An apology to Tony Harris

After years of being off the radar, Tony Harris did two interviews yesterday, one on the radio with Tony Basilio and another with Mike Griffith of the Knoxville News-Sentinel. He talked about life, basketball, his days at UT, Bruce Pearl, and even about the possibility of playing in the Rocky Top League. Tony is back in Knoxville, attending classes full time to finish his degree, and working for Vision Athletics teaching and training young basketball players. He’s also working in Bruce Pearl’s basketball camp right now.

Tony said a lot of the right things– about returning to school, about what’s important in life, about Coach Pearl (who encouraged him to come back and get his degree, but that’s another story altogether), and about why he and his many talented teammates never made a dent in the NBA. I could say a lot about all these things but I recommend reading Griff’s article and listening to Basilio’s interview (end of segment 5 and beginning of segment 6). There is a lot of good stuff in there that UT basketball fans would enjoy.

There’s one thing Tony said in particular I want to talk about though. He talked about the mistakes he made and the reputation he had at UT– of being a “jerk” or a “thug” as Gary Lundy called him in an infamous column from the time. Just after that, Basilio asked him about coach O’Neill, why he committed here, and what things would have been like if O’Neill had remained his coach.

He said he committed to Coach O’Neill because he knew he had a lot to learn about playing basketball and becoming a man. He knew he had the skills but knew he needed someone to guide him and help him grow. First of all, that’s keen insight for a kid that age– to admit his own shortcomings and seek help instead of someone that would make him comfortable. Second, think about this some more. He chose Kevin O’Neill and Tennessee because he knew O’Neill wouldn’t put up with anything and would be a good leader for him, personally and for his basketball game. He knew he needed that.

A coaching change later, Tony had Jerry Green. Tony tried hard in these interviews not to badmouth Green but it’s obvious that he knew what a bad, bad change that was for him. He said he didn’t have a father figure growing up and that choosing a college coach was very important for that reason.

And yet he got Jerry Green. What a cruel twist of fate. A kid looks inward, knows he needs guidance and leadership, and has the rug pulled out from under him instead. He gets a soft coach with an anything goes attitude, which is absolutely the last thing he needed.

Tony needed help, and he got Jerry Green. At last I think I can understand and forgive Tony Harris’s shortcomings. I will admit to being a Tony Harris “hater.” I thought he epitomized all the problems we had during Green’s tenure, on the court and off. Undisciplined, selfish, and no improvement on or off the court. And you know what– that still holds. He still epitomizes those things as a basketball player at UT under Coach Green. I will always tie Tony Harris to that exciting yet infuriating era in Tennessee basketball.

But to Tony I have to say I am sorry for this. I’m sorry for the last 10 years I’ve spent thinking ill of him when I didn’t know him at all. I knew little about him except what I saw on the court, and it was unfair for me to judge. After hearing him talk with Tony Basilio, he is a mature man now and is completely honest about the way his life has gone.

What kills me is that those shortcomings we saw from him– the immaturity and sometimes selfish play– Tony knew them, or if not them in specific, he knew of his shortcomings in general. And he tried to find a way to grow. He sought out a coach that would help him mature, and instead he got Jerry Green.

I feel bad for Tony now. It never clicked with me quite like it has after listening to Tony today and yesterday. Tony had some problems, before and during college, and he simply did not get the guidance that he knew he needed to help him through them. He sounded like a great guy to me, someone with good intentions, intelligence, and an honest view of his own life. He doesn’t deserve his legacy with UT fans, and hopefully many of you will have your eyes opened as I have.

Tony, I am sorry; sorry for judging you without knowing you, sorry for associating you with a tarnished and embarrassing period in UT basketball, and most of all sorry that you did not get what you sought when you came to Knoxville to go to school and play basketball. You deserved more than you got and more than you’ve gotten since you left. Best wishes to you in getting your degree and in your future career endeavors, and it’s good to have you back in the fold in the UT basketball family.

Bruce wins Rupp Cup

Coach Pearl got a bit of recognition today, selected as the winner of the 2008 Adolph Rupp cup for national coach of the year. Not bad for the co-SEC Coach of the Year. No word on why Billy Gillispie didn’t get a share.

Congratulations coach. You earned this honor and we are all proud and happy for you.

BruceBall vs. Memphis Preview, Part II: Stopping the Dribble-Drive Motion O

I suppose it’s because slimeball coach John Calipari’s Memphis Tigers are having such a good year and playing some really good basketball, but is anyone else as tired of hearing about Memphis’s dribble-drive motion (DDM) offense as I am? It seems like that’s the hot item to chat about in the college basketball world this year, much as the Princeton offense was overexposed in years past. Sick of it yet?

Too bad. I’m going to talk about it some more. Specifically, I’m going to talk about what opponents have done to slow it down and what basketball god Bruce Pearl’s Vols can do to keep Memphis from scoring points in bunches.

The DDM is based on a really simple game: 1-on-1 basketball. The idea is that if you have superior athletes, particularly quick ones with the ability to finish at the rim, you can use their 1-on-1 skills to penetrate a defense repeatedly, creating easy opportunities near the bucket. At its core, the DDM is a triple option, to reference a common football term. Here is how it works:

• You utilize four perimeter/slashing players in the game at most times, leaving just one post player.
• The lone post player lines up away from the ball. If a guard has possession on the right-hand side of the key, the post player shifts to the left (weak) side in order to clear a path for dribble penetration, and vice versa. Most offenses do not line up this way.
• The perimeter player possessing the ball will attempt to beat his man off the dribble one-on-one. There are no screens and few cutters– initially there is just 1-on-1 at the perimeter.
• If he succeeds, he has the three options set up:

1. Take the ball to the hole if there is no help defense.
2. If the post defender leaves his man to help on the strong side, the penetrator can dish to the weak side, where his post player is uncovered.
3. If another perimeter defender sags to help on the penetrator, he can kick the ball out for an open look at a 3-point jumper.

• If penetration is stopped without an open look, the attack simply begins again from the perimeter.

You can see that the key to the whole thing is having perimeter players that are skilled enough to beat their defenders 1-on-1. Memphis has that. Chris Douglas-Roberts is an excellent scorer both inside and outside, and Derrick Rose is quick and strong, creating major problems for his defender. The Tigers have depth at both of these positions as well as post players that can finish if the ball comes their way via pass or rebound.

So what is a defense to do? Can you possibly win enough 1-on-1 matchups against talented guards and wings to stop Memphis without help defense? No, of course not. You have to help somehow without freeing the lane or the wing.

Here is where the situation is not pretty for Tennessee. Man-to-man defense is going to be very, very difficult to play successfully against Memphis running the DDM offense, for one simple reason: when your defensive assignment is a man, you have to leave that man to help. As we all know, Bruce is very high on man defense and runs it almost exclusively.

So what do you do? Well, we can look at the games where Memphis has been slowed the most offensively for ideas. Here is a list of those games, what the opponent did, and the areas where Memphis struggled as a result:

• MTSU (away), 100.3 efficiency. The Blue Raiders switched defenses constantly, running a variety of zones and a small amount of man. As a result, Memphis turned the ball over and shot poorly.
• Houston (home), 96.7 efficiency. The Cougars also switched defenses frequently, running zones and man. Memphis shot very poorly.
• Tulsa (away), 94.9 efficiency. The Golden Hurricanes ran a couple of different zones as well as everyone’s favorite “junk” defense, the triangle and two (basically three interior defenders in a zone, with 2 dedicated man defenders). They managed to force Memphis into a bad shooting performance and also kept them off the line.
• UTEP (home), 92.8 efficiency. The Miners ran multiple zone looks, forcing Memphis into a low shooting percentage.
• Oklahoma (neutral), 86.8 efficiency. The Sooners ran mostly zone, forcing Memphis to shoot threes and turn the ball over in efforts to penetrate.
• Southern Cal (neutral), 76.8 efficiency. The Trojans ran a triangle and two on Douglas-Roberts and Rose nearly the entire game, with great success. The Tigers couldn’t get easy shots, couldn’t get to the line, and turned the ball over.

Notice any pattern? Zones and junk, zones and junk. None of the teams that played successful defense against the Tigers did it playing mostly man. They aren’t great from the perimeter (except CDR), so forcing them to stay outside as much as possible has been the optimal strategy. The best way to do that is with a zone, and clearly it works to some degree.

Bruce, Tony Jones, and game scout Jason Shay have some decisions to make. Do we use our bread and butter pressure man defense and hope we’re just better at it than anyone Memphis has played? Or do we stretch out of our comfort zone and sag into a zone defense, which seems to have been the winning (well, winninger) strategy for the Tigers’ previous opponents?

I suck at predictions so I’m not going to presume to know what we’ll do. I’d guess we’ll play mostly man, as we always do, but we may make an effort to throw the Tigers off with some junk or zone of our own a few times in the course of the game. If we do run mostly man, I’ll trust that Bruce has explored all options and decided that it is our best hope for a good defensive game. And maybe that’s correct– has Memphis played anyone that plays man defense in the manner and with the effectiveness that we do? Perhaps not. Perhaps we will succeed where others have failed.

BruceBall vs. Memphis Preview, Part I: Coach Image Arithmetic

=

+

=

+

Translation coming in Part 2 of the preview. As if you need it.