Henry Sugar, statistically speaking, how much better is our defense than in years past? The reason I ask is that it is clearly more effective this year, fewer breakdowns, much better rotations and double teams. The scheme hasn't changed. Why is it more effective?
You can use the experience argument, but are we really more experience than we were last year? More experienced with Buzz? Maybe. Player improvement? Well, Junior is certainly better on ball than last year. DJO seems to have improved his lateral movement. Blue clearly has a better understanding of when to double the post. Jae has quit making dumb fouls 35 ft from the basket. In general, there seems to be far fewer instances where we double out top and then have the wrong rotation on the back end. In summation, it just seems a lot cleaner and tighter with fewer breakdowns. Why? And does this mean the scheme is sound, it just wasn't executed as well in the past?
Quote from: tower912 on February 18, 2012, 03:24:54 PM
Why? And does this mean the scheme is sound, it just wasn't executed as well in the past?
I never understood or agreed with the criticism that Buzz does not coach defense.
To answer your question, though, I think the players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do and where they are supposed to be.
He has always had an aggressive - inside / out defensive philosophy. Wilson's athleticism down low is a big plus that MU did not have in past years.
I think our defense has greatly improved. Our guards on ball defense is much better, and we have fewer defensive let downs. I am looking forward to a post defense next year with Otule holding down the paint, and Jamil having more flexibility to shine. Those two next year, with the great on ball defense of Vander, Todd, and Derrick could make for a stellar defensive team next year. They can take more risks for steals with Otule and Wilson holding down the paint.
Coach Williams' defense, in a sense, is complicated, in that it requires a great deal of rotation. It is the same defense that he has used since he became head coach. However, this year it seems to be working.
Why we ask? In part, it is experience. However, it would appear that it works this year because of speed. If there is a faster team in Division I, this Warrior fan has yet to see them play.
I'll buy the team speed argument. This team's transition game is as good as any I remember.
i think our defense has improved since otule went out hurt. it seems to me like the injury forced mu to be more careful when getting beat off the dribble as we didn't have our best shot blocker and the 5 extra fouls from a big man. with gardner out, it's even more important that wilson and crowder aren't put in bad positions, and our guards have done a great job with that. not getting beat off the dribble, has eliminated the penetration and kick 3's that mu had serious issues with.
i loved buzz' philosophy today. if you closely watched how he coached/communicated with crowder you could see it was important that crowder not pick up any cheap fouls, and then use his fouls in a smart manner when one of their poor free-throw shooting centers had an easy look.
it was great to watch an mu team today that rarely got beat off the dribble, contested most shots, and fouled smart.
If we do not commit fouls hedging on the screen at the top of the key and we don't get caught watching the paint dry on the backdoor cuts--our D will continue to be solid. JWill has really stepped up his game.
No way in heck are we better defensively since Otule went out. No Way at al!!! And yes we are more experienced and have a better handle on the d....junior, Jae, and Vanderbilt are no longer first year players. HUGE difference
Was really impressed with the half court defense today. In the prior few games we were pretty bad in the half court, but the other teams had no answer for our pressure defense - turning it over, shooting gone cold, lots of transition buckets going the other way. Today the half court defense was effective, forcing jump shots and awesome rebounding.
Quote from: tower912 on February 18, 2012, 03:24:54 PM
Henry Sugar, statistically speaking, how much better is our defense than in years past? The reason I ask is that it is clearly more effective this year, fewer breakdowns, much better rotations and double teams. The scheme hasn't changed. Why is it more effective?
You can use the experience argument, but are we really more experience than we were last year? More experienced with Buzz? Maybe. Player improvement? Well, Junior is certainly better on ball than last year. DJO seems to have improved his lateral movement. Blue clearly has a better understanding of when to double the post. Jae has quit making dumb fouls 35 ft from the basket. In general, there seems to be far fewer instances where we double out top and then have the wrong rotation on the back end. In summation, it just seems a lot cleaner and tighter with fewer breakdowns. Why? And does this mean the scheme is sound, it just wasn't executed as well in the past?
I tackled this a bit a few weeks ago looking at the numbers behind the defense. The numbers are slightly changed, but not much.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/01/defense-and-projections.html
As for the "why?" part of your question, I'll leave that to others to answer.
Henry, what did you think of Pomeroy's 3 point% article this week? Defenses really have no control?
I think its all experience and getting used to playing together. Junior is much better than last year, Jae is more familar with everybody, Wilson practiced with us last year so he is experienced. DG when he played he was certainly improved.
It really too bad we lost Chris for the year. With him I think this team has a very solid defense anchored by a shot blocker. Add to it a very good offense (which would be even better if you could play Wilson at small forward).
Quote from: Henry Sugar on February 18, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
I tackled this a bit a few weeks ago looking at the numbers behind the defense. The numbers are slightly changed, but not much.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/01/defense-and-projections.html
As for the "why?" part of your question, I'll leave that to others to answer.
Apparently, slight changes mean a lot.
Quote from: tower912 on February 19, 2012, 07:42:30 AM
Apparently, slight changes mean a lot.
Not what I was saying. MU's defense was good when I wrote the article. The changes are slight on the rankings, but the overall percentage/mix for this year is consistent.
Interestingly enough, MU's defense hasn't been that good the last three games.
It is the first time in Buzz's tenure that he has returned more guys to the roster, than he has had new guys coming into the program. Experience playing together is huge, as is the overall improved athleticism and length on the roster now, versus 2 years ago.
Quote from: MUDPT on February 18, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Henry, what did you think of Pomeroy's 3 point% article this week? Defenses really have no control?
can you expand on this a bit? (dont have a subscription). I've been saying for a while that 3 point shooting is up to the shooters, not the D, does his article support that?
Quote from: MUDPT on February 18, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Henry, what did you think of Pomeroy's 3 point% article this week? Defenses really have no control?
Quote from: JTBMU7 on February 19, 2012, 09:25:51 AM
can you expand on this a bit? (dont have a subscription). I've been saying for a while that 3 point shooting is up to the shooters, not the D, does his article support that?
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/defense_has_little_control_over_opponents_3p/
I'm not quite sure what to make of the post. There's not a lot of supporting text behind the graphs. It's in contrast to what is generally believed. However, Ken has access to a ton of data and he's earned the benefit of the doubt.
Point #1 is his second chart.
There is a statistical relationship between the percentage of 3PT attempts teams take in the 1H of conference play and the 2H of conference play. R^2 seems kind of low to me and he doesn't share the t-stat or p-value, but the picture shows a relationship. I interpret this chart as, "a way a team plays defense will cause their opponents to shoot a certain percentage of threes against them". For example, when playing Marquette, teams will shoot one-third of third of their FGAs as three point shots. (out of sixty FGAs, 20 will be 3PA).
Point #2 is his first chart.
There is no statistical relationship between how well opponents shoot in the 1H of conference play vs the 2H of conference play. If a team could influence how their opponents make shots, there should also be a relationship. In other words, if teams generally only hit 20% of their threes against Marquette in the 1H, they would also hit 20% of their threes in the 2H of conference play. This relationship does not exist.
It's a pretty mind-blowing concept, and
I guess the conclusion is that a team can influence the three point attempt percentage but not the three point completion percentage. Therefore, defenses should be designed as such.
Of course, that's only a guess,
Ken does his argument a disservice by not backing it up further with supporting logic. For example:
- Are there teams that are consistently good at 3 PT% defense? (quick scan says no, but where's the data?)
- For teams that are good (or bad) at 3 PT% defense in any given year, is there any consistency to their results or is it just luck?
- What's the counterfactual of this from an offensive perspective? In other words, does this mean that a team's 3 PT% offensively is also largely a matter of luck?
- What are the practical implications on designing a defense? Does this mean that you limit three point attempts vs a hot shooting team and allow more attempts vs a poor shooting team? How about the implications of opening up teams to a risky strategy (shooting more threes is "risky / high variance")
I remain unconvinced by his argument of two graphs and a conclusion. However, he raises a very interesting question that will make many people think and perhaps revise the way they look at a game.