Over the past 15 seasons, 4 of the 10 lowest rebounding games occurred last season. MU was one of the smallest teams in the country last season as we all know. http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank (http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank)
So with Otule, Fulce, EWill, Gardner, Crowder, Jones in the picture, along with Jimmy, wil Buzz change our match-ups, line-up sets? Will the taller guard set push our D more out on the perimeter to defend the three? Is the four guard offense a thing of the past? Will the 4 out and 1 in offense transform to the 3 out and 2 in?
BTW, MU was 2-8 in these games. Do Bigs matter?
•20 rebounds: DePaul 51, #20 Marquette 72 (2002-2003)
•20 rebounds: #10 Providence 81, #7 Marquette 59 (1996-1997)
•21 rebounds: Marquette 71, #5 Syracuse 76 (2009-2010)
•21 rebounds: Winthrop 71, Marquette 64 (2005-2006)
•22 rebounds: Marquette 62, #6 West Virginia 63 (2009-2010)
•22 rebounds: Washington 80, Marquette 78 (2009-2010)
•23 rebounds: St. John's 55, Marquette 57 (2009-2010)
•23 rebounds: Southern Miss 59, Marquette 50 (1998-1999)
•23 rebounds: #16 Wisconsin 52, Marquette 47 (2000-2001)
•24 rebounds: Marquette 74, Wisconsin 86 (1999-2000)
http://statfix.com/collegebasketball/marquette/fewest-rebounds-in-a-game_2010-05-07
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 27, 2010, 01:18:43 PM
BTW, MU was 2-8 in these games. Do Bigs matter?
Didn't you just answer your own question? That 2-8 record, as well as the way MU had to struggle to every victory they got last year because of their lack of big men, should illustrate quite clearly that bigs do matter.
I love that Buzz seems to realize the importance of size and seems to be doing something to correct our deficiency. Hopefully this won't be THE major issue of our program in years to come, as it has been recently.
I don't expect to see anymore 4 guard lineups-that was clearly out of necessity, not choice. My guess is that our defensive tactics will remain largely the same. The only difference will be that we will have the bodies to play it correctly.
Quote from: MarkCharles on June 27, 2010, 01:50:19 PM
Didn't you just answer your own question? That 2-8 record, as well as the way MU had to struggle to every victory they got last year because of their lack of big men, should illustrate quite clearly that bigs do matter.
I love that Buzz seems to realize the importance of size and seems to be doing something to correct our deficiency. Hopefully this won't be THE major issue of our program in years to come, as it has been recently.
I don't expect to see anymore 4 guard lineups-that was clearly out of necessity, not choice. My guess is that our defensive tactics will remain largely the same. The only difference will be that we will have the bodies to play it correctly.
I'll say this a million more times... size will not be an issue/excuse next season. We have size in every position.
7 guys > 6'6". Even going 3 guards, it is likely we will be 6', 6'2, 6'4. Still not perfect, but an improvement.
Yeah, it's not as though Buzz *could* have played more size even if he wanted to. Otule got hurt and Yous..well...sucked.
It will be weird not having the smallest guy on the court like we have the last five seasons with James and Acker both seeing heavy minutes.
Quote from: tower912 on June 27, 2010, 04:15:37 PM
7 guys > 6'6". Even going 3 guards, it is likely we will be 6', 6'2, 6'4. Still not perfect, but an improvement.
;
Our potential starting 5 is
JC 6'1
DJO 6'2
JB 6'7
CO 6'10
and a bunch of other guys that are between 6'5 and 6'7
Maybe a couple inches from "perfect" but sounds pretty damn good. ESPECIALLY after last year's lineup of 5'8; 5'10; 6'2; 6'7; 6'7.
Next season is going to be a blast. Third season in a row we are going to get a brand new team. Two years ago its was, "what is Buzz going to do with the three Amigos?". Then, "what is going to happen without the three amigos and absolutely no height?" And now "we have height and talent in place, is this program going to take the next step?"
yes, we have the potential to play 'bigish'..., but not like Baylor, or Butler, or Kansas, or etc. Rather, I'm hoping we have the same great effort and desire, with a similar level of skill, but with a few more inches. What a great team that would be.
Quote from: augoman on June 27, 2010, 09:13:38 PM
yes, we have the potential to play 'bigish'..., but not like Baylor, or Butler, or Kansas, or etc. Rather, I'm hoping we have the same great effort and desire, with a similar level of skill, but with a few more inches. What a great team that would be.
Butler???
I hope for the same effort as well. My point is that Buzz will not have to create game plans to hide the size disadvantage.
I hope this taller roster will make us more of a contender.
BTW, Otule is now 6'11" and 260. Obviously, I asked a rhetorical question when I asked if size matters...that said, Buzz will be playing a much different set this season, I am guessing. MU was incredibly efficient last season, yet hamstrung by our height disadvantage. Here is my take:
Buzz will play a more traditional lineup. 3 out and 2 in motion offense.
I see Junior and DJO starting at the guard spots, with DB and Vander seeing strong minutes. DB for offense, VB for defense.
Jimmy will be in the 3 spot. He will move it outside more and we will see his real strengths. Jae will back him up at the 3. Jae can swing to 4 but his strength is on the perimeter as he is an excellent passer.
Joe starts as PF with EWill as the backup. EWill may be the biggest surprise.
Otule at the 5 with plenty of minutes. Gardner to back him up IF the match-ups call for it and we need to give fouls. Junior is a more traditional PG and being able to run sets off a true post-up center is a plus for him.
Often, we will go with three guards (pick em from Blue, DJO, DB, Jones as a swing) with Jimmy and Jae rather than going bigger.
I see a much different defensive philosophy with our depth. Blue and Jones can be a match-up hell, especially if Buzz decides to press. Having a healthy big allows for pushing out on the perimeter, something MU could not do last season (and reflected in a higher 3pt % against). Buzz has recruited length and that means disruption.
This is team is more of a Buzz team and will be very different than his first two teams. They may not be as successful this year (young and inexperienced) but they will be potent at times.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 27, 2010, 01:18:43 PM
Over the past 15 seasons, 4 of the 10 lowest rebounding games occurred last season. MU was one of the smallest teams in the country last season as we all know. http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank (http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank)
So with Otule, Fulce, EWill, Gardner, Crowder, Jones in the picture, along with Jimmy, wil Buzz change our match-ups, line-up sets? Will the taller guard set push our D more out on the perimeter to defend the three? Is the four guard offense a thing of the past? Will the 4 out and 1 in offense transform to the 3 out and 2 in?
BTW, MU was 2-8 in these games. Do Bigs matter?
•20 rebounds: DePaul 51, #20 Marquette 72 (2002-2003)
•20 rebounds: #10 Providence 81, #7 Marquette 59 (1996-1997)
•21 rebounds: Marquette 71, #5 Syracuse 76 (2009-2010)
•21 rebounds: Winthrop 71, Marquette 64 (2005-2006)
•22 rebounds: Marquette 62, #6 West Virginia 63 (2009-2010)
•22 rebounds: Washington 80, Marquette 78 (2009-2010)
•23 rebounds: St. John's 55, Marquette 57 (2009-2010)
•23 rebounds: Southern Miss 59, Marquette 50 (1998-1999)
•23 rebounds: #16 Wisconsin 52, Marquette 47 (2000-2001)
•24 rebounds: Marquette 74, Wisconsin 86 (1999-2000)
http://statfix.com/collegebasketball/marquette/fewest-rebounds-in-a-game_2010-05-07
If we were to look at other teams with their lowest rebounding totals, wouldn't we likely see losses as well? Even from teams with more bigs?
Or put another way, despite having less bigs, it sure seems to me we won a crapload of games the last decade. Rebounding is certainly helped by having bigs, but just because you have them doesn't make you a good rebounding team. There are plenty of excellent rebounding teams that do it without size but with hustle, position, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 27, 2010, 10:54:47 PM
If we were to look at other teams with their lowest rebounding totals, wouldn't we likely see losses as well? Even from teams with more bigs?
Or put another way, despite having less bigs, it sure seems to me we won a crapload of games the last decade. Rebounding is certainly helped by having bigs, but just because you have them doesn't make you a good rebounding team. There are plenty of excellent rebounding teams that do it without size but with hustle, position, etc.
There are obviously many ways to win and there are always exceptions--Butler the most visible as they ranked 280...but the fact that 4 out of the 10 lowest rebounding games in the past 15 years occurred last season--in a season where so many games were determined by one possession--the lack of bigs really stood out. MU was 313th in rebounding and last in the BE. Buzz is gonna be doing it differently from here on out.
Here are the teams MU beat out. Don't see a lot of height or success in these teams. Conversely, six of F8 teams all were Top 50 rebounding teams--ex. Butler and Tenn (103). Let's see how this plays out.
Ntl. CR Reb/GM Team Conf. Games
313 16 31.5 Marquette Big East 34
313 7 31.5 North Carolina Central Independents 29
317 9 31.4 Montana State Big Sky 29
318 8 31.1 Hartford America East 30
319 9 31.0 Missouri-Kansas City Summit League 30
319 11 31.0 Stetson Atlantic Sun 29
319 8 31.0 Lafayette Patriot 32
322 11 30.9 Michigan Big Ten 32
323 12 30.8 Toledo MAC 32
323 11 30.8 Georgia Southern SoCon 32
323 6 30.8 Dartmouth Ivy League 28
323 12 30.8 Tulane C-USA 30
327 7 30.7 Princeton Ivy League 31
327 11 30.7 St. Francis (PA) NEC 30
329 10 30.6 Marist MAAC 30
329 9 30.6 Maryland-Baltimore County America East 30
331 8 30.5 Pennsylvania Ivy League 28
331 12 30.5 Northeastern CAA 33
331 7 30.5 Texas-Pan American Great West 33
334 8 30.4 San Diego West Coast 32
335 9 30.1 Wright State Horizon 32
335 10 30.1 Centenary Summit League 29
337 12 29.9 Bryant NEC 30
337 10 29.9 Presbyterian Big South 31
339 10 29.5 Cleveland State Horizon 33
340 10 28.5 Drake Missouri Valley 33
340 12 28.5 Colorado Big 12 31
342 12 28.0 Samford SoCon 31
343 11 27.9 Delaware State MEAC 29
344 9 27.5 Air Force Mountain West 31
345 12 27.2 Nicholls State Southland 30
346 10 26.8 Eastern Kentucky Ohio Valley 33
347 13 24.0 Denver Sun Belt 32
As i'm excited to see height being a bigger factor next season. I still don't think are woes have been completely fixed. If outle or gardner goes down, We're right back wear we started by having to use a 6'7'' center durin crucial minutes seeing as how neither center could play 40 minutes. Kudos to buzz in building this program, but i don't think We're there quite yet.
But this year, we can run 3 6'7 guys out at the same time, with some combination of Butler, Fulce, Williams, Crowder if Otule/Gardner are hurt or ineffective. Especially against reserve bigs, that will be plenty big enough. Also, our guards are going to be big enough to actually keep some people out of the lane. Assuming health, length is not an issue this year.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on June 27, 2010, 10:09:40 PM
I see Junior and DJO starting at the guard spots, with DB and Vander seeing strong minutes. DB for offense, VB for defense.
Jimmy will be in the 3 spot. He will move it outside more and we will see his real strengths. Jae will back him up at the 3. Jae can swing to 4 but his strength is on the perimeter as he is an excellent passer.
Joe starts as PF with EWill as the backup. EWill may be the biggest surprise.
I don't think you have enough offense on the floor with this line-up. That is why I think you either see Crowder or Buycks starting instead of Fulce. Junior, DJO, Butler, Crowder and Buycks.
As long as the basket hangs 10 ft. from the floor, it's a big man's game. Always has been and always will be.
The biggest difference for us this year is having a deep bench. I said all last season and I'll say it again - length was our bigger problem, not height. These guys went up against much bigger teams and lost a lot of heartbreakers that I think would have been different stories if we hadn't run out of gas. If you just look at height, we had no business being within 15 points of most of our opponents and we gave every single one of them a run for their money.
I won't say size doesn't matter, in life or in basketball (come on, that was a gimme), but Buzz can put us in every single game no matter the opponents' height advantage. As the old saying goes, "it's not the size of your Diener it's how you use him".
Rebounding has a lot to do with timing and effort. The smaller you are the more effort you need. I do not think the size diasadvantage hurt us as much in rebounding as it did on the defensive end. We got blown out by NC St in the second half, not because of rebounding, but because NC St realized they could take the ball directly to the basket and Butler could not stop them.
Although we are going to be taller, it's going to be hard to match the guard play we saw last year. I think turnovers will be higher this winter.
Quote from: JPapi2525 on June 27, 2010, 11:55:08 PM
As i'm excited to see height being a bigger factor next season. I still don't think are woes have been completely fixed. If outle or gardner goes down, We're right back wear we started by having to use a 6'7'' center durin crucial minutes seeing as how neither center could play 40 minutes. Kudos to buzz in building this program, but i don't think We're there quite yet.
+1 Still a ways to go for our program, but we are certainly on the right path if you ask me
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on June 28, 2010, 09:10:57 AM
Although we are going to be taller, it's going to be hard to match the guard play we saw last year. I think turnovers will be higher this winter.
I'll be watching turnovers particularly closely this winter. Buzz's three teams (including UNO) have all been exceptional at holding onto the ball. Part of that is just having guard-oriented teams, but the fact that UNO was really good too bears some scrutiny.
Also, since Buzz's teams have been mediocre defensively (which correlates strongly with height), I want to see what changes with the defense since we'll be taller overall.
Finally, plus one to JPapi. We aren't quite there yet on height.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on June 28, 2010, 12:38:19 PM
I'll be watching turnovers particularly closely this winter. Buzz's three teams (including UNO) have all been exceptional at holding onto the ball. Part of that is just having guard-oriented teams, but the fact that UNO was really good too bears some scrutiny.
Also, since Buzz's teams have been mediocre defensively (which correlates strongly with height), I want to see what changes with the defense since we'll be taller overall.
Finally, plus one to JPapi. We aren't quite there yet on height.
I think a team is "there" if height and size are excuses and not substantial disadvantages.
The last few seasons, our size disadvantage was very real. The disadvantage was in basically every single game. This year (barring injuries) that is not the case. There may be a couple of opponents where we are smaller but that's ok. Being "there" for size, shouldn't mean we are the biggest team in the country. Being "there" for size, is that size in not going to be a disadvantage for a majority of the teams you play.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on June 28, 2010, 01:06:05 PM
The last few seasons, our size disadvantage was very real. The disadvantage was in basically every single game. This year (barring injuries) that is not the case. There may be a couple of opponents where we are smaller but that's ok. Being "there" for size, shouldn't mean we are the biggest team in the country. Being "there" for size, is that size in not going to be a disadvantage for a majority of the teams you play.
Across the board, we may be a lot taller. Most of that is going to be in the guard spots and the wings. However, our post defenders will be Chris Otule, Joe Fulce, Davante Gardner, and Jae Crowder. Erik Williams too.
There is a lot of inexperience in that group. As Jpapi said, I could easily see a situation where we're back to starting a 6'7 PF in crunch time.
edit: forgot Gardner
Quote from: Henry Sugar on June 28, 2010, 01:57:04 PM
Across the board, we may be a lot taller. Most of that is going to be in the guard spots and the wings. However, our post defenders will be Chris Otule, Joe Fulce, Jimmy Butler, and Jae Crowder. Erik Williams too.
I just don't consider that a significant upgrade from last year.
Tough to replace a post player drafted in the NBA first round!
Quote from: PBRme on June 28, 2010, 02:01:33 PM
Tough to replace a post player drafted in the NBA first round!
which is part of why I don't think we're there yet on height...
The reason I don't fall in love with the height numbers is that size alone does not get it done. I think Bilsu said it best.
You look at the top 15 teams in the country last year by height, they included UCLA, North Carolina, Illinois, UCONN, La Salle, UC Davis, Fresno State, Utah and Wyoming. 60% of the top 15 tallest teams didn't make the NCAAs.
http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank
Now, Duke and Kentucky were also in the top 15, so of course height matters, but it's not the end all be all.
If you don't have great guards (see UCLA, North Carolina, UCONN, etc), then you can be tall all you want and the pesky guards will make their lives miserable.
PS I chose top 15, but if you go to top 20...it's still 60%. If you go to the top 30, it goes down to 53.33% don't make it. Top 40, back to 60% don't make it.
Size is wonderful, but you need more than size. Guards game!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 28, 2010, 02:46:32 PM
The reason I don't fall in love with the height numbers is that size alone does not get it done. I think Bilsu said it best.
You look at the top 15 teams in the country last year by height, they included UCLA, North Carolina, Illinois, UCONN, La Salle, UC Davis, Fresno State, Utah and Wyoming. 60% of the top 15 tallest teams didn't make the NCAAs.
http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank
Now, Duke and Kentucky were also in the top 15, so of course height matters, but it's not the end all be all.
If you don't have great guards (see UCLA, North Carolina, UCONN, etc), then you can be tall all you want and the pesky guards will make their lives miserable.
PS I chose top 15, but if you go to top 20...it's still 60%. If you go to the top 30, it goes down to 53.33% don't make it. Top 40, back to 60% don't make it.
Size is wonderful, but you need more than size. Guards game!
I am in this boat. Size is great and you only need as much of it so that it isn't a major disadvantage.
You guys takin' in water?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 28, 2010, 02:46:32 PM
The reason I don't fall in love with the height numbers is that size alone does not get it done. I think Bilsu said it best.
You look at the top 15 teams in the country last year by height, they included UCLA, North Carolina, Illinois, UCONN, La Salle, UC Davis, Fresno State, Utah and Wyoming. 60% of the top 15 tallest teams didn't make the NCAAs.
http://kenpom.com/height.php?y=2010&s=SizeRank
Now, Duke and Kentucky were also in the top 15, so of course height matters, but it's not the end all be all.
If you don't have great guards (see UCLA, North Carolina, UCONN, etc), then you can be tall all you want and the pesky guards will make their lives miserable.
PS I chose top 15, but if you go to top 20...it's still 60%. If you go to the top 30, it goes down to 53.33% don't make it. Top 40, back to 60% don't make it.
Size is wonderful, but you need more than size. Guards game!
I agree that height isn't everything, but it matters for Marquette. I care less about how tall we are and more about how good we are defensively. That brings up a few points.
All of the Elite Eight teams were #34 or better defensively. Most were top 25 defensively. Want a deep NCAA run? Be good defensively!
The best way to be good defensively is to shut down your opponents effective field goal percentage. If you don't do that, you should be lucky, and also really good at forcing turnovers or defensive rebounding.
The best way to shut down your opponents effective field goal percentage is to be tall.
Five of the Elite Eight teams from last year were top 25 in height. The ones that weren't got lucky and were good at defensive rebounding (Butler / MSU) or forced turnovers (KSU).
The last time Marquette was elite defensively was Crean's final year (#10 overall). They did it by shutting down eFG% on the perimeter and by forcing turnovers. The only area Buzz's teams have shown any defensive strengths is by not fouling. (No, I am not saying Crean was better or any of that pointless garbage). My point is that Buzz seems to have built his defense based on positioning and shutting down eFG%, which also requires height.
In summary, I believe that Marquette needs to be good defensively to make a deep NCAA run, and they need to be tall in order to be good defensively.
the data
Last year's Elite 8 (Ranking for Height / Defensive Ranking)Duke - #2 Height / #4 Defense
Butler - #238 Height / #5 Defense
Michigan St - #174 Height / #30 Defense
WVU - #15 Height / #22 Defense
Tenn - #19 Height / #11 Defense
K State - #169 / #17
Kentucky - #5 / #6
Baylor - #21 / #34
MU - #341 / #57
I agree on the defensive front, I guess where it gets complicated is how tall you need to be to be good defensively? As you point out, a good chunk of the Elite 8 teams were also tall and also very good defensive teams.
But as others, myself included, have pointed out, height doesn't always equal good defense or success on the court.
I totally agree we need more height, but I think the key is we need more height in certain areas. I don't think it's an across the board thing. Sure, I'd like our PF to be taller than 6'6", who wouldn't. But I'll take a great PG that can make plays at 5'11" then a taller PG at 6'2" who is a good rebounding guard but not as good a play maker.
How are we going to rank in height for this upcoming season?