.

I think there are tons of different types of teams that can make a run. The idea you need one key scorer is false, but you do need a few guys you can turn to for a score in a clutch situation. I think Mason qualifies and so does Springs to a degree. I definitely think this team has what it takes to make a run.. that said, I wouldn't quite predict it. I do think experience helps. Whether a NIT run the season before or a NCAA birth. That's why I think next year will have a much higher ceiling but nothing will surprise me with this team. They are a good basketball team and I am having a blast this season.
 

stats

Totally agree on Purdue, I picked them correctly. Guards are more important than big men in the early games for sure. It's nice to have talented big men, but if you don't have guards forget about it!

Kansas is another team that has had shakey pg play in the past that has cost them tourney runs. Not this year, Mason is the best college pg.

Ken Pom's has us at 18th in adjusted def, and 99th in offense!

1. Lynch would need to stay out of foul trouble.
2. Need to shoot well from outside.
3. Mental toughness and leadership.



Holy Man said:
Guards, guards, guards. Multiple significant upsets in the last couple of years came in games in which the losing team didn't have guards who could handle the pressure and blew big leads. Boilers last year are people's exhibit one. This year's Boiler fans are worried again. Their guard play is upgraded but they still lack that one guy you can give the ball to who won't make a mistake.

I would add to this list the ability to be flexible in style of play. If you run, you need to be able to play half-court. If you slow down, you have to be able handle the pressure and play a slightly faster game if the situation dictates.
Click to expand...
 

#1 way to keep playing: Stay out of foul trouble. Keeps players in games, and keeps opposing team from getting free points.

The Gophers rarely get blown out, so I like our chances in close games so long as the above doesn't get out of control.
 

Rouser said:
I loved those teams but if you think the 89 team didn't benefit from luck you're dreaming. We got hammered in the S16 in 89 by Duke. There was no run in 89.. it was fun, but our two wins to get to the S16 don't qualify as a run. 90 was different.

The point of luck wasn't that a team has no talent but that a run of some kind is often helped by luck of seeding and upsets. That's a fact for any team so it is a valid ingredient for a run in the tourney.

I think there are tons of different types of teams that can make a run. The idea you need one key scorer is false, but you do need a few guys you can turn to for a score in a clutch situation. I think Mason qualifies and so does Springs to a degree. I definitely think this team has what it takes to make a run.. that said, I wouldn't quite predict it. I do think experience helps. Whether a NIT run the season before or a NCAA birth. That's why I think next year will have a much higher ceiling but nothing will surprise me with this team. They are a good basketball team and I am having a blast this season.
Click to expand...

Sweet sixteen constitutes a run.

Elite eight is more than a run. It's making the Elite eight, and less than 10 teams do that each year.
 

Nomellini said:
A little luck is helpful. For example, both of Clem's legal Sweet 16 runs got a huge boost from upsets of high seeds. In 1989, they got to play Siena after Siena dispatched Stanford. In 1990, they got to play Northern Iowa after Northern Iowa knocked out Missouri.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it! Something like that happens virtually every year. At least one team gets to the final 16 because it beats a low seeded team who pulls an upset of a high seeded team in the round of 64.
 


37score said:
Maybe this year's Gopher team can make a run!!!
Click to expand...

If they play the way they did against Maryland they absolutely can. 17-20 from the line will win a lot of tournament games. As an opposing coach the Gophers are one team I would not want to face in the tournament because on any given night they have the talent to hang with pretty much anyone in the country.
 

Talented bigs give us problems because Reggie isn't a great back to basket defender (see: Nick Ward, Caleb Swanigan, Ethan Happ). We have to hope to avoid them in the tournament.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom