Our Guards are Slow

[Scotch]

We don't have a guard on this team that can break you down off the dribble. In fact, we don't have a player on this team that can break you down off the dribble. It's true that we haven't shot the ball particularly well, but we also haven't been earning good shots with penetration or ball movement. Zones are effective against us because our guards have been incapable of getting into the seams, and against M2M, the high-ball screen hasn't been as effective because MCW isn't quick enough to turn the corner and make defenses pay.

This is another symptom of recruiting for the zone first and foremost. We end up with huge guards that are often at a major quickness disadvantage against good teams.

 

[albanycuse]

Yes our guards are slow but that doesnt matter as much as you think. If we could shoot you wouldnt be making this post because we would be winning more. Our bigger guards force more turnovers and at the same time give it up way too many times. Double edged sword type of thing going on with this team.

 

[RF2044]

Yes our guards are slow but that doesnt matter as much as you think. If we could shoot you wouldnt be making this post because we would be winning more. Our bigger guards force more turnovers and at the same time give it up way too many times. Double edged sword type of thing going on with this team.

It wouldn't matter so much if we were more adept at playing a half court game and had an inside presence. Z was fine despite not having a quickness advantage--but he also had two guys inside who could put the ball in the basket, and we excelled playing at a slower pace.

 

[albanycuse]

It wouldn't matter so much if we were more adept at playing a half court game and had an inside presence. Z was fine despite not having a quickness advantage--but he also had two guys inside who could put the ball in the basket, and we excelled playing at a slower pace.

Yup if Dajuan was good for 8 points a game this year we would have a totally different team despite the poor offensive performances. Its ugly out there.

 

[Scotch]

It wouldn't matter so much if we were more adept at playing a half court game and had an inside presence. Z was fine despite not having a quickness advantage--but he also had two guys inside who could put the ball in the basket, and we excelled playing at a slower pace.

True - the deficiencies build on each other. No penetration + bad outside shooting + zero offense in the post = 39 pts on national TV against your rival.

 

[kuethstheman]

Agree. They are slow and the "it doesn't matter much because..." arguments miss the point. This is just one more facet of the game where we're lacking:

• Shooting
• Quickness
• Low-post game
• Rebounding (defensive)
• Setting/using picks
• Shot selection

Our lack of transition points magnifies our half-court problems. We don't get many steals against good teams because our guys don't have quick hands or feet.

If we were good at any one of these things, it would have a multiplying effect.

 

[Sufran]

True - the deficiencies build on each other. No penetration + bad outside shooting + zero offense in the post = 39 pts on national TV against your rival.

Absolutely pitiful!
The last couple of games I have seen DC hasn't even got a touch, even wide open! It pisses me off and is killing his ability to grow offensively and help us on the boards. Btw I didn not get to see the Gtown game, good thing I hear.

 

[RF2044]

Agree. They are slow and the "it doesn't matter much because..." arguments miss the point. This is just one more facet of the game where we're lacking:

• Shooting
• Quickness
• Low-post game
• Rebounding (defensive)
• Setting/using picks
• Shot selection

Our lack of transition points magnifies our half-court problems. We don't get many steals against good teams because our guys don't have quick hands or feet.

If we were good at any one of these things, it would have a multiplying effect.

Couldn't agree more. Last year's team was similarly low-post challenged, but compensated by turning the opponent over so frequently and getting out in transition for easy scoring opportunities that masked the problem.

Around mid-season, I got into a debate with another poster over his conclusion that our defense this year is even better than last year's because of how we rated on some advanced defensive metrics [again, this was at mid-season]. I can't imagine anyone feels that way today. In my mind, it isn't even close--last year's team was much more effective.

 

[Scotiacuse]

We don't have a guard on this team that can break you down off the dribble.

Actually, Cooney blew by a guy with a crossover in the first half on Saturday, but then didn't know what to do and passed it behind him to the 3 point line which led to (naturally) a bad shot.

 

[OrangeFoo]

We don't have a guard on this team that can break you down off the dribble. In fact, we don't have a player on this team that can break you down off the dribble. It's true that we haven't shot the ball particularly well, but we also haven't been earning good shots with penetration or ball movement. Zones are effective against us because our guards have been incapable of getting into the seams, and against M2M, the high-ball screen hasn't been as effective because MCW isn't quick enough to turn the corner and make defenses pay.

This is another symptom of recruiting for the zone first and foremost. We end up with huge guards that are often at a major quickness disadvantage against good teams.

Also begs the question of why we are running a dribble drive offense if none of our guards can dribble or drive. There are so many times when teams kill us with kids who are 10x less athletic than ours... frustrates the hell out of me that we can't adjust our offense to the weakness of our guards. I would bench any guard who didn't pass it into the post at least once every possession if we had someone posting up. We have two of the worst guards I can remember yet we have an offense that highlights them... Brilliant!

 

[SoBeCuse]

Agree. They are slow and the "it doesn't matter much because..." arguments miss the point. This is just one more facet of the game where we're lacking:

• Shooting
• Quickness
• Low-post game
• Rebounding (defensive)
• Setting/using picks
• Shot selection

Our lack of transition points magnifies our half-court problems. We don't get many steals against good teams because our guys don't have quick hands or feet.

If we were good at any one of these things, it would have a multiplying effect.

Good post. Pretty much spot on. The rebounding and shooting I would think can get better. The others likely will not.

 

[Knicks411]

Couldn't agree more. Last year's team was similarly low-post challenged, but compensated by turning the opponent over so frequently and getting out in transition for easy scoring opportunities that masked the problem.

Around mid-season, I got into a debate with another poster over his conclusion that our defense this year is even better than last year's because of how we rated on some advanced defensive metrics [again, this was at mid-season]. I can't imagine anyone feels that way today. In my mind, it isn't even close--last year's team was much more effective.

Yup. That was me. Last year we finished with the best defense in the league in BE play, this year it was 5th. Overall, we are 10th right now in adjusted defensive efficiency, and 17th last year. But we haven't done quite as well in the league.

The thing is, we're still doing really well at turnovers. We forced turnovers on 23.6% of possessions last year in BE play, it's 22.6% this year. (First in the conference last year, second this year). We're first in block% and second in steal% this year; last year we were first in block% and first in steal%.

I'm kind of all over the place right now, let's try a side by side comparison of the BE component defensive stats from last year to this year. Last year will be first

EFG%: 43.5 v s 45.6
TO%: 23.6 vs 22.6
OREB% allowed: 39.9 vs 36.6
FT/FG: 31.4 vs 36.8
Block% 19.9 vs 18.5
St%: 13.3 vs 12.2

And then the overall defensive efficiency (BE play only)
.936 vs .970.

As I said, when you look at the season as a whole, our defensive efficiency numbers are a little better than last year. However I believe our discussion centered more around BE play, and we definitely have not played as well since the calendar turned. It's possible that is because our schedule was tough; all 4 of the teams we played twice were in the top 9 in the league in offense. Though it's more likely the defense just wasn't as good in BE play because it wasn't as good. We're still getting plenty of blocks and steals and turnovers, but we didn't do quite as well at FG defense and we also fouled more than last season.

Edit: Somethign else I was just looking at. While we have a pretty good TO% in BE play on offense this year (17.9%, good for third in the league), we're allowing a lot of steals. The opponent has stolen the ball on 10.1% of trips in BE play, compared to 7.9% last year. Those are live balls turnovers that often result in easy buckets the other way that will make the defense look a little worse.

So long story short, the defensive numbers overall are better for this year, but I'd tend to put more weight on the conference numbers, which have us trailing last year. I think some of that is because we're giving up more easy buckets due to turnovers, but last year's D was probably better but I don't think it's a huge difference.

 

[007]

Good post. Pretty much spot on. The rebounding and shooting I would think can get better. The others likely will not.

We have 31 data points to suggest that the shooting will not get better. I think the only thing in Kueth's list (great post) that can get better is shot selection.

 

[rrlbees]

JB rarely recruits quick water bug guards. He recruits big guards. Ennis isn't quick either.

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[Sgt Cuse]

[quote="Scotch, post: 567947, member: 700
This is another symptom of recruiting for the zone first and foremost. We end up with huge guards that are often at a major quickness disadvantage against good teams.[/quote]
Where did you come up with the idea that we recruit first and foremost for the zone? DC2 is not a zone recruit, nor is Cooney, nor is Ennis.

Who is this non-zone recruit that we passed up that you are alluding to? And you do realize that no one considers Scoop, J Flynn, Devendorf, or even GMac as zone recruits. Is anyone seriously regretting that we took the McD MCW?

No, it just so happens that our guards do have a deficiency. It happens. It is not the zones fault. Please don't feed the unsubstantiated smear campaign put out by the M2M impotents. The defense is not the problem.

 

[RF2044]

Yup. That was me. Last year we finished with the best defense in the league in BE play, this year it was 5th. Overall, we are 10th right now in adjusted defensive efficiency, and 17th last year. But we haven't done quite as well in the league.

The thing is, we're still doing really well at turnovers. We forced turnovers on 23.6% of possessions last year in BE play, it's 22.6% this year. (First in the conference last year, second this year). We're first in block% and second in steal% this year; last year we were first in block% and first in steal%.

I'm kind of all over the place right now, let's try a side by side comparison of the BE component defensive stats from last year to this year. Last year will be first

EFG%: 43.5 v s 45.6
TO%: 23.6 vs 22.6
OREB% allowed: 39.9 vs 36.6
FT/FG: 31.4 vs 36.8
Block% 19.9 vs 18.5
St%: 13.3 vs 12.2

And then the overall defensive efficiency (BE play only)
.936 vs .970.

As I said, when you look at the season as a whole, our defensive efficiency numbers are a little better than last year. However I believe our discussion centered more around BE play, and we definitely have not played as well since the calendar turned. It's possible that is because our schedule was tough; all 4 of the teams we played twice were in the top 9 in the league in offense. Though it's more likely the defense just wasn't as good in BE play because it wasn't as good. We're still getting plenty of blocks and steals and turnovers, but we didn't do quite as well at FG defense and we also fouled more than last season.

Edit: Somethign else I was just looking at. While we have a pretty good TO% in BE play on offense this year (17.9%, good for third in the league), we're allowing a lot of steals. The opponent has stolen the ball on 10.1% of trips in BE play, compared to 7.9% last year. Those are live balls turnovers that often result in easy buckets the other way that will make the defense look a little worse.

So long story short, the defensive numbers overall are better for this year, but I'd tend to put more weight on the conference numbers, which have us trailing last year. I think some of that is because we're giving up more easy buckets due to turnovers, but last year's D was probably better but I don't think it's a huge difference.

I didn't want to call you out by name, Knicks. Here's the overly simplified way that I interpret all of the above: there are a number of quantitative factors that go into determining how good we a team is defensively. Last year, we excelled in most of those dimensions, but sucked at defensive rebounding. Even with that input variable dragging the numbers down, we were so good in other respects that we STILL rated amazingly well.

This year, we're somewhat better at defensive rebounding, but not as good in some of the other dimensions. Aggregate net result: still impressive rankings nationally, but overall not as good--which also aligns with the "look test" in terms of how we play.

I think this team beat up for the most part on the OOC portion of the schedule, and the relatively weak beginning of the BE conference schedule. When we started playing tough teams, the superlative defensive play came back down to earth. Don't get me wrong--we're still plenty good defensively, and if we could score some !@#$ points we'd be blowing teams out--I just don't think that we rate compared to last year's defense.

 

[SoBeCuse]

We have 31 data points to suggest that the shooting will not get better. I think the only thing in Kueth's list (great post) that can get better is shot selection.

Ha. Maybe. Bad shots with this group seems like the norm and they almost seem encouraged.

 

[NineOneSeven]

JB rarely recruits quick water bug guards. He recruits big guards. Ennis isn't quick either.

Sent using my Commodore 64

I'd love to recruit basketball players (guys who understand the game and can contribute right away) over specific body types to play the zone.

Although, I would consider Jonny Flynn to be the exception to your statement, and certainly not the norm.

 

[Knicks411]

I think this team beat up for the most part on the OOC portion of the schedule, and the relatively weak beginning of the BE conference schedule. When we started playing tough teams, the superlative defensive play came back down to earth. Don't get me wrong--we're still plenty good defensively, and if we could score some !@#$ points we'd be blowing teams out--I just don't think that we rate compared to last year's defense.

I don't think there is a big difference between this year and last year, but at this point, despite the better overall numbers for this year, I think the difference in BE play results in me taking the 2012 defense. I think there are a few mitigating factors that help this year's team out in a comparison (mainly the schedule and the live ball turnover issue I pointed out), but one team was first in the league in defense and the other was 5th. (now granted, Gtown an d Lville are 2 of the best defenses in the country, so no shame ranking behind them, but still).

I also agree that the poor offense the last few games results in the D looking worse than it really is; if we could score some points instead of 11-7 we might be 13-5 or 14-4 and everything would be fine.

Funny thing is we still finished 5th in the league in points per possession on offense. (So yes, our offense and defense ranked the same. Think about that for a second). But we haven't been able to score any points lately. The last 5 games (against some tough competition, granted), we've scored .92 points per trip. You aren't beating anyone with that.

 

[Knicks411]

I'd love to recruit basketball players (guys who understand the game and can contribute right away) over specific body types to play the zone.

Although, I would consider Jonny Flynn to be the exception to your statement, and certainly not the norm.

I've been an SU fan since I went to school there in 02; Jonny and Josh Wright (LOL) are basically the only PG we've had who I would consider quick at all. I think if you're going to play zone exclusively (and let's be honest, as long as JB is here, we are) then you should recruit to the system

 

[Shermthegeneral]

We don't have a guard on this team that can break you down off the dribble.

That is the key to this team IMO! We've always had someone that could get to the rim and score. Jonny, scoop, Devo, dion, KJ, they make things happen by getting to the rim.

 

[tbonezone]

i maintain that jonny flynn was primarily recruited to sweeten the paul harris pot. and josh wright was josh wright. never really figured out the deal there. tho i thought dayshawn wright showed real promise.
as yes although our current bunch is a bit SLOW..."i still love those goofy basterds!"

 

[rrlbees]

That is the key to this team IMO! We've always had someone that could get to the rim and score. Jonny, scoop, Devo, dion, KJ, they make things happen by getting to the rim.

MCW and Triche get to the rim a lot more than people give credit. There are games they seem to do it at will. But the problem is, teams ate pinching at the foul line in particular, that its almost impossible. Teams ate taking penetration away because we can't hit anything outside and have little big man presence.

Sent using my Commodore 64

 

[Scotch]

[quote="Scotch, post: 567947, member: 700
This is another symptom of recruiting for the zone first and foremost. We end up with huge guards that are often at a major quickness disadvantage against good teams.

Where did you come up with the idea that we recruit first and foremost for the zone? DC2 is not a zone recruit, nor is Cooney, nor is Ennis.

Who is this non-zone recruit that we passed up that you are alluding to? And you do realize that no one considers Scoop, J Flynn, Devendorf, or even GMac as zone recruits. Is anyone seriously regretting that we took the McD MCW?

No, it just so happens that our guards do have a deficiency. It happens. It is not the zones fault. Please don't feed the unsubstantiated smear campaign put out by the M2M impotents. The defense is not the problem.[/quote]

We recruit for the zone. Have there been exceptions where a kid is local, or so talented in other areas that JB makes an exception (Paul Harris, Johnny Flynn, DaJaun Coleman)? Absolutely. But JB has admitted that we look for length and size more than other teams (shocker - how many times have we heard "typical Syracuse forward").

I like the zone. Our defensive efficiency rankings have been phenomenal the last 4-5 seasons. But by prioritizing length, I think the staff occasionally sacrifices in other offensive areas (ball-handling, quickness).

 

[tbonezone]

JB looks at the stars first just like every other program. the whole zone recruit thing i think is total BS. just take look at the some of the recruits we missed on . they all do perfectly well playing man defense. just BS.