Illini Basketball 2018-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,102      
Ayo showing in the first two games that he won't be here for four years. My guess is two. If you land five stars, need to repeat more frequently.
If he keeps up how he's playing (or close to it), then I would be shocked if he wasn't gone after this year. He wont be a lottery pick, but he's looked good at every facet of the game.

I too am hoping for a sophomore Ayo, doubt we get more.
 
#1,103      
If he keeps up how he's playing (or close to it), then I would be shocked if he wasn't gone after this year. He wont be a lottery pick, but he's looked good at every facet of the game.

I too am hoping for a sophomore Ayo, doubt we get more.

I would be shocked if he was a 1 and done. He's a fine player, but I doubt he's a 1st round pick.
 
#1,104      
I am starting to question his coaching after the Georgetown game. At some point the team needs to show some sort of defense. Your defensive philosophy cannot be get a turnover or allow a lay up. It gets pretty frustrating when it looks like your team cannot keep anyone in front of them and cannot get past any defenders. Especially true in late game situations which is why the vast majority of close games in his tenure have gone to the other side.

Really? We started 2 freshman and played others. Feliz is a JUCO transfer new to the system. You really expected seamless defense in November under those conditions?
 
#1,105      
I would be shocked if he was a 1 and done. He's a fine player, but I doubt he's a 1st round pick.
I agree on the bolded (and that he's a fine player), but you don't have to be a first rounder to go pro after one college year, 4 did it last year (Trent Tr., Vanderbilt, Diallo, and Antetokounmpo). You can easily make the argument UK pushes their players to go pro and that Kostas has name recognition because of his brother, but it's still possible. Spellman went 30th, FWIW too.

I dont think it's the most likely scenario, but if I had to put probabilities on it right now, I'd wager more on Ayo leaving after one year rather than three or four (though I agree with most thinking it would be two). He seems to be a very smart kid and have a good group of people around him. He'll make the right (or at least best) decision when it comes to it.
 
#1,106      

UofIChE06

Pittsburgh
Really? We started 2 freshman and played others. Feliz is a JUCO transfer new to the system. You really expected seamless defense in November under those conditions?

They had the same problem last year. I get that defense is usually more difficult to get into the heads of freshman but they are out there playing AAU ball by the looks of it.
 
#1,107      

BlindLoyalty

FartNoiseMotivation
Really? We started 2 freshman and played others. Feliz is a JUCO transfer new to the system. You really expected seamless defense in November under those conditions?

We gave up 88 points at home. Playing their third game of D1 basketball (and first ever true road game), three freshmen from Georgetown scored 45pts while shooting 56%.
Not great, Bob!
 
#1,108      
They had the same problem last year. I get that defense is usually more difficult to get into the heads of freshman but they are out there playing AAU ball by the looks of it.

Right on coach. If only you could go out there, take Underwood's place, and make those super easy adjustments. We'd be a championship level team.
 
#1,109      
I made this point on GT postgame thread, but I will repeat it here for these guys who think BU does not have a plan on defense.

BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic or not staying in front of defenders. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower. As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU said in the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.
 
#1,111      
I made this point on GT postgame thread, but I will repeat it here for these guys who think BU does not have a plan on defense.

BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic or not staying in front of defenders. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower. As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU said in the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.

Agreed on having to look at more than just FG%. I'm wondering, is that 1.2 multiplier commonly used in advanced stats or did you make up a number?

But still, we are currently last in the B1G in Kenpom's defensive metric. Early in the year so his stats aren't super accurate yet though.
 
#1,112      
Agreed on having to look at more than just FG%. I'm wondering, is that 1.2 multiplier commonly used in advanced stats or did you make up a number?

But still, we are currently last in the B1G in Kenpom's defensive metric. Early in the year so his stats aren't super accurate yet though.

The 1.2 number comes from the approximate offensive rebound percentage and is actually low for the GT game. We had 16 DREBs and GT had 11 OREBs. Thus they averaged an opportunity for second shot attempt about 44% of the time. So the number would actually have been 1.44 for the GT game. I was being generous.

Using the 1.44 metric, GT could have been expected to have 10 more shots - 7 times 1.44 equals 10.08. I note that this assume the TO occurs before the team gets a shot which is not 100% true all the time but not too often to make much of a difference.
 
#1,113      
any intel on public sale of braggin' rights game tickets....if/when they will go on sale to public?
 
#1,114      

UofIChE06

Pittsburgh
Right on coach. If only you could go out there, take Underwood's place, and make those super easy adjustments. We'd be a championship level team.

It's not about adjustments. Underwood has made a conscious decision to play defense this way. I am sure he knows other methods but he wants the guys to play this way. The point is that after 1+ yr it clearly isn't working. To criticize a coach isn't to say you could do better. Underwood is by all accounts a stubborn guy.

As another poster pointed out with the theory of how this defense is supposed to be played it can work. The problem is that it isn't and the coach is unwilling to change. He would rather just keep banging his head against a wall. Additionally in late game situations it is questionable if a pressure defense is the best method. Those times in a game where you absolutely need 1 defensive stop. A high risk high reward style defense is probably not the best choice in this situation.
 
#1,115      

UofIChE06

Pittsburgh
I made this point on GT postgame thread, but I will repeat it here for these guys who think BU does not have a plan on defense.

BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic or not staying in front of defenders. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower. As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU said in the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.

Good stuff. The theory is right. The execution is horribly bad. The eFG% as a whole for UI is 52.6% which is very bad. Worse their eFG for the GU game was 60.7%. You can't win many games with that kind of performance. For comparison UI was at 50.7%. I think you are spot on with the theory but the defense only really works if those rotations are such that the open shot that is allowed is a mid range 2. They can't give up 30+% of shots at the rim with the opposing team only missing 1 (that's what happened against GU) and you would prefer not to give up a lot of open 3s. It has been proven that a mid range 2 is the worst shot in basketball so optimally that is where you want to force the opponent.
 
#1,116      
I made this point on GT postgame thread, but I will repeat it here for these guys who think BU does not have a plan on defense.

BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic or not staying in front of defenders. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower. As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU said in the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.

This is all well and good and some if it is logical. The biggest problem with allowing dribble drives is the pressure it puts on your big. Now he has to constantly defend a 2 on 1. Creating too many foul opportunities.
 
#1,117      
It's not about adjustments. Underwood has made a conscious decision to play defense this way. I am sure he knows other methods but he wants the guys to play this way. The point is that after 1+ yr it clearly isn't working. To criticize a coach isn't to say you could do better. Underwood is by all accounts a stubborn guy.

As another poster pointed out with the theory of how this defense is supposed to be played it can work. The problem is that it isn't and the coach is unwilling to change. He would rather just keep banging his head against a wall. Additionally in late game situations it is questionable if a pressure defense is the best method. Those times in a game where you absolutely need 1 defensive stop. A high risk high reward style defense is probably not the best choice in this situation.

I said this before, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it isn't stubbornness, but rather that Underwood is OK taking the lumps this year to get his new players used to this defense if he realizes that this year is unlikely to be a tourney year no matter what. There was so much roster turnover that this year's team is almost completely new to the system. We saw during his year at OSU that he was more than willing to make adjustments to his defense midseason, but that may have been because they had the chance to be tourney team.

If this is true, then it is indeed a very risky strategy, but one that could pay off immensely down the road.
 
#1,119      
I would be shocked if he was a 1 and done. He's a fine player, but I doubt he's a 1st round pick.

I wouldn't. If I had to guess, I'd give him a second year, but only because of how much he can benefit from additional physical development. If you look at how hard Trent works, and how much he's improved his physicality, and then put that on Ayo, you get an NBA ready player.

If he goes after one year, it's going to be because he plays big in big games. Look at how well he played against Georgetown. That's a team with size and length, and yet his stat line was very impressive, and you could see him try and carry the team. Hope we have him for two, but I can't see him in college past that.
 
#1,120      

Tevo

Wilmette, IL
Agreed on having to look at more than just FG%. I'm wondering, is that 1.2 multiplier commonly used in advanced stats or did you make up a number?

But still, we are currently last in the B1G in Kenpom's defensive metric. Early in the year so his stats aren't super accurate yet though.

This is where tempo-adjusted points given up per game comes in handy. Take your pick on schemes -- full-court press, ball pressure, deny the pass, pack line, zone -- look at whatever stats you want -- turnovers, FG%, effective field goal percent, PPS, etc -- it all comes out in the wash of points per game, and is made comparable to other teams when you add the effect of tempo, or total possessions, to see, at the end of the day, is your defense making it harder for opponents to score than other teams' defense is.
 
#1,121      

Tevo

Wilmette, IL
This is all well and good and some if it is logical. The biggest problem with allowing dribble drives is the pressure it puts on your big. Now he has to constantly defend a 2 on 1. Creating too many foul opportunities.

This is also where getting long, athletic players works into Underwood's scheme. There WILL be need for switches and rotations, because on the ball pressure WILL result in backdoors, dribble penetration, etc. With those long, athletic teammates, guys can more easily cover for each other and help in those situations. It's why Finke was so particularly bad for Underwood's defense, and why the coaching staff is so focused on those long arms and quick feet.
 
#1,122      
Not really because it's not like teams are dumping the ball into the post and letting a big man destroy the interior. If that was the case I would say fine. What is happening is that the opposing guards are just blowing by their defenders and either getting a lay up themselves or dumping off for a dunk when someone slides over to stop the drive. Basically all the opposing team needs to do to score on every single trip down the court is avoid passing around the perimeter or making an entry pass both of which can lead to steals by the pressure defense. If the ball handler just drives they either get a lay up, an assist for a dunk, or a wide open kick for a 3.

They need to at least be able to keep a dribble drive in front of them half of the time. If it means less steals live with it. Right now they are giving up over 30% of shots at the rim at a better than 85% conversion. They shouldn't win any games with those kind of numbers.
The reason they aren't dumping the ball into the post is precisely because of the on the ball pressure. Underwoods defensive scheme is about not allowing you to pass the ball or run your offense. With that amount of pressure it makes it difficult to stay in front of your man. Right now it isn't working, but to early to say that it won't work in the long run.

I need to go back and watch the Georgetown game again. When Giorgi was on the bench and Adonis was in, I believe they switch to zone since Adonis at this point can't play the man defense. How did our team do when we switch to zone?
 
Last edited:
#1,123      
The reason they aren't dumping the ball into the post is precisely because of the on the ball pressure. Underwoods defensive scheme is about not allowing you to pass the ball or run your offense. With that amount of pressure it makes it difficult to stay in front of your man. Right now it isn't working, but to early to say that it won't work in the long run.

I need to go back and watch the Georgetown game again. When Giorgi was on the bench and Adonis was in, I believe they switch to zone since Adonis at this point can't play the man defense. How did our team do when we switch to zone?

I was too into the game to focus on our defense, but I think we executed pretty well early, but didn't have the stamina to keep it up. Trent would have helped that, btw. Over the course of the game, we didn't wear down our opponent, we wore down ourselves. We looked gassed for stretches in the 2nd half. So I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on the defensive scheme when we're not executing it.
 
#1,124      
I was too into the game to focus on our defense, but I think we executed pretty well early, but didn't have the stamina to keep it up. Trent would have helped that, btw. Over the course of the game, we didn't wear down our opponent, we wore down ourselves. We looked gassed for stretches in the 2nd half. So I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on the defensive scheme when we're not executing it.
This was precisely my impression from being there. They got gassed and not only did they stop running the defense, they also stopped running the offense.
 
#1,125      
We gave up 88 points at home. Playing their third game of D1 basketball (and first ever true road game), three freshmen from Georgetown scored 45pts while shooting 56%.
Not great, Bob!

We got 50 points from Ayo, Giorgi and Feliz, without our starting PG and leader Frazier. BTW, Frazier was 2nd in the B1G in steals last season. Guessing he would've helped our defensive stats a tad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.