Film Room: Wisconsin rides improved pick and roll defense in convincing win

It’s rare for a smart, well-coached team to make the same mistakes in two straight games. This is why Wisconsin’s improved defense against Minnesota wasn’t a surprise. While UW struggled against Maryland’s heavy usage of ball screens and dribble penetration, the Badgers improved significantly during Thursday’s contest against Minnesota and the Gophers' star guard Marcus Carr.

One of the main tenets of Wisconsin’s elite defense is sound and timely help-side presence. What the Badgers may lack in a lockdown perimeter defender, they try to make up for with fundamental help defense and rotations. Unfortunately, when the help breaks down, UW will naturally struggle to contain guards slashing to the basket.

Currently, Wisconsin ranks 5th nationally in Adjusted Defensive Efficiency, according to KenPom.com. According to Synergy Sports, Wisconsin’s defense allows 0.796 points per possession. In pick-and-roll situations only, this number drops to 0.785 points per possession. When the ball handler keeps the ball, Wisconsin is allowing a paltry 0.694 points per possession. However, the Badgers have struggled when the opposing ball handler hits the roll man, where they are allowing 1.154 points per possession. What this means is, by the numbers, Wisconsin has an elite overall defense, and does an especially great job stifling pick and roll plays when the ball handler keeps the ball and tries to shoot or finish at the rim, but struggles to defend the roll man.

Intuitively, this makes sense. Wisconsin typically employs a “drop” or flat-hedge ball screen coverage philosophy. In drop coverage, the man guarding the offensive player setting the ball screen will “drop” below the level of the screen to cut off any penetration and force the ball handler into a long two. This comes at the sacrifice of allowing the ball handler to shoot an open, long two-point jumper and temporarily allowing the roll man to freely “pop” for an open three. However, forcing a long two is a very analytics-friendly outcome of a possession for a defense, and that’s what Wisconsin wants opponents to rely on.

Against Maryland, Wisconsin utilized the standard drop coverage. When put in ball screens, Nate Reuvers and Micah Potter typically were near the lane line attempting to cut off penetration. However, due to a lackluster Wisconsin defensive effort, Maryland still had success against the Badgers defense and leaned on a ball-screen heavy attack to secure the victory.

One issue Wisconsin had was that Reuvers struggled to contain penetration in drop coverage, which is a cardinal sin of this scheme. Watch below as Reuvers comes out in “drop” but still allows the easy penetration to the rim.

Ideally, Reuvers needs to be a step to his left to be in the proper position to cut off the ball handler as he comes off the screen. This does come at the cost of leaving the screener alone for a few moments, but that is the choice Wisconsin makes. Reuvers fails to establish the proper positioning on the floor and leaves the driving lane open, resulting in an easy layup.

Even when Reuvers successfully stymied the initial ball screen action, Maryland immediately would get into a “throw and chase” action to force Reuvers to guard the pick and roll again. Maryland was betting that, eventually, Reuvers would make a mistake that it could capitalize on.

In this sequence, Reuvers executes the first drop properly. Maryland responds by passing to the roll man, who then initiates a throw-and-chase screen on the left wing. Reuvers falters while guarding this second ball screen by failing to position himself properly on his drop and leaves an open angle for penetration. Wisconsin typically helps at the “nail” in side ball screen situations, but Tyler Wahl was a little weak with his stunt and allows the penetration to get to the rim.

The second main issue was slow or non-existent help defense rotations. When a ball handler beats his man on the perimeter, a series of rotations should be triggered to cut off the penetration. Watch below as Brad Davison gets beat middle, but there was no help to cut off the penetration or help at the rim.

Once Davison gets beat, either D'Mitrik Trice or Reuvers should have executed a stunt at the nail. Since neither execute this help, the penetration is unchecked and the ball handler gets to the rim. Jonathan Davis is responsible for the rim help, as he’s the “low man” on the weak-side. Davis is late and fails to contest at the rim.

Rightfully, these themes were a cause for concern for the Badgers, as they had to lick their wounds and regroup for another challenge against Carr and Minnesota. Fortunately for the Badgers, the pick and roll coverage and help defense was much improved against Minnesota, and Wisconsin held it to 0.92 points per possession en route to a convincing win.

Wisconsin’s strategy against Carr was to hard-hedge high ball screens. This is non-standard for UW, which typically relies on the more conservative drop coverage. But a hard hedge can be effective in containing penetration - it relies heavily on the three defenders not in the screening actions to help and compensate for being at a man-disadvantage below the ball.

Minnesota is most successful when Carr can get downhill and create for himself or others. Wisconsin was hedging his ball screens to prevent that. Here, Carr gets a nice middle ball screen but Potter hedges it well and prevents Carr from turning the corner and getting into the lane. Wahl properly jams the roller, but in the process ends up making contact with the floor and was unable to recover to the shooter.

Regardless, aside from Wahl’s tumble, this was flawless execution of Greg Gard’s plan to hedge ball screens. Wisconsin was on point for most of the game in these situations. The sequence below is the commonly used “twist” action, where the ball handler gets consecutive screens in opposite directions with the goal of the defense eventually making a mistake.

This was a perfect sequence. Potter is first put into the ball screen going right. He hedges this effectively, and Aleem Ford jams the roller. Ford’s man then sprints into a ball screen going left, and Ford recovers and executes a hedge of his own, while trusting Wahl to jam the roller. Wahl executes the jam flawlessly and recovers to his man in a timely fashion, forcing a travel.

Reuvers also made strides and rebounded after a poor performance against Maryland. He found himself in side ball screens and executed the drop and recover coverage perfectly. Note that Wisconsin was only hedging screens set for Carr. Since Both Gach was the ball handler in this sequence, Wisconsin employed the traditional drop coverage.

Minnesota gets into a throw and chase ball screen, and Reuvers positions his drop with one foot on the lane line, which effectively denies any penetration. When his man pops to the short corner, Reuvers closes out under control with high hands and forces a long two.

Following the Maryland game, many fans wondered if the Terrapins established the blueprint for beating Wisconsin. Like any well-coached and elite defensive team, the Badgers cleaned up their shortcomings and redeemed themselves against Minnesota. Wisconsin’s big bounce-back win can largely be attributed to a creative scheme, proper execution by Ford, Reuvers and Potter, and timely and trustworthy help by the rest of the players on the floor. Surely a promising outing for Wisconsin as Big Ten play heats up.