PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-18-17 11:59 AM - Post#236841
Penn's Joe Tordy did his weekly interview with Steve Donahue, posted on the Penn athletics sight. and Steve had a few interesting insights into the state of the team right now and shed some light on many of the topics we have all discussed on here. A few snippets:
Playing so many games in a short amount of time (8 games in 12 days): "It has been great for our new players, and especially our new nucleus trying gel together, like Antonio Woods and the freshmen.
On taking so many 3's at Fairfield: "There may have been a couple [we shouldn't have taken] but we could have made 20 of them. That said, when you aren't hitting your 3's you have to adjust as well and we didn't do a very good job of that"
On looking at the box score from Navy, they didn't shoot well but you had something to do with that: "It started last year where we set the tone with our defense. We were arguably the 2nd best defense in our league, we were top 100 and we have everyone back except Matt. Everyone is bigger and stronger and with the addition of Antonio Woods I think we can be an elite defensive team. The numbers through 3 games are 3 games I have never seen. 8 three's in 3 games (2.7 a game), 16% and we are turning people over at double their assist rate. That's unheard of and overall shooting percentage is 40%. And we don't foul. That's how you win championships."
He spoke a lot more about Brodeur's new position, playing two bigs and also spoke at length about Antonio Woods and what he brings to the table for this team saying:
"Antonio is our best passer, he has the best feel for the game. He is getting the rust off now, getting used to playing and being more consistent with his shooting. He guards anybody 1-4 because of his quickness and toughness, it's a great asset to have"
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Steve Donahue's assessment
11-18-17 12:23 PM - Post#236843
In response to PennFan10
On looking at the box score from Navy, they didn't shoot well but you had something to do with that: "It started last year where we set the tone with our defense. We were arguably the 2nd best defense in our league, we were top 100 and we have everyone back except Matt. Everyone is bigger and stronger and with the addition of Antonio Woods I think we can be an elite defensive team. The numbers through 3 games are 3 games I have never seen. 8 three's in 3 games (2.7 a game), 16% and we are turning people over at double their assist rate. That's unheard of and overall shooting percentage is 40%. And we don't foul. That's how you win championships."
Wow that's a dumb hot take. I'd expect better from Steve, but I'd wager that's just what he says publicly versus what he actually knows.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8221
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Steve Donahue's assessment
11-18-17 12:39 PM - Post#236844
In response to mrjames
Dumb as in vacuous or dumb as in you’re not buying it?
|
91Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1125
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-18-17 01:08 PM - Post#236850
In response to Streamers
Dumb as in no H coach has ever said anything for public consumption before.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-18-17 01:10 PM - Post#236852
In response to 91Quake
Dumb as in no H coach has ever said anything for public consumption before.
I've pretty much given up on critiquing Amaker. He is who he is.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Steve Donahue's assessment
11-18-17 01:16 PM - Post#236853
In response to Streamers
You have to assess the defense as if it were allowing a reasonable percentage of jumpers to fall through the hoop. Because, at some point, it will. When it does, it's not going to look so great.
Also, they were inarguably the 3rd best defense in the league last year. Not sure what his argument is, but actual reality has him 3rd.
And the fouling thing... maybe he's doing some math to deduct the give-away fouls at the end of Fairfield and La Salle, but the team is fouling a fair deal. Free throw rates were 43% in the first two games, and not all of that is end-of-game fouling.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-18-17 01:25 PM - Post#236854
In response to mrjames
He did say "arguably" 2nd best defense in the league.
He also did say it was just 3 games....but the point being he believes Penn can be an elite defense this year and that will be their identity.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-18-17 03:11 PM - Post#236861
In response to PennFan10
Mike: if I didn't know better, I'd say that the tone of your posts suggests that you don't think Steve Donahue knows a bit more about basketball than you do. Of course, I know better, so I'm not going to say that.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-18-17 04:29 PM - Post#236864
In response to Silver Maple
I’m sure he does. I’m saying that his public statements don’t give that impression, but he wouldn’t be the first coach to paint things in an overly positive light in public.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-18-17 08:31 PM - Post#236867
In response to mrjames
Think about it for a second, though, Mike. What is he trying to do, both when he speaks publicly and when he speaks to the team? The numbers are the numbers, but they reflect how the guys play as a team. I'm sure what he says is intended to help them do that. Much of being a good defensive team is believing you are a good defensive team. Differeent coaches will approach this different ways -- some are going to tell the guys they stink and focus on what they do wrong because that's how they think you motivate. Some are going to try to build the kids up. Frankly, most do both, depending on the situation. I guess I don't see why you would expect a coach to speak in your terms about this. If the team has a positive defensive result, touting it seems perfectly reasonable, even if what it amounts to is luck.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-18-17 08:42 PM - Post#236870
In response to SomeGuy
Absolutely. We’re all basically saying the same thing.
Some folks here are pointing to things Steve is saying as evidence that things are a certain way in reality because Steve knows because he’s a coach. Like when he lauded Antonio - that was used by some to imply their argument was right because Steve agreed, publicly. My point (and yours) is that Steve may have a different purpose with his public statements than trying to give everyone an accurate view of reality.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-18-17 09:05 PM - Post#236873
In response to mrjames
Or he may actually believe what he says.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-18-17 10:26 PM - Post#236887
In response to PennFan10
nah, it's just coach speak. steve's not dumb.
and you'd have to be dumb to believe what he just said. so if someone believes it, they r dum.
|
Charlie Fog
Masters Student
Posts: 586
Age: 55
Loc: Philly
Reg: 11-12-13
|
11-19-17 10:11 AM - Post#236914
In response to Jeff2sf
I believe Steve believes this is a good defensive team and I believe he is correct.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-19-17 10:28 AM - Post#236920
In response to Charlie Fog
Yep
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-19-17 11:15 AM - Post#236929
In response to PennFan10
Yep Yep.
But in large part, that's the addition of Woods in the backcourt. With Woods and Foreman pressuring and 2 big men guarding their backs, Penn is a much better defensive team and able to compete at a much higher level.
Now I won't go saying that Woods' 2 3s against PSU-Brandywine has any real meaning, but it's good practice.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-19-17 11:25 AM - Post#236931
In response to palestra38
There is no way we are net better on D with Matt Howard out. Antonio is not that good.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8221
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-19-17 11:46 AM - Post#236935
In response to Jeff2sf
Jeff - losing Howard is big, bit having max and AJ guarding the hoop, add Simmons to that soon, plus 3 guys who can ball-hawk is just plain better than what we had last year defensively. We are already seeing how it all fits together and this will keep us in games (like Fairfield) where our shooting is a hot mess.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23360
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-19-17 01:07 PM - Post#236943
In response to Streamers
Losing Howard is not big. He was a totally replaceable guy. I liked Howard, but if losing Howard is crippling, the program has major problems. Losing Ibby was big. Losing Rosen was big. You get my drift.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-19-17 01:53 PM - Post#236945
In response to 10Q
From my 1 game watched (Navy), Antonio is interesting on defense. He has thick arms and body. I think it discourages opponents - he can hold his ground physically. He also got his arms out well in passing lanes. That said, Navy's guards didn't seem to be the best guards we'll see - so I can't tell if it will carry through to higher level competition with faster and taller guards.
I can see the potential that he is a positive defender relative to other guards we have trotted out in recent years.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8221
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-19-17 03:20 PM - Post#236950
In response to 10Q
Of course it’s impactful when you lose your best defensive player, especially one a versatile as Matt was who could take on anyone from 2-4. He is not irreplaceable, but his absence forces adjustments and others to step up.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-19-17 09:10 PM - Post#236962
In response to Jeff2sf
Well, I think you both may be right here. I do think that Matt Howard was a better defender last year than Woods is right now. I think he had greater versatility. However, losing that versatility has forced us to play a more conventional lineup defensively, and thus far that appears to be a good thing, or at least not a bad thing.
I do like Woods' strength. I'm never sure what makes certain smaller guards play bigger than they are and not get pushed around, but Woods seems to have it, whatever it is.
Assuming the defense (from Antonio and Max) and the lack of turnovers (from Antonio) aren't total mirages, and given the lack of decent ORATs generally from the bench, I wonder if simply lowering the usage rates for Woods and Rothschild (particularly) is an answer. Assuming we can keep 3 of AJ, Betley, Foreman, and Wood on the floor most of the time, we can carry a lower usage rate here and there if it comes with lots of other positives.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-19-17 09:21 PM - Post#236964
In response to SomeGuy
does no one understand Mike's point?
"You have to assess the defense as if it were allowing a reasonable percentage of jumpers to fall through the hoop. Because, at some point, it will. When it does, it's not going to look so great."
Cus this is essentially inarguable. it's been tested up and down basketball across thousands of games.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8221
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-19-17 11:23 PM - Post#236968
In response to Jeff2sf
Bad defense = open jumper
Good defense = hand in face late in the shot clock
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 09:02 AM - Post#236974
In response to Streamers
Penn is currently allowing its opponents to hit 17% of its threes. That's insane and will not sustain. So, rather than look at the defense with that anomaly baked in, you can leverage expected points per shot (XPPS) to understand what would happen in the long run given that shot selection.
The more important thing than the luck on oppt makes is that they're keeping opponents from shooting that shot (28% of all attempts this year; 40% last year).
I don't have my XPPS numbers in front of me, but I'd wager that Penn's defense so far grades out as a bit better than average - somewhere in line with where it was last year. It is getting there, though, in a much more aesthetically pleasing way - more pressure in man defense scaring shooters off the line and forcing more TOs but yielding more action at the rim versus last year when the zone yielded a ton of threes that oppts hit at high rates.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 10:23 AM - Post#236977
In response to mrjames
OK, whenever we start talking "luck", my eyes glaze over. We are playing much better defense on the 3s because Woods and Foreman get out much quicker and more effectively than our guard combos last year, plus they know that they have their backs covered by the 2 bigs inside. Howard was a "tweener" in that he covered a big guard or small forward--very good defensive player especially on the drive. But these 2 guys get out on the 3 much better. While it is an extremely small sample, so far, Penn's Div 1 opponents have shot the 3 at a 23.5% clip (Fairfield, with fewer Foreman/Woods minutes), 15% (LaSalle) and 11% (Navy) while shooting at a 36%/26%/40% clip against their other (usually higher powered) opponents. You can't attribute this to "luck" although you can say it's too small a sample to make definitive conclusions. But the eye test confirms that these numbers are correlated with much tighter man defense on the 3 point shooters.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-20-17 10:28 AM - Post#236978
In response to palestra38
except you CAN attribute the make rate to luck. "I don't care what the numbers say, I'm an genius (paraphrased)" blah blah blah. Meanwhile I've watched all the games and you haven't. The opponents are doing the opposite of what you're saying with respect to "at the rim". They are taking a higher percentage of shots at the rim AND converting them at a higher rate.
I will say that I could buy the Woods role in successfully chasing people off the line. But I'm very skeptical with respect to Max's contribution on defense. Not only do I think he's not great, but he's making a guy I think could be great play out of position.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 10:45 AM - Post#236980
In response to Jeff2sf
"Luck" in your vocabulary means "that which I cannot explain."
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-20-17 10:53 AM - Post#236981
In response to palestra38
sometimes it means that. in this case it means "the shooting percentage is unsustainable and will regress to the mean".
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 10:59 AM - Post#236982
In response to Jeff2sf
I can guarantee that Penn's 3PT% allowed will rise from here. And that it will be at least 10 percentage points higher from here on out - and very likely more.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 11:02 AM - Post#236983
In response to palestra38
We are playing much better defense on the 3s because Woods and Foreman get out much quicker and more effectively than our guard combos last year, plus they know that they have their backs covered by the 2 bigs inside.
Penn's defensive rating thus far is 12 points per 100 poss higher when Woods and Foreman are on the floor together versus all other lineups. Not that 92 poss are a good representation of what we'll see moving forward, but just looking at what has happened, Penn's defensive outcomes have been worse with them on the floor together than not.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 11:28 AM - Post#236986
In response to mrjames
I readily agree that the sample is small. What I expect to keep seeing is that Penn's defense against the 3 is superior to the other teams playing our opponents. Time will either bear this out or not.
|
yoyo
Senior
Posts: 363
Reg: 03-25-09
|
11-20-17 11:38 AM - Post#236987
In response to palestra38
I think as Antonio continues to get in basketball shape, his defense will only improve.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Steve Donahue's assessment
11-20-17 12:14 PM - Post#236991
In response to palestra38
And that's fine, but magnitudes are important here.
Right now, Penn is allowing 17% shooting from 3. If we look at the middle 300 team defenses from last year, they allowed opponents to shoot 31.6% to 38.4% from three. So, while we can quibble about where Penn will end up in that range, the gap to the bottom of that range at present is over 2X the entire size of that range. Whether we'd add 7 threes to the made total of opponents thus far (31.2%) or 8 threes (33.3%) or 9 threes (35.4%) or 10 threes (37.5%), it doesn't change the fact that Penn is somewhere around an average defense (either a bit above or a bit below) versus looking like a Top 25 defense with its current 89 raw DRAT (only trivially worse adjusted with opponent ORATs at 99.8).
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
11-20-17 12:31 PM - Post#236994
In response to palestra38
"Luck" in your vocabulary means "that which I cannot explain."
No.
It means that some part of Penn's defensive success is due to the other team missing a greater percentage of shots they ordinarily make and/or the other team missing a greater percentage of shots other teams ordinarily make. Holding the opponents to a 17% make percentage on 3's is unsustainable. Even the best defense is incapable of doing that for an entire season.
I do agree Penn's defense has been doing a good job. None of the starting 5 are liabilities. Mike is just stating that there will be an inevitable regression to the mean.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 12:33 PM - Post#236995
In response to TheLine
I agree that the current numbers are probably unsustainable. But the test is if we consistently hold opponents to a lower 3 point percentage than other teams. I think that is likely.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 12:43 PM - Post#236997
In response to palestra38
The test should be whether you generally hold opponents to a lower percentage of 3pters taken as a percentage of overall shots. That’s a far more impressive component of what Penn is doing right now than its random success in keeping shots from falling.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 12:52 PM - Post#237001
In response to mrjames
Why wouldn't both be relevant? By discounting missed 3s as "luck", you're assuming that all 3s are taken wide open. There is a huge difference between having that hand in your face as someone comes up on you much more rapidly than you expect when you set to take the shot. Having guys that can get out quickly is the hallmark of good defense. You don't always want to play so tight that they don't take the shot, because that means there are openings to take it inside.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 12:56 PM - Post#237003
In response to palestra38
I don't have the time to have this argument again. Please read these for more:
https://kenpom.com/blog/offense-vs-defen se-3point-...
https://kenpom.com/blog/offense-vs-defen se-threepo...
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-20-17 01:01 PM - Post#237006
In response to mrjames
seriously. this is so intellectually lazy. it's like you never read anything besides what you type.
And the fact you don't realize you play the opposite role of this on the OT board is just so... something.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
Steve Donahue's assessment
11-20-17 01:13 PM - Post#237009
In response to palestra38
I agree that the current numbers are probably unsustainable. But the test is if we consistently hold opponents to a lower 3 point percentage than other teams. I think that is likely.
It's way early to draw any firm conclusions but I'm encouraged so far.
Last year Donahue resorted to a gimmicky D that was confusing to OOC opponents but didn't hold up as well in conference play. The quality of coaching in the league is high and teams knew what Penn's tendencies were.
This year we're seeing more man and matchup zone. The exterior defenders are playing more aggressively - probably because the starters are all capable of doing it. AJ and Max are doing a nice job reading the play behind them.
I'd like to see how the D holds up against better offenses.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 01:19 PM - Post#237011
In response to Jeff2sf
Jeff, you simply cannot control yourself can you?
Try ceasing the personal BS and try responding with some form of basketball knowledge as to what I said. Or do you think it just is irrelevant and that it doesn't matter how we play defense?
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-20-17 01:29 PM - Post#237013
In response to palestra38
when you read and respond to Mike James' posts, then we'll talk. But you can't do that, can you, Colin?
|
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4471
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
11-20-17 02:30 PM - Post#237027
In response to Jeff2sf
Now that's an insult... I'm Colin, not P38, and I'm staying out of this debate...
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-20-17 02:54 PM - Post#237035
In response to Cvonvorys
Mike and I actually addressed P38's idea on another thread, where I took the P38 role, wondering how it would be possible to run guys off the three-point line but not to affect their make percentage when they did shoot. My conclusion was that three-point defense would have to work like the strong force in physics--non-existent until you get very, very close and then extremely powerful. That's possible and consistent with the data, but I do wonder why the same would not apply to two-point jumpers.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-20-17 03:13 PM - Post#237037
In response to SRP
It does work the same way, but the two points versus three points basically renders it impossible to be an efficient shot.
|
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
PhD Student
Posts: 1171
Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
|
11-20-17 04:28 PM - Post#237043
In response to SRP
My conclusion was that three-point defense would have to work like the strong force in physics--non-existent until you get very, very close and then extremely powerful.
May I suggest we begin referring to Antonio, Darnell, and Devon as The Quark Brothers?
Just a thought.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-20-17 04:45 PM - Post#237045
In response to T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
Our defensive strategy has shifted from last year. Not just personnel but strategy. Last year we soft hedged alll the ball screens and encouraged guards to come over the top and take 2 pt shots. The problem is we ended up giving up a lot more than just a contested two point shot. This year we are hard hedging most ball screens and also switching almost every screen who is a shooter. That’s because the coaches feel like AJ and Max (who lost 15 pounds and got a lot quicker) can stay in front of people better than we could last year.
Whether all that is true or not will take some time to figure out but the strategy is very different.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-21-17 01:55 PM - Post#237215
In response to PennFan10
Unless Mike wants to claim that defense doesn't affect two-point-jumper accuracy at all either, it can't work the same way.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-21-17 02:56 PM - Post#237219
In response to SRP
The general tendency is that as you get closer to the hoop, the defense has more control over outcomes. 2PT jumper is a nebulous term at the college level which makes sense for some reasons (the shot make rates tend to be similar across the distances that can be classified as jumpers) but different for other reasons (three-point jumpers are shot much more similarly than the differing shot types of two-point Js - so there’s likely some expectation difference across shots that doesn’t exist amongst 3PT Js; also some two point Js get blocked versus a trivial number of 3s).
So, it’s not exactly the same, but the same general principles apply.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Steve Donahue's assessment
11-21-17 03:46 PM - Post#237227
In response to mrjames
couple things:
1. you call it "having more control" because their opponents' fg % is consistent across games or seasons?
2. I've not had as much trouble with the idea that opponent 3% is random. what confuses me is how if that's true, why are your own players aren't random (i.e. that Ryan Betley is definitely a better 3 point shooter than Max Rothschild, why isn't that luck?)
I've basically made my peace with it in the same way that I've accepted that pitchers strikeouts are good/great but batters striking out a lot is not necessarily bad.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Steve Donahue's assessment
11-21-17 05:40 PM - Post#237252
In response to Jeff2sf
1. you call it "having more control" because their opponents' fg % is consistent across games or seasons?
More control because if you look at two-point percentage at the rim and at block rate, the defense controls more of the overall predictable portion of stats than it does for ones like two-point J% and 3PT%. It also has relatively more control over free throw rate, which on shooting fouls is most frequently given at the rim.
As for question 2, amongst those that would take threes (important here - you have to stay within the bounds of what the test considered... no guarantee this extrapolates), the three-point percentage isn’t very predictable, BUT of the portion that is predictable, the offense controls the vast majority of the variance.
And we can see how that plays out over the course of a season. Last year, Ryan Betley shot 40% from three. He did that with an 0-for-6, a couple 1-for-5s and so on. He also had a 6-for-10 and a couple 3-for-4s. Overall, he shot better than the national average because the offense controls the vast majority of the small, predictable part that is “skill-based,†and he has a lot of skill. But you’d be hard-pressed (and ill-advised) to draw a one game random sample and try to predict his overall rate from that. Similarly, you would expect to find basically nothing if you look at his rates against teams that were better than average against the three and worse than average against the three over the course of a season.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-22-17 09:04 AM - Post#237318
In response to mrjames
Last couple games in Estero, Penn has allowed opponents to shoot over 40 percent from three, but because 3s have only been ~30% of total shots, it hasn’t hurt all that much.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Steve Donahue's assessment
11-26-17 01:01 PM - Post#237944
In response to mrjames
And that's fine, but magnitudes are important here.
Right now, Penn is allowing 17% shooting from 3. If we look at the middle 300 team defenses from last year, they allowed opponents to shoot 31.6% to 38.4% from three. So, while we can quibble about where Penn will end up in that range, the gap to the bottom of that range at present is over 2X the entire size of that range. Whether we'd add 7 threes to the made total of opponents thus far (31.2%) or 8 threes (33.3%) or 9 threes (35.4%) or 10 threes (37.5%), it doesn't change the fact that Penn is somewhere around an average defense (either a bit above or a bit below) versus looking like a Top 25 defense with its current 89 raw DRAT (only trivially worse adjusted with opponent ORATs at 99.8).
Figured I'd bump this.
Now that Penn's up to 29 and change on 3PT% allowed, its raw defensive rating 97 is much closer to its ORAT of teams played 101. The free throw defense has helped dampen the rise. Putting FT defense at the national average and 3PT% allowed to the bottom of that range, we'd get to a team that is slightly better than national average on D (around, maybe slightly worse than, last year).
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Steve Donahue's assessment
11-26-17 01:25 PM - Post#237946
In response to mrjames
The free throw defense has helped dampen the rise. .
Donahue is playing moneyball--he's well ahead of his time. We all thought that FT defense, like height, cannot be taught.
Boy, were we wrong.
|
