Do we start the game in zone tonight?
Perhaps.
No, but we definitely go to it.
In a zone or in the zone?
Will we be on highway? Perhaps to some sort of zone? Maybe one of danger?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/H8iL56bXGjVE4/giphy.gif)
Quote from: jonny09 on February 21, 2018, 02:44:57 PM
Do we start the game in zone tonight?
Yes. Two words (well actually proper names...well, double actually, one proper name and one word fronting as a proper name): Shamorie Ponds
We should. If we play zone a majority of the time I will give all the credit to Wojo.
We should be exclusively in zone the rest of this season. I'll be scratching my head if we see ANY M2M tonight for four reasons:
1) We got great results at Creighton with the zone. (Granted it wasn't perfect and there were some holes in the middle at FT Line, but it stopped the layup line at the basket that had become customary against MU.)
2) We have no real back up PG.
3) Need to keep Rowsey as fresh and foul free as possible.
4) Our foul rate and free throw rate yielded dropped markedly against Creighton - all the more important with Markus out. Buzz used to like to make more free throws than the opposition attempted. Teams have been abusing us at the FT Line with attempts and percentage shot. FT rate and subsequent percentage made matta.
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 21, 2018, 03:33:51 PM
We should be exclusively in zone the rest of this season. I'll be scratching my head if we see ANY M2M tonight for four reasons:
1) We got great results at Creighton with the zone. (Granted it wasn't perfect and there were some holes in the middle at FT Line, but it stopped the layup line at the basket that had become customary against MU.)
2) We have no real back up PG.
3) Need to keep Rowsey as fresh and foul free as possible.
4) Our foul rate and free throw rate yielded dropped markedly against Creighton - all the more important with Markus out. Buzz used to like to make more free throws than the opposition attempted. Teams have been abusing us at the FT Line with attempts and percentage shot. FT rate and subsequent percentage made matta.
1) Just because something worked once does not mean it will work again. See the Otule Davante line-up
2) Elliott
3)True but he's not playing 40 anyways
4) Don't make me go get JayBee
I agree that we should be playing more zone than we have, but matchups and how well other teams are playing against the zone are factors to consider. Saying we should only play zone the rest of the year is the same kind of thinking that Wojo had when he first got here but with man. He threw that out the window within 6 months. No one system should be done exclusively on D.
Quote from: Its DJOver on February 21, 2018, 03:42:03 PM
1) Just because something worked once does not mean it will work again. See the Otule Davante line-up
2) Elliott
3)True but he's not playing 40 anyways
4) Don't make me go get JayBee
I agree that we should be playing more zone than we have, but matchups and how well other teams are playing against the zone are factors to consider. Saying we should only play zone the rest of the year is the same kind of thinking that Wojo had when he first got here but with man. He threw that out the window within 6 months. No one system should be done exclusively on D.
Greg is not a real backup PG.
Quote from: KampusFoods on February 21, 2018, 03:45:34 PM
Greg is not a real backup PG.
What position did he play in high school?
I understand why Wojo would start in a zone. To make the blanket statement that MU shouldn't play man the rest of the season is something that ners would have said. Oh........wait.........
The zone worked against Creighton. There have been times this year when it has been absolutely shredded. If MU starts in it tonight and it is effective at keeping Ponds out of the lane, Rowsey out of foul trouble, and SJU from controlling the offensive boards, keep at it. But don't be surprised if SJU has a game plan for the zone. At which point, gonna have to go man.
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 21, 2018, 03:33:51 PM
We should be exclusively in zone the rest of this season. I'll be scratching my head if we see ANY M2M tonight for four reasons:
1) We got great results at Creighton with the zone. (Granted it wasn't perfect and there were some holes in the middle at FT Line, but it stopped the layup line at the basket that had become customary against MU.)
2) We have no real back up PG.
3) Need to keep Rowsey as fresh and foul free as possible.
4) Our foul rate and free throw rate yielded dropped markedly against Creighton - all the more important with Markus out. Buzz used to like to make more free throws than the opposition attempted. Teams have been abusing us at the FT Line with attempts and percentage shot. FT rate and subsequent percentage made matta.
This. I think we went zone against SJU primarily to keep Rowsey on the floor with three fouls. Think we'll need to do the same tonight.
Quote from: tower912 on February 21, 2018, 03:50:32 PM
I understand why Wojo would start in a zone. To make the blanket statement that MU shouldn't play man the rest of the season is something that ners would have said. Oh........wait.........
The zone worked against Creighton. There have been times this year when it has been absolutely shredded. If MU starts in it tonight and it is effective at keeping Ponds out of the lane, Rowsey out of foul trouble, and SJU from controlling the offensive boards, keep at it. But don't be surprised if SJU has a game plan for the zone. At which point, gonna have to go man.
Is there a breakdown somewhere that shows how the zone does when only one of Rowsey and Howard are on the floor? That's really the question here.
remember Syracuse Zone...some people beat it...we did a couple of times. But it was effective as a primary defense. Something to be explored by Wojo.
Good point on Rowsey foul trouble...not saying he will get there...but if he does, it will be a problem.
and whatever we do, cane we keep ponds under 30 please.
Quote from: Windyplayer on February 21, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
Is there a breakdown somewhere that shows how the zone does when only one of Rowsey and Howard are on the floor? That's really the question here.
painttouches.com
Quote from: tower912 on February 21, 2018, 03:50:32 PM
I understand why Wojo would start in a zone. To make the blanket statement that MU shouldn't play man the rest of the season is something that ners would have said. Oh........wait.........
The zone worked against Creighton. There have been times this year when it has been absolutely shredded. If MU starts in it tonight and it is effective at keeping Ponds out of the lane, Rowsey out of foul trouble, and SJU from controlling the offensive boards, keep at it. But don't be surprised if SJU has a game plan for the zone. At which point, gonna have to go man.
What I don't understand is the people who say if the zone doesn't work let's go play our "great M2M", like that is going to work so well. Why don't you say when our M2M sucks let's play zone?
Quote from: denverMU on February 21, 2018, 03:08:47 PM
We should. If we play zone a majority of the time I will give all the credit to Wojo.
And if we do that... and we lose... will you still give credit to wojo for doing what YOU (some of us fans as well) want him to do?
Or will you rip him for losing the game?
Quote from: fjm on February 21, 2018, 04:15:01 PM
And if we do that... and we lose... will you still give credit to wojo for doing what YOU (some of us fans as well) want him to do?
Or will you rip him for losing the game?
Yes, I will be the first one to post my full support for Wojo. I already have said I want him to be our Coach. I just would like to see him coach to the talent on the team. We know our current team does not play M2M well. So we can keep playing M2M or we try something different. Go Wojo, Go MU, Go Warriors!
Quote from: denverMU on February 21, 2018, 04:09:57 PM
What I don't understand is the people who say if the zone doesn't work let's go play our "great M2M", like that is going to work so well. Why don't you say when our M2M sucks let's play zone?
I have no problem with playing zone. I don't believe it is a panacea. MU's man has been adequate against teams that don't run pick and roll (Seton Hall). It has been adequate when the two small guards aren't in the game. It has been lousy against pick and roll teams with two small guards in the game. Our zone looked good against Creighton. It has been lousy at other times. Playing two small guards at the top of the zone does not solve problems, it merely exchanges one set of problems for another. As I wrote earlier, if the zone is able to keep Ponds out of the lane, Rowsey out of foul trouble, and SJU off the boards, don't stop.
Quote from: tower912 on February 21, 2018, 05:00:02 PM
I have no problem with playing zone. I don't believe it is a panacea. MU's man has been adequate against teams that don't run pick and roll (Seton Hall). It has been adequate when the two small guards aren't in the game. It has been lousy against pick and roll teams with two small guards in the game. Our zone looked good against Creighton. It has been lousy at other times. Playing two small guards at the top of the zone does not solve problems, it merely exchanges one set of problems for another. As I wrote earlier, if the zone is able to keep Ponds out of the lane, Rowsey out of foul trouble, and SJU off the boards, don't stop.
Yes I agree, let's play the defense that works best. My issue is we play 95% M2M and expect a different outcome=insanity.
Quote from: tower912 on February 21, 2018, 03:50:32 PM
I understand why Wojo would start in a zone. To make the blanket statement that MU shouldn't play man the rest of the season is something that ners would have said. Oh........wait.........
The zone worked against Creighton. There have been times this year when it has been absolutely shredded. If MU starts in it tonight and it is effective at keeping Ponds out of the lane, Rowsey out of foul trouble, and SJU from controlling the offensive boards, keep at it. But don't be surprised if SJU has a game plan for the zone. At which point, gonna have to go man.
Repetition breeds consistency. We've been consistently bad in M2M defense. Okay..maybe a couple of outlier performances against Seton Hall.
We are 340ish in the country in 2pt FG percentage. We are undersized and generally out athletic-ed every game. You don't keep matching up man to man when the opposition tends to be physically superior and you have 25 games of data to show your M2M D is horse crap.
Wojo got the horseshoe of horseshoes with what happened at Creighton. He was essentially forced to stay zone all 2nd half due to foul trouble and no back up PG and to be saved from his own devices of playing Markus and Andrew together.
I predict Sacar on Ponds, the zone isn't the answer. Plus Theo will be playing, they missed him in NY. Marquette by 10.
Quote from: denverMU on February 21, 2018, 05:44:16 PM
Yes I agree, let's play the defense that works best. My issue is we play 95% M2M and expect a different outcome=insanity.
Who expected a different outcome? Our D is, and will be bad, all year.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on February 21, 2018, 06:18:05 PM
I predict Sacar on Ponds, the zone isn't the answer. Plus Theo will be playing, they missed him in NY. Marquette by 10.
Pretty sure Sacar started on Pond's much of the St. John's game. Then Mullin started running action to force a switch, and Hauser was frequently switched onto Ponds. As good of defender as Sam is - no match for Ponds.
We just had undoubtedly our best win of the year, and best defensive half of the year at Creighton. It was the first time Wojo stayed exclusively zone for an entire half. Throwing a zone in for a few possessions here and there and then reverting back to an atrocious M2M scheme is not the answer (with or without Theo).
The length of Cain in the zone was the secret sauce. I hope to see a lot of Sacar, Cain, Theo, and Elliott. A little Heldt sprinkled in. Hope to not see much of Harry.
Welp. Lots of man.
According to my calcs, we played 31 possessions of zone. They scored 33 points. Though a good portion of those 33 points came with less than 10 minutes to go in game when we had a decent lead.
Not great. Not awful.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 21, 2018, 09:54:50 PM
According to my calcs, we played 31 possessions of zone. They scored 33 points. Though a good portion of those 33 points came with less than 10 minutes to go in game when we had a decent lead.
Not great. Not awful.
That translates to 1.06ppp in zone. That is much better than we've been all year. It cannot be understated how much it is the combination of the zone + Cain - Howard that makes it a far more effective defense for this team.
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 21, 2018, 09:59:48 PM
That translates to 1.06ppp in zone. That is much better than we've been all year. It cannot be understated how much it is the combination of the zone + Cain - Howard that makes it a far more effective defense for this team.
Remember you can't just take that 1.06ppp versus our overall ppp because of our awful transition defense and points due to turnovers.
I am not saying the zone is worse than the man but be careful comparing apples to apples.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 21, 2018, 10:04:48 PM
Remember you can't just take that 1.06ppp versus our overall ppp because of our awful transition defense and points due to turnovers.
I am not saying the zone is worse than the man but be careful comparing apples to apples.
But that doesn't help his narrative!
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 21, 2018, 10:19:40 PM
But that doesn't help his narrative!
If you don't think this team is better suited to play zone, knock yourself out (and keep looking like an idiot.)
And FYI, the 1.06ppp was a reference to our whole season's body of work (not just the St. John's game.)
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 21, 2018, 09:59:48 PM
That translates to 1.06ppp in zone. That is much better than we've been all year.
Dis here is wrong.
Season ppp is .982
Great win. We are much more effective defensively playing zone.
Last night we played 41 possessions in zone and 20 possessions in man.
We allowed them to score on 15 possessions in zone (36.6%) and 6 possessions in man (30%).
I don't have the breakdown for how much they scored in those possessions. For example, I don't know if all 6 scoring possessions in man were and ones or 3 pointers.
Either way, it was fantastic defense last night, especially for us, with no drop off in offense. Bodes well moving forward.
Both man and zone were effective last night - Anim in particular did great work on Ponds. I think we switched to zone to slow the pace down more than anything. It allowed Rowsey to rest and limited the number of possessions STJ had to come back.
Quote from: #bansultan on February 22, 2018, 08:33:54 AM
Both man and zone were effective last night - Anim in particular did great work on Ponds. I think we switched to zone to slow the pace down more than anything. It allowed Rowsey to rest and limited the number of possessions STJ had to come back.
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 22, 2018, 08:08:59 AM
Last night we played 41 possessions in zone and 20 possessions in man.
We allowed them to score on 15 possessions in zone (36.6%) and 6 possessions in man (30%).
I don't have the breakdown for how much they scored in those possessions. For example, I don't know if all 6 scoring possessions in man were and ones or 3 pointers.
Either way, it was fantastic defense last night, especially for us, with no drop off in offense. Bodes well moving forward.
So Dano said 31 possessions in zone, you have it at 40. Are you not able to get a points per possession breakdown for the St. John's game? Also, what percentage of trips to the free throw line came from our M2M D?
Also, I'd be curious to know what our points per possession is in conference play prior to Creighton game. All I know is that in the Creighton game they averaged 1.51ppp in the first half and down to .94 in the second half when we went exclusively zone.
https://www.rumbleinthegarden.com/2018/2/20/17033448/st-johns-at-marquette-preview-how-to-watch-tv
Regardless, it was a MUCH better game defensively and by your count we played 66% of our D possessions in zone. What is true without question is that we are better served with more length for both M2M and zone, which isn't rocket science to any of us - yet we were seemingly intent on making the Rowsey/Markus lineup work - despite those two rarely ever playing well offensively the same night
Quote from: Floorslapper on February 22, 2018, 08:48:20 AM
So Dano said 31 possessions in zone, you have it at 40. Are you not able to get a points per possession breakdown for the St. John's game? Also, what percentage of trips to the free throw line came from our M2M D?
Also, I'd be curious to know what our points per possession is in conference play prior to Creighton game. All I know is that in the Creighton game they averaged 1.51ppp in the first half and down to .94 in the second half when we went exclusively zone.
https://www.rumbleinthegarden.com/2018/2/20/17033448/st-johns-at-marquette-preview-how-to-watch-tv
Regardless, it was a MUCH better game defensively and by your count we played 66% of our D possessions in zone. What is true without question is that we are better served with more length for both M2M and zone, which isn't rocket science to any of us - yet we were seemingly intent on making the Rowsey/Markus lineup work - despite those two rarely ever playing well offensively the same night
Agreed