Deconstructing the Season So Far

It's been a weird season so far. Last night was the fifth time this season that Marquette won the eFG% battle and still ended up losing the game (Butler, UWGB, @GU, @Nova). Because eFG% is so important, this does not happen very often. The easy culprit to point to is the offensive turnover rate, where Marquette turned the ball over on one out of four possessions last night. However, when we dig into the season a bit more, the answer is slightly more nuanced.

The chart above is a moving five game average of the season starting with the game against UConn. One way of looking at it is that Marquette can be inconsistent, but settles into an offensive efficiency range of between 105 and 115 (remember, '100' is average). During conference play, #mubb still had the best offensive efficiency in the Big East with an average of 107.

Another way of looking at the offensive numbers is that Marquette has been sliding since the Seton Hall game. The defensive numbers show an average defensive efficiency of about 100. However, those defensive numbers are getting worse close to the end of the season, which should be disconcerting. Unfortunately, the most concerning part of this chart is how close the offensive efficiency and defensive efficiencies are to each other. Teams that have offensive and defensive efficiencies that are close to each other are 0.500 teams.

Of course, since efficiency can be broken into The Four Factors (eFG%, TO%, OR%, and FTR), how have those trends looked? Below are the trends for eFG%, TO%, and OR%. I am leaving out FTR, because it's irrelevant (repeat after me: FTR is irrelevant).

The eFG% is probably the most promising chart of the entire set. Marquette's eFG% has been improving throughout the season. Despite a decline from the first ND game, it's still at a healthy level. More importantly, the defensive eFG% is reasonably stable, AND there is a nice gap between the two trends. Because eFG% is so much more important than any other factor, this should give some cause for optimism.

Turnovers... yes turnovers. This chart is entirely upside down. One always wants the defensive turnover number to be higher than the offensive turnover number. In addition, typically the turnover rates get better as the season goes on. Unfortunately, we see Marquette's turnover rate continuing to get worse and settling in at around 24%. That means, on average, Marquette turns the ball over one out of four trips down the court.

However, here's where the nuance comes in. Marquette's defensive turnover rate has been even worse! For a long stretch of the season, both rates trended closely together. However, since the second GU game, Marquette's ability to force turnovers has declined significantly. Opponents now turn the ball over about one out of every 5-6 trips down the court.

In other words, it isn't just Marquette's sloppiness with the ball that is hurting... it's also the lack of forcing turnovers as well. Consider that while the Warriors had a turnover rate of 25% last night, the Puking Shamrocks only had a turnover rate of 11%. That's one out of four trips vs one out of ten trips, respectively.

Finally, here's the additional bit of nuance. Similar to turnover rate, OR% (offensive rebounding rate) was trending fairly close together for most of the season. In fact, our defensive rebounding was worse than our offensive rebounding up through about the Pitt game. Then there was a strong improvement defensively while offensive rebounding for MU stayed strong. This was how Marquette was able to win games... with better eFG% and OR%. However, since the Villanova game, defensive rebounding has been worse and worse and now no longer masks the turnover deficiencies.

I almost called this post "The Four Charts of Doom". It shows that the offense has been suffering due to some worse eFG% and a steadily worsening turnover rate. However, it also shows that the defense has been getting worse because of both less turnovers forced and less defensive rebounds.

However, I think that there are several paths for optimism. While it remains unlikely that Marquette will turn into the 2009 or 2010 Marquette teams that were AWESOME at protecting the ball, if Marquette is able to either force more turnovers or dominate the defensive boards, then the team may still be able to make another path to the second weekend of March. If there's anything we've learned, it's that Buzz can spin all kinds of magic with his coaching.

NCAA Profiles (Offense and Defense)

As of today, Marquette's Pomeroy offensive and defensive rank are #14 and #60, respectively. I wanted to dust off the blogging keyboard to ask a question... what are the offensive and defensive profiles of teams that advance in the NCAA tourney?

I've been collecting this information for a few years and have NCAA data from 2007-2012.

First, here are the averages.




The numbers are consistent for both offense and defense. On average, the requirements for a first round win start at a top 35 ranking, move to a top 25 ranking for the Sweet Sixteen, and then become top 20/top 15 for Elite Eight and Final Four.

Marquette is below the average requirement defensively but has an elite offense. How does the breakdown look at the different levels when considering both offense and defense?

This chart is not very helpful. Just note that the x axis is the offensive ranking, the y axis is the defensive ranking, and that it's a logarithmic chart (base 2). Marquette 2013 is the yellow box in the upper left quadrant (top 20 offense / below average defense). Just note that there are lots of teams that win their first round game at all levels of offensive and defensive efficiency. It's almost a kind of madness.

The important point on the Sweet Sixteen chart is that the number of teams with sub-top 20 offense and sub-top 20 defense has dwindled dramatically. Marquette still fits comfortably in the quadrant.

The Elite Eight Chart is where the differences really stand out. Half the Elite Eight teams have both a top 20 offense and a top 20 defense. There's a slight advantage for offensive-minded teams here, but it's pretty small. It is worth noting that half the teams making it to the Elite Eight do so with a very strong offense OR defense.

There's the Final Four profile going back to 2007. It's much more unlikely to make it without a top 20 offense and top 20 defense. Note that the only three teams with sub-par offense and defensive profiles are Michigan State, Butler, and VCU. Or, the greatest tournament coach in history and two goofy Final Four runs.

In summary, Marquette would fit in comfortably with either a Sweet Sixteen profile or an Elite Eight profile, but it's pretty unlikely that the team has a Final Four run in them. Of course, everything really depends on matchups anyway. Finally, note that if we look back to 2003, there was a team with the #1 offense and #101 defense that ended up with a run to the Final Four...

MU turns in 3rd best defensive effort of the decade allowing only 53 points in 72 trips – defensive box score shows Jamil took 11 points off the board

Marquette allowed 53 points in 72 trips today, or 0.736 points per trip down the court. In the past decade Marquette has only allowed fewer points per trip in 18 games, but this is only the third time Marquette’s defense has been that dominant against a team ranked in the top 150. Most have been against the likes of Mt. St. Mary’s. The following are the top three defensive performances beginning with the 2003 season:

Date	Opponent	Pomeroy	Pts All	Poss	Pts per trip
Jan 3 2006	Illinois State	122	32	59	0.542
Nov 28 2008	N. Iowa	81	43	61	0.705
March 17 2012	Murray State	44	53	72	0.736

With all respect to the outstanding defensive stands against Illinois State and Northern Iowa, those were nice early season wins. To hold perhaps the best backcourt in the country – featuring an All-American shooting guard and dominant senior point guard – to these numbers is simply the best defensive performance for Marquette in the past decade – and that includes the 2003 Final Four season.

In Murray State’s 72 trips down the court, Marquette ended:
16 trips by forcing a turnover,
31 trips by forcing a miss and defensive rebound,
4 trips with a made 3-pointer,
16 trips with a made 2-pointer, and
5 trips with a made free throw.

I watched the game again last night and recorded the two stats I’ve been advocating need to be added; 1) STOPS for times at which a player contests a shots or forces a bad shot by defending until near the end of the shot clock or trapping, and 2) TURNOVERS FORCED for times when a player forces a turnover without getting an actual steal. After viewing the entire game, and rewinding through stats, there were also 5 “team stops’ when a Murray State just missed a shot without being tightly guarded, and 2 “team turnovers” – so I divided credit for these 7 trips based on minutes played and ended up with the following defensive box score:

STARTERS	Min	Stl	ChT	TOF	T%	Blk	Stop	T%	DR	Pts. Stopped
Category Value		1	1	1	1	0.66	0.66	0.66	0.33
Jae Crowder, F	39	3	3	1	0.4	2	6	1.0	11	17
Jamil Wilson, F	29	0	0	2	0.3	2	7	0.7	6	11
Todd Mayo, G	25	2	0	0	0.3	0	3	0.6	5	6
Junior Cadougan, G	37	1	1	0	0.4	0	3	0.9	3	6
Darius Johnson-Odom, G	38	1	0	0	0.4	0	2	1.0	2	4
Vander Blue, G	18	0	0	0	0.2	0	2	0.5	2	2
Davante Gardner, F	12	0	0	0	0.1	0	0	0.3	2	1
Juan Anderson, F	1	0	0	0	0.0	0	0	0.0	0	0
Derrick Wilson, G	1	0	0	0	0.0	0	0	0.0	0	0
TOTALS	200	7	4	3	2.0	4	23	5.0	31	48

What caught my attention was that Jamil had 7 stops – contesting shots everywhere from the rim to the arc. He also forced 2 turnovers, blocked 2 shots and grabbed 6 defensive rebounds, and when you add the value of each of those things (see category value line) – Jamil took 11 points off the board in just 29 minutes. This is virtually the same ration as Crowder taking away 17 points in 39 minutes.

While the guards don’t show as many points taken off – they contained perhaps the best backcourt in the country.

So to use Crowder’s line to explain the table:

Crowder forced 7 turnovers total with 3 steals, 3 charges drawn, 1 other turnover forced, plus he gets 0.4 credit for his share of the team turnovers, so his first four lines add up to 7.4 turnovers forced – worth 7.4 points taken off the board.

As for forcing missed shots, Crowder blocked two shots, forced six misses, and gets 1.0 credit for his share of team misses to a total of 9, which takes a total of 6 points off the board.

And finally he grabbed 11 defensive rebounds, which takes 3.66 points off the board.

Mayo and Cadougan took 6 points off the board with their tough play against a phenomenal backcourt.

After Chris Otule was injured, MU struggled for several games and dropped to around the 50th best defense in the country. Since then they have climbed in Pomeroy and now calculate as the 16th best defense as a team that would give up an average of 0.895 points per trip to an average offense. Murray State is very well above average at 1.057 points per trip if they played an average defense, so put them together and you would have expected Murray State to score 0.939 points per trip down the court.

Murray St Offense	1.057
Marquette Def	0.895
Predicted game	0.939
Actual	0.726

As Rob has documented, it almost always takes a top 20 defense to make a Final Four run, and the fact is Marquette has the 16th best defense in the country but played yesterday like by far the best defense in the country.

Gardner part of 5-player offense against rugged Murray State defense

I did not track the specific turnovers forced and stops for Murray State’s defense, but they obviously played fantastic as well. Murray State is just behind Marquette with the 22nd best defense in the land, and help MU to 0.849 points per trip. Blue and J. Wilson really struggled on offense against the tough defense, but if we look at the NBA Efficiency model just for offensive figures from the game we see that the offense/defense substitutions netted solid efforts from Mayo and Gardner to provide a lot of support.

TOTALS	Min	FGM	FGA	3ptM	3ptA	FTM	FTA	OREB	AST	TO	PTS	OEff
Jae Crowder, F	39	6	13	1	5	4	7	2	2	1	17	10
Darius Johnson-Odom, G	38	6	14	1	6	4	6	0	1	0	17	8
Junior Cadougan, G	37	3	7	-	-	2	2	0	4	1	8	7
Todd Mayo, G	25	2	7	2	3	2	2	1	3	3	8	4
Davante Gardner, F	12	2	4	-	-	2	2	0	0	1	6	3
Juan Anderson, F	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	-
Derrick Wilson, G	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	-
Vander Blue, G	18	1	5	-	-	2	2	1	1	4	4	(2)
Jamil Wilson, F	29	1	5	-	1	-	-	1	0	2	2	(3)
Total	200	21	55	4	15	16	21	5	11	12	62	27

Marquette is going to need a third offensive threat in Sweet 16 play, and while Crowder and DJO both had strong offensive performances – MU had the options.

Juniors 4-to-1 assist-to-turnovers against such a talented backcourt is phenomenal, and his ability to drive to the hoop for some baskets and hit the two clutch free throws to wrap up the win cannot be overestimated. While no one shot over 50% from the floor, our three upper classman were very solid offensively.

But Gardner and Mayo may have been the two most clutch offensive players when you look at when they made their big contributions. Mayo hit the two early treys when MU could have fallen way behind, and then he came back to draw the crucial foul to stop the bleeding.

Davante was overpowering as always in getting his 6 points playing on one leg and for just 12 minutes.

To have five players fight through a very tough defense to all contribute, on the same day as we turn in what I would argue is the best defensive performance since Pomeroy started tracking numbers in 2003 is a very good place to be heading out to Phoenix for the Sweet 16 to play the Florida-Norfolk State winner and then perhaps Michigan State for a chance at the Final Four.

The fact that we now know that Marquette spent the last couple of months finishing second place in a Big East Conference that is now 10-3 in the NCAA tournament and will have between three and six Sweet 16 teams is a good sign indeed. It may be a good time to dream big.

Defense and Projections

Last year, in early January, I wrote an article wondering if Defense was Marquette's Achilles Heel.  It's worth re-reading, but here is an update.

Teams that are elite have good defenses.  In particular, over the past five years, here are the average defensive rankings of teams at each level of the NCAA tourney.

• Won their first game (#34)
• Sweet Sixteen (#26)
• Elite Eight (#20)
• Final Four (#17)

It was the exception rather than the norm for a team like Marquette (defensive rank of #61) to make the Sweet Sixteen last year.  In fact, over the last five years, only twelve teams with a defensive rank worse than 50 (15% of teams) make the Sweet Sixteen.  Only three teams with a defensive rank worse than 50 made the Elite Eight (8%), and one of them was VCU!  It happens, but the odds are against you.  This was a giant concern for Buzz's teams, which had never been better than a defensive rank of 50 over three years.  Tangent - it was a total freak that the 2003 team (defensive rank of #101) made the Final Four... helps that they were #1 offensively.

Not all aspects of defense are the same.  In particular, defensive eFG% is twice as important as forcing turnovers, three times as important as preventing offensive rebounds, and fourteen times more important than not letting your opponent get to the free throw line.  Marquette's defense under Buzz has been weakest in the most important area (eFG%) and strongest in the least important area (free throw rate)

Last night's result against South Florida was the best Big East defensive game in Buzz's tenure.  Marquette held the Bulls to 0.71 ppp on 40% eFG and a turnover rate of 37%.  More importantly, although this was a great result defensively, it wasn't a particularly unique result this year.  Here's where things currently stand defensively for Marquette, in comparison to the last three years.  

Marquette has turned their defense into the #24 overall unit.  In other words, MU's defense is playing somewhere between the average Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight defense for the first time under Buzz.  There's also a marked difference in the defensive priorities, with our strengths now in the two most important aspects of defense.  Note that at this time last year, Marquette's defense was ranked #70.  Finally, as Pudner wrote a week ago, the defense is ranked higher than the offense for the first time under Buzz.  

Should expectations be high for the remainder of the season?  Consider this, according to the Pomeroy projections (subscription required - but seriously, it's the best value on the Internets).

• Marquette has about a 93% chance of finishing with 11+ wins (5-5 down the stretch)
• About an 80% of finishing with 12+ wins (6-4)
• ~50% of finishing with 13+ wins
• and for you real optimists, about a 20% of finishing with 14 wins or more

A winnable road opportunity awaits this weekend at Villanova.  Saturday's game will prove an additional marker of how good Marquette can be this season, both overall and defensively.  Here's to continued defensive success for the rest of the season and beyond.

Improved Guard Play Will Be Key To Reversing Trends

Tonight, Marquette begins a difficult two-game stretch of road games.  Unfortunately, despite the recent conference opening win over Villanova, the Warriors have been slumping.  This chart shows the cumulative total of how many points Marquette has been winning (or losing) by since the second Norfolk State game.

However, that chart just shows Marquette plateauing, mostly due to two rough losses.  There is a definite slump on the current efficiency trends.  Below is a five-game moving average of Marquette's efficiency (offensive and defensive) since the NFSU #2.

Both our offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency are getting worse as the season goes along.  Part of this can be chalked up to poor recent outings.  However, consider that Marquette hasn't been strong offensively almost the entire month of December (Northern Colorado is the exception).  That the defensive efficiency is getting worse is not really a surprise (unfortunately), but the offensive trend is a real concern.  After all, offense has never been an issue under Buzz.

When we look at the same trends of the top three players on Marquette (Jae, DJO, and Gardner), their net contributions are still continuing to trend mostly upwards.  DJO has also had a stretch of slumping/plateauing.  However, it is the play of the remaining guards that tells a different story.

Junior's contributions float along sideways and are fairly varied.  Lately, his net contributions have been either  really good or really bad on the court.  It is the current trends of Vander Blue and Todd Mayo that are concerning.  After a very strong start to the season for both players, their net contributions on the court are both trending negative, somewhat in mirror to the overall team trends.

After the year that Vander had last year, this is especially reason to worry.  He likewise started the year strong and struggled mightily at the end.  Mayo was sensational to open the season, but he remains a freshman.  It would be the exception for Todd to not have struggles this year.  Regardless of what happens, we will almost certainly need their overall contributions to improve for Marquette to get better.  Improved guard play tonight and this weekend appears to be the key.

Home Court Advantage

... or how to better influence the referees

This past summer, I read "Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won".  What actually appealed to me most about the book (besides one of the authors being a Chicago Booth professor), was an article based on the book that appeared in the print version of Sports Illustrated.  Since then, I've been waiting until the start of the season to write this post.  Because this season, MU needs to improve its home court advantage, and "Scorecasting" reveals the clues.

Consider the following numbers (based on Pomeroy's preseason schedule predictions).  Marquette has ten home games against conference or top 100 opponents (Vanderbilt).  Six of those games are against Top 50 teams and three of those games are against top 25 teams.  More on this in a bit.

Here's the short version of the chapters from the book.  Home court advantage is real and it spans all kinds of sports, including baseball, soccer, and basketball.  However, the advantage from playing at home has very little to do with any of the traditional explanations.  None of these explanations actually infer home court advantage:

• Crowd Support
• Traveling is hard on the opposing team
• Unique "home" characteristics or comfort level with the home court

Nope.  What contributes to home court advantage is referee bias.  To quote from the book...

In fact, "officials' bias" is the most significant contributor to home field advantage.

Referees are more likely to make calls in favor of the home team.  Despite their best efforts to be largely impartial, referees are human.  And, they're more likely to make calls in favor of the home team when it really matters. In other words, a home team is less likely to get the benefit of bias when they're already well down or well ahead.*

*you don't have to believe these claims.  Go read the book if you don't.  But when we get to the "so what?" of this post, it won't really matter all that much if you believe it or not.

Essentially, the top opportunities to influence the referees come in ambiguous calls.  And this gets to the heart of how referee bias can be swayed in MU's favor.  It's all above board and legal, of course.  It just boils down to telling the referees how much you like them when they make a judgement call in MU's favor (and of course voicing your displeasure when the judgement call goes against #mubb).

1. Palming / Traveling - Please remind the referees that EVERY traveling call against our opponents was a great decision.  However, EVERY traveling call against Marquette is a travesty of justice.
2. Loose ball fouls (screens/hand checks) - EVERY loose ball foul committed by our opponents is a terrific call by the wise referees.  However, I have yet to EVER see Marquette commit a single loose ball foul (now that Chris Grimm has graduated)
3. Charges / offensive fouls - It simply must be stated.  Marquette is the VERY best team in the nation at perfectly positioning to take charges.  And of course, Marquette has NEVER committed an offensive foul.

Naturally, fans already react vociferously against these types of calls.  But do you react on EVERY judgement call EVERY time?  Will it matter if you do?  Let's return to the the number of games MU has at home this season.  Ten home games against conference or top 100 opponents (Vanderbilt).  Six of those games are against Top 50 teams and three of those games are against top 25 teams.

Buzz's win percentages against those levels are 67% against all conference/top 100, 50% vs top 50 opponents, and 50% vs top 25 opponents. 

Against the top 25 opponents, will MU win one game, two games, or three?  Against all opponents, will Marquette only win six, or will that number be seven or higher?  Improving the judgement calls in favor of Marquette may end up making the difference.  Every judgement call.  Every time.

Give a great big welcome to the referees next time they enter the court.  Make them feel loved, especially when they call traveling against our opponents.

Defense Showing Signs of Improvement

Here's your interesting news for the day. The math says that Marquette is the third best team in the conference. Yes, that same Marquette that currently stands at 18-11 (9-7) and in seventh place in the league, staring at a 10-seed in the NCAA tournament.

As a reminder, this is based on efficiency margin, which is the difference between a team's offense and defense. Great teams have offenses much higher than their defenses. 0.500 teams have offenses and defenses about the same. Losing teams have negative efficiency margins (defenses higher than their offenses). In truth, the math has been kinder this season than MU's opponents. Even two weeks ago, Marquette was the #4 team according to stats, largely on the strength of MU's top tier offense. If your offense is the #14 offense in the country, it's easier to have a good efficiency margin. However, as we have discussed incessantly, it's always been the defense that was dragging down Marquette. In fact, two weeks ago, MU's defense was the same as Providence's, and just barely better than Rutgers and USF. That's not the kind of company MU wants to keep.

However, the last two weeks have shown substantial improvement in the Marquette's defensive performance. As a result (and thanks to Villanova's current three-game slide), MU now stands at #3 in efficiency margin --- the team has held three straight opponents under 0.98 ppp (Seton Hall, UConn, and Providence). MU held Providence to 0.81 ppp, which was the Warriors' the 5th best defensive performance of the year. Looking at conference-only statistics, three of the best defensive performances of the year have been the last three games.

Seton Hall - MU's overall defense was about the same in each half. In the first half, MU allowed SHU to score 0.97 ppp. The Pirates shot an eFG% of 55%, but Marquette dominated the boards and only allowing an offensive rebounding percentage of 13%. In the second half, MU allowed 0.99 ppp by tightening up the defensive eFG% (47% for SHU). More on this in a minute.

UConn - This was a game of two halves. In the first half, when UConn was flummoxed by the MU zone, the opponent only scored 0.77 ppp. That's Prairie View A&M type defense. UConn only shot an eFG% of 34% and had a turnover rate of 23%. In the second half, UConn scored 1.15 ppp. Yuck. However, this was mostly based on them dominating the defensive boards (they grabbed 61% of all missed shots). And yet... UConn still only shot 48% on eFG% in the second half, and 39.6% for the game.

Providence - Marquette allowed 0.71 ppp in the first half and 0.88 ppp in the second half. In neither half did PC shoot better than 40% on eFG% (34% and 37%). This was a great performance.

That's five straight halves of high-quality eFG% defense. As we've been saying, defensive eFG% is by far the most important aspect of defense. It's no surprise that some of MU's best defensive improvement is following this area.

As a result, MU's defensive profile has leaped from the mid-80's ranking to #57. As Tim noted, we wonder if part of this improvement is due to the increased on-court performance of Chris Otule. We'll continue to watch. Regardless, if the defense continues to improve, Marquette may finally have a defense just good enough to have the on-court performance catch up to the math.

Should Marquette Press More?

In Blackheart's guest post about pace and defensive efficiency, he looked at how the book is out on Marquette. In a follow-up post on MUScoop, I mapped out a simple model of pace to defensive efficiency, ending up with a preferred pace of 70 possessions or more.

The most recent game against Villanova helped bear these ideas out. The pace for the game was 65 possessions, which was slower than their average (68) as well as ours (69). The net result was that Villanova scored 1.15 points per possession (either at or slightly higher than expected). Again.... slow Marquette down and you can beat them.

However, Buzz made a decision in the course of the game that prompted us to start thinking. Down by fourteen points at Villanova with about ten minutes to go, Marquette brought out the full court press. Over the course of the next seven minutes, Marquette managed to whittle the Nova lead from fourteen points down to three. The performance was impressive, Buzz' gambit paid off. What did those stats look like during this period?


During this stretch Marquette scored 1.61 ppp vs Villanova's 1.01, handily winning the eFG% battle (68% vs 44%) as well as the turnover battle (8% vs 31%) convincingly. MU gave up more free throws during this period. (Well, that was happening the whole game.) Played at a full 40 minutes, the press would have resulted in a pace of 71 possessions per game. Not only did the team drastically improve their efficiency, but MU held Villanova to an efficiency far less than the game average.

Is this a strategy the team should use more often? We think they should.

First, when a team is attempting to slow down Marquette, the press helps increase the pace of the action. Marquette can counter the "burn" offenses with press defenses to force a quicker pace. Second, although the press can give up quick easy baskets, one needs to ask "compared to what?" If a slower game is already hurting MU's defensive efficiency, then it's not like the opponent isn't already getting relatively easy buckets.

We'll note that one stretch of seven minutes is a pretty small sample size. In addition, we do not believe that the press is an effective complete game strategy. Over the long run, quality teams will consistently beat the press. Further, the press is a poor strategy against inferior opponents. Besides, Buzz's bench is too short to press regularly.

However, we'd like to see Marquette break out the press for longer stretches during the game (like timeout to timeout) as part of the ongoing work the team does to change defenses. Not only could it help MU set the tempo of the game, but it could also provide another defensive wrinkle for opposing coaches to contend with.

Defenseless Marquette falls at Villanova

Marquette kept its moral victory streak alive last night with a 75-70 loss on the road to the 12th-ranked Villanova Wildcats.

After falling behind by nine points at halftime and as many as 14 in the second half, the Warriors rallied to close the gap late. Regardless, show me a moral victory and I'll show you a losing team.

When all was said and done, Marquette was overwhelmed by Villanova's size, patience on offense, and its own poor defense which led to a remarkable free throw rate advantage for the Wildcats. Villanova connected on 29 of 33 free throws for the game while MU sank 13-14. Along the way Marquette struggled with foul trouble, including Jae Crowder's critical fifth foul with 2:32 remaining and the Warriors trailing by six.

The real story, as it always is for this team, was Marquette's porous defense. After a solid defensive performance in the first half where MU limited Wildcats to an eFG of just 43.3%, for the most part the Warriors' defensive effectiveness didn't make it out of the locker room after the break.

In the second half Marquette allowed an astonishing 1.23 points per possession (ppp) and an eFG% of 56%. Factor in Villanova's second half free throw rate (FTR) of 1.33 and it's easy to see why MU could not get closer than three points in the game's final 1o minutes. FTR is the ratio of free throw attempts to field goal attempts.

Still up for debate was a stretch in the second half where Buzz shook things up and went to a full court press. Between the 10 minute mark and 4:58 mark in the second half, this defensive scheme forced four Villanova turnovers, 25% of the Wildcats' turnover total for the game. Perhaps more importantly the pressure led to easier buckets for MU. Marquette whittled the Villanova lead from 14 points down to just three with five minutes to play, but was unable to overcome the deficit as the Wildcats lived at the line in the game's final minutes.

While the second half defensive adjustment showed promise during this five-minute spurt, MU's inability to string together a series of stops remains a derailment factor for this team. Ultimately the press was modestly encouraging but with MU's foul issues last night the benefits were somewhat mitigated to say the least. The overall defensive performance was still lacking.

Links Links Links

• AP recap
• Rosiak blogs on the loss
• Rosiak newspaper recap

Guest post: Marquette, pace and the rest of the schedule

The time has come to head back to math class and take a hard look at this year's Marquette basketball team and we're pleased to welcome the inimitable Dr. Blackheart back to Cracked Sidewalks for another guest post.

To a degree today's post builds on Dr. Blackheart's recent look at MU's defense. Yes, the good doctor's expertise is habit-forming. Thanks again, Doc.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Possessed

From the bar stools of Old World Third Street and the Third Ward to the keyboards of the interwebs, every MU fan with a right index finger (to order the next round or to hunt ‘n peck for that second exclamation point) has anointed themselves the next “Coach in Waiting” based upon their theories about MU’s defense. According to Statsheet, our vaunted Warriors are #1 in Big East play in offensive efficiency (1.18 PPP). MU can “tickle the twine” like no other in a tough, tough conference with great, experienced coaches who know how to shut a team down. Conversely, our defensive efficiency of 1.09 PPP is second to last, tied with a few conference standing bottom feeders after DePaul.

This is not news to anyone who follows Buzz’s Dozen as the sale of Tagamet in Greater Milwaukee is up 75% with all these “so close but yet so far” games. The boys really stepped up against Syracuse and are learning how to finish off opponents. However, our defensive efficiency still was not great (1.08) against the Orange, especially in the 2nd half where SU shot a blistering 68.2%. The outcome was favorable this weekend, but the symptoms of the patient are still present.

As a fan, I have always been most interested in strategy of coaches more than other aspect of the game. The Big East is the #1 competitive conference in the land, but the ability and creativity of the coaches are legendary. On top of that, the schedule and pressure are grueling with quick turnarounds, packed houses and national TV audiences. Word of a team or player strength or weakness travels quickly in today’s digital world. Being curious, I dove a little deeper into the advance stats on the internet to see what an opposing coach might see about MU that maybe isn’t so apparent by perusing the box score.

Beyond the Averages

Taking a step back, we discussed previously how Buzz uses his defense—like Lovie Smith’s in football-- to limit an opponent’s offense by pressuring for turnovers at pinch points in order to feed the energy of MU’s offensive juggernaut. One way to statistically define energy is by looking at the number of possessions. Last season, with MU’s make-up, Buzz wanted to limit possessions. This season, he wants to increase that energy--which is more his stated natural philosophy. To delve deeper, I took a look at each of our games to see how this looks in numbers.

First, I segmented games from this season into above average possession games (>69 per game) and those at/below the average. Here is what I found:

• MU is 7-2 in above average possession games.
• MU is 7-6 in games at or below that average.
• MU’s offensive efficiency in both segments of the games is almost exactly the same (1.16 vs. 1.17)
• MU defensive efficiency in fast paced games is 0.89, while average to slower paced games the statistic is 1.10. Ah, the magic bean: “Slow MU down and you can break them down!”

More so, in faster paced games, MU’s opponents assist less and turn the rock over at a higher rate (0.90 assist to turnover ratio vs. 1.36), and their opponents’ offensive (28% vs. 36%) and defensive (58% vs. 68%) rebounding rates are lower. This is further “proof in numbers” of how offensive energy is so critical in Buzz’s defensive philosophy this season—and why coaches are trying to slow MU down, especially with adjustments after MU has jumped to leads.

Buzz has always stressed a highly efficient offensive philosophy, predicated on paint touches. What did this offensive-defensive difference look like last season when MU wanted a slower paced game to fight starter attrition—with this leading to a record number of close games? The answer: the same. While the game possession average was down (65), fast and slow/average paced games saw MU with similar levels of offensive efficiency, but MU’s defensive efficiency was much lower (better) in faster paced games at 96.0 vs. 104.2 in slower grinders.

So, the chess game between coaches will continue: Brey stressing his “Burn Offense”, Pitino with the switching zones and the three quarters trap, Boeheim with the 2-3 zone, Calhoun slowing down Walker and putting their younglings in a position to score by working the shot clock. Upcoming, Nova likes a faster paced game as does Providence, but the remainder of the teams on the schedule like to take the air out of ball or are even paced. Buzz will try to feed the offensive vortex from the get-go.

My advice: Try Tum’s if the Tagamet is sold out.

The Defense Issue: a guest column

We're pleased to welcome another guest post from Dr. Blackheart. You may recall that Dr. Blackheart contributed two guest posts in September and one in December. His first post looked at offensive efficiency and turnovers. The second one predicted low three percent percentages and guessed at the starting lineup. The December post looked at the early season trends for Marquette hoops.

Today the Good Doctor opines on Marquette's defense. Now, realize that while MU's defense raises questions the offense remains sublime. Consider the latest from John Gasayway of Basketball Prospectus. John notes that Marquette runs the most efficient offense in the Big East play (1.24 ppp) despite playing a brutal early stretch in conference action. As we've said all along, MU's offensive prowess is remarkable and it appears to be sustainable in the nation's best league.

Let's look further into Gasaway's analysis -- yup, MU also deploys the one of the least efficient defenses in the Big East (1.13ppp). But again, considering the early competition and MU's recent effort against Notre Dame, it appears the Warriors might be in position to improve its offense-to-defense efficiency margin as it moves through conference play. This would be a good thing. And the best way to do that of course is by improving the defense since MU already has a top 10 offense, nationally.

With that I'll turn things over to Dr. Blackheart for a look at Marquette's defense. MUScoop enthusiasts will recognize today's guest column -- it was originally posted on the Scoop earlier this week.

======

I will chime in here on my interpretation of what Buzz likes to do on D. I think of it this way: He is like the Lovie Smith of Hoops--a Tampa Two analogy. Zone the receivers in boxes/areas, play for turnovers, pressure the passer, constrict the running game, double team the ball once received looking for a turnover. Defense is an efficiency play to feed the offense with turnovers. It is not a stop defense, in my opinion.

First and foremost, Buzz pressures the point guard from three-quarter court. He wants to use up 10 seconds of the shot clock getting the ball up to delay opponents' offensive flow, and he wants the ball out of the playmaker's hands as soon as the PG passes mid-court.

Second, Buzz wants shooters to receive the ball on the wing as they typically cannot create for themselves and are trappable. When MU traps that leaves the cross-court wing open as the help-side defender slides toward the middle to stop a drive if the wing reverses it back to the PG. Where MU gets burned is with a quick ball reversal to the open wing for an open look, but hopefully rushed. MU has been slow to rotate in these instances.

Third, we typically back the post but the help-side defender stays closer to the post to try to deny or double in the paint. MU's bigs are space eaters as their goal is simply to protect the paint. In the Revealed video, you saw Buzz reaming Junior Cadougan on being slow to the rotation down low to set blocking positioning just out of the paint to constrict a wing driver. In the Vandy game, the Commodores flashed the post at the end and the guards and Jae went to double the ball, leaving Otule to defend two players in the paint on what became the decisive basket. MU is still not good at any of this as a team--it seems like it is a communication thing which will come. I thought they were very good against Notre Dame, however.

Switches: MU will fight over a pick but will not generally switch. When you see Otule out on the perimeter with the picker, his goal is to stop the penetration of the dribbler and retreat. MU gets beat often on switches on backpicks--aka how the Princeton offense is so successful with their back door cuts (dribbler drives to the pick, defense doubles and picker slides to the hoop unguarded).

The reason Buzz wants switchables, which Texas A&M had during his time there, is they are athletic and strong with disruptive wingspans (hard to throw over). Buzz needs good footspeed (recovery on rotations) as well in our wing defenders. While Buzz has has wingspan today on the roster, the talent to come -- Wilson and Anderson -- are more prototypical in this regard.

Buzz's defense seems to me a bit scattered at times in terms of what he wants to scheme--perimeter, interior, in-bounding, match-up, slow rotations. And then he throws in a 3-2 zone to limit the perimeter, but we get burned inside.

The ND game I thought was a great scheme--they knew that to stop ND, you stopped their only playmaker, Ben Hansbrough. Buzz wanted to make the frosh Atkins beat him on the road, and with Carleton Scott out, MU could control/limit the paint.

But Buzz makes the big money and I am a keyboard PG, so what do I know. The team is really starting to come together but we do have a long ways to go on Team D.

Warriors take the fight out of the Irish

What a difference a few days can make.

After turning in the worst defensive performance of the Buzz Williams era just two days earlier, Marquette re-emerged as a Big East contender last night. With new-found defensive toughness and a wicked-good offense the Marquette Warriors dominated 10th ranked Notre Dame on Monday night winning 79-57.

The Warriors put four players in double figures led by a career-high 21 points from Dwight Buycks, who was a perfect 5-5 from 3-point range. Jae Crowder finished with 18, Jimmy Butler added 15, and Darius Johnson-Odom chipped in with 13. The Fearsome Foursome keyed a dominant offensive performance for MU which hit on 53% of its shots overall and nearly 71% from deep (12-17). The efficiency geeks are still panting over MU's breathtaking eFG% of 65% (78% in the 2H!).

All of that offense is fine but the real difference last night was defense. MU played with an edge defensively and it showed. MU held the sweet-shooting Irish to a paltry eFG% of 42%. Notre Dame came in with a national top 15 offense -- averaging over 1.15 points per possession (ppp) -- and the Warriors held them to 0.90 ppp, the Irish's third worst offensive performance of the season. This was easily MU's finest defensive performance against a quality opponent this year.

Struggling from the field from the opening tip, Mike Brey's club could not free up leading scorers Ben Hansbrough and Tim Abromaitis. The duo, which combines to average more than 32 points per game, finished with a total of 19 points on just 17 attempts from the field. Marquette's defensive scheme forced the Irish to rely on third, fourth or even fifth options offensively and ND was not equipped to keep pace.

The moral of the story is that Marquette can play defense after all. Let's see them do it consistently.

Let's pile on. The loss was Notre Dame's most lopsided defeat in nearly three years -- and that loss also came at the hands of the Warriors. Marquette buried the Irish 92-66 on January 12, 2008.

With the win MU moves to 12-5 on the season and 3-1 in Big East play. Next up for Marquette is a trip to Louisville on Saturday.

Box Score
AP recap
Rosiak blogs a recap
Roiak's recap from the paper
Tom Noie of the South Bend Tribune recaps the Irish clunker
ESPN has a video post-game extra

Is Defense Marquette's Achilles' Heel?

After last year's senior day game (which Marquette lost. Again. Of course) I had a conversation with someone at a Milwaukee watering hole. This person knows a lot more about basketball than I do, having served as both a team manager and a high school coach. Me... I mostly work with numbers and watch hoops. I was complaining that Marquette's defense was not good. His response was that Marquette was playing defense a lot better than they were at the beginning of the year.

We were both right. Back to this in a minute. Let's consider how important defense is to any program and what the gaps are for the Warriors.

Point #1 - Marquette will never be elite until their defense is elite.

The best summary of this fact comes from CNNSI's Luke Winn, whose holiday tradition of Early Warnings shows which teams are pretenders or contenders around New Year's Eve. What I particularly like is that he shows the offensive and defensive efficiency of NCAA Elite teams. Last year's list had the Elite Eight teams going back to 2003-2004. Winn's 2010 Early Warnings List (ps - he bags on UConn and ND) shows other teams that might be contenders or pretenders this year. Now, the point of Winn's list is to demonstrate which teams, ranked or unranked, might be real Elite Eight/Final Four/National Championship teams and which ones might not. However, it's all built on the notion that there is a profile for each Elite Eight team.

The average Elite Eight team has a national Defensive Efficiency Ranking of 16. The average Final Four team has a rank of 9. For giggles, National Champs average 5.3 nationally in defensive efficiency. But once your team's defensive efficiency gets worse than 25, you're really talking about a crazy run to make the Elite Eight (think Pittsnogle's WVU team or Stephen Curry's Davidson team). Honestly, even when there, Elite Eight is your ceiling.

But what does this mean for Marquette?

Here is the same chart with Marquette's defensive efficiency numbers from the last two and a half years -- the Buzz Williams Era.

There's the issue. Marquette has managed to develop a nearly elite offensive capability in the last three years. Buzz not only modifies the offense to the strengths of his team, but does it so effectively that the team runs a top 25 offense.

However, no matter how good MU is offensively it's the defense that will continue to hold the program back and is the reason that, despite an elite offense, Buzz's teams play so many close games. Ultimately, MU's inability to defend at a high level decreases the program's margin for error night after night.

Let's look at Buzz's progression as the MU head coach. Yes, I know that two years ago, Marquette was short. And last year MU was also short with an even shorter bench. This year Marquette is taller but now more inexperienced. Still, rationalizing poor defensive efficiency eventually just becomes a pile of excuses, especially after 2.5 years. After all, MU successfully makes the adjustments offensively year to year, and Buzz inherited a program that was consistently a good defensive team (#31 defensively in 2007 and #10 defensively the year before he became head coach).

Point #2 - Not all aspects of defense are the same

Essentially, defense can be broken up into the four factors. Those are not letting your opponent get good shots, forcing turnovers, defensive rebounding, and not letting your opponent get to the line. However, their relative weights are not the same. This is very important. Very. Important.

If one breaks down what contributes to defense, 27% of defense just comes from facing a D1 opponent for 40 min. However, 41% of defense is effective Field Goal percentage (eFG%). Defensive eFG is twice as important as forcing turnovers. Effective field goal percentage is three times as important as preventing offensive rebounds. And almost fourteen times more important than not letting your opponent get to the free throw line.

What this tells us is that the primary goal of a defense should be preventing open looks. Then it's a tossup between forcing turnovers and limiting offensive rebounds (although forcing turnovers is better). Finally, and way down the list, is preventing your opponent from getting to the line.

But what does this mean for Marquette?

Here's how Marquette ranked/ranks on the four factors. This is the big issue with Marquette's defense and the ceiling the Warriors' defensive performance places on the program. The aspect that is the most important is where MU ranks the worst. Consistently. The area that is the least important for defensive performance is where Marquette ranks the best. Consistently. What the numbers say is that Marquette is emphasizing the wrong type of defensive priorities, year after year.

Vandy, West Virginia, and NCAA games

The last two games against Vanderbilt and West Virginia show how Marquette remains competitive. Our offense is great. Realize that an average offense scores 1.00 points per possession (ppp) and Marquette scored 1.10 ppp against Vanderbilt (who has the #21 defense and only allows 0.88 ppp). On the road! MU had an offensive eFG% of 60% against one of the nation's better defensive teams. However, as that final basket showed, MU just couldn't make the stops. Against West Virginia, Marquette had an extraordinary 1.22 points per possession but gave up a remarkable 1.15 ppp while allowing WVU to shoot an eFG% of 56%. With offensive efficiency of this magnitude, MU should be winning games like these by double digits.

What MU is doing is winning games with their offense, but creating the lack of margin because of lousy defense. Last year Marquette had an Offensive Efficiency of 1.16 points per possession against Washington. Two years ago MU scored 1.11 points per possession against Missouri. Those efficiencies should have been good enough to win an NCAA game.

With this recent history, does anyone really believe Marquette can play lock-down defense when it matters?

Which brings us back to the story from the beginning of this post. I have no doubt that Buzz can coach defense. Well... better said, I don't know basketball well enough to question if the coaching staff is properly teaching defense. So I trust when someone that knows basketball better than I do says the team is playing better defense. He's right, MU is demonstrating modest improvement. Yet, the numbers are the numbers. Not only has Marquette consistently not played good enough defense the last two and a half years, but it's been neglecting the most important aspect of defense and emphasizing the least important. We're both right.