Woj Colored Glasses

[Its DJOver]

Wojo has gone exclusively zone in exactly 1 half of basketball this year - against Creighton in the second half and we yielded .94ppp.

What isn’t up to any speculation is we are a fouling machine in M2M defense which isn’t any surprise as we are outsized and outatleticed at every position other than perhaps Sacar and Theo (woh only gets like 8 minutes per game.). Zone hides all those warts and it is also why we rebound better out of a zone.

Ever figure out what our ppp is in Big East play prior to Creighton game?

I think most here would agree that there have been times where our zone has looked good.  There have also been times our zone has looked bad.  Most also think that we should be seeing more zone.  I have a problem with comments suggesting that we should play zone 100% of the time, no matter the personnel, or situation.  We should be playing more zone, and we should be playing Markus and Andrew together less frequently, but there is no answer on D that works 100% of the time.  As bad as our mtm has looked at times, there have also been times where it has looked not terrible, which is a considerable improvement for this team.

[jesmu84]

Want to discuss zone vs m2m as it relates to MU's success? Fine.
Want to discuss playing the midgets apart as it relates to MU's success? Fine.
Want to discuss how defense (m2m, zone, midgets, whatever) was the reason we lost to depaul? No.

[skianth16]

Want to discuss zone vs m2m as it relates to MU's success? Fine.
Want to discuss playing the midgets apart as it relates to MU's success? Fine.
Want to discuss how defense (m2m, zone, midgets, whatever) was the reason we lost to depaul? No.

It's been pointed out, but you don't think there were things we could have done differently on defense to improve our rebounding numbers and/or reduce the number of fouls committed? We did a nice job of limiting their fg% but we struggles in other defensive areas. In any loss, there will always be things that could have been done better. Defense in the Depaul game could have been better in some aspects.

[Eldon]

FWIW, playing M2M is also more tiring than playing zone.  This fatigue could affect the way players perform on the offensive end.

The "fatigue effect" of M2M is certainly there, but I wonder how much of a factor it actually is.

[jesmu84]

It's been pointed out, but you don't think there were things we could have done differently on defense to improve our rebounding numbers and/or reduce the number of fouls committed? We did a nice job of limiting their fg% but we struggles in other defensive areas. In any loss, there will always be things that could have been done better. Defense in the Depaul game could have been better in some aspects.

Minus the late game fouling, we let them score 60ish. That's with the FT/fouls and offensive rebounds.

If we play an average offensive game, foul the same rate and give up the same offensive rebounds, we win this easily.

[Floorslapper]

FWIW, playing M2M is also more tiring than playing zone.  This fatigue could affect the way players perform on the offensive end.

The "fatigue effect" of M2M is certainly there, but I wonder how much of a factor it actually is.

Also very true and to expect Sam Hauser to play 40 minutes against guys who are equally his size, likely a slight bit more athletic strong, is NOT good coaching.

Rowsey and Howard chasing guys through ball screens is also taxing. End of the day, when you are at a disadvantage physically, zone is a much better approach.

Furthermore much harder to score in transition off of missed FTs, much less makes.

[brewcity77]

Minus the late game fouling, we let them score 60ish. That's with the FT/fouls and offensive rebounds.

If we play an average offensive game, foul the same rate and give up the same offensive rebounds, we win this easily.

Yeah, but we did outshoot them from 2, 3, and won the eFG% battle. If we give up fewer second, third, and fourth chances and don't send them to the line constantly, we also win easily.

It was a combination of things. If the offense is scoring at normal levels, we win. If we don't hack them to death while letting them get multiple chances on seemingly every possession, we win. If we do both, we blow them out.

Instead, we did neither.

[jesmu84]

Yeah, but we did outshoot them from 2, 3, and won the eFG% battle. If we give up fewer second, third, and fourth chances and don't send them to the line constantly, we also win easily.

It was a combination of things. If the offense is scoring at normal levels, we win. If we don't hack them to death while letting them get multiple chances on seemingly every possession, we win. If we do both, we blow them out.

Instead, we did neither.

Yup. But not quite matching our season averages, I don't believe.

Again, defense has been the problem all year. It was better than average against Depaul. Agreed, we could have won by limiting offensive rebounds and FTs. But, considering the state of our defense this year, we would have had to extremely outperform our defense this season.

Our more likely path to winning was just play average offensively, rather than like superheroes on defense.

[brewcity77]

Our more likely path to winning was just play average offensively, rather than like superheroes on defense.

Not superheroes, just playing to our averages.

Limiting Free Throws

DePaul scored 23 points on 32 free throws, a 71.4% conversion rate. The 32 free throws on 59 shots was a 54.2% FTA/FGA ratio. We normally allow 38.6%. On a normal night, we would've allowed 16 points on 23 free throws. Had we limited free throws to the normal amount, we could expect a 7-point swing.

Limiting Offensive Rebounds

DePaul grabbed 19 offensive rebounds, which was 44.2% of the misses. We normally allow 28.6%, which would have equated to 12 offensive rebounds. They scored 0.97 ppp, so on 7 extra possessions we could expect another 7-point swing.

If we play to our averages in terms of free throw ratio and limiting offensive rebounds, the numbers would indicate a 14-point swing, more than enough to decide the game.

Offensive eFG%

On offense, we shot an eFG% of 47.5%, down from our usual 56.2%. We scored 56 points on field goals, had we hit our usual eFG% it would've been 66 points. That 10-point swing also would have been more than enough to decide the game.

Back to my original quote:

It was a combination of things. If the offense is scoring at normal levels, we win. If we don't hack them to death while letting them get multiple chances on seemingly every possession, we win. If we do both, we blow them out.

If we play an average offensive game, we win by 2. If we are average in terms of free throws and offensive rebounds, we win by 6. If we play average in all of those facets, we win by 16. It wasn't only the defense, but it certainly wasn't only the offense either.

[jesmu84]

Not superheroes, just playing to our averages.

Limiting Free Throws

DePaul scored 23 points on 32 free throws, a 71.4% conversion rate. The 32 free throws on 59 shots was a 54.2% FTA/FGA ratio. We normally allow 38.6%. On a normal night, we would've allowed 16 points on 23 free throws. Had we limited free throws to the normal amount, we could expect a 7-point swing.

Limiting Offensive Rebounds

DePaul grabbed 19 offensive rebounds, which was 44.2% of the misses. We normally allow 28.6%, which would have equated to 12 offensive rebounds. They scored 0.97 ppp, so on 7 extra possessions we could expect another 7-point swing.

If we play to our averages in terms of free throw ratio and limiting offensive rebounds, the numbers would indicate a 14-point swing, more than enough to decide the game.

Offensive eFG%

On offense, we shot an eFG% of 47.5%, down from our usual 56.2%. We scored 56 points on field goals, had we hit our usual eFG% it would've been 66 points. That 10-point swing also would have been more than enough to decide the game.

Back to my original quote:

If we play an average offensive game, we win by 2. If we are average in terms of free throws and offensive rebounds, we win by 6. If we play average in all of those facets, we win by 16. It wasn't only the defense, but it certainly wasn't only the offense either.

Right. I accept our defense stinks. Need our offense to be good all year long (which it hasn't). Also, isolating the free throws and offensive rebounds tends to make me believe that the rest of the defensive metrics would indicate we played an overall good (for our team) defensive game. Again, if you incorporate free throws and offensive rebounds into the total defensive metrics, we would have had to play above our average in all facets on that end of the court.

Thanks for the stats. Good to see the breakdown

[skianth16]

Right. I accept our defense stinks. Need our offense to be good all year long (which it hasn't). Also, isolating the free throws and offensive rebounds tends to make me believe that the rest of the defensive metrics would indicate we played an overall good (for our team) defensive game. Again, if you incorporate free throws and offensive rebounds into the total defensive metrics, we would have had to play above our average in all facets on that end of the court.

Thanks for the stats. Good to see the breakdown

You'd sure think it would be an easy task to play better than average against one of the worst teams on our schedule, though. I don't see that as expecting too much.

[jesmu84]

You'd sure think it would be an easy task to play better than average against one of the worst teams on our schedule, though. I don't see that as expecting too much.

Did you watch the EIU game? This team was/is capable of anything

[Floorslapper]

Not superheroes, just playing to our averages.

Limiting Free Throws

DePaul scored 23 points on 32 free throws, a 71.4% conversion rate. The 32 free throws on 59 shots was a 54.2% FTA/FGA ratio. We normally allow 38.6%. On a normal night, we would've allowed 16 points on 23 free throws. Had we limited free throws to the normal amount, we could expect a 7-point swing.

Limiting Offensive Rebounds

DePaul grabbed 19 offensive rebounds, which was 44.2% of the misses. We normally allow 28.6%, which would have equated to 12 offensive rebounds. They scored 0.97 ppp, so on 7 extra possessions we could expect another 7-point swing.

If we play to our averages in terms of free throw ratio and limiting offensive rebounds, the numbers would indicate a 14-point swing, more than enough to decide the game.

Offensive eFG%

On offense, we shot an eFG% of 47.5%, down from our usual 56.2%. We scored 56 points on field goals, had we hit our usual eFG% it would've been 66 points. That 10-point swing also would have been more than enough to decide the game.

Back to my original quote:

If we play an average offensive game, we win by 2. If we are average in terms of free throws and offensive rebounds, we win by 6. If we play average in all of those facets, we win by 16. It wasn't only the defense, but it certainly wasn't only the offense either.

Good analysis Brew.  Well done. 

Food for thought:  We are 10th in the conference in overall defense, and 10th in conference in FTR allowed (by a pretty wide margin.)  Defending without fouling has been a MAJOR problem for our team all year long.  Much less propensity to foul out of a zone defense.  This simple adjustment alone would yield us better chances of winning (cutting way back on fouls/FTs yielded)

[brewcity77]

Food for thought:  We are 10th in the conference in overall defense, and 10th in conference in FTR allowed (by a pretty wide margin.)  Defending without fouling has been a MAJOR problem for our team all year long.  Much less propensity to foul out of a zone defense.  This simple adjustment alone would yield us better chances of winning (cutting way back on fouls/FTs yielded)

I think zone can help, but I don't think it's a cure-all. The biggest problem is the Howard/Rowsey combination. They can't play zone together because it's too easy to shoot or pass over them.

Zone worked against Creighton, but there are a lot of good three-point shooting teams in this league. I think that Creighton was an outlier because they didn't expect it. I do think it would've helped more to stick with it against DePaul, though they did better against it than the Johnnies did.

Ideally, I think having M2M as our base defense with zone available to mix in at times is the best formula, but the most important factor in my mind is minimizing how often Howard and Rowsey are on the court together. They never seem to get hot offensively at the same time, so we may as well make defense a priority.

[BM1090]

I think zone could potentially help tonight, but we'd probably have to shade it towards Derrickson.

Could keep Govan out of the post and Georgetown turns the ball over a lot.