January 23, 2013

What is up with Gary Bell?

This is probably a question we have all asked over the last few weeks...Seattle Times reporter Bud Withers attempts to answer this question, in a great article!

Gary Bell Article

17 comments:

Matt said...

I think it is a terrible argument to say, "oh he has to defend the best player on D and that is the reason for his low scoring" seriously, WTH kind of logic is that?

If you are inferring he is tired than that is a conditioning issue, not an offensive output issue.

Gary is back to drifting on his shots, which tells me his stroke is lacking confidence...again...and he seems totally unwilling, as does KD to drive to the rim like he can. IMO that is the coaches frowning on that sort of play....and so now that kid is afraid to do it...just like Carter was last year...for the record that is straight from the horses mouth on Carter.

Fact is, both GBJ and KD could be attacking the rim...Edi too ftm...and this would be the Zag team we saw early in the season...the team that dominates the tempo, forces teams to defend every possession and can, at times, score at will.

total tangent but...

If this is how it is going to be for Coleman next year...it is going to sincerely bite as that kid can get to the rim at will....and if you can put a kid like that in the back court with KP and GBJ...along with a front court of KO, SD and PK...not to mention the addition of AN....that team will be even more offensively potent than this one...if it is allowed to play they way it can.

Anyway, what is wrong with GBJ? The staff and their inability to make better players as they are so focused on execution of the plays, there is no attention to player development....they expect the players to work on that themselves.

Unknown said...

I like what Matt Santangelo had to say, "But Matt Santangelo, one of the best guards in Gonzaga history and now a radio analyst, advances another possible reason Bell's offense hasn't been as prominent. His ability to attack the rim might be curbed by the big bodies in his path in Gonzaga's high-low offense.

"If he wanted to turn the corner, there's not any lanes for him to attack," said Santangelo. "That's why he and Pangos have worked hard on that midrange floater game."

All the while, the decrease in shots taken might be feeding the likelihood of them not going down.

"He sometimes kind of gets lost, not being overly aggressive in trying to find shots in the offense," said Santangelo. "When you do that, you lose a little bit of rhythm. If anything, he can be a little selfless."

Unknown said...

That last bit about him being too selfless speaks volumes about what is the issue. Pangos can be the same way at times, a matter of fact the only guy i see aggressively going after his own shot is Kelly Olynyk and occasionally Elias Harris. We need guys to start looking for theirs, instead of finding others, its killing any sort of offensive rhythm we have...

Matt said...

I don't buy the clogged lane bit. If GBJ was to drive, the bigs would block out, clear a lane for him or move to the rim when their guys goes to help.

there are 5 lanes on the court, assuming both bigs are posting up at the same time, (not realistic) there are three more to from which to choose, especially the center lane...

time to face facts, GBJ is going backwards just like all the other talented guards who come to GU and don't fit the exact method and mold of the MF offensive approach.

on a side note, KO is awesome etc, but this team was a MUCH better transition team before he came back...now it has become more and more plodding....Def need to push it in transition more..that will help with GBJ scoring.

Matt said...

So just checked this and the numbers show this as well...w/o KO 73 possessions per 40 now 67 per 40. may not seem like much but that is 6 more times GU has the ball and more importantly, a chance to score. Max potential from the floor is 18 more points / per 40

Do I want this team to run run run??? Well yes. yes I do, when it can do so. A team that can run on you at and pound you to death underneath is an team that will just wear you down and pretty much crush you assuming they are rebounding well and playing half way decent D.

GU needs the element that GBJ and Edi and even KD brings in attacking the rim...it is what will really put pressure on teams...pressure Butler should have had on it, but got off pretty much Scott free....the result? They could play all out D 25 feet from the rim as the Guards NEVER made them respect the first step, take you to the rim if you are going to come out here and guard me this close...

I contend, had they done this, the result would have been a GU win by +10.

wesolint said...

I too have noticed a dangerous trend with the GU offense dealing with selflessness. Nearly every 1st touch on the perimeter is a shot fake and then pass. Scouting reports will pick this up and teams will start eating the Zags alive.

Bell, Pangos, and the rest must instantly jack one up once in a while to keep the D honest. I can't help but feel that KD could be more productive and confident if he would shoot it from some of those wide open looks he passes up.

Also driving to the rim has become all but none existent. Guards are supposed to do that and be able to dump it off to a big (see David Stockton).

I hope Gary gives us more of that magic we have seen from him in the past. This team needs to get the offensive aggression back they showed against West Virginia. I was positive they would blow out more teams than they have so far this year.

quidveritas said...

During a game there are only so many shot opportunities. You take what the defense gives you.

Lets look at the Butler game. What is the best shot selection?

1. Same Dower -- wide open (20 points)

2. Harris inside -- especially after he gets ticked off. (20 points)

3. Olynik -- who got a lot of attention (14 points) -- and didn't make an outside shot IIRC.

4. Pangos shooting an open 3?

5. Bell shooting an open 3?

6. Edi shooting a 3?

7. Stockton shooting a 3?

To me the answer is obvious. If the other team wants to pack the paint and leave the perimeter open (aka Portland), you take those open outside shots.

If you have having success inside, for crying out loud, pound it inside (and don't forget about all those free throws that go with pounding it inside).

Nothing is wrong here. The Zags are doing exactly what they want to be doing -- that includes Mr. Bell.

mjc

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly with Quid.

Matt said...

There are so many things that are fundamentally flawed in this thinking I do not even know where to begin.

First, you do not take what the defense gives you. You make the defense respond to your penetration, mismatches, and ball swings from one side to the other. otherwise you are a reactive team and playing at their tempo. A mistake you would make as a coach obviously.

I am sorry but Portland did not "pack the paint" they dove under ball screens and KP made them pay,by the the way, they did this with all the other GU guards who did NOT make them pay except Barnham and that was a result of Pangos creating for him.

When your starting SHOOTING guard only takes one shot in the biggest game of the year. Sorry man. Something is wrong. And don't try to sell me some bag of goods that says that is what the coaching staff wants.

A defender is going to be in your shorts out to 30 feet if you never show you can create space, beat him off the dribble. Why would he? The fundamental aspect of D is to close the gap on the offensive player and the opposite is true for the offensive player...GBJ has done nothing to make coaches or players believe he can blow by them, the result, they are in his grill and he goes game after game losing confidence, passing the ball up along with offensive opportunities.

there are only so many shot opportunities....maybe you don't understand tempo / vs tempo free stats but you could not be more wrong. The amount of opportunities are completely dependent upon style of play, shot selection and aggressiveness. Teams like Clemson grind it out, about 50 to 55 possessions, teams like BYU push it, press their advantage and score early in the shot clock.

Lets take your logic and apply it to the Butler game and in place of your myopic view of what was available to the Back court lets be realistic and say

Pangos shooting an open 3, driving to the rim, penetrating and dishing, shooting a mid range floater...ALL viable options

5. Bell shooting an open 3, driving to the rim, penetrating and dishing, shooting a mid range floater....ALL viable options

6. Edi shooting a 3, hopefully not but driving at the rim a couple times, getting out in transition? yep.....ALL viable options

7. Stockton shooting a 3 yes and driving at the rim looking for the assist, getting out in transition, maybe scoring at the rim...ALL viable options

Your logic about Sam is totally based off the idea that because he was making those shots, this was what was best over all....but what if Sam is taking and missing those wide open shots...and KO is getting all the attention...what then? What happens to your philosophy? It is exposed. that is what. You are trying to say that the outcome was the approach and therefore was a good one as GU only lost by a basket. This happened and so it should have. Never mind that this team scores almost 80 points a game, never mind they need their guards to score, never mind they never forced Butler to respect their first step, never mind they only got to the line 15 times..with "all those fouls from pounding it inside", never mind that they only shot 4 of 15 from three as the Butler guards never had to step off them once they passed half court....after all, it is all about being reactionary and being subject to what the defense wants you to do..right? take what they give you and don't do anything to make them play your game? got it!

Unknown said...

I don't buy the argument that he is spent from using all his energy being our lock-down defender. There are lots of lock down defenders out there that are also capable of scoring. Is he really that one dimensional? Of course not.

I do not know if we should be concerned or not though. We are #7 in the Country in scoring @ approx. 80 ppg. If Gary starts shooting more and hits a few shots, all things being equal we would be averaging 90+ per game. That, is not very realistic.

I am concerned that Harris and KO are being leaned on too much. This team has so many weapons, we need to share the wealth more and keep multiple players involved, even if not needed on a given night, they need to be ready and in rhythm because that need will come.

quidveritas said...

Sigh!

Just can't stand success.

The BYU game is just another example of what to expect this year.

If you are having success, you ride that horse until someone stops it. Works in football, works in baseball, and I used to think it worked in basketball.

IMO there were two reasons we lost to Illinois. Failing to pound the ball inside at the end of the game was one of them.

Wispi, you can talk about what might have been all you want and fret about could'a, would'a, should'a all day long. Facts speak for themselves.

Frankly, as the season progresses, GU is just getting better and better. Well that used to be my opinion . . . maybe still is.

Bell has a role and is playing that role very well . . . or so I thought. Perhaps I'm just totally off base there.

. . . and why, oh why do you disparage my coaching? For the most part I coached baseball (like about . . . 13 or 14 years). I only coached a few basketball teams (as head coach -- but helped with other teams mostly with player development).

The only high school team I coached posted a meager 24-2 record. The two losses were by a total of 3 points. Now I have you to thank for pointing out why we lost those two games. I just didn't understand Tempo or we would'a gone undefeated.

One of the AAU teams I coached didn't have one player taller than 5'9". They lost their first 8 or 9 games and won 14 of their last 15 games.

I won't take credit for any of that. It was the kids that played the games and put in the work to improve as individuals and as a team -- any success they had was probably in spite of me. Besides, those teams were probably playing before you were born. How can that be relevant today?

I just hope you can forgive me for offering an opinion about offensive play in a basketball game. Thanks to you, I now realize I totally don't know what I'm talking about.

Just the same, I thought the Zags first half against BYU was just the best defensive effort at the D1 level that I have ever seen. I think you can win a lot of games doing that -- even if it does disrupt the tempo of the game.

Of course we can speculate about how many more shot opportunities might have been created for GU if BYU was allowed to run and gun and make shots early in the clock. Who knows? We might have had to put up a bunch of 3's in an effort to keep up. Bell could have been hucking it up there like Kobi used to when he was younger! If Bell did get the rock more with the green light, I'm sure he would make at least half of those shots. (that has to be better than Kelly going 9 for 9 with 8 free throws) Indeed, we might have won a game like that too.

If candies and nuts . . .

mjc

quidveritas said...

Hey Wispi

Did you catch the Pangos interview after the SF game?

Gonzagapride said...

I'm with you quid. I think this team is very cohesive and all the players have embraced the roles that have developed as the season has progressed. E is pounding the boards with more effort and going to the basket more strongly than I can recall. Seems earlier this year he was going up expecting contact and not finishing strong, settling for 2 free throws. Now I think he has in his mind that all contact will result in an "and 1."

Gary has been defending the opponent's best guard, and until the game with BYU I do think he took that job as his only priority. Since BYU I saw him driving more, taking more shots and overall being more aggressive offensively. Hasn't always met with success or the best outcome but I like what I see.

As far as whisperer, I am trying to decide if he is being contrary to encourage more comments or if he truly believes what he is writing. Whatever, I think your insight and comments are spot on.

Matt said...

I did see the interview. And no I am not impressed by your AAU record as if this is some indication of your BB IQ or acumen. Nice try on the "before u were born" argument though. Did you see the actual SF game? Where GBJ actually shot the ball? Neat. What exactly your point is,remains a mystery. To beat the better teams nationally, GBJ is going to have to, create his own shot, take and hit shots,drive to the rim and not be content to be nothing more than a good defender. It is fun to dupe the common fan oh great AAU coach, but just like on TSSF, your arguments are ameture at best. I am sure riding the front court will work for the WCC crown...but it won't beat. Michigan, Duke or KU....it sure did not beat a pretty good Butler team without their leading scorer.

As for ifs, that was in response to your percieved absolutes...which by the way quiddy reside in your head along with the other super successful AAU coaches. I am sure.

Nothing in your response made it any clearer your grasp of tempo free stats but thanks for playing just the same. As for me, I will stick with reality...the one in which all things are not well and this team still has room to grow, especially when it comes to the offensive play of it's back court.

Of course I never coached softball or boys in AAU so what do I know!? Right "Quiddy"

Matt said...

I forgot this one but it was a clasic I must say!!! GU lost to Illionis becuase they stopped feeding the post??? My god. I am sorry but wow! I stand in awe. Smh. Not their total failure to guard the three or their backcourt being exposed...or the staff having NO answer on how to limit Paul...it was not feeding the post that lost GU that game!!!! My god...starting to wonder if I even actually saw that game!

quidveritas said...

My bad.

Made two large errors with Wispi.

First I made the assumption that I was dealing with a rational adult;

and

Second, this has nothing to do with basketball. Just a vendetta.

I will quit feeding the troll.

Sorry everyone.

Matt said...

Vendetta? LOL! Don't flatter yourself there quid! Troll? Hardley. Though it may be the first time a contributor on a blog has been called a troll on that same blog ...lol. .you may want to google this term.

Crushing you in this debate does not make me irrational.

And for the record...it is ALWAYS about BB and the love of the game with me.