Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Norm Peterson

Y'know, it occurs to me ...

30 posts in this topic

A couple of seasons ago when we made the dance, we had ...

  • A solid catch-and-shoot 3-point threat
  • A couple of guys who could attack the glass off the bounce
  • Another kid who could create his own shot from deep, would occasionally get hot, but was mostly just a pedestrian shooter from long range
  • A true freshman point guard who was almost afraid to shoot

 

And those were our starters.

 

In addition, we had back-up depth of ...

  • A crafty 6'8 wide-body who could only give us about 17 min/game
  • A wiry 6'7 power forward who put up 3 and 3 in 20 minutes/game
  • An undersized sophomore PG who was a sparkplug off the bench but not a threat to score

 

Just thinkin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solid catch-and-shoot 3-point threat.

Two guys who can attack the glass off the bounce.

Another kid who can create his own shot from deep and occasionally gets hot.

 

 

Just thinkin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • A solid catch-and-shoot 3-point threat  (Andrew White)
  • A couple of guys who could attack the glass off the bounce (Tai Webster and Anton Gill)
  • Another kid who could create his own shot from deep, would occasionally get hot (Glynn Watson)

 

Is anyone else seeing some parallels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Both this team and that team had a primary 3-point specialist.

 

This team has Andrew White the Three.  That team had Walter P for Three.

 

Compare.

 

 

2.  Both this team and that team had a SG who could score at all three levels.

 

This team has Anton Gill.  That team had Terran Petteway.

 

Can't compare because we haven't seen enough of Gill, but we can make some educated guesses.  Make them.

 

 

3.  Both this team and that team had a guard who could create from deep.

 

This team has Glynn Watson.  That team had Ray Gallegos.

 

Compare.

 

 

4.  Both this team and that team had a Tai Webster.

 

This team has Tai as a senior.  That team had Tai as a true freshman.

 

Compare.

 

 

5.  That team had a Shavon Shields as a sophomore starter at the 4.  This team has an Ed Morrow, a Michael Jacobson or a Jack McVeigh as sophomores to start at the 4.

 

Compare.

 

 

6.  That team had Benny Parker, David Rivers, and Leslee Smith for depth off the bench.  This team has some combination of either Tai or Anton, Jack McVeigh, Isaiah Roby, Jeriah Horne, and one of either Ed, Michael, or Jordy for depth off the bench.

 

Compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways, the comparisons between this team and that team are ridiculous in favor of the current team.

 

Today's Tai vs. the freshman Tai?  Ridiculous.  Tai has taken a quantum leap forward in his abilities and the Tai that we saw at the end of this past season seems to be carrying over into this summer for Team New Zealand.

 

Today's bench vs. the bench of 3 years ago?  Ridiculous.  Today's bench is so much better it's not even fair.  David Rivers actually started about half the games that season (14 of 32).  I'm not sure he'd see the floor this year.

 

Andrew vs. Walter?  Give me Andrew, hands down.

 

 

Where things are closer is the other comparisons.

 

Glynn vs. Gallegos?  Similar shooting percentages from deep.  Big advantage to Glynn in ball-handling and scoring in other ways, but Ray was a lock-down defender and we can't diminish that aspect of what he brought to the table.

 

Sophomore Shavon vs. the three-headed monster of sophomore PFs now?  Shavon was awfully good as a sophomore. 

 

Terran vs. Anton?  Terran could score almost at will.  Maybe not as efficiently as you'd like.  And he'd do some things that would make you want to pull your hair out.  Great defensive length that gives him an advantage over Gill.  But, what little I've seen from Gill makes me think the battle would be pretty close. 

 

In terms of size?  With the addition of Jordy, particularly if he's good enough to start, this team wins hands down.  We were bringing a 6'7, 200# kid off the bench to play PF 3 seasons ago.  And, about half the time, he started.

 

This current group out-sizes that group, out-athletes that group, out-skills that group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shall see.  It seems that the pieces are in place.  Arguably we have better talent, but do we have the heart...do we have the passion...do we have the intangibles that takes a team from good to great.  Yes, we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That team got hot at the right time and had their schedule break right (we played the weaker part of our big ten schedule down the stretch and happened to get hot -- don't get me wrong, we earned that bid, but it didn't hurt us any given the emphasis on how you close the season around selection day).  it's going to be hard to duplicate that kind of deal.

 

having said that, given the HUGE advantages in certain areas, by the end of the year this team should most definitely be better.  if we make the ncaa's, it's because we earned it and have flat out taken that step forward as a program.  IMO the run a few years ago was both a bit of a fluke and a harbinger that miles could actually coach.

 

nothing wrong with arriving earlier than you thought was possible -- it was sure a heck of a fun run while it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had.  We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers.  For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had.  We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers.  For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point. 

 

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had.  We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers.  For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point. 

 

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense.

 

Quite possible but I don't think that we have played anywhere near the type of D that team did during the later portion of the season.  I am not sure I can be convinced otherwise.  I am confident in my assessment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of seasons ago when we made the dance, we had ...

  • A solid catch-and-shoot 3-point threat
  • A couple of guys who could attack the glass off the bounce
  • Another kid who could create his own shot from deep, would occasionally get hot, but was mostly just a pedestrian shooter from long range
  • A true freshman point guard who was almost afraid to shoot

 

And those were our starters.

 

In addition, we had back-up depth of ...

  • A crafty 6'8 wide-body who could only give us about 17 min/game
  • A wiry 6'7 power forward who put up 3 and 3 in 20 minutes/game
  • An undersized sophomore PG who was a sparkplug off the bench but not a threat to score

 

Just thinkin'.

 

Calling Rivers "Wiry".  Someone please link the introduction of the kicker in The Replacements to the assistant coach.   "He's wiry".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had.  We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers.  For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point. 

 

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense.

 

Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. 

 

Steals.  Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them.  A whole entire steal a game more.  This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats.  Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively.  We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. 

 

FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category.  However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse.  And we allowed more attempts.  We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game.  When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th.  However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes.  And it was.  A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year.  We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. 

 

offensive boards.  We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team

 

Steal percentage.  Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5.  We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. 

 

Defensive points per 100 possessions.  On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team.  We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year.  However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected.  73rd in the nation the tourney year.  Dropped to 85th the following year. 

 

3 point attempt rate against.  Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year.  Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier.  This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. 

 

effective FG percentage  This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year.  We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. 

 

offensive rebound percentage allowed.  Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent.  Next year was up to 31.1.  We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year.  We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. 

 

You add all of this up and it is not particularly close.  The tourney team was easily the superior defense.  Simple eye test told me that though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had.  We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers.  For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point. 

 

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense.

 

Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. 

 

Steals.  Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them.  A whole entire steal a game more.  This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats.  Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively.  We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. 

 

FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category.  However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse.  And we allowed more attempts.  We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game.  When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th.  However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes.  And it was.  A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year.  We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. 

 

offensive boards.  We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team

 

Steal percentage.  Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5.  We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. 

 

Defensive points per 100 possessions.  On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team.  We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year.  However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected.  73rd in the nation the tourney year.  Dropped to 85th the following year. 

 

3 point attempt rate against.  Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year.  Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier.  This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. 

 

effective FG percentage  This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year.  We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. 

 

offensive rebound percentage allowed.  Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent.  Next year was up to 31.1.  We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year.  We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. 

 

You add all of this up and it is not particularly close.  The tourney team was easily the superior defense.  Simple eye test told me that though. 

 

 

Stats are stats, but it doesn't necessarily point to your "It's Molinari" theory.  We had Leslee Smith that year, and a somewhat motivated Walt.  Since then we've had no bigs.  When you have to double the post, you will give up more 3s.  The offensive rebounding discussion is also personnel based, IMO.  I don't disagree that the tournament team defense was better.  But there was going to be a fall off no matter who was coaching that D. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some season stats comparing 2012-13 with 2014-15 from Huskers.com (hopefully I have the details correct):

FG% by other team: .434 in 12-13; .404 in 14-15

3 Pt. % by other team: .334 in 12-13; .334 in 14-15

FTA by other team: 659 in12-13; 627 in 14-15

Av. RB by other team: 35.2 in 12-13; 35.0 in 14-15

Assists by other team: 366 in 12-13; 324 in 14-15

TO by other team: 368 in 12-13; 415 in 14-15

Blocks by other team: 136 in 12-13; 96 in 14-15

Steals by NU: 167 in 12-13; 192 in 14-15

Av. Pts. By other team: 63.5 in 12-13; 63.1 in 14-15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some season stats comparing 2012-13 with 2014-15 from Huskers.com (hopefully I have the details correct):

FG% by other team: .434 in 12-13; .404 in 14-15

3 Pt. % by other team: .334 in 12-13; .334 in 14-15

FTA by other team: 659 in12-13; 627 in 14-15

Av. RB by other team: 35.2 in 12-13; 35.0 in 14-15

Assists by other team: 366 in 12-13; 324 in 14-15

TO by other team: 368 in 12-13; 415 in 14-15

Blocks by other team: 136 in 12-13; 96 in 14-15

Steals by NU: 167 in 12-13; 192 in 14-15

Av. Pts. By other team: 63.5 in 12-13; 63.1 in 14-15

 

 

What about the comparison between '13-14 to '14-15?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. 

 

I spent 5 minutes looking over stats before I posted. Here is what I'm looking at from KenPom. For those not familiar he charts the "Four Factors Concept" as percentage which removes Tempo from the equation.

b991f5564f.png

 

 

offensive boards.  We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team

 

offensive rebound percentage allowed.  Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent.  Next year was up to 31.1.  We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year.  We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. 

 

Our offensive rebounding % don't quite match but the tourney team was better at protecting the glass.

 

Steals.  Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them.  A whole entire steal a game more.  This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats.  Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively.  We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. 

 

Steal percentage.  Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5.  We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. 

 

Steals are a subset of turnovers and an indication of style. Some teams aggressively force turnovers that way, some don't. Our turnover % was higher in 2014-15 than 2013-14....that's the number that really matters.

 

 

 

FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category.  However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse.  And we allowed more attempts.  We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game.  When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th.  However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes.  And it was.  A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year.  We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. 

 

3 point attempt rate against.  Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year.  Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier.  This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. 

 

effective FG percentage  This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year.  We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. 

 

The 2pt/3pt stuff is all a subset of effective FG, which normalizes the values of the shots.  Our eFG% was lower in 2014-15 than 2013-14. You can hem and haw over allowing more 3s and more 3s to go in but our strength on the 2pt shot negated it.

 

 

Defensive points per 100 possessions.  On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team.  We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year.  However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected.  73rd in the nation the tourney year.  Dropped to 85th the following year.

 

 You're right that overall the offensive numbers in all of college basketball went down from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and so you'd need to have a relatively lower defensive points per possession than the previous year.  However when you look at the adjusted efficiency ( accounting for quality of offense, locations of the game, give more weight towards games towards the end of the year) both teams were top 25.

 

 

Not included previously was the foul rate...we fouled more in 2013-14 than 2014-15.

 

You add all of this up and it is not particularly close.  The tourney team was easily the superior defense.  Simple eye test told me that though.

 

I think there is a good argument that the 2013-14 team was essentially two different teams...one with and one without Deverell Biggs and one that probably was overall a better defensive team at times. However, overall the notion that the two teams aren't particularly close over the course of the year and that the 2013-14 team is easily better is something I completely disagree about.

 

I would concur that adding up all the things that support one's point of view is quite simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here are some season stats comparing 2012-13 with 2014-15 from Huskers.com (hopefully I have the details correct):

FG% by other team: .434 in 12-13; .404 in 14-15

3 Pt. % by other team: .334 in 12-13; .334 in 14-15

FTA by other team: 659 in12-13; 627 in 14-15

Av. RB by other team: 35.2 in 12-13; 35.0 in 14-15

Assists by other team: 366 in 12-13; 324 in 14-15

TO by other team: 368 in 12-13; 415 in 14-15

Blocks by other team: 136 in 12-13; 96 in 14-15

Steals by NU: 167 in 12-13; 192 in 14-15

Av. Pts. By other team: 63.5 in 12-13; 63.1 in 14-15

 

 

What about the comparison between '13-14 to '15-16?

 

 

It would be closer to compare it vs the 2013-14 defense, especially if you're a sadist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here are some season stats comparing 2012-13 with 2014-15 from Huskers.com (hopefully I have the details correct):

FG% by other team: .434 in 12-13; .404 in 14-15

3 Pt. % by other team: .334 in 12-13; .334 in 14-15

FTA by other team: 659 in12-13; 627 in 14-15

Av. RB by other team: 35.2 in 12-13; 35.0 in 14-15

Assists by other team: 366 in 12-13; 324 in 14-15

TO by other team: 368 in 12-13; 415 in 14-15

Blocks by other team: 136 in 12-13; 96 in 14-15

Steals by NU: 167 in 12-13; 192 in 14-15

Av. Pts. By other team: 63.5 in 12-13; 63.1 in 14-15

 

 

What about the comparison between '13-14 to '15-16?

 

 

It would be closer to compare it vs the 2013-14 defense, especially if you're a sadist.

 

 

'13-14 to '14-15, which is what I meant. The cast of characters were similar so the comparison is apt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. 

 

I spent 5 minutes looking over stats before I posted. Here is what I'm looking at from KenPom. For those not familiar he charts the "Four Factors Concept" as percentage which removes Tempo from the equation.

b991f5564f.png

 

 

offensive boards.  We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team

 

offensive rebound percentage allowed.  Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent.  Next year was up to 31.1.  We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year.  We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. 

 

Our offensive rebounding % don't quite match but the tourney team was better at protecting the glass.

 

Steals.  Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them.  A whole entire steal a game more.  This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats.  Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively.  We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. 

 

Steal percentage.  Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5.  We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. 

 

Steals are a subset of turnovers and an indication of style. Some teams aggressively force turnovers that way, some don't. Our turnover % was higher in 2014-15 than 2013-14....that's the number that really matters.

 

 

 

FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category.  However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse.  And we allowed more attempts.  We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game.  When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th.  However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes.  And it was.  A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year.  We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. 

 

3 point attempt rate against.  Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year.  Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier.  This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. 

 

effective FG percentage  This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year.  We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. 

 

The 2pt/3pt stuff is all a subset of effective FG, which normalizes the values of the shots.  Our eFG% was lower in 2014-15 than 2013-14. You can hem and haw over allowing more 3s and more 3s to go in but our strength on the 2pt shot negated it.

 

 

Defensive points per 100 possessions.  On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team.  We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year.  However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected.  73rd in the nation the tourney year.  Dropped to 85th the following year.

 

 You're right that overall the offensive numbers in all of college basketball went down from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and so you'd need to have a relatively lower defensive points per possession than the previous year.  However when you look at the adjusted efficiency ( accounting for quality of offense, locations of the game, give more weight towards games towards the end of the year) both teams were top 25.

 

 

Not included previously was the foul rate...we fouled more in 2013-14 than 2014-15.

 

You add all of this up and it is not particularly close.  The tourney team was easily the superior defense.  Simple eye test told me that though.

 

I think there is a good argument that the 2013-14 team was essentially two different teams...one with and one without Deverell Biggs and one that probably was overall a better defensive team at times. However, overall the notion that the two teams aren't particularly close over the course of the year and that the 2013-14 team is easily better is something I completely disagree about.

 

I would concur that adding up all the things that support one's point of view is quite simple.

 

 

If you want to tell yourself our defensive is as good or better the following year go ahead.  I don't think it was, especially in the second half of the season.  Sometimes you have to let your eyes be your guide.  You are drastically undervaluing the importance of rebounding in your analysis IMO.  And the free throw stats were greatly impacted by the rules changes.  That UMASS game was so silly that it almost needs to be thrown out.   Also, I completely disagree about "turnover percentage is what really matters".  Steals are way more valuable that any other kind of turnover.  They often lead to run outs.  Other types of turnovers result in the opponent being able to set the defense up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The major comparison that is not likely to be favorable is the defensive chemistry that team had.  We were very difficult to score on AND we seemed go generate more turnovers.  For whatever reason, our defense has been nowhere near as effective since Molinari has taken it over from my vantage point. 

 

You're mis-remembering a bit unless part of the equation of defensive chemistry is that it inspires you to play well on offense. During Mo's first year two years ago we matched the defensive numbers of the tourney team...we just cratered on offense.

 

Some numbers that show you are the one mis-remembering, and not just a bit. 

 

Steals.  Like I suggested, we generated a lot more of them.  A whole entire steal a game more.  This seemed obvious to my eye, and it is also obvious looking at the stats.  Generated more runouts, which were huge since we were challenged offensively.  We ranked an alarming 102 spots higher in the nation in steals than the outfit you are suggesting was just as good defensively. 

 

FG % we improved from 94th to 65th in this category.  However, when you look at 3 pointers, we got way worse.  And we allowed more attempts.  We allowed 1.6 more 3 point attempts per game.  When more shots are 3's the sum fg % is obviously going to go down, which is what happened improving from 94 to 65th.  However our 3 point percentage defense seemed much worse to my eyes.  And it was.  A whopping 2 percentage points worse the following year.  We dropped 90 spots from 44th in three point percentage allowed to 134th the next year. 

 

offensive boards.  We allowed the other team half an offensive board more per game than the tourney team

 

Steal percentage.  Went from 10.5 all the way down to 9.5.  We dropped from an awesome 55th in nation to a pedestrian 167th in the nation. 

 

Defensive points per 100 possessions.  On the surface, it might look like we improved the year after the tourney team.  We allowed 97.3 points the 2nd year verse 99.5 the tourney year.  However, when you look at our rank in each we were better the tourney year, as I would have suspected.  73rd in the nation the tourney year.  Dropped to 85th the following year. 

 

3 point attempt rate against.  Allowed 35.6 percent attempt rate in tourney year.  Went up to 38.2 the next year and they shot it an alarming two percent better as I mentioned earlier.  This is bad, and one of the main reasons our defense way much worse. 

 

effective FG percentage  This is one category that we did improve on slightly the 2nd year.  We went from .476 to .468 and improved from 98th to 87th. 

 

offensive rebound percentage allowed.  Tourney team gave up off. board 29.5 percent.  Next year was up to 31.1.  We ranked 101 and fell all the way to 173rd the next year.  We were obviously in much better defensive rebounding position first year, which is a big part of team defense. 

 

You add all of this up and it is not particularly close.  The tourney team was easily the superior defense.  Simple eye test told me that though. 

 

 

Stats are stats, but it doesn't necessarily point to your "It's Molinari" theory.  We had Leslee Smith that year, and a somewhat motivated Walt.  Since then we've had no bigs.  When you have to double the post, you will give up more 3s.  The offensive rebounding discussion is also personnel based, IMO.  I don't disagree that the tournament team defense was better.  But there was going to be a fall off no matter who was coaching that D. 

 

I said for whatever reason our defenses haven't been as good under Moliari.  That is a fact.  They haven't been.  You can decide for yourself why that is.  But it isn't because we were thinner in terms of big men.  Smith was on both teams and the 14-15 club also had Abraham.  I don't particularly care why our defense has been worse.  All that I care about is that it has been worse.  We clearly need to get better in this regard or we are not going to get where we all want to get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norm I think this team could be even better than that team.

I agree. But we could be a year off. We'll see what these current sophomores learned last year and this off season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with the animosity toward Molinari?

He's a fine person and coach and recruiter (e.g., Roby).

As shown above, defensive stats for Molinari's first year are better than the defensive stats for the Tournament team, across the board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.