Current School: South Florida Bulls
Offensive Style Metric History
| Season | School | Off. Efficiency | Assist% | TO% | Off. Rebound% | FTA/FGA | % Shots Blocked | Fouls Drawn% | %Shots 3FG | %Assisted 3FGs | %Shots Mid-Range | % Midrange Assisted | %Shots at Rim | %Assisted at Rim | %Shots in Transition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Georgia Tech | 94.8 | 48.6 | 19.4 | 33.5 | 0.188 | 9.1 | 25.0 | 0.309 | 87.3 | 37.2 | 31.4 | 31.8 | 31.8 | 18.7 |
| 2013 | Georgia Tech | 96.7 | 52.5 | 16.4 | 32.6 | 0.178 | 10.5 | 23.4 | 0.304 | 83.8 | 39.6 | 35.5 | 30.0 | 30.5 | 19.9 |
| 2014 | Georgia Tech | 101.8 | 54.5 | 15.7 | 32.7 | 0.236 | 9.3 | 27.0 | 0.297 | 85.0 | 37.4 | 40.6 | 32.9 | 33.6 | 20.1 |
| 2015 | Georgia Tech | 97.4 | 49.3 | 16.0 | 38.7 | 0.202 | 9.3 | 27.2 | 0.273 | 91.6 | 36.7 | 30.9 | 36.0 | 36.6 | 18.4 |
| 2016 | Georgia Tech | 109.0 | 50.5 | 14.0 | 37.4 | 0.229 | 6.3 | 26.4 | 0.278 | 88.3 | 41.6 | 37.2 | 30.6 | 30.1 | 17.2 |
| 2018 | South Florida | 96.3 | 53.6 | 18.7 | 28.8 | 0.240 | 11.2 | 26.3 | 0.339 | 84.5 | 29.2 | 35.5 | 37.0 | 37.3 | 17.8 |
| 2019 | South Florida | 101.9 | 57.2 | 18.8 | 35.7 | 0.310 | 12.8 | 31.9 | 0.386 | 89.6 | 17.0 | 41.6 | 44.3 | 45.1 | 20.9 |
Defensive Style Metric History
| Season | School | Def. Efficiency | Assist% | % of TOs Live-Ball | Def. Rebound% | Opponent FTA/FGA | Fouls Committed% | %Shots 3FG | %Shots Mid-Range | %Shots at Rim | %Shots Dunks | % of Shots in Transition | Non-Transition eFG% | Tempo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Georgia Tech | 98.6 | 56.1 | 73.2 | 68.1 | 0.243 | 26.1 | 0.346 | 32.6 | 32.8 | 5.1 | 20.1 | 44.00% | 63.2 |
| 2013 | Georgia Tech | 93.7 | 55.7 | 69.8 | 69.4 | 0.220 | 25.2 | 0.328 | 35.4 | 31.8 | 5.9 | 17.8 | 43.90% | 66.3 |
| 2014 | Georgia Tech | 102.0 | 52.4 | 78.2 | 71.3 | 0.267 | 27.5 | 0.327 | 31.9 | 35.4 | 5.2 | 19.7 | 45.30% | 64.8 |
| 2015 | Georgia Tech | 99.4 | 54.4 | 75.2 | 74.2 | 0.234 | 26.0 | 0.328 | 33.1 | 34.1 | 4.3 | 20.6 | 47.20% | 63.9 |
| 2016 | Georgia Tech | 105.2 | 46.8 | 66.3 | 72.9 | 0.226 | 26.7 | 0.305 | 33.0 | 36.4 | 4.7 | 20.3 | 48.50% | 67.0 |
| 2018 | South Florida | 107.5 | 55.4 | 72.2 | 69.4 | 0.222 | 26.1 | 0.365 | 24.9 | 38.6 | 6.4 | 21.4 | 48.10% | 65.5 |
| 2019 | South Florida | 94.5 | 57.9 | 73.9 | 74.7 | 0.293 | 29.9 | 0.374 | 21.8 | 41.5 | 6.1 | 21.3 | 47.90% | 69.5 |
Brian Gregory Coaching Summary
Brian Gregorys team was in the 57th percentile of teams in pace of play. Tempo is merely stylistic and descriptive, it carries no negative nor positive connotation. Faster paced teams are toward the top (higher percentile) and slower paced teams are toward the bottom (lower percentile).
All teams have a half-court offensive philosophy as not every offensive possession will be in a transitional situation. Brian Gregory had an offensive style in his latest coached season that was closest to being consistent with a 4/5 Out offense. It does not necessarily mean that the coach followed this offensive orthodoxy, but stylistically was most similar to this style of play.
On the offensive end, Brian Gregory had a team that had an offense that emphasized threes and shots in the restricted arc while disregarding the mid-range game.It is supported by the metrics in the tables above. When it came to distributing the ball and emphasis on ball movement or scoring off the dribble, the latest seasons metrics support the following:
- From 3 point range, Strongly emphasized ball movement to set up three point shots.
- From the mid-range, Strongly emphasized ball movement to set up mid-range shots.
- At the rim, Greater emphasis on scoring at the rim on cuts to the basket.
Defense much like offense, there is much diversity of thought as far as style of play. There are teams that have both full court and half-court defense and in the case of the latest season for Brian Gregory, Some Backcourt Pressure.
In the half-court, Brian Gregory featured a defensive footprint that was consistent with a team that sported a Mixed. Its effectiveness is indicated by the defensive efficiency metric as seen in the above tables.
Back to Coaches