Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
What is Josh Pastner's Ceiling?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gt24" data-source="post: 796338" data-attributes="member: 538"><p>Moser's defense is great for his league and his players. And it can be great in other leagues with other rosters too. But it may not be the optimal approach for more athletic/sizable rosters. I have not looked at Loyola's forced turnover stats, but even if I did I would not trust the "turnovers" stat by itself. A defense like Moser's certainly forces TOs, but it focuses more on forcing plenty of terrible shot selection from undisciplined, impatient teams. Consistently bad shot selection is akin to turnovers. </p><p></p><p>Many are enamored with the m2m defensive systems of Beard and Drew recently, which are almost the polar opposites of Moser. Moser's could be generically described as "contain and contest, avoid scramble" whereas Beard and Drew would be "pressure, force baseline, scramble". (Way oversimplifying, but not interested in typing out the details.) Each of them proved you can produce a Top ~10 defense even though their m2m philosophies are very different. </p><p></p><p>Would love to hear from others on how you would describe our m2m last year. This year, I focused much more on the hybrid zone, and I was fairly lazy in analyzing our m2m rules/principles. That said, what I think I saw was about the midpoint of the m2m spectrum between Beard/Drew and Moser. My hunch is that we did not force a lot of turnovers in m2m via hard deny in passing lanes on the perimeter, nor hard hedges or trapping on ball screens. So where did m2m turnovers come from? What I think I saw was that when teams tried to take advantage of size mismatches inside, we were exceptional at weakside help getting deflections and steals. Also, our guards were exceptional on the perimeter when their matchup looked to pass inside. We were really good at being disruptive on the ball to make post entry passes harder. We got perimeter deflections on those entry passes too, but even when we didnt, we made the passes tougher and therefore easier to deflect inside. </p><p></p><p>I would love love love to see some advanced analytics/stats on our half court defensive forced turnovers this past season. What percent came from hybrid zone? What percent came from m2m? In m2m, what percent came on perimeter vs inside the arc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gt24, post: 796338, member: 538"] Moser's defense is great for his league and his players. And it can be great in other leagues with other rosters too. But it may not be the optimal approach for more athletic/sizable rosters. I have not looked at Loyola's forced turnover stats, but even if I did I would not trust the "turnovers" stat by itself. A defense like Moser's certainly forces TOs, but it focuses more on forcing plenty of terrible shot selection from undisciplined, impatient teams. Consistently bad shot selection is akin to turnovers. Many are enamored with the m2m defensive systems of Beard and Drew recently, which are almost the polar opposites of Moser. Moser's could be generically described as "contain and contest, avoid scramble" whereas Beard and Drew would be "pressure, force baseline, scramble". (Way oversimplifying, but not interested in typing out the details.) Each of them proved you can produce a Top ~10 defense even though their m2m philosophies are very different. Would love to hear from others on how you would describe our m2m last year. This year, I focused much more on the hybrid zone, and I was fairly lazy in analyzing our m2m rules/principles. That said, what I think I saw was about the midpoint of the m2m spectrum between Beard/Drew and Moser. My hunch is that we did not force a lot of turnovers in m2m via hard deny in passing lanes on the perimeter, nor hard hedges or trapping on ball screens. So where did m2m turnovers come from? What I think I saw was that when teams tried to take advantage of size mismatches inside, we were exceptional at weakside help getting deflections and steals. Also, our guards were exceptional on the perimeter when their matchup looked to pass inside. We were really good at being disruptive on the ball to make post entry passes harder. We got perimeter deflections on those entry passes too, but even when we didnt, we made the passes tougher and therefore easier to deflect inside. I would love love love to see some advanced analytics/stats on our half court defensive forced turnovers this past season. What percent came from hybrid zone? What percent came from m2m? In m2m, what percent came on perimeter vs inside the arc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who made "The Leap" to defeat u(sic)GA in COFH 2016?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
What is Josh Pastner's Ceiling?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top