MU's Bipolar Offense

[greenman]

Four games into conference play I feel as if I've seen two very different MU offenses. Outstanding and almost dominating against Providence and ND. Sluggish and almost confused against WV and The Hall. Is it three point shooting? Can some teams play a better zone? Maybe rebounding is the key.

I think it comes down to 3 pt shooting - 22/47 (47%) in the two big wins and  17/53 (32%) in the other two games.

Anyone care to share their ideas/observations?

[muwarrior87]

I think you may have something there. When a team shoots well, they generally win. If they struggle from the field in general, not just from behind the arc but definitely if the team is smaller, you are going to struggle to win.

[SoCalwarrior]

When the shooting is off, you have to go inside for some no footers.  But I guess given the lack of size and polish we have in the middle, Crean elects to keep shooting.  In the two loses we just kept chucking.  Against Seton Hall, Burke had 1pt, Barro 2pts and Blackledge 0. Against WV, Burke had 3pts, Barro had 6pts and Blackledge had 0. 

[bma725]

3 point shooting is part of it.  But in the WVU game, even if MU shoots 47% as a team, they still lose the game.  But the overall shooting percentage in the wins has been much better. MU shot almost 50% from the field in the two wins, as opposed to the two loses where they shot 36%. 

The other thing that helped the offense IMO was the defense.  MU was able to do what they wanted defensively against ND and Providence, they held them to low field goal percentages and caused a lot of turnovers.  That leads to a more up tempo game, which favors MU.  They can get easy baskets, they can attack the defense before the defense has a chance to get set, they can use their speed to run opponents ragged, while keeping their guys fresh because of rotations. 

Against WVU and SH they couldn't do that.  They were never able to stop WVU's offense, they didn't cause enough turnovers or rebound well enough to run, and they were forced to play the halfcourt game against defenses that they were not ready for.  SH while they didn't shoot the ball well, outrebounded MU and had fewer turnovers, but maybe more importantly, slowed the tempo to MU's detriment.  They turned it into an ugly game and MU doesn't excel ugly games. 

[Ready2Fly]

This is a good topic.  bma725 nailed it right on the head.

When I look at the box score after the game, I look for 4 team stats in particular: rebounding margin, steals/turnovers ratio, three point attempts/field goal attempts ratio, and free throw attempts to three point attempts ratio.

I like to see:
Rebounding margin be 5+
steals/turnovers be .75 or higher
3PA/FGA be between .25 and .33
FTA/3PA be 1.25 or higher

If all of these statistical banchmarks are hit, no matter how we're shooting the ball, we should win and win easily.  If our three point attempts are low compared to our overall attempts, it usually means we ran our offense well, got high percentage shots inside, and took high percentage three pointers in the flow of the game.  The same goes for FT/3PA.  If our steals to turnovers ratio is over .75, it usually means we were able to force the tempo and take care of the ball.  If we're outrebounding a team by more than five, we're cutting down their possessions and increasing ours (duh).

Now let's look at what these numbers looked like in the two dominant Big east performances, campared with the two stinkers.

Game: WVU, SHU
Rebounding Margin: -12, -4
ST/TO: .4, .5
3PA/FGA: .47, .46
FTA/3PA: .6, .61

We got slaughtered on the boards, weren't able to push the tempo or take care of the ball, shot WAY too many threes, and didn't get to the line.

Game: PC, ND
Rebounding Margin: +14, -10
ST/TO: 0.8, 1.4
3PA/FGA: 0.38, 0.33
FTA/3PA: 1.09, 0.63

We were killed on the boards vs. ND, but were able to push our pace and take care of the ball so well that it was a wash.  Our three point attempts were way down, and as a result we shot a higher percentage.  We didn't take as many free throws in these two games as I would like to see, but in each case there were things we did so well that it didn't matter.

I'm not saying we HAVE to accomplish these four things, and obviously if we're shooting lights out things can be masked.  But if I had no idea what the final score was and was handed these four stats alone and we reached all of the goals I mentioned, I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money we won the game without ever looking at the shooting percentages.

[Henry Sugar]

In both games against SHU and WVU, we had season worsts in Offensive Efficiency ((Pts / possessions)*100).  We lost to WVU because we also had a season worst in Defensive Efficiency.  We won against SHU because of an Intentional Foul Seton Hall had an even worse Defensive Efficiency.

In my view, the offense was sluggish in both games because of three major reasons.

• Offensive Rebounding Percentage - Against both WVU and SHU we were poor at OR's.  Two of our five worst outings.
• Turnover Rate - Two of our four worst outings at forcing opponents into turnovers.  Both WVU and SHU do a good job at protecting the ball.
• effective Field Goal % - Two of our four worst outings at shooting.  No doubt influenced by our inability to force a lot of TO's and secure OR's.

We did a detailed recap of both games at cracked sidewalks.

[Pardner]

One thing in common in both games:  junk zones.  Both teams put up the electronic fence to stop our guards above the key in transition and to seal off the side seam dribble penetration (triangle and two).  We adjust, and we have the best offensive team I have ever seen at MU.

We were confused and turned the ball over early in both games as we didn't do a good job of zone recognition....DJ with a standing dribble at the top of the key is a sure problem sign.  Our bigs and Wes were not in position to receive a pass or grab offensive rebounds.  TC tried to make adjustments:  had dCube and Mac drive the baselines against the 1-3-1 at WVU, played Mo who has a knack for finding cracks via dribble penetration vs. zones, and Fitz for threes.  Let's not forget that Lazar had two fouls in the first minute in Morgantown--critical as he can either post up or step back for a trey.  I am sure TC will have the team ready this week as UL is planning to throw a bunch of looks at us.  Running the baselines and finding the corners are key against these zones.   

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

In both games against SHU and WVU, we had season worsts in Offensive Efficiency ((Pts / possessions)*100).  We lost to WVU because we also had a season worst in Defensive Efficiency.  We won against SHU because of an Intentional Foul Seton Hall had an even worse Defensive Efficiency.

In my view, the offense was sluggish in both games because of three major reasons.

• Offensive Rebounding Percentage - Against both WVU and SHU we were poor at OR's.  Two of our five worst outings.
• Turnover Rate - Two of our four worst outings at forcing opponents into turnovers.  Both WVU and SHU do a good job at protecting the ball.
• effective Field Goal % - Two of our four worst outings at shooting.  No doubt influenced by our inability to force a lot of TO's and secure OR's.

We did a detailed recap of both games at cracked sidewalks.

I was just thinking about this the other day... I think everybody knows that zones are a good way to limit MU's offense... but I also think a good offense might be the best defense against MU.

If a opposing team doesn't turn the ball over and shoots well, not only will they score a lot of points (duh), but they will severely limit MU's ability to get into transition and get easy baskets, and thus make it difficult for MU to score.

I know this isn't really profound, but I think it shows the fluidity of basketball... We all love to break the game into little pieces, but in reality EVERYTHING is related.

If an opposing team shoots the lights out, it will effect MU's offense. Doesn't seem to be related at first... but in reality it is.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

So mualum...you're saying that if the other team doesn't miss as many shots, we won't get as many defensive rebounds/fast break opportunities?

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So mualum...you're saying that if the other team doesn't miss as many shots, we won't get as many defensive rebounds/fast break opportunities?

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Oh come on...

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I'm just trying to point out that a part of defending MU well isn't necessarily about the typical defensive things that everybody talks about like, "staying in front of your man", or "junk zones" "defensive rebounding".

Making shots will slow MU down and force them to execute in the half-court.

We (as fans) always try to break games down to such minute sections... but really ever portion of the game has an effect on another.

In other words, having a great jump shooter on your team is probably beneficial to DEFENDING MU.

I'm sorry for wasting your time if you already knew this. I'm just trying to provide something a little different than the typical "we need a big man", "the nickname sucks", "Crean is leaving", etc. etc. threads.

[Tribby]

PRN-you are a stroke.

A much more polite word than I used before my post was removed ...

[Pardner]

We (as fans) always try to break games down to such minute sections... but really ever portion of the game has an effect on another.

Actually, many great game coaches break down games in four minute segments.  Al, for one, was a master at this.  He used to emphasize the first and last four minutes of each half especially, game managed to the TV time outs, etc.  So, yes from a fan's perspective, a game ebbs and flows continuously.  However, if you enjoy the match-ups and strategy, there is a game within a game.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

We (as fans) always try to break games down to such minute sections... but really ever portion of the game has an effect on another.

Actually, many great game coaches break down games in four minute segments.  Al, for one, was a master at this.  He used to emphasize the first and last four minutes of each half especially, game managed to the TV time outs, etc.  So, yes from a fan's perspective, a game ebbs and flows continuously.  However, if you enjoy the match-ups and strategy, there is a game within a game.

Oh I agree.

I guess the point I was making is that sometimes we focus in on something like "we didn't win because DJ couldn't beat his man off of the dribble"... (or something like that)

Well, it may be true that DJ wasn't effective on the dribble drive, but it may also be true that the other team shot very well and limited MU's chances in the open court, and thus limiting DJ or Jerel's chance to use the dribble effectively.

A lot of MU's offensive abilities are dictated off of their defensive tempo, and in turn, an opponent's defense against MU is related to their ability to make shots and limit turnovers.

A team could play zone and beat MU, but it might not really be the zone that stops MU... it might be the other team's offensive abilities that limit MU's possessions and also dictate tempo.

Again, this isn't anything that profound, I'm not claiming to be Naismith or Wooden.

I'm just reminding myself and others that sometimes wins and losses can't just be pinned on one (obvious) portion of the game. There are some complex factors to consider. 

[greenman]

I said it when I started this thread and I'll say it again: after this stinging loss to Loserville.. 3 pt shooting is the key to this team beating the zone and putting themselves in a position to win the game. Tonights total = 0.