Final Four

D

DonGately

Active Member
Looking at the entire KenPom era (back to 2002, total of 18 completed seasons), among the 72 Final Four teams, only three were outside the top 50 in defensive efficiency:

2012 VCU (78th)
2003 Texas (58th)
2003 Marquette (109th)

Iowa is currently 134th in defensive efficiency. To make the Final Four with this kind of profile would be *almost* unprecedented.

That 2003 Marquette team isn't a bad comp for this year's Iowa team. Obviously basketball has changed a lot since then, but the efficiency profiles are similar. They were 2nd in offensive efficiency (Iowa is still 1st), and led by a superstar (Dwyane Wade), but still had a pretty balanced attack (four starters in double figures scoring).

So overall there isn't a great precedent for an elite offense/mediocre-to-bad defense to make a run to the Final Four, but it wouldn't be *completely* unheard of...
 
Serious question. Is their any relationship between being high scoring and defensive efficiency? I’m talking scoring not offensive efficiency. It seems like there would be a relationship but I have no idea.
 
The problem is simple. Iowa is getting worse on defense, not better. They are trending in the wrong direction. Just a week ago they were 97th in defensive efficiency and now they are 134th.
 
WindsorHawk said:
Serious question. Is their any relationship between being high scoring and defensive efficiency? I’m talking scoring not offensive efficiency. It seems like there would be a relationship but I have no idea.
Click to expand...

6 beers in I would say tempo/pace. It is all based on points per possession. Teams like Iowa who want to get out in transition, push pace, are going to give up more possessions, therefore more points. Not a great answer, just tossing it out there.
 
did Loyola Marymount make it to final four in late 80s? Bo Kimble free throws...they scored a million pts
 
Niemo said:
did Loyola Marymount make it to final four in late 80s? Bo Kimble free throws...they scored a million pts
Click to expand...
Made it to the Elite 8 in 1990. And that was without Gathers who died in the conference tournament. Lost to UNLV who won it all.
 
Lol, Final Four is a pretty ridiculous thing to even consider.

Better see what percentage of teams at our defensive level make it out of round 1, let alone make it to the final four.
 
Fryowa said:
Lol, Final Four is a pretty ridiculous thing to even consider.

Better see what percentage of teams at our defensive level make it out of round 1, let alone make it to the final four.
Click to expand...
If all of the ridiculous threads and posts disappeared 90% of the content would be gone. No fans at the games, all the games in Indiana, playing Friday to Monday...This year’s NCAA already isn’t going to be following historical models.

Edit - We have to discuss the FF4 now because we almost certainly won’t get to the week leading up to the actual FF4.
 
Fryowa said:
Lol, Final Four is a pretty ridiculous thing to even consider.

Better see what percentage of teams at our defensive level make it out of round 1, let alone make it to the final four.
Click to expand...
You may have to go back to Indiana 1987, Bobby Knight's last championship team.

They were a terrible defensive team, especially by Knight's standards and by national championship standards. They won that year with offense, with Steve Alford taking full advantage of the new three point rule., with Daryl Thomas and Dean Garrett inside, and finally Keith Smart's knack for clutch play.

I would like to see any existing metrics on that team but going solely by the eye test they weren't a vintage defensive team.

They could fill it up however. Their final four battle with UNLV that year was one of the most intense, evenly matched epics I've ever seen. And I think the effort they extolled in that game went a long way toward explaining how they looked just a little off for much of the championship game vs Syracuse two nights later.
 
DonGately said:
Looking at the entire KenPom era (back to 2002, total of 18 completed seasons), among the 72 Final Four teams, only three were outside the top 50 in defensive efficiency:

2012 VCU (78th)
2003 Texas (58th)
2003 Marquette (109th)

Iowa is currently 134th in defensive efficiency. To make the Final Four with this kind of profile would be *almost* unprecedented.

That 2003 Marquette team isn't a bad comp for this year's Iowa team. Obviously basketball has changed a lot since then, but the efficiency profiles are similar. They were 2nd in offensive efficiency (Iowa is still 1st), and led by a superstar (Dwyane Wade), but still had a pretty balanced attack (four starters in double figures scoring).

So overall there isn't a great precedent for an elite offense/mediocre-to-bad defense to make a run to the Final Four, but it wouldn't be *completely* unheard of...
Click to expand...
Great analysis. And, congratulations, you've made me very sad - happy now?!?

I'm not surprised the correlation between def eff and Final Four appearances are that strong, but I was surprised to see how low we've fallen.

A hypocritical move on my part because, in another thread, I have been vehemently defending Fran's overall approach but if I can't be hypocritical on an interest message board, where can I be hypocritical, right? If I were Fran, I would seriously consider going more or less full time man. I like the matchup zone on paper - it's a tricky D to beat and, with Fran's fondness for lengthy players, seems to suit us well. However, it's also very tricky to run well. Zones are tricky to begin with, but I think a matchup zone has an extra layer of rules that require a lot of practice reps and teaching. I gotta be honest, I don't have high confidence Fran & Co have the skill and commitment required to run such a defense at the level it needs to be run.

In Fran's shoes, I would be tempted to run almost exclusively man with very aggressive switch and help directives.

Obviously, Iowa has "earned" that def eff rating over the course of the season, so I don't want to seem like I'm trying to sugar coat it, but missing CJ these last few games has not helped defensively. CJ is a solid defender that can guard multiple positions. Let's hope we get him back soon and the coaches continue to make adjustments and corrections.
 
If the '03 Marquette team is the outlier then Garza or maybe JW will have to put the cape on in order for Iowa to get to the final 4. Not expecting it, but not unrealistic either.

It is a weird year and weird things are going to happen in the tournament. This year could be an anomaly: A team with a defensive efficiency number in the 130's makes it to the final 4.:)
 
Looking back 10 seasons, here are the best comps to this year's Iowa team, strictly from efficiency rankings:

2017 Oklahoma State
1st in OEff, 155th in DEff, 20-13 record, 10 seed, lost in first round to 7 Michigan

2015 Notre Dame
2nd in OEff, 99th in DEff, 32-6 record, 3 seed, lost in Elite Eight to 1 Kentucky

2014 Creighton
2nd in OEff, 124th in DEff, 27-8 record, 3 seed, lost in second round to 6 Baylor

2012 Missouri
1st in OEff, 111th in DEff, 30-5 record, 2 seed, lost in first round to 15 Norfolk State

The Notre Dame comp is probably our best-case scenario, but 99th is *significantly* better than 134th, and as trj noted above, Iowa is trending in the wrong direction.

If Iowa could trade 2 points of offense per 100 possessions for 2 points of defense, they'd still have the nation's top offense, and be right around top 100 in defense.

The problem of course is how to do that, especially at this point of the season where teaching them better defensive technique and/or overhauling their systems aren't realistic solutions.
 
DonGately said:
Looking back 10 seasons, here are the best comps to this year's Iowa team, strictly from efficiency rankings:

2017 Oklahoma State
1st in OEff, 155th in DEff, 20-13 record, 10 seed, lost in first round to 7 Michigan

2015 Notre Dame
2nd in OEff, 99th in DEff, 32-6 record, 3 seed, lost in Elite Eight to 1 Kentucky

2014 Creighton
2nd in OEff, 124th in DEff, 27-8 record, 3 seed, lost in second round to 6 Baylor

2012 Missouri
1st in OEff, 111th in DEff, 30-5 record, 2 seed, lost in first round to 15 Norfolk State

The Notre Dame comp is probably our best-case scenario, but 99th is *significantly* better than 134th, and as trj noted above, Iowa is trending in the wrong direction.

If Iowa could trade 2 points of offense per 100 possessions for 2 points of defense, they'd still have the nation's top offense, and be right around top 100 in defense.

The problem of course is how to do that, especially at this point of the season where teaching them better defensive technique and/or overhauling their systems aren't realistic solutions.
Click to expand...
Nice work, good analysis. Doesn't paint a very rosey picture, I'm afraid.
 
DonGately said:
Looking back 10 seasons, here are the best comps to this year's Iowa team, strictly from efficiency rankings:

2017 Oklahoma State
1st in OEff, 155th in DEff, 20-13 record, 10 seed, lost in first round to 7 Michigan

2015 Notre Dame
2nd in OEff, 99th in DEff, 32-6 record, 3 seed, lost in Elite Eight to 1 Kentucky

2014 Creighton
2nd in OEff, 124th in DEff, 27-8 record, 3 seed, lost in second round to 6 Baylor

2012 Missouri
1st in OEff, 111th in DEff, 30-5 record, 2 seed, lost in first round to 15 Norfolk State

The Notre Dame comp is probably our best-case scenario, but 99th is *significantly* better than 134th, and as trj noted above, Iowa is trending in the wrong direction.

If Iowa could trade 2 points of offense per 100 possessions for 2 points of defense, they'd still have the nation's top offense, and be right around top 100 in defense.

The problem of course is how to do that, especially at this point of the season where teaching them better defensive technique and/or overhauling their systems aren't realistic solutions.
Click to expand...
Your stat about trading 2 points of offense for 2 points of defense is interesting. First off, wouldn't that put us in the exact same spot having an offense worth 2 less points and a defense worth 2 more? Also, that means we have the number 2 offense by a decent margin, which is better obviously. It also means there isn't much of a difference at all between having the 134th best defense and the 100th best defense.

To give an extreme example to prove a point. Imagine if we were the best offense by 10 points and there was only a 4 point difference between a top 40 defense and the 134th best defense. If that were the case, we would be better off where we were than switching just to look better in the stats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top