MUScoop

Buzz’s defense may have prevented 20-point loss to LSU;  possible Otule return could lead MU back to  Top 10

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (bamamarquettefan1)

Marquette has averaged a “Game Score” of just 79 since losing Chris Otule, only one-point better than UWM’s 78.  MU has home court advantage, and UWM does not have the kind of height that caused such problems in the LSU and Washington games.  However, Marquette will have to play better offense than they did against LSU to make it 39-0 against UWM Thursday night.

table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}

Opponent Result MU Margin Opponent Location Game score
Mount St. Mary's	W	54	72	-4	122
Norfolk St.	W	31	84	-4	111
Winthrop	W	22	71	0	93
Mississippi	W	30	80	0	110
Norfolk St.	W	2	64	0	66
Jacksonville	W	32	68	-4	96
Ave. WITH Otule					100
Wisconsin	W	7	63	4	74
Washington	W	2	72	0	74
Wisconsin Green Bay	W	18	77	-4	91
Northern Colorado	W	21	74	-4	91
Louisiana St.	L	-8	65	4	61
Ave. without Otule					79
Needed vs. UWM					74

As I said in the LSU preview, “even though MU fans had the welcome sight of Chris Otule off of crutches, his absence Monday (vs. LSU) poses a big threat to MU staying undefeated.”  With the offensive struggling terribly against the taller LSU, Buzz’s only chance was a highly aggressive defense that came up with 11 steals and forced 18 turnovers to keep MU close.

After making the long drive back from Baton Rouge I was shocked to see some fans blaming Buzz’s DEFENSE for the loss.  That is almost like watching Alabama’s 9-6 loss to LSU and saying, “That proves Saban’s defense is terrible!”

Until the last minute of the game, when MU had to foul every trip, Marquette’s defense held LSU to 60 points in 61 trips down the court for an average of 0.98 points per trip â€" just below LSU’s season average.  But Marquette’s defense did more than hold LSU just below their offensive average.  It was Marquette’s defense that generated it’s offense by producing 16 points off of 11 steals:


table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}

Trips Points Average
Marquette after steals	11	16	1.45
Marquette other trips	55	43	0.78

Take away steals, and MU scores 51 points vs. LSU
Those who wanted MU to play a less aggressive defense in a game in which they were hitting one in three shots from a half court set don't understand.  Take away the transitions off of the 11 steals and MU’s 0.78 points per trip gives them just 51 points in 66 trips down the court.

Take away turnovers, and LSU averaged 1.4 points per trip
On possessions on which MU didn’t force a turnover, LSU averaged 1.4 points per trip down the court.  So take it to an extreme, that would be 92 points in their 66 trips down the court.  Now obviously LSU would have had some turnovers even with a low pressure defense, but there is no way MU sets up inside and tries to deny baskets when DJO is 6 inches shorter than his man and the entire front line averages 3 inches shorter than their opponent.  No Otule as a backstop, no way.  So LSU scores at least in the 70s and MU barely scrapes the 50s if MU doesn’t play aggressive defense.

MU has been 21 points better with Otule than without him
Reports indicate that the swelling of Chris Otule’s knee is down renew hope that MU could return the Top 10 level at which they were playing while he was on the court.

As covered in earlier posts, MUs “Game Score” indicates how good they played on a given night based on three factors â€" the final score, where the game was played, and the opponent.  


table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}

Game Score Indicates
100+	Could have beaten No. 1 on the road
90+	A top 25 team
82+	A top 50 team
77+	A top 100 team
70+	A top 200 team

During Chris Otule’s games, MU was the top team in the country â€" averaging a 100 game score.

Since Otule was injured at the beginning of the Washington game, MU has averaged 20 points worse at an average Game Score of 79.  Twice they have played like a Top 25 team, but against Washington and LSU they have not played like a Top 100 team.

This is a small sample, and no player is worth 20 points a game.  But if you see a 20-point difference with and without a player, then there is a good chance he is worth 5 or 10 points against certain teams â€" particularly against taller teams where his ability to box out and discourage shots at the rim was huge in the early games.  This is a very simply form of the WinVal system, which the Dallas Maverick’s used to win the NBA title last year â€" measuring what impact each and every player has when he is on and off the court.

I expect a return to form Thursday night despite a solid 9-3 UWM team, but Otule is suddenly looking like a player that could be the difference between a potential national contender and a team that is going to have to hope to avoid taller teams in any bracket.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/12/buzzs-defense-may-have-prevented-20.html

Awesome post!  One minor correction - You included Wisconsin in Games played without Otule.  When included, we averaged 96 with Otule, not 100 (still excellent).

How is a 'game score' determined?

I agree wholeheartedly.  The only question I have is with the other side of the equation.  LSU also had 11 steals.  How many of their points came off steals or in transition.  My recollection after the game was that they did better in transition, but that may be only because I remembered a big Turner 3 in transition, the DJO 1-on-4 that he turned over off a steal, and the 2 breakaways that at least could have been intentional fouls.  I thought that LSU did a better job scoring in transition than MU, which would be surprising.  I could be wrong, though because I only remember some big moments.

The reason they scored at such an efficient rate when they didn't turn it over is because our aggresive defense gave up layups and wide open looks the entire 2nd half.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to credit him for the turnovers(most not forced by picking up full court) then you have to ding him for the 65% fg % allowed in the 2nd half.

Mayo gambled too much trying for steals and taking himself out of position and leading us to play 4 on 5.

Stats are great but you have to put them in context to get the real picture.

I mean does anyone think its a good idea to have Gardner pick up his man in the backcourt?  >:(

Quote from: MuMark on December 21, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
I mean does anyone think its a good idea to have Gardner pick up his man in the backcourt?  >:(

Only if he does the back-breaker after he picks him up ;)

http://www.youtube.com/v/pCOrzGia5Fs

At this point, I just hope we get Chris back soon.

Thanks for all the great comments/criticisms, and sorry I am just getting back to see them now.

Jamailman - GREAT CATCH!  The 100 and 79 figures are actually correct, but you caught a completely messed up line in the table.  The Wisconsin game should have been under WITH OTULE, but the row was also completely messed up, and should have read 7+95+4 = 106 game score.  Wisconsin is a 95 ranking, so the average with Otule is actually slightly over 100.

karavotsos - actually until DJO drove into four players and turned the ball over with 7:08, Marquette had actually scored off all but one steal, scoring an incredible 16 points on 9 steals, while LSU had scored just 6 points on 7 steals.  However, that turnover and Mayo's missed layup off a steal with under 3 minutes coincided with LSU scoring 7 points off their last 4 steals - so you are remembering correctly that down the stretch, in the clutch, the converted better even though for the game as a whole they did not due to MU's dominance in transition the first 32 minutes of the game.

tower912 - here is how you calculate a Game Score for a team.  When Sagarin rates teams, he takes the value of a team's opponent based on how many points better or worse than they are than any other team.  Usually the number 1 computer team in the country is about a 95, so a team that would likely lose to them by 10 points is an 85, etc.  So if we played the No. 1 team in the country we get 95 points for playing them, and then we add or subtract based on how many we won or lost to them by.  So if we beat a No. 1 team by 5 points then we get a 100 for the GAME SCORE, and if they blow us out by 30 points we get a 65 GAME SCORE.  But the one final step is we have to adjust for is home court advantage, which on average is worth 4 points.  So if we beat the No. 1 team by 5 points in the Bradley Center, you treat it as a 1 point win on a neutral court and we get a 96 GAME SCORE.  If we do beat them by 5 on a neutral court then it is a 100 GAME SCORE, and if we actually go in their gym and beat them by 5 points then it is like a 9 point win on a neutral court and we get a 104 GAME SCORE.  Basically our average GAME SCORE over the course of the season is what Sagarin lists as his PREDICTOR number, so that's how we moved to first place on his ratings for the first time ever a couple of weeks ago with a 99, which at the time was actually 4 points better than the second best team in the country who had a 95 (Ohio State), which is why I flat out say we played as the best team in the country to open the season - it wasn't close on his model.  He may have some tweaks when he compares the entire season, such as weighting the big games a bit more than creampuffs.  The only simplification I take is for the opponents score I sub the corresponding number based on what place in Pomeroy our opponent is, since it is much easier to cut and past from Pomeroy than Sagarin, so doing the math for the whole season takes 30 minutes instead of 3 hours.  Therefore, since Wisconsin is #1 in Pomeroy (equivalent to a 95 in Sagarin), and we beat them at Wisconsin (+4), the 7 point margin of victory gives us a 106 GAME SCORE.

Quote from: MuMark on December 21, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
The reason they scored at such an efficient rate when they didn't turn it over is because our aggresive defense gave up layups and wide open looks the entire 2nd half.

MUMark - A fair point, but that is what I was conceding when I wrote, "Now obviously LSU would have had some turnovers even with a low pressure defense, but there is no way MU sets up inside and tries to deny baskets when DJO is 6 inches shorter than his man and the entire front line averages 3 inches shorter than their opponent. No Otule as a backstop, no way."

My contention is that after the early minutes, LSU had completely solved our half court defense when we stayed back was having no problem lobbing the ball from one player to another, all of which, except at point were much taller than our defenders - particularly a 6-11 center that was going up against either a 6-6 defender, or a 6-8 defender who I love but has a very low vertical.  To blindly follow stats would be to say LSU would have simply scored 92 points with no steals, so I am conceding that not going for steals and playing back would hold down the efficiency some, but not nearly enough to offset the turnovers.

On the turnovers we gave away, I completely agree.  What surprised me was that I expected to see posts talking about how pathetic our half court offense was, and I would not have argued that at all.  And I don't blame junior.  I was in the 7th row even with the baseline the way MU was going the second half, and I blame everyone but Junior for never giving him a look for a possible assist.  The one he did thread in was a perfect pass.  So I'm not blindly supporting Buzz, I'm just saying the defense made perfect sense, it is the half court offense that was a disaster.  And I don't know if this showed up on TV, but the reason the final defensive rebounding wasn't too bad was that once LSU realized we were never going to score on them in a half court offense, they literally were having 4 players sprint back down the floor as soon as they shot or juggled the ball to make sure that we had to run against a half court defense, even though it meant they were giving up a chance at an offensive rebound.