quote:
What's worse is LSU is 2nd to worst in the NATION in % of opponent's points from 3. That is a big reason why opponents have stayed close and won in games where LSU had a significant FG% advantage.

It appears very clear that McMahon's defensive strategy is to allow opponents freedom to shoot as may threes as they like. How is it clear? Because LSU is 349 of 362 in opponent's 3 point attempts per game (28). That defensive approach seems to fly in the face of modern analytics where teams are happy to trade a lower shooting % for a higher volume of threes rather than have a higher shooting % with a lower volume of threes.

It could just mean that we have had a decided height advantage inside and have had relatively short guards, going large stretches with 2 6'1" guards. If we use more Williams and Mwani / Wright at guard that may improve, although I think many of our players aren't particularly skilled at perimeter defense.

I don't think McMahon's "plan" is to give up as many 3's as possible.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by mcmaniacinsaneasylum

Baton Rouge

Member since Feb 2023

1978 posts

Posted on 11/28/23 at 11:15 am to mmcgrath

quote:
It could just mean that we have had a decided height advantage inside and have had relatively short guards, going large stretches with 2 6'1" guards. If we use more Williams and Mwani / Wright at guard that may improve, although I think many of our players aren't particularly skilled at perimeter defense.

I do agree with you that height is an issue. Carlos Stewart tries on defense, but I've seen numerous times this year where he closes out properly, jumps up to contest, but he's just so short that he doesn't impact the shooter. I think better lineups could mitigate the piss poor 3pt defense we've displayed so far.

McMahon cannot repeat himself like a broken record about fixing switching and 3pt defense while consistently running lineups with multiple undersized players and mismatches waiting to happen from an erroneous switch.

Our team does not talk enough on defense. WW switch everything defense worked so well largely in fact due to having leaders on defense who speak, communicate, and lead a defense and tell people where to switch. I noticed communication a lot during the scrimmage against LCU, but it's not been there in the subsequent games. I'm not sure why. What I do know is that we have players who are switchable and communicate on defense, namely Derek and Mwani, but they don't get enough minutes. McMahon cannot force a switching defense while running 3 undersized players and an immobile bigman.

quote:
I don't think McMahon's "plan" is to give up as many 3's as possible.

McMahon has made it clear that 3pt defense is a problem. He's said it in multiple press conferences this season. I agree that I don't think it's his "plan" to allow three pointers. However, I do think that our players aren't coached properly on switching. We often switch two guys or turn help defense into a full on switch when someone cuts or rolls, leaving three pointers open, especially from the corner or wing.

Improvements need to be made. Either change the defensive scheme or run lineups that are more suited to running a switch everything man to man.

This post was edited on 11/28/23 at 11:30 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Alt26

Member since Mar 2010

28644 posts

Posted on 11/28/23 at 11:35 am to mmcgrath

quote:
I don't think McMahon's "plan" is to give up as many 3's as possible.

I didn't say "made" 3 pointers. 3 point attempts.

It's basketball. Opponents are going to get shots. Several of them in fact. Generally, the defensive plan is working to force your opponent to take the shots YOU want them to take, attempted by the guys YOU want to take them.

It's more difficult to make a deep shot than a lay up. That's why they count for more. Thus, it's not a bad strategy to give up looks from 3 by poor 3 point shooters. But that strategy isn't without limitations. If you are getting beat from 3 you have to do what is necessary to take away those looks...even if it means you're giving up good looks from 2. Opponents aren't "shooting over" LSU's short guards. They are taking the shots LSU is giving them. And LSU is giving them 3's

From what I have seen thus far LSU's defensive strategy has been to help and dig to try to force deflections/steals. To a degree it is working. They are forcing a lot of turnovers. But they are also choosing to help off of shooters to try to force those turnovers. It's great when it works. But when it doesn't, you leave a guy with a wide-open look. (Coincidentally, it's a strategy Wade employed when he was here. Often with little success). LSU has been willing to give those looks to increase their chances for a steal. But sometimes you MUST be aware of who you are helping off of. SF who shoots 28% from deep on 2 attempts per game? Help off of him all day. It he beats the odds and makes a three you live with it. The opponent's better 3 point shooters? Don't help off of them. The increased chance for a steal probably isn't work the risk of a made three in that scenario. The discipline to know who to leave and who not to leave takes coaching and scouting. Right now, it appears LSU is willing to allow anyone and everyone to take good looks from three.

It's also contributing to the defensive rebounding woes. Long misses often = long rebounds. Long rebounds often favor the shooting team. Offensive rebounds for the opponents =more FGA for the opponent and less for you. More FGA often leads to more made baskets. It all works together. I'm ok right now with LSU getting a few less steals per game if it means you are forcing the "right" guys, from an defensive perspective, to take the "right" shots. That's been a problem thus far. LSU is letting too many good shooters get too many good looks from 3.

1 ...

Report Post

Tiger Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board