great article in chronicle

[uh_no]

for those of you who might not check the chronicle frequently, there was what I consider a very well done article about the 'tired legs' myth

http://dukechronicle.com/article/duk...ively-speaking

the center of the argument is that

1, there is a clear trend of decreasing performance as the season progresses
2. this trend can be measured each season
3. there is no correllation between the amount of minutes starters play per game and the decreasing performance, indicating that the decrease in performance is likely due to some other variable rather than 'tired legs'

[Kedsy]

for those of you who might not check the chronicle frequently, there was what I consider a very well done article about the 'tired legs' myth

http://dukechronicle.com/article/duk...ively-speaking

the center of the argument is that

1, there is a clear trend of decreasing performance as the season progresses
2. this trend can be measured each season
3. there is no correllation between the amount of minutes starters play per game and the decreasing performance, indicating that the decrease in performance is likely due to some other variable rather than 'tired legs'

Interesting article. He could have proved his point even more by analyzing Duke's performance during the "good" years. I haven't run the offensive efficiency statistics for 1986 to 1994, or 1998 to 2004, and I'm not even sure if they're available, but based on W/L records Duke almost always "fades" in the last x games prior to the postseason tournaments. Some of those Final Four teams were truly outstanding, but many of them were just really good (similar to Duke's teams in recent years). The only significant difference is their W/L record in the NCAA tourney.

Too many people start with the fact that a team lost its last game and thus posit as an undeniable truth that therefore something was wrong with that team. And once there, they can draw all sorts of unsupportable conclusions. They can identify anything they didn't like about the team and say they lost because of xx. If you argue with them, they essentially respond with "scoreboard," except that was their original premise so logically it can't be used to prove itself. That kind of illogic drives me crazy, and it's good to see a writer for the Chronicle taking that sort of thing head on.

[Starter]

Nah, there's nothing really here. He compares Duke players to NBA guys who play big minutes -- well no kidding, NBA players are older and stronger by design than college players. (He brings up Tyreke Evans, who's clearly an outlier as a physical beast as he has not hit the rookie wall, though he still has time to do so. I hope not, for the sake of my fantasy team)

Plus, he presents data to show that Duke generally declines over the course of a season, and yet he denies the most obvious reason without explaining why. He refers to Redick's high minute total as "anecdotally," when it's anything but. And he makes it seem like the issue here is running, when the true issue is the physical nature of the game and the amount of pounding players take, which only seems to be getting more so as the ACC turns into a more physical league.

Just because you claim you're right about something doesn't mean you are.

[uh_no]

well what makes it interesting is that he uses data on HOW we won games, not just whether we won them, which makes a much better point that 'you went out early in the tournament'

[BD80]

for those of you who might not check the chronicle frequently, there was what I consider a very well done article about the 'tired legs' myth

http://dukechronicle.com/article/duk...ively-speaking

the center of the argument is that

1, there is a clear trend of decreasing performance as the season progresses
2. this trend can be measured each season
3. there is no correllation between the amount of minutes starters play per game and the decreasing performance, indicating that the decrease in performance is likely due to some other variable rather than 'tired legs'

A "trend" SINCE the 2004 season?

This "trend" includes only the ACC schedule for five seasons, which were years when unc generally had the best teams that unc has had for decades, including two national championships. We always play carolina at the end of the first half of the season and at the end of the season. Thus, the "trend" of decreasing performance may be skewed just by playing the toughest team on our schedule at the middle and at the end of the ACC schedule.

[El_Diablo]

We play UNC in the last game of the year every year. For the last few years, this has obviously been a major drag on our efficiency rating, and it always occurs at the same spot in the schedule. Switch the numbers from the first ACC game and the last ACC game and see what the trend looks like (nevermind the fact that the other UNC game is late in the season as well).

Then we play in the ACC tournament, which further skews the numbers for two reasons: (1) we play increasingly better teams as the rounds progress, and (2) unless we win the whole thing, we always end with a loss--meaning our efficiency is negative whereas it necessarily was in positive territory to get to that point.

[ice-9]

Plus, he presents data to show that Duke generally declines over the course of a season, and yet he denies the most obvious reason without explaining why. He refers to Redick's high minute total as "anecdotally," when it's anything but. And he makes it seem like the issue here is running, when the true issue is the physical nature of the game and the amount of pounding players take, which only seems to be getting more so as the ACC turns into a more physical league.

I thought he did explain why -- he compared players' heavy minutes with the decline in efficiency and found no relationship. Ergo, his conclusion that something else is driving the decline.

But what? Could it simply be that Duke teams overachieve and then play to its base capabilities once other teams got it together? This seems too romantic of an explanation to me...

Perhaps it has something to do with scheduling? That rival games tend to be scheduled later rather than earlier?

What would be really interesting is to apply the same process to successful Duke seasons...e.g. Duke's Final Four teams. Did those teams experience decline during the ACC season?

[Hermy-own]

Nah, there's nothing really here. He compares Duke players to NBA guys who play big minutes -- well no kidding, NBA players are older and stronger by design than college players. (He brings up Tyreke Evans, who's clearly an outlier as a physical beast as he has not hit the rookie wall, though he still has time to do so. I hope not, for the sake of my fantasy team)

Plus, he presents data to show that Duke generally declines over the course of a season, and yet he denies the most obvious reason without explaining why. He refers to Redick's high minute total as "anecdotally," when it's anything but. And he makes it seem like the issue here is running, when the true issue is the physical nature of the game and the amount of pounding players take, which only seems to be getting more so as the ACC turns into a more physical league.

Just because you claim you're right about something doesn't mean you are.

No, there is lots in that article. I was very impressed by it. He does compare star minutes vs declining performance, and found no correlation. So he does prove his point that tired legs aren't the problem - or at least he introduces evidence against that theory, even if the evidence isn't conclusive.

More importantly though, is why Duke declines late in the season. That is a really interesting subject. I would love a statistical comparison to
a: Other elite programs in recent years
b: Great (Final 4) Duke programs of the past
and see if their overall efficiency declines.

My personal theory as to why our efficiency has declined is that our offense has a tendency to stagnate in the same players and the same plays as the year wears on. In the beginning of the year more players are involved in the offense making it more flexible & unpredictable. As Coach K tries to tighten the ship and reduce mistakes, it loses a bit of creativity. On the other hand, there is no data to back up this theory, and I really hope someone can come up with a better idea.

[sagegrouse]

The Chronicle (of which I was a proud staffer/editor for four years) is conducting an autopsy of Duke teams that fall off at the end of the season and how that happens.

Being an optimist, it looks to me that this team is improving steadily through the season. Therefore, the analysis is irrelevant.

I say, lets don't give them any data points this year.

sagegrouse

[uh_no]

We play UNC in the last game of the year every year. For the last few years, this has obviously been a major drag on our efficiency rating, and it always occurs at the same spot in the schedule. Switch the numbers from the first ACC game and the last ACC game and see what the trend looks like (nevermind the fact that the other UNC game is late in the season as well).

Then we play in the ACC tournament, which further skews the numbers for two reasons: (1) we play increasingly better teams as the rounds progress, and (2) unless we win the whole thing, we always end with a loss--meaning our efficiency is negative whereas it necessarily was in positive territory to get to that point.

the article is not arguing whether we suffer a decline or not, it is CLEAR that the decline is there, and scheduling is definitely a possible explanation, and the article doesn't presuppose its not...it simply says that there is no correlation between minutes played and late season performance

he also points out that other top teams, like UNC and MSU, who also play in conference tournaments and also play in the ncaat, much like us, do not suffer from a similar decline

[El_Diablo]

the article is not arguing whether we suffer a decline or not, it is CLEAR that the decline is there, and scheduling is definitely a possible explanation, and the article doesn't presuppose its not...it simply says that there is no correlation between minutes played and late season performance

he also points out that other top teams, like UNC and MSU, who also play in conference tournaments and also play in the ncaat, much like us, do not suffer from a similar decline

Yeah, there's a decline, but he didn't explain why. I threw in my 2 cents, citing quality of opponents. Referencing UNC and MSU doesn't really negate the fact that we play tougher opponents later in the season.

And speaking of UNC...anyone care to run the numbers on UNC's efficiency ratings this year? I bet there's a negative trend...

[The Gordog]

No, there is lots in that article. I was very impressed by it. He does compare star minutes vs declining performance, and found no correlation. So he does prove his point that tired legs aren't the problem - or at least he introduces evidence against that theory, even if the evidence isn't conclusive.

More importantly though, is why Duke declines late in the season. That is a really interesting subject. I would love a statistical comparison to
a: Other elite programs in recent years
b: Great (Final 4) Duke programs of the past
and see if their overall efficiency declines.

My personal theory as to why our efficiency has declined is that our offense has a tendency to stagnate in the same players and the same plays as the year wears on. In the beginning of the year more players are involved in the offense making it more flexible & unpredictable. As Coach K tries to tighten the ship and reduce mistakes, it loses a bit of creativity. On the other hand, there is no data to back up this theory, and I really hope someone can come up with a better idea.

My personal theory is that the fact that Duke is on TV more than anyone, more hated than anyone, more analyzed than anyone, means that any coach playing us has the analysis of thousands to help him find our weaknesses.

I also think K is better at utilizing the talent he has so our our teams come together quickly, whereas other teams take all year to jell.

[91_92_01_10_15]

Plus, he presents data to show that Duke generally declines over the course of a season, and yet he denies the most obvious reason without explaining why.

I don't think he needs to explain 'why'. His article set out to debunk the assertion that Duke's performance declined over the courses of the last few seasons, at which he failed.

He did, however, present some pretty convincing evidence that the decline did not correlate with minutes played by key players. He does not have to say why or why not; he simply says what is. Sounds like good, objective reporting to me.

[loran16]

I've always felt the decline is because of how we play.

Duke always starts more prepared than anyone else. Are players are closer to their top potential at the start of the season. We have less room for growth.

Then you have teams like Louisville, which has, under Pitino, typically done pretty poorly at the start only to finish really strong (see last year, for example).

The end result is that other teams get better while duke remains mostly the same.

(Is this a problem? Maybe, Maybe not. If you have a top tier team, it won't be. If your team isn't that great to start, well that's another story).

[roywhite]

The Chronicle (of which I was a proud staffer/editor for four years) is conducting an autopsy of Duke teams that fall off at the end of the season and how that happens.

Being an optimist, it looks to me that this team is improving steadily through the season. Therefore, the analysis is irrelevant.

I say, lets don't give them any data points this year.

sagegrouse

Agree.

For the 2009-10 season
6-3 in January
4-0 so far in February

A reversal of the "trend" perhaps.

[El_Diablo]

Regarding the MSU and UNC comparisons...

He admits that MSU has a reputation for getting better as the season progresses. And they don't play the same team at the end of every season like we do (which also happened to be a national powerhouse). Despite this, they still have a negative trend over the same time period. Huh? It's not as pronounced as ours, but it's still there.



UNC has been pretty dominant in the ACC recently, and we've been good but not great. The Duke game at the end of the year hasn't been as much of a burden for them as it has been for us--just look at the comparisons. If UNC had to close out against an elite team consistently, I can bet their numbers would show a stronger negative trend. As it stands though, they still have a slight negative trend. Some of UNC's years (like 2005) have a bigger dropoff than others.



I'm not saying "quality of opponent" is the only reason for our late-season dropoff, but it's a definitely a contributing factor.

[Fish80]

My personal theory is that the fact that Duke is on TV more than anyone, more hated than anyone, more analyzed than anyone, means that any coach playing us has the analysis of thousands to help him find our weaknesses.

I also think K is better at utilizing the talent he has so our our teams come together quickly, whereas other teams take all year to jell.

Spot on. As the season progresses, there is a ton of data for opposing coaches to mine. And mine they do. Remember 1999? Calhoun kept note cards on Duke as the season progressed, just in case UConn bumped into us in the tourney.

[CrazieDUMB]

Regarding the MSU and UNC comparisons...

He admits that MSU has a reputation for getting better as the season progresses. And they don't play the same team at the end of every season like we do (which also happened to be a national powerhouse). Despite this, they still have a negative trend over the same time period. Huh? It's not as pronounced as ours, but it's still there.



UNC has been pretty dominant in the ACC recently, and we've been good but not great. The Duke game at the end of the year hasn't been as much of a burden for them as it has been for us--just look at the comparisons. If UNC had to close out against an elite team consistently, I can bet their numbers would show a stronger negative trend. As it stands though, they still have a slight negative trend. Some of UNC's years (like 2005) have a bigger dropoff than others.



I'm not saying "quality of opponent" is the only reason for our late-season dropoff, but it's a definitely a contributing factor.

Can I be a huge Econ dork for a second and point out how low the r squared's are? To the uninformed, Rsquare is a metric that explains how effieciently the trend reflects the data. BC these numbers are so low for UNC and MSU, one could say that this regressor is not very powerful. I strongly doubt that the negative trend would be significant at even the 90% level.

[RoyalBlue08]

I also think K is better at utilizing the talent he has so our our teams come together quickly, whereas other teams take all year to jell.

I have always thought our team comes out in Nov. and Dec. playing much better than the other top teams...be that because of good coaching or smarter players that pick things up quicker or something else I'm not sure. The years we have seemed to decline towards the end of the year, I always thought it was more the other teams catching up while we have already maxed out our potential as opposed to our skill or effort going in reverse. These things are hard to quantify though.

[greybeard]

"Trust me, it's science." I don't think so.

Singler's freshman year he got pounded by State and Clemson and whomever in three straight games near the end of the regular season and he was finished. Done. Anyone dispute that?

The next year anyone remember Nelson's injury and how he limped, literally to the finish line? And, wasn't Lance done before the end of one of those years.

And, earlier than that, Duke's lone point guard was playing with a broken foot. Broken feet tend to bother one more the more you use them and once teams got it that the guy could not move laterally that is all that they made him do. Zoubek that same year or was it another also had a broken foot.

And McRob's career at Duke were marred by a very bad back, that required surgery after his freshman year. What, that back loosened up with the wear and tear of an elongated regular season?

Now, you will say that other teams have had injuries. Yeap. And, when Lawson went down, so did Carolina. But, Duke has been thinner in terms of depth at some key positions and key players have been hurt or just plain worn out (see, in addition to Singler his first year, Scheyer last year) and have still had to carry the load. Over time, carrying a heavy load gets heavier if you are hurt or worn out, which key Duke players were. Science, no; fact, yes.