Shooting Percentage & Zone

[SoonerNorm]

Billy knew how to coach defense yet he liked the fast-pased game and he knew it put butts in the seats. Therefore, some erroneously thought he didn't coach defense. When he had players like Blayock, Wayman, King, and other good defenders his teams were hard to beat.

 

[soonermike22]

Good discussion. Different view points the same as coaches having different coaching styles. Most points win of course, but my philosophy was always good defense can let a less talented team beat a more talented team, and almost always beat a team you are equal to.
This years discussions are sure more fun that last years!

 

[SoonerSpock]

I'm about half playing around with this argument, especially since I find it obvious that some defense is necessary, but that it is necessary to be effective at scoring. For those of you who didn't see any of the analyses that I posted, you might like to study the NCAA stat pages. I'll just make a few observations.

Team leaders in scoring defense:
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-women/d1/current/team/112

South Carolina, Connecticut, Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas are in the top twenty. But, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Presbyterian, Texas Arlington, and Illinois Chicago are in that group as well. Notre Dame is pretty good, and they are #127. Iowa State is #160. Minnesota and Washington are flirting with the top 25, and they are tied for #198. Dayton is 222, and OU, second in the conference, is #250. Iowa is #253, and Kentucky is #258. Albany, AKron, Houston Baptist, Drake and East Tennessee State are up there, as is Oklahoma State, which speaks more to their non-conference schedule than to their competence. The difference is that the only top 25 team not in the top 100 is Kentucky which is about #158. They aren't good at defense or offense. They just foul.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-women/d1/current/team/114

The strongest correlation that I have found is field goal percentage. It does help if you have decent defense.

If you look at field goal percentage, the top 25 is almost the top 25.

I concur you need a strong offense to win games but you also do not win games without an equally strong defense and the statistics confirm such and alway have.

Perhaps you should stop using the nebulous defensive statistic called total defense. Total defense is almost totally dependent of the pace of the game and virtually unrelated to quality defense. Why do you think the NCAA does not keep a statistic called total offense? Because it is worthless stat. They continue to keep total defense numbers because they always have and at one time when all teams played at a similar pace it had some validity but it has none today.

You frequently use FG% to make your point about the relationship of offense to team rankings. Perhaps you would be better served to look at FG% defense to make the same relationship for defense. Were you to do so you would see that the top 3 teams in the last ranking they were ranked #3, #1 and #5 in FG% while the same 3 teams were ranked #3, #1 and #4 in field goal% defense.

Further 6 top ten teams were ranked in the top ten in FG% while 5 top ten teams were ranked in the top ten in FG% defense. Looking at the last team in the top ten they are shooting at a 41.8% clip while the last team in the top ten in FG% defense is allowing 31.2%.

Personally I think holding a team to 31.2% from the field will win you more games than shooting 41.8% will win you games.

 

[sybarite]

I never cited FG% defense because this is the first year that I think it has been listed as one of the statistics. It certainly wasn't one of the statistics listed when I was examining all of the statistics for the posts that I made.

Turnovers is different as well.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I never cited FG% defense because this is the first year that I think it has been listed as one of the statistics. It certainly wasn't one of the statistics listed when I was examining all of the statistics for the posts that I made.

Turnovers is different as well.

Obviously FG% defense is new to you but I have been personally studying that statistic for at least ten years. I have provided a link below from NCAA,org showing FG% defense for 2001-02. Go Men's Basketball Division 1, April 1, 2002. I have copied the top ten for 4/1/2002.


http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/ranksummary

NCAA® Men's Basketball
Division I
Field-Goal Percentage Defense
Through Games 04/01/2002



Rank Name GM W-L OPP FG OPP FGA OPP FG%
1 VCU 32 21-11 767 2052 37.4
2 Cincinnati 35 31-4 761 2035 37.4
3 Col. of Charleston 30 21-9 663 1762 37.6
4 Davidson 31 21-10 692 1822 38.0
5 Connecticut 34 27-7 830 2182 38.0
6 UC Santa Barbara 31 20-11 623 1625 38.3
7 Gonzaga 33 29-4 773 2006 38.5
8 Boston U. 32 22-10 687 1760 39.0
9 Villanova 32 19-13 739 1883 39.2
10 La.-Lafayette 31 20-11 709 1803 39.3

 

[sybarite]

I just use the stats that are on the stat page. Simple as that.

When you do compare teams on Field Goal Percentage Defense to Field Goal Percentage Offense, you don't get as clear of a picture. There is more of a spread, or difference, on offense.

Example:

Field Goal Percentage Offense:

1. Connecticut 53.5
25. Northwestern 45.0
50. Delaware State 43.4
100. Pittsburgh 41.6
150. Lipscomb 40.3
200. Old Miss 39.2
250. Colgate 37.6

Field Goal Percentage Defense:

1. Connecticut 30.7
25. Illinois Chicago 35.2
50. Buffalo 36.3
100. LSU 37.6
150. Houston Baptist 38.7
200. East Tennessee State 39.9
250. UNC Ashville 40.8

In field goal percentage offense, there is as much distinction in the top fifty as there is in the top 250 in defensive field goal percentage (10.1 to 9.9). Just how much difference does it make to defend at a 37.6 rate as compared to a 38.7 rate? Shooting at 50% as compared to 45 is significant.

If a team puts up 60 shots a game and hits 45%, that's 27 baskets. If you hit 40%, that's 24. OU has 180 FG in conference play, 41 from three. That's 2.23 points per field goal, or about 6.69 points difference between three percent. It would seem that it would be an advantage to get as much spread as possible, and it seems easier to get that spread on offense.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Couldn't agree more Syb. We get the spread by increasing our makes.

I'm not sure we could play much better defense than we are playing right now. So increasing the spread you talk about has to come from the offense making more shots. You do that three ways, steals and run outs, rebounding (particularly on the offensive boards), and just hitting more of the shots you are putting up.

We are fine with steals and the lay-ups they have created. We are doing better than expected on the boards, but you can always do better. The last one, as I have said, has the most obvious room for improvement, has the most likely chance of getting better, and is the easiest to accomplish (not that it's easy, mind you, but you folks get my drift).

 

[SoonerSpock]

I just use the stats that are on the stat page. Simple as that.

When you do compare teams on Field Goal Percentage Defense to Field Goal Percentage Offense, you don't get as clear of a picture. There is more of a spread, or difference, on offense.

Example:

Field Goal Percentage Offense:

1. Connecticut 53.5
25. Northwestern 45.0
50. Delaware State 43.4
100. Pittsburgh 41.6
150. Lipscomb 40.3
200. Old Miss 39.2
250. Colgate 37.6

Field Goal Percentage Defense:

1. Connecticut 30.7
25. Illinois Chicago 35.2
50. Buffalo 36.3
100. LSU 37.6
150. Houston Baptist 38.7
200. East Tennessee State 39.9
250. UNC Ashville 40.8

In field goal percentage offense, there is as much distinction in the top fifty as there is in the top 250 in defensive field goal percentage (10.1 to 9.9). Just how much difference does it make to defend at a 37.6 rate as compared to a 38.7 rate? Shooting at 50% as compared to 45 is significant.

If a team puts up 60 shots a game and hits 45%, that's 27 baskets. If you hit 40%, that's 24. OU has 180 FG in conference play, 41 from three. That's 2.23 points per field goal, or about 6.69 points difference between three percent. It would seem that it would be an advantage to get as much spread as possible, and it seems easier to get that spread on offense.

And your point is? No one inferred that the relationship between great and poor FG% and FG% defense was linear. Nor have I attempted to minimize the significance offense as I mentioned in an earlier a strong offense is key to winning.

I have only attempted to dispute your position you only need a good defense not a great defense to win big. The statistics undisputedly prove otherwise.

The very top teams in the country are at the top of both statistical ranking being discussed. I am not trying to say offense is irrelevant, merely that good defense is not irrelevant and is equally important.

Kelvin Sampson proved you can to some degree win big without a great offense and a good defense. What he did show is when you have a very good offense and a very good defense you can go along way. Without either you will only exasperate fans with with frequent unexplainable losses.

Offense does not win games nor does the defense. You need both. But the ability to play very good defense can consistently show up every night and give you a chance to win. Conversely a poor defense, more than occasionally, gives a good offense little chance to win.

 

[sybarite]

And your point is? No one inferred that the relationship between great and poor FG% and FG% defense was linear. Nor have I attempted to minimize the significance offense as I mentioned in an earlier a strong offense is key to winning.

I have only attempted to dispute your position you only need a good defense not a great defense to win big. The statistics undisputedly prove otherwise.

The very top teams in the country are at the top of both statistical ranking being discussed. I am not trying to say offense is irrelevant, merely that good defense is not irrelevant and is equally important.

Kelvin Sampson proved you can to some degree win big without a great offense and a good defense. What he did show is when you have a very good offense and a very good defense you can go along way. Without either you will only exasperate fans with with frequent unexplainable losses.

Offense does not win games nor does the defense. You need both. But the ability to play very good defense can consistently show up every night and give you a chance to win. Conversely a poor defense, more than occasionally, gives a good offense little chance to win.

Aren't you arguing the semantics of what is good vs great? Is a #25 defense good or great? How much difference is there between a top twenty-five and a top 100? 2.4%. Can you make up 2.4% on offense or defense easier? I think you can win with a top fifty defense. Is that good or great? It may be only one percent away from top five.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Aren't you arguing the semantics of what is good vs great? Is a #25 defense good or great? How much difference is there between a top twenty-five and a top 100? 2.4%. Can you make up 2.4% on offense or defense easier? I think you can win with a top fifty defense. Is that good or great? It may be only one percent away from top five.

In most cases probably from shooting better. However many times better FG% come from easy transition baskets generated from good defense allowing you to shot the easier shots. You cannot say that all scoring is determined by the offense. Much easier to hit an open three than a contested three. Ditto around the basket.

Syb offense and defense are not two separate entities they are intermingled between two teams. Sometime you score because you are great on offense, sometimes because your defense gives you scoring opportunities and sometimes you score only because of lousy defense by your opponent. Likewise you opponent sometimes can't score because of your great defense.

You can consistently bring your B to B+ on defense every night. Often on offense your D+ to C- game is the best available. Bad offense gives you little chance to win good defense always gives you only a chance to win maybe slight but a chance. Great teams must have both.

 

[sybarite]

Of course, it's nice to have a Tubbs' defense that gets points off steals, a la, Peyton. We beat Texas on points off turnovers. But, you can make the game awfully difficult if you can't hit a shot.

Our defense has been pretty good this year, at least in January. But, what has set us off is Gioya. Suddenly, the offense is getting good shots because Gioya is creating them. When Gioya is on the bench, we now use Maddie to create good shots. Making good things happen also leads to turnovers at times.

There are great shooters. But, they can have off nights. The ability to penetrate, move the ball in and out, set picks, etc., is all about getting better shots so you don't have to be the best shot in the world. You can play very good defense, but you do need to put the ball in the basket. The team that is best at doing that has a huge advantage.

Nobody is saying that defense is unimportant. It's a pleasure, and I'm glad that Sherri now says the team gets it, they like to play defense. At times, I've watched us play pretty good defense, only to lose spirit when we couldn't score.

Like I said originally. You really don't see the top coaches going out and looking for defensive stars very often. They look at scoring averages. Then, they begin to look at blocked shots, rebounding, assists, etc. It's rare that anyone gets excited when they recruit a player who scores six points per game.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Of course, it's nice to have a Tubbs' defense that gets points off steals, a la, Peyton. We beat Texas on points off turnovers. But, you can make the game awfully difficult if you can't hit a shot.

Our defense has been pretty good this year, at least in January. But, what has set us off is Gioya. Suddenly, the offense is getting good shots because Gioya is creating them. When Gioya is on the bench, we now use Maddie to create good shots. Making good things happen also leads to turnovers at times.

There are great shooters. But, they can have off nights. The ability to penetrate, move the ball in and out, set picks, etc., is all about getting better shots so you don't have to be the best shot in the world. You can play very good defense, but you do need to put the ball in the basket. The team that is best at doing that has a huge advantage.

Nobody is saying that defense is unimportant. It's a pleasure, and I'm glad that Sherri now says the team gets it, they like to play defense. At times, I've watched us play pretty good defense, only to lose spirit when we couldn't score.

Like I said originally. You really don't see the top coaches going out and looking for defensive stars very often. They look at scoring averages. Then, they begin to look at blocked shots, rebounding, assists, etc. It's rare that anyone gets excited when they recruit a player who scores six points per game.

You don't recruit defensive stars because defense is more about effort, fundamentals and coaching. You can teach and demand most of that. Scoring on the other requires a skill that cannot be taught.

Of course the talented kid that works on fundamental and makes the effort becomes the better player. Most kids coming out of high school that play in Divsion 1 were offensive stars but only a few bring that to the table at the next level. There contribution to the team comes from playing roles and being strong on the defensive end of the court. They have to learn to play team offense and team defense.

Again I am not trying to mitigate the role of the offense and I feel I hear you constantly mitigating the role of the defense relative to the offense. It is probably easier to show the results of defense in baseball were pitching and defense wins more ball games than the big fly but fans mostly come to the park to see teams score runs from big hits.

If you wish we can hash this further but I am leaving to go fish for a week and I will leave continuing to take the position of most coaches in most sports. You win games with offense but you win championships with defense.