We had the penetrator blocked off and under control but Blue rushed to double anyway and left Marra wide open for the easy kick and wide open 3.
And.....Blue's technique on the double down was poor. He turned his back to Marra so that when the ball was kicked out from the post, Blue could not get back out fast enough to close out on Marra.
If MU had Gasser instead of Blue, they'd be up 30 in this game.
They have only given up 48 threes in the last 4 games!
you know, Merritt's, I think Gasser could have hit a few threes for us. We seemed to lose our ability to hit threes as the season wore on. Don't know the stats to say for sure, but appears DJO and Buycks have stopped shooting bombs. Lack of confidence?
I started a similar thread yesterday
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0)
My biggest issue with the defense all year has been no mans land type of help defense which leads to open three point shooters.
Guys continually "help" on dribble penetration, but in reality they often don't really even get that close to the offensive player penetrating. Instead they just end up sagging off the guy standing behind the three point line. In effect, they are guarding nobody.
Then of course the guy penetrating kicks the ball out to the perimeter shooter for a wide open three. It's even more frustrating when playing a team like Louisville who loves to shoot a ton of threes. Everyone knows this. Pitino coached teams have always shot tons of threes. Yet, over and over a guy on their team would drive with the intention of kicking the ball out to a three point shooter and our "help" defenders would continually fall for this. Sag off the shooter he was guarding even though he likely wouldn't have been able to help much on the penetration anyways. Very frustrating.
Stay at home on the shooter and let the big guy help. Lastly, if you're going to help on penetration, have a clue if you can actually effect the guy penetrating instead of sagging off your man for no reason at all besides to give up an open three.
Quote from: augoman on March 10, 2011, 10:42:16 PMyou know, Merritt's, I think Gasser could have hit a few threes for us. We seemed to lose our ability to hit threes as the season wore on. Don't know the stats to say for sure, but appears DJO and Buycks have stopped shooting bombs. Lack of confidence?
Don't know what happened to Buycks at all. DJO shoots fewer, but still shoots the open shot when it's there. Buycks has attempted just 3 in the past 3 games, and only 11 in the past 6. More than half of those came in the big loss at Seton Hall. He hasn't seemed to be playing his game for quite awhile. Hopefully the time off before the NCAAs will help him refocus, if not, we'll just have to hope JC can eat most of the minutes at the point.
How come the other teams seem to have 3 plus guys that can drain open threes and we have none?
Quote from: El Duderino on March 10, 2011, 11:36:48 PM
Guys continually "help" on dribble penetration, but in reality they often don't really even get that close to the offensive player penetrating. Instead they just end up sagging off the guy standing behind the three point line. In effect, they are guarding nobody.
It starts because we keep guarding guys way up top. I mentioned this yesterday, it is the defensive version of the "paint touch" philosophy.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 10, 2011, 10:28:51 PM
If MU had Gasser instead of Blue, they'd be up 30 in this game.
My original comment was not directed specifically at Blue, but rather Buzz's approach to help defense. I expect Blue did what he did because that's what he's been coached to do.
Quote from: willie warrior on March 11, 2011, 06:13:34 AM
How come the other teams seem to have 3 plus guys that can drain open threes and we have none?
Because Buzz hates you too. The defense starts with the on-ball issues we have. Our guards do not do a great job of defending the dribble. The help comes when the ball handler gets in the lane and then the closeouts are a step late. At leasdt we aren't doubling the post as much with the improvement of CO and DG.
Quote from: El Duderino on March 10, 2011, 11:36:48 PM
I started a similar thread yesterday
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0)
My biggest issue with the defense all year has been no mans land type of help defense which leads to open three point shooters.
Guys continually "help" on dribble penetration, but in reality they often don't really even get that close to the offensive player penetrating. Instead they just end up sagging off the guy standing behind the three point line. In effect, they are guarding nobody.
Then of course the guy penetrating kicks the ball out to the perimeter shooter for a wide open three. It's even more frustrating when playing a team like Louisville who loves to shoot a ton of threes. Everyone knows this. Pitino coached teams have always shot tons of threes. Yet, over and over a guy on their team would drive with the intention of kicking the ball out to a three point shooter and our "help" defenders would continually fall for this. Sag off the shooter he was guarding even though he likely wouldn't have been able to help much on the penetration anyways. Very frustrating.
Stay at home on the shooter and let the big guy help. Lastly, if you're going to help on penetration, have a clue if you can actually effect the guy penetrating instead of sagging off your man for no reason at all besides to give up an open three.
+1
Quote from: El Duderino on March 10, 2011, 11:36:48 PM
I started a similar thread yesterday
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0)
My biggest issue with the defense all year has been no mans land type of help defense which leads to open three point shooters.
Guys continually "help" on dribble penetration, but in reality they often don't really even get that close to the offensive player penetrating. Instead they just end up sagging off the guy standing behind the three point line. In effect, they are guarding nobody.
Then of course the guy penetrating kicks the ball out to the perimeter shooter for a wide open three. It's even more frustrating when playing a team like Louisville who loves to shoot a ton of threes. Everyone knows this. Pitino coached teams have always shot tons of threes. Yet, over and over a guy on their team would drive with the intention of kicking the ball out to a three point shooter and our "help" defenders would continually fall for this. Sag off the shooter he was guarding even though he likely wouldn't have been able to help much on the penetration anyways. Very frustrating.
Stay at home on the shooter and let the big guy help. Lastly, if you're going to help on penetration, have a clue if you can actually effect the guy penetrating instead of sagging off your man for no reason at all besides to give up an open three.
I just do stats, and don't have a lot of basketball knowledge.
This seems like the best description I've seen for why the defense is poor. Thanks.
Quote from: El Duderino on March 10, 2011, 11:36:48 PM
I started a similar thread yesterday
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=25440.0)
My biggest issue with the defense all year has been no mans land type of help defense which leads to open three point shooters.
Guys continually "help" on dribble penetration, but in reality they often don't really even get that close to the offensive player penetrating. Instead they just end up sagging off the guy standing behind the three point line. In effect, they are guarding nobody.
Then of course the guy penetrating kicks the ball out to the perimeter shooter for a wide open three. It's even more frustrating when playing a team like Louisville who loves to shoot a ton of threes. Everyone knows this. Pitino coached teams have always shot tons of threes. Yet, over and over a guy on their team would drive with the intention of kicking the ball out to a three point shooter and our "help" defenders would continually fall for this. Sag off the shooter he was guarding even though he likely wouldn't have been able to help much on the penetration anyways. Very frustrating.
Stay at home on the shooter and let the big guy help. Lastly, if you're going to help on penetration, have a clue if you can actually effect the guy penetrating instead of sagging off your man for no reason at all besides to give up an open three.
I agree with much of this. The problem starts with our guards. Buycks and Cadougan are not good on the ball defenders. They give up far too much penetration. That was not the case last year. Coobey was a good on the ball defender and Acker, even with limited stature, had good foot work to stay in front of his man.
Our off the ball defense is played correctly to a point. Some of our players lose sight of their man. That is another of the problems. Too focused on the ball - you need to know where both the ball and your man is.
Help defense is another issue. The guys are late coming in and the rotations are slow.
To me, the issue is the lack of fundamentals by some of our players. Body positioning and footwork. I do not see coaching defense as the issue. They are coached the same as the past two years and our defense was solid both of those years.
Quote from: MUMac on March 11, 2011, 09:32:15 AM
To me, the issue is the lack of fundamentals by some of our players. Body positioning and footwork. I do not see coaching defense as the issue. They are coached the same as the past two years and our defense was solid both of those years.
#51 and #57 is solid?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 11, 2011, 09:35:56 AM
#51 and #57 is solid?
More than that ... MU's eFG% trend remains a huge issue (eFG% being 40% of overall defense -- preventing opponents from making shots -- which ultimately negates the benefit of MU's generally <very> efficient offense)
2010/2011 -- 50% (#218 in the nation)
2009/2010 -- 49.7 (#201 in the nation)
2008/2009 -- 50.9% (#252 in the nation)
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 11, 2011, 09:35:56 AM
#51 and #57 is solid?
You love statistics, I don't. They only tell part of the story. Teams that play better offensive teams during the season will likely have lower statistics than those that play more bottom feeders. Your statistics, though, to you don't lie.
Yes, they were solid defensively. Under sized, but solid. They played with good positioning and were in the right place. Had we had an Otule on those teams, the defense would have been better.
But, your numbers could never lie, could they? :o
Quote from: MUMac on March 11, 2011, 09:42:20 AM
You love statistics, I don't. They only tell part of the story. Teams that play better offensive teams during the season will likely have lower statistics than those that play more bottom feeders. Your statistics, though, to you don't lie.
Yes, they were solid defensively. Under sized, but solid. They played with good positioning and were in the right place. Had we had an Otule on those teams, the defense would have been better.
But, your numbers could never lie, could they? :o
I use data to justify my position in a search for the truth.
How about a friendly gentleman's wager to decide if a defensive ranking of #51 or #57 is solid? Why don't we look at the teams that make the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight and see how many of those teams have a defensive rating worse than #50?
I will bet you no more than two teams make the Sweet Sixteen and zero teams make the elite eight.
And the SOLE reason they will not make it is their defensive rating? Give me a break. Your a stats geek, I get it. There is more to the game than purely stats. I see that you do not understand that. Fine. Stick with your stats. That's obviously how the game of basketball is played. They don't play it on the court, right?
Stats support premises. They do not define them. That is a concept you fail to understand.
Quote from: MUMac on March 11, 2011, 11:24:41 AM
And the SOLE reason they will not make it is their defensive rating? Give me a break. Your a stats geek, I get it. There is more to the game than purely stats. I see that you do not understand that. Fine. Stick with your stats. That's obviously how the game of basketball is played. They don't play it on the court, right?
Stats support premises. They do not define them. That is a concept you fail to understand.
No need to lose your cool.
I take it you decline my friendly gentleman's wager to determine if a defensive rating of 50 is solid? I thought you would.
Wow, you can interpret moods in a post? Without stats?
My temperature is fine. No cool has been lost. But thanks for asking.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 11, 2011, 10:18:46 AM
I use data to justify my position in a search for the truth.
How about a friendly gentleman's wager to decide if a defensive ranking of #51 or #57 is solid? Why don't we look at the teams that make the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight and see how many of those teams have a defensive rating worse than #50?
I will bet you no more than two teams make the Sweet Sixteen and zero teams make the elite eight.
Henry, Marquette made the final four with a defensive ranking of 101. just saying.
Added: Current teams under 50 include Georgetown, Xavier, Villanova, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Arizona, Wisconsin, Missouri
I'm assuming we're using KenPom rankings. Please correct me if this assumption is false.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on March 11, 2011, 03:29:00 PM
Henry, Marquette made the final four with a defensive ranking of 101. just saying.
That's cuz Suge doesn't use deflections in his equation.
dwaderoy2004, yes you are correct. Also with the #1 offense.
So would you be willing to engage in my friendly wager?
Sure, why not. I like my odds with ND and Wisconsin.
I agree with you though, that defenses in the 50's are not "solid", at least not when compared to most high-major teams. I was just trying to point out that there are some very good teams in that range, definitely capable of reaching the sweet 16 and beyond, as was the case with MU.
Matchups and upsets can play a very large part in how far teams advance this time of year. Hopefully all of these teams will be in the same region...that would almost assure me of victory!
Defensive shortcomings
1. you must watch your man and ball-we turn our backs on the ball
2. if you are guarding a stand up shooter like Marra-you would think you should stay on him after he hit his 2nd open three. He is not a threat to drive
3. it is evident that the players are not coached on defensive foot work or closeouts and rotations. Depending on the shooter's ability to hit the three ,proper recovery back to your man should be part of a defensive game plan
4. it is evident that the players are coached that it is better to play matador defense rather than take the charge or give a hard foul.
5.as everyone has said our guards are poor on ball defenders-then they should play looser on top of the front court-I don't see a lot of steals by playing the opposing point up top
Overall our defense makes me sick. Buzz needs a defensive coach like Bobby Knight to teach these kids to play defense
my two cents
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on March 11, 2011, 04:43:04 PM
Sure, why not. I like my odds with ND and Wisconsin.
I agree with you though, that defenses in the 50's are not "solid", at least not when compared to most high-major teams. I was just trying to point out that there are some very good teams in that range, definitely capable of reaching the sweet 16 and beyond, as was the case with MU.
Matchups and upsets can play a very large part in how far teams advance this time of year. Hopefully all of these teams will be in the same region...that would almost assure me of victory!
You win the first part of our friendly wager.
Five teams with a defense ranked worse than 50 made the Sweet Sixteen.
MU - 55
Arizona - 71
VCU - 111
Butler - 74
UW - 61
I hope to also be wrong next Saturday.
Very kind of you to post Henry, as I had forgotten. With Wisconsin playing Butler in the sweet 16, I am assured of winning this wager and all of the glory that comes along with it...
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on March 21, 2011, 01:01:15 PM
Very kind of you to post Henry, as I had forgotten. With Wisconsin playing Butler in the sweet 16, I am assured of winning this wager and all of the glory that comes along with it...
Ouch - your right, no way for HS to win unless the winner of those team's D is so awesome during the game that it brings their entire season average up, but not likely.
Well, Marquette's defense jumped from #71 to #55 over two games...
In case anyone else is interested...
2011
Sweet Sixteen - Five teams listed below. Average defensive ranking (35)
2010
Sweet Sixteen - two teams. Cornell (117) and St. Marys (88). Average defensive ranking (29)
Elite Eight - zero. Average defensive ranking (16)
2009
Sweet Sixteen - one team. Arizona (142). Average defensive ranking (23)
Elite Eight - zero. Average defensive ranking (16)
2008
Sweet Sixteen - one team. Western Kentucky (69). Average defensive ranking (21)
Elite Eight - zero. Average defensive ranking (17)
2007
Sweet Sixteen - three teams. Oregon (51), Vanderbilt (54), Tenn (56) Average defensive ranking (24)
Elite Eight - one team (Oregon) Average defensive ranking (15)