Half-kidding.
I think the biggest issue facing this team is indeed something that can be fixed in practice. Outside of Crowder, no one gets in good rebounding position down low. Watch Otule on the boards. He stands flat footed, straight up, and hops at the ball. Same with Gardner. Neither one of them gets down in a box out when the shot goes up to get that base to power up to the rebound.
If this team was even decent on the defensive glass during non-conference play, they'd be nationally ranked and all would be well. They're very good offensively, and pretty good on first shot defense. The size is there now, they just have to get the positioning and technique down.
Agreed. +1
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 06, 2011, 08:54:53 AM
Half-kidding.
I think the biggest issue facing this team is indeed something that can be fixed in practice. Outside of Crowder, no one gets in good rebounding position down low. Watch Otule on the boards. He stands flat footed, straight up, and hops at the ball. Same with Gardner. Neither one of them gets down in a box out when the shot goes up to get that base to power up to the rebound.
If this team was even decent on the defensive glass during non-conference play, they'd be nationally ranked and all would be well. They're very good offensively, and pretty good on first shot defense. The size is there now, they just have to get the positioning and technique down.
That is a coaching issue. Otule has been there three years now--he should sure as hell know that by now!!!!
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 06, 2011, 08:54:53 AM
If this team was even decent on the defensive glass during non-conference play, they'd be nationally ranked and all would be well. They're very good offensively, and pretty good on first shot defense.
How is this team "pretty good on first shot defense"? Rutgers, an average offensive team, had 17 assists on 26 made FGs last night. Moreover their eFG% was 55%. There's nothing to indicate that MU was particularly effective defensively last night (and these last three games in particular have highlighted the team's struggles on that end of the floor).
Quote from: NYWarrior on January 06, 2011, 10:42:57 AM
How is this team "pretty good on first shot defense"? Rutgers, an average offensive team, had 17 assists on 26 made FGs last night. Moreover their eFG% was 55%. There's nothing to indicate that MU was is particularly effective defensively last night EVER (and these last three games in particular have highlighted the team's struggles on that end of the floor).
fixed
Quote from: NYWarrior on January 06, 2011, 10:42:57 AM
How is this team "pretty good on first shot defense"? Rutgers, an average offensive team, had 17 assists on 26 made FGs last night. Moreover their eFG% was 55%. There's nothing to indicate that MU was particularly effective defensively last night (and these last three games in particular have highlighted the team's struggles on that end of the floor).
I don't want to speak for MUfan12, but I looked at the play by play and Rutgers shot less than 40% on first-shot two-point attempts (I had them at 10-26) and made 7-12 two-point attempts on second (or third) shots.
First-shot three-point attempts by Rutgers were awful for MU, though: I had 'em at 8-17.
Quote from: NYWarrior on January 06, 2011, 10:42:57 AM
How is this team "pretty good on first shot defense"? Rutgers, an average offensive team, had 17 assists on 26 made FGs last night. Moreover their eFG% was 55%. There's nothing to indicate that MU was particularly effective defensively last night (and these last three games in particular have highlighted the team's struggles on that end of the floor).
I ran the numbers from the first two non-conference games, and Duke lit them up. Gonzaga and UW each shot under 40% on their first shot.
You are right, the last three games they have struggled on defense especially.
What's the validity of the first-shot defense argument?
Is it to say, "well, our first shot defense was pretty good, so if we only rebounded better we'd be awesome"? Is it because Buzz talks about first-shot defense?
I guess I just don't see how it improves on the concepts of eFG% and OR%.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 06, 2011, 12:12:01 PM
What's the validity of the first-shot defense argument?
Is it to say, "well, our first shot defense was pretty good, so if we only rebounded better we'd be awesome"? Is it because Buzz talks about first-shot defense?
I guess I just don't see how it improves on the concepts of eFG% and OR%.
Consider the following:
2nd half vs. Gonzaga
1st shot defensive FG% = 8.7% on 2-23 shooting
15 offensive rebounds conceded
17 second chance points
L, 66-63
2nd half vs. Wisconsin
1st shot defensive FG% = 30% on 7-23 shooting
11 offensive rebounds conceded
14 second chance points
L, 69-64
Put a body on someone, and we win both of those games. By extension, the defensive eFG% and OR% both drop, because the easy putbacks are eliminated.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 06, 2011, 12:12:01 PM
What's the validity of the first-shot defense argument?
Is it to say, "well, our first shot defense was pretty good, so if we only rebounded better we'd be awesome"? Is it because Buzz talks about first-shot defense?
I guess I just don't see how it improves on the concepts of eFG% and OR%.
I'm not a stat geek, and don't get into that much in basketball. So I can't speak to the concepts you mentioned.
I looked at the first shot defense to get a little more of an idea of how much of MU's defensive woes came from second (and third... and in Gonzaga's case, fifth) chance opportunities. It was more out of curiosity than anything else.
Quote from: Cooby Snacks on January 06, 2011, 12:27:09 PM
Consider the following:
2nd half vs. Gonzaga
1st shot defensive FG% = 8.7% on 2-23 shooting
15 offensive rebounds conceded
17 second chance points
L, 66-63
2nd half vs. Wisconsin
1st shot defensive FG% = 30% on 7-23 shooting
11 offensive rebounds conceded
14 second chance points
L, 69-64
Put a body on someone, and we win both of those games. By extension, the defensive eFG% and OR% both drop, because the easy putbacks are eliminated.
I'm not heavy into stats... but with the Wisconsin game and the number of 3s they were chucking up I don't think that "putting a body on someone" would have helped us grab those 10+ 15-20 foot rebounds.
If I'm Buzz I'm making these guys watch film of Kevin Love. Hell...bring in Rodman and Jayson Williams (sans the shotgun).
Last night's rebounding efforts were PATHETIC. I'm pretty confident that my grandma could've snagged 2-3 offensive rebounds.
I'm not in love with the "first shot defense" talk, however, it is logical to me to use as a teaching tool that Buzz can use to point out what the team is doing well, and what they need to improve on (rebounding).
The only reason I think it does have some merit as a stat is that after the first shot goes up, the defense usually breaks down to either head back for offense, or hit the board for rebounds. It appears (to me) to be the rare case that the opposition gets a long rebound and actually sets up their offense (in which case we have time to set up our defense again). Instead, after the first shot, it's usually just a scramble for the ball and a putback or a quick 3 after a long rebound/pass.
If I were Buzz, I'd try show the guys how well they're playing until the first shot is taken to emphasize that they need to block out, get rebounds, and avoid having to worry about a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th shot defense :)
Not a number that's going to improve upon eFG% and OR%., but rather a useful stat for teaching and learning.
I think if we combine this thread with the free throw thread, then the players would just need to shoot 200 free throws a day and then they should, if my math is correct, have 100 free throws and 100 rebounds. am I right? ;)
We need/will be ready for this game on Saturday as for Pitt is (I believe) 2nd in the nation on boards.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on January 06, 2011, 12:47:44 PM
I'm not in love with the "first shot defense" talk, however, it is logical to me to use as a teaching tool that Buzz can use to point out what the team is doing well, and what they need to improve on (rebounding).
...
Not a number that's going to improve upon eFG% and OR%., but rather a useful stat for teaching and learning.
This is a reasonable explanation.
Someone posted a link and a spreadsheet a few weeks back that illustarted MU's first shot defense versus second shot and it is absolutely clear that MU's inabilty to corral more defensive rebounds kills Mu's defensive FG %. Wheter it be last night or any other game it has been around 40% first shot to 60% on the second. Many opponent offensive rebounds result in put backs or kick out for open jumpers. Pretty easy to figure out.
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on January 06, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
Someone posted a link and a spreadsheet a few weeks back that illustarted MU's first shot defense versus second shot and it is absolutely clear that MU's inabilty to corral more defensive rebounds kills Mu's defensive FG %. Wheter it be last night or any other game it has been around 40% first shot to 60% on the second. Many opponent offensive rebounds result in put backs or kick out for open jumpers. Pretty easy to figure out.
I'd guess most teams have about the same spread between first shot defense and second shot defense. The majority of second shots are close in shots and put up by big guys. Look at the shooting percentages from our two big guys. Otule at 68% and Gardner 61%. The essential problem is that offensive rebounds are our Achilles heel. The fact that our big men are not dominant on the boards and our perimeter defenders are actively defending away from the basket means we don't get a lot of rebounding help. Add to that our mentality to start a break translates into a team that doesn't crash the defensive boards.
the problem is not the FG% we give up on second chance shots, its just the amount of opportunities, i.e. poor defensive rebounding
we do switch a lot on the perimeter, which pulls our bigs away from the basket. DJO is never going to get a board when he is guarding a 6'9" power forward. If we didn't switch we would probably give up better looks, but rebound better if they miss. Personally I would vote for better defence initially and hope for a solid rebound.
Screw 100 rebounds every day; I'd be thrilled if they'd just grab 15 rebounds on game days.