MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 07, 2018, 01:44:18 PM

Title: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 07, 2018, 01:44:18 PM
https://www.three-man-weave.com/3mw/marquette-basketball-preview-2019

Of all the previews that I have read so far, I think this was one of the most well done. They had one nice tidbit that I think got at the heart of why many are convinced that the defense the past two years has mostly been a personnel issue, not a scheme issue.

Quote
Aside from the steals, though, the benefit of plugging in his 6'3 size in place of 5'10 meatball Andrew Rowsey is a massive upgrade in itself. When Markus Howard played without Rowsey last year, Marquette's defense was Actually, Legitimately Good, but when they played together, hellfire rained down:

Howard on, Rowsey off: 472 total defensive possessions, 0.95 dPPP
Rowsey on, Howard off: 522 total defensive possessions, 1.05 dPPP
Rowsey + Howard together: 1,439 total defensive possessions. 1.17 dPPP
Neither: 59 total defensive possessions. 1.32 dPPP

I truly believe replacing an abysmal defender (Rowsey) with a very good defender (JC) is going to result in a much steeper improvement to the defense than many realize.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Its DJOver on August 07, 2018, 01:56:41 PM
Surprised that "neither" defense was as bad as it was. Combination of small sample size and the fact that if neither were in, it was likely garbage time maybe?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 07, 2018, 02:16:43 PM
Surprised that "neither" defense was as bad as it was. Combination of small sample size and the fact that if neither were in, it was likely garbage time maybe?

I think you hit the nail on the head. Those 59 possessions with neither on the floor represented around 2% of all our defensive possessions. That's not even a single games worth of defensive possessions. I'd be willing to bet that over 75% of those came in garbage time.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Nukem2 on August 07, 2018, 02:52:26 PM
Seriously doubt Wojo is on the hot seat entering this upcoming season.  Otherwise, a good summmary.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: mileskishnish72 on August 07, 2018, 08:20:05 PM
Yeah, Rowsey was a “meatball” on D. At the other end he was chateaubriand.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on August 07, 2018, 10:36:08 PM
Seriously doubt Wojo is on the hot seat entering this upcoming season.  Otherwise, a good summmary.

Have you read Scoop?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 07, 2018, 10:55:10 PM
Good article, thanks for sharing.

Surprised that "neither" defense was as bad as it was. Combination of small sample size and the fact that if neither were in, it was likely garbage time maybe?

I thought that too. Neither when guys like Marotta and Lelito are out there definitely isn't lockdown.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: tower912 on August 08, 2018, 07:08:23 AM
I am glad they threw that statistic in there.  I remember seeing  it last year and it is one of the reasons I believe the defense will be markedly improved.  Chartouny for Rowsey by itself will improve the defense.   Morrow by himself is another.  Having a long, deep, experienced team is a third.  People are going to complain because people like to complain, but the defense will be better.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: mu03eng on August 08, 2018, 07:37:12 AM
Been noddling on this for a while and am finally ready to commit....at a minimum we will have a top 50 defense this coming season. Considering we're 125+ coming into the season that's a huge leap and with a top 10 offense that should be plenty to have a very good year
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: GGGG on August 08, 2018, 07:48:13 AM
I am glad they threw that statistic in there.  I remember seeing  it last year and it is one of the reasons I believe the defense will be markedly improved.  Chartouny for Rowsey by itself will improve the defense.   Morrow by himself is another.  Having a long, deep, experienced team is a third.  People are going to complain because people like to complain, but the defense will be better.


I think the defense will be better, but the offense will be slightly worse.  There's margin for error there resulting in a net gain.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: muwarrior69 on August 08, 2018, 08:05:50 AM
Does anyone think having us #26 out of his top 40 is optimistic?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: mu03eng on August 08, 2018, 08:06:53 AM
Does anyone think having us #26 out of his top 40 is optimistic?

I think it's actually appropriate for preseason but pessimistic for where I think this team actually finishes. I'm anticipating they will be flirting with a top 15 ranking through conference season.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: BossplayaOtto on August 08, 2018, 08:43:34 AM
I think it's actually appropriate for preseason but pessimistic for where I think this team actually finishes. I'm anticipating they will be flirting with a top 15 ranking through conference season.

 I hope you are right!
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: tower912 on August 08, 2018, 08:48:22 AM
Exactly.  I am not worried about preseason rankings.  If this team is what we think it is, AND they start out hot, the rankings will take care of themselves. 
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: We R Final Four on August 08, 2018, 09:07:48 AM

I think the defense will be better, but the offense will be slightly worse.  There's margin for error there resulting in a net gain.
Yes. Huge jump in defense....would be shocked if we have a top 10 offense to go along with that.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 08, 2018, 09:17:55 AM

I think the defense will be better, but the offense will be slightly worse.  There's margin for error there resulting in a net gain.

Agreed but I think we will still have one of the best offenses in the country,  top 20ish.  I'm not sure if I'm ready to say we will have a top 50 defense like Eng,  but I think top 75 is reasonable.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 08, 2018, 09:19:21 AM
Yes. Huge jump in defense....would be shocked if we have a top 10 offense to go along with that.

Wondering why you think this?  Based on Wojo's history I would be shocked in a huge jump in defense and would be shocked, with this roster composition, if we are not Top 10 in offense. I can see an improvement on defense in the rankings, but a huge one would be a shock. I also don't see your shock prognostication on offense where everyone returns but Drew and Harry.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 08, 2018, 09:25:55 AM
Wondering why you think this?  Based on Wojo's history I would be shocked in a huge jump in defense and would be shocked, with this roster composition, if we are not Top 10 in offense. I can see an improvement on defense in the rankings, but a huge one would be a shock. I also don't see your shock prognostication on offense where everyone returns but Drew and Harry.

1. Read the quote in the first post. No Rowdy = addition by subtraction on defense

2. JC = Addition by addition on defense

3. Wojo had average defenses his first two seasons.  It wasn't until Rowdy and Howard joined up that the defenses tanked.

I think there is strong evidence that this is much more of a personnel issue than a scheme issue.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: barfolomew on August 08, 2018, 10:20:43 AM
I think it's actually appropriate for preseason but pessimistic for where I think this team actually finishes. I'm anticipating they will be flirting with a top 15 ranking through conference season.

I also think it's about right for the preseason (maybe a tad high), but don't share your optimism for end of season rankings.
If we go 4-2 or better in our "big six" non-con games, we'll be ranked, but 3-3 or worse and we probably won't, and I don't know if there's enough meat in conference this year to move up a lot, sans some Nova upsets.
We definitely have a good chance to end as one of the top 25 teams in that case, just don't know about being ranked in the polls.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Its DJOver on August 08, 2018, 10:26:16 AM
Man, I thought that I was optimistic in hoping for a top 150 defense next year.  If we're into double digits as some suggest, a lot of the traditional pessimists may go missing next Spring.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on August 08, 2018, 10:41:32 AM
Base case should be in the ballpark of last year's Xavier (#15 overall / #8 O / #57 D) and Wichita St. (#21 overall / #4 O / #111 D). Easily upside into the top 10 overall range (something like a KU #5 O /#47 D from last year). Those teams ended up with a 1 & 4 seed (flamed out eraly but still). If I had to put money on it right now I think 5 seed is the worst we do.

Obviously downside into the 25-30 range if the offesne falls off a bit sans Rowsey and the D fails to improve nearly as much as expected (or rampant injury woes), but I think that scenario is a lot less likely than the upside case. This should be a very exciting season with a ton of wins, especially with the BEast down a bit.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: muwarrior69 on August 08, 2018, 10:47:19 AM
1. Read the quote in the first post. No Rowdy = addition by subtraction on defense

2. JC = Addition by addition on defense

3. Wojo had average defenses his first two seasons.  It wasn't until Rowdy and Howard joined up that the defenses tanked.

I think there is strong evidence that this is much more of a personnel issue than a scheme issue.

I guess the big question is will our guys be able to match the physicality, quickness and athleticism of our Big East brethren. I know my eye test does not mean squat but that is why I think our defense has suffered the last two seasons; our guys could not execute what Wojo expected them to do. Will find out if that has changed this season. At least this team will have some upper classmen leadership this season.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 08, 2018, 11:37:23 AM
FWIW, going by Pomeroy's numbers, 0.95 ppp would've ranked us between 15-28 in the nation (depending on the next decimal) last year and top-50 in any of the past 5 years.

Regardless, a top-50 defense would exceed my personal hopes and along with our offense have us as one of the better teams in the country. Offensively, I don't think there will be that much dropoff despite the loss of Rowsey. Adding a distributor should only help Markus and Sam while the players whose roles should increase -- Cain, Elliott, and Anim -- were still fairly efficient players. I think the offense will be about the same and possibly be even better than last year.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on August 08, 2018, 11:43:01 AM
FWIW, going by Pomeroy's numbers, 0.95 ppp would've ranked us between 15-28 in the nation (depending on the next decimal) last year and top-50 in any of the past 5 years.

Regardless, a top-50 defense would exceed my personal hopes and along with our offense have us as one of the better teams in the country. Offensively, I don't think there will be that much dropoff despite the loss of Rowsey. Adding a distributor should only help Markus and Sam while the players whose roles should increase -- Cain, Elliott, and Anim -- were still fairly efficient players. I think the offense will be about the same and possibly be even better than last year.

Agreed, which is a tantalizing prospect
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: bilsu on August 08, 2018, 11:56:22 AM
Does anyone think having us #26 out of his top 40 is optimistic?
I think it is optimistic, if Heldt and Anim are still starting when the Big East season starts. My optimistic view is that neither will be starting and we will be better than 26. I want to believe the newcomers are good enough to change the starting line up.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Its DJOver on August 08, 2018, 12:00:44 PM
I think it is optimistic, if Heldt and Anim are still starting when the Big East season starts. My optimistic view is that neither will be starting and we will be better than 26. I want to believe the newcomers are good enough to change the starting line up.

What newcomer do you think will start over Matt?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Newsdreams on August 08, 2018, 12:02:37 PM
I think it is optimistic, if Heldt and Anim are still starting when the Big East season starts. My optimistic view is that neither will be starting and we will be better than 26. I want to believe the newcomers are good enough to change the starting line up.

Starting no matta, hey?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: bilsu on August 08, 2018, 12:14:42 PM
What newcomer do you think will start over Matt?
Not a newcomer, but it could be John. Otherwise Morrow or even Joey, if we do not go with a traditional center. I believe we are going to be good, because I am hoping at least two of Bailey, Morrow and Joey are going to change the lineup.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Its DJOver on August 08, 2018, 12:23:05 PM
Not a newcomer, but it could be John. Otherwise Morrow or even Joey, if we do not go with a traditional center. I believe we are going to be good, because I am hoping at least two of Bailey, Morrow and Joey are going to change the lineup.

Thanks for clarifying. I think Theo would be the only other candidate.  While we may go small ball at times, I can't see a scenario where we would start a game that way, possible exception being a cupcake when Wojo is tinkering.  I also think we see less small ball than many here are anticipating, especially if Theo becomes more disciplined defensively and keeps his fouls per 40 down.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Jay Bee on August 08, 2018, 12:28:05 PM
FWIW, going by Pomeroy's numbers, 0.95 ppp would've ranked us between 15-28 in the nation (depending on the next decimal) last year and top-50 in any of the past 5 years.

You’re comparing apples & oranges (ok, more like two types of apples).  The .95 is based on actual possession data - you’re comparing to KenPom figures that were adjusted for projection purposes.

A true comp w/b 13-17 last year in raw data.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Silkk the Shaka on August 08, 2018, 12:29:57 PM
Starting no matta, hey?

Agreed, but who gets the most minutes does. And as long as that's Chartouny, Markus, Sam, Joey, and Morrow, we should be an excellent team.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: NWarsh on August 08, 2018, 12:40:46 PM
FWIW, going by Pomeroy's numbers, 0.95 ppp would've ranked us between 15-28 in the nation (depending on the next decimal) last year and top-50 in any of the past 5 years.

What were the offensive numbers like for those same breakdowns?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Floorslapper on August 08, 2018, 12:49:42 PM
Wondering why you think this?  Based on Wojo's history I would be shocked in a huge jump in defense and would be shocked, with this roster composition, if we are not Top 10 in offense. I can see an improvement on defense in the rankings, but a huge one would be a shock. I also don't see your shock prognostication on offense where everyone returns but Drew and Harry.

Think it is plausible our offense this year does take a step back into the 30s-40s.  As I recall, Rowsey turned in the 2nd best season at MU since 2000 next to D-Wade as it related to Offensive Efficiency.

Andrew made the game a lot easier for his teammates - created major floor spacing, which helped Howard and Hauser.  His shot making and ability to get to FT Line were huge.  Strong assist rate too.  Add all that up, and you have a BIG hole to plug on the O-end.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Jay Bee on August 08, 2018, 12:53:35 PM
Think it is plausible our offense this year does take a step back into the 30s-40s.  As I recall, Rowsey turned in the 2nd best season at MU since 2000 next to D-Wade as it related to Offensive Efficiency.

#FakeNews
#Lies

wat??
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: We R Final Four on August 08, 2018, 02:02:06 PM
Wondering why you think this?  Based on Wojo's history I would be shocked in a huge jump in defense and would be shocked, with this roster composition, if we are not Top 10 in offense. I can see an improvement on defense in the rankings, but a huge one would be a shock. I also don't see your shock prognostication on offense where everyone returns but Drew and Harry.
I was referring to Eng statement of a minimum top 50 D. If that’s the case (I don’t think it will be that high) there will be a monumental shift in focus and energy on D. If that were to happen I find it highly unlikely that we would maintain a top 10 Off.
We are not the ‘96 Packers who are great at everything.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: bilsu on August 08, 2018, 03:08:18 PM
Our roster could not defend against the national champions. I am just wondering how much the 3 Villanova games skewed the numbers?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 08, 2018, 03:15:30 PM
I was referring to Eng statement of a minimum top 50 D. If that’s the case (I don’t think it will be that high) there will be a monumental shift in focus and energy on D. If that were to happen I find it highly unlikely that we would maintain a top 10 Off.
We are not the ‘96 Packers who are great at everything.

Thanks. I have started working on a meta analysis using Pomeroy data to test some the Scoop hypotheses. 
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 08, 2018, 04:52:26 PM
Our roster could not defend against the national champions. I am just wondering how much the 3 Villanova games skewed the numbers?

Our two worst games were against Villanova, but our defense was bad against Purdue, Xavier, and Butler (among others). I don't think those games skewed it that much.

Think it is plausible our offense this year does take a step back into the 30s-40s.  As I recall, Rowsey turned in the 2nd best season at MU since 2000 next to D-Wade as it related to Offensive Efficiency.

I echo what Jay Bee said. What are you talking about? Sam had a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey in that same season. Travis Diener, Steve Novak, Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, Davante Gardner, and Markus Howard all had seasons with a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey did last year. Further, Wade wasn't even that good in that regard. I mean, he had a great season, but all of those guys listed above had higher efficiency numbers and Wade didn't even lead the 2003 team in offensive efficiency (and would've been fourth on the 2018 team had 2003 Wade put up the same numbers last yaer).

Very bizarre statement.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 08, 2018, 05:35:53 PM
#FakeNews
#Lies

wat??

I echo what Jay Bee said. What are you talking about? Sam had a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey in that same season. Travis Diener, Steve Novak, Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, Davante Gardner, and Markus Howard all had seasons with a better offensive efficiency than Rowsey did last year. Further, Wade wasn't even that good in that regard. I mean, he had a great season, but all of those guys listed above had higher efficiency numbers and Wade didn't even lead the 2003 team in offensive efficiency (and would've been fourth on the 2018 team had 2003 Wade put up the same numbers last yaer).

Very bizarre statement.

I think he might have meant offensive win shares. Rowdy's 4.7 were 3rd in the Big East and 9th in the country. Not sure how that compares to former Marquette players but they were actually higher than  Wade's.

Yes Rowsey's departure is a huge hit on the offensive end. So much of a hit that I think our offense does take a few steps back....to like #18 or #20 from #12. His impact on the offense is so big that I think it will be worse despite returning everyone else of significance and bringing in JC, Morrow, Joey, BB, and Ike. Just not that much worse. The jump on the defensive end should be much steeper and result in a highly rated team.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 08, 2018, 11:45:44 PM
1. Read the quote in the first post. No Rowdy = addition by subtraction on defense

2. JC = Addition by addition on defense

3. Wojo had average defenses his first two seasons.  It wasn't until Rowdy and Howard joined up that the defenses tanked.

I think there is strong evidence that this is much more of a personnel issue than a scheme issue.

I think we overestimate the import of just height when looking at personal data, especially when looking at these factors singularly. This is the inherent problem with Big Data.

While height is important on defense, the relative importance (aka, match-ups) is one of the smaller contributions versus the national average. Meanwhile, other factors including style of play are much larger factors on the margins. One needs to look at these factors multiplicatively.

Here is a teaser:  Opponent assist rate, our 2Foul Participation Rate (how we have to sit our starters like Luke), Home Court, our rebounding, foul rates, two point distribution yield, and style of defense are much larger statistically sensitiive factors in my models.

Btw, the Wino's height over Drewski gets MU to a 103 AdJ D. Good for a 129 rank last year. Ed will get us further. Under 50?  We are talking PowerBall lucky.

Also your reference to the Wojo Derrick Wilson PF on the back of the 2-3 zone years creates a caution considering the shot clock and foul focus changes since then.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 09, 2018, 12:21:40 AM
I think we overestimate the import of just height when looking at personal data, especially when looking at these factors singularly. This is the inherent problem with Big Data.

While height is important on defense, the relative importance (aka, match-ups) is one of the smaller contributions versus the national average. Meanwhile, other factors including style of play are much larger factors on the margins. One needs to look at these factors multiplicatively.

Here is a teaser:  Opponent assist rate, our 2Foul Participation Rate (how we have to sit our starters like Luke), Home Court, our rebounding, foul rates, two point distribution yield, and style of defense are much larger statistically sensitiive factors in my models.

Btw, the Wino's height over Drewski gets MU to a 103 AdJ D. Good for a 129 rank last year. Ed will get us further. Under 50?  We are talking PowerBall lucky.

Also your reference to the Wojo Derrick Wilson PF on the back of the 2-3 zone years creates a caution considering the shot clock and foul focus changes since then.

I'll be honest, my optimism for defensive improvement has little to do with height. My optimism is because Rowsey was the worst defensive starter in modern Marquette history and he is being replaced by a good defender.

I look forward to reading whatever you put out, it sounds more in depth than I have ever gone. My statistical ability is limited...but this sounds pretty good to me:

Rowsey + Howard together: 1,439 total defensive possessions. 1.17 dPPP
Rowsey on, Howard off: 522 total defensive possessions, 1.05 dPPP
Howard on, Rowsey off: 472 total defensive possessions, 0.95 dPPP

That big of shifts in dPPP are not coincidence.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: THRILLHO on August 09, 2018, 06:00:31 AM
I think we overestimate the import of just height when looking at personal data, especially when looking at these factors singularly. This is the inherent problem with Big Data.

While height is important on defense, the relative importance (aka, match-ups) is one of the smaller contributions versus the national average. Meanwhile, other factors including style of play are much larger factors on the margins. One needs to look at these factors multiplicatively.

Here is a teaser:  Opponent assist rate, our 2Foul Participation Rate (how we have to sit our starters like Luke), Home Court, our rebounding, foul rates, two point distribution yield, and style of defense are much larger statistically sensitiive factors in my models.

Btw, the Wino's height over Drewski gets MU to a 103 AdJ D. Good for a 129 rank last year. Ed will get us further. Under 50?  We are talking PowerBall lucky.

Also your reference to the Wojo Derrick Wilson PF on the back of the 2-3 zone years creates a caution considering the shot clock and foul focus changes since then.

My internal model is that height is not that important at the individual level -- one short guy will be on average a little bit worse than a taller guy with the same effort, athleticism, etc., and only hurts your team D a little bit. But when you have 2 short guys, it hurts your team more than just the sum of the individual losses, because it affects your ability to scheme around the short guy. Say you have 3 players, roughly, playing guard spot, a,b,c on offense, x,y,z on defense (in order of height). There are 6 possible defensive matchups (axbycz, axbzcy, aybxcz, aybzcx, azbxcy, azbycx),  If you have 1 short defender (x), probably 2 of the matchups have catastrophic height mismatches (whenever x guards c) and 2 more have smaller mismatches (x guards b). If you have 2 short players (x,y), 4 matchups have catastrophic height mismatches, and the other 2 still have some mismatch. Then the offense has to do less work to get a favorable mismatch, and the defense is trying to avoid a catastrophic matchups rather than preserving a good one. That could be why, in TAMU's stats, even though the team D was statistically "good" when only Markus is out there, adding him to Rowsey makes things even worse. Does that make any sense?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: PaintTouches on August 09, 2018, 09:43:23 AM
My optimism is because Rowsey was the worst defensive starter in modern Marquette history and he is being replaced by a good defender.

I'm in 100% agreement with TAMU, and just wanted to add these nuggets once more, for those who didn't see it on Twitter.

Rowsey gave up 1.032 PPP in 94 possessions of P&R where he was the main defender at the time of the shot. Of the 390 players who saw at least 90 possessions against P&R, Rowsey ranked 380th, worst among high major players. He was literally the worst P&R defender in MU history last season, of players getting more than 1 P&R poss. per game.

Markus is no great defender in is own right, but he gave up 52 points in 66 possessions against P&R ball handlers, .788 PPP. A rating of average, but miles ahead or Rowsey.

Chartouny only gave up .75 PPP defending P&R ball handlers (and only faced 20 poss).

There was a lot more wrong with the defense than just P&R, but it's the most basic play in the modern era and one MU simply couldn't defend because it had one of the worst P&R defenders in the country.   
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: bilsu on August 09, 2018, 10:48:00 AM
Having short guards hurt the defense, but I do not think that was the only problem. We were also weak in the center spot. Heldt was very good defensively if a player was trying to back him down. Heldt was only so so defensively if he had to rotate. John was worse and Froling was pitiful. Rowsey and Howard would of had much better defensive numbers, if they had a Jim McIlvanie type center protecting them at the center spot. Also at the end of the season Hauser was limited by his bad hip. Having a healthy Hauser should help. Having a bigger point guard should help. Having more frontcourt depth should help.  However, if we cannot greatly improve our defense when the ball gets rotated inside on us, we still will not be a great defensive team.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Floorslapper on August 09, 2018, 10:58:47 AM
#FakeNews
#Lies

wat??

My bad - Perhaps it was Value Add.  I think Auburn can clarify/confirm.  The search sleuths here, I'm sure can find the stat I intended to reference.

Overarching point was, that Rowsey was extremely valuable on the O-End, and his departure will likely have a negative affect on the Offense and likely will result in a step back, despite another year of growth from Markus, Sam, et al.

Yet as has been pointed out, we will be better on D-end with no more midget ball of Rowsey/Howard.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 09, 2018, 11:48:19 AM
My bad - Perhaps it was Value Add.  I think Auburn can clarify/confirm.  The search sleuths here, I'm sure can find the stat I intended to reference.

Overarching point was, that Rowsey was extremely valuable on the O-End, and his departure will likely have a negative affect on the Offense and likely will result in a step back, despite another year of growth from Markus, Sam, et al.

Yet as has been pointed out, we will be better on D-end with no more midget ball of Rowsey/Howard.

I found it. It's Auburn's offensive value add. Auburn rates Rowsey as the second most valuable offensive Marquette player since 2002. #1 is 02-03 Dwyane Wade.

1. 02-03 Dwyane Wade 10.42
2. 17-18 Andrew Rowsey 9.43
3. 17-18 Sam Hauser 8.09
4. 03-04 Travis Diener 7.43
5. 17-18 Markus Howard 7.31
6. 05-06 Steve Novak 7.27
7. 01-02 Dwyane Wade 7.16
8. 02-03 Robert Jackson 7.01
9. 09-10 Jimmy Butler 6.85
10. 01-02 Cordell Henry 6.84

Damn, 3 of the top 5 offensive seasons per this stat happened last season. I'm not sure how this stat is calculated, maybe Auburn can give us a summary.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 09, 2018, 03:40:37 PM
I will share this now as it will take me a while before I can get back to getting the models to how I want them.  This will advance the conversation while also getting feedback.

This is based on a meta database built off Pomeroy data of all NCAA teams.  The goal was to use that sample to determine what are the criteria to predict adjusted
DE. The DE metrics reported here are differences versus the national averages (sensitivity analysis) to benchmark last year's team. Positive is bad and negative is good.

- Adjusted Tempo (+0.3 to our Adj. DE). Better defensive teams play at a lower tempo.  UVA, who was the #1 defensive team, had a pace of 59.3 versus 69.5 for MU.

- Steal Rate (0.0).  MU right at average. Joe could raise this.  If MU increased their steal rate 1%, our DE would drop 0.3 points.

- Block % (-0.2). Thanks Theo. Let's keep our bigs home more.

- Opponent Assist Rate (+0.9). MU allowed more assists than norm.  Maybe because of the bad PnR defense?

-  2Foul Participation (have to sit players because of foul issues) (+0.6).  Depth will
help here but this harkens back to having to sit Luke. MU was at 31.7% last year versus a 20.1% on average. Woof. Plenty of times we had to sit starters last year. The Frosh usually did okay but let's learn to pressure without fouling or chasing needlessly.

- Home Court Rating (-1.4). Will FF help MU even more than the BC? The students in the bow tie will help.  Thanks LAX Dudes.

- Opponents OR (+0.4).  Big Ed, get to work. Big difference versus UVA.

- Opponent Shot Mix (Net: -2.2).  MU fouled more (thus, more free throws) and gave up more twos, but pressured out on the perimeter to a net overall benefit on threes. Maybe because we had to with our guards? Good strategy overall but this created other holes.

- Size (Net: +0.5). Yes our small guards hurt us, but we were also bigger on the back line. Joe could shave off 2-3 points of adjDE, though. (Btw, PF,  Center and PG height have the biggest impacts on DE).

- Opponent TO Rate (0.3). MU turned over opponents less than average when out chasing the perimeter. Let's balance the floor and double on pressure points with doubles like against Happ.

- Defensive Footprint (1.7). Pomeroy actually quantifies this (scheme). I threw it in and it stuck. MU way below average and UVA. Pick your poison.

- One note on statistical comparisons as I mentioned were the shot clock and rule changes implemented a few years ago. The best conference DE last year was Nova at 105.7. In 2015, it was 98.5 (also by Nova). A shorter time clock, reduced hand checking, the extended hoop circle and a focus on post play has increased offensive play, especially in the BE.

Cheers! Looking at the major help that Ed and Joe will provide on defense.  What scheme adjustments will Wojo make? 
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on August 09, 2018, 03:52:10 PM
I will share this now as it will take me a while before I can get back to getting the models to how I want them.  This will advance the conversation while also getting feedback.

This is based on a meta database built off Pomeroy data of all NCAA teams.  The goal was to use that sample to determine what are the criteria to predict adjusted
DE. The DE metrics reported here are differences versus the national averages (sensitivity analysis) to benchmark last year's team. Positive is bad and negative is good.

- Adjusted Tempo (+0.3 to our Adj. DE). Better defensive teams play at a lower tempo.  UVA, who was the #1 defensive team, had a pace of 59.3 versus 69.5 for MU.

- Steal Rate (0.0).  MU right at average. Joe could raise this.  If MU increased their steal rate 1%, our DE would drop 0.3 points.

- Block % (-0.2). Thanks Theo. Let's keep our bigs home more.

- Opponent Assist Rate (+0.9). MU allowed more assists than norm.  Maybe because of the bad PnR defense?

-  2Foul Participation (have to sit players because of foul issues) (+0.6).  Depth will
help here but this harkens back to having to sit Luke. MU was at 31.7% last year versus a 20.1% on average. Woof. Plenty of times we had to sit starters last year. The Frosh usually did okay but let's learn to pressure without fouling or chasing needlessly.

- Home Court Rating (-1.4). Will FF help MU even more than the BC? The students in the bow tie will help.  Thanks LAX Dudes.

- Opponents OR (+0.4).  Big Ed, get to work. Big difference versus UVA.

- Opponent Shot Mix (Net: -2.2).  MU fouled more (thus, more free throws) and gave up more twos, but pressured out on the perimeter to a net overall benefit on threes. Maybe because we had to with our guards? Good strategy overall but this created other holes.

- Size (Net: +0.5). Yes our small guards hurt us, but we were also bigger on the back line. Joe could shave off 2-3 points of adjDE, though. (Btw, PF,  Center and PG height have the biggest impacts on DE).

- Opponent TO Rate (0.3). MU turned over opponents less than average when out chasing the perimeter. Let's balance the floor and double on pressure points with doubles like against Happ.

- Defensive Footprint (1.7). Pomeroy actually quantifies this (scheme). I threw it in and it stuck. MU way below average and UVA. Pick your poison.

- One note on statistical comparisons as I mentioned were the shot clock and rule changes implemented a few years ago. The best conference DE last year was Nova at 105.7. In 2015, it was 98.5 (also by Nova). A shorter time clock, reduced hand checking, the extended hoop circle and a focus on post play has increased offensive play, especially in the BE.

Cheers! Looking at the major help that Ed and Joe will provide on defense.  What scheme adjustments will Wojo make?

Thanks Dr. B. A lot to sift through. The only point I'm lost on this bolded. How does one quantify scheme?

Also, you mention a lot about how new players will help. How about how removing a terrible defensive player will help?
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 09, 2018, 04:14:00 PM
Thanks Dr. B. A lot to sift through. The only point I'm lost on this bolded. How does one quantify scheme?

Also, you mention a lot about how new players will help. How about how removing a terrible defensive player will help?

It's behind the paywall and he is a bit coy with the algorithm behind it, but he has come up with a coding schema to classify a defensive footprint that is parametrically based. I struggled a bit with it to include it but I settled on leaving it in with not knowing the exact math. The statistical relationship holds and we debate this often so I throw it in and it stuck. MU plays a "mixed man" defense which makes sense with the base man and zone trap Wojo threw out there.

https://kenpom.com/blog/defensive-fingerprint/
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Floorslapper on August 09, 2018, 04:46:02 PM
I found it. It's Auburn's offensive value add. Auburn rates Rowsey as the second most valuable offensive Marquette player since 2002. #1 is 02-03 Dwyane Wade.

1. 02-03 Dwyane Wade 10.42
2. 17-18 Andrew Rowsey 9.43
3. 17-18 Sam Hauser 8.09
4. 03-04 Travis Diener 7.43
5. 17-18 Markus Howard 7.31
6. 05-06 Steve Novak 7.27
7. 01-02 Dwyane Wade 7.16
8. 02-03 Robert Jackson 7.01
9. 09-10 Jimmy Butler 6.85
10. 01-02 Cordell Henry 6.84

Damn, 3 of the top 5 offensive seasons per this stat happened last season. I'm not sure how this stat is calculated, maybe Auburn can give us a summary.

Thanks TAMU.

Pretty incredible that last season we had 3 of the Top 5 Value Add seasons in MU ball since 2002.  Was a real shame to miss the tournament with that kind of Offensive talent. 

Sure is going to be an interesting season ahead.  Major upgrade defensively with Chardonnay, but we also have a major downgrade offensively with the loss of Andrew. 
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: GGGG on August 09, 2018, 05:07:51 PM
Thanks TAMU.

Pretty incredible that last season we had 3 of the Top 5 Value Add seasons in MU ball since 2002.  Was a real shame to miss the tournament with that kind of Offensive talent. 

Sure is going to be an interesting season ahead.  Major upgrade defensively with Chardonnay, but we also have a major downgrade offensively with the loss of Andrew. 

I don’t think it’s that major. When you have so much offensive talent already, his impact isn’t as much as you would suspect.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Its DJOver on August 09, 2018, 05:32:04 PM
I don’t think it’s that major. When you have so much offensive talent already, his impact isn’t as much as you would suspect.

I agree that it's not that major,  but do we really have that much offensive talent. 

Sam and Markus are both studs which means that we realistically only need one other major contributor, but the now sophomores arnt there yet. JC will make a bigger impact on the defensive end, and Ed hasn't played in over a year. Between all of them getting one or two to be real contributors should be a safe bet, especially throwing in the freshman, but it's still a concern. I'm still much more concerned about how big a jump the D can make, but a top 10 offensive shouldn't be a foregone conclusion. All IMO of course.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Floorslapper on August 09, 2018, 05:57:00 PM
I don’t think it’s that major. When you have so much offensive talent already, his impact isn’t as much as you would suspect.

Guess we will see.  I feel Rowdy had a very positive impact on both Sam and Markus's offensive games.  The crazy range, and being so good with the ball as primary ball handler, distributor, dribble drive - all of that created better opportunities for Markus/Sam, than I feel they will see this year with Chardonnay. 

Not sure I see a very effective penetrator on the roster this year.  Markus generally was a shoot first, second and third if he did penetrate.  Drive/kick game will suffer without Rowdy and overall floor spacing.

Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Jay Bee on August 09, 2018, 06:17:30 PM
I don’t think it’s that major. When you have so much offensive talent already, his impact isn’t as much as you would suspect.

Agreed (although I think our offense could be a little weaker, just because it was so good last year... some %'s are just tough comps).

We have a different kind of PG in JC who is experienced.. we have Morrow. We have a (hopefully) healthier Sam. Joey and Brendan are both capable -- Brendan at least of being similar to a Cain last year offensively, Joey of being a stud... and then you've got a trio of freshmen who are making the frosh to soph jump, which means good things when projecting offense.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 09, 2018, 08:21:05 PM
Also, you mention a lot about how new players will help. How about how removing a terrible defensive player will help?

I tried to structure my commentary with the sensitivities where you could ratchet down the adjDE:  Height, rebounding steals in particular. I would be hard pressed for me to believe that MU could get to Nova's 94, for example. Or a Top 50 at around 97.5.  I can see a 101-102 which would put MU around a 100-110 rank, give or take. 

Defense is a team game.  It is easy to blame one guy but MU is not loaded with defensive specialists. I am also not a fan of Wojo's scheme as you well know is it spreads out the defense too far causing break downs, dumb fouls, easy points in the paint, poor rebounding, lower steal rates. Joe and Ed can help on some of these.  But, if Ed is out chasing on hedges north of the arc, that means he isn't grabbing a rebound that could shut down an opponents' possession versus extending it.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: 1318WWells on August 09, 2018, 11:27:32 PM
Guess we will see.  I feel Rowdy had a very positive impact on both Sam and Markus's offensive games.  The crazy range, and being so good with the ball as primary ball handler, distributor, dribble drive - all of that created better opportunities for Markus/Sam, than I feel they will see this year with Chardonnay. 

Not sure I see a very effective penetrator on the roster this year.  Markus generally was a shoot first, second and third if he did penetrate.  Drive/kick game will suffer without Rowdy and overall floor spacing.

I am hopeful that the improvement on offense this year will come from a pg who is more capable of finishing at the rim than Rowsey was, causing the defense to collapse more and leaving Markus and Sam with as good if not better shots than last year. I am also hopeful for better offensive rebounding out of this team (Morrow, Joey and Bailey) leading to easy 2s on putback’s and “jailbreak” 3s for our shooters.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 10, 2018, 06:33:07 AM
I’m not sure playing slower leads to better D. Sure, UVa was #1 last year, but Gonzaga was #1 two years ago and played at a top-100 pace. Most seasons there's a pretty fair spread of teams in the top-100, 100s, 200s, and 300s in terms of pace in the top-20 of defensive efficiency.

As far as Rowsey, I think Chartouny is a better fit for the rest of our team offensively. Andrew was a great offensive player & last season was fantastic, but he wasn't comparably speaking a distributor or a drive and kick guy.

Chartouny is far lower usage, which should push the ball more into the hands of Markus and Sam, who were both better eFG% guys than Rowsey. When Chartouny does shoot, he takes more twos than threes, which fits better with a drive & kick PG. Chartouny also had higher assist rates with less talent around him.

I don't think Chartouny will put up the kind of raw numbers or even efficiency numbers Rowsey did. But as a guy who does drive and prides himself on distribution, he's exactly what we need.

I also feel the roster consistency and maturation of the freshmen will help.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Jay Bee on August 10, 2018, 08:31:08 AM
https://twitter.com/jbbauer612/status/1027268364031471616?s=21

Take out Rowsey’s weak 2FG% & MU’s 2FG% jumps up nicely
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 10, 2018, 09:48:59 AM
I’m not sure playing slower leads to better D. Sure, UVa was #1 last year, but Gonzaga was #1 two years ago and played at a top-100 pace. Most seasons there's a pretty fair spread of teams in the top-100, 100s, 200s, and 300s in terms of pace in the top-20 of defensive efficiency.

Are there exceptions to the tempo rule?  Yes.  That Zags team did it with height (two 7 footers) and was #1 in eFG%.  But, here is the list of the Top 10 defensive teams last year and their adj. tempo rank (where high is slow):

Virgina (351)
Cincinnati (330)
Michigan (324)
Texas Tech (247)
Syracuse (345)
Tennessee (282)
Clemson (274)
UCF (333)
Duke (93)
Michigan State (234)

So, one exception (Duke who was third in height).  All but UCF were NCAA teams. Eight were 5 seeds or better.  Seven were 3 seeds or better.

Can Wojo match his mentor?  Even his mentor is changing, employing the Cuse zone at times in the one and done era.  The recent rules changes have forced teams to adapt, as I said. This cannot be underestimated.

Tempo and certain positional height matter. MU is taller at PG this year. Is it enough to make MU elite? Or can the Duke formula work now that Wojo is in Year 2 of just his recruits for his system?  We'll know early.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Jay Bee on August 10, 2018, 10:42:04 AM
Are there exceptions to the tempo rule?  Yes.  That Zags team did it with height (two 7 footers) and was #1 in eFG%.  But, here is the list of the Top 10 defensive teams last year and their adj. tempo rank (where high is slow):

Virgina (351)
Cincinnati (330)
Michigan (324)
Texas Tech (247)
Syracuse (345)
Tennessee (282)
Clemson (274)
UCF (333)
Duke (93)
Michigan State (234)

Not sure I'm on board with this. I don't know that there is a tempo rule or that great defenses without low tempos are exceptions (I see your 2017-18 above, but we can go back just one year and find 76, 84 and 26 in tempo all in the top ten of AdjD). I think going further is important -- something like average possession length... tempo is offense and defense.. now if your defense makes the other team's offense play much slower than they prefer, I think you're onto something. But, if you're a methodical offense that milks the clock, that impacts tempo but not sure it does much for your defense.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 10, 2018, 12:31:56 PM
Are there exceptions to the tempo rule?  Yes.  That Zags team did it with height (two 7 footers) and was #1 in eFG%.  But, here is the list of the Top 10 defensive teams last year and their adj. tempo rank (where high is slow):

Virgina (351)
Cincinnati (330)
Michigan (324)
Texas Tech (247)
Syracuse (345)
Tennessee (282)
Clemson (274)
UCF (333)
Duke (93)
Michigan State (234)

So, one exception (Duke who was third in height).  All but UCF were NCAA teams. Eight were 5 seeds or better.  Seven were 3 seeds or better.

Can Wojo match his mentor?  Even his mentor is changing, employing the Cuse zone at times in the one and done era.  The recent rules changes have forced teams to adapt, as I said. This cannot be underestimated.

Tempo and certain positional height matter. MU is taller at PG this year. Is it enough to make MU elite? Or can the Duke formula work now that Wojo is in Year 2 of just his recruits for his system?  We'll know early.

You're looking at one year. Look at 5 or 10. In 2011 there were 6 teams in the top-10 of defensive efficiency that were top-100 in tempo, and 8 in the top half. So by that season, better defense is played by teams that play fast.

There may be a slight correlation, but over time I don't think that's a defensible position (pun not intended).
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 10, 2018, 01:07:22 PM
Not sure I'm on board with this. I don't know that there is a tempo rule or that great defenses without low tempos are exceptions (I see your 2017-18 above, but we can go back just one year and find 76, 84 and 26 in tempo all in the top ten of AdjD). I think going further is important -- something like average possession length... tempo is offense and defense.. now if your defense makes the other team's offense play much slower than they prefer, I think you're onto something. But, if you're a methodical offense that milks the clock, that impacts tempo but not sure it does much for your defense.

I decided to use tempo for various reasons, some statistical, some practical.

First, was the rule changes. There are about 5-6% more possessions now in a game, on average. Possession length saw only about a 3% downtick. Thus, tempo provides more differentiation as a predictor variable.

Possession length and tempo are correlation. Possession length obviously impacts the number of possessions. Thus, I didn't want to throw in both in because of multicolinearity.  Tempo did just fine in the model.

Adj. Tempo, as you know is adjusted to the average team's possessions by KPom so it at least attempts to adjust to strength of opponents versus the raw possession numbers. 

Many here say offense affects defense. In fact, that seems to be the Duke philosophy.  That is a practical reason to try to consider and try to answer that question by including tempo.

I'd be careful about going back too many years for benchmarks or for inclusion in data sets. Teams are scoring more per 100 possessions. In 2013 the average adjusted offensive efficiency was 102.5. In 2018 it was 105.0. Again, the gradual rule changes and points of emphasis to enable more scoring, not just in the game but per possession.

Finally, there are always statistical exceptions to the rule.  You try to build in transformations to reduce error along the way. So, the value of tempo is not the same across teams, it's not a single estimate on impact to defense. This is like how you would measure price elasticity in business.  At a 2% price increase you may lose 2% of your volume, but at a 6% you may lose 10% as now more people cannot afford that 6% price.

I don't want to get too geeky here but I will mention that as folks are zeroing on exceptions or just one variable. We like to do this as it is simpler to understand, discuss, and communicate. I even did it in my post. However, while the model does need some work when/if I had time...but when you build multiplicative models, other variables effect each other versus singularly like in an additive linear regression model. These leads us to discussions like here.  i.e., Gonzaga played faster and yet was still great on defense.  Well, true, but they were also tall, controlled the boards, didn't foul as much to make up for it...or Marquette will be a great defensive team just because Rowsey is gone.

Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 10, 2018, 01:14:42 PM
You're looking at one year. Look at 5 or 10. In 2011 there were 6 teams in the top-10 of defensive efficiency that were top-100 in tempo, and 8 in the top half. So by that season, better defense is played by teams that play fast.

There may be a slight correlation, but over time I don't think that's a defensible position (pun not intended).

I answered that question in my other post. The game has fundamentally changed due to gradual rule changes.  I didn't want to mix those up in comparisons, especially as we are talking Wojo and Rowsey.  Pomeroy will also caution users not to compare across years (although we all do it as his methodology is the same). Oh, and my time (I am not writing a thesis here).

If you have the time, go for it ;)
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 10, 2018, 01:20:43 PM
I don't want to get too geeky here but I will mention that as folks are zeroing on exceptions or just one variable.

I'll admit I'm focusing on one variable because I think it's the most flawed of the variables and looking only at the top-10 of 2018 is zeroing in on an exception. 6 of the next 10 teams in 2018 (teams 11-20) were top half in tempo.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 10, 2018, 01:40:34 PM
I'll admit I'm focusing on one variable because I think it's the most flawed of the variables and looking only at the top-10 of 2018 is zeroing in on an exception. 6 of the next 10 teams in 2018 (teams 11-20) were top half in tempo.

No worries...we all focus on the single issues that pop...and I did ask for feedback;)

If it helps put tempo in context, its impact is about 24% for the average team for the overall prediction.  So 76% is explained by other factors.  When I have time, I will try replacing tempo with defensive possession length (or finding the version I ran with it) to see if the model vastly improves.  As I said, I felt tempo provided more discrimination.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: brewcity77 on August 10, 2018, 02:04:19 PM
No worries...we all focus on the single issues that pop...and I did ask for feedback;)

If it helps put tempo in context, its impact is about 24% for the average team for the overall prediction.  So 76% is explained by other factors.  When I have time, I will try replacing tempo with defensive possession length (or finding the version I ran with it) to see if the model vastly improves.  As I said, I felt tempo provided more discrimination.

I did a quick breakdown of the top-20 defenses over the past 5 years, so 100 teams. I broke them into three categories. The top-117 were considered "fast tempo", 118-234 was considered "medium tempo", and 235+ was considered "slow tempo". Here's the breakdown by category:

1-117: 23 teams
118-234: 23 teams
235-351: 54 teams

Still a limited sample, but I would say that tempo could bear out some of the predictor, but probably not very much of it. It does seem to be easier to have a high defensive efficiency with a slower pace, but playing medium or fast tempo doesn't preclude a team from having a good defense by any stretch. Obviously this is a very quick, generic breakdown with some awkward cutoffs (at least three teams fell exactly on cut-off numbers) that could be better evaluated by a deeper dive than the 10 minutes I spent looking at it and writing this post.

Also, I'm not sure if 20 is the ideal number, but the lowest defensive efficiency for a national champion of the past decade is #18 by North Carolina in 2009. However, even those numbers may be skewed against the season in general, because I recall Villanova in particular seeing their defensive efficiency numbers improve significantly by winning six straight games at the end of March. They may have been in the 30-40 range prior to the 2018 NCAA Tournament, but finished at #11.

One interesting correlation I did see, in 4 of the past 5 years, teams that played fast-tempo made up 50+% of the bottom-20 in the country. The only exception was 2014. In each of the past three seasons, more than 50% of the 20 worst teams in terms of defensive efficiency played at a pace ranked 117 or faster.

I didn't dive any deeper than that, but what I think might be the case is that teams that aren't particularly good sometimes try to speed the game up and play recklessly. They are often behind, so they have to play fast to chase, and when you aren't very good, that doesn't tend to end well. Teams that are good enough to play at a fast pace can still be defensively efficient, but that has to be the gameplan going in.

This year will definitely go a long way toward determining how well Wojo's scheme works. Tempo aside, I share many of your concerns regarding this team's defensive trends. We haven't been good and I'm not convinced that will change as simply as some like to think.

I will admit, the article that spawned this thread, particularly that stat about how our defense played with Howard on and Rowsey off the floor gives me some hope, as does the addition of guys that seem to add defensive value like Chartouny and Morrow and the maturation of guys that were active, willing defenders like Cain, Elliott, and John. The jury is definitely out, but those thoughts give me optimism when for the past 2-3 years, I've had steadily declining confidence in our defensive trend.

Okay...that's enough blathering. Getting well into TL;DR territory.
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Jay Bee on August 10, 2018, 02:13:32 PM
Still can’t get there, but what I think I heard is that last season there was strong correlation b/w AdjD & tempo, but three seasons ago that wasn’t the case. Don’t understand
Title: Re: Nice MUBB Preview
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on August 10, 2018, 03:13:59 PM
Thanks Brew for your digging.  I did find the defensive possession output instead of tempo (again just last year's data set).  It is a very strong variable like tempo...and it doesn't affect the other variables too much.  However, as a remembered the residuals are higher when I compare predicted to actual (underpredicting).  I could work to lessen that but it really wouldn't change the findings much for the effort. 

As to going back in time to include more data, we'd have to adjust for the rule changes somehow.  The shot clock, we could use tempo but are more threes being launched at the end of the shot clock. Possession length?  Pre and post. The wider dashed circle, I guess investigate if the free throw rate went up...but that will be confused with the hand check and paint focus.  Time outs? Not sure on those changes.

In any regard, there are a lot of adjustments one has to make, and that usually introduces error as ultimately teams are changing their style of play to adapt.