Thanks for this great write-up, it’s very easy to follow! I was hoping to read a bit more on what the particular trade-offs that you referenced at the end are. The decision to de-prioritize transition points makes sense from a pace POV, but I’m not clear why e.g. finesse play is prioritized over something Gardner clearly excelled at previously. Perhaps the expectation was that his physicality was less useful against high-major bigs, but this decision doesn’t seem limited enough to Gardner or to low-major transfers at Virginia for that to be the full explanation. Is there something in particular Virginia’s getting in return for its seemingly lower-efficiency post looks?
Thanks for this great write-up, it’s very easy to follow! I was hoping to read a bit more on what the particular trade-offs that you referenced at the end are. The decision to de-prioritize transition points makes sense from a pace POV, but I’m not clear why e.g. finesse play is prioritized over something Gardner clearly excelled at previously. Perhaps the expectation was that his physicality was less useful against high-major bigs, but this decision doesn’t seem limited enough to Gardner or to low-major transfers at Virginia for that to be the full explanation. Is there something in particular Virginia’s getting in return for its seemingly lower-efficiency post looks?