After OSU, it looked like Marquette had finally figured out the defensive end of the floor. Pundits were talking them up and the narrative seemed set that Wojo's team was buying in on the defensive end. Since then, Marquette's defense has taken a turn not just for the worse, but maybe the worst. Cracked Sidewalks looks at a Marquette program that is Defenseless, Again:
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2020/12/defenseless-again.html?m=1
Just a ding, MU has the 17th ranked offense now.
Just some observations since the season started re defense:
1) once again, no use of full court or 3/4 court pressure;
2) lack of closing out on the perimeter;
3) no switching of defenses;
4) failure to keep arms up/out;
5) no effort to get into passing lanes;
6) not making opponent pay for giving up dribble.
I just think of how some coaches capitalize on strong defensive pressure, such as Pitino, Huggins, and Anderson. Why can't Wojo ever try to create pressure...even if only 10 possessions per half?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 20, 2020, 06:26:26 PM
Just a ding, MU has the 17th ranked offense now.
I assume you meant 71st ranked defense? I was jumping between kenpom and T-Rank; kenpom has our defense at #71, T-Rank at #76. But I took your advice (assuming I interpreted correctly) for consistency's sake. Thanks!
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 20, 2020, 06:56:01 PM
I assume you meant 71st ranked defense? I was jumping between kenpom and T-Rank; kenpom has our defense at #71, T-Rank at #76. But I took your advice (assuming I interpreted correctly) for consistency's sake. Thanks!
No I was referencing this quote:
QuoteThe question is, if this team isn't as offensively gifted as the teams we've had in recent years...
It looks like we have the same DNA as other Wojo teams. Great O, No D. 17th best offense after today per KPom.
Quote from: Warrior84 on December 20, 2020, 06:49:05 PM
Just some observations since the season started re defense:
1) once again, no use of full court or 3/4 court pressure;
2) lack of closing out on the perimeter;
3) no switching of defenses;
4) failure to keep arms up/out;
5) no effort to get into passing lanes;
6) not making opponent pay for giving up dribble.
I just think of how some coaches capitalize on strong defensive pressure, such as Pitino, Huggins, and Anderson. Why can't Wojo ever try to create pressure...even if only 10 possessions per half?
Agree with all of this. Paint Touches pointed out that we are often a half-second slow on closeouts at the arc. That, along with not having a hand up or having it half-heartedly up, has led to teams shooting well against us from three. While it's easy to say Green Bay was hitting crazy shots, Creighton was hitting crazy shots, Seton Hall was hitting crazy shots...at some point, giving up those shots is just who you are. Xavier did it again today. I'd almost be more surprised if Villanova didn't do it on Wednesday, though with how we perform against top-10 teams, they could go 16/27 from three and we might still find a way to win.
Really can't can't play pressure defense with a 7 man rotation. (OK 7.50 with Sy)
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 20, 2020, 07:00:46 PMIt looks like we have the same DNA as other Wojo teams. Great O, No D. 17th best offense after today per KPom.
Oh, gotcha. The offense has run hot and cold, but when it's on, it has shown the ability to carry us (Creighton the most notable part). The quote was largely a reference to the Brian Hamilton article I linked at the start which indicated the staff and players expected defense to be more of a calling card than offense.
I agree that this team does a lot of things wrong on the defense end.
But I think running any sort of pressure with this crew would be disasterous.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on December 20, 2020, 07:13:37 PM
I agree that this team does a lot of things wrong on the defense end.
But I think running any sort of pressure with this crew would be disasterous.
Not suggesting Marquette incorporates a "40 minutes of Hell" defense used by Nolan Anderson or a Shaka Smart VCU-type of constant pressure, but how about an occasional full court or at least a 3/4 court trap defense. This is a "faster" Wojo team than others. Catch your opponent by surprise. Mix things up. Otherwise, "predictability" is the easiest defense to prepare for by our opponents.
Quote from: Warrior84 on December 20, 2020, 07:33:31 PM
Not suggesting Marquette incorporates a "40 minutes of Hell" defense used by Nolan Anderson or a Shaka Smart VCU-type of constant pressure, but how about an occasional full court or at least a 3/4 court trap defense. This is a "faster" Wojo team than others. Catch your opponent by surprise. Mix things up. Otherwise, "predictability" is the easiest defense to prepare for by our opponents.
Because that type of defense requires more discipline and basic defensive knowledge than Wojo teams seem to possess.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on December 20, 2020, 07:39:30 PM
Because that type of defense requires more discipline and basic defensive knowledge than Wojo teams seem to possess.
If he's really a B+/C+ coach (your ranking) that means he has near elite (B+) players and he's above average (C+) at coaching them up. Shouldn't an above average coach be able to impart discipline and basic defensive knowledge to near elite players?
Having a discussion online and Rob from Cracked Sidewalks pointed out how Wojo's anathema to force turnovers coupled with Marquette's own propensity to turn the ball over on offense exacerbates our problems. Turnovers are the most likely way to create fast break opportunities. Those are possessions with a very high likelihood of scoring. So by not creating easy offense of your own through forced turnovers while simultaneously giving your opponents extra possessions and easy offense with the turnovers you give away, we are allowing our offense to make our defense worse and our defense to make our offense worse. It's a vicious circle of compounded flawed strategies.
Quote from: Warrior84 on December 20, 2020, 06:49:05 PM
Just some observations since the season started re defense:
1) once again, no use of full court or 3/4 court pressure;
2) lack of closing out on the perimeter;
3) no switching of defenses;
4) failure to keep arms up/out;
5) no effort to get into passing lanes;
6) not making opponent pay for giving up dribble.
I just think of how some coaches capitalize on strong defensive pressure, such as Pitino, Huggins, and Anderson. Why can't Wojo ever try to create pressure...even if only 10 possessions per half?
Outstanding post. A handful of corrections especially 2, 4, 5, 6 which are in our control. I could not make Rowsey and Markus taller in prior years or increase foot speed which was not in our control. BTW... Kunkel was NOT a big part of game prep is my guess. He had moments that SY, Koby and especially Greg were not at their best on defense. I look forward to Brew's summary of the 14 point loss by MSU at Northwestern today with NW shooting 53% from the from the floor and 48% from three. Answer...Winning on the road is tough.
My reaction:
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/X1aI800CRXLzi/giphy.gif)
In the date range you are looking at, I see one good defensive performance (against the #61 KP offense), 4 average defensive performances (1 against a bad offense, 2 against top 11 KP offenses, 1 against the #31 KP offense), and 2 bad defensive performances (against two top 15 KP offenses).
You have to include the context of who they are playing when judging a team's defense (or offense for that matter). Just like people were jumping to conclusions when MU's D locked down APB and EIU, don't make the mistake of jumping to a conclusion when MU's D gets torched by two of the best offenses in the country.
You say we can't just say "Creighton was hitting crazy shots" and "Xavier was hitting crazy shots". Guess what? That's what Creighton and Xavier's offenses do. They hit crazy shots, even against good defenses. Seton Hall was another matter. Statistically this a crazy statement, but I think the defense against Creighton and Xavier was actually better than the defense against Seton Hall. Seton Hall's offense is just a lot worse than the Jays or X-men.
Our next game is against another top 5 offense in Villanova. Wouldn't be surprised if our defense looks a little porous against them too. Our first four conference games will be against the top 4 offenses in the Big East per KenPom. I think those early tests will be great learning experiences for our defense when 12/16 of the remaining games are against teams currently outside of the top 40 on offense.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 20, 2020, 10:46:57 PM
My reaction:
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/X1aI800CRXLzi/giphy.gif)
In the date range you are looking at, I see one good defensive performance (against the #61 KP offense), 4 average defensive performances (1 against a bad offense, 2 against top 11 KP offenses, 1 against the #31 KP offense), and 2 bad defensive performances (against two top 15 KP offenses).
You have to include the context of who they are playing when judging a team's defense (or offense for that matter). Just like people were jumping to conclusions when MU's D locked down APB and EIU, don't make the mistake of jumping to a conclusion when MU's D gets torched by two of the best offenses in the country.
You say we can't just say "Creighton was hitting crazy shots" and "Xavier was hitting crazy shots". Guess what? That's what Creighton and Xavier's offenses do. They hit crazy shots, even against good defenses. Seton Hall was another matter. Statistically this a crazy statement, but I think the defense against Creighton and Xavier was actually better than the defense against Seton Hall. Seton Hall's offense is just a lot worse than the Jays or X-men.
Our next game is against another top 5 offense in Villanova. Wouldn't be surprised if our defense looks a little porous against them too. Our first four conference games will be against the top 4 offenses in the Big East per KenPom. I think those early tests will be great learning experiences for our defense when 12/16 of the remaining games are against teams currently outside of the top 40 on offense.
So basically we're a good defensive team except when we play good offensive teams. Looks we're poised to make a deep run in the tourney this year.
Quote from: Silent Verbal on December 20, 2020, 10:58:31 PM
So basically we're a good defensive team except when we play good offensive teams. Looks we're poised to make a deep run in the tourney this year.
I think our defense did a great job against Madison's top 10 offense and UCLA's #11 offense. Did a much better job than most teams who play them will do this season (just ask Louisville). I'd say our defense is 2-2 against top 15 offenses.
Good offenses, good teams, that's who we play. In my opinion, Wojo hasn't had a "good" defense in his coaching career. His best defense was ranked #45. If we're talking about a team that can make a deep run on the strength of its defense, we need to be talking top-20 or top-30 at worst. That #45 ranking is the 7th highest Marquette defensive rank in the past 15 years. Wojo's other 6 defenses occupy spots 10-15, which includes this year's defense.
My standards don't consider a top-50 (if that's what this proves to be) defense to be something to hang your hat on. That's adequate with a top-10 offense, but if we're talking "good" defense, our expectations should be much higher.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 20, 2020, 11:22:23 PM
Good offenses, good teams, that's who we play.
Well to use your definition of "Top 50 isn't good" later in your post, we actually don't play a lot of good offenses this season. 16/26 scheduled games this season are against offenses currently ranked 41 or lower on KenPom. After the Nova game on Wednesday, we will have played 6/10 of the games against opponents in the top 40 but only 4/16 of the games against opponents outside the top 40. As I've been saying since the BEast schedule came out, our schedule is very frontloaded.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 20, 2020, 11:22:23 PM
In my opinion, Wojo hasn't had a "good" defense in his coaching career. His best defense was ranked #45. If we're talking about a team that can make a deep run on the strength of its defense, we need to be talking top-20 or top-30 at worst. That #45 ranking is the 7th highest Marquette defensive rank in the past 15 years. Wojo's other 6 defenses occupy spots 10-15, which includes this year's defense.
My comments are only about this season. Nobody's winning an argument saying that Wojo has been a good defensive coach to this point.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 20, 2020, 11:22:23 PM
My standards don't consider a top-50 (if that's what this proves to be) defense to be something to hang your hat on. That's adequate with a top-10 offense, but if we're talking "good" defense, our expectations should be much higher.
If top-50 isn't "good" in your book than I guess I don't think we have a "good" defense this season either. I think it ends up somewhere in the 30-50 range. I think the difference is, I don't and have never expected this to be a season where we make a deep tourney run or earn a high seed. I expect this team to be better than the last down year team Wojo coached (year 4).
I love stats, I use them for everything. But take em out of context and you can make them say whatever you want. We are playing a very frontloaded schedule and the stats support that. My eye test tells me that the defense is better than past Wojo years (and the offense is worse than the good years despite the current ranking) but they have had to face a battery of really good offenses to start the season. Maybe my eye test needs glasses and I will end being embarrassingly wrong. My point still stands that there are two things that go into stats like PPP allowed and eFG% allowed, how good your defense was, and how good your opponent's offense was. You have to consider both to get an accurate answer.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2020, 12:18:20 AM
Well to use your definition of "Top 50 isn't good" later in your post, we actually don't play a lot of good offenses this season. 16/26 scheduled games this season are against offenses currently ranked 41 or lower on KenPom. After the Nova game on Wednesday, we will have played 6/10 of the games against opponents in the top 40 but only 4/16 of the games against opponents outside the top 40. As I've been saying since the BEast schedule came out, our schedule is very frontloaded.
My comments are only about this season. Nobody's winning an argument saying that Wojo has been a good defensive coach to this point.
If top-50 isn't "good" in your book than I guess I don't think we have a "good" defense this season either. I think it ends up somewhere in the 30-50 range. I think the difference is, I don't and have never expected this to be a season where we make a deep tourney run or earn a high seed. I expect this team to be better than the last down year team Wojo coached (year 4).
I love stats, I use them for everything. But take em out of context and you can make them say whatever you want. We are playing a very frontloaded schedule and the stats support that. My eye test tells me that the defense is better than past Wojo years (and the offense is worse than the good years despite the current ranking) but they have had to face a battery of really good offenses to start the season. Maybe my eye test needs glasses and I will end being embarrassingly wrong. My point still stands that there are two things that go into stats like PPP allowed and eFG% allowed, how good your defense was, and how good your opponent's offense was. You have to consider both to get an accurate answer.
Every coach should be afforded the luxury of a "down" year, provided that "up" years are the norm. Crean had two "down" years after the Final Four, and then made the tournament every other year he was at Marquette. His best team next to 2003 would've been 08-09, the year he bolted for Indiana. He didn't win enough in the postseason after Wade, but the FF bought him a lot of goodwill. Buzz made three straight Sweet 16s, so his mulligan in 13-14 was understandable. Wojo's two best seasons at MU were two first round exits in the Tourney. A first round exit in the Tournament is an average season at a program like Marquette.
Why was year four expected to be a "down year" team? We started Rowsey, Howard, and Sam Hauser, three of the best three point shooters to ever play for MU. It was a "down year" team in *your* opinion. But with those three players alone, that team should've at least made the freaking tournament, no matter how bad the defense was.
And why is this year expected to be a "down year" team? Yeah, we lost Howard, Anim, and Bailey, but forget Anim and Bailey. Guys like that are a dime a dozen. So we lost Markus. But our starting lineup is: DJ--a terrific point guard who was a highly rated recruit and played last year at Ohio State, Koby--a fifth year senior, Jamal--fourth year senior, Dawson--a highly skilled McD's AA big man, and Theo--a fourth year senior. Off the bench, we have a great freshman in Justin Lewis, a fourth year junior who can hit the open three in Greg Elliott, and a top 100 recruit in Symir who can spell DJ for a few minutes each half. If that's a "down year" roster, I'll take two.
This is a "down year" team in *your* opinion.
Because down years aren't a random occurrence that just happen, they happen for a reason. If you're paying attention, you can accurately predict which teams are going to be down in a given year.
In college basketball, most programs have recruiting cycles of 3 years. A down year followed by 2 (sometimes 3) years of growth. This happens because most coaches struggle to string elite recruiting classes together because of perceived or actual playing time barriers. Coaches tend to sign their most talented classes when the core of their team is upperclassmen because recruits see a clear path to playing time their freshmen or sophomore years. This typically leads to a down year as the core of the team graduates or goes pro and a talented but younger core takes over. If the program is healthy, the younger core gets better as time goes on leading to multiple up years before they graduate/go pro and a new core needs to take over. There are of course exceptions to the rule and various factors can disrupt this pattern (mainly key transfers), but in general its the pattern most programs follow.
Keep in mind that down years are relative to the program. A down year for us is making the NIT/barely making the NCAAs. A down year for Michigan State could be a 6 seed.
Wojo took over in a down year. The core of his predecessor's last team all graduated (and 1 removed himself), and he inherited a talented but young core (that was not talented enough as freshmen to earn more minutes than the upperclassmen who led them to missing the NIT). After the initial down year, he had two years of growth before his first core graduated.
Year four was his second down year. He had lost the core he inherited from Buzz but had a young core in Howard, Hauser, and Anim that was better than the one he got from Buzz. The second down year was much better than the first one and the next up year was so much better than year 2. Howard, Hauser, and Anim's senior year was set to be one for the record books until Hausergate (remember key transfers being something that disrupts the pattern?). Wojo bears responsibility for that mess so the likely 9ish seed we ended up with was the first bad season for Wojo.
This year is the third down year because his second core (first one he didn't inherit from Buzz) was set to graduate last season. Again, we lost most of our talent from last season but have a young and talented core in Carton, Garcia, and Lewis taking up the mantle. I think they end up leading us to the tournament (though just barely), starting this recruiting cycle off on a stronger note than the last one.
You can poo poo it if you want but that's how I evaluate coaches. Is the program improving from one recruiting cycle to the next? This year, I'm comparing the team to year 4. Assuming Wojo is here, I'll be comparing the next two years to years 5 and 6.
Same old, same old from Coach Mediocrity and same old same old from the silver linings crowd.
Quote from: Silent Verbal on December 21, 2020, 01:27:22 AM
Every coach should be afforded the luxury of a "down" year, provided that "up" years are the norm. Crean had two "down" years after the Final Four, and then made the tournament every other year he was at Marquette. His best team next to 2003 would've been 08-09, the year he bolted for Indiana. He didn't win enough in the postseason after Wade, but the FF bought him a lot of goodwill. Buzz made three straight Sweet 16s, so his mulligan in 13-14 was understandable. Wojo's two best seasons at MU were two first round exits in the Tourney. A first round exit in the Tournament is an average season at a program like Marquette.
Why was year four expected to be a "down year" team? We started Rowsey, Howard, and Sam Hauser, three of the best three point shooters to ever play for MU. It was a "down year" team in *your* opinion. But with those three players alone, that team should've at least made the freaking tournament, no matter how bad the defense was.
And why is this year expected to be a "down year" team? Yeah, we lost Howard, Anim, and Bailey, but forget Anim and Bailey. Guys like that are a dime a dozen. So we lost Markus. But our starting lineup is: DJ--a terrific point guard who was a highly rated recruit and played last year at Ohio State, Koby--a fifth year senior, Jamal--fourth year senior, Dawson--a highly skilled McD's AA big man, and Theo--a fourth year senior. Off the bench, we have a great freshman in Justin Lewis, a fourth year junior who can hit the open three in Greg Elliott, and a top 100 recruit in Symir who can spell DJ for a few minutes each half. If that's a "down year" roster, I'll take two.
This is a "down year" team in *your* opinion.
So, if Marquette won the big east regular season then won the BET but got bounced in a first round upset in the NCAAs, that would be an average year?
All I'm trying to point out is context for season success and that the NCAA tourney results shouldn't be everything.
Also, to TAMUs credit, the timelines you describe with Crean are the exact up/down cycles he is talking about.
TAMU,
Good perspective. I think/hope you will be right in the end.
I think this down year cycle should be better than the last two and needs to be better than the last two. Anything less than a tournament birth would be another indictment on his coaching.
It is obvious that Wojo has a ton of talent to work with this year and that talent should be able to overcome a lack of experience with good coaching.
I think he gets it done. Crossing my fingers.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 20, 2020, 11:07:08 PM
I think our defense did a great job against Madison's top 10 offense and UCLA's #11 offense. Did a much better job than most teams who play them will do this season (just ask Louisville). I'd say our defense is 2-2 against top 15 offenses.
I think it's also worth looking at why those offenses are ranked there. Part of it is because they played against our defense. Xavier came in to the season with an expected adjusted ORtg of 105.2 which improved to 109.8 (20th) after 7 games. Well yesterday, it jumped up to 111.9 (13th). So 31.3% of their expected offensive improvement is based on skewering our defense.
Green Bay only had one better offensive performance than the one against us, and that was against EIU. Same for Creighton, whose only better offensive performance was against Kennesaw State.
Maybe it's the elite offenses, but maybe we should also acknowledge that those elite offenses are propped up partially by what they did against our defense.
Yep, that's true. And no one is saying that we played good defense against Creighton or Xavier. They shellacked our defense. It happens. Some of that is on our defense, some of that is on their offense. We did play good defense on Wisconsin and UCLA who are also elite offenses. In the five games against non-elite offenses, we've had three positive defensive performances (APB, EIU, OKST), 1 bad (UWGB), and 1 average (HALL).
All I am pointing out is that when using stats like PPP and eFG% allowed, you have to consider both what your defense did and what their offense did.
The defense looks better to me than it has in the past. Maybe I end up being wrong, but I think it will end up ranked in the 30-50 range when all is said and done.
We finally have length at most of the positions. We have speed. We have athleticism. Some guys may lack lateral quickness. One could argue we need one more post 6'9"+ player since Theo is the only one (Garcia not a strong enough for a true post).
Other than that we have on paper what should be a very good defensive team. I am not asking for Top 25, but this team should be Top 50 minimum.
If by the end of the season it is same old, same old in regards to the defense, I think everyone should know that Wojo will never have a great team as the defense will always limit us.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2020, 09:49:53 AM
Yep, that's true. And no one is saying that we played good defense against Creighton or Xavier. They shellacked our defense. It happens. Some of that is on our defense, some of that is on their offense. We did play good defense on Wisconsin and UCLA who are also elite offenses. In the five games against non-elite offenses, we've had three positive defensive performances (APB, EIU, OKST), 1 bad (UWGB), and 1 average (HALL).
All I am pointing out is that when using stats like PPP and eFG% allowed, you have to consider both what your defense did and what their offense did.
The defense looks better to me than it has in the past. Maybe I end up being wrong, but I think it will end up ranked in the 30-50 range when all is said and done.
I am not sure how you can play good defense against a team that has multiple three point shooters and moves the ball around. These teams are similar to Buzz's second team that quickly passed the ball around the perimeter and had several players that could shoot the three. You cannot defend this, if the players are hitting the threes.
Quote from: bilsu on December 21, 2020, 11:29:23 AM
I am not sure how you can play good defense against a team that has multiple three point shooters and moves the ball around. These teams are similar to Buzz's second team that quickly passed the ball around the perimeter and had several players that could shoot the three. You cannot defend this, if the players are hitting the threes.
Have everyone stay at home on their man. Risk drives/one on ones.
Quote from: bilsu on December 21, 2020, 11:29:23 AM
I am not sure how you can play good defense against a team that has multiple three point shooters and moves the ball around. These teams are similar to Buzz's second team that quickly passed the ball around the perimeter and had several players that could shoot the three. You cannot defend this, if the players are hitting the threes.
There's a lot of research out there that shows that 3P defense is more about luck than it is about how you defend the shot (Kunkel's game winner speaks to that). That being said, how you defend against 3Ps is by limiting opportunities. By cutting off passing lanes, staying home on shooters, and rotating quickly, you can keep your opponent from even attempting the 3P shot. Of course, focusing on running your opponent off the three point line theoretically exposes you inside the arc as your defense is spread out giving your opponent a lot of space to drive to the hoop.
Our defense definitely made mistakes yesterday. There are things that can be worked on and improved. The lack of defense on back door cuts in particular stood out.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2020, 11:50:51 AM
There's a lot of research out there that shows that 3P defense is more about luck than it is about how you defend the shot (Kunkel's game winner speaks to that). That being said, how you defend against 3Ps is by limiting opportunities. By cutting off passing lanes, staying home on shooters, and rotating quickly, you can keep your opponent from even attempting the 3P shot. Of course, focusing on running your opponent off the three point line theoretically exposes you inside the arc as your defense is spread out giving your opponent a lot of space to drive to the hoop.
Our defense definitely made mistakes yesterday. There are things that can be worked on and improved. The lack of defense on back door cuts in particular stood out.
A big problem is when Elliott comes in, he can not guard you or me, he has lost his quickness. Trying to figure out why Wojo with his length does not try a 3-2 zone,
rather give up 2's then wide open 3's!
Let's simplify this by breaking down the A/B games (top opponents).
In wins (2), MU has outscored WI and Creighton in the paint by 14 points. There was no difference in points off of turnovers and MU was a +3 on fast break points.
In losses (4), MU is a +8 in the paint versus those who vanquished us. MU was a -34 in fast break points in our losses, with the overall total point deficit being 27 (126% of our losing deficit explained). Incredibly, Xavier won fast break points 18-0.
In years past, MU was killed in the half court (only OSU this year). This year, MU is losing in the transitionals. In losses, MU is a minus 16 in steal differential. Live ball turnovers are biting MU in the arse. This is why we see the scrambling on the other end, which is not the best outcome with the ability of our bigs or Jamal.
Best way to improve our transition defense: Stop the stupid, live ball turnovers. Who wouldn't want to reduce four extra opponent possessions per game in our losses? That's at least two extra wins if not three.
Good stuff Dr. B. One thing, is the box score on the Xavier game actually correct? I asked this in the game thread but I don't think I've ever seen a game where a team committed 12 turnovers and 10 of them were because the opponent stole the ball. I know I remember at least one travel (by Carton), and Carton threw a fastball to John that went out of bounds. Were all the rest live ball turnovers? I thought that there was at least one more travel and out of bounds turnover.
Quote from: Silent Verbal on December 21, 2020, 01:27:22 AM
Yeah, we lost Howard, Anim, and Bailey, but forget Anim and Bailey. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.
Those guys are nothing like Travis Diener.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2020, 01:34:08 PM
Good stuff Dr. B. One thing, is the box score on the Xavier game actually correct? I asked this in the game thread but I don't think I've ever seen a game where a team committed 12 turnovers and 10 of them were because the opponent stole the ball. I know I remember at least one travel (by Carton), and Carton threw a fastball to John that went out of bounds. Were all the rest live ball turnovers? I thought that there was at least one more travel and out of bounds turnover.
According to the play by play the steals are legit. I assume a scorer has leeway, but we couldn't control anything. I was wondering if Xavier was using a Wisconsin slippery ball from Bo's golfing buddy at one point. Jamal and Theo had tough days controlling the ball.
https://gomarquette.com/sports/mens-basketball/stats/2020-21/xavier/boxscore/8660
Theo had a moving screen on an inbounds play which I thought would count as a turnover.
Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on December 21, 2020, 03:37:53 PM
Theo had a moving screen on an inbounds play which I thought would count as a turnover.
That foul is listed at 8:19 to go and is also listed as a turnover. There are also 10 other turnovers listed as "steals". Those pickpocketed are, per the Xavier scorer:
Cain 3
Theo 2
DJ 2
Koby 1
Sy 1
Dawson 1
No turnovers for Cain, but pocket picked repeatedly.
Quote from: tower912 on December 21, 2020, 04:02:34 PM
No turnovers for Cain, but pocket picked repeatedly.
Again, the official scorer gave Cain three turnovers off steals. Do you guys want me to audit the Xavier scorer or something? We need Chico's post auditor back I think (Scoop Hall of Fame).
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 21, 2020, 04:07:44 PM
Again, the official scorer gave Cain three turnovers off steals. Do you guys want me to audit the Xavier scorer or something? We need Chico's post auditor back I think (Scoop Hall of Fame).
I think Tower was commenting that Cain didn't dribble it off his foot but did let himself get pilfered.
I don't want you to audit the Xavier scorer, but I do think they may have mislabeled a steal or missed a turnover for us. I'd need to rewatch to be sure but I swear that Carton travelled at least once and threw a fastball to John that went out of bounds, plus the offensive foul previously mentioned
To be clear, I'm not upset about it. I just could have sworn that there was more than 2 non-steal turnovers.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2020, 04:12:27 PM
I think Tower was commenting that Cain didn't dribble it off his foot but did let himself get pilfered.
I don't want you to audit the Xavier scorer, but I do think they may have mislabeled a steal or missed a turnover for us. I'd need to rewatch to be sure but I swear that Carton travelled at least once and threw a fastball to John that went out of bounds, plus the offensive foul previously mentioned
To be clear, I'm not upset about it. I just could have sworn that there was more than 2 non-steal turnovers.
I am joking. I don't really care how he/she labeled what other than to use it as the objective source as "official".
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 21, 2020, 01:29:12 PM
Let's simplify this by breaking down the A/B games (top opponents).
In wins (2), MU has outscored WI and Creighton in the paint by 14 points. There was no difference in points off of turnovers and MU was a +3 on fast break points.
In losses (4), MU is a +8 in the paint versus those who vanquished us. MU was a -34 in fast break points in our losses, with the overall total point deficit being 27 (126% of our losing deficit explained). Incredibly, Xavier won fast break points 18-0.
In years past, MU was killed in the half court (only OSU this year). This year, MU is losing in the transitionals. In losses, MU is a minus 16 in steal differential. Live ball turnovers are biting MU in the arse. This is why we see the scrambling on the other end, which is not the best outcome with the ability of our bigs or Jamal.
Best way to improve our transition defense: Stop the stupid, live ball turnovers. Who wouldn't want to reduce four extra opponent possessions per game in our losses? That's at least two extra wins if not three.
Very good analysis.
I thought this team might create more turnovers that lead to breakouts for us, but only DJ has shown any ability to do it.
The X game was especially glaring. I actually can believe the stat that is perplexing TAMU because I remarked at one point that, "Every turnover they commit is a travel, and every one we commit is a live-ball turnover that leads to a damn fastbreak basket."
We tend to throw bad, weak, telegraphed passes from the top to the wing, or vice versa. The weak passes are compounded by our players often failing to step toward the ball. That leads to easy steals/breakouts/baskets. Also, we have a few players with bad hands and/or poor handles, and those lead to live-ball TOs, too. Meanwhile, we get very few such easy opportunities for our offense.
Given that every game we play is close, a few-point differential in this department really hurts, and a double-digit differential is suicide.
It's quite disappointing that this really hasn't improved much (if at all) during Wojo's time at MU.
Quote from: BCHoopster on December 21, 2020, 12:26:38 PM
A big problem is when Elliott comes in, he can not guard you or me, he has lost his quickness.
Yep, this is sad. If folks wondered why Greg doesn't play more, all they had to do was watch the X game.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 21, 2020, 01:29:12 PM
Let's simplify this by breaking down the A/B games (top opponents).
In wins (2), MU has outscored WI and Creighton in the paint by 14 points. There was no difference in points off of turnovers and MU was a +3 on fast break points.
In losses (4), MU is a +8 in the paint versus those who vanquished us. MU was a -34 in fast break points in our losses, with the overall total point deficit being 27 (126% of our losing deficit explained). Incredibly, Xavier won fast break points 18-0.
In years past, MU was killed in the half court (only OSU this year). This year, MU is losing in the transitionals. In losses, MU is a minus 16 in steal differential. Live ball turnovers are biting MU in the arse. This is why we see the scrambling on the other end, which is not the best outcome with the ability of our bigs or Jamal.
Best way to improve our transition defense: Stop the stupid, live ball turnovers. Who wouldn't want to reduce four extra opponent possessions per game in our losses? That's at least two extra wins if not three.
And another reason our defense looks worse than it is. To some degree one of the biggest liabilities of the defense is the turnover prone offense.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 21, 2020, 04:32:12 PM
And another reason our defense looks worse than it is. To some degree one of the biggest liabilities of the defense is the turnover prone offense.
Actually, it's a reason our defense and offense are worse than they should be, because those possessions do count. Our defense struggles because we give the opposing offense easy run-outs with turnovers and have for years. And our offense doesn't benefit the way other teams do because our defense doesn't create similarly high efficiency opportunities.
We are one of only two teams in the kenpom top-60 that is sub-200 in both offensive and defensive turnover rate. The other is #50, 1-5 Kentucky, who is pretty clearly being heavily overrated based on their #12 preseason ranking. Our propensity to give easy possessions without creating them for ourselves is a reoccurring form of self-sabotage.
brewski sought the opinion of The Athletic's Brian Hamilton for their weekly "mailbag."
Here was the exchange:
Since you wrote about the Marquette defense, their defensive rank on KenPom has plummeted from 24 to 70. Were the early returns just fool's gold, or does this team have the ability to hold up now that they are only going to see high major offenses? — Alan B.
Apparently this has become a thing on Marquette Twitter, which should know by now that any time I write a story about anyone or any team — or, really, so much as plan to write a story — it instantly guarantees doom for the subject. This is how it works. I am a journalistic grim reaper. Abandon all hope, ye who grant me a Zoom interview.
As I noted in the story, level of competition certainly influenced the early returns. There were some good signs against high-major competition but the question of whether it would last was real. And it hasn't. The 0.885 points per possession allowed defensively ranks in the 31st percentile nationally, per Synergy Sports. The jump-shot defense has gotten real bad, plunging to the 17th percentile as of Monday morning.
Worth noting: The Big East only has four teams ranked in the top 20 for offensive efficiency and Marquette is one of them. Six teams are ranked outside the top 40. And on the other end, absolutely no one in the conference has played truly elite defense. A rickety defense might not be fatal in this league this year. How satisfying that is depends on how high you set the bar for the Golden Eagles.
I would love to see at some point this season a 3-2 zone with all 3 bigs in. Just as a wrinkle. Justin up top, Theo and Dawson low/paint. 2 of DJ, Jamal and Koby on the wings. I think that length and athleticism could disrupt passing and driving lanes.
Might provide benefit on offense as well. I like how well our bigs feed each other in the post. Height makes it easier to feed from top of key and the wing. Dawson and Justin are enough of a threat from 3 to keep floor spaced.
Potential Foul trouble would be a con. If Oso could contribute a few meaningful minutes like at UCLA, you could minimize that risk.
Really good stuff today from Anonymous Eagle regarding our defense, the value of 3PFG% against, and why Marquette isn't getting the job done at the arc:
https://www.anonymouseagle.com/platform/amp/2020/12/22/22194100/marquette-golden-eagles-mens-basketball-three-point-defense-steve-wojciechowski?utm_campaign=anonymouseagle&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 22, 2020, 12:05:29 PM
Really good stuff today from Anonymous Eagle regarding our defense, the value of 3PFG% against, and why Marquette isn't getting the job done at the arc:
https://www.anonymouseagle.com/platform/amp/2020/12/22/22194100/marquette-golden-eagles-mens-basketball-three-point-defense-steve-wojciechowski?utm_campaign=anonymouseagle&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Adding on to your original, the AE piece and this thread...
- Our opponents time of possession is 16.6 in the BE versus 17.3 in non-con
- MU steal % against (live ball turnover rate) is 11.3% versus 9.4% in non-con
So, Big East opponents are playing faster because MU is more careless with the ball, leading to the quick threes before MU can set up its strength (bigs on D). Not really due to "luck". MU is playing much slower in conference.
Btw, MU's defense has a steal rate of an abysmal 5.9%...maybe because our opponents are rushing to kill us in transition to launch threes.
Great article, helped me understand why the D is struggling not just pointing out that it is struggling.
Is it as simple as reducing/limiting turnovers? Control the clock, allow your D to get set, limit run outs... seems like that would solve a lot of what's been hurting them lately.
obviously easier said than done...