Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Our defense is much improved

M

moneyball

Member
Mar 25, 2014
90
27
18
53
After the Texas loss our Kenpom defensive efficiency was ranked something like 124th or 128th. After each of the ensuing 5 games, our ranking improved dramatically, and we are now ranked 53rd. We did this against 3 top 5 teams and 3 road games. Amazing!

It is the highest Kenpom D rating we've had since 2008, when our overall Kenpom ranking was 118th and O rating was 212th (vs. 8th this year).

Let's hope our team continues with the improved D and moves us up even further in defensive ranking, as I believe that will greatly increase our chances for a deep March run.
 
This is good perspective. Improved D will help dramatically in the tourney, as it will give us a chance to survive an off-shooting night.
 
Prohm came in and said he would focus on d. Guys didn't like it so Prohm didn't push it. Since Texas Prohm said "too bad" and we might be finally seeing what he was talking about.
 
mtowncyclone13 said:
Prohm came in and said he would focus on d. Guys didn't like it so Prohm didn't push it. Since Texas Prohm said "too bad" and we might be finally seeing what he was talking about.
Click to expand...

He has said this but it's not like his Murray State teams were of the charts on D. Talent might have something to do with that though.
 
I agree. I think the loss yesterday was due to our offense against their defense, which is unusual for us. They made everything a little harder and we made some things harder on ourselves.

We did give up some easy buckets here and there, but everybody does that from time to time.
 
Nadar looked asleep on D yesterday. They were pounding us on the boards in the first half, but I thought we were better there in the second half.

On O, Georges was still getting his shots but it seemed like they were keeping him a step further from the basket than he often is shooting that right-handed hook.
 
Last edited:
Can't help but imagine what the Clones potential would be if we played defense like aTm. Come tourney time, it covers for poor shooting nights.
 
Spanky said:
Can't help but imagine what the Clones potential would be if we played defense like aTm. Come tourney time, it covers for poor shooting nights.
Click to expand...

Unbeatable, but it's rare to be elite both offensively and defensively. All we need on defense is good. If we are good, and play our normal offensive game, we can beat anyone, anywhere.
 
They played good defense but we're also allowed shove our players all over the place down low with very few calls. Everytime our players tried to respond aggressively, they flopped and we get called for a charge (Nader 3 times, Niang, etc.)
Add the constant travel calls along with Niang playing hurt and missed a lot of shots he has made countless times in the past. ISU played A&Ms game essentially and pretty poorly at that with terrible free throw shooting and still almost won.
To me it's obvious by anyone with eyeballs that on a neutral floor, it's ISU by double digits if they play remotely like they have the last 5 games. Bad games happen, regroup and kick the **** out of WVU on Tuesday!
 
Spanky said:
Can't help but imagine what the Clones potential would be if we played defense like aTm. Come tourney time, it covers for poor shooting nights.
Click to expand...
We don't have the personnel to play defense like A$M just as they don't have personnel to play offense like ISU.

That said, I am all for Prohm taking Hoiball down a notch in order to have more traits of a Floyd or LE coached team.
 
Spanky said:
Can't help but imagine what the Clones potential would be if we played defense like aTm. Come tourney time, it covers for poor shooting nights.
Click to expand...

ISU can't play D like ATM because they're not as athletic or fast.

The ability isn't there, but the mindset seems to have changed since Texas, where they're not reaching in, but doing things like keeping their hands swiping in a bit from off the ball and making the ball handler uncomfortable.

The boxing out is still an issue, but that's an issue with a lot of college teams.

Offensively, they still tend to forget how valuable ball movement is.
 
Cyclonepride said:
Unbeatable, but it's rare to be elite both offensively and defensively. All we need on defense is good. If we are good, and play our normal offensive game, we can beat anyone, anywhere.
Click to expand...

Especially this year. There's not a team out there that this ISU team can't at least have a chance late against.

I think if it were like last year's overall college basketball, ISU would still be a level below what Kentucky, Duke, and Wisconsin were.
 
We've definitely improved defensively and it's been fun to watch...the biggest thing we've done different the last few games, is that we've done a lot better job of keeping the ball in front of us (stopping dribble penetration)...
 
swarthmoreCY said:
We don't have the personnel to play defense like A$M just as they don't have personnel to play offense like ISU.

That said, I am all for Prohm taking Hoiball down a notch in order to have more traits of a Floyd or LE coached team.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I want us to go there or not? Yes, I want us to play better defensively, but I still want Hoiball on the offensive end. At least it's very entertaining to watch. I don't want to turn into a B1G team.

We only scored 62 yesterday, and it was not fun to watch.

This team just doesn't have the shooters that we've had in the past. We miss Naz a TON IMO. Right now, Thomas is the only one that can knock down a 3 for us. Morris and Niang have been struggling from beyond the arc and Nader's never been that good. Burton can hit it, but not consistently. We used to have 4 guys on the court that could drain 3's in the Hoiball era, now we have one right now, maybe two at the most.
 
State43 said:
They played good defense but we're also allowed shove our players all over the place down low with very few calls. Everytime our players tried to respond aggressively, they flopped and we get called for a charge (Nader 3 times, Niang, etc.)
Add the constant travel calls along with Niang playing hurt and missed a lot of shots he has made countless times in the past. ISU played A&Ms game essentially and pretty poorly at that with terrible free throw shooting and still almost won.
To me it's obvious by anyone with eyeballs that on a neutral floor, it's ISU by double digits if they play remotely like they have the last 5 games. Bad games happen, regroup and kick the **** out of WVU on Tuesday!
Click to expand...
That has been the case for several years- imo it is largely a personnel issue. An advantage physical teams have is that they are allowed to re-define what is a foul. But yes, teams that do this and then also flop are infuriating to go against. Good refs should be above that.


I don't think we played that poorly, but we definitely had some poor luck and did not execute as well as needed against a good team. The fact it was a toss-up until the end shows we are "grinding" better. If we keep improving in that regard March could be fun.
 
clonedude said:
I'm not sure if I want us to go there or not? Yes, I want us to play better defensively, but I still want Hoiball on the offensive end. At least it's very entertaining to watch. I don't want to turn into a B1G team.

We only scored 62 yesterday, and it was not fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Would it have been fun to watch had they won, 62-60? I'd say so.

And the Big Ten's top 5 teams are all averaging over 75 points a game. Teams like Iowa, Indiana, MSU, etc. aren't exactly slowing the ball down. Heck, Iowa was basically running ISU out of Hilton until they got the Frans with 10 minutes left.

This thing where basketball needs to be entertaining is entertaining in itself. Hoiball may have been fun to watch, but it was stressful too because a lead never felt safe, and slow/bad starts were fairly normal.
 
clonedude said:
I'm not sure if I want us to go there or not? Yes, I want us to play better defensively, but I still want Hoiball on the offensive end. At least it's very entertaining to watch. I don't want to turn into a B1G team.

We only scored 62 yesterday, and it was not fun to watch.

This team just doesn't have the shooters that we've had in the past. We miss Naz a TON IMO. Right now, Thomas is the only one that can knock down a 3 for us. Morris and Niang have been struggling from beyond the arc and Nader's never been that good. Burton can hit it, but not consistently. We used to have 4 guys on the court that could drain 3's in the Hoiball era, now we have one right now, maybe two at the most.
Click to expand...
What is there to be unsure about? To be elite we have needed better defense and rebounding for years. Winning is entertaining, and it's not as though you have to go from Hoiball to BIG.

That is some good nostalgia you have, but not all that accurate. 2012-13 is really the only year considerably different in terms of quality shooters and scheme imo (all starters would shoot). 13-14 we had similar quality, but played without a guy like McKay in the middle. We miss Naz, but the 3P threat aspect of this team is not all that different than last year. Morris was shooting 50% on 3Ps in conference play before yesterday. Nader is better than last year. Georges is Georges. Thomas has greatly improved and is ahead of where Naz was last year. Ashton is just as good of 3P-shooting asset off the bench as Thomas a year ago. Burton has filled the Hogue role. As a team we are shooting the same % as what we finished last year with.
 
madguy30 said:
Would it have been fun to watch had they won, 62-60? I'd say so.

And the Big Ten's top 5 teams are all averaging over 75 points a game. Teams like Iowa, Indiana, MSU, etc. aren't exactly slowing the ball down. Heck, Iowa was basically running ISU out of Hilton until they got the Frans with 10 minutes left.

This thing where basketball needs to be entertaining is entertaining in itself. Hoiball may have been fun to watch, but it was stressful too because a lead never felt safe, and slow/bad starts were fairly normal.
Click to expand...



I get that Iowa got tight down the stretch or we might not have pulled it out, but they got that way because they realized they couldn't get stops and we were charging. Because we only led at the end, too many people forget we out scored them significantly in the second half...and that is counting the entire second half. We took that game. Yes Iowa had a chance to win and yes they committed stupid turnovers, but we also committed stupid ones in the first half, likely credit to them that they were putting so much pressure on us to score as we weren't stopping them. Yet, the common narrative is that they were their all-world selves in the first half, and but for a lapse at the end of the game really dominated us all day. That just isn't what went down. We put pressure on them because they had trouble stopping us, and because we were going to the hole hard, started getting them to foul. They played tough, but seemed to wilt a bit at the end, but oh by the way, the fact we actually tried to play defense the second half may have had something to do with that. Take nothing away from their talent or the game they played, but recognize we came back and took that game.
 
I think part of the reason is we have slowed the game down and we now play more half court offense so our guys can catch their breaths. We aren't athletic enough to play up and down the court for 40 minutes which is what we were trying to do before. It also helps us get defensive rebounds when half the team isn't taking off after a missed shot. I like the change and I think it fits the team better. That style of play I think will help come tournament time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom