Per Ken Pom ...

[jdubs30]

It seems pretty obvious that we’re terrible on defense; but, KenPom... in ACC play we rank the following defensively:

3rd in eFG%
2nd in TO%
2nd in 3P%
1st in Blk%
2nd in Stl%

 

[Niastri]

And that's with about half of Richmond's steals reaching the stat book...

We've got to be last in defensive rebound% and by enough margin to invalidate most of the good we do on defense.

Or maybe we just see the same exact play score over and over and over and you know, feelings...

 

[Halfmooncuse]

No you got it wrong...that’s SU ranking in Ken Porno!

 

[STEVEHOLT]

It seems pretty obvious that we’re terrible on defense; but, KenPom... in ACC play we rank the following defensively:

3rd in eFG%
2nd in TO%
2nd in 3P%
1st in Blk%
2nd in Stl%

What about in the “giving up a lot of buckets per game” stat?

 

[Cusefan0307]

And that's with about half of Richmond's steals reaching the stat book...

We've got to be last in defensive rebound% and by enough margin to invalidate most of the good we do on defense.

Or maybe we just see the same exact play score over and over and over and you know, feelings...

We are last in defensive rebounding %, but it still keeps us around the middle of the pack on defense. There’s some really bad Defensive teams in the conference. Duke and Notre Dame don’t even try on that end.

 

[JOC44]

We are last in defensive rebounding %, but it still keeps us around the middle of the pack on defense. There’s some really bad Defensive teams in the conference. Duke and Notre Dame don’t even try on that end.

Right. Our defensive issues go way beyond stopping the first shot. It's how many second, third, and fourth shots we give up.

 

[hoopsupstate]

A good defensive stop doesn’t end until you rebound.

 

[longtimefan]

Right. Our defensive issues go way beyond stopping the first shot. It's how many second, third, and fourth shots we give up.

That's all covered in the eFG% numbers. A trip down court is either successful, or not (although, it can result in different numbers of points scored). So, if your opponent misses their first shot, gets the rebound, but fails to convert a put-back, your defense has succeeded despite giving up multiple opportunities on a single trip.

 

[jncuse]

That's all covered in the eFG% numbers. A trip down court is either successful, or not (although, it can result in different numbers of points scored). So, if your opponent misses their first shot, gets the rebound, but fails to convert a put-back, your defense has succeeded despite giving up multiple opportunities on a single trip.

Actually I would disagree that the multiple shot attempts off boards are automatically covered in eFG%. JRoc is correct, eFG% does not appropriately bring into play offensive boards allowed or turnovers created for that matter which are important elements of an effective defence. The best statistic to measure team defensive performance is points allowed per 100 possessions (i.e. defensive efficiency). eFG% is still a good indicator and has a strong correlation with defensive efficiency, but it has some limitations.

Take the following example (with no turnovers):

Scenario 1: 10 possessions, 2 offensive rebounds allowed, 12 points,
Scenario 2: 10 possessions, 0 offensive rebound allowed, 12 points.

eFG% wise your defence will be deemed to be better in Scenario 1 because the opponent took two more shots to get their 12 points. But in the end your defence was no more effective in either scenario.

 

[jncuse]

We are last in defensive rebounding %, but it still keeps us around the middle of the pack on defense. There’s some really bad Defensive teams in the conference. Duke and Notre Dame don’t even try on that end.

I don't know about this year, but in prior years the equalizer to our defensive rebounding issues has often been turnovers created. When we have had those bigger rangy types at the top we have had some good years in turnover%.

Not following the team enough to know how our turnovers created rank this year and compared to prior years.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I don't know about this year, but in prior years the equalizer to our defensive rebounding issues has often been turnovers created. When we have had those bigger rangy types at the top we have had some good years in turnover%.

Not following the team enough to know how our turnovers created rank this year and compared to prior years.

We are still first in the conference in turnover% forced. The defense is better than last year. The one thing that stands out is our 2 point% defense against is the 2nd worst it's ever been under JB. The only year it was worse was the White/Gillon year.

 

[dollarbill44]

A good defensive stop doesn’t end until you rebound.

Hey coach, what about a turnover?

 

[Brooky03]

It seems pretty obvious that we’re terrible on defense; but, KenPom... in ACC play we rank the following defensively:

3rd in eFG%
2nd in TO%
2nd in 3P%
1st in Blk%
2nd in Stl%

All of that with two starting guards who are allegedly blind, with the athleticism of an obese 50 year old smoker.

Go figure

 

[Alsacs]

All of that with two starting guards who are allegedly blind, with the athleticism of an obese 50 year old smoker.

Go figure

If you want to argue Joe and Buddy are good defensively their stats don’t back that up.

Buddy’s defensive analytics are a net negative.
Joe’s are slightly better than Buddy’s.

Kadary’s defensive analytics are among the best in ACC history by freshman since the stats were started to be gathered in 2006.

 

[longtimefan]

Actually I would disagree that the multiple shot attempts off boards are automatically covered in eFG%. JRoc is correct, eFG% does not appropriately bring into play offensive boards allowed or turnovers created for that matter which are important elements of an effective defence. The best statistic to measure team defensive performance is points allowed per 100 possessions (i.e. defensive efficiency). eFG% is still a good indicator and has a strong correlation with defensive efficiency, but it has some limitations.

Take the following example (with no turnovers):

Scenario 1: 10 possessions, 2 offensive rebounds allowed, 12 points,
Scenario 2: 10 possessions, 0 offensive rebound allowed, 12 points.

eFG% wise your defence will be deemed to be better in Scenario 1 because the opponent took two more shots to get their 12 points. But in the end your defence was no more effective in either scenario.

I agree that points per possession is the best defensive, and offensive, statistic. Which is why, in your example, both defenses were equally successful. And why points/possession is better than eFG% in the real world of Wins vs. Losses. And which is what fouled up my argument.

 

[Brooky03]

If you want to argue Joe and Buddy are good defensively their stats don’t back that up.

Buddy’s defensive analytics are a net negative.
Joe’s are slightly better than Buddy’s.

Kadary’s defensive analytics are among the best in ACC history by freshman since the stats were started to be gathered in 2006.

Not good. Just not nearly as bad as they’re portrayed by the geniuses here.

 

[Alsacs]

Not good. Just not nearly as bad as they’re portrayed by the geniuses here.

You just described the last 7 years of regular season basketball for Syracuse basketball as well.

 

[upperdeck]

would really love to look at the analytics to see how they decide what is good and bad D for a zone.. much easier to see if a guy gets beat in Man.. Even then you can get beat off the ball and I really wonder how that gets captured.

 

[Brooky03]

You just described the last 7 years of regular season basketball for Syracuse basketball as well.

Word