Zone D

[jesmu84]

Yes I agree, let's play the defense that works best.  My issue is we play 95% M2M and expect a different outcome=insanity.

Who expected a different outcome? Our D is, and will be bad, all year.

[Floorslapper]

I predict Sacar on Ponds, the zone isn't the answer. Plus Theo will be playing, they missed him in NY. Marquette by 10.

Pretty sure Sacar started on Pond's much of the St. John's game.  Then Mullin started running action to force a switch, and Hauser was frequently switched onto Ponds.  As good of defender as Sam is - no match for Ponds.

We just had undoubtedly our best win of the year, and best defensive half of the year at Creighton.  It was the first time Wojo stayed exclusively zone for an entire half.  Throwing a zone in for a few possessions here and there and then reverting back to an atrocious M2M scheme is not the answer (with or without Theo). 

The length of Cain in the zone was the secret sauce.  I hope to see a lot of Sacar, Cain, Theo, and  Elliott.  A little Heldt sprinkled in.  Hope to not see much of Harry.

[jesmu84]

Welp. Lots of man.

[MarquetteDano]

According to my calcs,  we played 31 possessions of zone. They scored 33 points.  Though a good portion of those 33 points came with less than 10 minutes to go in game when we had a decent lead.

Not great.  Not awful.

[Floorslapper]

According to my calcs,  we played 31 possessions of zone. They scored 33 points.  Though a good portion of those 33 points came with less than 10 minutes to go in game when we had a decent lead.

Not great.  Not awful.

That translates to 1.06ppp in zone.  That is much better than we've been all year.  It cannot be understated how much it is the combination of the zone + Cain - Howard that makes it a far more effective defense for this team.

[MarquetteDano]

That translates to 1.06ppp in zone.  That is much better than we've been all year.  It cannot be understated how much it is the combination of the zone + Cain - Howard that makes it a far more effective defense for this team.

Remember you can't just take that 1.06ppp versus our overall ppp because of our awful transition defense and points due to turnovers.

I am not saying the zone is worse than the man but be careful comparing apples to apples.

[jesmu84]

Remember you can't just take that 1.06ppp versus our overall ppp because of our awful transition defense and points due to turnovers.

I am not saying the zone is worse than the man but be careful comparing apples to apples.

But that doesn't help his narrative!

[Floorslapper]

But that doesn't help his narrative!

If you don't think this team is better suited to play zone, knock yourself out (and keep looking like an idiot.)

And FYI, the 1.06ppp was a reference to our whole season's body of work (not just the St. John's game.)

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That translates to 1.06ppp in zone.  That is much better than we've been all year.

Dis here is wrong.

Season ppp is .982

[Stretchdeltsig]

Great win.  We are much more effective defensively playing zone.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Last night we played 41 possessions in zone and 20 possessions in man.

We allowed them to score on 15 possessions in zone (36.6%) and 6 possessions in man (30%).

I don't have the breakdown for how much they scored in those possessions. For example, I don't know if all 6 scoring possessions in man were and ones or 3 pointers.

Either way, it was fantastic defense last night, especially for us, with no drop off in offense. Bodes well moving forward.

[GGGG]

Both man and zone were effective last night - Anim in particular did great work on Ponds.  I think we switched to zone to slow the pace down more than anything.  It allowed Rowsey to rest and limited the number of possessions STJ had to come back. 

[Loose Cannon]

Both man and zone were effective last night - Anim in particular did great work on Ponds.  I think we switched to zone to slow the pace down more than anything.  It allowed Rowsey to rest and limited the number of possessions STJ had to come back.

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

[Floorslapper]

Last night we played 41 possessions in zone and 20 possessions in man.

We allowed them to score on 15 possessions in zone (36.6%) and 6 possessions in man (30%).

I don't have the breakdown for how much they scored in those possessions. For example, I don't know if all 6 scoring possessions in man were and ones or 3 pointers.

Either way, it was fantastic defense last night, especially for us, with no drop off in offense. Bodes well moving forward.

So Dano said 31 possessions in zone, you have it at 40.  Are you not able to get a points per possession breakdown for the St. John's game?  Also, what percentage of trips to the free throw line came from our M2M D?

Also, I'd be curious to know what our points per possession is in conference play prior to Creighton game.  All I know is that in the Creighton game they averaged 1.51ppp in the first half and down to .94 in the second half when we went exclusively zone.

https://www.rumbleinthegarden.com/2018/2/20/17033448/st-johns-at-marquette-preview-how-to-watch-tv

Regardless, it was a MUCH better game defensively and by your count we played 66% of our D possessions in zone.  What is true without question is that we are better served with more length for both M2M and zone, which isn't rocket science to any of us - yet we were seemingly intent on making the Rowsey/Markus lineup work - despite those two rarely ever playing well offensively the same night

[jesmu84]

So Dano said 31 possessions in zone, you have it at 40.  Are you not able to get a points per possession breakdown for the St. John's game?  Also, what percentage of trips to the free throw line came from our M2M D?

Also, I'd be curious to know what our points per possession is in conference play prior to Creighton game.  All I know is that in the Creighton game they averaged 1.51ppp in the first half and down to .94 in the second half when we went exclusively zone.

https://www.rumbleinthegarden.com/2018/2/20/17033448/st-johns-at-marquette-preview-how-to-watch-tv

Regardless, it was a MUCH better game defensively and by your count we played 66% of our D possessions in zone.  What is true without question is that we are better served with more length for both M2M and zone, which isn't rocket science to any of us - yet we were seemingly intent on making the Rowsey/Markus lineup work - despite those two rarely ever playing well offensively the same night

Agreed