We have heard multiple times this year, in multiple game threads, that teams seem to go off against us from three point land. Some call it luck, some call it poor 3P defense...whatever the reason, the perception is there. It has certainly seemed that way but I don't remember ever seeing someone crunch the numbers. I decided to do it myself.
The answer is....yes and no.
So that's a frustrating answer I know, but I will explain.
Marquette has allowed teams to shoot more than their average 3PM in 16/24 games. Of the 8 where they didn't, 2 were held to their average (IUPUI and Butler), 2 were cupcakes (IUPUI and Samford), and 2 were losses (tOSU, Bucky). Most of the time when Marquette allowed above average 3PM, it was only by 1 or 2. The worst performance was against Depaul (10 made, average is 5.8).
In addition, Marquette has allowed teams to shoot above their average 3P% in 15/24 games. Of the 9 where they didn't, 3 were cupcakes (Grambling, IUPUI, Samford) and 3 were losses (tOSU, Bucky, Creighton)
Essentially, the only times Marquette has held a decent team to less than average 3P shooting and won is against Providence and Butler (at home). All of their other victories they have had to overcome above average three point shooting.
HOWEVER, if you look at other teams' 3P% averaged together it is 34.59%. Opponents are shooting 34.26% from 3 against Marquette. So Marquette is holding opponents slightly UNDER their average 3P%.
How is this possible? In those couple of games where Marquette 3P defense has been good...it has been VERY good. For example, they held Samford to 1 3PM and 8.3% shooting. You eliminate that single game and that 34.26% all of the sudden becomes 35.59%.
So there it is. Statistical proof that MU consistently gives up more threes to their opponents than average. Though maybe by not enough to be getting "torched"
So why is this happening? Bad luck? Bad 3P defense? Or some combination? Personally, I think our 2P defense is so good that teams are forced to jack up threes against us.
They either go in or they don't.
My issue is that they allow too many 3's to be taken. An example would be Creighton. The #1 emphasis on defense should be to prevent 3s from being taken - yet they allowed 35 3-point shots.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2014, 09:12:15 PM
We have heard multiple times this year, in multiple game threads, that teams seem to go off against us from three point land. Some call it luck, some call it poor 3P defense...whatever the reason, the perception is there. It has certainly seemed that way but I don't remember ever seeing someone crunch the numbers. I decided to do it myself.
The answer is....yes and no.
So that's a frustrating answer I know, but I will explain.
Marquette has allowed teams to shoot more than their average 3PM in 16/24 games. Of the 8 where they didn't, 2 were held to their average (IUPUI and Butler), 2 were cupcakes (IUPUI and Samford), and 2 were losses (tOSU, Bucky). Most of the time when Marquette allowed above average 3PM, it was only by 1 or 2. The worst performance was against Depaul (10 made, average is 5.8).
In addition, Marquette has allowed teams to shoot above their average 3P% in 15/24 games. Of the 9 where they didn't, 3 were cupcakes (Grambling, IUPUI, Samford) and 3 were losses (tOSU, Bucky, Creighton)
Essentially, the only times Marquette has held a decent team to less than average 3P shooting and won is against Providence and Butler (at home). All of their other victories they have had to overcome above average three point shooting.
HOWEVER, if you look at other teams' 3P% averaged together it is 34.59%. Opponents are shooting 34.26% from 3 against Marquette. So Marquette is holding opponents slightly UNDER their average 3P%.
How is this possible? In those couple of games where Marquette 3P defense has been good...it has been VERY good. For example, they held Samford to 1 3PM and 8.3% shooting. You eliminate that single game and that 34.26% all of the sudden becomes 35.59%.
So there it is. Statistical proof that MU consistently gives up more threes to their opponents than average. Though maybe by not enough to be getting "torched"
So why is this happening? Bad luck? Bad 3P defense? Or some combination? Personally, I think our 2P defense is so good that teams are forced to jack up threes against us.
Yeah, I've noticed we shut down teams inside for 20+ seconds, many times they then force the 3 or find an open shooter
Quote from: brandx on February 11, 2014, 09:16:24 PM
They either go in or they don't.
My issue is that they allow too many 3's to be taken. An example would be Creighton. The #1 emphasis on defense should be to prevent 3s from being taken - yet they allowed 35 3-point shots.
+1000. There are many advanced stats people that don't believe in 3 point defense. You either allow them to shoot them or not. We are currently ranked 300 in 3PA/ FGA. Not good.
Just look at Xavier Thames numbers tonight vs freaking Wyoming
FOL!!!!
Quote from: brandx on February 11, 2014, 09:16:24 PM
They either go in or they don't.
My issue is that they allow too many 3's to be taken. An example would be Creighton. The #1 emphasis on defense should be to prevent 3s from being taken - yet they allowed 35 3-point shots.
Yep. The fundamental flaw with their three point defense is the closeout. They move on the catch, and not on the pass. Flying at a shooter doesn't matter if you give them a clean catch and release.
They did a much better job doing that on Oliver down the stretch last night.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2014, 09:12:15 PM
We have heard multiple times this year, in multiple game threads, that teams seem to go off against us from three point land. Some call it luck, some call it poor 3P defense...whatever the reason, the perception is there. It has certainly seemed that way but I don't remember ever seeing someone crunch the numbers. I decided to do it myself.
The answer is....yes and no.
So that's a frustrating answer I know, but I will explain.
Marquette has allowed teams to shoot more than their average 3PM in 16/24 games. Of the 8 where they didn't, 2 were held to their average (IUPUI and Butler), 2 were cupcakes (IUPUI and Samford), and 2 were losses (tOSU, Bucky). Most of the time when Marquette allowed above average 3PM, it was only by 1 or 2. The worst performance was against Depaul (10 made, average is 5.8).
In addition, Marquette has allowed teams to shoot above their average 3P% in 15/24 games. Of the 9 where they didn't, 3 were cupcakes (Grambling, IUPUI, Samford) and 3 were losses (tOSU, Bucky, Creighton)
Essentially, the only times Marquette has held a decent team to less than average 3P shooting and won is against Providence and Butler (at home). All of their other victories they have had to overcome above average three point shooting.
HOWEVER, if you look at other teams' 3P% averaged together it is 34.59%. Opponents are shooting 34.26% from 3 against Marquette. So Marquette is holding opponents slightly UNDER their average 3P%.
How is this possible? In those couple of games where Marquette 3P defense has been good...it has been VERY good. For example, they held Samford to 1 3PM and 8.3% shooting. You eliminate that single game and that 34.26% all of the sudden becomes 35.59%.
So there it is. Statistical proof that MU consistently gives up more threes to their opponents than average. Though maybe by not enough to be getting "torched"
So why is this happening? Bad luck? Bad 3P defense? Or some combination? Personally, I think our 2P defense is so good that teams are forced to jack up threes against us.
I think this is a pretty good theory.
I am curious about the "stop the three" philosophy, but have neither the time nor the talent to go through the numbers. Against Creighton, when they were hitting everything I couldn't believe we wouldn't emphasize stopping the attempt--but then they never seemed to cool off. Last night SH went on a tear of threes, then the law of averages caught up, their threes started clanking, and we were doing such a great job rebounding on both ends we managed to pull away.
Quote from: connie on February 12, 2014, 11:20:21 AM
I think this is a pretty good theory.
I am curious about the "stop the three" philosophy, but have neither the time nor the talent to go through the numbers. Against Creighton, when they were hitting everything I couldn't believe we wouldn't emphasize stopping the attempt--but then they never seemed to cool off. Last night SH went on a tear of threes, then the law of averages caught up, their threes started clanking, and we were doing such a great job rebounding on both ends we managed to pull away.
Actually Creighton shot about 6% below their season average for 3P% that game. They shot more threes than usual, but they were going in at a less accurate rate
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 12, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
Actually Creighton shot about 6% below their season average for 3P% that game. They shot more threes than usual, but they were going in at a less accurate rate
In other words, the way that Creighton can beat you is to shoot a
LOT of 3s. And we let them do it.
It stems from Buzz's second year at MU. Just like he stressed 'paint touches' on offense, he stressed denial of the same on defense. With that small team, the most important thing was keeping the ball out of the paint, through double teams, sloughing to the middle, rotations, etc. It is still the core of his defensive philosophy. Keeping the ball out of the paint. That is why he doubles the PG on the high pick and roll. It is why if it is a 50-50 match up down low, let alone a post of advantage, he doubles the post. It is why there is always help when the guard drives. After the paint is denied, however, comes recovery. And that is why sometimes MU gets torched from 3. If the opponent is skilled at passing out of the double team and has good catch and shoot 3 pt shooters, it can, as we have all seen from time to time, get ugly. That is why it is considered an adjustment when Jake goes into 'no-help' mode like he did in the last 10 minutes last night. Or when Derrick works so hard on Cullum before he has the ball. This has been consistent during Buzz's tenure. Watch the games. First priority is to keep the ball out of the paint. If it gets there, help. Then recover.
Quote from: tower912 on February 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
It stems from Buzz's second year at MU. Just like he stressed 'paint touches' on offense, he stressed denial of the same on defense. With that small team, the most important thing was keeping the ball out of the paint, through double teams, sloughing to the middle, rotations, etc. It is still the core of his defensive philosophy. Keeping the ball out of the paint. That is why he doubles the PG on the high pick and roll. It is why if it is 50-50 match up down low, let alone a post of advantage, he doubles the post. It is why there is always help when the guard drives. After the paint is denied, however, comes recovery. And that is why sometimes MU gets torched from 3. If the opponent is skilled at passing out of the double team and has good catch and shoot 3 pt shooters, it can, as we have all seen from time to time, get ugly. That is why it is considered and adjustment when Jake goes into 'no-help' mode like he did in the last 10 minutes last night. Or when Derrick works so hard on Cullum before he has the ball. This has been consistent during Buzz's tenure. Watch the games. First priority is to keep the ball out of the paint. If it gets there, help. Then recover.
tower912 is correct. Buzz uses a lot of help defense to protect the lane. As a result its often hard to close out on 3 point shooters who get a clean catch and then pop the 3 before the defender can close.. This is also a carryover from the TC regime.
Quote from: MUDPT on February 11, 2014, 10:17:53 PM
+1000. There are many advanced stats people that don't believe in 3 point defense. You either allow them to shoot them or not. We are currently ranked 300 in 3PA/ FGA. Not good.
co-sign to brandx and this.
On a related note, I've tinkered around a bit with some data on Paint Touches (the stat). Stay tuned for the forthcoming cracked sidewalks article, "Are Paint Touches Bullsh*t?"*
*whenever I actually get to it.
The other thing about this defensive philosophy relative to this team is that it is difficult to learn all of the nuance. If a coach says (Freshman X) is a poor defender or needs to understand the defense, it has nothing to do with how he does guarding someone one on one. It is all about how well he understands his help, recovery, rotation responsibilities. It is why Buzz says that Jake plays to the scouting report. Jake understands where he is supposed to be on every help, recovery, and rotation. Yes, he can then get beat one on one off of the dribble. But Buzz trusts him to be in the right spot nearly every time and guard to the best of his ability.
This isn't anything new. I flash back to the Vanderbilt (IIRC?) game at home a few years ago where Crowder and Buycks doubled the dribbler at the top of the key, the picker slipped to the basket, Otule had to choose whether to leave his man in the post or stop the roller, made the wrong choice, and MU lost on a last second, easy lay up. Buycks, Crowder, and Otule weren't all in sync on their responsibilities. Lost game.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on February 12, 2014, 02:16:00 PM
co-sign to brandx and this.
On a related note, I've tinkered around a bit with some data on Paint Touches (the stat). Stay tuned for the forthcoming cracked sidewalks article, "Are Paint Touches Bullsh*t?"*
*whenever I actually get to it.
Look forward to seeing this. Thanks in advance.