(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Villanova.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Villanova.png.html)
Buzz is right that the offense was generally good enough. 1.17 ppp should be enough to win, but Marquette gave up 1.27 ppp.
There have been comments that MU lost due to offensive rebounds. I disagree. MU lost eFG%, Turnover Rate, AND offensive rebounding. The overall OR% was not significantly in Nova's favor.
One more point - Jake Thomas had the second worst "net points" game since I've been tracking the data. That's the second worst out of 900 data points. (The worst was Jamil Wilson @Florida)
seems like that FG% for MQ is way above normal (might be the highest of the season?)
Yes, Villanova only beat us on the boards by a little. The point is that rebounding against a smaller team should have been decidedly in our favor. But our guards were out rebounded 14-6, 14-1 without Derrick. Other than Derrick, we got 1 rebound in 65 minutes from our backcourt. We were slow to the ball all game. If we compete with Nova's backcourt for loose balls and long rebounds we win.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 27, 2014, 12:36:58 PM
Yes, Villanova only beat us on the boards by a little. The point is that rebounding against a smaller team should have been decidedly in our favor. But our guards were out rebounded 14-6, 14-1 without Derrick. Other than Derrick, we got 1 rebound in 65 minutes from our backcourt. We were slow to the ball all game. If we compete with Nova's backcourt for loose balls and long rebounds we win.
Remember that 50% of offense is eFG%, and we lost that by more than we lost OR%.
MU would have had to grab 50% of all ORs or they'd have to hold Nova to 22% OR% in order to overcome the other factors.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 27, 2014, 01:37:14 PM
Remember that 50% of offense is eFG%, and we lost that by more than we lost OR%.
MU would have had to grab 50% of all ORs or they'd have to hold Nova to 22% OR% in order to overcome the other factors.
We got rolled in the overtime, where there eFG% was off the charts. So, yes, when you include the overtime that looks to be the case. I'm talking about what it would have taken to win the game in regulation. We lost a stat (maybe the only stat) we figured to dominate during regulation. Take care of that part of our business and we don't play overtime.
wow - think we could have won in regulation...
if Mayo does not get hot, does not hit a crazy three from the corner, does not get a fortuitous 3 pt foul, does not converts all three FT's and the refs don't gift wrap a call for MU at the end, this game is not even close to OT...
must have been watching a different game...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 27, 2014, 02:09:08 PM
We got rolled in the overtime, where there eFG% was off the charts. So, yes, when you include the overtime that looks to be the case. I'm talking about what it would have taken to win the game in regulation. We lost a stat (maybe the only stat) we figured to dominate during regulation. Take care of that part of our business and we don't play overtime.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 27, 2014, 01:37:14 PM
Remember that 50% of offense is eFG%, and we lost that by more than we lost OR%.
MU would have had to grab 50% of all ORs or they'd have to hold Nova to 22% OR% in order to overcome the other factors.
Henry, dig your posts but this is one of those times that stats lie. In regulation we had quite a few possessions where our defense was solid and gave away an offensive rebound without boxing out and then they had an easy two or three.
What was their eFG% after an offensive rebound?
What is even worse is that we gave up all those offensive rebounds not playing zone and with no transition offense. I can live with giving up offensive rebounds if you end up with a decent amount of transition baskets when you do get the board. I do not recall many off of rebounds.
To me this game was lost not boxing out after a good defensive possession. How we could give up so many offensive rebounds when we have considerable size advantage, equal to or better athletes, and no transition game I will never know.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on January 27, 2014, 02:17:01 PM
wow - think we could have won in regulation...
if Mayo does not get hot, does not hit a crazy three from the corner, does not get a fortuitous 3 pt foul, does not converts all three FT's and the refs don't gift wrap a call for MU at the end, this game is not even close to OT...
must have been watching a different game...
I was watching the game in which much smaller Villanova scored a whole bunch of points (including at least 3 3 point shots) after missing their first shot. I was watching the game where almost every loose ball went to Villanova. I was watching the game where Steve missed two lay ups with nobody within 5 feet of him. And the game where we missed 10 free throws in the first 25 minutes. Lots of things could have rendered Todd's late game heroics unnecessary, but The missed shots don't bother me as much as what is either tentative play or lack of effort.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 27, 2014, 02:09:08 PM
We got rolled in the overtime, where there eFG% was off the charts. So, yes, when you include the overtime that looks to be the case. I'm talking about what it would have taken to win the game in regulation. We lost a stat (maybe the only stat) we figured to dominate during regulation. Take care of that part of our business and we don't play overtime.
Both teams had the same number of offensive rebounds. Villanova had one less turnover and two more defensive rebounds.
Villanova hit ten three point shots. Maybe next time the gameplan should be "don't let the opponent shoot 28 threes"
Again, MU would have had to grab 50% of all ORs or they'd have to hold Nova to 22% OR% in order to overcome the other factors.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 27, 2014, 02:48:20 PM
Both teams had the same number of offensive rebounds. Villanova had one less turnover and two more defensive rebounds.
Villanova hit ten three point shots. Maybe next time the gameplan should be "don't let the opponent shoot 28 threes"
Again, MU would have had to grab 50% of all ORs or they'd have to hold Nova to 22% OR% in order to overcome the other factors.
MU faces such a huge deficit every game due to its not only poor 3pt shooting percentage, but also its overall lack of attempts. We simply have a hard time even getting 3 point shots! And the ones we do, are usually quite rushed/not good looks which explains the low percentage. Pretty sure this has to do with us having a PG who simply cannot break down the defense off the dribble, nor be a willing 3 point shooter.
If you don't have a good 3 point offense in college hoops - you are going to struggle to win games. We are 314 in the country in 3 point percentage and 328 in the country on 3 point, point distribution.
I suspect playing Dawson, Mayo, Jake with Jamil and Davante would open things up quite a bit...mix in Steve Taylor in place of Jake on occasion...
Quote from: Ners on January 27, 2014, 03:30:54 PM
MU faces such a huge deficit every game due to its not only poor 3pt shooting percentage, but also its overall lack of attempts. We simply have a hard time even getting 3 point shots! And the ones we do, are usually quite rushed/not good looks which explains the low percentage. Pretty sure this has to do with us having a PG who simply cannot break down the defense off the dribble, nor be a willing 3 point shooter.
Here is the per game 3 point shooting last year compared to this year so far.
2012-13: 4.2/14.17 .2963 (35 games)
2013-14: 4.6/15.35 .2996 (20 games)
I know that you now have this idea that everything that ails this team is due to Derrick Wilson, but as you can see, we are basically taking and hitting as many threes this year as we did last year.
"Eye test" fails again.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 27, 2014, 02:28:12 PM
Henry, dig your posts but this is one of those times that stats lie. In regulation we had quite a few possessions where our defense was solid and gave away an offensive rebound without boxing out and then they had an easy two or three.
What was their eFG% after an offensive rebound?
What is even worse is that we gave up all those offensive rebounds not playing zone and with no transition offense. I can live with giving up offensive rebounds if you end up with a decent amount of transition baskets when you do get the board. I do not recall many off of rebounds.
To me this game was lost not boxing out after a good defensive possession. How we could give up so many offensive rebounds when we have considerable size advantage, equal to or better athletes, and no transition game I will never know.
+1
We also had a point guard that was really good at attacking seams, pushed the ball more effectively in transition, and made passes on time and on target.
So yeah, the shooting percentages from 3 might be equal, but it doesn't mean PG play isn't a big issue.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 27, 2014, 03:40:25 PM
Here is the per game 3 point shooting last year compared to this year so far.
2012-13: 4.2/14.17 .2963 (35 games)
2013-14: 4.6/15.35 .2996 (20 games)
I know that you now have this idea that everything that ails this team is due to Derrick Wilson, but as you can see, we are basically taking and hitting as many threes this year as we did last year.
"Eye test" fails again.
Yes, but this year we don't hit as many mid-range 2's, either. And we get little penetration from our guards to create either for themselves or others. And, in general, our defense isn't as good.
It is very difficult to go into a game knowing you will be outscored by 21 or more from 3-point range and by 30 or more by the opponent's backcourt because it is a guard's game.
We overcame our 3-point situation last year by getting very good all-around play from several players and a break-out season by Vander Blue, who became a dependable (and sometimes deadly) mid-range shooter.
And don't forget ... we almost lost to Davidson in great part because we couldn't hit 3s -- and then we beat them because we did hit three late 3s. Then we ultimately lost to Syracuse because we couldn't hit a shot more than about 30 inches from the basket.
You gotta make perimeter shots in today's basketball -- because your opponent will! (And it would be nice if you grab the rebounds when they miss theirs.)
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 27, 2014, 03:45:09 PM
We also had a point guard that was really good at attacking seams, pushed the ball more effectively in transition, and made passes on time and on target.
So yeah, the shooting percentages from 3 might be equal, but it doesn't mean PG play isn't a big issue.
APG
Junior Cadougan '12-13 3.8
Derrick Wilson '13-'14 3.8
Yep, Junior was so much better at attacking seams and creating offense.
Quote from: MU82 on January 27, 2014, 03:47:48 PM
Yes, but this year we don't hit as many mid-range 2's, either. And we get little penetration from our guards to create either for themselves or others. And, in general, our defense isn't as good.
It is very difficult to go into a game knowing you will be outscored by 21 or more from 3-point range and by 30 or more by the opponent's backcourt because it is a guard's game.
We overcame our 3-point situation last year by getting very good all-around play from several players and a break-out season by Vander Blue, who became a dependable (and sometimes deadly) mid-range shooter.
I don't disagree with the mid-range jumper point. However I would like to see where we end up with scoring.
Right now we actually are scoring more ppg (72) than we did last year (68). Although undoubtedly that will decrease as the season wears on. Even if we only score 60 for the next ten games, we will be at 67.7.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 27, 2014, 03:59:15 PM
APG
Junior Cadougan '12-13 3.8
Derrick Wilson '13-'14 3.8
Yep, Junior was so much better at attacking seams and creating offense.
You honestly can't be arguing that Derrick is an equal to Junior offensively.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 27, 2014, 03:59:15 PM
APG
Junior Cadougan '12-13 3.8
Derrick Wilson '13-'14 3.8
Yep, Junior was so much better at attacking seams and creating offense.
Facts might get in the way of blaming everything on Derrick.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 27, 2014, 04:09:27 PM
Facts might get in the way of blaming everything on Derrick.
Because there's no middle ground between saying PG play is an issue, and blaming everything on Derrick.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 27, 2014, 04:09:27 PM
Facts might get in the way of blaming everything on Derrick.
+1
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 27, 2014, 04:06:32 PM
You honestly can't be arguing that Derrick is an equal to Junior offensively.
This is what you said: "We also had a point guard that was really good at attacking seams, pushed the ball more effectively in transition, and made passes on time and on target."
Making passes on time and on target to me = an assist. Maybe you meant a pass on time and on target that didn't lead to a score? Doesn't make much sense but that could be what you meant I guess.
Derrick this year and Junior last year are averaging the same number of assists per game. Not sure in what other way you could argue that one is better at creating offense for others than by the number of assists they get.
Also not sure why you are now trying to change the argument to whether or not Derrick is equal to Junior offensively. Junior scored about 3-4 more points per game than Derrick so that's obviously not the case.
getting an assist for passing to Davante who is 10' from the basket and backs his man down to the hoop for a layup or passing to Todd who drives,steps back ,creating space, and drains a three are not equal to passing to a cutting ST or driving the lane and passing out to an open shooter. there are assists and then there are assists.
Quote from: elephantraker on January 27, 2014, 04:25:23 PM
getting an assist for passing to Davante who is 10' from the basket and backs his man down to the hoop for a layup or passing to Todd who drives,steps back ,creating space, and drains a three are not equal to passing to a cutting ST or driving the lane and passing out to an open shooter. there are assists and then there are assists.
Oh, ok.
How many of each kind does Derrick have? How many did Junior have?
Once we know that then we should be able to truly compare one against the other.
Quote from: elephantraker on January 27, 2014, 04:25:23 PM
getting an assist for passing to Davante who is 10' from the basket and backs his man down to the hoop for a layup or passing to Todd who drives,steps back ,creating space, and drains a three are not equal to passing to a cutting ST or driving the lane and passing out to an open shooter. there are assists and then there are assists.
And of course you have done an in-depth study of Junior's versus Derrick's assists?
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 27, 2014, 04:31:04 PM
And of course you have done an in-depth study of Junior's versus Derrick's assists?
Beat you by :45! ;D
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on January 27, 2014, 04:31:04 PM
And of course you have done an in-depth study of Junior's versus Derrick's assists?
I'm way too effen lazy, but I'd love to see Paint Touches or somebody else do something on this.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 27, 2014, 04:17:25 PM
Making passes on time and on target to me = an assist. Maybe you meant a pass on time and on target that didn't lead to a score? Doesn't make much sense but that could be what you meant I guess.
Derrick this year and Junior last year are averaging the same number of assists per game. Not sure in what other way you could argue that one is better at creating offense for others than by the number of assists they get.
Creating offense is more than assists, which is why I mentioned attacking and transition play as well.
Obviously, assists are a part of it. Sometimes, the pass that sets up the assist is just as important, when it comes to getting guys in position to score. The "hockey assist," which coaches are starting to track now. Junior was pretty good at that. Derrick tends to take a couple extra dribbles before making a decision. That's why I said on time and on target.
MU isn't getting as many buckets in transition. Part of that is on the PG, and some on the personnel around him. I think Derrick doesn't see where he's going with the ball as quickly as Junior did. Conversely, Wilson is stuck with Jake floating to the wing, instead of Vander attacking the hoop.
As far as attacking seams goes, Junior got really good at getting into the paint. Take last year's UW game as an example... Junior found gaps and made some big baskets in the paint. Did the same against Butler in the NCAAs. To his credit, Wilson has been better with that of late.
Look, I'm not blaming everything on Derrick. If you want to simplify "creating offense" to the assists per game number, that's fine. I watch the games very closely, and have seen a marked difference in those areas from last year to this one.
Quote from: elephantraker on January 27, 2014, 04:25:23 PM
getting an assist for passing to Davante who is 10' from the basket and backs his man down to the hoop for a layup or passing to Todd who drives,steps back ,creating space, and drains a three are not equal to passing to a cutting ST or driving the lane and passing out to an open shooter. there are assists and then there are assists.
Truth.
What's also true is the opposition guarded Junior on the perimeter and in the mid range. We also had a transition game last year. Our fast break points scored this year is abysmal.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 27, 2014, 04:09:27 PM
Facts might get in the way of blaming everything on Derrick.
Again, I don't think anyone has blamed everything on Derrick. Says something about your argument when you need to make something up to prove your point.
Saying DW is the biggest weakness is a very, very far cry from placing all blame on Derrick.
Quote from: MUfan12 on January 27, 2014, 04:37:52 PM
Creating offense is more than assists, which is why I mentioned attacking and transition play as well.
Obviously, assists are a part of it. Sometimes, the pass that sets up the assist is just as important, when it comes to getting guys in position to score. The "hockey assist," which coaches are starting to track now. Junior was pretty good at that. Derrick tends to take a couple extra dribbles before making a decision. That's why I said on time and on target.
MU isn't getting as many buckets in transition. Part of that is on the PG, and some on the personnel around him. I think Derrick doesn't see where he's going with the ball as quickly as Junior did. Conversely, Wilson is stuck with Jake floating to the wing, instead of Vander attacking the hoop.
As far as attacking seams goes, Junior got really good at getting into the paint. Take last year's UW game as an example... Junior found gaps and made some big baskets in the paint. Did the same against Butler in the NCAAs. To his credit, Wilson has been better with that of late.
Look, I'm not blaming everything on Derrick. If you want to simplify "creating offense" to the assists per game number, that's fine. I watch the games very closely, and have seen a marked difference in those areas from last year to this one.
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 27, 2014, 04:09:27 PM
Facts might get in the way of blaming everything on Derrick.
MU last year: Elite 8; 26-9
MU this year: Toilet Bowl; 11-9
Just the facts M'am.
Could go on a 15 game win streak, aina?
Quote from: elephantraker on January 27, 2014, 04:25:23 PM
getting an assist for passing to Davante who is 10' from the basket and backs his man down to the hoop for a layup or passing to Todd who drives,steps back ,creating space, and drains a three are not equal to passing to a cutting ST or driving the lane and passing out to an open shooter. there are assists and then there are assists.
In another thread, someone checked the game play-by-play and found all of derrick's assists. None of them came from Davante backing down his defender. I can't remember if one came from a Mayo 3.
Assist breakdown done by ATL MU Warrior...
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 27, 2014, 07:14:36 AM
You and I tend to fall on the same "side" of this debate or at least see things the same way. However, according to the play by play on espn.com, Derrick's assists break down like this:
REGULATION
- Chris for dunk. Good post-entry pass (thought Derrick couldn't do this) to Chris
- Steve for layup. Don't remember this play but must have been another interior pass which derrick cannot do
- Jamil for layup. same comment as for steve
- Jamil for jumper
- Todd Mayo layup
- Todd Mayo 3-pointer
OT
- Gardner for jumper
So in regulation, 4 out of 6 assists were for layups/dunks to four different guys. I don't remember the particulars for some of them, but as is usually the case, the bashers are making up their own facts (Derrick's assists are BS, Gardner backed his guy down and did all the work, etc., etc.). Total fantasy made up by a bunch of frustrated fans looking for someone to blame.
BTW, 6-9 of Gardners buckets were credited an assist, mostly by Jamil.
I agree that Derrick isn't great. I would like to see him split time with John Dawson. But, he's not as bad as most here make him out to be. A simple review of the facts tells you that.
Quote from: brandx on January 27, 2014, 04:58:42 PM
Again, I don't think anyone has blamed everything on Derrick.
I don't blame Derrick for a single thing.
Derrick is who he is. It is not his fault he isn't John Stockton or Chris Paul or even Junior Cadougan. He obviously works hard and plays hard and does his best.
I'm a big Buzz fan, but he makes mistakes, too. His over-reliance on a guy who should be an 8-15 mpg backup PG is his fault and his alone. Oh sure, Vander leaving and Duane's injury were unlucky, but the buck stops at Buzz, and he didn't give his team the best chance of winning right from the start this season because he didn't give his team a true high-major PG. And now he doesn't give Derrick the best chance to succeed because he plays Derrick too many minutes and asks him to do too much offensively.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 27, 2014, 11:39:20 AM
There have been comments that MU lost due to offensive rebounds. I disagree. MU lost eFG%, Turnover Rate, AND offensive rebounding. The overall OR% was not significantly in Nova's favor.
Thanks for the stats. Just because our good offensive rebounding offset our bad defensive rebounding, it doesn't mean our defensive rebounding wasn't bad. From following the game log on ESPN,com (don't know how reliable that is), I counted 16 second chance points scored and 16 second chance points allowed. Gardner was a monster on the offensive boards, as most of those 16 came on his offensive rebounds.
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 28, 2014, 07:20:04 AM
Thanks for the stats. Just because our good offensive rebounding offset our bad defensive rebounding, it doesn't mean our defensive rebounding wasn't bad. From following the game log on ESPN,com (don't know how reliable that is), I counted 16 second chance points scored and 16 second chance points allowed. Gardner was a monster on the offensive boards, as most of those 16 came on his offensive rebounds.
I'm not arguing that defensive rebounding was good. It wasn't.
My point is that defensive rebounding is not the best culprit for why MU lost. MU lost
all three of the most important Factors. They lost eFG%
AND TORate
AND Offensive Rebounding Percentage.
I'll put it another way. MU lost by 0.10 ppp
eFG% - 0.06
TO - 0.02
OR - 0.02
Arguing that defensive rebounding was
the problem obfuscates the truth. The biggest culprit on the margin of loss was the eFG% difference. In particular, I argue they lost because Villanova took 28 threes and hit 10 of them.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on January 27, 2014, 09:14:05 PM
Assist breakdown done by ATL MU Warrior.
Thanks for the credit Rocky. ;D
I actually spent some time at work yesterday (for shame I know) going through each of our games this year on ESPN.com and breaking down all of Derrick's assists by the type of score they generated. I did this using espn.com's play by play which has three categories of scores: Dunk/layup, jumper, 3-pointer. There were a few games where the total assists credited to Derrick didn't jive with the play-by-play so in those cases I grouped the assist into an "unknown" category.
So, the first thing I noticed is that Derrick has accounted for 25.6% of MU's assists so far this year. To me this is important because it is the primary way in which you can see (statistically at least) his ability as a PG to be the catalyst in creating offense for others. In our wins (for the most part lesser opponents where DW likely got fewer minutes) that number drops to 22.5%. In our losses (quality opponents, DW plays more minutes) that number increases to 32%. Cupcakes removed, the number is 27.2%.
For comparison sake, I went back and looked at previous MU PGs to see what their full season totals were:
Junior 12-13 27.5%
Junior 11-12 29.0%
Junior 10-11 20.0%
Dwight 10-11 21.0%
Acker 09-10 24.6%
DJ 08-09 27.3%
DJ 07-08 29.9%
DJ 06-07 35.2%
DJ 05-06 34.6%
Diener 04-05 37.7%
Diener 03-04 47.1%
Diener 02-03 34.3%I have bolded the PGs/years that seem to be far and away the leaders (Diener *wow* and DJ's first two years) in generating team offense. At first glance, it appears that Derrick's performance so far this year isn't terribly inconsistent with Junior or DJ's last couple of years. If you look at his performance against only our best opponents, his numbers equal/surpass Junior and DJ's last couple of years. Of course, we are not winning any of those games. But, those losses don't appear to be due to our PG's ability to generate team offense, at least in comparison to earlier MU PG's and the % of team assists they generated.
Now, on to Derrick's # and % of assists by type of basket scored:
Dunk/Layup Jumper 3-Pointer Unknown Total
# 22 15 33 6 76
% 29% 20% 43% 8% 100%
So, the eyeball test is pretty accurate in this area as the largest # of DW's assists have been on 3-pointers (still not sure how that's a bad thing, especially since this team is so god awful at 3-point shooting). BUT, nearly a 3rd of his assists are on baskets scored at the rim which is something that many think Derrick isn't capable of doing.
I didn't have time to do this same exercise for Junior, but I think it would be a very interesting comparison. Hopefully I will be able to get to it later this week, but duty calls at work for the next couple of days.
Now, for those that are more statistically savvy than I am...feel free to rip to shreds!