• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

KP Report on the Fighting Illini (UI)

HONDO2 said:
I'm not a gambler and don't understand betting lines.

Is Illinois really a worser team than Georgia Southern, Liberty and Drake ? Geezes, our 2 wins are Quinnipiac and UNCG....and thus we're favored ??? I'd be shocked if we win this game....pleasantly shocked.
Click to expand...

It's exactly a situation like this when a team like WF wins and covers.

When the public perception is at its lowest on a team (WF right now) plays against a team with a good record (IL right now), but upon further review, hasn't played anyone is the type of situation that smart money looks for. The line has gone up from 3 to 4, not because Johnny Public likes 2-4 WF over 6-0 Illinois, but those that bet for a living like a Wake Forest team that has played significantly worse than its talent level creating value for future action, until the line readjusts. The old "buy low" and "sell high" theory; this philosophy does result in long term success. That said, this is gambling; so, there's always the possibility that WF could play like crap again and get drilled (WF's poor defense against a team that scores a lot a of points is a concern for me, even if WF has a breakout offensive game).
 
Last edited:
o/u 157.5... Nobody is going to play any defense.

I like our scorers better.
 
One of the stranger things about Wake's season is the pace of play. It has played some slow teams, but the offensive average possession length is 221st in the country, which is much slower than years past. It will be interesting to see if we try to run with a very up-tempo Illinois team.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
One of the stranger things about Wake's season is the pace of play. It has played some slow teams, but the offensive average possession length is 221st in the country, which is much slower than years past. It will be interesting to see if we try to run with a very up-tempo Illinois team.
Click to expand...

Like you alluded to, that has to be skewed by opponent.

In particular, UNCG played that 3/4 court pressure that forced us to start the offense with ~20 seconds on the shot clock. And we haven't had many opportunities to get out and run, either.

Tonight is the night.
 
DeacsATS said:
Like you alluded to, that has to be skewed by opponent.

In particular, UNCG played that 3/4 court pressure that forced us to start the offense with ~20 seconds on the shot clock. And we haven't had many opportunities to get out and run, either.

Tonight is the night.
Click to expand...

The key to getting out and running is getting rebounds.
 
Pilchard said:
University of Illinois Fighting Illini:

Ranked #102 by KP (WF is #80). KP projects a 81-76 WF win.

UI is 6-0, beating one non-D 1 team, and then a collection of misfit toys; all at home. Illinois' headline win, to date, is a 82-73 home win over a 2-4 DePaul (#124) team coached by UVA reject Dave Leitao. Illinois scraped by a weak TN-Martin team 77-74, and most recently beat NC Central 86-73 this past weekend. To give an idea of how poor the fighting Illini schedule has been, Illinois' schedule is rated #342 out of the 351 D-1 teams. WF's schedule, which has been soft, is rated more than 100 spots (#234) ahead of Illinois' schedule.

Brad Underwood's (now on his 3rd job in three years after escaping OK State on the eve of the FBI bribery investigation) team plays at a fast tempo (#34 in possessions per game; the fastest pace of any WF opponent to date); they don't turn it over a lot (#46 in TO %), hit the offensive boards hard (#25 in offensive rebounding %), and get to the line a lot #28 in FTA per FGA. Illinois has struggled from deep (31 % #259 from 3; only 23% of their offense comes from 3s #313). KP has the Illinois offense at #134 (WF is rated #30). FWIW, KP rated Underwood's 2016-2017 OK State team as the #1 offensive team in the country; they scored 90 or over 14 times including a 92-91 loss to Michigan in last year's NCAA tournament.

On defense (KP #78; WF #202 !!!!), Illinois plays mostly man, and they have forced turnovers (#17 in TO%) and protected the rim well (#49 in 2 PT FG D); a lot of that may have been the UI schedule, as none of Illinois' opponents have prolific interior offenses. UI has fouled a lot as they are #284 in FTA/FGA on defense. Illinois pushes the pace with their defense by looking for early turnovers and allowing quick shots (#16 in shortest possessions on defense).


Illinois lost 3 starters off last year's mediocre (20-15) team. They start a Wright State transfer (Mark Alstork - who WF may have looked at), a freshman (Mark Smith) and three role players from last year's team. The Illini center, Michael Finke can hit the 3. Underwood uses his bench (Illinois is #16 in bench minutes), and they have 9 players who have averaged more than 16 minutes a game so far this year.

Illinois is not huge (#139 in average height; about the same as WF -- #132). Illinois' starting center is 6-10; the rest of the players in their rotation are 6-7 and smaller. Illinois two PGs are 6-1.

Keys for WF will be to limit turnovers, take advantage of the aggressive Illinois defense by getting to the line, and making FTs. On defense, WF needs to keep Illinois off the offensive glass, and defend the 3. So far, WF has been unbelievably bad #332 (43%; worst by a mile among teams in Power V conferences) at defending the 3. Realize that shooting the 3 has not been a strength for Illinois to date, but if WF doesn't defend the arc, Illinois will shoot and make 3s. Expect this to be WF's highest scoring game to date.
Click to expand...

This actually bodes well for our hopes of improving. 3P% defense is a pretty random stat not all that dependent on the defense (same idea as FT% defense though obviously not to the same extent). Our perimeter defense is clearly bad, but that has more an effect on volume than percentage. You would expect the latter to revert to the mean somewhat over the course of a season.
 
RChildress107 said:
This actually bodes well for our hopes of improving. 3P% defense is a pretty random stat not all that dependent on the defense (same idea as FT% defense though obviously not to the same extent). Our perimeter defense is clearly bad, but that has more an effect on volume than percentage. You would expect the latter to revert to the mean somewhat over the course of a season.
Click to expand...

I wrote an article on this exact topic yesterday and was met with a litany of "what the hell are you talking about?"

https://www.bloggersodear.com/2017/...d-luck-to-turn-this-season-around-ken-pomeroy
 
Very oddly enough, Ken Pomeroy wrote a very similar type article regarding Gonzaga and their three point shooting today in The Athletic. Here's the lede:

The story of Gonzaga’s success last season was its defense, which was one of the best in the nation. The Zags lost three starters from their national runner-up team, so there was reason to wonder whether the program could duplicate its strong defensive play.

The PK80 gave us some insight as to what to expect. The reviews are mixed. For instance, the Bulldogs haven’t been particularly good on the defensive glass, and they’ve fouled too much. But the most important component of defense involves shooting, and that’s where Gonzaga’s numbers look rather healthy.

Opponents have posted an effective field goal percentage of 44.5, which ranks the Gonzaga defense 42nd nationally. But that figure doesn’t tell the whole story. The Bulldogs have allowed opponents to make just 38.8 percent of their 2-point attempts, which ranks ninth. And yet opponents have shot 35.8 percent on their 3-point attempts, ranking the Zags 205th. It’s an interesting contradiction that would seemingly be solved by Gonzaga’s working on its 3-point defense.

When one refers to 3-point defense, I feel like it should be put in quotes: “3-point defense” is about as real as the “moon landing” is to conspiracy theorists. Sure, a team can guard shooters closely, but in that case they’ll just take fewer shots. The decision to shoot largely rests with the shooter, and rarely does he hoist a 3-pointer with a hand in his face.

I’m sure Mark Few and his staff can review film and find cases of poor defensive decisions leading to open 3-point shots. If that can be corrected, the Bulldogs may see some marginal improvement in opponents’ 3-point percentage. But the historical record is fairly clear that 3-point defense is mostly determined by factors outside of the defense’s control or things that go beyond effectively guarding ball screens or closing out on shooters.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure I am buying that. I can still hit about 50% of 3's by myself in the gym. Wake just does not disrupt the rhythm of shooters well enough to prevent at least one of them from getting hot.

I do believe Manning is buying your theory which is why he designed the "hope they miss" defense.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I wrote an article on this exact topic yesterday and was met with a litany of "what the hell are you talking about?"

https://www.bloggersodear.com/2017/...d-luck-to-turn-this-season-around-ken-pomeroy
Click to expand...

Very good article - really enjoyed reading it. I always considered Wake unlucky with the three point percentages and wondered if I was accurate (my dad would get pissed when I said that). Interesting to note that volume is due to defensive deficiencies and average not so much.
 
The main issue I have with our defense not putting good enough pressure on the perimeter is that this defensive scheme allows for long rebounds - which does not bode well for our rebounding tendencies. I do believe the average will come back to the mean over time but our guards have shown the inability/unwillingness to rebound and giving up a lot of three point shots definitely exacerbates that fact.
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
Very good article - really enjoyed reading it. I always considered Wake unlucky with the three point percentages and wondered if I was accurate (my dad would get pissed when I said that). Interesting to note that volume is due to defensive deficiencies and average not so much.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

What I could have expanded on more is the fact that three-point field goal attempts allowed usually correlates well with how good opposing offenses are at making them. If you do not allow a lot of three-point attempts then usually teams will have a lower shooting percentage overall (because they are likely forcing them). If you allow a lot of three-point attempts overall then it is likely because they are wide open (which is pretty clear in the case of Wake Forest).

This mentality is why offensive statistical data is more predictive than defensive statistical data. If an offense is really good at getting open shots in their offense then there's not a lot a defense can do about it.

The best thing Wake can do to limit the number of makes it to limit the number of attempts. Seems logical enough, but the Deacs struggle with that so far this year, allowing opponents to take 44% of their shots from behind the arc (316th in the country).

As Knowell states, most people can make shots when they are open, that's not surprising. Therefore the "hope they don't miss" defense that he claims Danny is promoting is especially dumb because it should be "hope they don't take them".
 
Do we let them shoot 3's so that they don't drive the lane and foul out all our bigs?
 
As luck would have it, I’m traveling this afternoon with a colleague that is a UofI grad.

He fully expects them to “make a run to the Elite Eight this year” because they “finally have a good coach.”

We’re going to watch the game at a bar. Now I’m really hoping Wake doesn’t shit the bed.
 
PhDeac said:
The key to getting out and running is getting rebounds.
Click to expand...

Screw you and your lucid and accurate point.

We’re going to get out and run off the many Illinois bricks that we decide to rebound tonight.
 
No team in college basketball (that constitutes the stats of over 1700 teams during that time frame) over the last 5 full years (it may be longer, but I just checked the last 5 years) has allowed 3 point shot makes at as high a percentage as WF is currently allowing (42.8%) through 6 games. So, even if WF does play awful 3 point defense (and I think it's fair to assume WF does), the current 3 point rate has to trend down. Will be interesting to follow this stat moving forward.
 
was going to add that since 2002, in each of the 10 years Duke has had a top 20 defense according to KP, they also ranked in the top 20 for lowest percentage of 3-point shots allowed (almost always top 10)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top