A Rant about defense

[DaveHuskiesFan]

Oh great another one of these threads. This is for the people who think our defense sucks. That Kenpom must be wrong. Lets take a look at numbers beyond Kenpom.

How about standard scoring defense?

We give up 62.6 points a game. 16th out of 342 teams. Thats in the top 4.6%.

Blocked Shots?

5.3 per game. Good for 31st in the country. Thats in the top 9% of teams. (Half our games without Brimah)

Field goal percentage defense?

37.3%, that's the 6th best in the country. Good for that top 1.75% of teams.

Oh our three point defense sucks? How about three point defense?

It's 30.8%, 32nd in the country, in the top 9.3% of teams.

Kenpom?

Ranks us as the 11th best adjusted defensive efficiency team in the country.

Try actually watching the game people. We have one of the best defenses in the country, and one of the best defenses we have EVER had at UConn. And we are doing this in an era where freedom of movement is being allowed. You cant quantify teams from those eras against this one, but even if you tried you'd still see this team is one of the best we've ever had.

But you're right, we're a terrible defensive team. Statistics mean nothing.

 

[polycom]

Do you invest in stock purely on what a chart tells you? If so, this way of thinking makes sense.

 

[tcf15]

I've never seen a forum so divided on a subject like this one is with statistics and the eye test. Wait, yes I have...

For the record, I don't know how anyone could look at the stats and say "Nah, they are wrong - this team is pretty poor defensively."

 

[polycom]

For the record, I don't think we are bad as the eye test makes us look.

 

[Waquoit]

Oh great another one of these threads. This is for the people who think our defense sucks. That Kenpom must be wrong. Lets take a look at numbers beyond Kenpom.

I still don't think KenPom rises much above the level of fun with numbers.

 

[Inyatkin]

The problem with "the eye test" is that it's completely subjective, and what one person sees isn't what everyone else sees. You can always go back to some anecdote or whatever to prove your point. However flawed the stats are, they're the same no matter who looks at them. And those stats say we're good.

 

[tcf15]

For the record, I don't think we are bad as the eye test makes us look.

Welp, there's a reason for that.

 

[CTBasketball]

I responded to this in another thread but am going to repost. I am ready for the barrage of hate I'm about to get.

I tend to agree with @polycom on this one. I think that our defensive numbers are so good is because we have literally only played 2-3 decent teams this year and 1 good team (Maryland). The rest of the schedule has been against teams that won't make any postseason tournament. Because of this our lackluster defense as polycom points out; failure to stay in front of guards, poor 3 pt defending, etc is masked because the level of competition we play. We saw how abused we got against Maryland and Gonzaga. Teams that run a disciplined offense kill us - even Tulsa with good shooters lit us up.

So again I'm not placing too much into the grey area stats. But to even mention this is one of the best defenses we've ever had is laughable. Our strength of schedule this year is 103rd best in the country. And according to kenpom's adjusted defensive efficiency stats, we're the 11th best defensive team. So here are a list of what I classify as our best defensive teams (for comparison purposes, I added 2006-2007):

2016 - SOS = 103, AdjD = 11
2014 - SOS = 34, AdjD = 10
2009 - SOS = 20, AdjD = 3
2007 - SOS = 78, AdjD = 8
2006 - SOS = 34, AdjD = 25
2004 - SOS = 22, AdjD = 5

So I guess what I am trying to say is that there is more to the game than stats. If you think the 2015-2016 Huskies are a better defensive team than the 05'-06' team then I'm sorry. I would really enjoy to hear a response that explains why statistics are true when it says that the 15'-16' squad is better defensively than the 05'-06' team.

@BLUEDOGHOUSE I didn't get to watch the video - its blocked from my work computer. I will when I get home.

 

[Palatine]

We have some every good individual defenders like Purvis, Adams, Nolan, and some very average defenders like Hamilton and Gibbs.

The team looks better lately as we seem to understand our rotations better. Early in the season and right after Brimah went out some of our games looked like a lay up line for our opponents.

The key is that our defense is trending in the right direction. We do seem to give up lots of uncontested shot from behind the arc but that doesn't seem to hurt us.

 

[Inyatkin]

I don't like your over-reliance on stats, so here are some stats to prove my point.

 

[zls44]

THE METRICS FACTOR IN STRENGTH OF OPPONENT SO STOP SAYING THEYRE INFLATED BY THE OPPONENTS THATS LITERALLY NOT TRUE

/end caps

 

[CTBasketball]

THE METRICS FACTOR IN STRENGTH OF OPPONENT SO STOP SAYING THEYRE INFLATED BY THE OPPONENTS THATS LITERALLY NOT TRUE

/end caps

AdjD - Adjusted defensive efficiency - An estimate of the defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions) a team would have against the average D-I offense.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossary

 

[Leebo]

AdjD - Adjusted defensive efficiency - An estimate of the defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions) a team would have against the average D-I offense.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossary

Are you arguing this doesn't mean strength isn't factored in? It's saying that if you only give up 50 points every 100 possessions to terrible teams, your adjusted efficiency would be worse because it reflects defense against an average level.

If you gave up more points to great teams, your efficiency would be adjusted to be better because you are facing above average competition.

 

[Inyatkin]

I responded to this in another thread but am going to repost. I am ready for the barrage of hate I'm about to get.

I tend to agree with @polycom on this one. I think that our defensive numbers are so good is because we have literally only played 2-3 decent teams this year and 1 good team (Maryland). The rest of the schedule has been against teams that won't make any postseason tournament. Because of this our lackluster defense as polycom points out; failure to stay in front of guards, poor 3 pt defending, etc is masked because the level of competition we play. We saw how abused we got against Maryland and Gonzaga. Teams that run a disciplined offense kill us - even Tulsa with good shooters lit us up.

So again I'm not placing too much into the grey area stats. But to even mention this is one of the best defenses we've ever had is laughable. Our strength of schedule this year is 103rd best in the country. And according to kenpom's adjusted defensive efficiency stats, we're the 11th best defensive team. So here are a list of what I classify as our best defensive teams (for comparison purposes, I added 2006-2007):

2016 - SOS = 103, AdjD = 11
2014 - SOS = 34, AdjD = 10
2009 - SOS = 20, AdjD = 3
2007 - SOS = 78, AdjD = 8
2006 - SOS = 34, AdjD = 25
2004 - SOS = 22, AdjD = 5

So I guess what I am trying to say is that there is more to the game than stats. If you think the 2015-2016 Huskies are a better defensive team than the 05'-06' team then I'm sorry. I would really enjoy to hear a response that explains why statistics are true when it says that the 15'-16' squad is better defensively than the 05'-06' team.

@BLUEDOGHOUSE I didn't get to watch the video - its blocked from my work computer. I will when I get home.

By far the most interesting thing in here is that between 2006 and '07, when we had basically an entirely new team, going from one of the best in the Calhoun era to one of the worst, when the offense was completely not ready to compete, our defense was possibly better.
The man could coach.

 

[imno1]

Our d has been improving. At this point in the season I'm more concerned with our offense, especially our 3 point shooting. Offensive rebounding is also nonexistent. those 2 areas need improvement for this team to be really dangerous.

 

[jibsey]

Overall our stats sound great but in our last game against a team that gets a lot of back door cuts and easy baskets from offensive play set ups, we stopped that cold and they ended up with 30 3's. KO has sold defense to these guys and they have bought in particularly in our last several games.

 

[UChusky916]

There is no winner to this argument, you have to balance the eye-test with what statistics and analytics are telling you. Strict reliance on one or the other will give you an inaccurate perspective. NFL coaches are facing the same dilemma right now... analytics are becoming more prominent in the game and you're finding some resistance to those philosophies from the more traditional head coaches who want to rely on their experience and the eye test.

You can't blindly categorize our defense as good or bad based on a single number or set of numbers. Statistics can be somewhat flawed and are not always representative of the whole story. For example, look at our second half of the Georgetown game. Looking at stats you can say the team shot poorly, but that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about how our team performed offensively since they made a living at the line.

On the other hand, you can't throw out statistics for hypothetical arguments of 'if we played against better teams, our defensive efficiency would be worse.' We simply don't know that. Is it a possibility? Yes. But you can't throw out numbers based on a what-if scenario... that's bias.

I will say this. Statistics are NOT as easily susceptible to bias, unlike the eye test. Since we on this board are all fans of the team, we're all inherently biased, consciously or not. As fans of the team, we are more likely to remember bad things than good which can skew our perception of team performance. Statistics are a good way to keep our perspectives grounded.

So the lesson is this: Value statistics and the eye test each for what they are worth and don't strictly rely on one or the other. Just remember that your eye-test is susceptible to unconscious bias whereas most statistics are not.

 

[gtcam]

OK - stats are stats
However, I don't think it takes into consideration that many of the teams had simply bad shooting games.
A lot of missed open 3's have helped UConn on more than just a few occasions and a lot of these shots have been wide open attempts.
I am not bashing the D this year but I certainly have seen better UConn team defensively in terms of activity, determination and execution (though to be honest UConn has never been a strong perimeter defensive team).
As far as my opinion - if this team is in the top tiers of defensive acumen this year that is a telling story of the defensive activity nationwide.
Holding teams to under 40% the past 4-5 games is impressive but my eye test still views the team to be lax on defense for good portions of the game.
I think there is room for improvement.
Just win baby!!!

 

[mauconnfan]

Stats kind of suck but these are good to look at and in a way reflect they way they've played D as of late. But it's all about match ups and who's playing. We're playing better defense without Ab according to some stats does that mean we are better without him? No and yes. Sometimes we need his rim protection others we don't. If he had taken a lot to Nolan's minutes Saturday we may have had a loss. If he played vs Tulsa we may have had a win. No one knows what we do know they are playing better defense and it's obvious so it sure won't hurt when he gets back.

 

[DaveHuskiesFan]

OK - stats are stats
However, I don't think it takes into consideration that many of the teams had simply bad shooting games.
A lot of missed open 3's have helped UConn on more than just a few occasions and a lot of these shots have been wide open attempts.
I am not bashing the D this year but I certainly have seen better UConn team defensively in terms of activity, determination and execution (though to be honest UConn has never been a strong perimeter defensive team).
As far as my opinion - if this team is in the top tiers of defensive acumen this year that is a telling story of the defensive activity nationwide.
Holding teams to under 40% the past 4-5 games is impressive but my eye test still views the team to be lax on defense for good portions of the game.
I think there is room for improvement.
Just win baby!!!

The last 9 games, not 4-5. Obviously there's still room for improvement, but is it a coincidence that teams are having bad shooting nights against UConn, both on the road and at home?

 

[Doheny]

OK - stats are stats
However, I don't think it takes into consideration that many of the teams had simply bad shooting games.

But isn't that the definition of good defense?

 

[CTBasketball]

But isn't that the definition of good defense?

Could also be the definition of a bad offense.

 

[Doheny]

Could also be the definition of a bad offense.

For any one team, but when MANY teams have a bad offense against us ...

 

[businesslawyer]

For the record, I don't think we are bad as the eye test makes us look.

The eye test is worthless BECAUSE YOUR EYES ARE TRAINED TO ACCEPT AN AMOUNT OF HOLDING AND BUMPING THAT IS NO LONGER ALLOWED.

 

[businesslawyer]

Stats kind of suck but these are good to look at and in a way reflect they way they've played D as of late. But it's all about match ups and who's playing. We're playing better defense without Ab according to some stats does that mean we are better without him? No and yes. Sometimes we need his rim protection others we don't. If he had taken a lot to Nolan's minutes Saturday we may have had a loss. If he played vs Tulsa we may have had a win. No one knows what we do know they are playing better defense and it's obvious so it sure won't hurt when he gets back.

Whether we ARE better without him you can debate, but there is no questions on D that we've PLAYED better without him. Maybe everyone else has stepped up their effort because they are not relying on him, and maybe, with Phil now back to old Phil, the help he gives on the pick and roll at the top of the key is just as important as the shot blocks that AB gives you in the paint.

Not believeing in statistics is like not believing in climate change. You can at the margins make cogent arguments, but eventually the science of means and standard deviations makes one look stupid if they're not willing to accept it.