Illinois 105, Minnesota 97 Postgame

#376      

NarrowJ

NarrowJ
NarrowJ
Monticello said:
Reese had a double double and shot 6/8 from the field. He actually scored above his season average.
Click to expand...

True, and it seemed the adjustments were made on Young and not so much Reese. We made him take a lot of tough twos (8-23 shooting, 1-4 from three) and didn't allow the 2-man game stuff to happen on every single half court possession.
 
#377      

ptgrd23

ptgrd23
ptgrd23
RockfordIllini said:
Now some of that is that NW traps the post all the time so they are more comfortable with it, but I refuse to believe we can’t replicate even a C+ version of Northwestern’s defensive scheme with a couple of days of repetition. And I think that has a much greater chance of success than leaving Coleman on and island to get bullied by Reese and letting Young get wherever he wants because we are hugging 18% three point shooters.
Click to expand...
I hope Brad and staff are rewatching NW, Nebraska and OSU wins over Purdue. Only way to beat Edey is to trap him immediately so he gives up the ball and you force other Purdue players to beat you.

I was impressed that Marcus has modified his post up game and has been able to score in paint despite shot blockers like 6'9" 230 Reese MD and 6'9" 255 Payne Minnesota. I am hoping he can repeat the 26 points he had in W Lafayette and we can add in TSJ.

1709320945171.png
 
#378      

bluemountain

B
bluemountain
OrangeBlue98 said:
Generally speaking, a defense that's designed to force a team to take long 2-point shots is the best approach from an analytics perspective. The simplest explanation is that a team shooting 40% from 3 point range is like a team shooting 60% from 2 point range (120 points per 100 shots taken). The issue is that if the team still has to account for the strengths of the other team. I get it's a balance between "this is what we want to do and do well" vs "we have to take what the other team does well away", but there still has to be some recognition of what the other team does well and at least make it hard for them to do that.

For example, I'd say that Iowa DOES do a good job in the mid-range game. Perkins and Sandfort are both very solid mid-range shooters and know how to get their shots. Analytically, those are the shots Illinois wants a team to take. But when the strength of the other team is shooting from there, you have to figure out how to balance analytics, your strengths internally, and what the other team is trying to do.

So coming from a person who makes a living doing a lot of financial analysis and decision support, I'll summarize by saying analytics are a strong piece of an approach, but you can't 100% rely on them.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with the logic of this. It kind of breaks down when you allow the offense to get into the paint at will and don't strongly contest shots however.
 
#379      

RockfordIllini

R
RockfordIllini
OrangeBlue98 said:
Generally speaking, a defense that's designed to force a team to take long 2-point shots is the best approach from an analytics perspective. The simplest explanation is that a team shooting 40% from 3 point range is like a team shooting 60% from 2 point range (120 points per 100 shots taken). The issue is that if the team still has to account for the strengths of the other team. I get it's a balance between "this is what we want to do and do well" vs "we have to take what the other team does well away", but there still has to be some recognition of what the other team does well and at least make it hard for them to do that.

For example, I'd say that Iowa DOES do a good job in the mid-range game. Perkins and Sandfort are both very solid mid-range shooters and know how to get their shots. Analytically, those are the shots Illinois wants a team to take. But when the strength of the other team is shooting from there, you have to figure out how to balance analytics, your strengths internally, and what the other team is trying to do.

So coming from a person who makes a living doing a lot of financial analysis and decision support, I'll summarize by saying analytics are a strong piece of an approach, but you can't 100% rely on them.
Click to expand...

Or, to use one of my favorite baseball quotes: “statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They reveal alot. But not everything.”
 
#380      

CoachHooleyHoo

CoachHooleyHoo
CoachHooleyHoo
RockfordIllini said:
What about hard hedging ball screens? Coleman is certainly mobile enough to do recover and I do feel like it disrupted Young’s flow in the Maryland game and the one or 2 times we did it in the Michigan game.

Just feel like Coleman is wasted as a defender sitting in deep drop and then having to body up bigger more physical post players.
Click to expand...
I actually tweeted at LaTulip about hedging and he had an interesting answer. Basically said that drop coverage limits 3s, forces mid-range shots (the ones analytics hates), and lets you maintain match-ups. Thought that was an insightful response. The problem is we have a couple of guys who are not good at all at getting through screens and getting back into position to guard their guy, which puts the D on their heels and opens up the offensive opportunities they were trying to limit.
 
#389      

Mr. Tibbs

Mr. Tibbs
southeast DuPage
Mr. Tibbs
OrangeBlue98 said:
Reasonable minds can certainly differ on this, but overall I do like the faster-paced game. I live in Iowa, and Iowa high schools adopted the 35-second shot clock starting with last season (Side note - I was actually a radio play-by-play announcer on the infamous 2016 Iowa 4A/large school state semifinal where one team stalled all four minutes of both overtimes before hitting the game-winning shot at the end of the second overtime. I feel like that was the game that eventually led to national adoption of the shot clock in high school, even though it took 6-7 years). Even in high school, a shorter shot clock improves the flow of the game. Conversely, I actually think a shorter shot clock actually helps good defenses that work on getting stops. Before the shot clock in general or the shorter shot clock, offenses could get away with more with defenses that weren't good at getting steals.

I always had this conversation with the coach at the high school where I used to live and did the radio play-by-play. His team always played great defense, but they never blocked a lot of shots or got a lot of steals. He was always hesitant about the shot clock, but I would always tell him that a shot clock would be great for his team. If they play great defense for 33 seconds without a shot clock, the opponent can just keep passing the ball around. With a 35-second shot clock, if you play 33 seconds of great defense the other team is forced to take a bad shot.

While I don't want to see the NCAA go to a 24-second shot clock like in the NBA and the Olympics (30 is great in my opinion), I feel like the day is coming where the NCAA will just adopt the FIBA/international/Olympic rules as their standard. The big tell for me was moving to the international three-point line.
Click to expand...
1709331263709.jpeg

Marty , is that you ??
 
#392      

AZILL

AZILL
AZILL
Inexperience does not make you a 'kid'. Sorry, but facts are facts.....

I'm in my 60's and there is a !!!!-ton of stuff I am completely inexperienced in AND ignorant of, that does not make me a 'kid'. I would even find someone trying to explain to me at my age that I was a kid, I'd even have found it offensive at the ADULT age of 27...

Give it up. I'd be willing to bet the handful of late teenagers and early 20-somethings would take offense at being called a 'kid'.
 
Last edited:
#396      

Ga65

G
Ga65
Anyone think there is a correlation between Marcus not guarding Christie and his offensive explosion in the 2nd half? Strong defensive effort has to affect the legs and therefore shooting when playing the amount of time our trio is. Think Buck could have been an important cog by rotating on opposing guards. Could have allowed TJ and Marcus to rotate at the three with Harmon bringing the ball up. Just rear view mirror speculation.