madgesiq92
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,366
|
Post by madgesiq92 on Jan 18, 2020 20:37:54 GMT -5
Good, bad and the ugly.
Good: KenPom offensive efficiency number up to 18th In Country.
Bad: Defensive efficiency down to 121st.
Ugly: 3 point defense as a component of defensive efficiency is 285th in country.
Adjustments need to be made on defense. I think staff should consider mixing in some zone principles. Would be helpful with short bench and allow Ewing the flexibility of putting Yurt and Q on floor together.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,466
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 18, 2020 20:43:14 GMT -5
Well, defense lost the game today. Plenty enough offense to win, so the metrics fit.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 18, 2020 21:06:06 GMT -5
Good, bad and the ugly. Good: KenPom offensive efficiency number up to 18th In Country. Bad: Defensive efficiency down to 121st. Ugly: 3 point defense as a component of defensive efficiency is 285th in country. Adjustments need to be made on defense. I think staff should consider mixing in some zone principles. Would be helpful with short bench and allow Ewing the flexibility of putting Yurt and Q on floor together. The hard hedge is the main problem. It's given shooters open look off of the forced rotations from the corner defenders. Open threes. Skip passes to open threes. Scrambles to open threes. Not saying it would be perfect without the hard hedge, but it wouldn't be worse.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 19, 2020 18:52:26 GMT -5
Good, bad and the ugly. Good: KenPom offensive efficiency number up to 18th In Country. Bad: Defensive efficiency down to 121st. Ugly: 3 point defense as a component of defensive efficiency is 285th in country. Adjustments need to be made on defense. I think staff should consider mixing in some zone principles. Would be helpful with short bench and allow Ewing the flexibility of putting Yurt and Q on floor together. The hard hedge is the main problem. It's given shooters open look off of the forced rotations from the corner defenders. Open threes. Skip passes to open threes. Scrambles to open threes. Not saying it would be perfect without the hard hedge, but it wouldn't be worse. You are 100% correct. On the very first possession, the hard hedge led to defensive scrambling that left an open three and it kept happening time and time again. I just don't get why they don't try another strategy.
|
|
b52legend
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 453
|
Post by b52legend on Jan 20, 2020 11:21:40 GMT -5
The hard hedge is the main problem. It's given shooters open look off of the forced rotations from the corner defenders. Open threes. Skip passes to open threes. Scrambles to open threes. Not saying it would be perfect without the hard hedge, but it wouldn't be worse. You are 100% correct. On the very first possession, the hard hedge led to defensive scrambling that left an open three and it kept happening time and time again. I just don't get why they don't try another strategy. I’m not sure we have a lot of other options. We don’t have the personnel to switch and if you don’t hedge you give the ball handler a clean look on the other side of the screen or a driving lane to the hole. Maybe it is just a question of the strength of the hedge or mixing up looks, but unfortunately it’s a tough thing to defend with a traditional big man.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 20, 2020 13:08:08 GMT -5
You are 100% correct. On the very first possession, the hard hedge led to defensive scrambling that left an open three and it kept happening time and time again. I just don't get why they don't try another strategy. I’m not sure we have a lot of other options. We don’t have the personnel to switch and if you don’t hedge you give the ball handler a clean look on the other side of the screen or a driving lane to the hole. Maybe it is just a question of the strength of the hedge or mixing up looks, but unfortunately it’s a tough thing to defend with a traditional big man. I think with our fives, they should be staying at home and allowing the guard to recover. The hard hedge prevents the pick and pop and against guys who aren't going to pop, there's no point in running it. I think someone like Pickett would be much better suited at running the hard hedge since he is quick enough to guard the potential roll, has better inside help and is guarding guys who can shoot it from outside.
|
|
alleninxis
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,216
|
Post by alleninxis on Jan 20, 2020 14:32:33 GMT -5
You drop Yurtseven and Wahab on pick and roll coverage and have Jagan/Terrell/Mac fight over the top of screens - or against guards that can't shoot (Rutherford, McKnight etc) just go under. The hard simply isn't working for this group - the bigs aren't mobile enough to recover and the back-line behind them are not nearly connected/aware enough to help recover. Which system seems as if it would serve Yurtseven better: Milwaukee's 'drop' coverage with Lopez twins : or a hard hedging scheme like UVA employs (watch how good their back-line is): There are times for different coverage's, but we seemingly only will hard-hedge without success or adjustments.
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by vv83 on Jan 20, 2020 14:37:43 GMT -5
In the second half of one of the seton hall loss, we started dropping Yurt in the second half. Gill could not split the hard hedge for wide open looks at the rim, the way he did repeatedly in the first half. We played them pretty even in the second half. But it has been back to almost all hard hedges since then.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 20, 2020 15:33:27 GMT -5
You drop Yurtseven and Wahab on pick and roll coverage and have Jagan/Terrell/Mac fight over the top of screens - or against guards that can't shoot (Rutherford, McKnight etc) just go under. The hard simply isn't working for this group - the bigs aren't mobile enough to recover and the back-line behind them are not nearly connected/aware enough to help recover. Which system seems as if it would serve Yurtseven better: Milwaukee's 'drop' coverage with Lopez twins : or a hard hedging scheme like UVA employs (watch how good their back-line is): There are times for different coverage's, but we seemingly only will hard-hedge without success or adjustments. You can run a drop against a primarily penetrating guard. And I'm OK with it against even an average shooter. But against Howard? Or Powell? They'd get open three after three. You can't fight over the top of a well-set screen consistently fast enough. Especially if the screener holds it and doesn't look to dive. I think you at least have to show. In any event, I'm in agreement that we should have some more variety in our coverage for sure. With Pat seemingly wedded to having more traditional bigs, this is going to be a re-occurring issue
|
|
alleninxis
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,216
|
Post by alleninxis on Jan 20, 2020 15:56:34 GMT -5
I was not speaking guarding someone like Howard specifically. I would string those ball screens out as much as possible or blitz it entirely and force him to give the ball up. You have to make Marquette play 4 vs 3 at some point on Saturday and see if they can beat you, we never got to that point.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 20, 2020 16:10:31 GMT -5
I was not speaking guarding someone like Howard specifically. I would string those ball screens out as much as possible or blitz it entirely and force him to give the ball up. You have to make Marquette play 4 vs 3 at some point on Saturday and see if he can beat you, we never got to that point. Agreed. I think against Howard you have too give him multiple looks. I think blitzing the screen would work at just getting the ball out of his hands and making the other guys beat us. Or I'd use the soft hedge where our defender would be right there to potentially stop Howard from immediately pulling while Howard's defender gets back. Those are the two main looks I'd try.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 741
|
Post by rhw485 on Jan 21, 2020 10:12:46 GMT -5
Ok maybe I'll hang out in this thread more than the game thread, seems like more general agreement on pick and roll strategies. Agree I would've like to see a blitz that makes Theo John the primary playmaker on a 4-on-3. If they start setting screens with the 4 man instead you switch those actions and make everyone else stand around. Those who argue the drop coverage wouldn't work against a Howard or Powell, I think it's really hard to pull up for a 3 with a defender right behind you if the guard goes over the top. As vv83 noted, in the 2nd half of the Seton Hall game we used this coverage and Powell didn't light us up with 3s off of it. The goal is to get the guard to settle for a mid range pull up. In the Seton Hall game it got exploited more w lobs but I think we could adjust for that better. Also in the future w Wahab I don't think those lobs would be as easy. Here's an article on the Knicks(!!) being somewhat competent for a stretch on defense by switching to the drop coverage and keeping Robinson closer to the hoop. Yes the right answer is more matchup dependent, but if we're going to go w one strategy more often than not, I would prefer it to be drop coverage. www.theringer.com/nba/2020/1/3/21048032/new-york-knicks-mike-miller-mitchell-robinson-julius-randle
|
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by vv83 on Jan 21, 2020 14:38:52 GMT -5
Ok maybe I'll hang out in this thread more than the game thread, seems like more general agreement on pick and roll strategies. Agree I would've like to see a blitz that makes Theo John the primary playmaker on a 4-on-3. If they start setting screens with the 4 man instead you switch those actions and make everyone else stand around. Those who argue the drop coverage wouldn't work against a Howard or Powell, I think it's really hard to pull up for a 3 with a defender right behind you if the guard goes over the top. As vv83 noted, in the 2nd half of the Seton Hall game we used this coverage and Powell didn't light us up with 3s off of it. The goal is to get the guard to settle for a mid range pull up. In the Seton Hall game it got exploited more w lobs but I think we could adjust for that better. Also in the future w Wahab I don't think those lobs would be as easy. Here's an article on the Knicks(!!) being somewhat competent for a stretch on defense by switching to the drop coverage and keeping Robinson closer to the hoop. Yes the right answer is more matchup dependent, but if we're going to go w one strategy more often than not, I would prefer it to be drop coverage. www.theringer.com/nba/2020/1/3/21048032/new-york-knicks-mike-miller-mitchell-robinson-julius-randleThe best defensive team in the NBA this season is the Bucks. How do the bucks defend the PnR? They drop the big man, pretty much every time. And that is against the best shooting guards in the world. they give up more threes than just about any team. Which seems to fly in the face of modern NBA convention. But coach Bud would rather give teams jump shots (even 3s) than allow anything at the rim. He plays the odds that a team can't consistently beat his defense with a steady diet of jump shots. The drop D went out of style a few years ago in the NBA, when teams moved towards "switch everything" as the preferred mode. But in the NBA: -teams only have 24 seconds, so exploiting a mismatch created by a switch is harder -NBA teams are far more likely than college teams to have 4 or 5 players who are athletic enough to defend switches successfully for 10 or 15 seconds. Most college teams don't have enough good versatile on ball defenders to play a switch-heavy defense as their primary approach I really think the drop D is the best bet for us. If we lose because guards are hitting a bunch of "off the dribble" threes with a guard often getting close to them as they fight through the pick - so be it. I like the odds of success the drop D provides better than the odds of winning when Howard is destroying the hard hedge D the way he did down the stretch on Saturday.
|
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by saxagael on Jan 21, 2020 21:35:57 GMT -5
You drop Yurtseven and Wahab on pick and roll coverage and have Jagan/Terrell/Mac fight over the top of screens - or against guards that can't shoot (Rutherford, McKnight etc) just go under. The hard simply isn't working for this group - the bigs aren't mobile enough to recover and the back-line behind them are not nearly connected/aware enough to help recover. Which system seems as if it would serve Yurtseven better: Milwaukee's 'drop' coverage with Lopez twins : or a hard hedging scheme like UVA employs (watch how good their back-line is): There are times for different coverage's, but we seemingly only will hard-hedge without success or adjustments. You can run a drop against a primarily penetrating guard. And I'm OK with it against even an average shooter. But against Howard? Or Powell? They'd get open three after three. You can't fight over the top of a well-set screen consistently fast enough. Especially if the screener holds it and doesn't look to dive. I think you at least have to show. In any event, I'm in agreement that we should have some more variety in our coverage for sure. With Pat seemingly wedded to having more traditional bigs, this is going to be a re-occurring issue With the dropping back, every example shows a weak pick and roll (most the pick is never set), but in the Big East picks and hard picks get set. In the video the NBA players dive to the lane, but in the Big East the guard is clearing the pick and if there isn't someone there they are pulling up and nailing the 3. If the big had sagged to the middle it ends up with the same result when the big doesn't get to the hard hedge (Marquette was running hard screens when Yurtseven was guarding the big on the low block and would hit the hard screen and couldn't get to the hard hedge and and the guard was just pulling up and nailing the 3 or a long 2. I don't see how this helps in the Big East where the hard picks are set to free the guard to nail a shot just off the pick. If the big sags that is a dead man defense with the big covrering nobody and the guard up top needs a helper which leaves a wing player open for a wide open shot. Also, Virgina runs the hard hedge consistently well (well in this video, as I've seen the same problems the Hoyas have with it when not set right or the big isn't in position when the pick happens). But, that is a good video to use to show it run well. The Virgina pack line defense is also is on show. That defense, oddly, can work well. Virginia didn't have a coach beat it until UMBC utterly destroyed it with smart coaching and great ball movement, then everybody since has put a huge dent in its success.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 741
|
Post by rhw485 on Jan 22, 2020 7:52:59 GMT -5
With the dropping back, every example shows a weak pick and roll (most the pick is never set), but in the Big East picks and hard picks get set. In the video the NBA players dive to the lane, but in the Big East the guard is clearing the pick and if there isn't someone there they are pulling up and nailing the 3. If the big had sagged to the middle it ends up with the same result when the big doesn't get to the hard hedge (Marquette was running hard screens when Yurtseven was guarding the big on the low block and would hit the hard screen and couldn't get to the hard hedge and and the guard was just pulling up and nailing the 3 or a long 2. I don't see how this helps in the Big East where the hard picks are set to free the guard to nail a shot just off the pick. If the big sags that is a dead man defense with the big covrering nobody and the guard up top needs a helper which leaves a wing player open for a wide open shot. Also, Virgina runs the hard hedge consistently well (well in this video, as I've seen the same problems the Hoyas have with it when not set right or the big isn't in position when the pick happens). But, that is a good video to use to show it run well. The Virgina pack line defense is also is on show. That defense, oddly, can work well. Virginia didn't have a coach beat it until UMBC utterly destroyed it with smart coaching and great ball movement, then everybody since has put a huge dent in its success. A few things I disagree with here: - Arguing the Big East guards are more inclined to pull up for 3s than NBA players is a tough argument - I don't think it's simple to say the guards in the Big East would just pull up for 3s if the guard is on their hip over the top. Again, we have an real life, in game example with Powell. He did not do this to us in the 2nd half of that game - A long 2 is EXACTLY what we want teams taking, that's the goal of this defense and really any defense - Yes, Virginia is the best example of the hard hedge. It also does a spectacular job with rotating on the back line, something we've shown we're incapable of to this point. It's complicated, requires a lot of movement and coordination, and we're simply not good at it. A drop defense would simplify the responsibilities for everyone else. I appreciate there's plenty of issues with our defense, but we've reached the point where the pick and roll defense can't be worse. We have to try something else. If we hard hedge against a Xavier team without shooting, I'll be very disappointed in coaching staff
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 9, 2020 13:52:09 GMT -5
Anyone want to guess who the only rotation player with an on floor positive point per possession in conference play was?
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 741
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 9, 2020 14:04:28 GMT -5
Anyone want to guess who the only rotation player with an on floor positive point per possession in conference play was? My gut is telling me Yurt7, mainly because he didnt play in the Creighton / Marquette blowouts
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 9, 2020 15:12:38 GMT -5
Anyone want to guess who the only rotation player with an on floor positive point per possession in conference play was? Either Mosely or Wahab?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 10:41:19 GMT -5
Note on this year's defense re: PPP stats
In almost every review of Ewing's tenure so far -- and almost all of the hopes for next year and beyond -- most of the discussion turns to defense, and how bad it's been. I don't disagree the level needs to be picked up on that end.
But I take exception with the notion that: A) Pat's not a capable defensive coach, and needs some "guru" to help him out. B) This year's numbers had more (or really almost any) to do w/ Pat's inability on that end, and not the possibility that we'd have been a better defensive team w/ the original lineup.
If you look at the PPP numbers throughout the year, I think they may show that we were on the road to improvement there but the roster issues were too much to handle.
PPP before James/Josh left - .9831 - Pretty good. You might say those are non-conf games and not as tough as BE games. But we had only played two cupcakes (MSM, Cent Ark) and 5 decent to good teams (PSU, GaSt, Texas, Duke, UNCG). Our PPP in just those 5 games was still very good - .9973. And we still hadn't settled on a lineup, and I'd have to assume the locker room was in flames behind the scenes.
PPP from losing James/Josh > Before losing BOTH Mac & Yurt - 1.0156 - This is essentially Ok St to the 1st Depaul game (2/8) where both Mac/Yurt were out -- and mostly were thru the end of the year. We generally were anywhere from 7 to 9 deep during this stretch, with occasional injuries and Gardner/Alexander still hanging around the 1st week. - Not bad overall. I think people got a little ahead of themselves after that great stretch of wins vs OkSt, SMU, Syr. Our PPP wasn't great (1.055), but our offense was sizzling (1.213 PPP). Then we took down some cupcakes (.8303 PPP defense !!) before succumbing in conference. - In that first set of BE games, we had a defensive PPP of 1.058. Much worse, but still hanging on. Last year's PPP for the entire BE season was 1.082, so it was still better than that. But our offense just came back to earth after a great couple of weeks. Big East problems, I guess.
PPP once Mac & Yurt were down - 1.1268 - This is from 2nd Butler (2/15) on - 7 games in 3 weeks. Thumped. Yes we played the #1, 2, and 4 conference offenses, but we also played 6, 7, and 10. It's not a terrible split. If you're looking for some basic comparative fatigue numbers, last season we played the 2nd half of the BE season defensively at 1.078 PPP vs 1.082 overall -- so no major letdown there.
I don't see anything in here that disputes the fact that we were tired and undermanned. And I don't see how - if you believe that - you can hold that against Pat this year.
The main argument I hear is... well we weren't very good defensively before everybody left... but the stats (as small a set as they are) don't show that to be true.
We had a better non-conference schedule (126th toughest vs 292) this year, but our PPP was still better defensively (.9639 to .9790). We even began the Big East slate better than last year, but couldn't keep pace w/o enough able bodies.
To me it looks this way:
We were playing pretty well defensively, but struggling to find our offense. Then mass exodus... We started playing well offensively which was hiding some defensive problems caused by the shrinking rotation. Then Big East... Our offense struggled to maintain, our defense got worse, and everybody started fading as the months & minutes wore on.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 741
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 10, 2020 11:34:53 GMT -5
To me it looks this way: We were playing pretty well defensively, but struggling to find our offense. Then mass exodus... We started playing well offensively which was hiding some defensive problems caused by the shrinking rotation. Then Big East... Our offense struggled to maintain, our defense got worse, and everybody started fading as the months & minutes wore on. Good thought exercise. Below is the same but with Adjusted D efficiency as that's cleaner than trying to guess the impact of looking at Mt. St. Mary's and Duke through the same lens. These are Bart Torvik numbers. I'm sure KenPom adjustment is slightly different but same premise. Also it's really important to add in national and big east ranks before we say what's a fair target imo. Adj D Before Josh / James left: 98.82. If that was our Adj D for entire year that would be 98th in nation and last in the Big East Adj D from losing James/Josh > Before losing BOTH Mac & Yurt: 96.66. surprisingly our largest number of games and best stretch by this exercise (Thanks UMBC and St Johns, even with adjusting). That would be 67th in nation, 8th in Big East, right ahead of Creighton Adj D final stretch: 103.85: 210th in nation and last in Big East by a country mile The narrative that the team simply ran out of gas holds and is fair, but it's harder to explain the middle section or argue that we were on the right track through 7 games. Can debate where the Ok St and SMU games belong w Gardner and Alexander. The gap between the first and second group narrows if you move those two games (ends up at 97.6 and 97.06 instead, both of those are still 9th in Big East). My broader point is if you throw out the last stretch, we're still talking about a defense that would be last or 9th in Big East. Maybe it's slightly better or largely the same as last year but I don't think that puts us in a spot to be competitive.
|
|