Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 18, 2008 11:27:20 GMT -5
There's a popular (and probably right) sentiment on this board that the tournament is all about matchups, so I thought I'd take a crack at what is a bad matchup for us, and what's a good one, and see who is in our way.
Let's first look at the characteristics of our losses:
So, what about potential opponents?
1. UMBC: Atrocious defense that doesn't force turnovers and doesn't defensive rebound. They commit lots of fouls, but we don't force them, so it probably won't hurt them.
Offense is driven by the fact that they don't turn it over -- which means we may not see a single retriever TO in this game. They shoot well, but don't offensive rebound all that specially.
They do have some upset potential because they are handy at three, but we've guarded it well all season.
They have some undersized bigs, but the heaviest player they have is 6'4", which might be too short. Main big guy Cavell Johnson is a bit skinny to be a Blair/Dorsey/Onuaku type.
2. Gonzaga: Solid on offense and defense. They are a better offensive rebounding team than UMBC, especially with Heyveldt back, but they aren't dominant.
They have talented bigs, but the biggest concern is that Pendergraft and Daye can really hit the three -- which means a choice between zoning a strong three point shooting team and making Roy guard on the perimeter. They can take him out of the middle if we play man.
Which would leave Pargo open to drive on us all day. There's no doubt he's quick enough to get in the lane, but Gonzaga is at its best when he's not ball-hogging.
They can put out lineups where everyone can hit the three. I don't think this is a huge matchup problem other than Roy -- because we guard the three so well. But it may mean we're trying to do that in zone.
Defensively, they don't force turnovers, but they rebound well and don't foul.
3. Davidson: I don't see Davidson beating Gonzaga, but there's always a chance. They do force turnovers well, but don't offensive rebound. They are very dependent on Curry for points and by extension on the three. I just don't see them as a team who causes us problems defensively.
Unless I'm grossly misstating the athleticism of their frontline, you've got a team whose strength meets ours (stopping 3 point shooting guards) and can't exploit our weakness on the boards (which really only manifests against hyper athletic, strong bigs).
They do force turnovers, but no one can guard Roy, and they tend to foul a lot -- which didn't hurt them in the season because they had a great "FT% defense".
4. Southern Cal: SC is a great defensive team that looks a lot like us. They don't D rebound well. They don't force turnovers (odd, for how much talent they have). They generally don't foul and simply contest every shot.
Offensively, they are decent, not great, and win on shooting %. To be honest, statistically, they don't look like a bad matchup for us.
That said, I don't like the matchup because of USC's athleticism. I was fully prepared to say this was an awful matchup because despite the lack of bulk, players like Gibson, Jefferson and Mayo have the athleticism to destroy us on the boards. But the funny thing is, they don't. They haven't been good offensive rebounders, and I don't know why.
5. Wisconsin: If you go by Pomeroy, we got shafted with our three, b/c Pomeroy loves Wisconsin. #1 defense, just taking it from Kansas. They do not force all that many turnovers, which is nice for us, but they do D rebound well, don't foul, and contest shots.
Their offense is good across the board, and the biggest issue for us may be that they are the best offensive rebounding team I've profiled here. I'm not sure it holds as especially a bad matchup because it isn't the type of team we struggle with on the boards -- Brian Butch seems like a worse Roy on the O boards.
Only thing I'd say is that Butch again can take it outside, which isn't where we want Roy on defense.
6. Kansas: Really freaking good team that completely profiles as the type of team that destroys us on the boards. Athletic bigs focused on rebounding, tough rebounding guards, etc. For a great defensive team they don't turn it over a lot, but offensively they don't turn the ball over, and they get a lot of O boards. Oh, and they shoot really well. So they get lots of shots and make them.
------------
If I had more time I'd check to see what these team's weaknesses are and do it the other way, but that's a lot of work.
What I would say is that when we've been blown off the blocks on the boards, it's been by Top 10 rebounding teams. Only Kansas really applies there. Gonzaga and Wisconsin can rebound, but they aren't in that class so while those are both really tough games, I don't think they are especially suited to take advantage of us there.
None of these teams really force turnovers all that well, except maybe Davidson. It's a concern, I think, but more from our unforced errors instead of opponent driven.
As for the foul trouble, there's not a lot of pattern. Some of that is how the refs called the game. If it is tightly called we're in trouble because we simply don't force fouls a lot. Some of that is the offensive rebounds as eventually we foul (see the Pitt game). And some of that is penetrating guards. I suppose Pargo, Trevon Hughes and just about everyone on Kansas can fall into that, but it's the tournament and you expect some very good penetrators. Not sure if any of them are going to be Conley-like.
I expected to see these as bad matchups, but they aren't.
We should beat UMBC pretty easily. Davidson, if they beat Gonzaga, isn't a tough matchup for us -- in fact, I think it goes the other way.
Gonzaga is a fair 7, and a tough out, no doubt, but the only real edge they seem to have matchup wise is the combination of Pargo driving and their bigs pulling Roy out of the game. It will be hard to zone them because of their shooting, so it is a concern, but no more than I'd expect from a 7.
USC should be a tough matchup, but they don't play like you expect. I have no idea on them.
Wisconsin is really good, but other than Butch coming out, they are just good. Not especially suited to beating us.
Kansas is a bad matchup for us. But they are a #1. I'd rather have gotten UNC, but at that point, you need to play really well no matter what.
Let's first look at the characteristics of our losses:
- In four of our five losses, we lost on defense. Suprising? Possibly, but both games against Pitt, Syracuse and Memphis were cause by horrible defensive breakdowns.
Our offense against Memphis was actually very good for being against Memphis; and both the Syracuse and Pitt games we were above average if not great. (I think people forget how good we were on O in the first half versus Memphis)/
The Louisville game was more of an offensive breakdown. - So, what caused these defensive breakdowns? From a simple, statistical standpoint, the results are pretty obvious:
1. An opponent's offensive rebound percent between 40% and 50%
2. An opponent's Free Throw Rate between 46% (FTA/FGA) and 86% (yeah- that was the BE Championship). - So what really cause those? I have a feeling the latter is at least partially caused by the former -- how many fouls came off offensive boards? I would also put forward that those teams have great driving players -- CDR, Rose, Sam Young, Levance Fields, Johnny Flynn as a secondary cause.
But I think it all comes down to rebounding. - So in addition to rebounding, and great dribble penetrators as a secondary (but I mean, really, who isn't hurt by those?), I'm going to add turnover %. CO did a great job on his blog showing how dependent our offense has been on that. The only game we really lost offensive was Louisville, but still it's a concern.
- Getting specific on the rebounding, I think it is apparent that we have trouble with bulkier, hyper athletic types (Pitt, Memphis, Syracuse, even the Ville) on the boards. We get pushed around down low at times, and our athleticism is a bit skinny there.
So, what about potential opponents?
1. UMBC: Atrocious defense that doesn't force turnovers and doesn't defensive rebound. They commit lots of fouls, but we don't force them, so it probably won't hurt them.
Offense is driven by the fact that they don't turn it over -- which means we may not see a single retriever TO in this game. They shoot well, but don't offensive rebound all that specially.
They do have some upset potential because they are handy at three, but we've guarded it well all season.
They have some undersized bigs, but the heaviest player they have is 6'4", which might be too short. Main big guy Cavell Johnson is a bit skinny to be a Blair/Dorsey/Onuaku type.
2. Gonzaga: Solid on offense and defense. They are a better offensive rebounding team than UMBC, especially with Heyveldt back, but they aren't dominant.
They have talented bigs, but the biggest concern is that Pendergraft and Daye can really hit the three -- which means a choice between zoning a strong three point shooting team and making Roy guard on the perimeter. They can take him out of the middle if we play man.
Which would leave Pargo open to drive on us all day. There's no doubt he's quick enough to get in the lane, but Gonzaga is at its best when he's not ball-hogging.
They can put out lineups where everyone can hit the three. I don't think this is a huge matchup problem other than Roy -- because we guard the three so well. But it may mean we're trying to do that in zone.
Defensively, they don't force turnovers, but they rebound well and don't foul.
3. Davidson: I don't see Davidson beating Gonzaga, but there's always a chance. They do force turnovers well, but don't offensive rebound. They are very dependent on Curry for points and by extension on the three. I just don't see them as a team who causes us problems defensively.
Unless I'm grossly misstating the athleticism of their frontline, you've got a team whose strength meets ours (stopping 3 point shooting guards) and can't exploit our weakness on the boards (which really only manifests against hyper athletic, strong bigs).
They do force turnovers, but no one can guard Roy, and they tend to foul a lot -- which didn't hurt them in the season because they had a great "FT% defense".
4. Southern Cal: SC is a great defensive team that looks a lot like us. They don't D rebound well. They don't force turnovers (odd, for how much talent they have). They generally don't foul and simply contest every shot.
Offensively, they are decent, not great, and win on shooting %. To be honest, statistically, they don't look like a bad matchup for us.
That said, I don't like the matchup because of USC's athleticism. I was fully prepared to say this was an awful matchup because despite the lack of bulk, players like Gibson, Jefferson and Mayo have the athleticism to destroy us on the boards. But the funny thing is, they don't. They haven't been good offensive rebounders, and I don't know why.
5. Wisconsin: If you go by Pomeroy, we got shafted with our three, b/c Pomeroy loves Wisconsin. #1 defense, just taking it from Kansas. They do not force all that many turnovers, which is nice for us, but they do D rebound well, don't foul, and contest shots.
Their offense is good across the board, and the biggest issue for us may be that they are the best offensive rebounding team I've profiled here. I'm not sure it holds as especially a bad matchup because it isn't the type of team we struggle with on the boards -- Brian Butch seems like a worse Roy on the O boards.
Only thing I'd say is that Butch again can take it outside, which isn't where we want Roy on defense.
6. Kansas: Really freaking good team that completely profiles as the type of team that destroys us on the boards. Athletic bigs focused on rebounding, tough rebounding guards, etc. For a great defensive team they don't turn it over a lot, but offensively they don't turn the ball over, and they get a lot of O boards. Oh, and they shoot really well. So they get lots of shots and make them.
------------
If I had more time I'd check to see what these team's weaknesses are and do it the other way, but that's a lot of work.
What I would say is that when we've been blown off the blocks on the boards, it's been by Top 10 rebounding teams. Only Kansas really applies there. Gonzaga and Wisconsin can rebound, but they aren't in that class so while those are both really tough games, I don't think they are especially suited to take advantage of us there.
None of these teams really force turnovers all that well, except maybe Davidson. It's a concern, I think, but more from our unforced errors instead of opponent driven.
As for the foul trouble, there's not a lot of pattern. Some of that is how the refs called the game. If it is tightly called we're in trouble because we simply don't force fouls a lot. Some of that is the offensive rebounds as eventually we foul (see the Pitt game). And some of that is penetrating guards. I suppose Pargo, Trevon Hughes and just about everyone on Kansas can fall into that, but it's the tournament and you expect some very good penetrators. Not sure if any of them are going to be Conley-like.
I expected to see these as bad matchups, but they aren't.
We should beat UMBC pretty easily. Davidson, if they beat Gonzaga, isn't a tough matchup for us -- in fact, I think it goes the other way.
Gonzaga is a fair 7, and a tough out, no doubt, but the only real edge they seem to have matchup wise is the combination of Pargo driving and their bigs pulling Roy out of the game. It will be hard to zone them because of their shooting, so it is a concern, but no more than I'd expect from a 7.
USC should be a tough matchup, but they don't play like you expect. I have no idea on them.
Wisconsin is really good, but other than Butch coming out, they are just good. Not especially suited to beating us.
Kansas is a bad matchup for us. But they are a #1. I'd rather have gotten UNC, but at that point, you need to play really well no matter what.
