Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area

    Season comparisons 3pt shooting, depth and efficiency

    Thought it might be kind of interesting to compare this season with a couple of others to see if the discussions about inordinate number of three point shots being taken, lack of depth, poor efficiency (too much dribbling/passing), were born out by numbers.

    I chose the 2000-2001 championship season and 2005-2006 (Redick's senior season) to compare with how the Duke men are performing at this point in the season.
    Numbers are below.

    comparing three point shooting, one would think based on some comments, that an increased number of attempts would increase the likelihood of a loss unless the team is shooting really well. The Championship team shot an average of 27 threes per game at just under 39%. This year's team is shooting 7 fewer, and hitting 5% less, meaning they are making 3.5 fewer threes (10.5 points) but are also missing 3.2 fewer times. The championship team shot from 3 point range over 40% of the time; This year's version is just under 34%. Halfway through the season the impact of the one foot extension to the 3pt shot had made less than .5% change in major conference shooting percentage, so this year's team doesn't shoot quite as well as the championship version, but is taking 7 fewer threes per game. It does not appear that this team is shooting an inordinate number of threes when compared to 00-01 or the 2005-6 team. That team shot only .7 fewer per game, and made only .8 more. Unless someone believes all three years were too reliant on the three, the numbers don't seem to argue that this team in particular is hoisting too many. A couple of players have had shooting slumps which may account for the perception as much as anything else.

    Bench keeps coming up as an issue, and I've seen it addressed elsewhere, but the NC team and 05-06 had 2 fewer people averaging over 10 min/game than the current squad.

    It is difficult to analyze how much time is spent getting into the offense, "needless dribbling," "useless passing around the perimeter" and other descriptors some have used to critique offensive pace and efficiency of this team. The real issue to me is whether or not the dribbling/passing leads to points or bad shot attempts and turnovers. The Championship team played at a faster pace than either of the other teams, and had significantly more assists. Turnovers are about the same in raw numbers, but probably indicate that the championship team committed fewest TOs per possession while the 05-06 team was least efficient in handling the ball...so this year's team is somewhere in between.
    High assist numbers generally mean to me that a team is passing effectively to gain a positional advantage and more open shots. Lower assist numbers can mean ineffective passing or a reliance on individual efforts to get open/get to the basket. Individual effort on offense, I think, wears jump shooters down in end-of-game scenarios making them less likely to get open or hit open shots. This year's team is not getting a lot of assists, comparatively, which makes me wonder if greater emphasis on, or execution of, effective passing in the half-court throughout the game would increase overall shooting percentage.

    I was surprised that this team is shooting 5 more shots per game than the 05-06 team did and given the rest of the stats, wonder if the number of losses the team has at this point doesn't say something about the comparative strength of the ACC between 05-06 and now.

    The 2001 championship team had three losses by Feb 24th, while the 05-06 team only had one. Having two fewer losses didn't mean the 05-06 team was going to finish better...the 90-91 Championship team, coincidentally, had 5 losses at this point.

    I would prefer to see assist numbers significantly higher, but don't think the Duke team is shooting too many threes, don't think they are playing to few players, and don't think they aren't handling the ball effectively...I believe if everyone on this team is shooting reasonably well, there is no reason why they can't beat UNC in the rematch, win the ACC tourney, or make a deep run in the NCAA tourney.


    2000-2001 Season: average of 27.1 attempted 3's per game.
    fg% 48.1; 3pt fg% 38.5; 64.8 attempts/game; 18.0 APG ; 13.6 TO/gm
    7 players playing more than 10min/game
    record at this point in season 25-3
    finished 34-5 National Champions


    2005-2006 Season: average of 19.6 attempted 3's per game.
    fg% 48.7 3pt fg% 38.8; 55.0 attempts/game; 15.2 APG; 13.7 TO/gm
    7 players playing more than 10min/game
    record at this point in season 26-1
    Finished 32-4 lost in sweet 16

    2008-2009 Season: average of 20.3 attempted 3's per game.
    fg% 45.5 3pt fg% 33.6; 60.2 attempts/game; 14.0 APg ; 13.2 TO/gm
    record 22-5
    9 players playing more than 10 min/game

  2. #2
    what I find most interesting - per the change to three point line is the similarity in 3 pont shooting in 01 / 05 and the 5% points less this year. This definitely hurts us and I fear will be a hurt for years to come. There is no doubt that moving the line back knocks the % a little and we are one of the most three dependent teams.

    Some argued this one foot back would not make a diff - if 10 feet back would make a diff then one foot back will too... just an incremental math thing...

    In a given year it can certainly depend on who is doint the three shooting - but the acc as a whole is shooting worse on threes now so I don't think it is coincidence. Even if we in the future average say 3% less on shooting threes that is several points throughout the year given how many we take and probably costs us 1/2/3 o losses

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I was surprised that this team is shooting 5 more shots per game than the 05-06 team did and given the rest of the stats, wonder if the number of losses the team has at this point doesn't say something about the comparative strength of the ACC between 05-06 and now.
    The disparity in shots taken could have something to do with the fact that the current team corrals 4 more offensive rebounds per game (13.9 to 9.7) than the '05-'06 team. Of course, the lower field goal percentage for the current team could also account for the increase in offensive boards.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by gofurman View Post
    Some argued this one foot back would not make a diff - if 10 feet back would make a diff then one foot back will too... just an incremental math thing...
    This is probably true, and intuitively it makes sense, but it presupposes a linear relationship between shot distance and shooting percentage that I don't think has been scientifically studied.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by gofurman View Post
    what I find most interesting - per the change to three point line is the similarity in 3 pont shooting in 01 / 05 and the 5% points less this year. This definitely hurts us and I fear will be a hurt for years to come. There is no doubt that moving the line back knocks the % a little and we are one of the most three dependent teams.
    Nationwide, the move of the line has dropped shooting ~ 1.3%. Our shooting 5% less is only somewhat attributable to the three point line. It's also attributable to 1) we have fewer pure shooters than in years past, and 2) some guys, like Paulus, are just having off years. The year hasn't finished, and it may well be that we simply got our misses out of the way earlier - our three point percentage for the season as a whole isn't final yet.

    Also, can we please all get off of this "we are one of the most three dependent teams" theme? We shoot fewer threes (as a percentage of our attempts) than 150 teams in the country. We get less of our scoring from three (as a percentage of our total points) than 219 teams in the country. We just scored 101 points in a game where we made 8 threes. This is not a team that simply chucks it up from the perimeter and has no hope of scoring otherwise.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  6. #6
    Some interesting analysis, though not sure I agree (all numbers below, as usual, from kenpom.com). The 2005-2006 team actually averaged 71.5 possessions/game, or 27th among D1 teams. This year's team averages 68.6 possessions/game (95th). The two teams have about equal TO rates (19 and 18% of possessions, respectively).

    Obviously the '05-06 squad's big advantage was shooting much better from 3. Moving the line back a foot does not account for the 5% difference in shooting (the '05-06 squad was 23rd in the country in 3P%, this year's squad is 194th). The '05-06 squad was also superb on the perimeter defensively, holding opponents below 31% from 3. A big concern with this year's team is that they're the first Duke squad in years to allow opponents to convert 3s (32.8%) at nearly the rate they do (33.6%).

    This year's squad is however a much better rebounding team, actually in the top 20 in offensive rebound %, while the '06 squad was near the bottom of the country in rebounding at both ends. This year's squad is also generating more turnovers.

    The final thing to keep in mind is that stats, particularly defensively, tend to get worse as the year goes on, so it's not necessarily a fair comparison. My biggest concern is that this year's squad has now had six straight games where its opponents' effective FG% (like FG% with extra weight added to made 3's) has been at least 52.5%. The '05-06 squad only had six games all season where they allowed that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area
    yes to the difference between shot attempts and possessions...the numbers I used were from Duke statistics at goduke.statsgeek.com.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chitowndevil View Post
    Some interesting analysis, though not sure I agree (all numbers below, as usual, from kenpom.com).

Similar Threads

  1. GHill/Hendo comparisons
    By DukeCO2009 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 01:33 AM
  2. energy efficiency
    By wiscodevil in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 04:01 PM
  3. An In Depth Look at Depth
    By pfrduke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 07:38 AM
  4. Player efficiency, EPI rankings
    By whereinthehellami in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:35 AM
  5. ACC Efficiency Numbers
    By riverside6 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2007, 09:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •