Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Defense is the KEY

RagnarLothbrok

RagnarLothbrok

Active Member
Feb 28, 2015
138
140
43
I have been watching the defensive stats (AdjD) of this team all year on KenPom. Most of the year they ranked out of the top 100 best rated defenses. Within the last few weeks they peaked under 100 and now are locked in at #85. The Big 12 tournament will change that ranking slightly, but not dramatically enough to cause a radical change. This is a huge concern going forward with the team’s dreams, that being the Final Four and beyond.

And why is this alarming?

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]2014
[/TD]
[TD]Florida
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[TD]2013
[/TD]
[TD]Wich. St
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD]2012
[/TD]
[TD]UK
[/TD]
[TD]8
[/TD]
[TD]2011
[/TD]
[TD]UK
[/TD]
[TD]15
[/TD]
[TD]2010
[/TD]
[TD]MSU
[/TD]
[TD]27
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCONN
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Louisville
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Louisville
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCONN
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Butler
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]WISC
[/TD]
[TD]49
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Syracuse
[/TD]
[TD]8
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ohio St
[/TD]
[TD]7
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]VCU
[/TD]
[TD]84
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]WVU
[/TD]
[TD]23
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UK
[/TD]
[TD]41
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Michigan
[/TD]
[TD]48
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]KU
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Butler
[/TD]
[TD]44
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Duke
[/TD]
[TD]8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]2009
[/TD]
[TD]MSU
[/TD]
[TD]8
[/TD]
[TD]2008
[/TD]
[TD]UNC
[/TD]
[TD]19
[/TD]
[TD]2007
[/TD]
[TD]Florida
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[TD]2006
[/TD]
[TD]LSU
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[TD]2005
[/TD]
[TD]Illinois
[/TD]
[TD]4
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCONN
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]KU
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCLA
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCLA
[/TD]
[TD]4
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Louis
[/TD]
[TD]37
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]NOVA
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Memphis
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]GTOWN
[/TD]
[TD]24
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Florida
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UNC
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UNC
[/TD]
[TD]21
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCLA
[/TD]
[TD]5
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ohio St
[/TD]
[TD]11
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]GMU
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]MSU
[/TD]
[TD]32
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In the last 10 years, all the teams in the Final Four ranked 49[SUP]th[/SUP] or better in defense except for 1, VCU in 2011 with their “Havocâ€￾ defense at 84. The national championship winner ranked under 21.

With that said, one factor into our ranking is that we did not have the Big 12 Defensive Player of the Year, Jameel McKay, for the majority of the non-conference schedule. What sort of defensive stats would he have had against Oakland, Southern, UMKC, Lamar, or Eastern Iowa? And what sort of effect does that cause on our defensive ranking during that time? Maybe it boosts our defensive cohesion for the entire year, but we will never know.

Does this team pass the eye test for a great defense for you? All I can do is hope to see more defensive intensity, smart rotations, and closing out on time, but the stats do not lie so far.
 
Cyclonepride said:
I think our system values offense over defense, and since we are fantastic at offense, we can afford to be average at defense (though we certainly play better overall when we are locked in on D).
Click to expand...

As a comparison, I decided to get the facts on offenses using KenPom's AdjO rankings and put them into the table

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]2014
[/TD]
[TD]Florida
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[TD]2013
[/TD]
[TD]Wich. St
[/TD]
[TD]30
[/TD]
[TD]2012
[/TD]
[TD]UK
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[TD]2011
[/TD]
[TD]UK
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[TD]2010
[/TD]
[TD]MSU
[/TD]
[TD]36
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCONN
[/TD]
[TD]39
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Louisville
[/TD]
[TD]4
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Louisville
[/TD]
[TD]116
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCONN
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Butler
[/TD]
[TD]57
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]WISC
[/TD]
[TD]4
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Syracuse
[/TD]
[TD]29
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ohio St
[/TD]
[TD]5
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]VCU
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]WVU
[/TD]
[TD]11
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UK
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Michigan
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]KU
[/TD]
[TD]28
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Butler
[/TD]
[TD]48
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Duke
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 638"]
[TR]
[TD]2009
[/TD]
[TD]MSU
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]2008
[/TD]
[TD]UNC
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD]2007
[/TD]
[TD]Florida
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD]2006
[/TD]
[TD]LSU
[/TD]
[TD]65
[/TD]
[TD]2005
[/TD]
[TD]Illinois
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCONN
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]KU
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCLA
[/TD]
[TD]29
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCLA
[/TD]
[TD]38
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Louis
[/TD]
[TD]7
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]NOVA
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Memphis
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]GTOWN
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Florida
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UNC
[/TD]
[TD]2
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UNC
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]UCLA
[/TD]
[TD]8
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Ohio St
[/TD]
[TD]3
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]GMU
[/TD]
[TD]58
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]MSU
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

8 out of the last 10 championship offenses were ranked in the top 5 (we are #6 right now in offense), the two UCONN teams being the oddballs. Perhaps average at defense isn't good enough either?
 
I'm curious how we rank over the last few weeks. As you said, our AdjD has improved a fair amount, something like 15-20 spots, over the last few weeks.
 
Hate to burst your bubble but those stats are skewed by the runs the teams made to the final 4. Of course teams that went on 4-6 game winning streaks against other teams going on similar winning streaks will have great numbers.

You can't compare our regular season ending number to those.


Not that your point isn't valid, defense is important.
 
Look at the conference only stats and compare ours and you'll get a more accurate and valid picture. That's the best way on Kenpom to remove the runs that skew the numbers. I wish there was a similar button for regular season only
 
I think until the defense numbers improve, the program is going to be stuck at the level it is at.....upper half of league standings, and possible Sweet 16, and if things go our way, maybe an Elite 8.....I think the scheme the team runs is more offense orientated and the system says, we will give up points, as long as we can score on the offensive end of things. But when things do not happen on the offensive side of the court, the game can get out of hand.

Take the TCU game for instance...after ISU made the run to tie the game and take the lead, it seemed as if the team allowed TCU to score, but things took care of themselves as long as we scored on the other end in a shorter amount of time...For every one score we allowed, ISU needs to score 2 times on fast breaks, transition, or just a fast offensive set. More possessions, more points...and we just need to have more possessions than the other team.

All being said, not matter what we say, we are better off running this system than any system in program history, except for maybe the 1999-2001 systems due to 2 All-Americans we had. Some will say Floyd had a good system, but those teams did not score very often. CFH system is good for national coverage, and good for recruiting and it is good for 2+ wins a year, and a NCAA tourney birth! What more can we ask for? Sure we all want to be a blue blood, but ISU is not a blue blood program.
 
ISU can play good defense. They did it during the first part of the second half against TCU to get the lead. But once ISU got the lead, the defense just kind of vanished. TCU shot 51% in the second half and pretty much had their way on the offensive glass, but ISU just simply "out-offensed" TCU to pull away a little bit.

Is that a feasible approach against the better teams that one would encounter in the later rounds of a tournament? ISU had to put a considerably longer stand of good defense against OU during "the run". We'll see.
 
I think offense can be used as a defense. It is much harder for teams to have a prolific offense than to have a solid defense.

I think this is why we are one of only a few teams to play like this. Take WVU for example, they play a havoc style defense and win games, this is due to the fact they do not have the offensive talent to run a havoc style offense.

Everyone praises a prolific defensive team, while they assume a prolific offensive team will fail over the course of 3-4 games where a defense is more reliable and easy to maintain.

However, we have seen that once a great defensive team gets behind in a game to the team with a great offense, the offensive team can win easily.

Hence the heartburn and anxiety over our slow starts lately. If we aren't firing out of the gates on all cylinders we know we could be in trouble.
 
Rhoadhoused said:
Hate to burst your bubble but those stats are skewed by the runs the teams made to the final 4. Of course teams that went on 4-6 game winning streaks against other teams going on similar winning streaks will have great numbers.

You can't compare our regular season ending number to those.


Not that your point isn't valid, defense is important.
Click to expand...

I do get that. I was hoping the error in my statistical analysis is that the better teams would now be playing more equal competition. For instance, Iowa State won't be playing Lamar University in the Elite 8 padding their stats and rankings. We will be playing Kentucky, Arizona, or Duke.

I noticed in the 2014 season Iowa is ranked #5 in AdjO, and I could see had they had any impact on the Tournament they might have lowered/increased their rankings in offense/defense, but I don't think by much. Maybe this is erroneous thinking on my part. Another example, 2010 Duke averaged 77 points a game but only managed to score 61 points in the final, which would lower their overall AdjO, but they were still the best offensive team by KenPom stats because of all the calculations he does.

Going forward, I wouldn't say that the KenPom stats are the be all end all, but they do seem to give pretty good insight into how a championship caliber team performs on both sides of the ball throughout the year.
 
I don't have a Kenpom subscription but I've heard that Michigan had around a Top 100 defense before their run to the Final Four. It was their run that gave them their top 50 AdjD rating.
 
RagnarLothbrok said:
I do get that. I was hoping the error in my statistical analysis is that the better teams would now be playing more equal competition. For instance, Iowa State won't be playing Lamar University in the Elite 8 padding their stats and rankings. We will be playing Kentucky, Arizona, or Duke.

I noticed in the 2014 season Iowa is ranked #5 in AdjO, and I could see had they had any impact on the Tournament they might have lowered/increased their rankings in offense/defense, but I don't think by much. Maybe this is erroneous thinking on my part. Another example, 2010 Duke averaged 77 points a game but only managed to score 61 points in the final, which would lower their overall AdjO, but they were still the best offensive team by KenPom stats because of all the calculations he does.

Going forward, I wouldn't say that the KenPom stats are the be all end all, but they do seem to give pretty good insight into how a championship caliber team performs on both sides of the ball throughout the year.
Click to expand...



Well any single game, especially a national title game, is statistically irrelevant.


Also, Kenpom adjusts for pace and opponent so Duke's score could go up even if they score well below their season average.


Since the scores are weighed by opponents and the opponents you get in the Elite 8/Final 4 are usually extremely highly ranked and you're filtering only for teams that win, it will skew those ratings by a lot. I'd guess 20 spots or more.
 
mcdrier said:
All being said, not matter what we say, we are better off running this system than any system in program history, except for maybe the 1999-2001 systems due to 2 All-Americans we had. Some will say Floyd had a good system, but those teams did not score very often. CFH system is good for national coverage, and good for recruiting and it is good for 2+ wins a year, and a NCAA tourney birth!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Hoiball stats in offense / defense per KenPom over the years.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 200"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Offense Rank
[/TD]
[TD]Defense Rank
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2011
[/TD]
[TD]83
[/TD]
[TD]120
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012
[/TD]
[TD]24
[/TD]
[TD]54
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2013
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[TD]133
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2014
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[TD]72
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015
[/TD]
[TD]6*
[/TD]
[TD]85*
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Gotta love it.
 
Defense is much easier to "turn on" than offense. Defense for the most part is effort and desire. Offense takes skill, you have it or you don't.

Fred obviously values Offense and works on that throughout the year and it looks like the offense is peaking in early March (like he has done the past few years). Now for the first time in 5 years, he has a few guys who have the physical nature to play defense: BDJ, McKay, and Dustin. Niang is an average defender at this point of his career (not a liability anymore) and Morris is solid, I just wouldn't put him in the Mckay/BDJ/Dustin category. So if this team "wants" to play defense for 6 games, that have the ability - its just getting them to buy in to it.

I think the past week or two we have seen stretches of them wanting to play defense - so I think it is possible.

flip side, a team that plays solid defense (Louisville for example) is not going to become an 80 point scorer over night - because they don't have the ability.
 
megamanxzero35 said:
I don't have a Kenpom subscription but I've heard that Michigan had around a Top 100 defense before their run to the Final Four. It was their run that gave them their top 50 AdjD rating.
Click to expand...
In 2014:
Their conference only score of 106.4 would have put them at 203rd in the nation.


They finished at 109.


Obviously the non conference is the missing link
 
just to point out, we finished the Big12 season guarding at 42.4% for FG % defense. For the last 16 years this is the best mark except for the 05 team that gave up 42.3% FG shooting to opponents in league play. The kenpom metrics reflect points/possession. We don't force alot of turnovers, while we don't foul alot our FT defense has been documented as not good, and our 3pt defense has been below average this year.

We also finished first in league games for defensive rebounding %.
 
GoClones123 said:
I think offense can be used as a defense. It is much harder for teams to have a prolific offense than to have a solid defense.

I think this is why we are one of only a few teams to play like this. Take WVU for example, they play a havoc style defense and win games, this is due to the fact they do not have the offensive talent to run a havoc style offense.

Everyone praises a prolific defensive team, while they assume a prolific offensive team will fail over the course of 3-4 games where a defense is more reliable and easy to maintain.

However, we have seen that once a great defensive team gets behind in a game to the team with a great offense, the offensive team can win easily.

Hence the heartburn and anxiety over our slow starts lately. If we aren't firing out of the gates on all cylinders we know we could be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, anyone could be in trouble with a slow start, and not everyone has the ability to suddenly turn it on and score 59 or 63 points in the second half. Those totals are absurd, and should have us believing that we have a chance in any game, regardless of the start. Good starts are definitely nice though, and you don't want to have to count on a big run to get back in it in a one and done situation. The NCAA tournament tends to see huge swings in momentum, and it's also nice to know that we have the capability to pull ourselves out of the doldrums and catch fire.
 
Rhoadhoused said:
Well any single game, especially a national title game, is statistically irrelevant.

Also, Kenpom adjusts for pace and opponent so Duke's score could go up even if they score well below their season average.

Since the scores are weighed by opponents and the opponents you get in the Elite 8/Final 4 are usually extremely highly ranked and you're filtering only for teams that win, it will skew those ratings by a lot. I'd guess 20 spots or more.
Click to expand...

I think I'll have to take a screenshot on Selection Sunday to do a comparative analysis after the tournament. I'd be interested to see how much jumping does go on around.

megamanxzero35 said:
I don't have a Kenpom subscription but I've heard that Michigan had around a Top 100 defense before their run to the Final Four. It was their run that gave them their top 50 AdjD rating.
Click to expand...

The only source I could find on that was an article on Feb 26, 2013 that had Michigan's defensive efficiency rating at 43, KenPom has them ending at 48.
 
Last edited:
Our defense worries me, but our defensive rebounding worries me more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back