Jump to content

Michigan Post Game


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, DC2345 said:

This team has terrible defensive fundamentals.
•They get caught on screens because they ball watch.
•They leave ball side corner a lot which gives up open 3’s.
•The give up middle drives all the time. 
Closeouts are bad which lead to getting driven. 
•The players get flat footed and struggle to react after. Michigan players keep moving.

•The IU players don’t consistently box out to get rebounds. 
•IU’s defense collapses which leads to lockout 3’s. 
•They guard the ball screen the same way all the time. It’s easy to counter when you do the same thing every possession.

These are just some of the obvious issues that you can’t win against good teams doing. Michigan took advantage of these a lot. 

A very good high school coach is able to identify this why would CAM think a whole staff of BIG coaches wouldn't.  More alarming why our own assistant coaches continue to allow this to happen. 

I hate to keep harping on it but its like going to Broadway to see a show and pay full ticket price and they trot out the children's theater group. This stuff is basic and we are 3/4 of the way through year 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wish Archie would just ditch this pack line and go to man to man.  It's either too complicated or he just doesnt coach it well. There has to be a reason very few teams use it.

 I get the idea behind pack line but I think it just overcomplicates something that shouldnt be that difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

I wish Archie would just ditch this pack line and go to man to man.  It's either too complicated or he just doesnt coach it well. There has to be a reason very few teams use it.

 I get the idea behind pack line but I think it just overcomplicates something that shouldnt be that difficult. 

I guess I just don't understand the defenses because when I watch a game I don't really see the difference between the pack line and a normal man defense.  Wasn't RMK man to man similar to a pack line because the defenders on the off side always packed so they were near the lane to stop drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I guess I just don't understand the defenses because when I watch a game I don't really see the difference between the pack line and a normal man defense.  Wasn't RMK man to man similar to a pack line because the defenders on the off side always packed so they were near the lane to stop drives.

I guess when RMK was coaching he did not really have to worry about ball screens and the pick n rolls like they do today and to hedge the screen.  The off ball side had to be there for cutters who were coming off screens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I guess I just don't understand the defenses because when I watch a game I don't really see the difference between the pack line and a normal man defense.  Wasn't RMK man to man similar to a pack line because the defenders on the off side always packed so they were near the lane to stop drives.

I'm no expert, but from my perspective we give up so many 3's because of the emphasis of packing the lane puts guys too far away from offensive players. 

Not sure about RMK defense other than his quote about all you need to be a good defender is effort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

I'm no expert, but from my perspective we give up so many 3's because of the emphasis of packing the lane puts guys too far away from offensive players. 

Not sure about RMK defense other than his quote about all you need to be a good defender is effort. 

I just remember that is off side defense did not just stick with there man if they went outside.  They had to recover if the other team swung the ball around to there side of the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I just remember that is off side defense did not just stick with there man if they went outside.  They had to recover if the other team swung the ball around to there side of the court.

Thats just basic help side defense. The pack line has specific rules for each position on the floor. If you have any shooters or an effective pick and roll or pick and pop offense it will put the defenders in very vulnerable positions. I have never been a fan of this defense i toyed with it for several years but just could not pull the trigger to commit to it. I just think there are too many holes and for me good hard old fashion man to man and a great 1-3-1 trap gave our team the best results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Billingsley99 said:

Thats just basic help side defense. The pack line has specific rules for each position on the floor. If you have any shooters or an effective pick and roll or pick and pop offense it will put the defenders in very vulnerable positions. I have never been a fan of this defense i toyed with it for several years but just could not pull the trigger to commit to it. I just think there are too many holes and for me good hard old fashion man to man and a great 1-3-1 trap gave our team the best results. 

I had no clue so when I watch it I just don't see much of a difference and thanks for your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I had no clue so when I watch it I just don't see much of a difference and thanks for your response.

you're pretty much right though.  it's not all that much of a difference.  supposed to have ball pressure and exaggerated helpside.  you don't play passing lanes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Billingsley99 said:

A very good high school coach is able to identify this why would CAM think a whole staff of BIG coaches wouldn't.  More alarming why our own assistant coaches continue to allow this to happen. 

I hate to keep harping on it but its like going to Broadway to see a show and pay full ticket price and they trot out the children's theater group. This stuff is basic and we are 3/4 of the way through year 3. 

High school coach?  Very good?  Ha.  I coached one season of 6th grade ball and I have been harping on the extremely high hard hedge all season long.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

High school coach?  Very good?  Ha.  I coached one season of 6th grade ball and I have been harping on the extremely high hard hedge all season long.   

My only Twitter account is for school activities or I would have tweeted out what I saw when I broke down all the times the hard hedge hurt us against Michigan.

I counted 25 of the 41 points we gave up in the 1st half were as a result of it.  I would love to hear the explanation for why we run it despite such poor results.

I get the idea of why a team might do it, but our team clearly can't execute it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great analysis, Leathernecks.

You might be interested in an interview Dakich did with a brilliant IU Professor, Dr. Wayne Winston.  Professor Winston has a math degree from MIT and a Ph.D. from Yale.  He works with Sagarin.  He and his students have studied some analytics of different player combinations.  They take the quality of the opponent into account and then evaluate various data points.  For example, for whatever reason Hunter and Phinisee are terrible together.  Phinisee and Green together are bottom of the B1G.  Green and Franklin are good together.

Professor Winston said that Brad Stevens and others use the same or similar metrics.  He also recommended that IU run this data in practice to see who wins.  He pointed out that Red Auerbach in the 1960s noticed that in practice, KC Jones' team would always win.  According to Prof Winston, Archie looks at this a bit, but he does not weigh the quality of the opponent.

Personally, I am a big believer in the quality of the opponent idea.  In football, when you look at the draft, it doesn't matter what an Alabama offensive tackle does when he plays the Citadel.  The only tape you need to worry about is how he played against quality competition.  I think the same applies to analytics.  I know it ticks some people off, but if a guy really performs well against a sub-par team, I barely pay attention. It's not helpful to the analysis.  Getting some cupcakes is the equivalent of pre-season NFL football.  Work on some things with the cupcakes, get some run, and take some W's.

But in terms of analysis, it only really matters when you lace them up against peer teams.

EDIT: This was in the February 17 Dakich podcast.  Scroll to 1 hour and 47 minutes.  Hate or love Dakich, take that out of it, this interview is really good, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2020 at 8:30 AM, Proud2BAHoosier said:

Maybe he will have Yogi Ferrel like improvement?????

Yogi was legitimate 5* talent.  Just to short.  He could shoot and dribble and was a floor general.  Rob is solid. A role player put in a starters spot and he just isn't that.  Hope he does get better next year.  If not that will be disappointing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Billingsley99 said:

Thats just basic help side defense. The pack line has specific rules for each position on the floor. If you have any shooters or an effective pick and roll or pick and pop offense it will put the defenders in very vulnerable positions. I have never been a fan of this defense i toyed with it for several years but just could not pull the trigger to commit to it. I just think there are too many holes and for me good hard old fashion man to man and a great 1-3-1 trap gave our team the best results. 

Pack line sucks when you don’t have athletic bigs.  Brunk and D. Davis don’t fit the defense at all.  You need quickness, length and great lateral athleticism from your wings and bigs for the pack line to work.  TJD, Hunter, and Armaan are ideal for the pack line.  That’s one thing I love about Painter he isn’t necessarily married to one concept. He adjusts to each team each year.  (That hurt to compliment Purdue.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUwins0708 said:

Pack line sucks when you don’t have athletic bigs.  Brunk and D. Davis don’t fit the defense at all.  You need quickness, length and great lateral athleticism from your wings and bigs for the pack line to work.  TJD, Hunter, and Armaan are ideal for the pack line.  That’s one thing I love about Painter he isn’t necessarily married to one concept. He adjusts to each team each year.  (That hurt to compliment Purdue.)

As much as we like to reminisce the Knight days and appreciate his stubbornness he was at least adaptable when neccessary.  Archie needs to loosen up a bit and work with the players he has. He doesnt have what he needs to run pack line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Great analysis, Leathernecks.

You might be interested in an interview Dakich did with a brilliant IU Professor, Dr. Wayne Winston.  Professor Winston has a math degree from MIT and a Ph.D. from Yale.  He works with Sagarin.  He and his students have studied some analytics of different player combinations.  They take the quality of the opponent into account and then evaluate various data points.  For example, for whatever reason Hunter and Phinisee are terrible together.  Phinisee and Green together are bottom of the B1G.  Green and Franklin are good together.

Professor Winston said that Brad Stevens and others use the same or similar metrics.  He also recommended that IU run this data in practice to see who wins.  He pointed out that Red Auerbach in the 1960s noticed that in practice, KC Jones' team would always win.  According to Prof Winston, Archie looks at this a bit, but he does not weigh the quality of the opponent.

Personally, I am a big believer in the quality of the opponent idea.  In football, when you look at the draft, it doesn't matter what an Alabama offensive tackle does when he plays the Citadel.  The only tape you need to worry about is how he played against quality competition.  I think the same applies to analytics.  I know it ticks some people off, but if a guy really performs well against a sub-par team, I barely pay attention. It's not helpful to the analysis.  Getting some cupcakes is the equivalent of pre-season NFL football.  Work on some things with the cupcakes, get some run, and take some W's.

But in terms of analysis, it only really matters when you lace them up against peer teams.

EDIT: This was in the February 17 Dakich podcast.  Scroll to 1 hour and 47 minutes.  Hate or love Dakich, take that out of it, this interview is really good, IMO.

I'll have to check that out some time.  I'm a big fan of using analytics (sorry IU Scott!), as long as some eye test is used along with it.  Using one without the other is doing it wrong.  I would probably put myself into a 75% analytics, and 25% eye test category as far as overall philosophy goes.  From one play to the next, you have to see how things are going, but analytics should help a lot between games.

Your example of a Bama OT reminds me of the Cubs the last few years.  They'd feast on crap pitching, and were garbage against good pitchers.  Overall totals and analytics don't look bad, but anybody with at least 1 good eye could tell they were really flawed.  And don't even get me started on Maddon's bullpen usage!  I think he went 100% off analytics and had no idea how anyone was doing at a certain time.  Either that or he flipped a coin...not sure which.

I would be really interested in someone breaking down different things for this IU team.  I know people have had issues with overall +/- because there are a ton of factors that go into it.  It sounds like he tried taking a lot of those variables out based on who they are playing with and against.  With a sample size of close to a full season, that is some pretty solid data that could be really useful.

I would pay good money for someone to break down all of our high hedges over the year and see how many times we have given up points because of it.  I would guess with Brunk and Davis doing it, they are horrible.  TJD is athletic enough that he is decent at it, but I still don't like how it gets the rest of the defense out of position.  A lot of issues against Michigan came when an off ball defender had to help on the rolling big and had to leave his guy open.

I'd love to hear Archie's position on why he always uses that hedge with this year's team.  It just seems out of place with our personnel, and maybe some analytics would confirm what we are seeing on the eye test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I'll have to check that out some time.  I'm a big fan of using analytics (sorry IU Scott!), as long as some eye test is used along with it.  Using one without the other is doing it wrong.  I would probably put myself into a 75% analytics, and 25% eye test category as far as overall philosophy goes.  From one play to the next, you have to see how things are going, but analytics should help a lot between games.

Your example of a Bama OT reminds me of the Cubs the last few years.  They'd feast on crap pitching, and were garbage against good pitchers.  Overall totals and analytics don't look bad, but anybody with at least 1 good eye could tell they were really flawed.  And don't even get me started on Maddon's bullpen usage!  I think he went 100% off analytics and had no idea how anyone was doing at a certain time.  Either that or he flipped a coin...not sure which.

I would be really interested in someone breaking down different things for this IU team.  I know people have had issues with overall +/- because there are a ton of factors that go into it.  It sounds like he tried taking a lot of those variables out based on who they are playing with and against.  With a sample size of close to a full season, that is some pretty solid data that could be really useful.

I would pay good money for someone to break down all of our high hedges over the year and see how many times we have given up points because of it.  I would guess with Brunk and Davis doing it, they are horrible.  TJD is athletic enough that he is decent at it, but I still don't like how it gets the rest of the defense out of position.  A lot of issues against Michigan came when an off ball defender had to help on the rolling big and had to leave his guy open.

I'd love to hear Archie's position on why he always uses that hedge with this year's team.  It just seems out of place with our personnel, and maybe some analytics would confirm what we are seeing on the eye test.

That’s something that would be nice for one of the dozens of journalists who cover IU basketball to ask one of these days.  Too bad everyone on the IU beat is a total hack who’s beholden to the university for access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...