Inexcusable

[cncchris33]

Yep. Freaking box out. Please.

And defend the perimeter. Don't just let teams shoot wide open 3's one after another.

 

[Incipient]

And defend the perimeter. Don't just let teams shoot wide open 3's one after another.

I haven't noticed that as a consistent problem, although it was a problem against Oakland, and Peay (Duke too? Don't recall). But at best, need more consistency

 

[DC_Vol]

Disclosure: I haven't gone and checked the stats. I haven't searched existing threads. I'm just making an observation based on watching the games.

It seems like the two losses I expected as wins, Oakland and AP, that the opposition shot a very good game from the floor. So can someone enlighten me:

1- Was that the case? And if so...

2- Was it primarily our defense to blame?

3- Or did we just happen to catch two mediocre teams on better than normal nights?

My recollection from the Oakland game was that we looked lazy on the boards. From AP, our D looked lazy at times. Just my observations.

What did you see?

 

[Incipient]

Disclosure: I haven't gone and checked the stats. I haven't searched existing threads. I'm just making an observation based on watching the games.

It seems like the two losses I expected as wins, Oakland and AP, that the opposition shot a very good game from the floor. So can someone enlighten me:

1- Was that the case? And if so...

2- Was it primarily our defense to blame?

3- Or did we just happen to catch two mediocre teams on better than normal nights?

My recollection from the Oakland game was that we looked lazy on the boards. From AP, our D looked lazy at times. Just my observations.

What did you see?

Peay shot 70+ percent in the second half. They were definitely having a hot shooting night, but a lot of it was complacency on our part. We'd defend well for a few minutes, then once we got the lead into double digits, we'd get lazy.

Oakland just had a ridiculous night shooting the basketball, but again our defense also could've done better

 

[DC_Vol]

Peay shot 70+ percent in the second half. They were definitely having a hot shooting night, but a lot of it was complacency on our part. We'd defend well for a few minutes, then once we got the lead into double digits, we'd get lazy.

Oakland just had a ridiculous night shooting the basketball, but again our defense also could've done better

Thanks - good info to know. It's hard to beat teams shooting that well.

I really expected us to come out and stamp out their will in the first half. I thought we'd come out a lot stronger to start both of those games.

What's inexcusable is not putting the AP game away when we had the opportunity going down the stretch in the second half.

 

[cncchris33]

Peay shot 70+ percent in the second half. They were definitely having a hot shooting night, but a lot of it was complacency on our part. We'd defend well for a few minutes, then once we got the lead into double digits, we'd get lazy.

Oakland just had a ridiculous night shooting the basketball, but again our defense also could've done better

Pretty accurate. Oakland was given too many open looks, and to their credit, they made them.

 

[zjcvols]

Don't bring facts to this show. We are last in scoring defense, last in TO margin, next to last in FG% defense, next to last in 3 point FG% defense, 7th in defensive rebounding, 7th in blocks and 10th in steals.

Yet, that translates to the redefined definition of "above average".

We've had the hardest schedule in the SEC so far. I don't understand how you can use eight games into a season and use those stats. That's like saying earlier in the year "Well, Bama's D is so much better than LSU" because they played bad teams while LSU played Oregon and West Virginia.

Two bad defensive games. We played decent defense against Duke, Duke was just better. The reason we lost to DUke is they played better on offense.

Memphis first half was bad, but since you love stats, we allowed Memphis to shoot 38.5% in the second half.

We've played two bad defensive games. Peay and Oakland. I have said that.

 

[cncchris33]

We've had the hardest schedule in the SEC so far. No we haven't. That is a bold-faced fabrication, and tells my that you are just using perception in an attempt to paint it as reality. Our SOS is 193rd in the nation right now. Only Auburn has a worse SOS, and it's 299th right now.I don't understand how you can use eight games into a season and use those stats. That's like saying earlier in the year "Well, Bama's D is so much better than LSU" because they played bad teams while LSU played Oregon and West Virginia. That would be a fair point if we, in fact, had played the hardest schedule as you incorrectly stated. However, we have had one of the easiest schedules so far.

Two bad defensive games. We played decent defense against Duke, Duke was just better. The reason we lost to DUke is they played better on offense. I have admitted as much, so don't pretend that you are presenting some new information here. I conceded that Duke is the only game that we lost where defense wasn't the culprit. Our defense was good enough to win that game, but our inability to even get off a 3-point shot (we only attempted eight) and their size inside was the difference. Again, defense cost us the other four losses. Agree to disagree if you will, but I can at least give facts to back up my claims, while all you can simply do is keep restating "two bad games".

Memphis first half was bad, but since you love stats, we allowed Memphis to shoot 38.5% in the second half. Well big deal. The damage was done in the first half as you pointed out. They shot 62% in the first half and 50% in both overtimes. For the game, they shot 51%. What were you hoping to prove in your personal crusade to convince everyone we have played sound defense by using a game where we gave up 99 points?

We've played two bad defensive games. Peay and Oakland. I have said that. Again, I disagree. We played poorly defensively against Memphis and Pitt as well. Was it as glaringly bad as the two you mentioned? No, but it wasn't good enough to beat two top 25 teams either, and the stats in those games show as much.

.

 

[Incipient]

Defense against Pitt was plenty good enough to beat a top 25 team, unless you're counting defensive rebounding as part of defense

 

[cncchris33]

Defense against Pitt was plenty good enough to beat a top 25 team, unless you're counting defensive rebounding as part of defense

I am, because it is a part of defense along with boxing out. I discussed that with you in another thread.

You can't give up 17 offensive rebounds to a top 25 team and hope to win a game where you create only 6 TOs and allow the opponent to shoot 42% from the field. I consider defense to be a 3 phase system; TOs, defensive rebounding, and defensive FG%. There are other stats that can be used to measure defensive efficiency as well, but they are usually subcategories of the three I named.

 

[Incipient]

I am, because it is a part of defense along with boxing out. I discussed that with you in another thread.

You can't give up 17 offensive rebounds to a top 25 team and hope to win a game where you create only 6 TOs and allow the opponent to shoot 42% from the field. I consider defense to be a 3 phase system; TOs, defensive rebounding, and defensive FG%. There are other stats that can be used to measure defensive efficiency as well, but they are usually subcategories of the three I named.

Right, you did mention that. I agree that you can't expect to beat a top 25 team when you let them dominate the offensive glass like that, but I'm sure I want to categorize that as part of defense. The disagreement here is probably only semantic though.

 

[cncchris33]

Right, you did mention that. I agree that you can't expect to beat a top 25 team when you let them dominate the offensive glass like that, but I'm sure I want to categorize that as part of defense. The disagreement here is probably only semantic though.

The statistical category is called "defensive rebounding" for a reason. If the opponent is getting offensive rebounds, it is usually a product of the other team not boxing out and getting defensive rebounds. The exception would be on long rebounds on outside shots that may possibly carom off far from the basket. Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Incipient]

The statistical category is called "defensive rebounding" for a reason. If the opponent is getting offensive rebounds, it is usually a product of the other team not boxing out and getting defensive rebounds. The exception would be on long rebounds on outside shots that may possibly carom off far from the basket. Agree to disagree I guess.

No, I agree that it's a product of not boxing out. But when I think of "defense," I think of creating turnovers and forcing bad shots, not boxing out. I guess I split the game into three phases (offense, defense, and rebounding) instead of two. Still, we're agreeing on the actual problem, just not the name for it

 

[cncchris33]

No, I agree that it's a product of not boxing out. But when I think of "defense," I think of creating turnovers and forcing bad shots, not boxing out. I guess I split the game into three phases (offense, defense, and rebounding) instead of two. Still, we're agreeing on the actual problem, just not the name for it

True.

 

[zjcvols]

.

Pitt
Duke
Memphis
at Oakland

Those are four tough games. Tell me what SEC team has played four tougher OOC opponents so far. I'm curious.

 

[WA_Vol]

Disagree with your last statement. I'm not saying the decision as to whether CCM keeps his job should be made after 8 games, but I think you cam look at the collective body of work after 8 games and determine with a fair amount of certainty that their are some real deficiencies, especially pertaining to defensive coaching.

In your profession, does your boss wait until the end of the year to tell you that you were screwing up in March? No. So, its not unfair after 25% of the games have been played, to evaluate how his team has played to this point and stating what needs improvement.

You make some good points.
My point is really, AP was a game they overlooked and weren't ready to play. It's not a good barometer for how the team plays the whole season. You try to evaluate a coach on how a team improves, you are not going to be able to measure that until the end of the season. To me that's where the good coaches stand out and make the biggest impact.

 

[cncchris33]

You make some good points.
My point is really, AP was a game they overlooked and weren't ready to play. It's not a good barometer for how the team plays the whole season. You try to evaluate a coach on how a team improves, you are not going to be able to measure that until the end of the season. To me that's where the good coaches stand out and make the biggest impact.

I'll agree with that. However, what you're saying sort of plays into what I said. A coach's future should be evaluated at seasons end. But like you said, we can judge how his team has improved at different points in the season without saying he needs to be fired in lieu of the results. I think its fair to say, something is amiss defensively. Does that mean I think he should be fired? No, that's crazy.

 

[cncchris33]

Pitt
Duke
Memphis
at Oakland

Those are four tough games. Tell me what SEC team has played four tougher OOC opponents so far. I'm curious.

You are just being argumentative at this point.

According to the SOS formula, which weighs much more than the name on the front of the jersey that seems to enamor you, 10 other SEC teams have played a tougher schedule. Oakland is a decent mid-major, Duke is a legit top 15 team, Pitt is a fringe top 25 team that will most likely be exposed in Big East play, and Memphis is a stocked collection of inexperienced talent that is poorly coached to play a glorified version of And1 basketball. The historical tradition of the last three suggests we have played a murderers row schedule, but the fact is, we haven't.

The other four patsies we have played, one of which we lost to because of poor defense, don't help that SOS either. However, they certainly provided an equal number of chances to beef up those mediocre defensive numbers, and yet we still rank near the bottom of nearly every defensive statistical category.

 

[calban]

You are just being argumentative at this point.

According to the SOS formula, which weighs much more than the name on the front of the jersey that seems to enamor you, 10 other SEC teams have played a tougher schedule. Oakland is a decent mid-major, Duke is a legit top 15 team, Pitt is a fringe top 25 team that will most likely be exposed in Big East play, and Memphis is a stocked collection of inexperienced talent that is poorly coached to play a glorified version of And1 basketball. The historical tradition of the last three suggests we have played a murderers row schedule, but the fact is, we haven't.

The other four patsies we have played, one of which we lost to because of poor defense, don't help that SOS either. However, they certainly provided an equal number of chances to beef up those mediocre defensive numbers, and yet we still rank near the bottom of nearly every defensive statistical category.

I was actually shocked when i checked our SOS ranking this year.
Thought we'd be near the top.
We're at #156
someone seems to know what he's talking about.

 

[Velo Vol]

I was actually shocked when i checked our SOS ranking this year.
Thought we'd be near the top.
We're at #156

But we almost beat Memphis!!!

 

[cncchris33]

I was actually shocked when i checked our SOS ranking this year.
Thought we'd be near the top.
We're at #156
someone seems to know what he's talking about.

I guess it depends on where you check. CBS has the SOS at 193, but in either case, its not good.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

I'm not usually one to complain about this, but any SOS rank below 50 seems unreasonably low for an SEC east team (schedule-wise) that also plays Duke, Memphis twice, Pitt, and the defending national champions.

 

[calban]

I'm not usually one to complain about this, but any SOS rank below 50 seems unreasonably low for an SEC east team (schedule-wise) that also plays Duke, Memphis twice, Pitt, and the defending national champions.

I thought the same.
Really shocked.

 

[Velo Vol]

I'm not usually one to complain about this, but any SOS rank below 50 seems unreasonably low for an SEC east team (schedule-wise) that also plays Duke, Memphis twice, Pitt, and the defending national champions.

We haven't played all those teams yet.

 

[cncchris33]

I'm not usually one to complain about this, but any SOS rank below 50 seems unreasonably low for an SEC east team (schedule-wise) that also plays Duke, Memphis twice, Pitt, and the defending national champions.

SOS only measures teams that you have already played, thus making it the backbone of my argument. It will rise or fall with each team we play, and by the end of the season, will be remarkably higher.