Houston's defense

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

So I was curious about something and I need to look into it more than just Houston but............

I'm big on efficiency stats. For the past nine years Houston has been rated in the top 10 in defensive efficiency 8 of the 9 seasons. As most know, efficiency numbers are based on the 4 factors:

1) Effective FG%
2) Turnover %
3) Rebounding %
4) Free Throw Rate.

In those nine seasons this is what Houston rated in Effecitive FG%

10th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 1st, 6th

However these are Houston's Free Throw Rates also on defense in those seasons:
281st, 216th, 318th, 286th, 287th, 329th, 324th, 282nd, 322nd

So I guess what I'm wondering is does playing tough defense involving fouling. One would assume that if you are limiting teams to low FG% you are playing tight defense and in turn more prone to fouling.

I just wonder that although Free Throw Rate is a factor that in of itself helps effiiciency if the benefits of forcing a low FG% outweighs the negatives of fouling. I'd like to look at other top defensive teams and see if this is the same. If there's a negative correleation between effective FG% and say Free Throw Rate.

Just something I might have to remind myself when I'm screaming at the TV next UK to stop fouling LOL.

 

[BlueSince92]

Woah. That's definitely worth looking into. And if there is a causal connection then you would hope people would start to use a more nuanced definition of efficiency. Does no good at all to stop the ball moving only to guarantee it's going to start moving again with no defenders and with the clock stopped while your opponent slowly settles into the double bonus.

 

[Anon1751335390]

Free throw rate is the least important of the 4 factors. Trading off that for dominance in the other categories seems good.

 

[Anon1751335390]

If you look at other dominant defenses, like UK in 2015 and the great Virginia defenses, they were pretty good at not fouling.

Dominant defending comes in many flavors.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

Free throw rate is the least important of the 4 factors. Trading off that for dominance in the other categories seems good.

I wonder if there has to be this tradeoff. I guess in 25 looking at the top 10 in effective FG%, FTR tended to be all over the map. You had a team like Duke who was 1st in this and just 18th in FTR. UC Irvine tended to excel at both. You also had teams like VCU, Houston, Hofstra that was on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

If you look at other dominant defenses, like UK in 2015 and the great Virginia defenses, they were pretty good at not fouling.

Dominant defending comes in many flavors.

Yep. I guess it doesn't matter which ones u excel in..........so much as you excel in something. You do well in one factor, you have a pretty good defense.........you excel in two factors, you likely have a top defense.

 

[BlueSince92]

I do think analytics can get you only so far. Because I'm the right kind of nerd to always check Kenpom several times a day most seasons, I remember just a lot of years when we had great Kenpom-rated defensive efficiency, but we were as formidable as wet tissue in games, especially in big games. It was almost like Cal had found some way to game the system numerically but couldn't make it carry over to W/L.

 

[I’m The Village Idiot]

I wonder if there has to be this tradeoff. I guess in 25 looking at the top 10 in effective FG%, FTR tended to be all over the map. You had a team like Duke who was 1st in this and just 18th in FTR. UC Irvine tended to excel at both. You also had teams like VCU, Houston, Hofstra that was on the other end of the spectrum.

View attachment 1087684

I would suppose that foul rate and elite defenses wouldn’t always have to be related. I agree that Sampson employs a very physical, extending defense with heavy pressure. That can be an elite defense, but also conservative defenses can also be elite. A lot of it comes down to coaching philosophy. For a guy like Sampson, he may view his defense as an initiator for his offense in the sense that he wants to create a level of havoc that can benefit his teams which aren’t historically always great offensive teams. Some of these coaches will, for better or worse, play such a physical brand of basketball as to reset the expectations of what a play-on is to an official. They count on officials growing tired of blowing a whistle to an extent and thus creating an advantageous (for them) type of physical game. Sampson, Pearl and (of my favorites) Buzz Williams are notorious for this. Funny thing is —- and I may get crushed for this —- we are actually now doing it ourselves. As much as we hear Pope talking about defending legally in press conferences, it appears we are bending the rules quite a bit out there and I personally love it.

 

[Anon1751335390]

Yep. I guess it doesn't matter which ones u excel in..........so much as you excel in something. You do well in one factor, you have a pretty good defense.........you excel in two factors, you likely have a top defense.

Yeah.

The 2015 team is curious. Despite starting a lineup with 3 bigs, they were actually terrible at defensive rebounding.

Conversely, Pope's teams here are often maligned for being bad at rebounding, but they have been elite defensive rebounding teams.

There is no perfect defending team. Focusing on one aspect will take from another, be it due to tactics or even just a natural consequence of limits on practice time.

 

[HipTer]

I think this UK team would make Kelvin Sampson proud.