Reason this team isn't capable of turning it around: our 3P pass defense...

[sufandu]

As someone already pointed out, the atrocious rebounding makes the defense worse that it otherwise would be. It doesn't matter how bad somebody's shooting percentage is, if they keep getting try after try until they make it on the same possession.

For the stat gurus, where do we rank on points allowed per possession? Do they do that stat for basketball or is that just a football thing?

 

[STEVEHOLT]

As someone already pointed out, the atrocious rebounding makes the defense worse that it otherwise would be. It doesn't matter how bad somebody's shooting percentage is, if they keep getting try after try until they make it on the same possession.

For the stat gurus, where do we rank on points allowed per possession? Do they do that stat for basketball or is that just a football thing?

I’m 100% sure that stat is available .. it’s a pretty straight forward stat .. assuming you are defining one possession the way I’m thinking you’re defining it

 

[jgeorge322]

#358 in three point field goals allowed
#358 in three point field goals attempts as a % of total attempts (52% entering today)
#218 in three point % defence

The problem is that inherently the 3 point shot gives up more offensive rebounds than other shots. And when when you give up more three point attempts as a % of shots than anybody else, and you are already a bad rebounding team, it makes the defensive rebounding a bigger issue.

Really good point. The other problem is we give wide open 3s to guys who are camped out waiting to shoot. Those are easier to hit.

 

[jncuse]

As someone already pointed out, the atrocious rebounding makes the defense worse that it otherwise would be. It doesn't matter how bad somebody's shooting percentage is, if they keep getting try after try until they make it on the same possession.

For the stat gurus, where do we rank on points allowed per possession? Do they do that stat for basketball or is that just a football thing?

That would just be your defensive efficiency which is typically measured by points allowed per 100 possessions. A possession where you give up multiple shots would just be one possession. The formula would consider shots allowed but adjust for things like turnovers created + offensive rebounds allowed.

This site ranks our defence totally independent of schedule strength. We give up 1.049 points per possession which is #290 in the country (out of 358)

NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Defensive Efficiency | TeamRankings.com

NCAA Basketball defensive efficiency, by team.

www.teamrankings.com

The "advanced" analytics sites like KP and Barttorvik rank our defence according to schedule strength and opponent offensive ability. Per KP we are #167 at 100.8, and Barttorvik has it at #207 at 101.6.

As a means of comparison here is a history of our adjusted defensive efficiency according to Barttorvik / KenPom in the bubble era. The trend compared to other years is alarming. As an aside our offensive rating is quite a bit better than most years in the bubble era.

2022 - 207 / 167
2021 - 70 / 77
2020 - 99 / 116
2019 - 30 / 30
2018 - 8 / 5
2017 - 104 / 110
2016 - 20 / 18
2015 - 13 / 20

 

[MikeSU02]

Appreciate all the info in this thread. It helps give a fuller picture.

Point I made in the other thread that still holds: we knew we would be bad on defense and we are. It’s not getting fixed. The efficiency has to come on offense, which JB called out in his last presser.

Our defense will be bad all season, period.

Let’s work on being a better offense.

 

[jncuse]

How things have changed! Note we are 218th in 3 point defence per Barttorvik this year.

Here is an article from 2013 from KenPom called the Boeheim exception. At the time he argued that 3 point defence was largely random. Whether that still holds today not sure. But he highlighted the Boeheim exception, even though it was still fairly small. Syracuse was the one team that you could you use to fight his claim of randomness. They were consistently good at three point field goal defence year after year.

The Boeheim exception | The kenpom.com blog

He noted that Syracuse seemed to have a 2-3% difference than the national average over a period of time. This was his reason for why it was happening.

"But I think the reason has more to do with the offense realizing that getting the ball to the rim against the lengthy 2-3 zone is not nearly as profitable as it is against most teams. Thus, they lower their standard for what a good three-point shot is. A player may take that open 25-footer that his coach would normally strangle him for because that’s a better shot than driving into the paint and getting swallowed up by trees"

 

[AZOrange]

The crazier part RF2044 is how bad our offense has been. We traded being a bad defense for being a good offense early on and it’s not worth it. Our guys can’t throw it in the ocean. JBs offensive schemes are horribly broken.

 

[JoeSU]

#358 in three point field goals allowed
#358 in three point field goals attempts as a % of total attempts (52% entering today)
#218 in three point % defence

The problem is that inherently the 3 point shot gives up more offensive rebounds than other shots. And when when you give up more three point attempts as a % of shots than anybody else, and you are already a bad rebounding team, it makes the defensive rebounding a bigger issue.

The first 2 rankings should not come as a surprise, because the zone encourages teams to try 3-pt shots against us. More concerning is the 3rd ranking, which reflects how well we defend all those shots.

In the past, when our zone was at it's best, we often were able to hold opposing teams to shoot in the 20s% from outside the arc. This was because our opponents usually had one player who was their designated outside shooter, who the zone was able to adjust to and take him out of the game.

Today, teams (like us) usually have 2 or 3 guys capable of lighting it up from deep, and it makes the zone much less effective.

 

[jncuse]

The first 2 rankings should not come as a surprise, because the zone encourages teams to try 3-pt shots against us. More concerning is the 3rd ranking, which reflects how well we defend all those shots.

In the past, when our zone was at it's best, we often were able to hold opposing teams to shoot in the 20s% from outside the arc. This was because our opponents usually had one player who was their designated outside shooter, who the zone was able to adjust to and take him out of the game.

Today, teams usually have 2 or 3 guys capable of lighting it up from deep, and it makes the zone much less effective.

Agreed.

If you have:
a) good opponent 3FG%
b) decent defensive rebounders
then the strategy will work.

It becomes tougher as the game changes and in particular if your personnel is not great for the defence.

 

[dollarbill44]

Appreciate all the info in this thread. It helps give a fuller picture.

Point I made in the other thread that still holds: we knew we would be bad on defense and we are. It’s not getting fixed. The efficiency has to come on offense, which JB called out in his last presser.

Our defense will be bad all season, period.

Let’s work on being a better offense.

But, if we're so bad on defense, why not just switch it up at times. I doubt we'd be any worse in man to man than we are in the zone. Everyone's base defense was man to man before they got to SU, I guarantee that.

 

[MikeSU02]

But, if we're so bad on defense, why not just switch it up at times. I doubt we'd be any worse in man to man than we are in the zone. Everyone's base defense was man to man before they got to SU, I guarantee that.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve given up on that. And, with this team, I’m not even sure if it would help.

I dunno. I’m not disagreeing with you, just saying I don’t expect to see M2M.

 

[orangecuse]

But, if we're so bad on defense, why not just switch it up at times. I doubt we'd be any worse in man to man than we are in the zone. Everyone's base defense was man to man before they got to SU, I guarantee that.

I just don't get how our guys can struggle so much relative to a style of D they haven't played as a primary one throughout their youth!? It's like they get to the Hill, and suddenly it is as if they've never played any D their entire lives. I mean, if Apollo Creed was able to get Rocky from being a Southpaw his entire life, what's the big deal from M2M to all zone.

 

[dollarbill44]

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve given up on that. And, with this team, I’m not even sure if it would help.

I dunno. I’m not disagreeing with you, just saying I don’t expect to see M2M.

I don't either. I just think the "we aren't any good at m-2-m" isn't a good excuse in a season where we are abysmal in the zone. I mean, we really can't get worse. Even offensively challenged bad teams are putting up numbers on us.

 

[djcon57]

I don't either. I just think the "we aren't any good at m-2-m" isn't a good excuse in a season where we are abysmal in the zone. I mean, we really can't get worse. Even offensively challenged bad teams are putting up numbers on us.

Remember vs Florida State where we kept forcing them to switch to that crummy defender and we burned him like 4 straight plays.

now envision that for a whole game with Jimmy.

 

[dollarbill44]

Remember vs Florida State where we kept forcing them to switch to that crummy defender and we burned him like 4 straight plays.

now envision that for a whole game with Jimmy.

2s vs 3s. Amiright?

 

[MDCuse]

I would argue the heyday of the zone is long gone. Athletes or no athletes.

I don't think you'd have to argue, cause I don't think anyone would disagree haha

 

[Forza Azzurri]

imo, there has been a fundamental change in the game in the last 5 years. SU has ALWAYS given up open threes but teams didn't focus on that as part of there offense until recently, so most teams didn't shoot it consistently well . When they did shoot it well against us, the zone failed. Usually, we always would say some scrub had a career day against us when the reality was that those type of guys could always shoot like that but we gave them the open looks. Once teams started focusing on that, more kids started practicing them. I doubt Steph Curry is responsible in a major way, but once the 3 became a more efficient way of scoring in the NBA, it was only a matter of time before it trickled down to college ball. With players having range to 25', the zone is dead. It might make them make a few more passes and use more clock, but the open shots will be there.

The data does not back you up on this.

3 pt shooting percentages have stayed reasonably constant in the 34-35% range since the early 90s.

Teams are taking more 3s and, therefore, making more 3s but they are not doing so more efficiently than before.

What has really changed is our inability to defend the 3 pt shot.

So, what you are observing is idiosyncratic to our team and not systemic across college hoops.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

I would argue the heyday of the zone is long gone. Athletes or no athletes.

The data doesn't back you up on this.

4 years ago, we had one of the top defensive teams in the country.

Even three years ago, we had a good defensive team.

Unfortunately, it has been downhill since then and, this year, we are a bad defensive team.

If we had our 2017-18 roster, I would argue that our D would be just as effective this year as it was four years ago. There is nothing that teams are doing offensively that would statistically back you up on this point.

 

[MikeSU02]

The data does not back you up on this.

3 pt shooting percentages have stayed reasonably constant in the 34-35% range since the early 90s.

Teams are taking more 3s and, therefore, making more 3s but they are not doing so more efficiently than before.

What has really changed is our inability to defend the 3 pt shot.

So, what you are observing is idiosyncratic to our team and not systemic across college hoops.

Lol. Just because 3PT % has stayed reasonably the same doesn’t mean the impact of 3 pointers has stayed the same. I’m not even going to post it, but just check the Golden State Warriors 3PT % thru the years and see if relatively same percentage = same impact.

But good use of the word idiosyncratic.

 

[Scooch]

I don't think you'd have to argue, cause I don't think anyone would disagree haha

I disagree (which was the post that FP was replying to). It was all of 2-3 years ago that our zone D was suffocating. The game hasn't changed that much in 2 years. I'll stick by my assertion that most defensive schemes can work if a team has the proper personnel. Sadly, I'm not sure we have a starting 5 that can make any D work particularly well.

 

[alphaorange]

The data does not back you up on this.

3 pt shooting percentages have stayed reasonably constant in the 34-35% range since the early 90s.

Teams are taking more 3s and, therefore, making more 3s but they are not doing so more efficiently than before.

What has really changed is our inability to defend the 3 pt shot.

So, what you are observing is idiosyncratic to our team and not systemic across college hoops.

You totally missed my point. Yes, the % are similar. But also there are more guys shooting them and from further away. If you take the number of points scored on threes at that %, it means the offense is generally shooting a higher true %, thus, more efficiently. The fact that there are more guys that can shoot them on a team and from a longer distance means they are harder to defend. Make it all about the defense if you want but the "today" offense makes it harder on zone defenses and that's a fact.

 

[TinyManInside]

You totally missed my point. Yes, the % are similar. But also there are more guys shooting them and from further away. If you take the number of points scored on threes at that %, it means the offense is generally shooting a higher true %, thus, more efficiently. The fact that there are more guys that can shoot them on a team and from a longer distance means they are harder to defend. Make it all about the defense if you want but the "today" offense makes it harder on zone defenses and that's a fact.

This is much better analysis than "the percentages are the same". You also have to factor in that the line distance has been moved back, what? 3 times over that stretch? That helps to further spread out the floor and increase the square footage that needs to be covered in the zone, which in turns weakens defensive rebounding, and allows for higher percentage shots inside the arc. It's also why we have a center frantically running into the corner every 4th possession and getting chastised in the postgame press conference for having the audacity of not being able to close out on a shooter, despite being 18 feet away from said shooter when he caught the ball. [also important to note that this center has better lateral agility than any of the other players in the starting 5. Put Jimmy in the same position and he'd cover half the distance that our center does on the exact same plays.]

 

[supp]

It's also why we have a center frantically running into the corner every 4th possession and getting chastised in the postgame press conference for having the audacity of not being able to close out on a shooter, despite being 18 feet away from said shooter when he caught the ball. [also important to note that this center has better lateral agility than any of the other players in the starting 5. Put Jimmy in the same position and he'd cover half the distance that our center does on the exact same plays.]

I wish someone could explain to me why Boeheim keeps bringing this up in postgame pressers. He must realize how off base he is. Is it to deflect attention away from some thing or things he doesn't want to talk about? I just don't get it.

 

[007]

This is much better analysis than "the percentages are the same". You also have to factor in that the line distance has been moved back, what? 3 times over that stretch? That helps to further spread out the floor and increase the square footage that needs to be covered in the zone, which in turns weakens defensive rebounding, and allows for higher percentage shots inside the arc. It's also why we have a center frantically running into the corner every 4th possession and getting chastised in the postgame press conference for having the audacity of not being able to close out on a shooter, despite being 18 feet away from said shooter when he caught the ball. [also important to note that this center has better lateral agility than any of the other players in the starting 5. Put Jimmy in the same position and he'd cover half the distance that our center does on the exact same plays.]

Good post. The 5 man sprinting nearly out of control to get to the corner shooter is not a close out. He is either late, fouls, or guys move by him/shot fake and he flys out of bounds. It's impossible to recover in time once you fly by that shooter, let alone help on the boards. It seems like one possible adjustment is to simply keep the 5 home and let the strong side try to close out to the corner. I couldn't be any less effective and at least the 5 stays home.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

The data does not back you up on this.

3 pt shooting percentages have stayed reasonably constant in the 34-35% range since the early 90s.

Teams are taking more 3s and, therefore, making more 3s but they are not doing so more efficiently than before.

What has really changed is our inability to defend the 3 pt shot.

So, what you are observing is idiosyncratic to our team and not systemic across college hoops.

I think the data isn’t telling the whole story here. It’s not that all 3 pt shooters have gotten markedly better, it’s that far more kids are taking the shot now. Guys that never would have attempted a 3 in the glory days of the zone are now hitting at a mid-30s clip. And that means the zone gets stretched all over the floor and JB can’t focus their efforts on just 1 or 2 guys

Edit- should have known this would have been covered by the time I posted, and better than I did