(02-13-2017 08:22 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:21 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  Remember all those NCAA Championships Loyola Marymount won in the 90s when they set numerous scoring records..?

Good times...

I've heard "Defense wins championships"; never heard it the other way around.

Reality is Good Offense + Good defense wins championships. It almost never is an either or scenario in college basketball.

Agreed, you need both... but my preference would be stronger on defense if you have to choose.

(02-13-2017 08:23 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:21 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:17 AM)gerhard911 Wrote:  LOL at the "all it took was one loss" comment. We are in year 11, right?

So they should go undefeated in year 11? They have lost 3 freaking games all year. The metrics suggest SMU is a top 15 team and this game was on the road. Via sagarin winning at SMU is harder than beating ANY team at home. This was always going to be a test and UC had a bad last 15 minutes.

Truth is, UC is a good offensive team and a great defensive team. They aren't quite where they need to be on either end to make the final four, but have gotten there in flashes. I'd like to see UC as a top 5 kenpom defense and top 30 offense. If they play as that kind of team in March (which they are capable of) they can make a deep run. UC still should finish strong and get a good seed. It's been a solid year so far, no need to overreact to one road loss against a really good basketball team.

Mark, you've done some great posts in the past where you discuss offensive efficiency as a metric and how UC is doing. Where does this team stand?

UC is 41 in kenpom adjusted offense. It's the best offensive team of the Mick Cronin era, but most teams that make deep runs are top 20 in both adj off and adj def... If UC defense can get back to top 5 caliber then I'd feel better about their adj offense (though i still think the target should be top 30 for this team). They are good, but have room for improvement.

(02-13-2017 08:22 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Reality is Good Offense + Good defense wins championships. It almost never is an either or scenario in college basketball.

What is so difficult to understand about this. Why in the hell should/would anyone need to choose?

(02-12-2017 08:58 PM)jarr Wrote:  IMO...
Good offense > good defense

Great offensive teams will always find ways to put up points, even against good defensive teams. I don't think it always works the other way around.

Even the freakish big, athletic historically good defensive team like UK 2015 team, was neutralized by good Wisconsin team with bigs who could shoot and pass.

While I agree with the premise there's alot more to it. You can't just be a one-sided team to be great. You've got to be good both offensively AND defensively.

Here's the offense and defense ranks of the past 15 NCAA champions.
Nova - 3/5
Duke - 3/12
UConn - 39/10
UL - 7/1
UK - 2/8
UConn - 20/15
Duke - 1/5
UNC - 1/21
Kansas - 2/1
Florida - 1/15
Florida - 4/7
UNC - 2/7
UConn - 10/5
Syracuse - 15/14
Maryland - 3/7

Average - 7.5/8.9

If you removed the 2014 UConn team the averages move to - 5.3/8.8

So overall offense > defense by a slight margin.

But the bottom line is you need to good at both to win it all.

Cavaeat: The biggest outliers in those 15 samples are the 2011 and 2014 UConn teams and the 2003 Syracuse team. The difference with those teams is all three had all-american PG's who were so good they controlled every aspect of the game and essentially single-handedly won it all for their teams.

Its not that we lost its how we lost. Our offense yesterday was actually better than the defense yesterday. That can't happen on the road or on neutral site games. You need defense and TOUGHNESS to win championship and that's our signature. Can't get caught up away from home trying out score a good team. Mick needs find a way to limit Washington, clark and troy to under 25min every game until tournament. All 3 of them have severe fatigue issues. We always end both halfs struggling to finish. Stop playing Moore, mick, and play more JJ, Cumberland scott and brooks.

That's hilarious to see what UConn did. They may have been ranked lower on offense than others, but I bet if they did the rankings for just the month of March they would be much higher ranked.

(02-13-2017 08:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:58 PM)jarr Wrote:  IMO...
Good offense > good defense

Great offensive teams will always find ways to put up points, even against good defensive teams. I don't think it always works the other way around.

Even the freakish big, athletic historically good defensive team like UK 2015 team, was neutralized by good Wisconsin team with bigs who could shoot and pass.

While I agree with the premise there's alot more to it. You can't just be a one-sided team to be great. You've got to be good both offensively AND defensively.

Here's the offense and defense ranks of the past 15 NCAA champions.
Nova - 3/5
Duke - 3/12
UConn - 39/10
UL - 7/1
UK - 2/8
UConn - 20/15
Duke - 1/5
UNC - 1/21
Kansas - 2/1
Florida - 1/15
Florida - 4/7
UNC - 2/7
UConn - 10/5
Syracuse - 15/14
Maryland - 3/7

Average - 7.5/8.9

If you removed the 2014 UConn team the averages move to - 5.3/8.8

So overall offense > defense by a slight margin.

But the bottom line is you need to good at both to win it all.

Cavaeat: The biggest outliers in those 15 samples are the 2011 and 2014 UConn teams and the 2003 Syracuse team. The difference with those teams is all three had all-american PG's who were so good they controlled every aspect of the game and essentially single-handedly won it all for their teams.

Are those rankings from before or after the tournament? The champion is going to have much higher numbers after the tournament because they will have played and beaten 6 straight high quality opponents.

So if UC's offensive efficiency is 40-41 and they go on a crazy run and win it all that number will jump up significantly.

(02-13-2017 08:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:58 PM)jarr Wrote:  IMO...
Good offense > good defense

Great offensive teams will always find ways to put up points, even against good defensive teams. I don't think it always works the other way around.

Even the freakish big, athletic historically good defensive team like UK 2015 team, was neutralized by good Wisconsin team with bigs who could shoot and pass.

While I agree with the premise there's alot more to it. You can't just be a one-sided team to be great. You've got to be good both offensively AND defensively.

Here's the offense and defense ranks of the past 15 NCAA champions.
Nova - 3/5
Duke - 3/12
UConn - 39/10
UL - 7/1
UK - 2/8
UConn - 20/15
Duke - 1/5
UNC - 1/21
Kansas - 2/1
Florida - 1/15
Florida - 4/7
UNC - 2/7
UConn - 10/5
Syracuse - 15/14
Maryland - 3/7

Average - 7.5/8.9

If you removed the 2014 UConn team the averages move to - 5.3/8.8

So overall offense > defense by a slight margin.

But the bottom line is you need to good at both to win it all.

Cavaeat: The biggest outliers in those 15 samples are the 2011 and 2014 UConn teams and the 2003 Syracuse team. The difference with those teams is all three had all-american PG's who were so good they controlled every aspect of the game and essentially single-handedly won it all for their teams.

I would be very interested in seeing the numbers for each final four team over the last 15 years just to see how many outliers made it that far. i have no idea how to look it up.

(02-13-2017 08:50 AM)bulldog23 Wrote:  Its not that we lost its how we lost. Our offense yesterday was actually better than the defense yesterday. That can't happen on the road or on neutral site games. You need defense and TOUGHNESS to win championship and that's our signature. Can't get caught up away from home trying out score a good team. Mick needs find a way to limit Washington, clark and troy to under 25min every game until tournament. All 3 of them have severe fatigue issues. We always end both halfs struggling to finish. Stop playing Moore, mick, and play more JJ, Cumberland scott and brooks.

SMU is a top 20 offensive team and we held them to 60 points. Defense can be better but that wasn't the problem. UC only scored 23 second half points. Once SMU adjusted to stop doubling Clark and Washington in the post UC's offense fell apart. Those two couldn't score one-on-one and no shooters were left open to pass it out to.

Toughness I agree with. Rebounding and getting to the free throw line is alot about toughness and UC lost both of those battles.

(02-13-2017 09:41 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:50 AM)bulldog23 Wrote:  Its not that we lost its how we lost. Our offense yesterday was actually better than the defense yesterday. That can't happen on the road or on neutral site games. You need defense and TOUGHNESS to win championship and that's our signature. Can't get caught up away from home trying out score a good team. Mick needs find a way to limit Washington, clark and troy to under 25min every game until tournament. All 3 of them have severe fatigue issues. We always end both halfs struggling to finish. Stop playing Moore, mick, and play more JJ, Cumberland scott and brooks.

SMU is a top 20 offensive team and we held them to 60 points. Defense can be better but that wasn't the problem. UC only scored 23 second half points. Once SMU adjusted to stop doubling Clark and Washington in the post UC's offense fell apart. Those two couldn't score one-on-one and no shooters were left open to pass it out to.

Toughness I agree with. Rebounding and getting to the free throw line is alot about toughness and UC lost both of those battles.

Clark often seemed double or triple teamed down low. Others had to have been open and it seemed like the perfect opportunity to have someone flash into the lane for a quick pass from Clark and layup attempt.

The offense wasn't good yesterday. The metric that matters is that SMU pulled a 19-2 run on us yesterday in the second half. We literally didn't score for ten minutes. There aren't many teams you can play when you can lay an egg for ten minutes and come back.

If they're going to make you beat them from outside, you sure as heck better get the ball across the timeline fast and you better have good movement around the outside. I think Caupain failed miserably in running the floor yesterday, though Jenifer didn't do much better.

They played good defense, we played terrible offense in the first half. Regardless of how good their defense is, you can't have a scoring drought like that in the second half and come out ahead.

It's wake-up time for that offense.

(02-13-2017 08:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 08:58 PM)jarr Wrote:  IMO...
Good offense > good defense

Great offensive teams will always find ways to put up points, even against good defensive teams. I don't think it always works the other way around.

Even the freakish big, athletic historically good defensive team like UK 2015 team, was neutralized by good Wisconsin team with bigs who could shoot and pass.

While I agree with the premise there's alot more to it. You can't just be a one-sided team to be great. You've got to be good both offensively AND defensively.

Here's the offense and defense ranks of the past 15 NCAA champions.
Nova - 3/5
Duke - 3/12
UConn - 39/10
UL - 7/1
UK - 2/8
UConn - 20/15
Duke - 1/5
UNC - 1/21
Kansas - 2/1
Florida - 1/15
Florida - 4/7
UNC - 2/7
UConn - 10/5
Syracuse - 15/14
Maryland - 3/7

Average - 7.5/8.9

If you removed the 2014 UConn team the averages move to - 5.3/8.8

So overall offense > defense by a slight margin.

But the bottom line is you need to good at both to win it all.

Cavaeat: The biggest outliers in those 15 samples are the 2011 and 2014 UConn teams and the 2003 Syracuse team. The difference with those teams is all three had all-american PG's who were so good they controlled every aspect of the game and essentially single-handedly won it all for their teams.

I get what you are saying, I know it's not as.simple as being good at one and bad at the other. It's more being good to great on offense, and above average on defense. Without looking at the metrics, Villanova rwally stands out as a team that can do shoot, pass, drive at an elite level, but also play good defense.

If I was a coach starting out, I would want to make scoring a focus point above defense. I think there is some sort of old school stigma with a coach not preaching defense first.

I think the silver lining is we played terribly and we were still competitive on the road against a Top 15 team in a hazardous environment.

It still stands that if this team ever figures it out and clicks, we will be a force in March.

(02-13-2017 08:50 AM)bulldog23 Wrote:  Its not that we lost its how we lost. Our offense yesterday was actually better than the defense yesterday. That can't happen on the road or on neutral site games. You need defense and TOUGHNESS to win championship and that's our signature. Can't get caught up away from home trying out score a good team. Mick needs find a way to limit Washington, clark and troy to under 25min every game until tournament. All 3 of them have severe fatigue issues. We always end both halfs struggling to finish. Stop playing Moore, mick, and play more JJ, Cumberland scott and brooks.

Seriously? They are 20 something year old kids. SMU goes 6 deep. Fatigue my arse.

I think for UC to reach it's full potential Mick needs to be willing to play small more often. The drop off from Gary or Washington to the bench big guys is enormous at times (though I like Brooks a lot). UC can create matchup issues by sliding Evans to the 4 and Cumberland to the three. They can play their zone on defense and pressure the ball. I'd like to see that lineup 5-7 minutes a game (with either clark or washington in the game at center). Our best lineup is generally with Clark and Washington both on the floor, but I think UC can get some good minutes with the small lineup. That small lineup would be better on offense and far better on defense than the ones that try to put Quad at the 4.

(02-13-2017 01:14 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think for UC to reach it's full potential Mick needs to be willing to play small more often. The drop off from Gary or Washington to the bench big guys is enormous at times (though I like Brooks a lot). UC can create matchup issues by sliding Evans to the 4 and Cumberland to the three. They can play their zone on defense and pressure the ball. I'd like to see that lineup 5-7 minutes a game (with either clark or washington in the game at center). Our best lineup is generally with Clark and Washington both on the floor, but I think UC can get some good minutes with the small lineup. That small lineup would be better on offense and far better on defense than the ones that try to put Quad at the 4.

I agree with this. Whenever I think about what Mick's best offense has been my mind always goes back to post brawl, 4 out 1 in lineup. That's was very effective.

Bottom line is that guys(Caupain, Clark and Washington) have to knock down some shots. They just didn't. KW is usually a pretty good 3 point shooter and he was atrocious yesterday, but if he could have made a couple the defense is forced to loosen up.

This team still has a ton of potential in March, but it will take guys catching some fire at the right time, but that really is the story for every team in March.

(02-13-2017 01:14 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think for UC to reach it's full potential Mick needs to be willing to play small more often. The drop off from Gary or Washington to the bench big guys is enormous at times (though I like Brooks a lot). UC can create matchup issues by sliding Evans to the 4 and Cumberland to the three. They can play their zone on defense and pressure the ball. I'd like to see that lineup 5-7 minutes a game (with either clark or washington in the game at center). Our best lineup is generally with Clark and Washington both on the floor, but I think UC can get some good minutes with the small lineup. That small lineup would be better on offense and far better on defense than the ones that try to put Quad at the 4.

Completely agree... though it has to be with Clark, as he passes so well out of the post. Think Cumberland and Evans on the floor together helps both, as they both do a good job of shooting the 3 or driving, and are both willing passers if the drive doesn't open up.

Criticizing Mick's offense this year is a bit like criticizing Andy Dalton's arm strength from 2015. Yes, Mick has struggled to coach offense. And it absolutely contributed to the loss at SMU. And with said loss, all those comments about "40 deflections" and "not having a better offense, just better players" from the post game become very frustrating.

That being said, we have been excellent in all other facets of the game. And the offense has been much improved as well. So, yes, Mick will continue to frustrate on that end of the floor. But with the way things have gone thus far, I'm not necessarily sure it's worth indicting his ability to coach as a whole (if anyone is doing that).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

(02-13-2017 01:07 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 08:50 AM)bulldog23 Wrote:  Its not that we lost its how we lost. Our offense yesterday was actually better than the defense yesterday. That can't happen on the road or on neutral site games. You need defense and TOUGHNESS to win championship and that's our signature. Can't get caught up away from home trying out score a good team. Mick needs find a way to limit Washington, clark and troy to under 25min every game until tournament. All 3 of them have severe fatigue issues. We always end both halfs struggling to finish. Stop playing Moore, mick, and play more JJ, Cumberland scott and brooks.

Seriously? They are 20 something year old kids. SMU goes 6 deep. Fatigue my arse.

I agree they should be able play 30+ but they can't and we know it. Past 5 games teammates have been yelling at washington to get up court, troy walks ball up court and gets beat off dribble too much, limit his minutes and have him go full throttle 25-27min game, clark go hurt himself trying playing 33+ min.

pg- JJ-25, troy-15
sg- troy-10, cumberland-15, kj-15
sf- evans-25, cumberland-10, troy-5
pf- clark-20, scott-10, evans-5, troy-5
c- washington-25, brooks-10, clark-5

pg- JJ-25, troy-15
sg- troy-10, cumberland-15, kj-15
sf- evans-25, cumberland-10, troy-5
pf- clark-20, scott-10, evans-5, troy-5
c- washington-25, brooks-10, clark-5

i want see this lineup at least 5min each half

jj
troy
cumberland
evans(put that vert to use)
washington/clark