[Cracked Sidewalks] Is Defense Marquette's Achilles' Heel?

[Dr. Blackheart]

Henry is predicting the imapct of the variables on defensive efficiency--not on points or margin of victory or loss--that can be compared across games and teams.  So, think of it as a sensitivity analysis.  What Henry confirmes is MU is a middle of the road defensive team and a high end offensive team in comparison to others who are NCAA successful.  We need to up our team defense--and we will get our most bang for our efforts on eFG% (this year, the treys).

Others think in points or margin vs. relative impact on a Marquette game.  For example, MU has outscored our opponents 1139 to 941--or by 198 points.  On free throws, MU has made 237 to our opponent's 123--or a gap of 114.  So, free throws account for 57.5% of our points margin so far this year.

Conversely, our opponents have made 106 treys to MU's 66--or a gap of 40.  That is a 120 points we are down.  On two's, MU has made 352 shots to 250 of our opponents, however--a difference of 102 shots or +204 points.  

So, the impact of a shot made on our defensive efficiency is much higher for a two or three than on a free throw....but the value of a free throw made (or not taken) is far more impactful to our margin.  We don't win the WVU game without making more FT's where we outshot them 14-7 on the line and where our winning margin was five.  FT's are our safety net --but we would have blown WVU out if we defended their shooters better.

[Henry Sugar]

I decided to bump this rather than continue to threadjack the Tokoto thread.

So, then, it's your contention that MU's defensive woes the past three years are the result of scheme and coaching deficiencies rather than personnel deficiencies?

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I'd be interested in knowing how you defend that position. And perhaps enlightening us on the nature of those deficiencies.
I sincerely don't mean this as a swipe, but it's not difficult to look at a bunch of sabermetric-type statistics and declare trends, etc. I'm more interested in the causes of those trends.

Originally, I held off on pointing out the defensive issues.  My thought was that Buzz's defense was designed as a containment defense and that it would get better once the relative height improved.  After all, we were short. 

However, this year we're taller but we're worse defensively.  So we started looking into it.  Because there's a ton of talent coming in.

There are basically 2-3 ways to be outstanding defensively.

• Control eFG% by shutting down the perimeter
• Control eFG% by shutting down the interior
• Force a lot of TO's or control the boards

Everything revolves around controlling eFG%.  All the really good defensive teams typically control eFG% as well as one other aspect.  eFG% and TO's... or eFG% and rebounds.

The 2008-2009 team forced TO's and controlled the three point defense.  The result was a #10 ranking.  Unfortunately, that team fouled a lot.

With largely the same personnel in 2009-2010 (minus Ouse and Fitz), the team was worse.  In the most important category, defensive eFG%, MU was #252.  3Pt Defense dropped from #9 to #199.  Too short to pack it in?  Maybe.  Reluctance to foul hampering tight perimeter D?  Maybe.  A strategy to keep the best players out of foul trouble so the offense was better?  Probably.

The defensive eFG% has been bad the last three years, with no strengths either inside the arc or outside the arc.  I believe that a different scheme could have been produced to emphasize either of those areas.  I believe the team has been talented enough to be better. 

I guess I'm trying to figure out what point your making in constantly complaining about defense.  Or maybe there isn't a point, and it just bugs you.   I always appreciate your stats HS, but now it seems like you're just using them to back up your complaint.  That's valid, I suppose.

Also, I'm pretty sure Buzz pays *some* attention to the forums and CS, so maybe all the stats will help him out (since he's a numbers guy).

Part of the reason I mention it is because I consider that part of the responsibility of a forum like Cracked Sidewalks.  You won't hear about the bad defense from official Marquette releases or from Rosiak. 

If Marquette were merely average to good defensively, this team could be special.  However, you're right.  I probably harp on it too much. 

[rocky_warrior]

If Marquette were merely average to good defensively, this team could be special. 

Agreed on that.  We'd have a much bigger number in the W column.

Plus, bonus points for going On Topic!

[Pakuni]

I decided to bump this rather than continue to threadjack the Tokoto thread.

Originally, I held off on pointing out the defensive issues.  My thought was that Buzz's defense was designed as a containment defense and that it would get better once the relative height improved.  After all, we were short. 

However, this year we're taller but we're worse defensively.  So we started looking into it.  Because there's a ton of talent coming in.

There are basically 2-3 ways to be outstanding defensively.

• Control eFG% by shutting down the perimeter
• Control eFG% by shutting down the interior
• Force a lot of TO's or control the boards

Everything revolves around controlling eFG%.  All the really good defensive teams typically control eFG% as well as one other aspect.  eFG% and TO's... or eFG% and rebounds.

The 2008-2009 team forced TO's and controlled the three point defense.  The result was a #10 ranking.  Unfortunately, that team fouled a lot.

With largely the same personnel in 2009-2010 (minus Ouse and Fitz), the team was worse.  In the most important category, defensive eFG%, MU was #252.  3Pt Defense dropped from #9 to #199.  Too short to pack it in?  Maybe.  Reluctance to foul hampering tight perimeter D?  Maybe.  A strategy to keep the best players out of foul trouble so the offense was better?  Probably.

The defensive eFG% has been bad the last three years, with no strengths either inside the arc or outside the arc.  I believe that a different scheme could have been produced to emphasize either of those areas.  I believe the team has been talented enough to be better. 

As a favor, could you post MU's eFG% the past three years, and maybe the three before that for compairson's sake? There are trends and then there are trends, and i'm curious to know how significant this downward spiral is.

Also, when you speak of the decline between 2008-09 and 2009-10 ... do you mean 2007-08 and 2008-09?

[MuMark]

Last year EFG was 49.7. 2009 it was 50.9 2008 it was 46.3. This year its 50.6.

[Henry Sugar]

As a favor, could you post MU's eFG% the past three years, and maybe the three before that for compairson's sake? There are trends and then there are trends, and i'm curious to know how significant this downward spiral is.

Also, when you speak of the decline between 2008-09 and 2009-10 ... do you mean 2007-08 and 2008-09?

Yeah, that's what I meant.  The transition year between Crean and Buzz.  

defensive eFG% and rank for the last six years (starting with the freshman year of the Three Amigos)

Buzz
2011 - 50.6% (#233)
2010 - 49.7% (#201)
2009 - 50.9% (#252)

Crean
2008 - 46.3% (#30)
2007 - 47.2% (#58)
2006 - 47.5 (#80)

I'm not looking to get into a Crean vs Buzz argument (ever), but you can see the steady improvement in def eFG% year over year for the Amigos.  Then, their senior year, there was pretty clearly a big change in scheme between 07-08 and 08-09.  

[mu_hilltopper]

Could you shed some light .. is 2-4% statistically significant?

[Henry Sugar]

The data is mostly normal / bell-shaped, with an average is 49.1 and a standard deviation of 3.06.  The top 15% is at 46.0 and the bottom 15% is 52.2.

In the case of the rankings below, the 2-4% takes you from the 28th/37th percentile to the 57th/72nd percentile.

[mviale]

Funny - I think our Achilles heel is top 10 ranked teams.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Buzz
2011 - 50.6% (#233)
2010 - 49.7% (#201)
2009 - 50.9% (#252)
Crean
2008 - 46.3% (#30)
2007 - 47.2% (#58)
2006 - 47.5 (#80)

I'm not looking to get into a Crean vs Buzz argument (ever), but you can see the steady improvement in def eFG% year over year for the Amigos.  Then, their senior year, there was pretty clearly a big change in scheme between 07-08 and 08-09.  

I've said it before but I am not a guy that gets into these stats.  But, I guess the obvious question to me is how meaningful is this particular stat if the year in which we had the worst eFG% is also the year in which we had the best team by most objective measures (record, ranking, etc.)?    How do you reconcile that?

[Henry Sugar]

I've said it before but I am not a guy that gets into these stats.  But, I guess the obvious question to me is how meaningful is this particular stat if the year in which we had the worst eFG% is also the year in which we had the best team by most objective measures (record, ranking, etc.)?    How do you reconcile that?

You really should get into these stats.  They are much more meaningful than standard stats like points, rebounds, and field goal percentage.

That team (I'm assuming the senior year) was awesome offensively (#9 overall), which is how they won.

[Silkk the Shaka]

You really should get into these stats.  They are much more meaningful than standard stats like points, rebounds, and field goal percentage.

That team (I'm assuming the senior year) was awesome offensively (#9 overall), which is how they won.

I think he's referring to the Final Four team.  We were #1 in offensive efficiency, #101 in defensive.  Similar profile to this year's team. 

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Marquette&y=2003

I'll take a stab at it.  It took huge early games from Diener and Novak to make the 2nd weekend, then Wade took over from there.  There was also a more balanced, reliable attack (imagine this year's team being able to dump it down to RJax).  But we had squeakers against Holy Cross and Missouri that luckily went our way, unlike the last five years (Felix, Lopez, Missouri, Washington, the only exception being MSU).  We'll break through to the next weekend again soon, and I wouldn't be shocked if it happened this year.  It all boils down to matchups (and actually making the dance).

[ATL MU Warrior]

I think he's referring to the Final Four team.  We were #1 in offensive efficiency, #101 in defensive.  Similar profile to this year's team. 

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Marquette&y=2003

I'll take a stab at it.  It took huge early games from Diener and Novak to make the 2nd weekend, then Wade took over from there.  There was also a more balanced, reliable attack (imagine this year's team being able to dump it down to RJax).  But we had squeakers against Holy Cross and Missouri that luckily went our way, unlike the last five years (Felix, Lopez, Missouri, Washington, the only exception being MSU).  We'll break through to the next weekend again soon, and I wouldn't be shocked if it happened this year.  It all boils down to matchups (and actually making the dance).

Nah, I was referring to the Amigos Senior year.  The team had the worst eFG% of the 6 years/teams referenced, yet they were the best team out of those 6.  Not sure if that means anything, but it jumps out at me and leads me to believe that someone can focus on a stat like that and continually harp on it, but as long as the team excels in other areas it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Buzz gives an interesting rundown on the defensive lapses in the latest "Inside Marquette Basketball", in particular blaming the offense for the opposing runs. Deane, and O'Neill used defense to propel the offense.  Buzz's philosophy is clearly the reverse.

The best thing I like about Buzz is that he is certainly aware of the problem and talks about it freely. Fact is, he just has a different philosophy than many of us are used to. Waiting for his "switchables". 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYw8P89g4eM

[Henry Sugar]

Nah, I was referring to the Amigos Senior year.  The team had the worst eFG% of the 6 years/teams referenced, yet they were the best team out of those 6.  Not sure if that means anything, but it jumps out at me and leads me to believe that someone can focus on a stat like that and continually harp on it, but as long as the team excels in other areas it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. 

Please re-read the original post for this thread for the argument that was made.  However, I'll restate the thesis succinctly.  A team has very little chance of going to the Elite Eight unless they have a top 25 defense, and eFG% is the most important part of having a good defense.  MU is weak in both areas.

For as good as that team was, remember that they lost six of eight games down the stretch (for good reasons).  That team also failed to get past the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.  That team choked away a lead at home against Syracuse on Senior Day.  That team lost to Villanova on a last-second shot, and scored 1.11 ppp against Missouri but didn't have good enough defense to win.  Does any of that sound familiar? 

During that stretch, opponents had an average eFG% of 53.8% (almost four percentage points higher than when DJ played).  Our defensive efficiency went from 0.97 ppp to 108.2 ppp.

[babytownfrolics]

Please re-read the original post for this thread for the argument that was made.  However, I'll restate the thesis succinctly.  A team has very little chance of going to the Elite Eight unless they have a top 25 defense, and eFG% is the most important part of having a good defense.  MU is weak in both areas.

For as good as that team was, remember that they lost six of eight games down the stretch (for good reasons).  That team also failed to get past the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.  That team choked away a lead at home against Syracuse on Senior Day.  That team lost to Villanova on a last-second shot, and scored 1.11 ppp against Missouri but didn't have good enough defense to win.  Does any of that sound familiar? 

During that stretch, opponents had an average eFG% of 53.8% (almost four percentage points higher than when DJ played).  Our defensive efficiency went from 0.97 ppp to 108.2 ppp.

So this suggests personnel might be part of the issue?  James was pretty incredible on defense that year.

[Henry Sugar]

So this suggests personnel might be part of the issue?  James was pretty incredible on defense that year.

Personally, I don't believe so.  Here are the splits

with DJ - 50.1
without - 53.8
season - 50.9

Even with DJ and his killer on-ball defense, MU still was allowing 50.1% on eFG%, which would have been somewhere between the last two years but no better.

I prefer to think of it as making an average defensive scheme worse rather than the defense being good with DJ and poor without him.