MUScoop

Is the Aggressive Defense Worth it?

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Henry Sugar)

During the two-part Big East Preview, there were a number of questions that popped up in the MUScoop.com thread (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=9716.0).  One poster, Pardner, who has helped contribute information regarding Official Bias (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/02/official-bias.html), wondered if we were going to see any change in the fact that TC's teams always outfouled the competition.  So I decided to look into this a little bit further.

If you look at the 2007 Pomeroy Marquette page (http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Marquette&y=2007) and the 2008 Pomeroy Marquette page (http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Marquette&y=2008), one can see Marquette's Defensive Free Throw Rate (FTA / FGA) ranking.  In the last two years, Marquette ranked #236 (in 2007) and #262 (in 2008). Despite being a Top 15 team according to Pomeroy (http://kenpom.com/stats.php), Marquette was one of the worst teams in the country at preventing opponents from getting to the line.  Last year Marquette fit in comfortably between Albany and Sacred Heart (http://kenpom.com/factors.php?t=d&s=9).  yeesh

While one could say that this is a product of our guard-centric lineup and big man deficiency, I don't believe that roster mix is the reason.   After all, Marquette put our opponents on the line more regularly than South Carolina Upstate. (did you even know that was a school?  yes, they exist (http://www.uscupstate.edu/))

Instead, I attribute this more to our defensive philosophy, which is commonly known as an aggressive style defense that favors deflections and steals.  In fact, my key assumption is that the there is a link between the aggressive style of defense, increased opponent turnovers and more fouls committed.  Marquette had a stingy and thieving defense last year, ending up #11 in the country at steal percentage.  We forced turnovers (#49 in the country), and when the defense was working we were off and running for easy points.

But was the defensive strategy worth it?

If you look at the Pomeroy Game Plan for Marquette (http://kenpom.com/expsked.php?team=Marquette&y=2008), you'll see that Marquette had a 99% significant correlation between our Opponent's Free Throw Rate and our Defensive Efficiency.  In other words, when our opponent had a good Free Throw Rate, our defense suffered. (As I say all the time, it sounds intuitive, but it's not the same for every team. It doesn't apply to Wisconsin (http://kenpom.com/expsked.php?team=Wisconsin&y=2008))  We allowed our opponents to have a FTR of 41% last year.  That means that an average opponent, shooting 54 FGA, would also take 22 free throws. To repeat, this was #262 in the country.

Against Top 100 opponents, the story is even worse.  Our opponent's FTR goes up to 46% (~25 Free Throw Attempts per game).

Yeah, but so what?  The average impact of this Free Throw Rate was a worsening of our Defensive Efficiency of 26.2, with a range from 16.9 (low) to 35.5 (high).  Keep in mind our season Defensive Efficiency was 87.8, so this impacted our defense by 20-40%.  I calculate that the way we put opponents on the line cost Marquette an average of 17.8 ppg  with a standard range from 11.5 ppg to  24.2 ppg.

As previously stated above, Marquette's aggressive defense was one of the best in the nation.  How much did we benefit from our aggressive defense? Going back to the Game Plan, we also see a 99% significant correlation between our Opponent's Turnover Rate and our Defensive Efficiency.  More turnovers from our opponent means that our defense was better.  (Still sounds intuitive, but it doesn't apply to Pittsburgh (http://kenpom.com/expsked.php?&c=DateOfGame&team=Pittsburgh)).  We forced opponents into a turnover rate of 23.4%, meaning that our opponents ended up with about 16 turnovers per game, or almost one out of every four possessions.

Against Top 100 opponents, the turnover story is also not as good.  Better teams protect the ball more.  We only forced opponents into a turnover rate of 21.7%.  Remember that 20% is considered average (a turnover one out of five possessions).

We come back to the so what? The average benefit on our defense was an improvement of our Defensive Efficiency of 13.2 with a range from 10.2 to 16.3.  On a percentage basis, this is about 10-20% of our defensive results.  I calculate that the turnovers for our opponents cost them (and benefited Marquette) an average of 9.0 ppg  with a standard range from 6.9 ppg to 11.1 ppg.

If the assumption is right, then the style of defense that's taught is to focus on deflections and steals, which leads to more turnovers and fouls committed.  The problem is that this benefit to our defense is not enough to overcome the negative implications from the extra fouls we commit.  The extra trips to the free throw line for our opponent are worse for us than the times our opponent commits a turnover.

Furthermore, since conventional wisdom tells us teams protect the ball better in the post-season, does Marquette's defense get exposed even further?  Our ability to force turnovers went way down last year (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/03/post-season-numbers-where-are-my.html) in the post-season, but I'll have to do more analysis before saying the defensive strategy gets worse for MU.

If the assumption is wrong, then I can't blame the defensive strategy and emphasis on turnovers for the extra fouls committed.  However, the fact remains that there is a significant impact on team performance from allowing our opponents to head to the free throw line so much.  One thing is certain, no matter what the implications of the defensive strategy may be, the coaching staff needs to emphasize that we stop putting opponents on the free throw line so much.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/08/is-aggressive-defense-worth-it.html

fitz graduated.  our opponent's FTR should go way down based on that alone.

agreed, they need to stop puttin teams on the line.  Though with the aggressive almost gambling style defense that MU plays it will be tough against the better teams, because the better teams will be able to expose the defense when they miss on a gamble.  Maybe instead of just automatically fouling when we get beat we should work on just contending the shots without fouling immediately.  Either way... MU is most likely out two pts given our aggressive style.

I don't think there would be a way for us to play the aggressive style we play and get the stats that Wisconsin has (more free makes than the opponent attempts).

Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on August 12, 2008, 01:35:55 PM
fitz graduated.  our opponent's FTR should go way down based on that alone.

Not surprisingly, Fitz was not even in the top 5 for our team last year in PFPG.  As would be expected, the starters were top 5 with McNeal leading the way with 3.1 PFPG.  In fact, Fitz only had 56 PF over the course of the season.  However, on a per minute basis, Fitz was third amongst players in the regular rotation behind Barro and Burke. 

Fitz was really out of position most of the time.  He was asked to guard players who were too quick or too physical for him.

I've seen 6th graders too quick and too physical for Fitz.

The error in this analysis is that it assumes that gaining a turnover is the only benefit of an agressive defense strategy.  I think its worthwhile to consider that many of MU's fouls were intended to put the opponent at the line rather than give them an easy shot froim the floor.

A comparison to  Notre Dame, who ranked 4th in the nation in the FTA/FGA ratio, is illustrative.  I'll adjust for games played--MU had 35 games, while ND had 33:

Notre Dame:  488 defensive FTAs, or 14.8 per game
Marquette:  767 defensive FTAs, or 21.9 per game

In other words, MU gave up on average 7 more Free Throw Attempts pre game.  Sounds pretty bad.

But wait . . .the extention of this stat is that by putting opponents on the line Marquette should have had fewer shots from the floor.  ANd that pans out:

Notre Dame;  2125 or 64.4 per game
Marquette:  1891 or  54.0 per game

That's pretty amazing--10 fewer shot attempts.

Considering that Notre Dame played a faster pace (rank of 40th versus 118th), the difference in shots from the floor is significant.

So--putting aside any benefit from TOs or steals, the net is that MU's agressive style resulted in 7 MORE free throw attempts than Notre Dame, but 10 fewer shot attempts.  This is comparing to one of the best Defensive Free Throw Ranking teams in the nation.

Assuming 80% opponent shooting on FTs and 50% on FGs, MU's agressive style gave up on average 6 points at the line and prevented 10 points from the floor.   

I won't get caught up with SJS/84's numbers----suffice to say he ALWAYS presents the game or situation example that shows his agenda in the best possible light. Why does he pick the MU/ND game----why not the BE season numbers?

But i will say that it's not surprising that we fouled excessively playing as aggressively as we did last year under Crean. However, that wasn't just because of the aggressive defense, but more an extension of Tom Crean's personality, which is atack, attack, attack not only the goal, but also loose balls, rebounds,and try to steal the ball on defense.

IMO, one can play aggressive D successfully if you have a complete array of quickness, but you need more than iust 3 of the 5 players endowed with that superior quickness to execute an aggressive D properly. Burke/Barro and Fitz/Hayward were not so endowed.

Again IMO, a containment defense is the most efficient defense under most circumstances----to execute containment you don't need extra quickness----just have to instill players with a sense of "position". Good example is Bo Ryan----he doesn't play an exceptional containment defense, but does well enough at it to keep fouls at a minimum------as a result his teams go to the line quite a bit more than the opposition.

BTW SJS/84-----in your example, getting 10 more shots in a single game isn't necessarily because of great defense----could be, but also could be because of superior rebounding by MU who ends up with the most shots vs ND-----and also fouls by an MU defense prevent ND from getting shots off----hence fewer shots. than MU

I was waiting for Murff to weigh in.  I remember Murff taking a lot of flak for being critical of the defensive strategy.  Thank you for contributing your opinion, because I believe what you said now makes perfect sense.

I'd also like to thank the moderators for having an "Ignore User" feature on this board.  You've spared me from ever having to bother with any of Marquette84's drivel.

Quote from: Murffieus on August 12, 2008, 07:56:37 PM
I won't get caught up with SJS/84's numbers----suffice to say he ALWAYS presents the game or situation example that shows his agenda in the best possible light. Why does he pick the MU/ND game----why not the BE season numbers?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here--it appears you made an honest mistake in your assumption.

I didn't use the "MU/ND game"--I was comparing full season averages for both teams.

BTW, I picked Notre Dame because they were the highest ranked (#4) team in the Big East in the FTA/FTA ratio. 


****--in your example, getting 10 more shots in a single game isn't necessarily because of great defense----could be, but also could be because of superior rebounding by MU who ends up with the most shots vs ND

Could have been, but it wasn't. 

First, it's a flawed assumption.  A possession doesn't end with a rebound--the other team has to take a shot, get fouled, turn the ball over or let the game clock run out without taking a shot.  A rebound doesn't end a posession--the previous shot attempt does.   

Second, MU didn't have superior rebounding compared to ND: 
ND Rebound Margin:  +5.7
MU Rebound Margin:  +2.7


No, this is really simple: 

Every time MU fouled and sent an opposing player to the line, that posession did not result in a shot attempt. 

The question is whether that was an effective strategy. 

The answer is absolutely yes.  We could expect to give up 5 or 6 more points on FTs, but prevent 10 points on FGs, compared what we would have had if our aggressiveness was toned down to Notre Dame levels. 

Good analysis Henry.  Another factor which is tough to consider is the amount to which this over fouling effects MU's offense because player have to sit due to fouls.  It seemed that Crean had the same expectation of reach in and hand check for all players.  It might have been better to tell a front line player like Lazer to lay off a little to avoid foul trouble while letting the guards (where MU has a lot of depth) go at it for 40 minutes.
All of this said I'm not sure last years team, or probably this years, can play much differently.  As one analysis from a columnist that covers the BE put it last year "Marquette is a rare combination of a small, guard dominated, team that also doesn't shoot well from the outside."  Trying to build a top 25 team who's offense is almost exclusively built around driving the ball is a very tall order.  MU is forced to gamble all the time on defense in the hopes turning games into helter skelter up and down contests that favor driving the ball on every possession.  When MU sits back and plays more of a containment defense they tend to stall out on offense as well.  Until they can add a second or 3rd element to the offense that can be counted on consistently they may have no choice but to play aggressive D and live with the fouls

I put this comment up on Cracked Sidewalks, and I wanted to make it here too.

• As stated above, against Top 100 opponents, our opponents averaged a FTR of 46%.
• We played 15 games when an opponent achieved a FTR higher than 46% against us last year.
• We lost TEN of those games.
• Of the five games we won, three were blowouts (UWM, SHU#2, Providence), and two were some of the ugliest wins of the season (USF, SJU).


• In fact, when keeping an opponent under 46%, we NEVER LOST.

Look at the list here....

http://kenpom.com/expsked.php?&c=O_FT&team=Marquette (http://kenpom.com/expsked.php?&c=O_FT&team=Marquette)

Quote from: Murffieus on August 12, 2008, 07:56:37 PM

Again IMO, a containment defense is the most efficient defense under most circumstances----to execute containment you don't need extra quickness----just have to instill players with a sense of "position". Good example is Bo Ryan----he doesn't play an exceptional containment defense, but does well enough at it to keep fouls at a minimum------as a result his teams go to the line quite a bit more than the opposition.

I agree with you that this is the better way to play defense, but I think Crean used the pressure, risky defense as a way to jump start the offense given that we really aren't that good in the half-court.

You can look at statistic's all you want, but I do not think MU has the size to play half court containment defense against good teams. In fact I have been contending that this is what MU tried to do against Stanford instead of pressing them. We beat Notre Dame twice and almost pulled it out at Notre Dame. If we would have played containment defense against them they would have beat us easily each time. We also would have lost to UW. I also think the statistics in losses are effected by fouling to get the ball back. How many times did we foul in the last minute at Notre Dame. Or on the flip side how many times did Kentucky foul us at the end of the first round NCAA tournament game. The statistics made me look to see how many more free throws our opponents shot then us. Surpisingly we shot 785 free throws to their 767. This certainly indicates that overall we are not losing out at the free throw line. My gut feeling is that we average more offensive fouls than our opponents, because of our offensive style.  Also because of this style we draw more fouls and that is why we shot slightly more free throws than our opponents. 

Points in the paint wins games----and we gave up plenty of those last year because of playing tight on the perimeter we were exposed inside.. To keep points out of the paint, you have to contain with a lot of off the ball sag. It's a mistake to base what defense to play on what enhances the offense.

Had we collapsed on the Lopez's and dared Stanford to beat us with treys----odds are we win by at least 10 points. As it was we were so exposed down low that we had those odds stacked against us. Even at that we almost beat them.

Quote from: Murffieus on August 13, 2008, 04:44:20 PM
Points in the paint wins games----and we gave up plenty of those last year because of playing tight on the perimeter we were exposed inside.. To keep points out of the paint, you have to contain with a lot of off the ball sag. It's a mistake to base what defense to play on what enhances the offense.

Had we collapsed on the Lopez's and dared Stanford to beat us with treys----odds are we win by at least 10 points. As it was we were so exposed down low that we had those odds stacked against us. Even at that we almost beat them.

I think Murf agrees with me that better coaching would have beat Stanford.

Another great post.  I love this as it mixes the art and the science.  I agree with Henry and Murph but can see the opportunity cost argument of 84.  Here is how I look at it, though.

Free throw gaps/situations costs us four losses last year--

>>GT (even though we owned the gap advantage 36 vs. 28, DJ's on ball foul on the trey is an example of TC's philosophy on D.  Stupid situationally)
>>@ND (where our friend Reggie Greenwood called the game--MU had 8 FT's to ND's 31)
>>Duke (20 FT's vs. 27)
>>Stanford (12 vs. 28 gap)

There was not one game where we could definitively say the FT gap worked to MU's advantage to give us a W.  Making FT's may have sealed a win (UW), but there wasn't enough gap advantage to cover the win margin.  How would four more wins vs. ranked opponents look?  Three out of four with Bigs, btw.

In close games, top teams took advantage of mismatches to beat and exploit us.  Many of us contend that TC should have situationally pressed a team like Stanford to force our speed and quickness advantage in the backcourt vs. playing chug and tug.

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-FLECTION MARQUETTE

georgetown ball

Always found this ridiculous.  Not only did our former dictator come up with his own stat, he start charting year over year, referring to it ad nausem in the press (extra opps to say Wade) and then got our PA guy to scream it, even when the other team got the ball back.  And at the end of the day what it really did was just take guys out of position.  Guys like McNeal are going to gets theirs, there is no point in encouraging others to try and break a made up stats record each game. 

Quote from: Murffieus on August 13, 2008, 04:44:20 PM
Points in the paint wins games----and we gave up plenty of those last year because of playing tight on the perimeter we were exposed inside.. To keep points out of the paint, you have to contain with a lot of off the ball sag. It's a mistake to base what defense to play on what enhances the offense.

Had we collapsed on the Lopez's and dared Stanford to beat us with treys----odds are we win by at least 10 points. As it was we were so exposed down low that we had those odds stacked against us. Even at that we almost beat them.

Murf, question for you because I don't know.  Last year, Marquette was exceptional at three point defense.  Opponents only shot 30.4% from behind the arc against us, which was #9 in the country.  It was a strength of our team.

Is it possible to still maintain that type of outstanding perimeter defense while using lots of off the ball sag?  Or is there an inherent tradeoff?

Quote from: Pardner on August 13, 2008, 07:36:06 PM
Free throw gaps/situations costs us four losses last year--

>>GT (even though we owned the gap advantage 36 vs. 28, DJ's on ball foul on the trey is an example of TC's philosophy on D.  Stupid situationally)
>>@ND (where our friend Reggie Greenwood called the game--MU had 8 FT's to ND's 31)
>>Duke (20 FT's vs. 27)
>>Stanford (12 vs. 28 gap)

There was not one game where we could definitively say the FT gap worked to MU's advantage to give us a W.  Making FT's may have sealed a win (UW), but there wasn't enough gap advantage to cover the win margin.  How would four more wins vs. ranked opponents look?  Three out of four with Bigs, btw.

Your argument is that if only MU had eased up on the defense, they would have sent the opposotion to the line less often and won the game.

My question in response: what would have been the result of all those posessions where MU would not have fouled and sent the other team to the line?


In each of those four losses you cite, MU's oppoents had fewer attempts from the floor.

For example, Duke had 52 FGA while MU 57 FGA.  A difference of 5 FGA.  For a good shooting team like Duke, that could be a difference of 5 to 7 points. 

The difference is even more  striking for the Georgetown game:  Georgetown had 47 FGA,  MU had 62 FGA.  We can fault James for his last second foul which let GU put the game into overtime, but MU's style of play resulted in 21 GU turnovers and a 15 shot advantage from the floor.  Didn't those two factors have some impact?

Ditto with ND and Stanford:
@ND 60 FGA, MU 73 FGA
Stanford 60 FGA, MU 73 FGA
MU's FGA advantage was 13 shots from the floor in both games.


Let's play with the Duke stats just to see what might happen:
Assume MU plays a less agressive defense.  In fact, lets say that MU exactly matches Duke's defense.  Instead of allowing Duke 52 shots from the floor (including 37 two point shots and 15 treys) and sending them to the line for 27 FTA, let's assume MU eased up on the defense and allowed 57 shots from the floor but limited Duke's trip to the line to just 20 FTA (same as MU).
I'll be conservative and assume all the additional shots were only 2 pointers and assume that the Duke's shooting pcentage holds:

42 two point FGA @.540 (on two point shots) =  45 points
15 three point FGA @.400 (on three point shots) = 18 points
20 FTA at .704 = 14 points
Total score:  77 poiints

In this case, Duke still would have won. We did not lose because we sent Duke to the line--we still would have lost.

And this is a very conservative assessment
--I did not assume that Duke's shooting % would increase (as it likely would have with a less agressive defense)
--I did not assume that Duke turned the ball over any less (as they likely would have with a less agressvie defense)
--I did not assume any of Duke's additonal shot attempts would be treys (30% of Duke's shots were treys).

I just assumed MU fouled less resulting in fewer FTA and more FGA. 

So the last question--if you disagree that fouling less would result in more FGA, what do you assume happens on those possessions where MU fouled.  There are really only two realistic options--the other team gets a shot off, or the other team turns the ball over. 

With a less agressive defense, can we really assume that MU would have generated more turnovers?  I say no.

That means those posseions would result in shots attempts. 

In the end, TC played what he thought was the best defensive posture for his group ( dominated by a set of agressive & quick guards ).  It is what it is, good, bad or otherwise.  All the stats in the world won't change what happens or happened.  Remember the statistician who drowned in a river averaging less than 4 inches in depth annually.  Henry's analysis is very nice and good reading and well appreciated, but still just an anaylsis of numbers and not human effort.

Henry, Great attempt to quantify this very subjective argument.  Looking at your numbers, the correlations you pointed out are pretty clear...but IMO that doesn't mean it was the wrong approach.

Marquette's entire offense was based around transition baskets.  We really struggled in the half court offense, especially against big defensive teams.  Reducing our ball pressure may indeed level the FT gap, but there is the likely cost of teams hitting more 3's and shooting a higher FG%, combined with less turnovers forced.  As Marquette84 has stated in his examples, trading less FT's for more shots may swing the balance slightly either direction but not all that much because of the offsetting nature of FT vs. FG attempts.  What would drop off would be our TO's forced and possessions per game.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I remember a number of games where MU was outshot % wise but still won presumably because they were taking that many more shots.  I would assume this is the strategy last years coaching staff assumed was the best course of action for that team.  In fact reading this board I would say the majority of fans would have supported more pressure defense in the full court rather than less even at the cost of more FTs.

Just my two cents...Let the debate continue.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on August 13, 2008, 09:06:30 PM
Murf, question for you because I don't know.  Last year, Marquette was exceptional at three point defense.  Opponents only shot 30.4% from behind the arc against us, which was #9 in the country.  It was a strength of our team.

Is it possible to still maintain that type of outstanding perimeter defense while using lots of off the ball sag?  Or is there an inherent tradeoff?

Henry, the trade off being up tight ON the ball was weak one on one defending the dribble penetration, but of course helped our perimeter defense vs the 3 pt shot.

Being up tight off the ball put us in better shape to defend the trey when the defender's guy got the ball (could get to him quicker to disrupt)----the trade off here was twofold----#1 when the defender is tighter to his man off the ball he's not in as good a position to help on the dribble penetration------#2 he's not in as good a position to help on
the opponent's bigs (very evident against Stanford).

Murf, thanks for responding about the tradeoffs.  Last year, the three areas that had a statistically significant impact on our defense were:

• Opponents effective Field Goal % (eFG%) - standard shooting percentage adjusted for the extra value of a three
• Opponents' Turnover Rate
• Opponents' Free Throw Rate

Based on your description, it seems like the approach we used (being tight on and off the ball) actually did put Marquette in a position to influence two of those areas by trading off the third area.  In other words, the team was able to defend the trey (reducing Opp eFG%) and go for turnovers (increasing Opp TO Rate), but we were exposed to dribble penetration (benefiting Opponents FTR).

In your opinion (and I'm genuinely curious), how would you have structured the defensive strategy last year with the types of players on the team?

Great analysis, Sugar.

I'm not sure if I agree with some of the posters here that sagging off of the ball is a better defense... but the analysis you have performed has certainly opened up a pretty nice discussion.

At the end of the day, there are certainly more than one way to skin a cat, but using stats can certainly open everybody's eyes as to the true effectiveness of a specific approach.

Smart work.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on August 15, 2008, 08:32:22 AM

Based on your description, it seems like the approach we used (being tight on and off the ball) actually did put Marquette in a position to influence two of those areas by trading off the third area.  In other words, the team was able to defend the trey (reducing Opp eFG%) and go for turnovers (increasing Opp TO Rate), but we were exposed to dribble penetration (benefiting Opponents FTR).

In your opinion (and I'm genuinely curious), how would you have structured the defensive strategy last year with the types of players on the team?

Not only exposed to dribble penetration, but also to a lot of room for bigs to manuver inside.

Essentially a good containment defense has 3 advanatges-----forces the opposition into mainly a perimeter shooting game (75-80% of the time the team with the most points in the paint wins)------fewer fouls------better position for defensive rebs. I don't see any disadvanatges as the opposition has to shoot within 35 seconds-----if there were no shot clock a containmnet defense wouldn't be as effective.

I would have played a containment defense last year-----instead of using our quickness to gamble defensively for steals, I would use our quickness to take away to take away dribble penetration by dropping into gaps off the ball. Without checking, I would say that a team gets 5 steals a game or so by default regardless of what type of defense is played-----so why continually expose your defense in an attempt to get a couple more steals per game? In the latter part of a game if you're behind----that's a different story.

Quote from: Murffieus on August 15, 2008, 12:43:06 PM
Not only exposed to dribble penetration, but also to a lot of room for bigs to manuver inside.

Essentially a good containment defense has 3 advanatges-----forces the opposition into mainly a perimeter shooting game (75-80% of the time the team with the most points in the paint wins)------fewer fouls------better position for defensive rebs. I don't see any disadvanatges as the opposition has to shoot within 35 seconds-----if there were no shot clock a containmnet defense wouldn't be as effective.

I would have played a containment defense last year-----instead of using our quickness to gamble defensively for steals, I would use our quickness to take away to take away dribble penetration by dropping into gaps off the ball. Without checking, I would say that a team gets 5 steals a game or so by default regardless of what type of defense is played-----so why continually expose your defense in an attempt to get a couple more steals per game? In the latter part of a game if you're behind----that's a different story.

Murff, can you factor in the fact that an agressive defense also results in fewer FG attempts by the other team?

The classic strategy here is "Hack a Shaq".  Its smart to always foul Shaq before he gets off, because its far more likely that he'll score from the floor than from the the line.

At the other extreme is Steve Novak--you wouldn't want to foul Novak ever because he's more likely to make the FTs than from the floor.

Teams as a whole are at neither extreme, but on average, at some point a more agressive defense makes sense.  Under what condistions would this make sense. 

It's my belief that for MU's team last year, playing more agressively was a good tradeoff--when you look at the stats, clearly MU was effective at limiting the number of opposition field goal attempts. 

I don't think There is any debate that MU's style of defense resulted in three things;
--more foul shots by the oppostiion
--fewer field goal attempts by the opposition
--more turnovers by the opposition

We can calculate the impact of the shift in defense compared to a containment team like Notre Dame
--7 more FT attempts by the other team, at .80 shooting, resulting in +6 points
--10 fewer FG attempts by the other team, at .50 shooting reuslitng in -10 points
--3 more turnovers (results in fewer FG attempts above).

Rebounding was a wash.

So by my calculation, the benefit of our agreessive defense actually prevented 4 points a game (on average) by the other team.

I am convinced that even in close losses, the margin would have been greater if we had not played such an agressive defense--my anaysis of Duke appears above.

Number of FGAs per game depends a lot on rebounds (limiting the opposition to one shot and the same team getting multiple shots off offensive rebs distorts the FGA conclusion based on defense)-----also very difficult to quantify on # of FGA e.g., is the type of shot that is taken. I would argue that a good containment defense forces lower percentage shots by keeping shots out of the paint-----so a shortfall of FGA is not dependable as an indicator of the quality of a defense (the team with fewer FGA may be taking higher percentage shots). Also hard to quantify is the effect of the quality of any particular defense whether aggressive or containment. e.g. a good aggressive defense is going to be superior to a poorly constructed containment defense.

84--
I said previously that I agreed with your opportunity cost analysis.  MU was 5th nationally in points per possession (1.1) and MU's opponenets had one of the lowest pts/possession (0.9).  But, your greatest strength is your greatest weakness--and in this case, finishing 8th nationally in fouls given hurt us in close games. 

Take the Duke game you referenced.  Both teams made the same amount of FG's (26), MU made one more trey (7 vs. 6), but Duke had the edge in FT's (27 vs. 20) and FTM (19-14) to decide the game.  Result:  Duke 77 - MU 73.  Would MU have lost by a larger margin if we didn't play so aggressively?  Most likely.  Would we have won if we hit more shots and didn't foul as much?  Absolutely.

Did MU play the right style based on their personnel?  Yes, on average, TC's system obviously worked very well based upon our personnel.  But, the knock on him is he couldn't win the big games consistently enough--mainly because MU was undersized in those games--meaning we had to be more aggressive.  To show this, I went back in those four games and compiled a "Height Weighted Minute" statistic reflecting minutes played times the height of the players in that game.  In those four games, MU was undersized to what amounts to over 1-2 inches per position in each game...and the FT rate was ~30% higher than our average as a result--which is not a surprise.  Size mattered!

With Butler, Fulce, Trevor, Otule--we just got bigger and longer in match-up games.  We aren't just bringing in Mo and dCube to spell our already undersized guards or forced to put Lazar on a Lopez Twin and hope for the best.  We have more athletic options now to disrupt an offense--not just to gamble for a steal or to pressure for a TO.  The end of the season is decided by advantaged match-ups--and we needed to get bigger.