Anonymous
|
12-13-04 06:05 PM - Post#1215
Team Scoring Defense Leaders
Top 10
47.3 Air Force
50.1 Princeton
51.5 Ga Tech
51.8 Texas A&M
51.9 Washington St
53.2 Nebraska
54.5 Georgetown
54.6 Holy Cross
54.6 Samford
55.1 NC State
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Team Scoring Defense
12-13-04 06:41 PM - Post#1216
In response to
Of those, which do we know runs a Princeton system? Obviously the top two and Georgetown. NC State as well. Samford still runs it, right? Anyone else?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Team Scoring Defense
12-13-04 06:44 PM - Post#1217
In response to
Aside from telling you what kind of tempo a team plays (for which you hardly need these stats) is there a more meaningless stat out there?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Team Scoring Defense
12-13-04 07:41 PM - Post#1218
In response to
Quote:
Aside from telling you what kind of tempo a team plays (for which you hardly need these stats) is there a more meaningless stat out there?
Sure, it measures the ability to dictate tempo and limit possessions, but it at least is measuring success at something. 9 of the 10 have winning records and the other is .500.
For a less meaningful stat, I nominate 3-pointers per game.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Only four of the top 10 have winning records. No. 1 is 1-6, no. 2 is 6-1.
Only one of the top 10 (Texas) is in the top 25 in 3-point percentage. The rest just shoot a lot of 3's.
|
The Lion King
Senior
Posts: 394
Reg: 11-21-04
|
on the other hand . . .
12-14-04 12:21 AM - Post#1219
In response to
In 2001-02 Columbia led the nation in scoring defense and finished 4-10, 11-17.
I think the governing principle here is that Princetonball is so excruciating WHEN UNSUCCESSFUL that you only stick with it if you can do it well. So teams that play slowdown must be pretty good at it, and that explains why most of them have winning records (though W-L records can be deceptive at this point in the season, as the present Columbia squad perhaps shows).
|
Phil
Freshman
Posts: 75
Loc: Princeton
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: on the other hand . . .
12-14-04 12:49 AM - Post#1220
In response to The Lion King
Regarding the present Columbia team their record isn't so surprising if you consider their SOS which according to Sagarin is the weakest in Div-I! Scoring defense should probably considered along with shooting %allowed to get the whole picture.
|
ptontn
newbie
Posts: 14
Loc: Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: on the other hand . . .
12-14-04 02:30 AM - Post#1221
In response to Phil
Hey now, Columbia's schedule to date isn't the weakest! Texas A&M today took over that distinction after playing such powerhouses as Prairie View, NC A&T and my favorite, Texas at Permian Basin.
Of course, though, theirs is the only schedule with weaker opponents than Columbia.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: on the other hand . . .
12-14-04 02:37 AM - Post#1222
In response to The Lion King
Well, you can limit possessions and turn games into half-court contests, but you still have to make some shots on your end to win the games.
|
Bryan
Junior
Posts: 231
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: on the other hand . . .
12-14-04 03:08 AM - Post#1223
In response to
PPP.
With the advancement in baseball stats led by Bill James it's just amazed me that the basketball boxscore hasn't advanced to count possessions and measure offensive and defensive "efficiency" based on points per possession (PPP).
Jake provided figures on this for (at least) the first half of the Ivy season last year but it was difficult to put the figures into perspective without a broader base for comparison.
While there would be minor problems in measuring this (Do points from technicals count? Do you count that possession at the end of the half where the player took a 50' shot that wasn't rebounded before the half ended?) this would be a major improvement in the box score and in the ability to evaluate where teams are better and worse than their opposition over a full season.
If you know any stat men or women please encourage them to start gathering this information and including it in box scores.
Princeton is neither the best defensive team nor the worst offensive team, the main reason their stats look odd is just due to the lower # of possessions in their games.
Bryan
|
Anonymous
|
To be more precise...
12-14-04 04:12 AM - Post#1224
In response to
When I asked the question whether there was a 'more meaningless stat', I should have phrased it as follows: " is there a more misleading stat?"
If you really want to know which teams are good defensive teams and which are not, I would suggest you look at the opponents points/possession.
|
Stripes
Freshman
Posts: 62
Loc: Boston
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: To be more precise...
12-14-04 04:27 AM - Post#1225
In response to
It seems to me "opponents points/possession" clouds the issue of defensive competence with rebounding competence. Isn't defensive field goal percentage a better indication of defense?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: To be more precise...
12-14-04 05:08 AM - Post#1226
In response to Stripes
Quote:
It seems to me "opponents points/possession" clouds the issue of defensive competence with rebounding competence. Isn't defensive field goal percentage a better indication of defense?
I'm not sure I know what you mean... To me, the bottom line for defensive prowess is how hard is it for the other guy to score. I can't think of a stat that tells you more about this than how many points they score per possession. If you can't rebound on the defensive end of the court you're not playing very good defense, IMHO. After all, if you force the other guy to take a poor % shot and the don't get the defensive rebound the whole effort is something of a failure. Moreover, if you're playing defense and your players are not in position to 'box-out' they're really not playing a complete defensive scheme.
For example, there are certain zones that are much more effective than others rebounding (triangle and two), but aren't that effective at stopping outside shooting by fronline players. There are other zones that have exactly the opposite effect, reduce shooting efficiency at the expense of rebounding.
On top of all this is the fact that opponents shooting % doesn't account for steals, turnovers or foul shooting. A team could really go after shooters and foul a lot in the process. Shooting % would lead you to believe they were a 'good' defensive team'. Conversely, a team that gets a lot steals, forces a lot of turnovers wouldn't have their prowess reflected in shooting %. Lastly, there's the question of 3pt shooting. If one team is willing to give up 3 pt shots, but is very tough inside the circle you could easily see them with an opponents % of 40% or so. Another team could do the opposite and have an opponents # of 50% (made up primarily of 2 pt shots). Which is doing the better defensive job?
I guess I figure that you're on 'the defensive' until you regain possession of the ball and how many points they score when they come down the court (on average) is really telling you how good your defense is...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: To be more precise...
12-14-04 01:34 PM - Post#1227
In response to
I agree with that. Defense is about giving up fewer points per possession. The Carril defensive philosophy is related to, but separate from, the offensive philosophy. It is not just the offense taking time off the clock that reduces the number of possessions and keeps scores lower, but also the defensive focus on denying any baskets or even shots in transition. In many cases, Princeton sacrificed offensive rebounding in order to get back to force the opposing team to score from its half-court offense. That was not just to slow down the game but to better defend their possessions. If you force a team to play a half-court game and you are able to get better shots from your half-court offense than they get with theirs, you should score more points, per possession, and overall. While you might give up offensive rebound opportunities to get back on defense, you have to get the defensive rebounds, or as Chuck said, you do not make the defensive stop. Carril revised the offense and defense when the 3-point line suddenly made an open 20-footer a better shot than an open 15-footer. The points-per-possession dynamic had changed.
|
Bryan
Junior
Posts: 231
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: To be more precise...
12-14-04 10:46 PM - Post#1228
In response to Stripes
While defensive FG% is the first category I'd want to be good in defensively, it does not (necessarily) get you the ball back without the other team scoring. Clearly, forcing a high # of turnovers, getting a high % of defensive rebounds, not allowing a lot of 3's and not sending your opponent to the foul line often are also important contributors to a good (low) points per possesion rating.
However, I did see a PPP rating a few years ago posted at Kansas that was essentially based on the version you describe- it effectively treated every missed shot as a "new" possession.
Bryan
|
Anonymous
|
Re: New scoring defense leader
12-15-04 02:32 PM - Post#1229
In response to Bryan
Villanova is now 1st on the list, giving up only 46.8 ppg.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/leaders?cat=teamdef&type=2
They had been excluded from the previous list because they had not played 5 games. Odd schedule, with 3 non-conference games after conference play starts.
|
