Home
Forums
New Posts
Illini Basketball
Illini Football
Sports Talk
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sports
Illini Basketball
Georgetown 88, Illinois 80 POSTGAME
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="alaskaillini" data-source="post: 1427950" data-attributes="member: 531679"><p>I thought I would comment on the complaint that we are giving up to many easy baskets, that our players can't stay in front of their man and that BU should be changing our defensive scheme.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps some of the coaches on here can comment on this, but 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. 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 (even though we did not shoot well from 3, we had same number of made 3s as GT). 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 appeared to be saying 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="alaskaillini, post: 1427950, member: 531679"] I thought I would comment on the complaint that we are giving up to many easy baskets, that our players can't stay in front of their man and that BU should be changing our defensive scheme. Perhaps some of the coaches on here can comment on this, but 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. 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 (even though we did not shoot well from 3, we had same number of made 3s as GT). 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 appeared to be saying 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sports
Illini Basketball
Georgetown 88, Illinois 80 POSTGAME
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…