In reading the Mike DeCourcy article about MU the other day (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-03-22/while-stacking-up-losses-marquette-found-how-to-win), it mentioned that most of the team meeting after the Seton Hall game was about defense. The article talked about how one guy wasn't in synch with the rest of the defense and that MU need to be more aggressive on defense.
I think we can all say that the defense has been much improved. I would be curious to see how our defense stacks up. Does anyone have a link to our opponents eFG, TO rate and PPP for the few games leading up to Seton Hall and after?
http://kenpom.com/gameplan.php?team=Marquette
Looking at that, it seems like our magic number is 99 in terms of overall defensive efficiency. When we allow over a 99, we are 4-13. When we allow under a 99, we are 18-1 with the sole loss being the Louisville game at the YUM! Center.
Thanks!
So you're saying our defense got better and we finally started to focus on it more diligently after the Seton Hall game? ;D
Isn't that what MU84 said yesterday and got obliterated for it. Just sayin
From the Mike DeCourcy article:
"We can't play individually," Cadougan said, "because we know we'll lose if we play individually."
Team chemistry. Bingo. They might have come up with GTST in the pre-season but until now, they haven't been playing like a cohesive team unit.
Sample size, people.
We beat Syracuse with our old, crappy defense, too, if you recall. Same with West Virginia and Providence. We shut down Holloway the same way we shut down Walker and Brooks pre-Seton Hall.
We've won a few games, but I don't think there is a whole lot of magic or new to it. If DJO or Crowder misses their 3 at the end of the Syracuse game, we very likely wouldn't be talking about our great defense of late right now.
A few breaks have gone our way for a change. Our NCAA opponents finally missed some open 3s instead of shooting like Steve Novak in a 3 pt shooting contest. We are a good team that was given good match-ups for us and we took advantage. We won a close game in the NCAAs for a change. Hopefully they'll keep it going against UNC.
I think there is some truth to ebb and flow of a season but it appears our d help rotations have been better and we were in position for quite a few charges on Sunday, more than I can remember in awhile.
We may get smashed by UNC's length but these last couple games our d has looked quicker on rotations and not as susceptible on the drive.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 24, 2011, 10:50:36 AM
Sample size, people.
We beat Syracuse with our old, crappy defense, too, if you recall. Same with West Virginia and Providence. We shut down Holloway the same way we shut down Walker and Brooks pre-Seton Hall.
False. False. True.
Game 1 vs WVU (1.14 ppp allowed). Game 1 vs Cuse (1.07 ppp allowed / 63% eFG%). Game 1 vs PC (0.81 ppp allowed).
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 24, 2011, 11:05:56 AM
False. False. True.
Game 1 vs WVU (1.14 ppp allowed). Game 1 vs Cuse (1.07 ppp allowed / 63% eFG%). Game 1 vs PC (0.81 ppp allowed).
Not sure what's false. We did beat Syracuse, West Virginia and Providence before our supposed post-Seton Hall epiphany on defense, did we not?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 24, 2011, 10:00:06 AM
So you're saying our defense got better and we finally started to focus on it more diligently after the Seton Hall game? ;D
Isn't that what MU84 said yesterday and got obliterated for it. Just sayin
No
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 24, 2011, 11:14:28 AM
Not sure what's false. We did beat Syracuse, West Virginia and Providence before our supposed post-Seton Hall epiphany on defense, did we not?
But not because of the defense. Isn't the supposed improvement of the defense what's at question here?
Marquette has had good defensive performances in four of their last five games. Three of those were against quality offensive teams.
I agree with Stone Cold that it appeared like the help defense was a lot better, especially in the Syracuse game.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 24, 2011, 11:21:53 AM
I agree with Stone Cold that it appeared like the help defense was a lot better, especially in the Syracuse game.
Completely agree.
The question is, is this improvement because the team is doing something differently from a scheme/strategy perspective, or because they're executing the same scheme/strategy better?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 24, 2011, 11:21:53 AM
I agree with Stone Cold that it appeared like the help defense was a lot better, especially in the Syracuse game.
This.
I was at the Seton Hall game in Milwaukee, and thought our defense looked awful - eventhough MU won. The rotations were slow, often leading to Seton Hall's guards driving past our guards who we jumping out to defend them. I saw this in other games I watched on TV too.
But I didn't see it happen against WVU, Xavier or Syracuse (in the NCAA's). I'm throwing out the Providence game (everyone scores their career high versus Providence - Thanks Jay Balis for that line!) and the Louisville game in the BET as an abberation due to being the 3rd game in 3 days.
So, I was looking for statistically data that would back up my perception of an improving defense, especially after the DeCourcy article identified a stronger focus on defense. From the Kenpom page, the stats backup that MU has been better and more consistent as a defense after the Seton Hall game.
I get the impression that they are doing some things different. It seems like they have decided to focus on stopping the key thing the opponent wants to do...take away Holloway's penetration...double down on Jackson...and hope that the other guys don't beat them. Same agressive philosophy, but just more "focused."
It also seems that Cadougan has been doing better keeping in front of his guy and keeping the point from penetrating.