Drake Nation / Specific Sports Topic Forums / Bulldog Men's Basketball / Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy / Latest Posts

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:43:24 GMT

Given that we lost to Iowa . . .

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:05:11 GMT

So apparently we're better than Fordham. Wonder what our chances would be in the Big Ten?

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Fro — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:25:10 GMT

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/most_likely_to_go_winless

at least we're not first...(silver lining)

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Darth Vader — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:18:20 GMT

I haven't looked at the projections from Ken lately, but last I checked, D was projected to lose every MVC game. That, my friends, is bad. Unfortunately, the Ken projections over the past couple of years have been frighteningly accurate. To go from 28-5 two years ago, to likely being a 10 seed is beyond hard to swallow (and no, I don't think that's D fans being spoiled; several of us, myself included, have suffered thru some rough years...and this might be the toughest one yet, for on the floor difficulty).

And for those bummin' over getting less than 40 against WSU, remember that last year at WSU was the same thing. With 7 minutes left last year, D had only 30 points....it was pretty brutal. Last night's performance, regretfully, was far from an aberration.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

zman2 — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:48:37 GMT

Drake & Creighton are also the 2 worst teams in the valley this year. I think ? hope? our future is looking better than theirs. I have no idea what is the matter w/Creighton this year.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drake72 — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:53:30 GMT

A stat that bears out repeated observations that have been made on this board: As of today, Drake has 332 three-point attempts, which is 33 more than the next Valley team - Creighton. Illinois State is a distant third with 244.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Dawg_tired — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:50:03 GMT

[quote]DUBulldog (12/30/2009)

link

338th in total defense (out of 349)....that's actually up from #349 a few weeks ago!

6th best in the country at fewest turnovers.

344th (6th worst) in the country at offensive rebounding.

Those two balance out.....very few turnovers, but very few second chance points. Signs of very conservative play.

9th in the country in FT%

2.55% chance of going winless the rest of the way.

8th in the country in % of shots that are 3-pointers.

287th in the country in tempo (slow-down game).

[/quote]

WOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

DUBulldog — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:59:23 GMT

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Darth Vader — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:31:31 GMT

This has been a sore point for me since last year. Offensive rebounding. Clearly D totally bagged the idea of getting offensive rebounds. My guess is to "set up on defense" (since I can't imagine any other reason). It'd be one thing if the squad was a nasty defense like SIU earlier this decade. However, to be (almost) the LAST ranked team in the NATION in defense too? The squad gets one shot and then gives up open 3s. This "setting up on defense" philosophy is not working, and the stats bear that out. If you're suffering that much on defense, you may as well crash the offensive boards...since worst case you give up a fast break layup (instead of an open 3).

Crash the offensive boards...it might be the only chance.
This wasn't losing to the Tom Davis squads from Iowa City in the 90s...this was losing to a very bad (talent-wise, and in some cases, character-wise) team.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

DUBulldog — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:34:27 GMT

Hey, the Bulldogs have "moved up" to 344th in defense per kenpom.com (out of 347).

343rd in offensive rebounding. Hard to get offensive rebounds when nobody goes to the boards.

linkage

I understand wanting to limit fast break opportunities for the opponent, but I don't think you need to have all 5 guys retreating when a shot is put up.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:50:11 GMT

I guess Gordon isn't going to share his wisdom.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Big Bull — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:41:15 GMT

Gordon Gottschalk (12/18/2009)

[quote]Drakey (12/18/2009)

I am totally lost.

Excellent post Drakey![/quote]

Totally agree Gordon!

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Mecha_Bulldog — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:28:51 GMT

amcsepboe (12/19/2009)

D was a 12-point dog tonight, lost by 4. Numbers currently predict a 3-15 Valley season (underdogs in every game), be interesting to see how outperforming the spread changes that.

The problem for Drake is most other MVC teams also beat the Pomeroy spread today. Drake's numbers won't really be able to catch up to anyone else in the MVC after tonight, although hopefully at least the adjusted defense numbers will improve a little after this game.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

amcsepboe — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:28:28 GMT

D was a 12-point dog tonight, lost by 4. Numbers currently predict a 3-15 Valley season (underdogs in every game), be interesting to see how outperforming the spread changes that.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:45:17 GMT

Drakey (12/18/2009)

I am totally lost.

Excellent post Drakey!

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:10:34 GMT

[quote]Mc Bulldog (12/18/2009)

-

linkage

Michael teaching D linkage

[/quote]

Your links (1-2-2 zone and Michael Jordan on defensive stance) are irrelevant. Only gordon can explain this defense. I'm sure he is working on it as I type.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Mc Bulldog — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:03:54 GMT

-
linkage

Michael teaching D linkage

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:12:55 GMT

[quote]Gordon Gottschalk (12/18/2009)

Z, in one sense it's not complicated, it's just a match up zone and as you say these elite players have certainly been exposed to what that is. However, every D1 coach has his own variation and set of rules as to how their zone will be run. It takes time to learn the nuances and to get to a point where you don't have to think about them and you can just react.

It works the same way on offense. Sometimes you can get an elite player who causes a coach to basically create an offense for him, similar to what Calipari did for Derrick Rose a couple of years ago, but even then Calipari was just taking all the concepts he learned in the NBA and putting his own twist on it.

Drake's situation with the freshmen is a little unusual since there are so many new faces. Normally you would expect the classes to be more balanced so you're not talking about trying to work 7-8 brand new people into the system.[/quote]

Not being as visually adept or as analytically gifted as Gordon, I am totally lost. Apparently he has been able to decipher a set of rules and priorities that go with the zone defense. Apparently the players have not been able to pick them up either, although it has presumably been explained to them. Gordon would you please do me the favor of explaining the zone defense currently employed by Drake in detail, including the many nuances that the players are unable to understand. Perhaps if it were explained to all of us on a level that we could comprehend, it would make your future discussions with other fans less tedious and enable us to respond in a more meaningful manner.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:18:02 GMT

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

zman2 — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:31:22 GMT

Gordon, I agree w/much of what you have said. However, I'm not sure that a zone defense should ever be as complicated as you just made it! If it takes 2-3 years for guys to pick it up, don't you think there's something wrong w/that? Phelps is bringing in some really good players & by all accounts some darn good athletes. These kids have been playing elite aau ball since 8th grade. If what you are describing is true, our defense will only be good once every 3-4 years as our freshman become jr's & sr's. Then it takes the next group that long to figure it out as well. Basketball should not be that complicated!

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Big Bull — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:01:01 GMT

Gordon Gottschalk (12/17/2009)

[quote]usmcdog (12/17/2009)

[quote]Drakey (12/17/2009)

McBull: Is GG talking down at us? (I realize he talks down at everybody, but why did he single us out?)

Because you have been agreeing with each other so much lately that he thinks you're dating.

But, really, don't let the rest of us interfere with your lovefest.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.[/quote]

Excellent post Gordon!!

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

rawdawg — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:03:21 GMT

Gordon Gottschalk

I thought SB stood for SumBatch.

No disrespect to Supreme Being......got it.....gotta pick up on board lingo

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Mc Bulldog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:32:53 GMT

Just to be clear ... I'm the picther.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:22:04 GMT

usmcdog (12/17/2009)

[quote]Drakey (12/17/2009)

McBull: Is GG talking down at us? (I realize he talks down at everybody, but why did he single us out?)

Because you have been agreeing with each other so much lately that he thinks you're dating.
But, really, don't let the rest of us interfere with your lovefest.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Mc Bulldog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:09:03 GMT

Makes it's own gravy?

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

usmcdog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:28:46 GMT

Drakey (12/17/2009)

McBull: Is GG talking down at us? (I realize he talks down at everybody, but why did he single us out?)

Because you have been agreeing with each other so much lately that he thinks you're dating.
But, really, don't let the rest of us interfere with your lovefest.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:26:26 GMT

[quote]Mc Bulldog (12/17/2009)

Despite his desperate attempts, I don't think Gordon talks down to anyone. But I do agree with Drakey in that Gordon watches too much ESPN.

Gordon makes many great points but for the regular 'ol simpleton .. and again, I agree with Drakey ... the #1 ingredient for this team is a steady mental level of toughness. Time to hang up the "too young" stereotype and start literally fighting for some wins. Or as Drakey puts it, a "refuse to lose" mentality.

Box 'n 1, 1-2-2, 2-1-2, 2-2-1, 3-2, 2-3, a teflon match up zone, and a belly button gizzard mash zone are in store for Sat. night![/quote]

Those words you put in my mouth were my thoughts exactly.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:50:14 GMT

Mc Bulldog (12/17/2009)

rawdawg ... go get that Supreme Being!

I thought SB stood for SumBatch.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Mc Bulldog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:41:37 GMT

rawdawg ... go get that Supreme Being!

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Mc Bulldog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:39:39 GMT

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

rawdawg — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:24:07 GMT

[quote]Raw, I don't know if you are impatient or if you just don't get how much is required for a high schooler to step up their game to D1. I get and agree with the general nature of your comments, but as applied to this team I think you are not seeing the whole picture.

As for rebounding, coaches can say box out, find a man to screen, get your butt into his knees, protect the ball, etc., etc. If the player doesn't do this or if they take a few months to put it all on the floor, that is not on the coaching staff.

I am not picking on any player in this example, but if you look at Ben Simons you can see how this works. In high school, as a 6'7" wing, who had a late growth spurt and spent much of his youth playing guard, he did not get grounded in the rebounding fundamentals that a "big" would have. When he played his first game he was very raw in his apporach to the boards. He couldn't find his man, he was shoved all over the floor, he didn't get his hands up, etc.

You can tell now that the coaches have worked with him in this area. He is learning to time when he approaches the boards, taking advantage of his build to slide into spaces to get the ball. He is developing a "nose" for it. He is using a wider base and getting his butt lower so he is not getting pushed around as much -- but he is still getting pushed around.

You can see how much he has improved by the new problem he has to work on. In the last game he had several rebounds that were stolen away from him before he could make the outlet. Up until now he was not getting these rebounds. Now he has improved and got a few, finding out that you have to protect the ball with wide elbows and strong hands. Just look at how AT protects the ball after he gets it. It is a thing of beauty.

The other problem you run into is the concept of working "hard." The freshmen are working hard, compared to how they worked in high school. But they are not working nearly as hard as they need to at Div 1. You can see it virtually every time down the floor in the way a young player here or there will not follow through his role during the entire sequence.

I can go through just as much detail with the learning that has to occur on defense, but I don't want to bore McB and Drakey. The point is, there is much more to this game than simple desire. You can talk all you want about personal responsibility and being sick of the youth thing and lay it all on the coaching staff. I don't think that way of looking at things explains what is going on with this team.

[/quote]

SB,
You make good sense. There is only one thing wrong with freshmen....they're freshmen. Time, Nature, Weights, and
getting bumped around will cure that. The future is promising but I don't buy promising tickets when I come to a Drake game. Excuses are nice and convenient too. If some of these players can't, want ,or incapable of doing things or weren't taught or shown how to do certain things in high school, you're right, it will prolong the success curve.
I know coaches who will sacrifice O for D and vice versa. If you can't D up ....beat em to 100. Both philosophies work.
Oh yeah...the seniors don't have time for the frosh to get the milk off their lips. We're all learning in this process but
it's o.k. because we're DOGS.... GO DRAKE

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:08:37 GMT

McBull: Is GG talking down at us? (I realize he talks down at everybody, but why did he single us out?)

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:32:14 GMT

rawdawg (12/16/2009)

Man on man defenses always outrebound zone defenses unless there's an emphasize on defense and rebounding. The factor is personal responsibility for your man...not an area... There is no quesswork involved. The only prerequisite is that your feet touch the floor. It has nothing to do with youth or physical ability. Sick of the youth thing already. It really should only apply to the coaching staff at this point. Everybody can't score at will but everybody can play defense and box out on every shot. Occasional man defense and fullcourt pressure will help the numbers....

Raw, I don't know if you are impatient or if you just don't get how much is required for a high schooler to step up their game to D1. I get and agree with the general nature of your comments, but as applied to this team I think you are not seeing the whole picture.

As for rebounding, coaches can say box out, find a man to screen, get your butt into his knees, protect the ball, etc., etc. If the player doesn't do this or if they take a few months to put it all on the floor, that is not on the coaching staff.

I am not picking on any player in this example, but if you look at Ben Simons you can see how this works. In high school, as a 6'7" wing, who had a late growth spurt and spent much of his youth playing guard, he did not get grounded in the rebounding fundamentals that a "big" would have. When he played his first game he was very raw in his apporach to the boards. He couldn't find his man, he was shoved all over the floor, he didn't get his hands up, etc.

You can tell now that the coaches have worked with him in this area. He is learning to time when he approaches the boards, taking advantage of his build to slide into spaces to get the ball. He is developing a "nose" for it. He is using a wider base and getting his butt lower so he is not getting pushed around as much -- but he is still getting pushed around.

You can see how much he has improved by the new problem he has to work on. In the last game he had several rebounds that were stolen away from him before he could make the outlet. Up until now he was not getting these rebounds. Now he has improved and got a few, finding out that you have to protect the ball with wide elbows and strong hands. Just look at how AT protects the ball after he gets it. It is a thing of beauty.

The other problem you run into is the concept of working "hard." The freshmen are working hard, compared to how they worked in high school. But they are not working nearly as hard as they need to at Div 1. You can see it virtually every time down the floor in the way a young player here or there will not follow through his role during the entire sequence.

I can go through just as much detail with the learning that has to occur on defense, but I don't want to bore McB and Drakey. The point is, there is much more to this game than simple desire. You can talk all you want about personal responsibility and being sick of the youth thing and lay it all on the coaching staff. I don't think that way of looking at things explains what is going on with this team.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Gordon Gottschalk — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:10:39 GMT

zman2 (12/16/2009)

Gordon, I am still waiting on your response to my question about Phelp's zone defense. W/the ridiculously bad numbers we are putting up on defense, do you think his zone defense can work? At what point do you stop blaming the players & look at the scheme?

Z, I missed your previous post, thanks for calling me out.

The concept of his zone is amazing. When run properly, it is very difficult to respond to on the offensive side because the rotation assignments change during a single posession, depending upon where the ball is and who has it. It forces the offense to read the defense and adjust their movements much more than a "traditional" matchup zone, if there is such a thing anymore. Absolutely I think it can work.

I don't see this as a "blame" thing. This defense is complicated mentally and demanding physically. When a team is running it during the first year it is put in, it is going to look ugly with missed assignments and late rotations. It has to be implemented in stages, whuich detracts in part from its effectiveness. But as the team gets comfortable with the scheme over several years, the rotations become more second nature, players are able to anticipate their assignments, and the mental and physical demands lessen. It is no different than putting in a very effective but complicated offense, such as the Triangle.

This is only the second year with this defense and in a lot of ways it is like the first year because of all the new faces. In addition, you have all the adjustments that freshmen must go through in stepping up their game to D1.

I don't know if the defense will get to the point of being good this year. The staff is focussing on it big time and I see it evolving -- unfortunately the evolutions are more like one area of concern being replaced with a different area of concern.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

Drakey — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:04:51 GMT

I remember one year when Rudy hired an assistant who was known as a defense specialist. I think he might have come from UNLV? Anyway, whoever he was, it worked. He also had soome big name coach come in and teach the matchup zone.(Chaney?) If defense doesn't get a lot better, this is something Phelps should consider for next year.

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

rawdawg — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:33:58 GMT

Supreme Being (12/16/2009)

I definitely would like to see them occasionally mix in some pressure, occassionally mix in some m2m (man to man).....the surprise factor might cause a mistake by the opponent. You don't want to be too predictable on either offense or defense. It's one thing if you're a team that plays absolutely lock-down defense using a single defense....no need to deviate from that. I don't think that applies to this team.

Being predictable last year got the thunder beat out of us in the Valley. Might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least have a knife in there. Make your opponents play 94' sometime. Then, it's not like shooting fish in a barrel
(ISU). Bigs (you press and run). Quicks (you slow down and pound). B-Ball 101

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

zman2 — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:40:51 GMT

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

DUBulldog — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:34:22 GMT

rawdawg (12/16/2009)

Occasional man defense and fullcourt pressure will help the numbers....

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

rawdawg — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:59:16 GMT

Numbers do not LIE. When the smoke clears, the numbers will stand...10..20..30 years later. Putting players in position to achieve success is the sole job of the coaching staff. Man on man defenses always outrebound zone defenses unless there's an emphasize on defense and rebounding. The factor is personal responsibility for your man...not an area... There is no quesswork involved. The only prerequisite is that your feet touch the floor. It has nothing to do with youth or physical ability. Sick of the youth thing already. It really should only apply to the coaching staff at this point. Everybody can't score at will but everybody can play defense and box out on every shot. Occasional man defense and fullcourt pressure will help the numbers....

RE: Statistical breakdown from Pomeroy

DUBulldog — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:38:41 GMT

dog67 (12/15/2009)

You are correct, DUB. Haste makes waste. I copied some wrong numbers from some other facts and figures that I had. Good catch. The other stats I listed, though, were correct.

Yep, the offensive stats are pretty good for this team. At the luncheon today, Coach Phelps mentioned that as a team, the goal was to shoot at least 44% from the field (currently at 46), to shoot at least 35% from 3-pt range (currently at 40), and to lead the league in FT% (currently leading). He said they were happy with things offensively, but that they needed to shore up the defense and rebounding.