menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Defense?
Page: 1 of 1
berniebobcat
General User
B
Member Since: 11/23/2010
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Post Count: 313
person
mail
berniebobcat
mail
Posted: 11/21/2015 5:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Is it me or does it look like our guys are not very good defenders
. One very noticeable things about John Groce's teams was their very solid team defense
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,312
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 11/21/2015 5:51 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Saul said multiple times before the season that defense was not yet a strength.

OTOH, how about our offense? 75+ points in all four games to start!
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/21/2015 6:42 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It's important to note that with the shot clock shortened to 30 seconds this year, scoring will be up this year.
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 11/21/2015 9:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note
We need to get better defensively. I doubt anyone disagrees. Too much dribble penetration, grabbing, etc.
OU_Country
General User
Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,401
mail
OU_Country
mail
Posted: 11/23/2015 2:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
It's important to note that with the shot clock shortened to 30 seconds this year, scoring will be up this year.

Has there be any evidence released thus far on the affect of the 30 second shot clock? I'm curious to see how much of a difference it makes.
bshot44
General User
Member Since: 2/12/2012
Post Count: 2,211
mail
bshot44
mail
Posted: 11/23/2015 2:52 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
We need to get better defensively. I doubt anyone disagrees. Too much dribble penetration, grabbing, etc.
And playing defense without fouling (hello, AC)

With shot clock shortened to 30 secs...I think it should help defenses too. Less time to defend...can play harder...and force maybe more rushed shots.

If you put even a little pressure on the ball coming up the court...teams only have about 20 secs to get a shot.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,946
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/23/2015 3:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note

OU_Country wrote:expand_more
It's important to note that with the shot clock shortened to 30 seconds this year, scoring will be up this year.



Has there be any evidence released thus far on the affect of the 30 second shot clock? I'm curious to see how much of a difference it makes.
 

Ken Pomeroy published some stuff after the first weekend: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/early_hot_take_on_new_rules

Excerpt:

Points, glorious points. That is the takeaway from the first weekend of college basketball. Scoring is up 7% over the first weekend last season. Pace is up 5% and efficiency is up 2%. It’s not 1975-style basketball, but for at least one weekend we turned the clock back to 1995 when it wasn’t unusual to see a team crack 100 on the daily scoreboard.

 

Brian Smith (No, not that one)
General User
BSNNTO
Member Since: 2/4/2005
Post Count: 3,057
person
mail
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
mail
Posted: 11/23/2015 4:26 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I'm intrigued by what a 24-second clock in college would do to scoring and efficiency. I'm all for anything that increases scoring in college basketball.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 11/23/2015 8:37 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
It's important to note that with the shot clock shortened to 30 seconds this year, scoring will be up this year.

Has there be any evidence released thus far on the affect of the 30 second shot clock? I'm curious to see how much of a difference it makes.
early take on the Blog by one of the best stats guys in basketball

"Points, glorious points. That is the takeaway from the first weekend of college basketball. Scoring is up 7% over the first weekend last season. Pace is up 5% and efficiency is up 2%. It’s not 1975-style basketball, but for at least one weekend we turned the clock back to 1995 when it wasn’t unusual to see a team crack 100 on the daily scoreboard."


EDIT Looks like someone beat me to it.
Last Edited: 11/23/2015 8:38:49 PM by bornacatfan
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/23/2015 9:48 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It was obvious that a shorter shot clock would increase scoring and pace, but it's interesting that teams actually are more efficient in the process.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,946
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/28/2015 1:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note

On the KenPom.com home page, he updates the comparison to last year on a daily basis.

Through Friday's games:

Season to date comparison (ppg, efficiency, poss/game): 2014-15(67.2, 99.6, 67.0), 2015-16(73.1, 102.8, 70.7)

Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 11/28/2015 2:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted--Is this weighted to account for the lower possession clock?
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,946
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/28/2015 7:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It shows the effects of the shorter shot clock. Scoring is up due to the fact that offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions) and number of possessions are up. As of now, each team has 3.7 possessions more per game as compared to last year.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 11/29/2015 3:05 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Thanks, Ted.
OU_Country
General User
Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,401
mail
OU_Country
mail
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Brian Smith wrote:expand_more
I'm intrigued by what a 24-second clock in college would do to scoring and efficiency. I'm all for anything that increases scoring in college basketball.

I hope I'm not alone in this, but I want nothing to do with a 24 second clock. This isn't the NBA, nor do I want it to be. So far, other than some officials going a little too far with the foul calling, I like what the "new rules" have done for the games I've seen. While I was against the 30 second clock, I will say I've like the noticeable increase in pace.
bobcatsquared
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,846
person
mail
bobcatsquared
mail
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:12 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I am truly ambivalent when it comes to 36- or 30- or 24-second shot clock. I am interested to see if college teams are more likely to use the NBA strategy of 2-for-1 possessions at the end of a half more often with the shorter shot clock.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
It shows the effects of the shorter shot clock. Scoring is up due to the fact that offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions) and number of possessions are up. As of now, each team has 3.7 possessions more per game as compared to last year.
I think it's less about the shot clock and more about the way the games are called. It's virtually impossible to stop a guy driving the lane with the way they are removing the charge and continually bailing out out-of-control penetration. Anybody have the numbers on averages of free throws taken per game? I'll be shocked if the numbers aren't way up.
berniebobcat
General User
B
Member Since: 11/23/2010
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Post Count: 313
person
mail
berniebobcat
mail
Posted: 12/1/2015 9:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
All this discussion about the shot clock etc does not change the fact that we appear to be weak defenders with sloppy switches and lots of leaning in vs moving the feet and getting ahead. And then there are the turnovers. It is very heartening to see the improved shooting and scoring but without good defense and ball control, it could be a long season.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:50 AM
settings_applications edit_note
berniebobcat wrote:expand_more
All this discussion about the shot clock etc does not change the fact that we appear to be weak defenders with sloppy switches and lots of leaning in vs moving the feet and getting ahead. And then there are the turnovers. It is very heartening to see the improved shooting and scoring but without good defense and ball control, it could be a long season.
I see what you are saying - but also see that so far from opponents too. Ball control is OUr biggest issue - I think that will improve. I am more concerned right now about ball control than I am about the early soft/reaching D.

Would also be nice to see someone occasionally decide to go after an O rebound instead of all 5 start back up the court right after a released shot........
GroverBall
General User
GB
Member Since: 12/3/2012
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,294
person
mail
GroverBall
mail
Posted: 12/2/2015 9:21 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Last night I mentioned to my daughter on a number of occasions how well we were moving our feet on defense. Yes, we still let Marshall have too many drives straight at the rim, particularly in the first half, but in the second half we were using our quickness in our feet and good switches and help to keep the Terd from getting a step on us into the paint -- which is when the fouls are being called especially with the new rules. They then resorted to launching deep threes which they didn't make and we were off running. Let's hope the defense continues to improve as we aren't going to score 80+ every night.
OU_Country
General User
Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,401
mail
OU_Country
mail
Posted: 12/2/2015 10:29 AM
settings_applications edit_note
RSBobcat wrote:expand_more
....Ball control is OUr biggest issue - I think that will improve. I am more concerned right now about ball control than I am about the early soft/reaching D.

Would also be nice to see someone occasionally decide to go after an O rebound instead of all 5 start back up the court right after a released shot........

I think if they limit turnovers, and therefor limit transition opportunities, that the half court defense is fine.




GroverBall wrote:expand_more
Let's hope the defense continues to improve as we aren't going to score 80+ every night.
It may not be 80+, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's in the mid 70's. There are a lot of shooters on this team, and a lot of different ways to score. Simmons and Dartis have proven to be able to get into the lane consistently, and there are usually at least 4 guys at a time on the floor that can really shoot the ball well.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
lateral movement and fast feet in that direction and measurable and fixable.

Understanding angles and direction of travel is a little harder.

I get the feeling these guys were reeally good at lower levels and never were challenged to have to dig deep to understand those concepts. Gollon and Block may be the exceptions.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
Gollon and Block may be the exceptions.
Speaking of Block, I thought he got completely hosed on a blocking call that looked like awfully good defense to me late in the game.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,946
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 12/2/2015 2:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note

If you look at KenPom.com, the defense has improved some. The bar was set pretty low. Last year's team ranked 271st in the nation giving up 107.2 points per 100 possessions (average was 102.0). This year, the tteam is ranked 242nd in the nation giving up 104.4 points per 100 possessions (average is 102.1). 

Showing Messages: 1 - 24 of 24
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)