St. Louis Billikens

Date/Time: Wednesday January 8th @ 8:00 PM EST at the Chaifetz Arena in St. Louis, Missouri.
Record Last Year: 23-13, 10-8 (T-6th in Atlantic 10)
Preseason Ranks: 141st (KenPom), 146th (Bart Torvik), 143rd (Sports Illustrated), 177th (CBS)
Projected Record: 21-10, 10-8 (T-5th in Atlantic 10)
Postseason Last Year: NCAA as a 13 seed; the Billikens made an improbable run to the NCAA tournament after being picked very high in the preseason and underachieving during the regular season, winning four games in four days (Richmond by 3, Dayton by 9, Davidson by 23, and St. Bonaventure by 2). Unfortunately, they got off to a poor start against a good Virginia Tech team in the first round, falling behind 40-18 at halftime. They managed to bridge the gap to 10 points in the second half, but ended up losing by 14, 66-52 as the deficit proved too large to overcome.

Coaching Record: Travis Ford, 52-50 in three seasons at St. Louis. Previously went 155-111 at Oklahoma State, with 5 NCAA appearances and 1 NIT appearance. Also went 62-35 at Massachusetts with a couple of NIT appearances (one runner-up) and 61-80 at Eastern Kentucky with one NCAA appearance. Ford has quite a few postseason appearances, but I think it's telling that he has failed to advance past the first round in a majority of them. His first season in Stillwater remains the only time that he has made the round of 32 in the NCAA tournament. A good recruiter and defensive minded coach, but the offense has been somewhat sloppy in recent years. There is nothing pretty in the way SLU plays - they like to get up in your face and play old school basketball.

All Time Record: 9-10, with SLU currently on a three game win streak (we had a 3 game win streak of our own in the seasons before). In last year's bad 73-58 loss, we were led by DJ's 21 points, including an impressive 4-6 shooting from distance. We also got a boost from Maceo (11 points) who made three threes of his own and Javier (10 points) who actually managed to shoot over 50% from the field on 7 shot attempts. Unfortunately, can't say that has happened too much in his Colonial career. Rooting for him to get healthy again because I do think that while he's raw offensively, he has shown some good things on defense for spurts.

Offensive Efficiency: 162nd (KenPom), 134th (Bart Torvik)
Defensive Efficiency: 64th (KenPom), 74th (Bart Torvik)
Tempo: 192nd (KenPom), 196th (Bart Torvik)

Key Returning Players:
Jordan Goodwin (JR; Centreville, IL) 10.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.8 spg; 40% FG, 26% 3-pt, 51% FT
      Last year against us: 10 points, 8 rebounds, 9 assists; 4-7 FG, 0-2 3-pt, 2-5 FT in 38 minutes.

Hasahn French (JR; Middletown, NY) 9.3 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 1.5 apg, 1.8 bpg; 49% FG, 35% FT
      Last year against us: 5 points, 13 rebounds, 2 blocks; 2-8 FG, 1-1 FT in 36 minutes.

Key Losses:
Javon Bess (Graduated; Columbus, OH) 15.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 1.8 apg; 39% FG, 33% 3-pt, 79% FT. Good news for us, since SLU lost their best free throw shooter. One of the biggest frustrations for us in last year's game was Bess having 12 free throw attempts. He made all 12.

Tramaine Isabell (Graduated; Seattle, WA) 13.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 3.6 apg; 41% FG, 33% 3-pt, 71% FT

Carte'Are Gordon (Transferred; St. Louis, MO) 8.9 ppg, 4.1 rpg; 54% FG, 40% 3-pt, 50% FT. He's transferred like three times within the past year. Don't believe he's on a team currently.

Comments:
Welcome to probably the worst matchup for us in the A10. It might be in our best interest to employ a hacking strategy and send the Billikens to the line the entire game rather than get easy shots near the rim (that might require more guys suiting up tomorrow, but I still don't think that's a bad strategy). They are still terrible at shooting free throws - they were 350th last year, and this year they are somehow worse. SLU shoots FTs at a 57% rate - only the poor Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils rank worse at 54%. SLU also took among the fewest three point field goals in the country last year (329th) and that has more or less remained the same this season. The other thing that could kill us apart from the easy shots at the rim are the second chance opportunities. SLU ranked 5th in the nation last year in offensive rebounds per game, and top 10 overall in total rebounding. Hopefully AT is getting healthy from his injury, as I'm not sure we have anyone else who can keep their guys off the glass.

With Bess and Isabell gone, the Billikens have required their junior class to step up. Jordan Goodwin is either first or second on the team in points, rebounds, assists, and steals. The junior from Illinois has averaged a double-double so far this season (15.1 ppg, 10.8 rpg). The rebounding number in particular is outrageous when you realize Goodwin stands at just 6'3". He is also a great defender, averaging just over 2 steals a game. I would hope he is not guarding JNJ for most of the game with his current turnover issues as a freshman. Goodwin prefers to get to the hoop where he finishes with greater efficiency as he is only a 29% shooter from distance and 52% from the line. His frontcourt partner, Hasahn French, operates exclusively in the paint, but has similar stats otherwise in that he is good at finishing near the hoop and is poor from the charity stripe. Stopping French will be no easy task. I can already see the headline now: French fries George Washington (it would be an amusing storyline given the actual result of the French and Indian War was actually the opposite). Anyways, French also averages a double double with 13.4 ppg and 10.1 rpg. It's pretty ridiculous that SLU has two players who average double doubles. Goodwin and French combine for 20 rebounds a game, roughly half of the team total. French also averages 2.5 assists per game, so doubling him might not be the clear solution. Defensively, he averages 2.6 blocks per game, which is just under Osunniyi's average I believe. Going back to his free throw struggles, French is just 26-77 from the line on the year. That's really bad, and I think we know what to do. Apart from AT and Chase, we should see Ace, and if all three end up in foul trouble, I'd even be willing to see Miles Gally make his first career appearance just to come into the game and hack French. Since he's also a junior, I'll also mention former JUCO and local STL product Javonte Perkins as well. Perkins is another double figure scorer, but isn't overly efficient as a shooter. He is one of the best free throw shooters on their team at 75% though.

The running theme so far is that SLU has a bunch of poor shooters. That isn't completely true, as there are a couple of capable gunners in senior Dujuanta 'Tay' Weaver and sophomore Demetrius Jacobs. Weaver was a good get as a grad transfer for Ford. The transfer from Eastern Kentucky isn't a big scorer for SLU, but makes his threes at a 39% clip so he gets the job done as a specialist. Jacobs has seen more time as his teammate Fred Thatch has been sidelined since November because of a sad myalgia condition. He is second on the team with 18 made threes (again not a lot, but SLU isn't a three point shooting team), converting them at a 35% clip which is decent.

The remainder of SLU's rotation will be made up of their freshman class, all who have made sizable contributions to the team this season. Unfortunately Jimerson is out for the remainder of the year with a broken foot, a tough break for SLU as he had made 24 threes in 10 games at a great 43%. Yuri Collins is their team leader in assists, averaging 5.8 apg which is top 5 in the league. Collins hasn't shot the ball very well and is prone to some freshman turnovers, but overall has filled the stat sheet nicely in his first year. Terrance Hargrove Jr. has put up an impressive 6.7 ppg per 11.5 minutes of action. Hargrove is a vertically explosive player at the rim, and with Jimerson injured, is now SLU's best free throw shooter. Jimmy Bell Jr. will see some minutes as well next to French, giving the Billikens an intimidating frontcourt. His stats don't pop out, but has been solid in limited time.

This would be a tough matchup in any season, but especially in a rebuilding one. Hope we focus on what SLU does poorly offensively, sending them to the line. The running guys off the line strategy doesn't seem as effective against a poor shooting team like SLU who probably prefers to get to the hoop anyways, and I'm afraid we could be burned a lot on drives. The Billikens are great defensively, so putting up a lot of points will be a challenge, especially on the road. If we can get hot from three for a long stretch of the game, maybe we can keep it closer than expected. 

Predicted Score: St. Louis 74, GW 60. 9% chance to win (Bart Torvik). ESPN says we have a 16.7% chance to win.
 

Dude
As coach has said many times- we do not play zone.

Line opens at +12, now mostly +11 or 10.5.  It’s another game where if we play well, we lose by about 8, but just as likely to be a 25 point Vermont type smackdown.     All iin all, line sounds about right.

KenPom says there's plenty of reason not to play zone: https://theathletic.com/767413/2019/01/15/kenpom-the-success-of-playing-zone-vs-man-to-man-defense/

KenPom: The success of playing zone vs. man-to-man defense
One reason basketball is fun is because it’s complicated. With 10 players on the court making reads and reacting to movements of both teammates and opponents, we have a chaotic system that often leads to results in a given possession that are difficult to predict.

Because of this, basketball doesn’t provide a lot of opportunities to second-guess strategy. It’s easy to critique playing time and maybe lineup combinations, but beyond that it gets challenging. Late-game play-calling comes under fire, but usually the approach is results-driven. Did the play work? If so, then it was a good call.

Perhaps that’s why there is so much focus on things such as whether to foul when up by three late in the game or whether a player makes clutch free throws instead of the broader issue of whether a coach is running an offense or a defense optimal for his personnel.

But at least with respect to defense, maybe the task isn’t impossible. The good folks at Synergy Sports Technology kindly track how much zone every team plays, so we at least have a starting point for analyzing what it means to play a zone defense. Let’s dive in and see what we can learn.

For starters, it’s worth seeing how much zone is played across the country. It stands to reason that as more players at every position have become proficient at shooting 3-pointers, the zone becomes less useful. Indeed, according to Synergy data from the last six seasons, the zone is gradually becoming more rare.

You should always apply a caveat to Synergy data that possessions are being logged by humans with varying degrees of basketball experience. But the numbers here pass the sniff test. The percentage of zone possessions has been experiencing a steady decrease since comprehensive data has been collected. The only exception was in 2016, which was the first year of the 30-second shot clock. This is what I would have expected if you asked to me guess what the numbers would look like. This season, about one in seven possessions has been played against a zone.

Now let’s get to the good stuff and see how zone and man teams compare in terms of their defensive statistics. A few teams play exclusively zone, so for the purposes of this investigation, I’ll define a zone team as one that played at least 70 percent of its possessions in zone according to Synergy. About 11 teams a year qualify under this criteria.

I’ll define man-to-man teams as those that play at least 90 percent of their possessions in man defense. Naturally, there are many more of those — 939 over the six-season period of record to be exact, or about 157 per season. With these two groups, we can compare what man and zone teams do differently from a statistical perspective. What do you think they are? (Author waits patiently for reader to think.)

First, let’s look at shooting stats.

If you guessed that zone teams give up more 3-pointers, give yourself a prize. If you guessed that teams make a higher percentage of their 3s against zone teams, please return said prize. As illustrated above, even though teams take many more 3s against zone teams, 3-point percentage has essentially been identical against both types of defenses. And curiously, 2-point percentage allowed is functionally identical as well. So allowing all of those 3s doesn’t come with the trade-off of better 2-point defense for zone teams.

Next, let’s see what the non-shooting portions of the four factors tell us.

Not surprisingly, zone teams struggle to keep opponents off the offensive glass. It figures that the lack of a personnel matchup might increase the chance that an opponent can get good position for a rebound. But here’s something positive for the zone teams: They force more turnovers. Curiously, though, they have also sent teams to the free throw line a bit more often. You might have thought that covering space instead of a person would lead to fewer free throws, but that has not been the case.

In seeing these numbers, you should not be surprised to learn that zone teams have been less effective than man teams on the defensive end.

On average, zone teams have given up two more points per 100 possessions than man teams (adjusted for competition). It might make one wonder why a coach would choose to play zone. While the comparison between man and zone teams reveals some things, what’s missing is what the zone teams would look like statistically if they played man.

You’ll notice I included the adjusted offensive rating for man and zone teams as well, and the man teams rate out much better. The gap is actually wider for the offense than the defense. This gives us some indication that the man teams have better personnel to begin with. One might assume that the coaches of zone teams believe their personnel would be even worse at man defense.

And of course, there are myriad other reasons why one might choose to play zone. The simplicity of playing a defense that doesn’t require a coach to worry about ball screen coverage from game to game might be one. And when you look at these teams’ conference winning percentage, maybe it’s the best one.

While man teams have outperformed zone teams in their respective conferences over the past six seasons, the teams that mix man and zone defenses are worse than both. Having to learn the principles of a man defense is time-consuming, but add the burden of learning some sort of zone and one can imagine a team not mastering either concept. Then consider the problem of finding the necessary time to perfect an offensive system on top of that. All of that learning may be harmful to a team’s ability to win.

It sure seems as if playing zone is a suboptimal choice in the modern game, but the ultimate test of this belief would be walking into the office of Jim Boeheim or Mike Hopkins and telling them that they’re doing this all wrong. While neither Syracuse nor Washington may make the NCAA Tournament this season, I wouldn’t be quite so confident to have that conversation. Not to mention that another zone team, Hofstra, has the longest winning streak in the land among teams not named Michigan or Virginia, though the Pride’s defense has lagged well behind its offense to this point.

The safest lesson here could be that at the most basic level, it’s wise to pick man or zone. You better have a good reason to try both.

Finally, two stats really distinguish zone teams from their counterparts. Those are opponents’ assist rate and average possession length (APL).

When people talk about assist rates, it is always from the offensive perspective. But the defense has a lot of control over this, and it’s something we should talk about a lot more. Forcing teams to score off the dribble is generally a good thing, though that’s not true for every defense. (Just as sharing the basketball is not a requirement for a good offense.) After all, the scoreboard doesn’t care if a team scores off the dribble or the pass. At any rate, teams are generally going to score off the pass a lot more against the zone

And while it’s really tough for a defense to have an impact on the pace of the game, one way to do that is to play zone. Maybe that’s the best reason to play zone. Overall, the average difference in possession length has been 0.5 seconds, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. Of the 12 teams playing mostly zone this season, four rank in the bottom 10 of defensive possession length.

While the zone doesn’t reduce foul rates, it can reduce possessions, which in turn can reduce total fouls. So if you’re a particularly bad team that would like to shorten the game, or you’d just like to shorten your bench, playing a zone could be for you. That’s as enthusiastic as I can get about recommending a zone defense. But given the increasing ability of players at all positions to make 3-pointers, the zone is going to be an increasingly hard sell in the years to come.

Last edited by Hugh (1/08/2020 1:59 pm)

Dude, this is an age-old discussion on whether a coach is better off adjusting his schemes and tactics to fit his personnel or whether they are better off trying to teach the players to play "his way" while recruiting future players who will be more comfortable in the coach's system.  I am not sure I can recall a single new coach at GW who sacrificed his own principles to adopt a system that was better suited to the players he inherited.  Gimelstob went man-to-man exclusively on defense since this is what he learned from Bob Knight.  Penders had the players play much faster than Jarvis ever did.  Hobbs taught a frenetic defense but his offenses often stalled in the half court.  Lonergan favored athletic bigs who could knock down 3's.but aside from an aggressive 1-3-1 defense, he generally preferred that his defenders not take risks.    JC is emphasizing taking 3's and defending 3's.  

The counter-argument is that certain match-ups practically beg for some changes to coaching schemes and philosophies.  It's apparent that JC is not adjusting for this.  This is his first year with these players and he must feel he needs practice time to reinforce how he would like them to play.  Also keep in mind that with only a handful of days in between games, this does not leave a lot of time.  So even if JC wanted to play zone against certain opponents, unless this was worked on in the preseason, chances are that he doesn't want to overload the players and try to teach them something brand new with only a handful of days to do so.
 

Last edited by Gwmayhem (1/08/2020 2:55 pm)

3 free throws for Battle here chance to cut it to 7.

Not dead yet!

Heckuva  battle fron these guys

Best defensive effort of the season not giving anything up easy

With a little more offensive firepower we can make some hay down the road

No give up in GW!

Battle could be an all time GW great if he sticks around. Love his game already.

 Jamison does seem to be developing a more all around game all the time. And he is not loathe at times to mix it up with the really big guys down low.