Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

What is Tadball?

tante

tante

Club Member
Club Member
Is is a phrase that is thrown around quite a bit and it represents the core competencies that Tad instills in his basketball team. I analyzed the data through every game up to date (256 games coached by Tad) and came across 3 components that Tad stresses to the team.

1) Win the Rebound Battle. - The numbers back this up. When we win the rebound battle our record is 129-39 (77% win percentage). Tad's career win percentage at this point is 61%. When we lose the rebound battle our record is 31-60, a dismal 32% win percentage.

2) Keep the opposing team under 40% field goal percentage. Now I have never heard Tad talk about effective field goal percentage, which weighs two and 3 points shots differently. Using strict FG% when we hold opponents under 40% FG percentage our record is a whopping 83-12 a 87% win percentage. When they shoot above 40%, our record is a dismal 74-87, good to win 46% of the time.

Now I looked at our record when teams keep us under 40% and it is 20-53, a 27% win percentage. When we shoot higher than 40% that record jumps to 137-46, a win 75% of the time. So why does Tad care about the opponents FG% more than ours? Because offensive can have an off night, but defense is about effort so it should never take a night off.

So now this is where things get interesting. What happens when both teams shoot below 40%? a 15-9 record or a 62.5% win percentage. When both teams shoot above 40%? a 69-43 record or a 61.6% win percentage. I can say that winning the rebounding battle results in a higher win percentage than keeping them from shooting under 40%.

3) Don't foul the shooter. Tad plays a style of defense that doesn't gamble and stays in front of the man. We don't have high numbers of steals or blocks. So what happens when we get to the line more than opponents. When we shoot more FT's than our opponent, our record is 132-35, a 79% win percentage. When our opponents shoot more FT's then us, our record is 25-64, a 28% win percentage.

Now what Tad really wants to see is all 3 of these things come together and he is right, we are a perfect 57-0 when we out-rebound our opponents, keep them under a 40% fg percentage and get to the line more than they do. But if you had to select 2, it would definitely be getting to the line and rebounding.. That gives us a 107-14 record, a beautiful Tadball win percentage of 88%.

Strange Fact: Our average losses per season when we win the rebounding battle and FT battle is 2.33, but shot up to 5 in 2014-2015. It was just a strange season.
 
Really fantastic post, with just a small quibble. Pretty sure every team in the country doesn't want to foul the shooter. Point 3 is better summarized as a conservative defense, as opposed to an aggressive defense. You say as much, but "not fouling the shooter" isn't a very good summary of the point.

Again, really good work.
 
Excellent post @tante

Looks like a heavily weighted strategy toward the defensive side of the ball...I think #3 would be enhanced by an understanding of FT % vs just number of FT's.

Nice work
 
FChairbanks said:
Excellent post @tante

Looks like a heavily weighted strategy toward the defensive side of the ball...I think #3 would be enhanced by an understanding of FT % vs just number of FT's.

Nice work
Click to expand...

I'll do those numbers next. The theory is that the rate at which you get to the line matters more than your FT percentage, but I'll do the math to proove or disprove that.
 
tante said:
I'll do those numbers next. The theory is that the rate at which you get to the line matters more than your FT percentage, but I'll do the math to proove or disprove that.
Click to expand...

Opponent's FT % is almost completely random over the long run. Single games can be less random if you're in a situation where you end up fouling a bad FT shooter repeatedly on purpose, for example.
 
I know Tad has taken the program to heights it’s not achieved previously, but the bar was low and we seem to be receding. Last year was horrible. Derrick White made it bearable. The next couple of years look abysmal. This is the PAC-12...... we’re going to need to get another gear to compete. Tad’s recruiting isn’t making the grade. The program is missing the talented needed to win.
 
Buffman1992 said:
I know Tad has taken the program to heights it’s not achieved previously, but the bar was low and we seem to be receding. Last year was horrible. Derrick White made it bearable. The next couple of years look abysmal. This is the PAC-12...... we’re going to need to get another gear to compete. Tad’s recruiting isn’t making the grade. The program is missing the talented needed to win.
Click to expand...
Why do “The next couple of years look abysmal?” I don’t agree with that at all.
 
Beside Wright...whats there to look forward To? Rest of the roster looks pretty pedestrian....look at our history... If you are not a factor as a frosh....you probably never will be.
 
SDB said:
Beside Wright...whats there to look forward To? Rest of the roster looks pretty pedestrian....look at our history... If you are not a factor as a frosh....you probably never will be.
Click to expand...
Walton, Bey, Battey.

I'm actually optimistic about next year, IF, HCTB can hold the team together through this one.
 
DBT said:
Why do “The next couple of years look abysmal?” I don’t agree with that at all.
Click to expand...
Because other programs are improving...... ASU is becoming a powerhouse and Arizona and others are still recruiting at a very high level. It’s Tad’s 8th season. It’s not the Big Sky it’s the PAC 12. We were lucky to get D White last year. The program didn’t develop him. He came from another school. Want to be positive, but wasn’t a positive outing last night against a weak program.
 
Buffman1992 said:
Because other programs are improving...... ASU is becoming a powerhouse and Arizona and others are still recruiting at a very high level. It’s Tad’s 8th season. It’s not the Big Sky it’s the PAC 12. We were lucky to get D White last year. The program didn’t develop him. He came from another school. Want to be positive, but wasn’t a positive outing last night against a weak program.
Click to expand...
FBI has ASU on list

OSU was weak last year but lost Tinkle just like we lost Tory this year.
Thompson brothers are good
Eubanks is a good center

R E L A X
 
tante said:
I'll do those numbers next. The theory is that the rate at which you get to the line matters more than your FT percentage, but I'll do the math to proove or disprove that.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple.

If you get to the line 15 times a night and set an NCAA record by shooting 80%, you score 12 points per game on FTs.

If you get to the line 20 times a night and are absolute dog**** by shooting 60%, you also score 12 points per game on FTs.

Add to that the foul trouble you put the other team into by getting to the line and it's an absolute no-brainer that FT Rate is far more important than FT %.
 
Buffman1992 said:
Because other programs are improving...... ASU is becoming a powerhouse and Arizona and others are still recruiting at a very high level. It’s Tad’s 8th season. It’s not the Big Sky it’s the PAC 12. We were lucky to get D White last year. The program didn’t develop him. He came from another school. Want to be positive, but wasn’t a positive outing last night against a weak program.
Click to expand...

Come on man...first, the state of programs will always change. Even blue bloods go through bad cycles, and it is difficult to say that teams on the rise will stay there. CU looked great on paper a few years ago, and I'm sure other fan bases saw us as a rising star. The '17 five freshman absolutely have what it takes to compete in the PAC12 at a high level; Tad just needs to complement them to keep the train going.

Agree D White came to us rather polished, but how do you know he didn't develop at all during his year practicing with the team? Sure, he was probably more polished than developed, but a pet peeve of mine is when fans of any team say a great player was not developed by a staff. Some posters on this site claim Dinwiddie and Scott didn't develop under Tad and were great to begin with... ...okay... ....first, no, they absolutely did develop and get better. Just because a player is great to start his career doesn't mean one gets to discount their development to fit their negative narrative. I'm not saying you're doing this, but others do in order to rail against Tad. It's ridiculous.
 
im not down on tad yet...... but they played alot like my 5th grade team i coach last nite!... the most concerning thing to me is not taking care of the ball
 
Read your post again. Spencer and Scott? Lots of players have passed through since that time! Collier was suppose to be the savior, it’s actually apparent that he regressed in his development. Gordon and XJ never reached their potential..... not to mention the recruits that left and are doing well with other programs. George King looked like a Freshman last night. These are Tad’s recruits!

I hope this recent class develops into the best class ever, but I’m not buying the coach speak that we’re a young team, when we’re getting our butts kicked by even younger teams. It’s not losing last night that got me upset....... we flat out got boat raced by an inferior program. Which also played significant freshman minutes.

Tad is the best hoops coach in the history of CU basketball. No doubt, but is he the best coach for the future? I think that’s a fair question.
 
Buffman1992 said:
Read your post again. Spencer and Scott? Lots of players have passed through since that time! Collier was suppose to be the savior, it’s actually apparent that he regressed in his development. Gordon and XJ never reached their potential..... not to mention the recruits that left and are doing well with other programs. George King looked like a Freshman last night. These are Tad’s recruits!

I hope this recent class develops into the best class ever, but I’m not buying the coach speak that we’re a young team, when we’re getting our butts kicked by even younger teams. It’s not losing last night that got me upset....... we flat out got boat raced by an inferior program. Which also played significant freshman minutes.

Tad is the best hoops coach in the history of CU basketball. No doubt, but is he the best coach for the future? I think that’s a fair question.
Click to expand...

I selected those two players as examples that fans use to discount great players' development. It wasn't meant to cover over guys that did not or only marginally develop. There are many players that have done just fine under Tad. Could it be better - of course, but I think you're too negative. I fully disagree that Gordon and XJ didn't reach their full potential. I think they developed just fine, although it would have been nice to see XJ channel his emotions into more mature leadership. What did you expect from Gordon or XJ?! I remember after his freshman year, some posters on here were talking about XJ leaving early... ...it was laughable then and now. He was a good player...no, he wasn't all conference but I never understood why people thought he should be.

I can get on board with your general sentiment that we need more recruits to become hits instead of misses (e.g. Collier as you mention, although I do think people rail on him more than warranted). On a scale of 1-10 though, with 10 being this is critical and 1 being all is fine, I'm more at a 4. It seems you're like at a 8-9.
 
I wonder what Oregon fans think when they come to keg, a place they have never won under Tad. I wonder if they buy into Dana's coach speak that Boulder if a tough place to play. I wonder if they question the development of their top 25 recruiting classes. Oregon has had top teams, that ended up being highly seeded for the tournament, come into Boulder and get boat-raced by inferior talent.

Or maybe it is just hard to win on the road.
 
tante said:
Tad plays a style of defense that doesn't gamble and stays in front of the man. We don't have high numbers of steals or blocks.
Click to expand...
First and foremost, great post! Excellent breakdown on the stats.

Ref: your comment in bold: Tad's teams do not stay in front of their man. In fact, one of the major problems with his defensive schemes is that the perimeter players are constantly getting screened or penetrated by and Tad does not recruit big men who can slide over and play help defense under the basket with any effectiveness.

Tad has been the best Men's basketball coach in CU history. I really appreciate his ability to talk to his players as men, develop them as men. The fact that XJ stayed his entire career at CU (no starting D1 player from Mater Dei HS ever stayed their career at their original destination). That spoke volumes to me about Tad the person and his ability to provide a stable environment for the players. I appreciate his demeanor and professionalism/love for the game and how he shares that with the players.

However, Tad does a poor job recruiting. Minus Scott, he has failed to land any solid PAC12 caliber Center's. In 8 years as head coach, he has primarily gone after 6'4" players on the wing. We are now seeing the failures of his recruiting substandard talent, although he has done a good job of selling/marketing those players on signing day, that those players will make an impact. Truth is, the proof is in the pudding.

Tad runs an offense that is not productive. His offense has never been solid minus when an NBA caliber PG (Dinwiddie) was running the offense.

Record: Tad's first four years were excellent at CU and the bar was raised. 92-50 in his first four years. 65-50 the past four years. Conference play is the same: First four years 39-31 to a losing record the past four years at 25-30. There is a huge drop-off over the past four years. His teams have only finished better than 5th in the Pac12 once. It is very possible that this years team wins between 2-4 games in conference.

I understand all programs lose players, assistant coaches and experience a drop-off for a year, maybe two... However, those teams re-load with talented players that can impact the program. Tad keeps swinging and missing. M. Wright is a stud! The rest of the roster is filled with potential players at this level. Kim English looks to be a good assistant coach, hopefully he can recruit better players. Tad has built up enough excellence equity at CU that he deserves another year after this season. However, if the program continues to sink, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that he has taken the program to new heights and it is time to bring in someone else to lift the program higher. There is definitely a higher ceiling possible than Tad has been able to achieve. I hope he is able to land those players and adjusts his offense and defense. If he is unable get there, there is no shame in what he has accomplished at CU but it may be time to start looking at higher expectations.
 
dyemeduke said:
Come on man...first, the state of programs will always change. Even blue bloods go through bad cycles, and it is difficult to say that teams on the rise will stay there. CU looked great on paper a few years ago, and I'm sure other fan bases saw us as a rising star. The '17 five freshman absolutely have what it takes to compete in the PAC12 at a high level; Tad just needs to complement them to keep the train going.

Agree D White came to us rather polished, but how do you know he didn't develop at all during his year practicing with the team? Sure, he was probably more polished than developed, but a pet peeve of mine is when fans of any team say a great player was not developed by a staff. Some posters on this site claim Dinwiddie and Scott didn't develop under Tad and were great to begin with... ...okay... ....first, no, they absolutely did develop and get better. Just because a player is great to start his career doesn't mean one gets to discount their development to fit their negative narrative. I'm not saying you're doing this, but others do in order to rail against Tad. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Derrick got better in redshirt year
He was the star of the of the other time during scout practices. He got to improve offense by going against Scott Gordon King Fletcher.
He used those skills the following year.

That team benefitted because challenged during practice. Namon was supposed to be that for last year but was injured all year. This years team doesn't have that practice foul to go against
 
Buffnik said:
Pretty simple.

If you get to the line 15 times a night and set an NCAA record by shooting 80%, you score 12 points per game on FTs.

If you get to the line 20 times a night and are absolute dog**** by shooting 60%, you also score 12 points per game on FTs.

Add to that the foul trouble you put the other team into by getting to the line and it's an absolute no-brainer that FT Rate is far more important than FT %.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that at all...I thrive on things that require no brain.

What I said was that it would be cool to know if there's a tipping point in FG% as it relates to wins as well...
 
CU recruiting has its limitations, as mentioned by others. No great basketball tradition, no strong probability of championships of any sort other than the Paradise Jam, no special prospects for being developed into NBA caliber (just ask Josh Fortune). This has virtually always been the case, and the less successful coaches of the past few decades could testify to that. Given this situation, Tad Boyle came in and has had modest success, which might be considered remarkable success by some.

On the positive side, you might think the Rocky Mountain foothills would be an attraction to city kids - and certainly it is, for some. But most star athletes are looking for a place to maximize media and big-game attention, and this isn’t (usually) the place. Decent facilities are a positive also.

IMO, a coach to take CU to the next level would ask for a boatload of money and may very well be unsuccessful. I know few want to hear this, but I’m thinking that Tad may be as good as it gets for this program. I’m not opposed to trying a change if things don’t improve in the next 3-4 years, I’m just skeptical that change-for-change-sake will result in improvement.
 
Buffs Basketball Fan said:
The following Tad players have scored in NBA game this year
Dinwiddie
Burks
Roberson
White

Not bad for a non blue blood program.

Shows can identify and get the kind of players who make NBA rosters
Click to expand...
Yes, and those guys (not White yet) are not just borderline roster personnel but major contributors. I’m not convinced that a sure-bet future pro chooses CU, more likely a really good prospect who feels his chances are better to show his skills at CU than at UCLA where competition for playing time is a challenge. Those are some great recent examples of CU players in the NBA (one online ranking has the Buffs tied with ten other teams for #26 with 4 current NBA players), and it should be promoted to recruits, I just don’t see it as a dominating positive factor for 5-stars making their school choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top