[PaintTouches]Postseason statistical primer: Marquette defense

[PaintTouchesSays]

Postseason statistical primer: Marquette defense
      

Written by: Mark Strotman
            

The general consensus was that, following the departure of Jae Crowder, the Marquette defense would have trouble matching last year's numbers. And while according to KenPom.com, Marquette's offense (No. 16) has outplayed its defense (No. 49) and its defense this ... Continue reading →


            

http://painttouches.com/2013/03/12/postseason-statistical-primer-marquette-defense/
      

[Henry Sugar]

General comments (as promised via twitter)

I don't get the point about the Oxtule lineup (great name). Even if the FG% was too high, it was still better than the standard defense by 0.05 ppp. Having said that, even if it is better, it's probably more a function of sample size than anything.

Love to see the defensive improvement by Gardner

The on-ball defensive numbers really highlight why Derrick Wilson sees the court. It's also part of why the straight up box score doesn't do the full player analysis benefit. In addition, Trent Lockett's court time shows up well here. Also, I may have to be a little less loud with the Free Steve Taylor comments.

Transition defense... blech.

Questions
I seem to recall Todd Mayo playing some decent face guarding defense (Cincy game, maybe). Does that show anywhere in Synergy?

Is there anything about the half-court defense?

Two of the strengths (relatively) were defensive rebounding and two-point defense? Anything in Synergy there?

Final points

Personally, I would have started with a breakdown of where #mubb is weak and/or strong and then tried to tie that back via Synergy Stats. For example, weak at forcing turnovers/3 pt defense... is there anything in Synergy that shows why?

Great work overall. I'm totally jealous you have Synergy access.

[Jay Bee]

Love the Synergy stuff. Not having access to it is probably a blessing for me. (Although I'd like it.) A couple of quick thoughts...

Sure, they forced more turnovers and allowed fewer points per possession, but the field goal percentage was far too high to justify continuing using the lineup.

This seems like a stretch. Several issues with jumping to that claim, but sample size is a huge issue and I think* if you looked at the four individual games mentioned, Syracuse went off on MU while the other three didn't do much against the the Chris/Big Sheesh combo.

Marquette allows fewer transition attempts than the average Big East team, but its defense in those situations arguably has been the worst in the conference."

What is the definition of "transition attempts" in these figures? For MU, their offensive steal % is relatively high and most steals are live ball steals that can result in transition points for the opponent... I believe the FG% of MU opponents right after steals is unusually high.. now, is that because they've got big guys on the court that can't get back quickly, because the turnovers are really bad and on the perimeter - MU is in an awful position to defend, because the opponents have just gotten "lucky" compared to the mean, or something else?

[brewcity77]

I'd be curious to see Marquette's more recent defensive numbers. It seems like since Big East play we've actually been better on defense and I recall us being ranked much lower on kenpom earlier in the season.

[Jay Bee]

I'd be curious to see Marquette's more recent defensive numbers. It seems like since Big East play we've actually been better on defense and I recall us being ranked much lower on kenpom earlier in the season.

Raw defensive efficiency, averaged by game - not possessions: 96.4 full year, 98.5 conference 93.2 nonconference.

Defensive efficiency adjusted for D1 avg & opponent, averaged by game, not posssessions: 92.8 full year, 92.3 conference, 93.5 nonconference.

Last six games: 89.2 adjusted defensive efficiency despite Syracuse puke game (although the 116 raw goes down to 104 adjusted because of Syracuse's offense).

Last three games "look" solid for the defense, but 2FG% D could have been better and DR wasn't good. But, kept guys off the line and perhaps got lucky with 3FGA's often missing for the other team.

[Dr. Blackheart]

In Big East play, MU averages 1.10 PPP via opponents' miscues (MU points off turnovers over the # of opponents' turnovers), while giving up a similar number (1.11).  At home, MU scores at a rate of 1.12 while this is a 1.08 on the road.  Opponents score at a clip of 1.07 per MU turnover at the BMO-BC, while they score at a bit higher rate at home off a MU turnover (1.14).  All in all, not any major differences.

However...

• In wins, MU scores at a rate of 1.25 PPP on opposing miscues, while the opponents drop down to a rate of 1.00
• In losses, it starts to separate itself:  MU scores at a 0.58 PPP, while the conquerors score at a 1.39 clip

As we discussed ad infinitum, MU likes to pressure on defense to create offense...and MU struggles against athletic teams who pressure in the backcourt on offense.  In fact, in just MU's four league losses, they gave up a whopping 53% of the total points off turnovers surrendered in all of the 18 league games. So, does MU's transition defense lack?...or is the offense struggling against pressure while also creating easy, uncontested opportunities for the opposing teams (via a lot of unforced errors)?