tommy
01-09-2012, 03:35 AM
The defensive charts for this game are below. Copy/pasting from my post from the Western Michigan game, the "legend" for the chart goes like this:
1. Which players were on the floor? If you're on the floor for a given possession, it counts for you, if not, not. Obviously.
2. Were you engaged in the outcome of the possession in my judgment? Shows general level of activity, but also perhaps how involved in the opponent's offense your man was.
3. Forcing a missed FG attempt, either a 2 or a 3. I tracked 3's separately, but lumped them together in the table below.
4. FG's allowed, again both 2 and 3 pointers.
5. Forced turnover. Many of these are shared. Also, turnovers include charges taken, but not blocked shots, as the latter are forced FG misses.
6. "Creating" a missed free throw.
7. "Creating" a made free throw.
8. General catch-all for good defensive play that doesn't fit into other categories. I call it deflection/peskiness/disruptiveness. DPD. Might be able to capture some of the "intangibles" that have interested many on these boards lately.
9. Ball denial, both on the wing and in the post. Good denial gets you a plus. Failure to deny when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
10. "SIF" My shorthand for staying in front. These are only counted when your man makes a definitive move to the hoop. Stay with him, you get a plus, lose him you get a minus.
11. Help. Good help gets you a plus; failure to help when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
12. Catch-all for defensive lapses not otherwise covered, sort of the flip side of #8. I just call this "got beaten - other."
Then below I did one additional analysis: on what % of plays that a guy was on the floor did the team get a stop vs. what % of plays that he was on the floor did we give up points? How did guys measure up against each other and compared to the team as a whole? I thought this might address a little bit the issue of "intangibles" as well, as if you're doing things to help the team make stops, even if they don't show up in other areas of the charting -- like how you move, your talk, being in the right spot, getting other guys in the right spot, leadership, etc., that might show up in the team's success defensively while you're on the floor. So that's the second chart below.
Keep in mind these charts will not match the box score numbers exactly, for a number of reasons. One is that sometimes plays are most fairly attributable to "team" rather than one or more individual players. Examples are when we make a turnover or they otherwise get some sort of runout and it's really no one individual defender's "fault" when the opponent takes/makes a shot. Just one example. In fact, there were quite a few of those for the Temple game, which may be why we had a number of players with good individual lines on the chart, but the overall team numbers looked terrible. Sometimes our causing a turnover is more of a team thing than due to the work of any individual player(s) too.
Here's the first chart for Georgia Tech:
On floor
Engaged
FG miss (3's)
FG allowed (3's)
Turnover
FT miss
FT make
DPD
Denial +
Denial -
SIF +
SIF-
Help +
Help -
Beat-other
Curry
55
10
2 5/6
3 (1)
2
0
2
6
4
1
1
1
0
0
2
Rivers
54
14
3 (1)
8 (3)
1 1/2
2
0
2
3
0
4
1
0
0
4
Dawkins
37
5
0
2 (1)
0
0
4
0
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
Mason
55
6
2 1/3
1
2
0
0
2
3
1
0
2
2
0
0
Thornton
30
6
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
2
Kelly
52
7
4 (1)
3
0
2
1
0
2
2
0
2
1
2
1/2
Miles
32
9
2 1/3
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
Cook
46
9
2 (1)
3 (1)
1/2
2
2
2
3
0
0
3
1
0
0
Gbinije
0
Hairston
10
4
1 1/2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
OK so as I noted in another thread, Georgia Tech hit a lot of tough shots, most of them hand-in-the-face over the top of Rivers, Curry, or Cook. Our defensive effort was obviously a lot better than it was against Temple. Our individual numbers against Temple weren't that bad (for most of the guys) but our team numbers were terrible, and that was because we had a large number of live-ball turnovers and other quick shots that led to runouts, so the defensive "fault" was attributed to "team" rather than any one or two individuals. Not so much for the Georgia Tech game.
I continue to believe, and the charts back me up, that Austin Rivers is an underrated individual perimeter on-ball defender. His excellent SIF numbers support this. In this game, Austin was very good off the ball too -- he worked hard at ball denial, and it showed. He gave up a lot of buckets, but like I said at the top, a lot of those were well defended. Tech just hit some tough ones, so you take your hat off to them on those and that's all. He got lost a couple of times too, don't get me wrong, including on a couple of three pointers, but still I think his overall body of work is pretty good.
While I'm real happy with Quinn offensively, he still is struggling to keep his man in front of him defensively, and that's hurting us. Ty was clearly superior in that department in this game.
I noticed that Dawkins, while not getting beaten so much on some of the measurables that I've created, still seems to either get lost out there, gets beaten around screens, and other issues that show up in the "got beat - other" catch-all. More of an attention and effort thing perhaps. Bugs.
As for the bigs, they didn't have a stellar defensive game collectively, and the numbers are therefore so-so, but they also didn't give up many hoops when they did have a defensive lapse. I attribute that more to Tech's dearth of quality big men who could take advantage of defensive mistakes rather than anything else.
What I really was happy with was our hedging. I know a lot of you guys have been talking about that lately, so I am creating a separate "study" of our hedging and the results of it, by player and player combination, borrowing from Airowe's "feeding the post" study that is ongoing. I'll be posting the first installment of that, based on the GT game, hopefully tomorrow.
OK so here's the second defensive chart where we're looking at each possession and stops and scores given up by the team, no matter the cause, when a player is on the court, vs. each other and vs. the team. Here goes:
Stops
Scores
Stop %
Curry
21
29
42%
Rivers
28
23
55%
Dawkins
18
18
50%
Mason
23
27
46%
Thornton
15
13
54%
Kelly
26
25
51%
Miles
17
12
59%
Cook
23
20
53%
Gbinije
0
0
Hairston
4
5
44%
TEAM
35
34
51%
The team got the best results in terms of stops when Miles was on the floor -- far better than when his brother was out there. Hmm. It's been pretty obvious for awhile, at least IMO, that Miles is our best big man defender, and even in this game where his individual numbers weren't anything special, still he apparently is doing things to help us get stops. For the perimeter guys, again Rivers' numbers were very good and a bit surprisingly, Seth's were poor. It seemed to me that he was playing pretty well, at least on the ball -- very active, deflecting balls, denying when off the ball, but the team fared poorly with him out there. Of course, as always, this is just a snapshot, just one game. In the next few days I'm going to try to do some cumulative numbers for the handful of games I've charted to try to provide a bigger picture, larger sample size kind of look at all of this, for those who are interested!
1. Which players were on the floor? If you're on the floor for a given possession, it counts for you, if not, not. Obviously.
2. Were you engaged in the outcome of the possession in my judgment? Shows general level of activity, but also perhaps how involved in the opponent's offense your man was.
3. Forcing a missed FG attempt, either a 2 or a 3. I tracked 3's separately, but lumped them together in the table below.
4. FG's allowed, again both 2 and 3 pointers.
5. Forced turnover. Many of these are shared. Also, turnovers include charges taken, but not blocked shots, as the latter are forced FG misses.
6. "Creating" a missed free throw.
7. "Creating" a made free throw.
8. General catch-all for good defensive play that doesn't fit into other categories. I call it deflection/peskiness/disruptiveness. DPD. Might be able to capture some of the "intangibles" that have interested many on these boards lately.
9. Ball denial, both on the wing and in the post. Good denial gets you a plus. Failure to deny when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
10. "SIF" My shorthand for staying in front. These are only counted when your man makes a definitive move to the hoop. Stay with him, you get a plus, lose him you get a minus.
11. Help. Good help gets you a plus; failure to help when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
12. Catch-all for defensive lapses not otherwise covered, sort of the flip side of #8. I just call this "got beaten - other."
Then below I did one additional analysis: on what % of plays that a guy was on the floor did the team get a stop vs. what % of plays that he was on the floor did we give up points? How did guys measure up against each other and compared to the team as a whole? I thought this might address a little bit the issue of "intangibles" as well, as if you're doing things to help the team make stops, even if they don't show up in other areas of the charting -- like how you move, your talk, being in the right spot, getting other guys in the right spot, leadership, etc., that might show up in the team's success defensively while you're on the floor. So that's the second chart below.
Keep in mind these charts will not match the box score numbers exactly, for a number of reasons. One is that sometimes plays are most fairly attributable to "team" rather than one or more individual players. Examples are when we make a turnover or they otherwise get some sort of runout and it's really no one individual defender's "fault" when the opponent takes/makes a shot. Just one example. In fact, there were quite a few of those for the Temple game, which may be why we had a number of players with good individual lines on the chart, but the overall team numbers looked terrible. Sometimes our causing a turnover is more of a team thing than due to the work of any individual player(s) too.
Here's the first chart for Georgia Tech:
On floor
Engaged
FG miss (3's)
FG allowed (3's)
Turnover
FT miss
FT make
DPD
Denial +
Denial -
SIF +
SIF-
Help +
Help -
Beat-other
Curry
55
10
2 5/6
3 (1)
2
0
2
6
4
1
1
1
0
0
2
Rivers
54
14
3 (1)
8 (3)
1 1/2
2
0
2
3
0
4
1
0
0
4
Dawkins
37
5
0
2 (1)
0
0
4
0
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
Mason
55
6
2 1/3
1
2
0
0
2
3
1
0
2
2
0
0
Thornton
30
6
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
2
Kelly
52
7
4 (1)
3
0
2
1
0
2
2
0
2
1
2
1/2
Miles
32
9
2 1/3
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
1
2
0
0
Cook
46
9
2 (1)
3 (1)
1/2
2
2
2
3
0
0
3
1
0
0
Gbinije
0
Hairston
10
4
1 1/2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
OK so as I noted in another thread, Georgia Tech hit a lot of tough shots, most of them hand-in-the-face over the top of Rivers, Curry, or Cook. Our defensive effort was obviously a lot better than it was against Temple. Our individual numbers against Temple weren't that bad (for most of the guys) but our team numbers were terrible, and that was because we had a large number of live-ball turnovers and other quick shots that led to runouts, so the defensive "fault" was attributed to "team" rather than any one or two individuals. Not so much for the Georgia Tech game.
I continue to believe, and the charts back me up, that Austin Rivers is an underrated individual perimeter on-ball defender. His excellent SIF numbers support this. In this game, Austin was very good off the ball too -- he worked hard at ball denial, and it showed. He gave up a lot of buckets, but like I said at the top, a lot of those were well defended. Tech just hit some tough ones, so you take your hat off to them on those and that's all. He got lost a couple of times too, don't get me wrong, including on a couple of three pointers, but still I think his overall body of work is pretty good.
While I'm real happy with Quinn offensively, he still is struggling to keep his man in front of him defensively, and that's hurting us. Ty was clearly superior in that department in this game.
I noticed that Dawkins, while not getting beaten so much on some of the measurables that I've created, still seems to either get lost out there, gets beaten around screens, and other issues that show up in the "got beat - other" catch-all. More of an attention and effort thing perhaps. Bugs.
As for the bigs, they didn't have a stellar defensive game collectively, and the numbers are therefore so-so, but they also didn't give up many hoops when they did have a defensive lapse. I attribute that more to Tech's dearth of quality big men who could take advantage of defensive mistakes rather than anything else.
What I really was happy with was our hedging. I know a lot of you guys have been talking about that lately, so I am creating a separate "study" of our hedging and the results of it, by player and player combination, borrowing from Airowe's "feeding the post" study that is ongoing. I'll be posting the first installment of that, based on the GT game, hopefully tomorrow.
OK so here's the second defensive chart where we're looking at each possession and stops and scores given up by the team, no matter the cause, when a player is on the court, vs. each other and vs. the team. Here goes:
Stops
Scores
Stop %
Curry
21
29
42%
Rivers
28
23
55%
Dawkins
18
18
50%
Mason
23
27
46%
Thornton
15
13
54%
Kelly
26
25
51%
Miles
17
12
59%
Cook
23
20
53%
Gbinije
0
0
Hairston
4
5
44%
TEAM
35
34
51%
The team got the best results in terms of stops when Miles was on the floor -- far better than when his brother was out there. Hmm. It's been pretty obvious for awhile, at least IMO, that Miles is our best big man defender, and even in this game where his individual numbers weren't anything special, still he apparently is doing things to help us get stops. For the perimeter guys, again Rivers' numbers were very good and a bit surprisingly, Seth's were poor. It seemed to me that he was playing pretty well, at least on the ball -- very active, deflecting balls, denying when off the ball, but the team fared poorly with him out there. Of course, as always, this is just a snapshot, just one game. In the next few days I'm going to try to do some cumulative numbers for the handful of games I've charted to try to provide a bigger picture, larger sample size kind of look at all of this, for those who are interested!