goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM

Title: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 09:09:40 AM
Can we talk defense?  Why are these KSU cats kind of bad at it?  The theory floated out there is JO’s absence around the rim has caused it to be awful/bad/not up to par, but that didn’t correlate to the second half this last game.  And I think it’s a convenient excuse, but not an accurate one.

Subquestion:  I feel as though we look “tired” or “slow” on defense.  Could the answer be that because we spend 35 seconds sprinting around on offense that we take a break on defense?

I dunno.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Cire on March 15, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
JO IMO.  I could buy the tired from offense argument.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: chum1 on March 15, 2013, 09:14:12 AM
No stats?
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: GoodForAnother on March 15, 2013, 09:16:32 AM
maybe we're good at offense because we don't try at defense and we're not tired  :dunno:
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on March 15, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
We were actually one of the better defensive teams throughout the B12 season. I will say that it has been lacking as of late, though.

_FAN, stat me, bro.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 09:17:03 AM
No stats?

stats are kind of for losers, imo.
Title: Re: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 15, 2013, 09:20:49 AM
No stats?

stats are kind of for losers, imo.

:(
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: steve dave on March 15, 2013, 09:23:16 AM
No stats?

stats are kind of for losers, imo.

inaccurate bullshit = for winners
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: EMAWzified on March 15, 2013, 09:23:25 AM
From below (as always from the good work of ksu_FAN. Texas second half:
Opp   pace 56  points/poss 0.88   offensive eff. 39.0%  FTrate  24.0%

Probably the best defensive we've played in three games. But yeah, Weber's not the defensive coach Frank was. Duh.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Lefty on March 15, 2013, 09:25:20 AM
It seems as if we have a very nasty defense that only appears to give up easy buckets (and we do). However, the game as a whole, we do a fanstastic job of disrupting a team's flow and scheme. Is this stupid to say?

I think we have fantastic help D and are very good at it. We force a lot of turnovers and bad possessions with how active we are. Sure we give up easy buckets during portions of a game, but that's because we gamble much more than a normal team.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: GoodForAnother on March 15, 2013, 09:27:05 AM
frank's teams used to give up a lot of easy buckets too.  not a bball expert but it seems like pretty much every defensive strategy has a weakness that you have to accept.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on March 15, 2013, 09:30:29 AM
frank's teams used to give up a lot of easy buckets too.  not a bball expert but it seems like pretty much every defensive strategy has a weakness that you have to accept.

I've seen us give up like, 5 back cut layups all year. Frank's teams gave that up per game.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: AbeFroman on March 15, 2013, 09:30:57 AM
Post defense could use a little improvement, but backcourt defense is fantastic
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: steve dave on March 15, 2013, 09:33:43 AM
I think maybe our shooting and offense sucked in the past because all our guys were tired from using up all our energy rebounding.
Title: Re: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 09:41:46 AM
No stats?

stats are kind of for losers, imo.

:(

I think this is _fan's stats

   DEF EFF   OFF EFF:   
06/07   1.02   1.06    0.04
07/08   1.01   1.11    0.10
08/09   1.05   1.02    (0.03)
09/10   0.97   1.06    0.09
10/11   1.00   1.04    0.04
11/12   0.97   1.02    0.05
12/13   1.02   1.12    0.10
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: steve dave on March 15, 2013, 09:47:56 AM
'09 was such a loser year. I always forget that year happened.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: JKEYS on March 15, 2013, 09:52:38 AM
We were actually one of the better defensive teams throughout the B12 season. I will say that it has been lacking as of late, though.

_FAN, stat me, bro.

That's because, as of late, we've had to play a much improved Texas team twice, Baylor, and Okie State - including 3 games away from the 'gon.  Road games + good offensive teams = crappier looking D.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 15, 2013, 10:00:35 AM
I bet 'Zacker was a mess on his wedding day. He's never been able to enjoy nice things.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 15, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
10 and 12 were fantastic defenses.

As far as the biggest differences; opponents shoot better on 2s and we don't force as many TOs as Frank's teams in general, and especially those 2 great defenses.

But at the end of the day, we still win a lot because out offense is a lot more efficient. I'm not sure why much better offense doesn't get as much credit as worse defense gets critiqued. Its clear to me we can still win the way we are playing.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: steve dave on March 15, 2013, 10:04:17 AM
I like how zacker posts
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: steve dave on March 15, 2013, 10:05:11 AM
10 and 12 were fantastic defenses.

As far as the biggest differences; opponents shoot better on 2s and we don't force as many TOs as Frank's teams in general, and especially those 2 great defenses.

But at the end of the day, we still win a lot because out offense is a lot more efficient. I'm not sure why much better offense doesn't get as much credit as worse defense gets critiqued. Its clear to me we can still win the way we are playing.

I think many more people gush over the O than complain about the D. maybe not here, but in general.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: MikeNelson on March 15, 2013, 10:05:20 AM
No stats?

stats are kind of for losers, imo.

inaccurate bullshit = for winners

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: puniraptor on March 15, 2013, 10:12:54 AM
Maybe the players don't care about playing defense because they know they can easily drain 3's all day long
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Panjandrum on March 15, 2013, 10:15:06 AM
10 and 12 were fantastic defenses.

As far as the biggest differences; opponents shoot better on 2s and we don't force as many TOs as Frank's teams in general, and especially those 2 great defenses.

But at the end of the day, we still win a lot because out offense is a lot more efficient. I'm not sure why much better offense doesn't get as much credit as worse defense gets critiqued. Its clear to me we can still win the way we are playing.

I think many more people gush over the O than complain about the D. maybe not here, but in general.

I think it's lead to more consistent play, but less peaks and valleys.  I think the general populous likes that more.

I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Super PurpleCat on March 15, 2013, 10:16:25 AM
Style points.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Deez Nutz on March 15, 2013, 10:17:43 AM
'09 was such a loser year. I always forget that year happened.

I guess you must not like losers who score 40 points in a single game at Texas like Denis Clemente. 
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 15, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
Last 6 years defense:

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg255.imageshack.us%2Fimg255%2F9051%2Fdefensecomparison.png&hash=4029df851dc0790cf958943ebf26a498e8a1d311)
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: steve dave on March 15, 2013, 10:32:58 AM
'09 was such a loser year. I always forget that year happened.

I guess you must not like losers who score 40 points in a single game at Texas like Denis Clemente.

Oh I loved it. I just get really mad because we had good pieces and just couldn't make it work.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kougar24 on March 15, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
10 and 12 were fantastic defenses.

As far as the biggest differences; opponents shoot better on 2s and we don't force as many TOs as Frank's teams in general, and especially those 2 great defenses.

But at the end of the day, we still win a lot because out offense is a lot more efficient. I'm not sure why much better offense doesn't get as much credit as worse defense gets critiqued. Its clear to me we can still win the way we are playing.

:confused:
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: michigancat on March 15, 2013, 10:48:58 AM
why can't we just always have a boss defense and boss offense like 2010?
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: The Whale on March 15, 2013, 10:54:08 AM
Seems like we always give up more easy buckets when Nino is in - in large part because he get out further trying to help with screens, leaving his man wide open running towards the basket.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Belvis Noland on March 15, 2013, 10:59:19 AM
If we were excellent at both offense and defense we'd probably be a top 5 team every year.  So, why doesn't Weber just make this a priority? 
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: PoetWarrior on March 15, 2013, 11:00:30 AM
Angel and Will get beat by ball handlers.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: KanSt43 on March 15, 2013, 11:02:08 AM
Post defense could use a little improvement, but backcourt defense is fantastic

Agree for the most part.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: cork_sniffer on March 15, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
spradling can't guard anyone decent except maybe Heslip and gipson is too short to really alter any shots around the rim.  Plus, true power forwards have their way with Shane at times.  All of this adds up to some inconsistent defensive play depending on the lineup.  some games they are good and some they are average. 
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: MakeItRain on March 15, 2013, 11:07:59 AM
1.02 PPP is completely horrendous, not sure how our record doesn't resembles UTs. Man we suck, two straight losses coming. 1.02, completely shameful, unprecedented for a top 15 team. I'm embarrassed.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 15, 2013, 11:08:29 AM
We gave up too many offensive rebounds last night.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 15, 2013, 11:10:02 AM
We gave up too many offensive rebounds last night.

We did, but still had the OR% advantage.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: cork_sniffer on March 15, 2013, 11:11:23 AM
We gave up too many offensive rebounds last night.

typical problem running 4 out 1 in motion.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 11:12:01 AM
I’m just confused why (from an EFF standpoint) the same group of guys can be .05 worse on defense and .10 better on defense in just one year.  I’m confused as to why this has occurred, especially considering that the “offense” was so hard to learn or whatever.  I’d expect both numbers to be “better” than the previous year.

I think our defense is why we won’t get past the first weekend on the Tournament, especially if we’re a #4 seed. 
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 15, 2013, 11:17:36 AM
I’m just confused why (from an EFF standpoint) the same group of guys can be .05 worse on defense and .10 better on defense in just one year.  I’m confused as to why this has occurred, especially considering that the “offense” was so hard to learn or whatever.  I’d expect both numbers to be “better” than the previous year.

I think our defense is why we won’t get past the first weekend on the Tournament, especially if we’re a #4 seed. 


Really?

There is only so much practice time available, and its obvious to me this staff has spent a ton of time on the offense and offensive skill work. Its no surprise that the defense has slipped a bit. I'm not surprised by offensive improvement, but I am by the amount of offensive improvement.

Plus the personnel decisions; not playing 2 bigs has had a great effect on dboarding and opponents 2PT% because of our ability to protect the rim. But IMO the offensive improvement has more than offset those negatives so it was a good move.

Also the mentality of this staff is just different, and that mentality has carried over and contributed to the offensive improvement (and overall consistency) just as Frank and his staff's mentality carried over to defense, effort, and overall JYC-ness.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: michigancat on March 15, 2013, 11:17:42 AM
I’m just confused why (from an EFF standpoint) the same group of guys can be .05 worse on defense and .10 better on defense in just one year.  I’m confused as to why this has occurred, especially considering that the “offense” was so hard to learn or whatever.  I’d expect both numbers to be “better” than the previous year.

I think our defense is why we won’t get past the first weekend on the Tournament, especially if we’re a #4 seed. 


sys had a good point, going small probably had a lot to do with it. We essentially replaced Samuels/JO/Gip's minutes at the 4 with Shane's.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Stevesie60 on March 15, 2013, 11:19:40 AM
I enjoyed the thread title. We can't get defensive, zacker, we don't know how!! :lol:
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 11:22:58 AM
The offensive improvement seems explainable, but not the defensive performance (or lack thereof).  Like, if I took a Physical Education teacher and taught him Math (while still having him train a bit in P.E.), I’d expect him to teach algebra well (but would be pleasantly surprised that he progressed enough to teach calculus), but be concerned that he forgot how to organize a kick ball tournament. 
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Cire on March 15, 2013, 11:24:20 AM
how about matt dougherty saying our defense was solid and using ppg to back it up last night?
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: 'taterblast on March 15, 2013, 11:24:56 AM
i'm going to keep it simple stupid and look at their 49 and say we played good enough defense.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: Belvis Noland on March 15, 2013, 11:27:51 AM
I also think our offensive rebounding issues were the product of a zone defense and increased perimeter shot attempts.   :dunno:

Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 15, 2013, 11:34:51 AM
how about matt dougherty saying our defense was solid and using ppg to back it up last night?

It was dumb, though we aren't quite in the bottom half of the league. :D

And even though it didn't look pretty or whatever, last night's defense was really good. .86 PPP is really good, even against Texas.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 11:16:53 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: jtksu on March 15, 2013, 11:30:47 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: wetwillie on March 15, 2013, 11:31:32 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.

Both are very good posters
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 11:32:14 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.

I agree with you, it was a good defensive effort and a good win.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: jtksu on March 15, 2013, 11:35:30 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.

Both are very good posters

If by good posters you mean both guys troll relentlessly, then, yeah, they're good posters.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 15, 2013, 11:39:12 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.

Both are very good posters

If by good posters you mean both guys troll relentlessly, then, yeah, they're good posters.

I too thought JO provided some good minutes and good boards.  We seemed to be more aggressive in everything we did. 
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: MikeNelson on March 15, 2013, 11:39:52 PM
Good job.  Good effort Zacker.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: jtksu on March 15, 2013, 11:45:15 PM
Good job.  Good effort Zacker.

Look at the new guy coming off the bench with a clutch post.  :thumbs:
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: sys on March 15, 2013, 11:47:40 PM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.

Both are very good posters

zacker is a good poster.  he isn't trolling.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on March 15, 2013, 11:54:46 PM
oscar mushed every single one of the haters in this thread tonight.
Title: Re: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: michigancat on March 15, 2013, 11:56:18 PM
oscar mushed every single one of the haters in this thread tonight.

by playing jo. I liked it.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: jtksu on March 16, 2013, 12:00:26 AM
man, it's like the coaches read the board. 

hey, oscar, you can't beat ku.

Shut up, Zacker. You're almost as annoying at Kim Carnes.

Both are very good posters

zacker is a good poster.  he isn't trolling.

If he isn't trolling, he's an idiot. 90% of his posts are negative, including during a year that saw us win two years on conference championships. I get his shtick and all but it's more than run its course.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: sys on March 16, 2013, 12:02:21 AM
If he isn't trolling, he's an idiot. 90% of his posts are negative, including during a year that saw us win two years on conference championships. I get his shtick and all but it's more than run its course.

he's not an idiot and it's not a shtick.  he's just a very pessimistic person.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: FuzzyWuzzy on March 16, 2013, 12:04:48 AM
If he isn't trolling, he's an idiot. 90% of his posts are negative, including during a year that saw us win two years on conference championships. I get his shtick and all but it's more than run its course.

he's not an idiot and it's not a shtick.  he's just a very pessimistic person.

my dad is like that, its annoying and i don't like to watch sports with him.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: catzacker on March 16, 2013, 12:08:17 AM
Sorry your feelings get hurt by my posts jt.  If you want we could sit around and jerk each other off; that's kind of what it sounds like you want (without coming right out and saying it).
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: jtksu on March 16, 2013, 12:10:42 AM
If he isn't trolling, he's an idiot. 90% of his posts are negative, including during a year that saw us win two years on conference championships. I get his shtick and all but it's more than run its course.

he's not an idiot and it's not a shtick.  he's just a very pessimistic person.

my dad is like that, its annoying and i don't like to watch sports with him.

Yep, my dad is also not fun to watch games with. Dude is way too angry and tuckish for me to enjoy myself around him during games. Good thing about him though is he doesn't stay butthurt very long, he's usually back to being cool by the next day.
Title: Re: Without getting defensive
Post by: kso_FAN on March 16, 2013, 12:10:53 AM
Back to back with the 2 best eFG% defense games against Big 12 teams this season.