why is ksuīs defense good?

[sys]

it is far enough into the season, that the numbers really canīt be lying.  but really, how is martin doing this?

1.  ksu has at most, a single player that is much above average as an on ball defender - young.  beasley is maybe not a whole lot worse, although he is prone to letting bigs catch too deep.  everyone else (though some have improved greatly) is basically below big 12 average.

2.  this is same issue as last year, but - i donīt really get the huggins/martin man defense (even though, obviously, the results speak for themselves).  basically it seems like fairly active ball pressure, and overplaying towards the middle, allowing (flat out encouraging?) baseline drives that result in what appear to be fairly easy ltds that the opponent misses with an amazing frequency.  how exactly does this work?

[michigancat]

I have no idea.  The defense is incredible.  I think Beasley is an above average defender (he really plays smart on defense) but agree pretty much everyone else (sans Young) is average to below average.  Sutton is above average, but he probably hasn't played enough to make a significant impact.

I think a lot of it has to do w/ players being in really good help position most of the time.  My guess Frank encourages Bill and Mike to NOT help close to the basket and risk a charge/block situation.  Whatever he's doing, it's brilliant, judging by the results w/ lazy, unmotivated freshmen leading the way.

[catzacker]

2.  this is same issue as last year, but - i donīt really get the huggins/martin man defense (even though, obviously, the results speak for themselves).  basically it seems like fairly active ball pressure, and overplaying towards the middle, allowing (flat out encouraging?) baseline drives that result in what appear to be fairly easy ltds that the opponent misses with an amazing frequency.  how exactly does this work?

I remember hearing/reading that Huggs/Martin philosphy on defense is to give the baseline shot/drive because a baseline shot is more difficult and a baseline drive is easier to help on because you have the "extra" defender with the sideline.  Also, the rebound from a baseline drive/shot is supposed to be an "easier" rebound, apparently.  I still think we are prone to getting destroyed by dribble penetration because we overplay and try to put so much pressure on the ball.  

I would say that our perimeter help defense and ball pressure have gotten better as the year has gone on.  

[ksu_FAN]

it is far enough into the season, that the numbers really canīt be lying.  but really, how is martin doing this?

1.  ksu has at most, a single player that is much above average as an on ball defender - young.  beasley is maybe not a whole lot worse, although he is prone to letting bigs catch too deep.  everyone else (though some have improved greatly) is basically below big 12 average.

2.  this is same issue as last year, but - i donīt really get the huggins/martin man defense (even though, obviously, the results speak for themselves).  basically it seems like fairly active ball pressure, and overplaying towards the middle, allowing (flat out encouraging?) baseline drives that result in what appear to be fairly easy ltds that the opponent misses with an amazing frequency.  how exactly does this work?

Good questions.

1st, KSU has athletes, which allows you to make up for not always being technically sound.  Best examples are Beasley and Walker who are actually pretty decent defensive players most of the time.  It just sticks out when they don't give great effort, especially Walker, but most of the time he's pretty good.  Sutton and Gils help here as well; though we don't get much offense from our 3 spot, you can't discount the effect of having long athletes at that position in this league.

2nd, the baseline defensive strategy seems to be getting more common in basketball.  Not long ago giving up the baseline was taboo, but I think with the athletes and passers in todays game most of the time if you let a guy drive middle they are going to get rid of the ball, usually to an open shooter.  On the other hand if you give guys baseline, most guys are not going to give it up (except for Clent who likes that baseline pass to corner on drives sometimes) and with athletes that can help often guys will change their shots (even on lay-ups) or get their shots blocked.  

When you apply pressure its a risk-reward deal, but when you have the athletes we have, even with no stellar on-ball defenders, you can make a lot of things happen defensively.  That's why I'm hopeful that next year we should still put up solid defensive numbers b/c we won't lack athletes, offense will be our big issue IMO.  Its nice to have a Beasley and/or Walker to get the ball to when you need a basket (and really shows how overrated the whole "balance" deal can be) and I'm not sure who that will be next year.  Or where we will get rebounding, it helps to have the best rebounder in the nation.  But we should be able to defend pretty good under the same philosophy next season.

[michigancat]

Its nice to have a Beasley and/or Walker to get the ball to when you need a basket (and really shows how overrated the whole "balance" deal can be) and I'm not sure who that will be next year.

Pullen and/or Tyree.

Most teams without a "go-to" guy are usually teams full of p*ssies.  (I'm thinking of ku in partic.)  All those guys could be "go-to" guys (except maybe Kaun/Jackson) but their coach has turned them into passive little girls in "crunch time".

[ksu_FAN]

Its nice to have a Beasley and/or Walker to get the ball to when you need a basket (and really shows how overrated the whole "balance" deal can be) and I'm not sure who that will be next year.

Pullen and/or Tyree.

Most teams without a "go-to" guy are usually teams full of p*ssies.  (I'm thinking of ku in partic.)  All those guys could be "go-to" guys (except maybe Kaun/Jackson) but their coach has turned them into passive little girls in "crunch time".

Good point.  Agreed that Pullen could be that guy.  But its still not Beasley/Walker, of course those 2 might be once in a lifetime guys, especially Beasley.

[kougar24]

It seems like we're forcing a lot more TOs this year than years past, so maybe the on-ball pressure is a huge chunk of why our D has been largely successful.

As for forcing wing players toward the baseline, that's a pretty universal concept. As you said, it adds the baseline as another defender, and with sound helpside D, it cuts off an entire half of the court, and a player is either forced to take a low-percentage shot with no backboard or pick up his dribble and likely get trapped. His only other option is to back it back out the way he came, in which case the D did its job.

Once a player gets to the middle, if he has anything but terrible court vision, has pretty much beaten the D already, because if he's not open, someone else is, and he has the whole court to work with.

[tmramrod91]

I think a lot of it has to do w/ players being in really good help position most of the time. 

This is something that really comes through in games where ksu plays amazing D (moo, ku, etc) and is a glaring defect in losses. Watching the moo game again, you see the off side guard comes to add a 3rd defender when letting the opposition drive baseline (use the baseline as the 3rd defender, makes excellent bball sense). Pullen has gotten much better at this as of late, BY has always done a fantastic job (hence all the charges he takes).

Another reason IMO the D has been stellar is having a 6'10 guy and a freak athlete 6'6 guy there to meet the guards who penetrate.  KSU has been susceptible to the 3 (see TT) bc they collapse a lot when a guard gets dribble penetration. If the opposition has a guy nailing 3's that makes D look so much worse.

That and KSU plays with a lot of effort on D.

[ksu_FAN]

It seems like we're forcing a lot more TOs this year than years past, so maybe the on-ball pressure is a huge chunk of why our D has been largely successful.

As for forcing wing players toward the baseline, that's a pretty universal concept. As you said, it adds the baseline as another defender, and with sound helpside D, it cuts off an entire half of the court, and a player is either forced to take a low-percentage shot with no backboard or pick up his dribble and likely get trapped. His only other option is to back it back out the way he came, in which case the D did its job.

Once a player gets to the middle, if he has anything but terrible court vision, has pretty much beaten the D already, because if he's not open, someone else is, and he has the whole court to work with.

I agree completely with the baseline defense concept, but I suppose this shows my age.  We were taught NEVER to give up the baseline.  NEVER.  That was about as bad as you could get on defense back in the day (late 80s, early 90s for me).

And again, if you can get athletes to give effort on the defensive end, even if they make some mistakes, you are going to be a good defensive team.  Its really about getting them bought in, and Martin has done a great job of that.

[michigancat]

Good point.  Agreed that Pullen could be that guy.  But its still not Beasley/Walker, of course those 2 might be once in a lifetime guys, especially Beasley.

I can't think of many times we've "needed" a basket that we successfully gotten the ball in Beasley or Walker's hands and they scored.  OU finish is the only obvious time.  I almost think having a "go-to" guy is more overrated than balance.

I think a lot of it has to do w/ players being in really good help position most of the time. 

This is something that really comes through in games where ksu plays amazing D (moo, ku, etc) and is a glaring defect in losses. Watching the moo game again, you see the off side guard comes to add a 3rd defender when letting the opposition drive baseline (use the baseline as the 3rd defender, makes excellent bball sense). Pullen has gotten much better at this as of late, BY has always done a fantastic job (hence all the charges he takes).

Another reason IMO the D has been stellar is having a 6'10 guy and a freak athlete 6'6 guy there to meet the guards who penetrate.  KSU has been susceptible to the 3 (see TT) bc they collapse a lot when a guard gets dribble penetration. If the opposition has a guy nailing 3's that makes D look so much worse.

That and KSU plays with a lot of effort on D.

good points.   KSU basically eliminated ku's pick-n-roll by never switching and coming under screens instead of hedging w/ the big or fighting through the top (essentially chasing ku's guards).  When ku couldn't drive off the pick, they didn't have the balls/green light to shoot the three consistently.

This seems to tie in to the philosophy of making the opponent take jump shots...our great two point defense and mediocre three defense reflect this.

[yosh]

Good point.  Agreed that Pullen could be that guy.  But its still not Beasley/Walker, of course those 2 might be once in a lifetime guys, especially Beasley.

I can't think of many times we've "needed" a basket that we successfully gotten the ball in Beasley or Walker's hands and they scored.  OU finish is the only obvious time.  I almost think having a "go-to" guy is more overrated than balance.

In that instance Pullen was the "go to guy", and I think he is our "go to guy" this year.  Beasley and Walker are the guys that "carry the load" on offense.  Big difference in cliches that you guys were confusing there.  Fantastic thread BTW.

[sys]

I agree completely with the baseline defense concept, but I suppose this shows my age.  We were taught NEVER to give up the baseline.  NEVER. 

is kougs really that much younger than us?

i, along w. _fan, was always taught that the 1st fundamental of defense was to cut off the baseline.  i suppose that is a big part of why the martin/huggins defense just kind of looks weird to me.

i do agree that there is a definite trend away from the "force middle" philosophy to the "force baseline" philo. in recent years.

[kougar24]

I agree completely with the baseline defense concept, but I suppose this shows my age.  We were taught NEVER to give up the baseline.  NEVER.

is kougs really that much younger than us?

i, along w. _fan, was always taught that the 1st fundamental of defense was to cut off the baseline.  i suppose that is a big part of why the martin/huggins defense just kind of looks weird to me.

i do agree that there is a definite trend away from the "force middle" philosophy to the "force baseline" philo. in recent years.

We got yanked from the game immediately if we allowed anyone to drive middle. On the flip side, we worked on help D on the baseline so much in practice that once we forced a guy to drive baseline, we successfully trapped them about 80% of the time, and they were screwed. Strange how the philosophy turned a 180 like that.

What was the logic behind forcing them middle? More defenders around them to clog the lane?

[cireksu]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

[ksu_FAN]

I agree completely with the baseline defense concept, but I suppose this shows my age.  We were taught NEVER to give up the baseline.  NEVER.

is kougs really that much younger than us?

i, along w. _fan, was always taught that the 1st fundamental of defense was to cut off the baseline.  i suppose that is a big part of why the martin/huggins defense just kind of looks weird to me.

i do agree that there is a definite trend away from the "force middle" philosophy to the "force baseline" philo. in recent years.

We got yanked from the game immediately if we allowed anyone to drive middle. On the flip side, we worked on help D on the baseline so much in practice that once we forced a guy to drive baseline, we successfully trapped them about 80% of the time, and they were screwed. Strange how the philosophy turned a 180 like that.

What was the logic behind forcing them middle? More defenders around them to clog the lane?

Yes, force them to your help.  And it just goes with the philosophy, helpside d was probably taught higher in the lane for this to work.  And I think the evolution goes with the 3 point shot quite a bit b/c guys didn't just camp weakside wing all the time either, usually your weakside guy played lower, probably closer to the short corner, in most offenses IIRC.

[tmramrod91]

I agree completely with the baseline defense concept, but I suppose this shows my age.  We were taught NEVER to give up the baseline.  NEVER.

is kougs really that much younger than us?

i, along w. _fan, was always taught that the 1st fundamental of defense was to cut off the baseline.  i suppose that is a big part of why the martin/huggins defense just kind of looks weird to me.

i do agree that there is a definite trend away from the "force middle" philosophy to the "force baseline" philo. in recent years.

We got yanked from the game immediately if we allowed anyone to drive middle. On the flip side, we worked on help D on the baseline so much in practice that once we forced a guy to drive baseline, we successfully trapped them about 80% of the time, and they were screwed. Strange how the philosophy turned a 180 like that.

What was the logic behind forcing them middle? More defenders around them to clog the lane?

Basically. More ppl available to help. Incorporates the play from the inside out on D (let the other team shoot from the outside).  Also helps with rebounding.

[kougar24]

Interesting. I think you're right: the evolution of the 3-point shot probably attributed most to the philosophy turning to forcing people baseline.

[pissclams]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

i think that's a really good post.

[Trim]

I like when Walker "pulls the chair" on people.

[Bullfn33]

We have really good athletes that are quick and long.  That right there helps your defense immensely.  And, as was mentioned, we out rebound teams to limit second chance points, but that's mostly because we have great athletes that have length, strength, hops and high rebound IQ(HIRIQ).  Our guys are also becoming more comfortable and know where to be on defense.  Add in their intensity when they play at home, and you get an extremely good defensive team.  Without the intensity though we aren't that great as evidence by some road performances.  That's the one single factor can negate all the others which is why it's important they have their heads in the game.

[fatty fat fat]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

i think that's a really good post.

qft. cire nails it. People just don't attempt many shots on us.

[michigancat]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

i think that's a really good post.

qft. cire nails it. People just don't attempt many shots on us.

We're actually just a slightly above average defensive rebounding team (5th in league).

http://www.kenpom.com/factors.php?y=2008&t=d&s=12

[kstate16]

i thought we were like second to last in scoring defense.

[KSU4ME]

Our defense is good because our best player in the middle doesn't bring it.

[fatty fat fat]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

i think that's a really good post.

qft. cire nails it. People just don't attempt many shots on us.

We're actually just a slightly above average defensive rebounding team (5th in league).

http://www.kenpom.com/factors.php?y=2008&t=d&s=12

Hey retard-breath.....that includes the worthless OOC stats.

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team                  G     FG   FGA   Pct
---------------------------------------------
 1.Kansas.............. 11    253   653  .387
 2.Texas............... 11    260   631  .412
 3.Iowa State.......... 11    275   652  .422
 4.Texas A&M........... 11    273   637  .429
 5.Kansas State........ 10    227   529  .429
 6.Oklahoma State...... 11    240   555  .432
 7.Texas Tech.......... 10    246   559  .440
 8.Baylor.............. 11    305   686  .445
 9.Colorado............ 10    235   526  .447
10.Missouri............ 11    286   635  .450
11.Nebraska............ 10    243   539  .451
12.Oklahoma............ 11    264   583  .453

THat....is stunning.

[SUPERKSUFAN]

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team                  G     FG   FGA   Pct
---------------------------------------------
 1.Kansas.............. 11    253   653  .387
 2.Texas............... 11    260   631  .412
 3.Iowa State.......... 11    275   652  .422
 4.Texas A&M........... 11    273   637  .429
 5.Kansas State........ 10    227   529  .429
 6.Oklahoma State...... 11    240   555  .432
 7.Texas Tech.......... 10    246   559  .440
 8.Baylor.............. 11    305   686  .445
 9.Colorado............ 10    235   526  .447
10.Missouri............ 11    286   635  .450
11.Nebraska............ 10    243   539  .451
12.Oklahoma............ 11    264   583  .453

THat....is stunning.

 

[ksu_FAN]

i thought we were like second to last in scoring defense.

Overall, we're 10th in the league.  In just league games, we're 3rd.  However, PPG on defense is just one factor, you've got to consider how many possessions are in a game.  Since we play at one of the highest paces in the league (possessions per game) our numbers might be a little different; ie. we might technically give up more points overall, but actually be a better defensive team b/c the opponent gets more possessions per game.  One great stat for this is points per possession (Rusty posted a link about this the other day), a stat in which we have not only some of the best numbers in the league, but in the nation.  Point is, look a little bit beyound the traditional numbers and you'll be able to see a bit more.

[kstate16]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

i think that's a really good post.

qft. cire nails it. People just don't attempt many shots on us.

We're actually just a slightly above average defensive rebounding team (5th in league).

http://www.kenpom.com/factors.php?y=2008&t=d&s=12

Hey retard-breath.....that includes the worthless OOC stats.

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team                  G     FG   FGA   Pct
---------------------------------------------
 1.Kansas.............. 11    253   653  .387
 2.Texas............... 11    260   631  .412
 3.Iowa State.......... 11    275   652  .422
 4.Texas A&M........... 11    273   637  .429
 5.Kansas State........ 10    227   529   .429
 6.Oklahoma State...... 11    240   555  .432
 7.Texas Tech.......... 10    246   559  .440
 8.Baylor.............. 11    305   686  .445
 9.Colorado............ 10    235   526  .447
10.Missouri............ 11    286   635  .450
11.Nebraska............ 10    243   539  .451
12.Oklahoma............ 11    264   583  .453

THat....is stunning.

[michigancat]

Our rebounding is great and that helps.  teams don't get 2nd chances and high % putbacks.

i think that's a really good post.

qft. cire nails it. People just don't attempt many shots on us.

We're actually just a slightly above average defensive rebounding team (5th in league).

http://www.kenpom.com/factors.php?y=2008&t=d&s=12

Hey retard-breath.....that includes the worthless OOC stats.

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team                  G     FG   FGA   Pct
---------------------------------------------
 1.Kansas.............. 11    253   653  .387
 2.Texas............... 11    260   631  .412 
 3.Iowa State.......... 11    275   652  .422
 4.Texas A&M........... 11    273   637  .429   
 5.Kansas State........ 10    227   529  .429   52.9
 6.Oklahoma State...... 11    240   555  .432  50.45
 7.Texas Tech.......... 10    246   559  .440
 8.Baylor.............. 11    305   686  .445
 9.Colorado............ 10    235   526  .447
10.Missouri............ 11    286   635  .450
11.Nebraska............ 10    243   539  .451
12.Oklahoma............ 11    264   583  .453

THat....is stunning

worse than OSU?

[catzacker]

With the 3pt line and everyone having career/above normal nights every game against ku, it's amazing that they have such a low Def FG %