"we play no other defense"

[Bayside44]

How are those facts?

We have AO Butler would've spent 15-18 fouls on the guy and he could've gotten 6 points off them.

We lost in a Sweet 16 game, sucks but that is nowhere near a title.

 

[SWC75]

There's really no way of proving that.

Except logic. Zones require less movement on the part of the defender. He doesn't have to chase guys all over the court. If he isn't moving enough to make a zone work, how is going to move enough to make a man-for-man work?

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

really?

how can you say those are facts when it didn't happen? Sure we would of had a much better chance but you cant say 100% those things would of happened. I have followed SU basketball for a little over 40 years and have seen us lose a lot of NCAA tourney games we were supposed to win but didn't.

 

[donniesyracuse]

sorry but those are not facts. they are merely your speculation. try not to confuse the 2.

I assumed he was being facetious. Few people know the meaning of "fact" these days.

 

[SWC75]

"You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts." - attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.

 

[Quazzum69]

Duke is a primary MTM team. Coach K was able to pick JB's brain about the cuse zone during the Olympics and you can see the results today. I wish JB had done the same thing regarding Duke's defense. I'm not a zone hater but it'd be nice to have another option on those days the zone is getting torched and/or shredded.

JB needs to get OFFENSIVE help from his buddy K. Somehow Duke is always a top 10 offensive team (I would bet top 5, actually).

The effectiveness of defense A vs defense B is pretty much 100% anecdotal, anyways. Until someone does some some actual analysis (which is hard, if not impossible) it is pointless to argue about it. You have to assume zone and man are equally effective at this point.

But you can't argue that shooting 40% is better than 50%. Or that missing shots or committing turnovers are more effective than the opposite. Syracuse (roster-wise and coaching-wise) needs some help on the offensive side.

 

[CusefanATL]

How are those facts?

I mean... SERIOUSLY?

 

[CusefanATL]

how can you say those are facts when it didn't happen? Sure we would of had a much better chance but you cant say 100% those things would of happened. I have followed SU basketball for a little over 40 years and have seen us lose a lot of NCAA tourney games we were supposed to win but didn't.

are you KIDDING me?

 

[Brooky03]

Where did you get your stats from? They shoot under 42% fg and under 30% from 3 and that includes the cupcake portion and the stats from last night which improved both of those numbers.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/stats/_/id/228/clemson-tigers

You really want to split hairs between 45% and 42%?? And I was speaking generally about what would be average, not Clemson's specific averages.

 

[CusefanATL]

I assumed he was being facetious. Few people know the meaning of "fact" these days.

Of course I was being facetious. Was it so obvious, that it was that easily misunderstood?

 

[CusefanATL]

You really want to split hairs between 45% and 42%?? And I was speaking generally about what would be average, not Clemson's specific averages.

the difference b/w 45 and 42 is pretty big.

Im not too surprised you didnt mention the 3 pt discrepency... which was ENORMOUS.

And speaking generally about average is just an absurd argument. We let a TERRIBLE offensive team score at will in the 1st half. Clemson is not average offensively. They are significantly below average.

 

[Townie72]

wanna bet this weeks top twenty teams can play both ?

I'll bet the bottom twenty teams play both too.

This is a bad basketball team. Zone, M2M, can't throw it in the ocean, TOs,...take your pick. Heck, throw in injuries and recruiting. I guess you could say this is the year to try M2M because this is just not a good team (by SU standards).

If this team could shoot and defense was the sole issue, that might make more sense. But aside from Rak in the post, this team doesn't really do much of anything well. Hard to just point to defense.

44cuse

It's refreshing to read someone else call a spade a spade.

This is not a good team. They don't play together well. We appear to have three things we do well. Feed Christmas in the post. Gbinige on a drive (when he actually makes the basket) and Cooney from deep some nights.

We also have some player weaknesses.

Some of the fan base hasn't caught on the what we see before our faces.

A few weeks ago, there was a conversation on here about whether we should assume 30 wins or not. Or play it safe and assume 20 and hope for upside.

 

[Brooky03]

http://www.clemsontigers.com/SportSelect.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=28500&SPID=103715&SPSID=657833

Look at the wins/losses. They lost to Rutgers at home! The beat us from start to finish!

Make the stats look as easy as you want... but I'll make the final answer easier for you... we lost to a terrible team. And never had a shot of winning. Blame it on the zone or the offense. But its 1 of the 2... and any rational mind blames both.

No. Any rational mind would see that the players just didn't have it yesterday. It wasn't a strategy thing, it was a 'these are human beings who aren't always going to be on their A-game' thing. Jesus, you're making it sound like Clemson would rock us 9 out of 10 games, which isn't even close to being the case.

And what's with pointing out that Clemson's a bad team? Duh. We're not allowed to lose to bad teams ever without it being a indictment of our zone defense? I remember getting absolutely destroyed by a Depaul team in one of GMac's years. By the logic in this garbage dump of a thread, that should have been a clear indicator to abandon the zone forever and ever because it's just the worst thing in the world. I mean, we only win 25+ games in an average season, and beat top 10 teams consistently, so obviously the zone is no good.

 

[Brooky03]

the difference b/w 45 and 42 is pretty big.

Im not too surprised you didnt mention the 3 pt discrepency... which was ENORMOUS.

And speaking generally about average is just an absurd argument. We let a TERRIBLE offensive team score at will in the 1st half. Clemson is not average offensively. They are significantly below average.

the difference b/w 45 and 42 is pretty big.
- No it's not

Im not too surprised you didnt mention the 3 pt discrepency
- I already mentioned it
- If one of the makes was a miss, that's 35%, which a 30% team would certainly expect to shoot at home. So yeah, the extra 3 points on the scoreboard were HUGEEEEE

*You're also failing to mention that Clemson was hitting largely contested shots. They weren't getting open looks at a higher clip than most teams do.

 

[tbonezone]

Except logic. Zones require less movement on the part of the defender. He doesn't have to chase guys all over the court. If he isn't moving enough to make a zone work, how is going to move enough to make a man-for-man work?

well logically... if playing exclusive zone (with an occasional splash of panic trunk monkey) was in fact the superior defensive strategy then wouldn't every coach in america do it? they don't. what's that tell you? draw your own conclusions. i'm done.

 

[CusefanATL]

the difference b/w 45 and 42 is pretty big.
- No it's not

Im not too surprised you didnt mention the 3 pt discrepency
- I already mentioned it
- If one of the makes was a miss, that's 35%, which a 30% team would certainly expect to shoot at home. So yeah, the extra 3 points on the scoreboard were HUGEEEEE

*You're also failing to mention that Clemson was hitting largely contested shots. They weren't getting open looks at a higher clip than most teams do.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/stats/teamsort/NCAAB/SCORING/regularseason/yearly

The best shooting team in the country shoots 53%, the worst 34.2%. So I would say 3% is more significant than you are leading on.

You did not mention your 3 point discrepancy. what are you talking about?

What game where you watching, "largely contested shots"? They hit some deep 3's but at the end of the game were also just toying with us (and playing stupid) but jacking up 3's. They were well over 50% for the majority of the game.

I dont think we are going to come to any agreement here.

 

[skurey]

Except logic. Zones require less movement on the part of the defender. He doesn't have to chase guys all over the court. If he isn't moving enough to make a zone work, how is going to move enough to make a man-for-man work?

It's easier to follow a single guy around the court than figure out which area you need to be defending based on the ball movement and position of the offense.

 

[Brooky03]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/stats/teamsort/NCAAB/SCORING/regularseason/yearly

The best shooting team in the country shoots 53%, the worst 34.2%. So I would say 3% is more significant than you are leading on.

You did not mention your 3 point discrepancy. what are you talking about?

What game where you watching, "largely contested shots"? They hit some deep 3's but at the end of the game were also just toying with us (and playing stupid) but jacking up 3's. They were well over 50% for the majority of the game.

I dont think we are going to come to any agreement here.

I mentioned the 3 point discrepancy in a previous post. Go look, I'm not going to find it for you.

Clemson went 23-51 from the field and 8-20 from 3. Assuming the same number of attempts, turning a single 3 point make into a miss would put Clemson at 43% from the field and 35% from 3pt range. If we want to get closer to Clemson's averages, another missed three would put them at 30% from deep and 41% from the field. I'm not going to look up their stats at home, I've already delved deeper into this than I'd care to, but you'd generally expect better percentages as the home team. Therefore, I'd say the difference between 45% and 42% accounts for 3 whole points. Maybe that's a big difference to you, it's not to me.

And with that, I'm done. Peace

 

[CusefanATL]

I mentioned the 3 point discrepancy in a previous post. Go look, I'm not going to find it for you.

Clemson went 23-51 from the field and 8-20 from 3. Assuming the same number of attempts, turning a single 3 point make into a miss would put Clemson at 43% from the field and 35% from 3pt range. If we want to get closer to Clemson's averages, another missed three would put them at 30% from deep and 41% from the field. I'm not going to look up their stats at home, I've already delved deeper into this than I'd care to, but you'd generally expect better percentages as the home team. Therefore, I'd say the difference between 45% and 42% accounts for 3 whole points. Maybe that's a big difference to you, it's not to me.

And with that, I'm done. Peace

Again... Clemson was just jacking up 3's the last 10 minutes - they were well over 50% before the game was "over"

 

[orangecuse]

Clemson shot 45% from the field (average) and 40% from 3pt range (one made 3 pointer better than being average). Yeah, the zone was clearly the problem.

Their turnovers were low, which we certainly wouldn't have caused more of in m2m, and their offensive rebounds were high. You might have an argument about the offensive rebounds...Might... but that's pretty much it. Otherwise, the defense performed as well as you'd expect.

This thread is a joke

Here's a fact. Statistically, Clemson is the worst offensive team in ACC play. They scored 39 first half points against us! Yes, our offense was just darn right offensive, but to inject the premise that our lazy zone defense was not a contributing factor to the loss is simply inaccurate. They had several wide open looks from deep, and, to their credit, buried them.

JB, in all his success, is still a very stubborn individual. What's a disconnect for me, especially with his astuteness, is when he sees that his team's zone is not executing to plan, whether it be lack of focus, energy, whatever, why he won't just come out of it for a short time, if only just to change up the flow, energy, other team's growing confidence, etc.

 

[LennX6]

That's partly a product of the zone though.

And having a PF playing center, a SF playing PF and a SG playing SF. They guys are doing good, but Clemson had 2-3 Pitt-type guys with loads of height, muscle and power.
Amazing what Rak has done despite this...

 

[Eagles20]

irrational.

If a guy is on fire... m2m teams can go to box and 1.

during an inbounds teams go 2-3

to mix things up teams press

to mix things up teams go to 2-3

to mix things up teams go to 1-3-1

to mix things up teams go to triangle and 2

to mix things up teams go to matchup zone

the 1 thing very few teams, if any do is sit in 1 defense... no matter what the opposition brings. That may be the new definition of insanity.

That seems like a lot of waisted practice time to learn a defense you will play rarely use during the season or only play for a few positions a game. I'd rather be really good at one than half decent at all those. Run the 2-3, have a press, and throw the trapping 2-3 isn't bad. With limited contributors right and guys playing 40 minutes I dint see how we can press more.

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

And having a PF playing center, a SF playing PF and a SG playing SF. They guys are doing good, but Clemson had 2-3 Pitt-type guys with loads of height, muscle and power.
Amazing what Rak has done despite this...

Rak was the #1 rated center in his recruiting class

 

[reedny]

I mentioned the 3 point discrepancy in a previous post. Go look, I'm not going to find it for you.

Clemson went 23-51 from the field and 8-20 from 3. Assuming the same number of attempts, turning a single 3 point make into a miss would put Clemson at 43% from the field and 35% from 3pt range. If we want to get closer to Clemson's averages, another missed three would put them at 30% from deep and 41% from the field. I'm not going to look up their stats at home, I've already delved deeper into this than I'd care to, but you'd generally expect better percentages as the home team. Therefore, I'd say the difference between 45% and 42% accounts for 3 whole points. Maybe that's a big difference to you, it's not to me.

And with that, I'm done. Peace

The shooting percentages seem closer than they really were because of Rak, who skewed our numbers by going 10 for 13 in the paint. Outside of his stellar play, we shot 25% from the field. We were especially ineffective from outside -- 13% on 2 of 15 shooting, while they shot 40% and went 8 for 20. That difference, alone, represents an advantage of 18 points on the perimeter, a significant disparity that was enough to counter our advantage (mostly Rak's) in the paint. So there are some shooting differences, for sure, with Clemson's stout defense having quite a bit of influence against everyone but Rak.

Other factors of note were: 1) we really missed CM and got out-worked on the glass by 10. This gave them extra possessions in a slow game and allowed them to score 20 second-chance points; 2) our bench was non-existent (theirs had 9); and 3) we had no blocks in this game because Rak was alone down low occupied by 2 or 3 guys .. without his usual 6'10" companion.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Here's a fact. Statistically, Clemson is the worst offensive team in ACC play. They scored 39 first half points against us! Yes, our offense was just darn right offensive, but to inject the premise that our lazy zone defense was not a contributing factor to the loss is simply inaccurate. They had several wide open looks from deep, and, to their credit, buried them.

JB, in all his success, is still a very stubborn individual. What's a disconnect for me, especially with his astuteness, is when he sees that his team's zone is not executing to plan, whether it be lack of focus, energy, whatever, why he won't just come out of it for a short time, if only just to change up the flow, energy, other team's growing confidence, etc.

Stop bringing facts into this!

The most difficult shot they made was the last before half.

And yes, lots of their putbacks were because we have a guard playing the bottom of the zone, but lots of their looks were good ones. Just like in the wake game.