[Cracked Sidewalks] A Faster Pace and the link between Offense and Defense

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

A Faster Pace and the link between Offense and Defense

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

The most recent article by Luke Winn, where he interviews Buzz Williams, had a specific mention about trying to make the game longer and increase the number of possessions.  This got me thinking about what a faster pace would mean for Marquette.  I wanted to look at what impact that would have on their Offensive/Defensive Efficiency, the Four Factors, and their consistency.  However, something interesting popped up while looking into this area.

How will a faster pace impact Marquette?

A 90th percentile view of the pace is between 73 and 62 possessions per game across all Division 1 schools.  In 2008, Marquette checked in at 68.1 possessions per game.  Marquette's possessions range 90% of the time was also in between 62 and 73 possessions per game.  In other words, the reasonable upper bounds of the number of possessions per game for Marquette would be an extra five possessions / game.  It's a faster pace, sure... but is it really that much faster?

There's a concern that a faster pace will translate to sloppier play (more bad shots, turnovers, etc).  However, if you look at the 2008 Pomeroy Game Plan for Marquette, there was no correlation between pace and either Marquette's offensive or defensive efficiency.  That's good.  It means that should Marquette increase the pace of games, there should not be a detrimental impact on the team's efficiency.

What about the "Four Factors" of effective field goal percentage (eFG%), turnover rate (TO%), offensive rebounding percentage (OR%), and free throw rate (FTR)?  Are any of those impacted by an increase in pace?  Again, there's more good news, in that there is a statistically significant correlation with our team's eFG% and pace.  Of all the Four Factors, eFG% is by far the most important for every team.  If Marquette is able to improve the pace, then a team similar to last year should be a better offensive team.

Another aspect that concerned us last year was the team's Inconsistency, which we compared to a High Risk Stock.  Without getting into the math, the stats theory is that an increase of possessions will help reduce the inconsistency.   Think of it like this... your odds of getting a 50/50 split flipping a coin are far greater if you do it 100 times instead of 10.  However, based on some simple analysis, I don't believe that a net change of five possessions per game will actually make a significant difference in the team's consistency.

However...

What was interesting was something that we stumbled upon regarding inconsistency while looking into the numbers.  At the time of the High Risk Stock article, we attributed the inconsistency to the fundamental makeup of the roster.  Obviously, due to the loss of Barro and Mbakwe, this lack of big men has only gotten worse.  However, it appears that the problem may be more fundamental.

No other team in the Big EAST had as strong of a relationship between Offensive Efficiency (AdjO) and Defensive Efficiency (AdjD) as Marquette (math note - based on covariance).  When our AdjO was better than average, then our AdjD was better than average.  Unfortunately, the converse was true as well, leaded to maddening games where the Defense was terrible and the Offense looked inept.

Going further, we see that there were many teams for which this was not true.  Here are the Big EAST teams that were able to keep their offensive and defensive performances separate:

• DePaul, USF, ND, Seton Hall, Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, Rutgers, Villanova (in order of most separate to least separate)

Here are the teams that had a strong link between offense and defense:

• Marquette, WVU, St. John's, Cincy, UConn, Providence (in order of most linked to least linked)
  
• (Georgetown ended up right in the middle)
  

Of particular note is that a team like Villanova was able to avoid the strong link between Offense and Defense.  Villanova doesn't have a particularly big team (although they're improving in that area in recent years), so there is hope that it's not particular to roster makeup.

Does this covariance mean that the Defense makes the Offense go?  Many times last year we could hear the quote, "our defense drives our offense".  Honestly, I don't know.  Part of it might be the mindset instilled by the coaching staff to keep the players focused on defense. However, it isn't a good thing that the two areas are so linked.  Intuitively, one wants a Defense (or Offense) that stays constant no matter how efficiently or inefficiently the offense is playing.

In addition, If you look at the Efficiency Margin tracker from BE play through the rest of the season, we can see a view of how well the team played.  There was a decline in the level of play, culminating with a nadir in the games against UL and UConn, some subsequent improvement leading up to right before the Georgetown game.  There was then some additional decline in play before improvement during the tournament.




During the top three occasions in conference last year when we had our best efficiency margin (against Providence, @Nova, and Rutgers), the team had the least link between Offense and Defense.  In addition, the top three points where we had the greatest link between Offense and Defense were SHU#1 (that ugly, ugly game), @WVU, and @UL.  I think's it's fair to say that not only can Marquette separate the link between Offense and Defense, but that it's in the team's best interest to do so.  Now, as for how the team can emphasize this separation, that's up to the coaching staff.

Summary
Based on last year's performance, we definitely see benefits for Marquette to try and push a faster tempo.  Along the way, we realized that inconsistency is because of the strong link between the team's Offensive and Defensive performance.  Hopefully, along the way the coaching staff will get the team to be more consistent on at least one side of the court.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/10/faster-pace-and-link-between-offense.html

[Murffieus]

To overachieve with uptempo BB you need superior talent----but if you have superior talent in all probability you're going to win anyway.

MU is picked 5th in the conference because we have the 5th best talent-----now if we want to overachieve and finish higher than the teams with the better talent we have to slow it down not speed it up. The faster the tempo the more it favors the team (s) with superior talent.

When playing slow down BB you limit the team with the better talent to fewer shots, which gives the slower tempo team with less talent a better chance to win.

Somewhat like football where the team that has greater time of offensive possession usually wins.

[jmayer1]

To overachieve with uptempo BB you need superior talent----but if you have superior talent in all probability you're going to win anyway.

MU is picked 5th in the conference because we have the 5th best talent-----now if we want to overachieve and finish higher than the teams with the better talent we have to slow it down not speed it up. The faster the tempo the more it favors the team (s) with superior talent.

When playing slow down BB you limit the team with the better talent to fewer shots, which gives the slower tempo team with less talent a better chance to win.

Somewhat like football where the team that has greater time of offensive possession usually wins.

This makes absolutely no sense.  Why would a team with no legitimate frontcourt want to slow down the pace and make it more of a halfcourt game?  I don't think MU needs to play at a feverish pace all the time, but increasing the tempo at times to take advantage of its guard depth is definitely a good idea.

[avid1010]

To overachieve with uptempo BB you need superior talent----but if you have superior talent in all probability you're going to win anyway.

MU is picked 5th in the conference because we have the 5th best talent-----now if we want to overachieve and finish higher than the teams with the better talent we have to slow it down not speed it up. The faster the tempo the more it favors the team (s) with superior talent.

When playing slow down BB you limit the team with the better talent to fewer shots, which gives the slower tempo team with less talent a better chance to win.

Somewhat like football where the team that has greater time of offensive possession usually wins.

How does one explain Bruce Pearl's success at UWM?

[Pardner]

This makes absolutely no sense.  Why would a team with no legitimate frontcourt want to slow down the pace and make it more of a halfcourt game? 

Think Princeton.

[jmayer1]

Think Princeton.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Princeton rely on that offense due to their lack of athleticism and to exploit their accuracy from the 3 pt line?  Although MU shoots a decent percentage from deep I don't think that is one of their strengths and using that type of offense does not utilize the athleticism in the backcourt properly.

[Murffieus]

Coaching 101------if you don't line up talentwise with the opposition slow it down-----gives you a better chance to win because the more talented team has less time/chance to overwhelm you with their talent.

Princeton offense is a very good example------so is Bennett ball------Dick bennett took  the least talent of all time to the final 4 by slowing the game down.

[Daniel]

I can see Buzz focusing more on defense (as he said) to get more fast breaks and turnover points - in that sense, it is sped up, but otherwise, it seems slowing the pace is better if mismatches in talent are there.

[Marquette84]

To overachieve with uptempo BB you need superior talent----but if you have superior talent in all probability you're going to win anyway.

MU is picked 5th in the conference because we have the 5th best talent-----now if we want to overachieve and finish higher than the teams with the better talent we have to slow it down not speed it up. The faster the tempo the more it favors the team (s) with superior talent.

When playing slow down BB you limit the team with the better talent to fewer shots, which gives the slower tempo team with less talent a better chance to win.

So let me get this straight--there are 11 teams against which we have superior talent, yet we should slow down our offense and give them a better chance at beating us. 

At the same time, you claim "if you have superior talent in all probability you're going to win anyway."  Which seems to mean that 4 teams will beat us regardless of our tempo.

As you say, "Coaching 101" says that there are 11 teams in the conference that are going to want to try and slow us down, and only 4 that aren't.  Therefore, we better work on speeding things up, because that is better for us by almost 3:1 ratio.

[jmayer1]

Coaching 101------if you don't line up talentwise with the opposition slow it down-----gives you a better chance to win because the more talented team has less time/chance to overwhelm you with their talent.

Princeton offense is a very good example------so is Bennett ball------Dick bennett took  the least talent of all time to the final 4 by slowing the game down.

Coaching 101------work to your strengths.  MU's strength is not playing half court basketball, especially against teams that have far superior frontcourts.

[Pardner]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Princeton rely on that offense due to their lack of athleticism and to exploit their accuracy from the 3 pt line?  Although MU shoots a decent percentage from deep I don't think that is one of their strengths and using that type of offense does not utilize the athleticism in the backcourt properly.

To me, the Princeton offense's primary goal is to get a back door pick for a lay-up.   It is a slow developing, perimeter offense that tries to space the floor.  I think it works better when there is a strong post player like Hibbert, than a typical Princeton or Northwestern line-up--although NU has some decent bigs coming.  I hope to god Marquette doesn't play the Princeton--too boring--but it is an example of where a  smaller, non-athletic team would employ a pace to slow down the game vs. a bigger more talented team to success.

[Murffieus]

SJS/84----let me help you out-------trying to beat the 5 teams who have more talent by playing uptempo BB works against the odds------best chance is to slow them down.

As far as the 11 teams that have less talent----odds are as I say in my post above that we beat them regardless of what offense we use (assumming a well coached offense). So yes a slow tempo approach works there too.

Othrs here say that we can't win with a half court offense-----well we sure better be able to, because most crucial games come down to a half court game-----especially on the road!

[susie90]

I'd prefer to see the speed we displayed in trouncing Duke when the amigos were freshman.  The players seem to be most confident when they are in control of the game rather than the bench.

[Marquette84]

SJS/84----let me help you out-------trying to beat the 5 teams who have more talent by playing uptempo BB works against the odds------best chance is to slow them down.

As far as the 11 teams that have less talent----odds are as I say in my post above that we beat them regardless of what offense we use (assumming a well coached offense). So yes a slow tempo approach works there too.

Othrs here say that we can't win with a half court offense-----well we sure better be able to, because most crucial games come down to a half court game-----especially on the road!

Can you explain for me why a slower offense would work for us versus UConn and Louisville, but not work for DePaul or WVU or Cincy, or Rutgers or USF or St. Johns or Seton Hall against us? 

I know--you've said that we'll beat those lower ranked teams anyway.  Why doesn't that apply to UConn or UL compared to us?

Seems to me that when we include the home-and-home games, a slower offense will give us five chances to win a game against one of the teams ahead of us, but 13 chances for a team behind us to beat us.

[Murffieus]

Because the DePaul, Rutgers, St John's, Seton Hall, SF, Cincy are not slow tempo teams!

There are two forms of uptempo BB-----one is to race in transition and the other is to put the shot up early in the possession cycle.

[77ncaachamps]

Henry, good points were made with regards to Princeton's sets.

Which had me thinking that with the pace "quickening" despite the lack of experienced bigs, shouldn't more capable ball handlers affect the both turnovers and eFG% positively?

I enjoyed the run down but had to re-read some parts for understanding!

Thanks for the opinions!

[bilsu]

Given that Hayward is a 2/3 forced to play the four. All of our talent is at the 1-3 positions. We probably have the worst 4-5 talent in the Big East. While our team is talented, it is very unbalanced. I have been whining all off season that we lost to Stanford, because Crean slowed the game down and played a half court game. The only way we can beat a team with a dominate inside game is to keep it from becoming an inside game. Sure at times the other team will get an easy basket, but it has to be worse for a team to continually play tough defense for 30 seconds and have the team score anyways. In my opinion we should speed the game up and make the bigmen unconfortable. When you have big slow footed (St. Louis type) bigmen you want to slow the game down and pack it in. St Louis was the only team to hold Wade under 10 points and I believe they did it twice. The answer is that the quicker your foot and hand speed are the better it is to play at a fast pace. The slower your foot and hand speed are the better off you are playing a slow pace. Having said that we must remember that the style of game the refs call has an effect on the game. Some games it is no harm no foul. Other games you get a foul for breathing on somebody. There are also games were they do not watch the feet at all. Other games that seems to be their focus. I always believed refs could decide games by deciding before hand, in their pregame meeting, what they were going to focus on. It is a coaches job to adjust the team's game plan once he sees how the refs are calling the game.

[Henry Sugar]

How does one explain Bruce Pearl's success at UWM?

The general theory is that Pearl's teams play a different risky strategy.  They try to force lots of turnovers and take lots of threes.  To mitigate the variability of their hectic approach, they increase the number of possessions.

[Henry Sugar]

Which had me thinking that with the pace "quickening" despite the lack of experienced bigs, shouldn't more capable ball handlers affect the both turnovers and eFG% positively?

I ran a regression of each of the four factors against pace (offense and defense, so eight regressions).  I thought there might be a relationship with our turnover rate (or our opponent's turnover rate), but was only able to find a statistically significant correlation between pace and our eFG%.

[Henry Sugar]

I addressed some of the direct questions, but wanted to add in some additional comments.

First of all, Murff is absolutely right.  If your team has a "talent" deficiency, then it's in your favor to slow the tempo down.  The only area where I might disagree with Murff is that I base the "talent" argument on a statistical representation of efficiency differential (points per possession (PPP) minus Opponent's PPP).  This is the "pomeroy" method of ranking.  However, we were 5th in the league based on efficiency differential last year anyways, behind UL, Gtown, UConn, and WVU.

This is a risky strategy that can help your team win.  More possessions will usually favor a better team.  (I would also argue that the UW / Georgetown base strategy is inherently flawed for March because it has less possessions, but that's another discussion)  I actually covered the math behind this idea in a Previous MUScoop thread (warning of math)

Murff's implication is clear.  Against teams that are "more talented", isn't it a counter-productive idea to try and speed up the tempo? 

However, slowing down the tempo isn't the only risky strategy that a team can employ.  Obviously, going with a small-ball lineup is another risky strategy.  So the logic is that to account for this smaller lineup, the team increases the tempo (just like the Pearl UWM teams).

Where I currently fall short is that I'm not currently able to derive the math behind an adjustment in pace, improved consistency, and expected win%.  If I was able to do that, then I could tell you what the change in pace would be.  I know that it's possible, but am not there yet...

[MUDPT]

I think SLU held Wade under 10 points 3 times.

Last year when MU got a lead of about 10 points, the game was over (not as much at the end of the season).  It felt like teams would start to force more shots and that would play into more fast breaks, and easy lay-ups. I understand the pace idea, but I think MU was good because they played well in the half court defense, not necessarily by pressing.  It also will help next year that the best player is way better in the open court, than in the half court offense.

[Murffieus]

SLU during the Wade years is a very good example-----we lined up with very superior players----as i recall those games were essentially played in the 50s (both teams), which means a slow tempo employed by SLU-----also the way Soderberg held Wade down was by containment-----he always had 3 guys essentially between Wade and the hoop when he had the ball on the perimeter.

[avid1010]

This is a bit ridiculous to me.  A Princeton or Bennett style offense is just as complicated and difficult to run as an up-tempo offense like Pearl's teams play or what Memphis did last year.  Pearl's offense offers no more risk than Bennett's.  A 20 point lead against a Pearl team is about as good as a 10 point lead against a Dick Bennett team was.  I don't think there's a team in the NCAA that has enough talent that MU would be better off shelving an offense that they've worked on for years in order to play a slow down game.  Perhaps they loose by a smaller margin, but I can't believe they gave themselves a better chance at winning. 

Georgetown runs the Princeton offense....looks different with superior athletes. 

[WashDCWarrior]

Murf -
I agree with your argument that increasing the number of possessions favors the team with more talent.  This however is a very general statement, and there are cases where it would favor the lesser talented team.

If the lesser team:

1) is quicker than the opponent

A quicker team is likely going to be better at scoring in the open court on primary and secondary fast breaks.

2) is better conditioned than the opponent

They can put the more talented team in a position where it is gasping for air the last five minutes of the game or they are required to sit certain players (especially big men) for longer stretches than they normally would.

3) has better depth than the opponent

They can continually put fresh bodies into the game.  Plus they are less affected by getting into foul trouble since they can spread the fouls among multiple players.

I think reasons 1 and 2 put increasing the tempo in Marquette's favor.  We have a very quick, well-conditioned team.  Reason 3 has me concerned.  While our backcourt has decent depth, we are really thin up front.  Burke getting into early foul trouble is very dangerous, but if Otule, Fulce, and Hazel show that they can contribute at a similar level to Burke, there's almost no reason why pushing the tempo wouldn't favor Marquette.

[avid1010]

Murf -
I agree with your argument that increasing the number of possessions favors the team with more talent.  This however is a very general statement, and there are cases where it would favor the lesser talented team.

Increasing the number of possessions favors the team that plays best at that tempo...you're telling me Pearl had superior talent in all his upset wins at UWM??  His style seemed to work much better than the slow down style of Bo Ryan?