Posted by craigaltonw on 4/9/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
gillespie... I like the idea of recruiting with specific holes to fill in mind. And I love the idea of building team chemistry and not settling on talented individual players who don't fit the team needs.
However, what do you say to adjusting your team chemistry to the recruits? I guess my question depends on recruiting style. But I would rather put my eggs in several baskets when I'm recruiting just in case the perfect-fit player I have targeted does not work out. Chances are that I wont get that player... if he wants to play far from home and I'm 10 miles away, for example.
At what point do you adjust your "needs" to the recruits that might originally be a back-up option for you?
you do have to adjust to the reality of what is out there, and every system should have some flexibility. if you have 4 openings, then you really, if team planning has gone well, probably need 2 guys to make a solid core 10, and 2 guys are sort of "options". you want to choose those options players in a way that is conducive to building a core around those 4, but you have flexibility. say you need a PG and C, those are your 2 "needs", well a SG and PF would go pretty well, but a SG and SF (not listed, but by your intentions for them) would be fine, too. it partly depends on the offense of that C and PG - if neither is offensively oriented, your 2 optional players should be. there are a lot of ways to skin that cat, you should have some "ideal" type situations in mind, and do the best you can to achieve one of them. in that kind of situation, theres quite a few different setups id be happy with. you could have a scoring oriented PG, a reb/def oriented SF and PF, and a good scoring C. you could have a non-scoring PG, a scoring SG and SF, and a non scoring C. theres all kinds of combos that really get you where you need to be, by providing you enough offense, defense, rebounding, and ball control, to be a successful club.
now, you could be in a situation where you boxed yourself in somewhat, even with good team planning - maybe that C you want has to be offensive minded to fit well with the rest of his team (a freshman's offense doesnt matter, and a sophmores doesnt matter much - but if as a junior, he'd be the only offensive oriented big, that could be a big deal). or maybe that PG of yours really needs to have good per- because you have way too little per scoring without him, when hes say, a junior. if thats the case, you hopefully only have 1 really big need like that, and you can scout until you find someone suitable. even if your primary guy doesnt happen, your backups should be of a similar mold, if its that critical - you dont want to need a high scoring PG and replace him with a low scoring PG, your team will suffer significantly.
so, theres definitely flexibility and adjusting to what you can find. in that first case with 4 guys and 2 needs, really ANY great player at ANY position should be able to be worked into that 4 man class, effectively. its definitely an art, and there is a good deal of finesse, but over time you'll get there.
really the key to starting to team plan is breaking the team down into abilities: defense, offense, rebounding, and ball control. how much of each do you need to be effective with your system? that is a central question everyone should ask themselves, the more you can refine the answer, the better off you'll be. where do you get great returns, and where do diminishing returns kick in? youll find that defense is basically the one category where diminishing returns dont ever kick in - not even for teams way better than the average national championship squad. everything else experiences diminishing returns in a big way, and finding the sweet spot is key - you cant max all 4 of those abilities. but that also means the first great defender buys you less than, say, the first great scorer - the first great scorer or two reap HUGE dividends. on the other hand, having 5 great scorers is a total waste.
if the concept of team planning is really interesting to you, i think i talk about it pretty much in the interview i did a year ago or whatever. its a very long read though, so consider yourself forewarned!