Three-pointers are the chink in NU’s defensive armor
- Thread starter lou v
- Start date
I think this is clearly a choice the coaches have made. Very few teams, and certainly not us, have the athletes to cover everything. We have made a choice that we are going to double down low and overplay the passing lanes. When you make that commitment, you are going to have to leave some shooters more room than you'd like. If a team shoots like Michigan, or one guy gets hot, like Spencer, it will be a problem, but on the whole, I think it's been a good strategy, successful and fun to watch.
Relating to the defense, I wonder if anyone else is seeing this. Often on defense I see the Cats swarm the ball, try to force a bad pass and then if a pass gets through, fly out at the shooter. That kind of reminds me of Joe McKeown's Blizzard defense. Am I just imagining things, or are there some similarities?
Relating to the defense, I wonder if anyone else is seeing this. Often on defense I see the Cats swarm the ball, try to force a bad pass and then if a pass gets through, fly out at the shooter. That kind of reminds me of Joe McKeown's Blizzard defense. Am I just imagining things, or are there some similarities?
I agree with your assessment of what we have been doing defensively. However, nothing is forcing us to continue doing what we've been doing. Collins knows that Nicholson is a better post defender than he thought at the beginning of the season, when Verhoeven was his starter. The defensive scheme (always double the post) was probably built around Verhoeven. I really hope we are modifying our approach, because what worked against weak non-conference teams is NOT working against the Big Ten.
The stats are screaming at us...
| Opponent | 2PT / 2PTA | 2PT% | 3PT / 3PTA | 3PT% | e3FG% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mich St | 15/33 | 45.4 | 8/22 | 36.4 | 54.6 |
| Ohio St | 20/41 | 48.8 | 6/15 | 40.0 | 60.0 |
| Illinois | 15/30 | 50.0 | 8/28 | 28.6 | 42.9 |
| Indiana | 23/44 | 52.2 | 9/18 | 50.0 | 75.0 |
| Rutgers | 12/36 | 33.3 | 11/18 | 61.1 | 91.7 |
| Michigan | 19/34 | 55.9 | 10/22 | 45.5 | 68.2 |
The effective field goal percentage tells the story, especially in the last 3 games. Shots we allow from outside the arc are doing much more damage than the 2 point shots we allow.
Kudos to Lou for a very interesting article.
This is a good example of how so many things about the game are very hard to spot at home, or even in the arena. I have always found it so amazing how much more I see if I am like within 10 rows of the court.
I have voiced the opinion that our weakness is the way we defend the post. The obvious and visible aspect of this is how we double and what happens after the double. The less obvious is the way we position ourselves in anticipation of how we prepare to help or double inside. A smidge too eager on the help inside and we are a split second too slow to close out on shooters.
The deeper we get in conference the more teams are prepared to face what we have.
This is a good example of how so many things about the game are very hard to spot at home, or even in the arena. I have always found it so amazing how much more I see if I am like within 10 rows of the court.
I have voiced the opinion that our weakness is the way we defend the post. The obvious and visible aspect of this is how we double and what happens after the double. The less obvious is the way we position ourselves in anticipation of how we prepare to help or double inside. A smidge too eager on the help inside and we are a split second too slow to close out on shooters.
The deeper we get in conference the more teams are prepared to face what we have.
Recent NU winners involved a shift towards guarding the 3 point more closely while still doubling to some degree.
What’s most interesting is that NU is not effectively limiting attempts. On a per-game basis, also in the top 2 or 3 in 3FGA.
I still don’t know what Pack Line means, nor whether NU runs those concepts any longer, but I know that limiting deep attempts is a core philosophy of the system.
I still don’t know what Pack Line means, nor whether NU runs those concepts any longer, but I know that limiting deep attempts is a core philosophy of the system.
The philosophy is to limit possessions by forcing turnovers. If a turnover isn't forced, then teams will tend to take the most open looks, and against NU's defense, that results in open looks from beyond the arc.
But NU does force lots of turnovers, which usually result in more transition points (which are good for an offensively-challenged team like NU).
So the tradeoff is forced turnovers vs. open threes.
Your eFG calculation is completely incorrect if these are the shooting numbers from the games.
I don’t think it’s wrong; it’s just misinterpreted. What if each team shot 1 3-pointer and made it? That would be 150% e3FG%, but it would mean they only scored a total of 3 points. That doesn’t scream anything at us; you also need to also consider how many 3’s vs. 2’s are taken. If you do, only the Rutgers game indicates the strategy is poor, as they scored more total points on 3s than 2s.
I mean, we won 3 of these games. It would seem very odd to conclude that we have a stat “screaming at us” what we always do wrong, no?
I mean, we won 3 of these games. It would seem very odd to conclude that we have a stat “screaming at us” what we always do wrong, no?
Looks like you misunderstood what I was doing with the last column.
If a team makes 50% of their 3's against us, thats like making 75% of their 2's.
So the e3FG% is 1.5 times the 3FG%.
Your column combines the 2's and the 3's, which obscures the difference.
My e3FG% shows how much more we are being hurt by shots from 3 versus shots from 2.
(essentially its the percentage of 2 points our opponent gets per shot attempt from 3)
You might want to rethink your premise. The total points for 3 are always 1.5 times greater than the same shots from two. That's automatic. You can't compare the effect of the three vs. the two in a percentage ("Shots we allow from outside the arc are doing much more damage than the 2 point shots we allow") by completely ignoring the twos attempted in each game.
If a team goes 2-4 from 3 but 27-36 from 2, the PWB e3FG% would be 75%. Two 3s does not do more damage than 75% on 36 shots from 2.
the Effective Field Goal percentage (a somewhat common stat) combines the 3's and the 2's into a single shooting percentage. Thats what Cappy's column above represents. EFG% = (2FG + 1.5 * 3FG) / (2FGA + 3FGA)
The number I posted way up above represents (as a percentage) E3FG% = 1.5 * 3FG / 3FGA.
The context is "percentage of 2 points scored per shot attempted."
Neither "percentage" tells you how many total points were scored from 2 or 3, but my numbers tell you how effective our opponents have been against us from 2 or 3. They get to decide how many 2s or 3s to attempt.
This is the same information, described differently. It shows that we are defending the 2 better than the 3.
| Opponent | 2PT / 2PTA | Pts / 2PTA | 3PT / 3PTA | Pts / 3PTA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mich St | 15/33 | 0.91 | 8/22 | 1.09 |
| Ohio St | 20/41 | 0.98 | 6/15 | 1.2 |
| Illinois | 15/30 | 1.0 | 8/28 | 0.86 |
| Indiana | 23/44 | 1.04 | 9/18 | 1.50 |
| Rutgers | 12/36 | 0.67 | 11/18 | 1.83 |
| Michigan | 19/34 | 1.12 | 10/22 | 1.37 |
I understand the context is a percentage of 2 points scored per shot attempt. However, that's the same in every game and doesn't offer much insight into the 3s vs 2s in each game like it seems you're trying to do.
e3FG% doesn't consider the context of the true twos taken in each game, so it doesn't tell us much about the damage or the defense. 2/4 from 3 is not nearly the same as 14/28 from 3. But by the e3FG%, it would demonstrate a similar "damage" ... "effectiveness" ..."how much more we are being hurt by shots from 3."
I can buy the second chart (Pts/2PTA vs. Pts/3PTA) as a tad more of a true measure, but it still won't demonstrate "how much more we are being hurt" by 14/28 vs 2/4.
I just don't quite understand how this tells us much of anything, when you can just compare eFG% to regular FG% to see how 3-pointers affect us, but it's always possible I haven't had enough coffee for my brain to properly understand.