Is that top20 prior to entering the tourney? Or after winning 6 games against good teams? That will boost most teams efficiency.
KenPom Data Thoughts
- Thread starter Boiler Addict
- Start date
Is that top20 prior to entering the tourney? Or after winning 6 games against good teams? That will boost most teams efficiency.
After tonight, I’m thinking, “Who needs defense?” - TIC
Minnesota was 11-22 from 3 and lost by 17. The one thing that Purdue did great on that end of the court was limit Minnesota to one shot, out-rebounding them 30-3 on the defensive boards.
Minnesota was 11-22 from 3 and lost by 17. The one thing that Purdue did great on that end of the court was limit Minnesota to one shot, out-rebounding them 30-3 on the defensive boards.
Manny was very hot from three. Yes, some guys missed their defensive assignments, but most of their threes were somewhat contested.
This is the new college game where the powers that be want more offense and less defense. That is why we saw the rule changes and teams all over are taking that approach.
The whole game now is centered around offensive efficiency and is more 'NBA-lite' than anything else.
I'll use our game against iu as an example. It was one we lost sure, but that had less to do about their supposed 'elite' defense rather than us not making plays. but more to my point, they are a defensive-first team as their offense is terrible and look where they sit. Not the greatest example, but proves my point regardless.
This is the college game now. We can want defense like it used to be at Purdue, but that is the thing of the past. We are now turning in to a offensive juggernaut that when on, shreds any defense thrown our way.
I think that Painter has done a nice job adjusting to the freedom of movement changes that went in several years ago. The Keady/Chris Kramer style of defense really isn’t allowed any more. Painter has adjusted with more of a help oriented man defense that has allowed him to recruit heavily for offensive skill and coach-ability over raw athleticism. The result is a tremendous offense and a defense that is more competent, rather than dominant. I think it’s been a good trade off.
Good point. His defense has an element of 'zone' to it in reference to your point about help defense. So those wanting 'zone' kind of have their wish to an extent.
Adapting to new rules, yes. But can't be so afraid of fouling that you lose your edge on defense. I keep going back to the Wisconsin game, and how Wisconsin fouled early and often but was able to set the tone and limit our offense to one of its lowest production games despite their "foul trouble".
Looking at last night's game, Minnesota made a run in the first 8 minutes of the 2nd half to cut the lead from 15 to 7. Over the course of those 8 minutes there was only 1 defensive foul called on Purdue. Then, between 7:00 and 4:00 they again cut the lead from 17 to 10. There were 0 fouls against Purdue during this span. Then Purdue quickly built the lead back up to 17 in the next 2 minutes or so, while committing 2 defensive fouls.
The point here is not that committing fouls is a good thing, but the goal certainly shouldn't be to play defense in such a way as to prioritize foul avoidance. Consistently embracing the physicality of the game and pushing the limits of what the whistles allow could help unlock this team's defensive potential.
I would have to look, but I also think during those runs you mentioned our scoring when cold.
Could be coincidental. Regardless, teams are going to have cold streaks and the answer for the #1 offensive team is probably not more offense.
I'd rather see our bigs available throughout the game than get in foul trouble trying to play shutdown defense. Edey and Tre are too good of scorers and help make this offense as efficient as it is.
So although I'd like to see the defense get better. If we're winning games like we did last night, I'm not losing sleep over it.
I think you nailed it. This teams ultimate goals are tied to the post season. The NCAA tourney games traditionaly favor the offense and overly physical play is not allowed. I think Painter knows this and is coaching the guys to play "their rules" without fouling, so when tourney time hits they aren't adjusting when the whistles are quick. Teams like Wisconsin will not survive. We saw what a player like Cockburn can do to them last night when the refs don't allow mugging on post ups.
The key like you said will be learning how to adjust and be more aggressive within the frame of a game if refs are allowing it.
One thing that concerns me about taking a more physical approach is that I think that the Big Ten was one of the more physical leagues and I am not sure that that physical approach works as well in the NCAA Tournament. I do think that this was a bit problematic for Painter earlier in his career.
That's a great point. Watching the tourney for many years it seems there is a certain way the "made for tv programming" influences the whistles.
I don't have much of a problem with the defense of our bigs. Hunter and Thompson need not worry about picking up an early foul. Just avoid the cheap ones.
Yeah, I am more confused than I was admittedly...and, in thinking more about it, I am of the opinion that KenPom just really does not know how to measure defense and effectiveness/efficiency or whatever the applicable term is for it.
It just does not add up that Purdue continues to trend down when they absolutely have played better defense.
How much of it is tied to an opposing team's offense as well?
Like say, this team is not great by any means defensively, or, even really good by Purdue standards, but, it is not near as bad as this metric would suggest...to the point that the metric seems pretty worthless actually. There simply are not 102 teams better than Purdue defensively...and, any stat that suggests as much, definitely lacks credibility.
I was going to comment similarly. Against OSU our defense allowed 46% fg and 31% from 3 which is below OSU's average but dropped significantly in kenpom D.
Like say, I don't know what it is even that is being measured at this point and this is further support for that.
Again, Purdue has played better defense...there is no doubt about it...in cases such as what you cite, the stats/numbers support that further.
They are not as good at that end as anyone would like, but, they definitely are not nearly as bad as this is trying to suggest either...and, the fact that they just keep dropping only makes me question the legitimacy of the numbers as well.
In overly simple terms, KenPom looks at how efficient an offense is at scoring per possession (to eliminate pace of play differences). It also factors in # of FT’s and offensive rebounds.
When an opposing team’s offense outperforms their “avg”, it reflects poorly on Purdue’s rating.
Remember how I mentioned Purdue on the season was averaging an “elite” 1.201 ppp? Michigan averaged 1.188 ppp in Saturday’s game. Ohio State avg’d 1.219 ppp a couple games ago.
The concern continues to be, when Purdue’s offense stumbles, don’t expect the defense to save the day. The lead collapses this season are frequent and well documented.
One could argue Purdue is getting everyone’s best punch every game, and that’s contributing to the ranking. Sure, I believe that.
The tournament is not always about the best team through the season or best in a 3 game series, if it was, Purdue would be in great shape since they play averages. It’s about who you play and when you play them, that’s the challenge. That’s the beauty and the beast. How often would North Texas lose to Purdue last season 9/10 times? How about Illinois or OSU?
However you want to look at it is your choice, but the data is the data, currently Purdue would be an extraordinary huge national champion outlier is my point. With that said, I think they can make up some ground in the rankings in February and I still love Purdue basketball and this team.
Purdue philosophy of doubling the post, leaving open 3’s and teams hitting them or exploiting rotations and scoring above their typical efficiency against everyone else they play is what’s driving this.
An out of the box question I would pose is: we know Painter and the defensive philosophy is predictable, with today’s type of game and players, are teams more efficiently exploiting?
When an opposing team’s offense outperforms their “avg”, it reflects poorly on Purdue’s rating.
Remember how I mentioned Purdue on the season was averaging an “elite” 1.201 ppp? Michigan averaged 1.188 ppp in Saturday’s game. Ohio State avg’d 1.219 ppp a couple games ago.
The concern continues to be, when Purdue’s offense stumbles, don’t expect the defense to save the day. The lead collapses this season are frequent and well documented.
One could argue Purdue is getting everyone’s best punch every game, and that’s contributing to the ranking. Sure, I believe that.
The tournament is not always about the best team through the season or best in a 3 game series, if it was, Purdue would be in great shape since they play averages. It’s about who you play and when you play them, that’s the challenge. That’s the beauty and the beast. How often would North Texas lose to Purdue last season 9/10 times? How about Illinois or OSU?
However you want to look at it is your choice, but the data is the data, currently Purdue would be an extraordinary huge national champion outlier is my point. With that said, I think they can make up some ground in the rankings in February and I still love Purdue basketball and this team.
Purdue philosophy of doubling the post, leaving open 3’s and teams hitting them or exploiting rotations and scoring above their typical efficiency against everyone else they play is what’s driving this.
An out of the box question I would pose is: we know Painter and the defensive philosophy is predictable, with today’s type of game and players, are teams more efficiently exploiting?
The metric is simply defensive efficiency, adjusted for opponent. Limiting your opponent from scoring is the basic goal of defense. You can’t cherry pick individual factors and get the whole picture. Ohio St didn’t shoot that great but only turned the ball over 6 times. Michigan shot the ball extremely well.
Now, do your eyes tell you that the defense has improved but the opponents are simply playing their best basketball? Perhaps. But in the end this is a conversation about being a statistical outlier. Time will tell if having the #1 offense is enough, but history hasn’t been kind.
Last edited:
I can't get # of possessions by just looking at the box score. I just saw below average shooting.
I am definitely more skeptical of the metric though...
No doubt that Purdue has improved defensively...no doubt that it still has room for improvement and needs to continue to improve...but, I am leery of the validity of the metric when I see Purdue play a pretty solid game defensively against OSU and then them drop as they did...and, I am more than confident in my assertion that it lacks validity in that there just are not 102 teams "better" than Purdue defensively.
Like say...not a great defensive team, not even a really good one, but, no way it is near as bad as it is being made out to be...in large part by this metric.
I could be wrong, but, it would seem that Purdue's offensive "excellence" could in turn hurt its defensive metric in this regard just by sheer possessions and opportunities for opponents to score in that Purdue is playing faster/scoring more and allowing more opportunities as such for the opponent to do the same.
To your point...the metric is very unfavorable for Purdue...I just question the value of the metric given some things that you have shared and that are just visible.
I think Purdue has some system issues that don't help their cause, and, has some individual issues that work against it as well...but, I feel like they have made some changes and definitely made some improvements as well.
All of that said...the defense is not going to rescue the day at any point as you noted, and, it is the greatest concern about/for this team...short-term, and, long-term even at the moment.
I have always been a proponent of defense generally winning games...be it football or basketball...this year's football team more or less made that seemingly not the case, and, basketball has managed to do the same to date. I just don't know that in March if being SO good/elite offensively is enough to overcome the shortcomings defensively (individually and collectively...and, even philosophically as Purdue does do some things that work against this particular team having success).
Purdue is basically middle of the pack in terms of possessions per game at 70.0. For reference, Nebraska is #8 in the country at 75.9, while Penn St is #338 at 65.9.
Now here is where things get nerdy...
How possessions are calculated in the metrics is an inexact science that involves a factor of estimation. The reason for this is that only a percentage of free throws equate to the the end of a possession.
I found some detail on this on the KenPom blog here: What is a possession anyway?
It appears from that blog that KenPom uses a commonly-held factor of 0.44 for possessions per free throw attempt.
For a team like Purdue that doesn't foul a lot, I am not sure which direction that would create variance from the 0.44 number, but it seems like there would be some variance due to a lower percentage of free throws being the front end of a 1-and-1. But they are also putting the opponent in the double bonus less often.
At the end of the day the trend does not care about the validity of the metric. Vegas built a lot of big shiny buildings not by asking why but by following trends.
THAT probably worries me as much as anything, as, that is the most factual and true statement about the matter.
Computer ratings are interesting to look at, but still the data can be skewed, Are we a good defensive team, probably, great no! But we have lost 2 games on last second shots. Pomroy has us at 106? How can a team be 20-3 and be that high. Look at IU, they have been blasted by Michigan and Illinois at home and gave up 112 points to a very average Syracuse team, and yet they are considered top 20 with a very weak non conference schedule!
Good points here also...
I just have struggled with wrapping my head around WHY/WHAT makes Purdue so bad by the metric...and, I don't know that there is any one answer.
I am just having a hard time reconciling that while this team is not really good defensively, that, this metric has them looking like Iowa a year ago...a team that was pure garbage defensively...and, I just don't see that with this Purdue team...but, that the metric does is very concerning given what ultimately happened to that Iowa team.
I mean, in looking at this metric...if truly accurate and valid...Purdue will be incredibly lucky just to survive the first weekend of the tournament, and, that is tough to accept.
I had mentioned before that I took some solace in that the E8 team was a bad one defensively, but, that this team is SO much better offensively than that one, that, perhaps it was good enough to overcome it as that particular team almost did...but I am not sure now that it can given just how ad this team appears to be despite it not seeming so.
Interesting, also is there anything in thr blog about offensive rebounds? Are they included in the initial possession? Or is it a new possession?
At the bottom of the link provided:
You might wonder why offensive rebounds are treated as continuing a possession, rather than starting a new one. I’ve seen two good reasons. First, by including them each team’s possessions can reasonably be assumed to come out equal for each game. Second, getting and preventing offensive rebounds are skills. So if some teams do those skills better than others, it makes sense to attach those skills to a team’s offensive or defensive ability.
So, an offensive rebound does NOT count toward a new possession, which rewards the offense and punishes the defense in possession based metrics.
What I am trying to understand is how Purdue has gone from 34th last season (92.9 rating) to 106th this season (99.5 rating where higher is worse), with essentially the same players.
In watching the games, I think that part of the issue is that, like the North Texas game, the pressure has been off opponents with Purdue’s high ranking (and even more so when Purdue is protecting sizable leads). A lot of teams have shot well against Purdue, particularly in the second half, if I am not mistaken, and I don’t think it’s completely because they are getting better looks than they did last year.
In watching the games, I think that part of the issue is that, like the North Texas game, the pressure has been off opponents with Purdue’s high ranking (and even more so when Purdue is protecting sizable leads). A lot of teams have shot well against Purdue, particularly in the second half, if I am not mistaken, and I don’t think it’s completely because they are getting better looks than they did last year.
I wonder if our defense allows opposing team's to be too comfortable? So maybe they are more likely to hit what appears to be contested shots?
Well its adjusted efficiency so its simply purdue lets teams score a lot more per possession than other teams. If you want to know why that is. Its a combination of never forcing Turnovers 341st in the nation and letting teams shoot a decent percentage from both 2 and 3.
We held a top 10-15 team to 68 points and they shot 40% and 30%, in my simple mind we played better defense, so our Kenpom rating should be better after that game by a least a little. If you tell me it got worse, then this measurement means nothing.
On the Field of 68 Podcast late last night Dauster talked about this with the Miller brothers. Dauster tee'd up the discussion by reciting the stat about the lowest rated champ in the Ken Pom era was UNC (don't recall the exact number, think it was about 27). Both of the Millers said they did not think Purdue's low Ken Pom defensive efficiency rating was a concern. In large part, because we are so good offensively and the obvious advantage of Zach/Trev inside, elite 3 point shooting and Jaden Ivey. Much more importantly - both thought the rating would improve during the last stretch of the season and they expected it to be much better (I believe they said in the 60s or 70s) when the tourney starts. Even more interesting, they thought Painter had consciously made the decision to value the 40+ % shooting from 3 so highly, that he has willingly sacrificed defensive efficiency. Their support for this observation was that Painter had elected to not play the better/best perimeter defenders; instead opting to play better 3 point shooters . . . but they also said they expected that to change a bit down the stretch. No names of players were mentioned, but I think most would agree EHJ is a better perimeter defender than IT. Earlier this year, though, IT played a lot more minutes than EHJ because IT was hitting so many 3s . . . and EHJ not so much. Also, we are seeing Ethan get more minutes. He is a better perimeter defender than IT and Sasha. I thought they were interesting observations. Food for thought.
All good and valid points...and, it is in line with what I wonder...is the sacrifice of defense for offense too great to overcome? Elite offense without question and supported...elite enough to overcome such a statistically poor defense?
Regardless, and, I will wait to see what the update is following last night...this team is not near as bad defensively as it is being made out to be.
Similar threads
