PDA

View Full Version : Defending the 3 & Coach Few



GUnawinit
04-05-2013, 10:41 PM
1st time on the board after the W.S. loss!

I'm sure it's been discussed...why is it GU can't defend the 3 over the years?

And does it have anything to do with coachng!

I'm currently watching a game reply and just don't get it?

Is it coaching / players desire or......

GU had this game....

Not trying to open a sore spot here...just asking

???

webspinnre
04-05-2013, 10:43 PM
Look through the last 3 pages, there's probably a dozen threads on this.

GUnawinit
04-05-2013, 11:05 PM
I'll look through the last three pages......

As I mentioned..It had probably been mentioned...

On my case...Sometimes if you ask (ME) you'll get a answer, and yes I was just asking!

GO BULLDOGS!

Oregonzagnut
04-06-2013, 12:13 AM
It was a combination of WSU getting red hot from 3, Bell getting hurt and the entire team just not playing their "A" game. I don't even think we played bad. Its just we couldn't avoid a mistake prone game that we normally would pull out at the end. This time the opponent hit every three in the final 2 minutes to clinch it.

MDABE80
04-06-2013, 01:08 AM
I think I postd in one of those threads that WSU was a season long .33 3 pt shooting team. For them to climb to .500 (which they did against us) the odds are 2640 to 1. Darn luck!

gonwick
04-06-2013, 04:34 AM
Few makes it a priority to pack it in against the dreaded two ball, the great equalizer in college b ball.


Prepare to be told nothing can be done about the three, as it is an unstoppable force in basketball, against which we are powerless (as we have proven year, after year, after year and will continue to prove because why on earth should we expect that in a one and done tourney, a team might exploit the three). Kenpom says defense has little effect on the three point percentage. Sort of like how no one defends free throws, so why bother worrying about how often people get to the line. It may also be that few felt our 7 footers can't get by without help from our lanky guards against penetration.

montanazag88
04-06-2013, 05:18 AM
Few makes it a priority to pack it in against the dreaded two ball, the great equalizer in college b ball.


Prepare to be told nothing can be done about the three, as it is an unstoppable force in basketball, against which we are powerless (as we have proven year, after year, after year and will continue to prove because why on earth should we expect that in a one and done tourney, a team might exploit the three). Kenpom says defense has little effect on the three point percentage. Sort of like how no one defends free throws, so why bother worrying about how often people get to the line. It may also be that few felt our 7 footers can't get by help from our lanky guards against penetration.

Gonwick. And you may be surprised that I will not judge you to be a Few hater/asking for his head because of your lucid summation on the most important subject of GU's past and future.

Brutal honesty is the only way to get better and Few will get better.....slowly, but better. I would add that we have a long history of playing to the competition in most of our tourney games, also revealing a deer in the headlights approach to offense in the final crucial minutes of tourney games. Don't anyone fool Themselves that this team had the components to beat everyone WSU has taken down this far and Gary Bell's injury was a set back, not a trigger for disaster. Even if the loss of his contribution on D had a more than avg impact, there is no excuse for the defensive play calling, which you so accurately eluded to, that destroys us year after year.

Absolutely beautiful post. ....... Now. Bring on the demo team to provide excuses and accusations. It's SOP, but I am not complaining.

Chicken Ball
04-06-2013, 05:48 AM
Kenpom says the opposite. He says that defense does little to change 3 pt percentages, but. Defense can take away the three. Iow, the philosophy of the team is wrong: just trying to challenge three point shooters will have almost zero effect on how many shots they make. The way to defend the three point shot is to make sure shooters don't get the space and positioning they need t shoot in the first place.

gonwick
04-06-2013, 06:48 AM
Kenpom says the opposite. He says that defense does little to change 3 pt percentages, but. Defense can take away the three. Iow, the philosophy of the team is wrong: just trying to challenge three point shooters will have almost zero effect on how many shots they make. The way to defend the three point shot is to make sure shooters don't get the space and positioning they need t shoot in the first place.

I think if you reread my post, you will find that you agree with me.

cjm720
04-06-2013, 06:54 AM
Witchita is good.

Zagdawg
04-06-2013, 07:07 AM
Length/size, quickness and spacing can slow the three.


If you have quickness to close out on your man-- you can sag more -- if you do not --you should not sag as much.

We all recall how many shots Daye blocked -- the opposing player thought he had an open look at a three and Dayes long arms told him otherwise.

Does the defending player have the speed to get around a screen/out to contest the shot enough to lower the shoot %.

Coleman has good quickness.

Nunez has good length.

We had a good number of bigs with size that could defend the paint this year-- but we still sagged off the weak side to "help" leaving many an open man to take an open three (played the %-- but when the team we were playing started getting hot from three-- we were in trouble).

Just a step too late will kill ya every time (or about 50% of the time in the last game played).

I am curious to see how the team reacts with Ray gone-- I thought that he was the defensive specialist.

ZagDaddy
04-06-2013, 07:08 AM
The way to defend the three point shot is to make sure shooters don't get the space and positioning they need t shoot in the first place.

I would agree with this assessment. I am not going to take the time to see if the numbers bear it out, but watch the way Butler guards the 3 for example and compare how the Zags defend the 3. Butler is frequently in the chest of 3 point shooters with the ball and Gonzaga sags off half a step to a step on shooters with one hand up. Butler's in-the-chest technique limits shooting space and GU's does not. GU defensive philosophy seems more concerned with taking away the dribble drive than the 3.

Zags also hurt themselves by packing the paint on fast-break defense and hope to close out on the shooter camped in the corner. We have been burned over and over by this philosophy for all of Few's tenure. He never waivers from playing the percentages (take away the 2 and risk the 3) even when he is getting torched by threes. This clearly works most of the time as his record bears out, but when it doesn't and you can't adjust, you are toast.

Zagger
04-07-2013, 07:19 AM
.....Zags also hurt themselves by packing the paint on fast-break defense and hope to close out on the shooter camped in the corner. We have been burned over and over by this philosophy for all of Few's tenure. He never waivers from playing the percentages (take away the 2 and risk the 3) even when he is getting torched by threes. This clearly works most of the time as his record bears out, but when it doesn't and you can't adjust, you are toast.

Agree, mostly. I think the Zags been a bit too predictable on defense. We've done well when we are aggressive in going after the ball beyond the arc - not so well when we haven't. Would also like to see the Zags shoot more from beyond the arc. That would tend to open up the inside that much more. Even though we lost to Wichita I greatly enjoyed seeing Mike Hart sink 2 3s in that game. I hope Mike gets picked up by a pro team that will allow him to shine further. I would not be surprised to see Mike in the NBA someday if he puts time into shooting like he has in going after the ball. ---- sorry for straying OT! I felt Mike was under utilized.

Ezag
04-07-2013, 07:38 AM
Whether we can guard the three or not or whether it makes any difference according to Kenpom on how you guard the three....it still seems interesting that we get booted every year by a hot 3 point shooter/shooting team....can it just be coincidence year after year?

gamagin
04-07-2013, 08:39 AM
This is a letter to the editor in the Sunday sports section. I guess it has to be true . . Vincent says so.



Story
Comments
April 7, 2013 in Sports
GU substituted poorly
Print
Email

Gonzaga plays hard. That is evident. They appeared to still be showing nerves into the second game. The Wichita State loss, however, lies solely with the coaching staff. Here’s why:

With the score tied at 10 and 12:41 to go in the first half, Coach Few went to a smaller lineup and in less than 6 minutes, Wichita State ballooned to a 26-13 lead, hitting four 3-pointers along the way.

With 6:51 left in the first half, Coach Few switched to the taller lineup. Rotating Barnam, Hart and Draganis (all 6-feet-5 or better), the Zags began rolling. Using this lineup, the Zags were not only able to defend the 3-pointer, but they erased the 13-point deficit and were leading 49-44 when, with 10:37 left in the game, almost unbelievably he switched back to the lineup that had created the mess and played it the rest of the game!

It was like watching two separate games. With the smaller lineup, Wichita State outscored Gonzaga 48-24. With the taller lineup, Gonzaga outscored Wichita State 46-28.

The Zags played to the best of their abilities, hard at all times. Blame no player. They were simply outcoached.

Robert Vincent

Spokane

combatcorpsmangulaw
04-07-2013, 01:04 PM
Whether or not the Few 'cheerleaders' like to hear it or not -- Few gets out coached pretty often. He has Plan A and if that doesn't go well, he has Plan A. When all else fails -- go to Plan A.....

Guy Landry Edi is 6'6" tall and has the athleticism of a 5 star athlete -- when Wichita State was smoking us w/ 3 point shots, WHY NOT PUT EDI IN THE GAME TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE FRESHMAN 3 POINT SHOOTER THAT WAS KILLING US???!!!

No criticism of coach Few -- he walks on water to the zombies that believe he can do no wrong. What a joke!!

MJ777
04-07-2013, 02:18 PM
Whether or not the Few 'cheerleaders' like to hear it or not -- Few gets out coached pretty often. He has Plan A and if that doesn't go well, he has Plan A. When all else fails -- go to Plan A.....

Guy Landry Edi is 6'6" tall and has the athleticism of a 5 star athlete -- when Wichita State was smoking us w/ 3 point shots, WHY NOT PUT EDI IN THE GAME TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE FRESHMAN 3 POINT SHOOTER THAT WAS KILLING US???!!!

No criticism of coach Few -- he walks on water to the zombies that believe he can do no wrong. What a joke!!

Zombies? I see very few posters here who don't criticize the coaches at least some. I don't consider any sports team fan a zombie, maybe a kool Aid drinker. I would reserve the zombie label for those won't criticize their favorite political party/leaders. You may now delete my post.

webspinnre
04-07-2013, 02:42 PM
Perhaps because Edi hadn't played very well? The point about Barham and Dranginis is legit though, and frustrating. I love David as a backup PG. Don't love him as essentially a starter playing alongside other smaller guards as well, against bigger guards for any more than very short periods of time.

zagco
04-07-2013, 07:32 PM
Zagco would be a terrible coach, but he would never take out guys who have momentum in a game. He'd ride that horse as long as humanly possible.

Oregonzagnut
04-07-2013, 08:47 PM
This is a letter to the editor in the Sunday sports section. I guess it has to be true . . Vincent says so.

Story
Comments
April 7, 2013 in Sports
GU substituted poorly
Print
Email

Gonzaga plays hard. That is evident. They appeared to still be showing nerves into the second game. The Wichita State loss, however, lies solely with the coaching staff. Here’s why:

With the score tied at 10 and 12:41 to go in the first half, Coach Few went to a smaller lineup and in less than 6 minutes, Wichita State ballooned to a 26-13 lead, hitting four 3-pointers along the way.

With 6:51 left in the first half, Coach Few switched to the taller lineup. Rotating Barnam, Hart and Draganis (all 6-feet-5 or better), the Zags began rolling. Using this lineup, the Zags were not only able to defend the 3-pointer, but they erased the 13-point deficit and were leading 49-44 when, with 10:37 left in the game, almost unbelievably he switched back to the lineup that had created the mess and played it the rest of the game!

It was like watching two separate games. With the smaller lineup, Wichita State outscored Gonzaga 48-24. With the taller lineup, Gonzaga outscored Wichita State 46-28.

The Zags played to the best of their abilities, hard at all times. Blame no player. They were simply outcoached.

Robert Vincent

Spokane

I think this opinion has some truth to it. We all know Few is a tinkerer and IMO he relapsed back into conservative habits for our last 2 games. But.....

....losing Bell for the entire 2nd half meant we were forced to use "plan B" for the rest of the game. Then we couldn't overcome their 3 pt barrage.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I think we all agree we could have won that game without some momentum killing mental errors and sloppiness by the PLAYERS. 2 traveling calls, 3-4 missed bunnies, missed FT's, an inbounds foible and sub par shooting falls on the shoulders of those on the court. Not Few. The refs allowed a lot of physical hacking on Harris and Kelly too.

Everyone played a part in the loss. All can share equally in the 33 wins and 3 losses in 2013. Few is the only paid person and as such should not get no blame, but also can't get all the blame. We at GUBoards used to be less hostile towards each other and we could discuss any aspect of the game and not be considered pollyannas or negative nancies.

gonwick
04-07-2013, 09:24 PM
There were a lot of things that went wrong, many out of few's control, but i agree with zagco. Few seems to pay no attention to momentum. Kd was on the floor during the second half run. Then he never saw the floor again as the game fell apart. DS seems to be few's security blanket, which strikes me as nutty, because he has such a high risk reward profile. The players on the floor couldn't get it done in the end. It could also be argued that the players on the floor were there because they were the ones few trusted throughout the season. Some would say that's why we won so many games, others might say that it stunted the growth of players who might have contributed. Both arguments have merit. I don't know that I have much faith in few to make in game adjustments. There are some coaches who seem to outmaneuver other coaches on the fly and I don't know that few is in that camp. I do think he preps well in advance (except for southern). Of course, whenever they have coaches miked for tv, i am always amazed at how inane what they say is during timeouts so maybe I'm overestimating the role of coaches. But then, why do they get paid millions.

mgadfly
04-08-2013, 09:21 AM
Whether we can guard the three or not or whether it makes any difference according to Kenpom on how you guard the three....it still seems interesting that we get booted every year by a hot 3 point shooter/shooting team....can it just be coincidence year after year?

I don't think Pomeroy is making a case for ignoring 3 point field goal defense. I think his study showed good teams can impact a game by an average of 3% over the "average" 3 point defensive team. He didn't discuss this in his article, but he confirmed to me that there were teams who (like the consistently good 3pt defending teams) under-performed. Therefore the swing between great and bad defending teams is not 3% as some people took away from the article. It is, I'd guess, more in the 6 to 7% range.

If a team took 30 three point attempts, we are talking a 6.3 point swing between a great three point defending team and a bad three point defending team (when you account for luck). 4.2 points in a 20 three point attempt game.

Those are significant numbers. I don't think Pomeroy is ignoring that, only pointing out that the range is a lot narrower than some fans think.

BUT THE BIGGER POINT is that 3P% defense is only one part of three point defense. He also tracks 3PA% which measures how often teams take three pointers and how often they give up three pointers. I don't know if he has done a study on this, but I've just looked at a few of the successful coaches to see if there was a pattern of some coaches' schemes allowing teams to take more three pointers:

Lets start with Mark Few. I'm going to list out his ranking among the 345 Division 1 schools. A high ranking (250+) means you give up a lot of three pointers. A low ranking (50 and less) means you are one of the best at discouraging three point attempts.

FEW: 326, 223, 265, 182, 261, 249, 309, 248, 315, 233, 280
IZZO: 219, 285, 114, 298, 271, 250, 275, 193, 192, 200, 221
PITINO:182, 146, 189, 164, 92, 183, 111, 224, 287, 178, 116
COACH K: 24, 3, 5, 11, 5, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 6
BOEHEIM: 333, 289, 320, 339, 302, 304, 287, 298, 314, 197, 258

By looking at these five coaches I'd guess that "scheme" has a LOT to do with the overall three point field goal defense. Boeheim is one of the best at creating bad three point shot attempts and keeping the percentage low. Coach K not only keeps the percentage low, but he is a miracle worker at discouraging the other team from even attempting a three against him.

Let us assume 65 possessions in a game. On average 26 of those are three point attempts against Syracuse (or Gonzaga) while only 16 of them are threes against Duke.

Syracuse allows 7.54 of those to be made on average = 22.62 points.
Duke allows 4.8 of those to be made on average = 14.4 points.
GU (historically) has allowed 9 of those to be made. = 27 points.

The % difference of 4.4 points between us and Syracuse is significant, even if, as Kenpom points out, it isn't as big as people think.

But the 13.5 points difference between GU and Duke (which takes into account both 3p% and 3pA% defense) is going to make a difference in a lot of games.

Complicating this is that I'm not considering 2pt fg defensive attempts.

GUnawinit
04-12-2013, 11:13 PM
As I've mentioned before..I'm amazed at the information each board member brings. GU fans are the best!

One in general, "Oregonzag" brings it each and every time...that is, with insight and facts!

I totally agree with OZ, we're fans...fans of the same team!

My question(s) tonight are....

Can "our" GU team make a run next season?

And if so...what seperates GU from the rest.....Karno...GBJ, Pangos with another year of experience...what is it

Would of "Spangler" helped us in the tourney? He seemed to have the heart and desire to win...

I'm just curious...

bigblahla
04-13-2013, 05:38 AM
Would of "Spangler" helped us in the tourney? He seemed to have the heart and desire to win

Spangler "The Lost Zag."

My guess is he would have been asked to red shirt this past season as PT could have been hard to come by but then he may have been able to play himself onto the floor.

He will shine for Oklahoma and barring injury we will be reading about him and thinking about what might have been over the remainder of his college career.

With Spangler no front court worries next season.

Huge loss.

Just my opinion.

Go!! Zags!!!

mgadfly
04-13-2013, 07:22 AM
Spangler wouldn't have helped us this past year. He'd have been too far down the depth chart and would have been better served red-shirting.

If KO is in the NBA next season then we will miss Spangler a ton.

I'm very interested to see how his career looks compared to Karno's. I'm not sure he would have stayed no matter how things worked out (sometimes people just miss home), but I think going after a big time recruit that would compete for and demand minutes pretty much sealed the situation.

I'm not saying it was a Karno or Spangler situation, but I kind of feel like we landed one because we had an immediate need because the other left.

gamagin
04-13-2013, 09:29 AM
new Zag version of Abdullah Kuso. With better hands.

montanazag88
04-13-2013, 10:38 AM
I don't think Pomeroy is making a case for ignoring 3 point field goal defense. I think his study showed good teams can impact a game by an average of 3% over the "average" 3 point defensive team. He didn't discuss this in his article, but he confirmed to me that there were teams who (like the consistently good 3pt defending teams) under-performed. Therefore the swing between great and bad defending teams is not 3% as some people took away from the article. It is, I'd guess, more in the 6 to 7% range.

If a team took 30 three point attempts, we are talking a 6.3 point swing between a great three point defending team and a bad three point defending team (when you account for luck). 4.2 points in a 20 three point attempt game.

Those are significant numbers. I don't think Pomeroy is ignoring that, only pointing out that the range is a lot narrower than some fans think.

BUT THE BIGGER POINT is that 3P% defense is only one part of three point defense. He also tracks 3PA% which measures how often teams take three pointers and how often they give up three pointers. I don't know if he has done a study on this, but I've just looked at a few of the successful coaches to see if there was a pattern of some coaches' schemes allowing teams to take more three pointers:

Lets start with Mark Few. I'm going to list out his ranking among the 345 Division 1 schools. A high ranking (250+) means you give up a lot of three pointers. A low ranking (50 and less) means you are one of the best at discouraging three point attempts.

FEW: 326, 223, 265, 182, 261, 249, 309, 248, 315, 233, 280
IZZO: 219, 285, 114, 298, 271, 250, 275, 193, 192, 200, 221
PITINO:182, 146, 189, 164, 92, 183, 111, 224, 287, 178, 116
COACH K: 24, 3, 5, 11, 5, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 6
BOEHEIM: 333, 289, 320, 339, 302, 304, 287, 298, 314, 197, 258

By looking at these five coaches I'd guess that "scheme" has a LOT to do with the overall three point field goal defense. Boeheim is one of the best at creating bad three point shot attempts and keeping the percentage low. Coach K not only keeps the percentage low, but he is a miracle worker at discouraging the other team from even attempting a three against him.

Let us assume 65 possessions in a game. On average 26 of those are three point attempts against Syracuse (or Gonzaga) while only 16 of them are threes against Duke.

Syracuse allows 7.54 of those to be made on average = 22.62 points.
Duke allows 4.8 of those to be made on average = 14.4 points.
GU (historically) has allowed 9 of those to be made. = 27 points.

The % difference of 4.4 points between us and Syracuse is significant, even if, as Kenpom points out, it isn't as big as people think.

But the 13.5 points difference between GU and Duke (which takes into account both 3p% and 3pA% defense) is going to make a difference in a lot of games.

Complicating this is that I'm not considering 2pt fg defensive attempts.

Statistics with some practical application. Absoutely beautiful work. Now this is about getting better.....where do I send my check for the research grant, Fly?