vivid_dude wrote:Realhoops wrote:It's tiring how much other Big East fanbases focus solely on the total points scored by opposing bigs and just extrapolate from there that Kalk is somehow not a great defender. They don't care if it takes 100 shots to get 25 points, they don't watch and see that the scoring is almost entirely as a result of Kalk defending others and not actually scoring one v. one, they completely ignore everything else about his defense and our system, etc.
Annoys me to no end too. Efficiency (or lack thereof) matters. The one-on-one matchups are but one facet of being a good defender. His defensive impact on the other four opposing players is arguably just as important as what he does against his guy. How many times has a capable scoring wing drove the paint this season, saw/sensed Kalkbrenner's presence, and did an about-face back to the perimeter? I don't have the data to support this, but my guess would be several million times.
Kalkbrenner is the most important player to his team in the Big East, in my opinion. Our offensive and defensive schemes are structured around him. CU opponents design their offensive and defensive game plans with him as the focal point. On the rare occasion when he gets a breather, the entire game feels different on both ends of the court because he controls the flow so dramatically with his presence.
Coaches know. That's why they have voted him DPOY for three consecutive seasons. Fans checking a box score don't really know.
100%
Also, thanks to Jacob for breaking down the numbers on Dante versus Kalkbrenner. Teams have gotten smarter about trying to take advantage of Kalkbrenner's help, but it still leads to a win for Creighton in almost every case.
- Dante had a .695 eFG% this year, and in our game he was .600 with much of it coming on those offensive rebound plays off of Kalk happening. A good game by Dante, no doubt, but not a clear win, particularly when you look at how that help defense changed Oregon's play elsewhere
- While it seemed they were killing us over and over, eventually Couisnard wore down and even then the D hadn't been all bad, in large part because we took pretty much everyone else on their team out of the game.
In terms of total shooting %, they were .460 (3rd worst of the season for them)
In terms of offensive rating they were 95.4 (offensive rating on bball reference), and the 5th worst of the season for them
If we'd shot anywhere near our norm in the first half we blow them out, but, as it is, we got a classic game and the win