whole bunch of numbers about 3p% against our zone

[Millhouse]

I just don't see how hard it should be to not dribble, but to simply pass the ball quickly on the perimeter, at the foul line and to the baseline.

The ball does not get tired.

Ball movement - no matter how simple or subtle - requires the defense to react and to move.

That is how good shots are created.

I don't think it takes a lot of talent to do that.

And, as I have said, in the first half against Baylor TB did it - he moved the ball from the point and helped create shots.

In the second half we reverted to the BS - the constant dribbling around the perimeter looking for a one-on-one move to the basket.

I will agree that we are not talented enough to win with that approach.

we probably had the same "here we go" reaction to brissett's 1 on 5 two trips in a row

 

[malpearl31]

That last stat is especially fascinating. Could it be that three point shooting is over-rated?

I don't think it's so much that "three point shooting is over-rated" as much as it is that three point shooting is just one piece of the puzzle. There's a better stat called Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%) that takes into account both 2-pt shooting and 3-pt shooting.

Example 1: When we lost to North Carolina in the Final Four in 2016 (score was 83-66), we held the Tar Heels to 23.5% shooting from 3-pt range. Pretty good, right? But that was only on 17 3-pt FG attempts, so the percentage doesn't tell the full story. Carolina also shot 31-48, or 64.6% from inside the arc in that game (I was there, it was brutal as I'm sure we all probably remember). The combined 2-pt and 3-pt shooting numbers gave Carolina an eFG% of 56.9% for the game, which is pretty damn good.

Example 2: When we lost to Duke 69-65 in the Tourney last year, we held them to 5-26 (19.2%) from 3-pt range and 17-30 (56.7%) from 2-pt range for an eFG% allowed of 43.8%. But even eFG% doesn't always tell the full story... because an eFG% of 43.8 is not bad by any means... what hurt us in that Duke game was that we sent them to the FT line for 28 attempts and they knocked down 20 of them (we were only 11-17 from the FT line).

Example 3: When we beat Wisconsin in the 2012 Tournament (an amazing game, 64-63 was the final), the Badgers shot 14-27 (51.9%) from 3-pt range, but we held them to a paltry 7-22 (31.8%) inside the arc - and we only allowed them to shoot 12 free throws for the whole game (they made 7). Their eFG% for the game was 57.1% - pretty damn good - but their lack of FTs and a fantastic offensive performance of our own (our eFG% was 60.2%) allowed us to escape with the W.

I'm a stats guy (if you couldn't already tell), so I really enjoy digging into the numbers to better understand the game.

 

[OrangePA]

we probably had the same "here we go" reaction to brissett's 1 on 5 two trips in a row

Yeah!

I don't get it.

 

[GardenOrange]

I don't disagree with you in theory - I'm a fan of changing up defenses (especially after a timeout).

But two comments in response:
1.) It's just not going to happen while Jim is the Head Coach. Can we all agree that Jim is basically "ride or die" with the Zone?
2.) People say they want to see us play some man-to-man... but when Buddy gets stuck in a pick and roll switch and ends up having to guard a Coby White... or a big like Chewie ends up getting pulled out to the perimeter to defend Luke Maye at the 3-pt line... I don't think we're going to like the results.

Man to Man defense is mostly about effort. All teams that play MtoM have to deal with bad individual matchups when switches occur. If Jim is not going to ever switch it up again, then we should get used to the 10+ loss seasons, cause they are going to pile up. Too many shooters out there today and the zone just gets opponents in a mindset that they are going to shoot a lot of threes. they are ready to gun.

 

[malpearl31]

Man to Man defense is mostly about effort.

Aren't all good defenses about effort? Is there a defense out there that works well without requiring the players to try very hard?

All teams that play MtoM have to deal with bad individual matchups when switches occur.

I agree with you - But would you agree that Zone Defenses tend to minimize switches and mismatches (when compared to M2M defenses)?

If Jim is not going to ever switch it up again, then we should get used to the 10+ loss seasons, cause they are going to pile up. Too many shooters out there today and the zone just gets opponents in a mindset that they are going to shoot a lot of threes. they are ready to gun.

If I was a betting man (and I am), I would say that: a) Jim does not mix in M2M defenses ever before he retires; b) We probably do lose 10+ games next year (but we would do so regardless of what defense we play); and c) 2 years from now we are really good and do not lose 10+ games... In 2020-21, we could have OB, Hughes, Marek and Sid as returning seniors - Jalen, Buddy and Braswell as returning juniors - and Guerrier, Goodine, and JG3 as returning sophomores. I think the odds are against any of those guys leaving school early.

 

[SWC75]

I just don't see how hard it should be to not dribble, but to simply pass the ball quickly on the perimeter, at the foul line and to the baseline.

The ball does not get tired.

Ball movement - no matter how simple or subtle - requires the defense to react and to move.

That is how good shots are created.

I don't think it takes a lot of talent to do that.

And, as I have said, in the first half against Baylor TB did it - he moved the ball from the point and helped create shots.

In the second half we reverted to the BS - the constant dribbling around the perimeter looking for a one-on-one move to the basket.

I will agree that we are not talented enough to win with that approach.

Love that line.

When we resort to just dribbling and passing the ball around the perimeter I think of that commercial with the barber shop quartet.
GEICO: Barbershop Quartet Basketball Team Commercial

Player movement plus passing gets the defense to move, which creates the openings. If all you are going to do is jack up three pointers or drive to the basket from 25 feet out, you become easy to defend.

 

[OrangePA]

Man to Man defense is mostly about effort. All teams that play MtoM have to deal with bad individual matchups when switches occur. If Jim is not going to ever switch it up again, then we should get used to the 10+ loss seasons, cause they are going to pile up. Too many shooters out there today and the zone just gets opponents in a mindset that they are going to shoot a lot of threes. they are ready to gun.

I don't get too hung up about man to man versus zone.

A good man to man defense incorporates zone principles.

Bob Knight played man to man, but it was in many respects a match up zone.

I don't think this team struggled this year because of defense.

 

[Melancer46]

the more Ive watched this tournament, the more I realize that the offense is the bigger problem. So many teams with these offensive schemes with tons of motion, cutting, back screens, dribble drives and kicks, its just so foreign to me watching mostly Syracuse games. very rarely did I see teams taking the shot clock down out of necessity, we seem to take a large percentage of our non transition possessions down down to under 5 on the shot clock because we just cant get anything going.

I agree, though I did notice we ran a LOT more action and motion offense after Buddy started getting more playing time. The issue became the fact that most of our players (again with the exception of Dolezaj) are just far too slow in making reads and feeding players. We missed out on a ton of open shots due to late or inaccurate passes that are second nature for most teams.

Edit: "tears" to "reads"...was typing from my phone and didn't notice the autocorrect

 

[CardiacCuse]

I agree, though I did notice we ran a LOT more action and motion offense after Buddy started getting more playing time. The issue became the fact that most of our players (again with the exception of Dolezaj) are just far too slow in making tears and feeding players. We missed out on a ton of open shots due to late or inaccurate passes that are second nature for most teams.

In my estimation, throughout the season - the first half was "get everyone involved, play the bench, pass the ball"
the second half "winning time" was "Battle-time, ISO plays" supposedly the better approach, shorter rotations "more serious"

However, this strategem had the reverse impact that was intended...

that's a main reason why so many games the team had a lead in the first half and got the doors blown off in the second...that and the opposing coaches often made better adjustments, while SU just didn't adjust or made bad adjustments.

even eli said recently in the last loss to baylor when asked why he cooled off in the second half after a scorching first. he mentioned that the 2nd was battle's time to take over, that he got going...I actually think this is BY DESIGN...

i get it.

give your most senior guys - the ones who have paid the most dues - the chance to shine and enhance pro prospects...every year this is what happens...and it usually works...

but it is a team sport.

isolation basketball isn't even sustainable with james harden and those types...it RARELY works even with uber talents...let alone just "good" players...

gotta move away from the iso fetish...get everyone involved and run motion ball movement offense.