A look at MU's First Shot defense

[MUfan12]

I was curious to see the difference in numbers in our losses between the opponents first shot, and after an offensive rebound. Rather than sit thru 7 hours of losing, I went by the play-by-play in the box score. I checked them a couple times, so they should be accurate.

The numbers in the second half against Gonzaga and UW were ridiculous. Gonzaga only made two FGs in the second half off of their first shot. The numbers between the two games were eerily similar, which explains why I felt a sense of deja vu yesterday.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.

[chren21]

I think they need to work on some boxing out drills. 2-22 and 7-23 in the second half is great first shot defense, to bad if you dont box out it's all for not.

[NersEllenson]

Thank you for compiling this comparison.  My feeling has been that our team is playing a helter skelter, scrambling, rotating type of defense in the half court..running at shooters, etc...to the point where we are badly out of position to even execute a box out.  It actually may be a case of where over-agressiveness is actually hurting the team..and playing things a little more fundamental may result in a slight increase in first shot field goal % ...but would likely drastically cut down on 2nd shot opportunities.

Knowing Buzz's obsession with numbers..I'm sure he's aware of what you've discovered...to me the above is the only solution I could propose be implementd..or perhaps even going zone..which traditionally is harder to block out in than is man to man..but as its been this season..we are making numerous rotations defensively that leave us out of position to block out..

[lab_warrior]

Might be onto something with the help-out/recover style of our defense, but yeesh, have there been a lot of rebounds we've given up where the ball has bounced multiple times while everyone watches, or comes right back to a shooter.  We just really have to ratchet that up somehow.  I am not sure if a zone defense makes any of it any easier.

This team is so close in terms of if we can just knock down a few jumpers, and shore up the rebounding.  Very frustrating, but reason for optimism.

[MUfan12]

Ners brings up an interesting point. I do think the rotations and scrambling have a lot to do with it. Especially if the big guys have to slide over and help a lot, their positioning suffers.

In fact, I'd put a good part of the rebounding woes on the guards. Not being able to contain dribble penetration has hurt. Also, they have been pretty poor rebounding. There were a lot of long rebounds Saturday that the guards should have had, but just got beat to the ball.

If there ever was a game to go to a zone, it would have been Saturday. Doubt we'll see it at all this season, which is disappointing. I think it could really help in spurts.

[karavotsos]

I don't understand the calls for a zone, and I'm assuming that people want a packed-in Syracuse-type 2-3, or something because a wide-ranging zone would also involve a lot of chasing and catching up.

In the first half, we pressed out on d and had the Badgers running their offense 30 feet from the basket almost the entire half.  They hit some tough shots, but by the end of the half I thought we had gained control of the game through our defense.  I don't think Wisconsin had one matchup in which their player could break down his defender off the dribble and force help.  Additionally, we were exposing some shaky ballhandling that only should have gotten worse as the Badgers got fatigued.

Then, in the second half, I did not think the defense was as aggressive.  We weren't playing them as far up on the floor, and I do not believe we pressed at all until the very end.  For the most part, we played them 3 point line and in, which was clearly fine for 1st shot percentage.  But the intensity was not the same.  Obviously, MU needs to work on rebounding.  I just don't believe that with the team we have, playing 3-point line and in defense is the answer. 

Especially with Buycks and Blue I think our perimeter defending should be a strength and will only to continue to get better.  I would think sitting in a zone would simply negate that advantage.

[NersEllenson]

I don't understand the calls for a zone, and I'm assuming that people want a packed-in Syracuse-type 2-3, or something because a wide-ranging zone would also involve a lot of chasing and catching up.

In the first half, we pressed out on d and had the Badgers running their offense 30 feet from the basket almost the entire half.  They hit some tough shots, but by the end of the half I thought we had gained control of the game through our defense.  I don't think Wisconsin had one matchup in which their player could break down his defender off the dribble and force help.  Additionally, we were exposing some shaky ballhandling that only should have gotten worse as the Badgers got fatigued.

Then, in the second half, I did not think the defense was as aggressive.  We weren't playing them as far up on the floor, and I do not believe we pressed at all until the very end.  For the most part, we played them 3 point line and in, which was clearly fine for 1st shot percentage.  But the intensity was not the same.  Obviously, MU needs to work on rebounding.  I just don't believe that with the team we have, playing 3-point line and in defense is the answer. 

Especially with Buycks and Blue I think our perimeter defending should be a strength and will only to continue to get better.  I would think sitting in a zone would simply negate that advantage.

Think this is a lot of good analysis..and agree for the most part.  The only reason I suggested the zone (which traditionally is more difficult to box out in)..is that is twould drastically cut down on all of the help side defense, and rotations taking place.  In my view..it is these rotations and scrambling that largely are responsible for us being out of position to block out effectively.  I definitely agree that in the first half..we did seem to do a much better job of pushing their offense out to the 30+ foot mark for most of the possession.  I too felt we were getting control of the game going into the half..