Relative productivity of "big" and "small" lineups

[Kedsy]

Eh, there are ALWAYS games (at least once or twice a year) when nobody can seemingly buy a basket. In those games it should be interesting to see what we do.

It shouldn't matter.Duke really has too much talent simply to be a sharpshooting team from the perimeter...with Irving and the bigs supposedly being better, we should be able to get a lot of good looks inside as well. Assuming we improve on that.

I agree on your latter point. As far as games when nobody can shoot, it does usually seem like we have one or two games like that every year. But I'm not sure we've ever had as many high-quality perimeter threats as this year. Not even counting Ryan (because I'm not sure if he's really a good outside shooter or just a decent shooter for a big man), we have five guys who should take a lot of three-point shots and could hit 40%+. Last year we had four guys in the 38% to 40% range; the year before that we had two (and, yes, those two combined to go 3 for 16 from 3-point range in the loss to Villanova). Not saying it won't happen, but unless it's snowing or something inside the gym it's unlikely all five of this year's sharpshooters will go cold on the same day.

Given the versatility and depth of this team, I don't think K will stick with one configuration or the other; he'll simply use whatever the matchups and/or hot hand calls for. What he's trying to do now is not only discover which combinations are best, but use lots of different ones so he can have different ones ready when he needs them. I would guess he could use as many as four or five different starting lineups, depending on matchups and how individuals are playing.

Well, I suppose four or five starting lineups is possible, but I don't think it's all that likely. On the other hand, I think you're spot on when it comes to minute distribution. The configurations that are working that day are going to be on the court more frequently.

And I think you're right about touting our versatility and depth. I expect K to vary this up a lot during games because it will keep our opponents off balance. They won't be able to get comfortable with so many different looks and styles at K's disposal. E.g., the opposing 6'6" SF is trying to get himself in the mindset to stop a bigger Kyle and all of a sudden he has to guard Andre or Seth; an opposing PF is trying to jump screens and guard the alley-oop and suddenly he has to chase Kyle around the perimeter; an opposing SG gets comfortable laying back to stop Nolan's drive and all of a sudden he has Seth or Andre taking threes from NBA range. Game preparation for opposing coaches will be a nightmare.

[tele]

Not to complicate things, but here I go anyway, it is interesting to see what lineups do well, especially early in the season when things are getting tried out and minutes spread around. However, to me, it is more telling to see what lineups get used when the game is in the balance, when your team has to have a bucket or a stop.

I'm also waiting to see the 4 guard lineup play, that may have to wait until Duke has the lead and is letting the air out of the ball at then end of a game. Kyle, Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, and Andre could also put some points up on a zone or apply a full court press. May not see it, may not need to use it.

[Newton_14]

Great thread Kedsy. I just caution folks to not get so hung up on debating the Big/Small/Medium lineups that we miss the wonderful ride that started this past Sunday.
This team is an absolute dream to follow and root for.

Last year K was so limited in what he could do. Outside of rotating the bigs, there was just nothing there to change. This year he has as diverse team as he has had in years. Since 1998 in my view. He can throw so many different looks at opponents it almost isn't fair.

Regarding the debate, I count Mason/Miles/Ryan/Josh as the true "bigs" and that is looking at both size and skillset. Kyle is the hybrid 3/4, who I do think will spend more time at the 3 but still see good minutes at the 4 and a few more than I had originally anticipated.

Andre at a big 6'4 is a solid hybrid SG/SF. Nolan, Kyrie, Seth are the shrimps. My main point of contention in this spirited debate was that we would try to play the majority of the time with 2 of the true bigs on the floor, and we would not play the majority of the time with the Kyrie/Seth/Nolan/Kyle/1 True Big, lineup that many were pining for. I do feel we will occasionally see that lineup, but only when we are dictating terms, not reacting, and not for large stretches. So far, we actually have not seen that lineup very much. The lineups with Andre at the 3 and Kyle at the 4 have been very effective so far though. To me that is one of our "medium" lineups.


But again, lets not get so hung up on any of those points that we miss what is happening. This team has great potential. Andre's play has been a blessing to me. I wanted so bad to see him succeed after what he went through last year. So far he has not disappointed. His play has been well beyond what I "feared". Kudos to him for raising his game and not letting the presence of Seth and the future presence of Austin cause him to hang his head. He is staking his claim at minutes.

Still need Miles to get going, and I still feel he will. Mason is much improved as is Kelly.
Tyler is proving he can handle the pressure as well. Josh at this point, has further to go imo, than the rest, but even he has shown glimpses and there is upside there.


Based on the scrimmage and the 4 games I have seen thus far, come conference time I expect we will be very strong 1 thru 8, with a solid 8 man rotation, with Tyler's minutes going down a little bit, and Hairston's minutes resembling Kelly's from last year.

I have my Colgate and Mich St tickets in hand and cannot wait to see the boys in action again.

[Kedsy]

Not too much you can glean from a 50 point win, but once again the small lineup was by far the most effective (2 out of 3 games now) and the "middle" (no Kyle) lineup was by far the least effective (all three games).

Note that the big lineup was best against the biggest team we played (Princeton) and the small lineup was best against the two smaller teams. It will be interesting to see what happens when we play BCS teams with legitimate size.

COLGATE
-----------
2 bigs + Kyle: 11 minutes; +15 (1.363 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 18 minutes; +12 (0.667 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 11 minutes; +25 (2.273 pdpm)


TOTAL (3 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 37 minutes; +46 (1.243 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 43 minutes; +15 (0.349 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 40 minutes; +62 (1.550 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (3 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12.33 minutes; +15.33 (1.243 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 14.33 minutes; +5 (0.349 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 13.33 minutes; +20.67 (1.550 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Well, if today's game is a harbinger of things to come, then the small lineup people may ultimately be able to claim victory. We went small 65% of the game. On the other hand, although we are dealing with smaller numbers (which makes a one game sample even less reliable than usual) the big lineup was more effective tonight.

It's worth noting that the "middle" lineup barely played, as Kyle was on the court for 38 minutes.

MARQUETTE
------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12 minutes; +4 (0.333 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 2 minutes; -2 (-1.000 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle (or 0 big + Kyle): 26 minutes; +3 (0.115 pdpm)


TOTAL (4 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 49 minutes; +50 (1.020 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 45 minutes; +13 (0.289 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 66 minutes; +65 (0.985 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (3 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12.25 minutes; +12.50 (1.020 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 11.25 minutes; +3.25 (0.289 pdpm)
1/0 big + Kyle: 16.50 minutes; +16.25 (0.985 pdpm)

[mepanchin]

I think we probably saw more of the smaller line-up because of Marquette's personnel. They are quick and small and this let us match up really well with that. There will be bigger teams where the 2 big line-up may be better.

[Saratoga2]

Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully enough, but I did see two bigs plus Kyle seemed to work better than other lineups. What I didn't see is differentiation of which bigs. Clearly Mason is one of those bigs but is the 2nd Kelly, Miles or Hairston. Based on what I saw of the Marquette game, Kelly looked more effective than Miles and Hairston DNP.

Miles may have a sore finger and than may have impacted his play. He is about the same size as Mason, has lots of hops and strength, but he seems not to catch the ball well and finish on rebounds around the basket. Kelly has less jumping ability and lateral quickness but seems to react better to the speed of the game. Miles has a lot of upside potential as does Kelly. It would be interesting to differentiate performance between the two.

[Kedsy]

Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully enough, but I did see two bigs plus Kyle seemed to work better than other lineups. What I didn't see is differentiation of which bigs. Clearly Mason is one of those bigs but is the 2nd Kelly, Miles or Hairston. Based on what I saw of the Marquette game, Kelly looked more effective than Miles and Hairston DNP.

It's way too much work to break down minutes on specific lineups. But going through pfrduke's +/- figures, in the Marquette game the Kyle/Mason/Ryan lineup was +3, the various Kyle/Mason/Miles lineups were +3 and the various Kyle/Ryan/Miles lineups were -2. Through four games, the various Kyle/Mason/Ryan lineups are +25 and the various Kyle/Mason/Miles lineups are +21. The other big combinations didn't play enough to bother calculating, although presumably they all combined for +4.

[Kedsy]

Incidentally, and this is neither here nor there but it is sort of relevant to the big/small debate, I was very interested in this quote from Buzz Williams after the Marquette game (quote from GoDuke's quotes page): "They are very talented team particularly when No. 12 (Kyle Singler) is at the three."

The fact that he believes we are more talented when Kyle is at the 3 says to me he fears our big lineup more than he fears our small one. Of course that may be because his team plays a three-guard lineup and his bigs aren't very tall, so they match up better with our small lineup than our big lineup, but I thought it was an interesting quote nonetheless.

[Chitowndevil]

Incidentally, and this is neither here nor there but it is sort of relevant to the big/small debate, I was very interested in this quote from Buzz Williams after the Marquette game (quote from GoDuke's quotes page): "They are very talented team particularly when No. 12 (Kyle Singler) is at the three."

The fact that he believes we are more talented when Kyle is at the 3 says to me he fears our big lineup more than he fears our small one. Of course that may be because his team plays a three-guard lineup and his bigs aren't very tall, so they match up better with our small lineup than our big lineup, but I thought it was an interesting quote nonetheless.

I noticed that quote as well. I think it has to be a matchup-specific comment, as you noted. I think Ryan Kelly has made some incredible strides but to say we get "less talented" when Andre Dawkins or Seth Curry come into the game for Kelly is a pretty big stretch.

Also, after last night, looking at this thread made me wonder whether maybe, just maybe, by the end of the season this debate will as much about Mason Plumlee at 5 vs 4 as about Kyle at 4 vs 3. Yes, I realize that's getting way ahead of ourselves. But still, how cool would that be?

[Kedsy]

Interesting that in a game where are opponent had a big front line the small lineup was the dominant one. Through five games, the small lineup has been on the floor 44% of the time (17.6 minutes per game) and has overall been the most effective.

It's also interesting that the reason for the small lineup's predominance has not really been Seth (as most of the small lineup advocates predicted) but rather the emergence of Andre as a viable option at the 3.

Still lots of season to play before this debate is settled.

KANSAS STATE
---------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12 minutes; -2 (-0.167 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 6 minutes; -6 (-1.000 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 22 minutes; +22 (1.000 pdpm)


TOTAL (5 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 61 minutes; +48 (0.787 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 51 minutes; +7 (0.137 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 88 minutes; +87 (0.989 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (5 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12.20 minutes; +9.60 (0.787 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 10.20 minutes; +1.40 (0.137 pdpm)
1/0 big + Kyle: 17.60 minutes; +17.40 (0.989 pdpm)[/QUOTE]

[Newton_14]

Interesting that in a game where are opponent had a big front line the small lineup was the dominant one. Through five games, the small lineup has been on the floor 44% of the time (17.6 minutes per game) and has overall been the most effective.

It's also interesting that the reason for the small lineup's predominance has not really been Seth (as most of the small lineup advocates predicted) but rather the emergence of Andre as a viable option at the 3.

Still lots of season to play before this debate is settled.

Great point Kedsy. Andre's play has far and away been the most pleasant surprise to me. I totally did not expect to see him playing at this high of a level against good teams. That changes things quite a bit and gives K three or four different line-up size variations to throw out there. Andre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4, as well as Andre at the 3 with 2 Bigs have been effective. So 2 "Hybrid" medium sized lineups to mix in with the small lineup's and the big lineup's.

Great to see and it has made the team more dangerous. I hope Andre continue's to play at this high level and really see no reason why he can't.

[Kedsy]

Great point Kedsy. Andre's play has far and away been the most pleasant surprise to me. I totally did not expect to see him playing at this high of a level against good teams. That changes things quite a bit and gives K three or four different line-up size variations to throw out there. Andre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4, as well as Andre at the 3 with 2 Bigs have been effective. So 2 "Hybrid" medium sized lineups to mix in with the small lineup's and the big lineup's.

Great to see and it has made the team more dangerous. I hope Andre continue's to play at this high level and really see no reason why he can't.

I agree with you, Boozer, that the Andre at the 3, Kyle at the 4 lineup can (and possibly should) be considered a "medium" lineup, and that it has been by far the most effective lineup. For the purposes of this thread, however, I have been counting it as a "small" lineup, because the original debate was whether Kyle would be playing the 3 or the 4.

[CDu]

I agree with you, Boozer, that the Andre at the 3, Kyle at the 4 lineup can (and possibly should) be considered a "medium" lineup, and that it has been by far the most effective lineup. For the purposes of this thread, however, I have been counting it as a "small" lineup, because the original debate was whether Kyle would be playing the 3 or the 4.

Yeah, it is interesting to see this debate unfold. The original premise was largely a debate over whether the starting/main lineup would be Irving/Curry/Smith/Singler/Plumlee or Irving/Smith/Singler/Plumlee/Plumlee. In short, the debate was between a really small lineup and a really big lineup.

But as you note, to this point it's been a third option (with Dawkins at the 3) that has been the more effective lineup. The really small lineup (with Irving, Curry, and Smith) has been used infrequently, but at the same time we haven't really gone predominantly big, either.

I'm very pleased with the emergence of Dawkins, and I think his development as an impact player at the 3 is a real key for the versatility of this team. It allows the flexibility to put Singler at the 3 or at the 4 at Coach K's leisure, without sacrificing dramatically in either scenario.

[superdave]

Yeah, it is interesting to see this debate unfold. The original premise was largely a debate over whether the starting/main lineup would be Irving/Curry/Smith/Singler/Plumlee or Irving/Smith/Singler/Plumlee/Plumlee. In short, the debate was between a really small lineup and a really big lineup.

But as you note, to this point it's been a third option (with Dawkins at the 3) that has been the more effective lineup. The really small lineup (with Irving, Curry, and Smith) has been used infrequently, but at the same time we haven't really gone predominantly big, either.

I'm very pleased with the emergence of Dawkins, and I think his development as an impact player at the 3 is a real key for the versatility of this team. It allows the flexibility to put Singler at the 3 or at the 4 at Coach K's leisure, without sacrificing dramatically in either scenario.

I think rather than argue big/small, we should compare Duke's lineups and the associated +/- to the average size of the opponent's 3,4,5 positions. Let's go ahead and add that variable in which would not only make the stats more meaningful but it would also make this message board explode! Or at least some people's heads would explode trying to keep up with all 90 scenarios.

I guess my point here is it's all about matchups and exploiting the other team's weakness.

[hq2]

But as you note, to this point it's been a third option (with Dawkins at the 3) that has been the more effective lineup. The really small lineup (with Irving, Curry, and Smith) has been used infrequently, but at the same time we haven't really gone predominantly big, either.

I'm very pleased with the emergence of Dawkins, and I think his development as an impact player at the 3 is a real key for the versatility of this team. It allows the flexibility to put Singler at the 3 or at the 4 at Coach K's leisure, without sacrificing dramatically in either scenario.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along; playing Andre at 3 will be the way to go. At this point, both his shooting and defense have been effective. There's no reason why he shouldn't get some of Miles and Kelly's front line minutes; the team has been playing better with him out there. I want to see him getting about 25 a game, and he should be starting against smaller quicker teams. I think K may do that soon.

[Cockabeau]

K has the luxury to tinker with the lineups big or small.
But as I have predicted 4 months ago, the "dagger" team will be
Ki
Nolan
Curry/Dawkins
Singler
Plumlee

[davekay1971]

Here's the problem going with the "small" lineup. See, Coach K promised Kyle he'd play at the 3, and he promised Mason he'd play at the 4, while he promised Ryan he'd play at the 3, and he promised Seth, Andre, and Nolan they'd all start at the 2 and he promised Kyrie he'd get 40 mpg at the 1. So, there's no way he can go with the small lineup. Plus, there will be all those chemistry issues since our guys are all basically auditioning for the League!

(of course, all of the above is total b.s., but that what our friends on the IC are currently dealing with. And on this Thanksgiving weekend, I'm sure thankful I chose the right shade of blue!)

[superdave]

Here's the problem going with the "small" lineup. See, Coach K promised Kyle he'd play at the 3, and he promised Mason he'd play at the 4, while he promised Ryan he'd play at the 3, and he promised Seth, Andre, and Nolan they'd all start at the 2 and he promised Kyrie he'd get 40 mpg at the 1. So, there's no way he can go with the small lineup. Plus, there will be all those chemistry issues since our guys are all basically auditioning for the League!

(of course, all of the above is total b.s., but that what our friends on the IC are currently dealing with. And on this Thanksgiving weekend, I'm sure thankful I chose the right shade of blue!)

I'm pretty sure Coach K promised Kyrie 30 shots a game too. He really needs to start jacking it up if he's going to be a top 5 pick.

[johnb]

A few points on the efforts to differentiate big v small:

1. Varying the lineup complicates life for the other team, especially when considering the complexity of our plays and range of our players. So going big for a bit then going small can make the small lineup more effective than it would be if left out there for 35".

2. Varying the lineup allows everyone to go 100% all the time, which is daunting to teams that lack our quality depth.

3. In regards to the likelihood that our players won't all be cold at the same time: there's only 1 ball. It should be expected that we'll go in a streak of misses since there's a >60% likelihood that any particular 3 pointer will miss. That is one reason it's important to use a big lineup for chunks of every game all year so that Ryan, Miles, and Mason get comfortable playing with a variety of players so that, in the pinch that is inevitable, the team will be accustomed to the ball movement that can lead to layups. I assume that's one reason to pinch the bench a bit; while I like seeing Josh and Tyler play in games that we have in hand, it's important for the primary players on this particular team get used to playing a bunch of lineups against random good players.

4. So, from my perspective, the team during our last 5" of the game might be smallish: Kyrie/Nolan/Kyle/Mason/Dawkins or Curry, at least partly because they're best at ball handling and free throws, but if we make use of the prior 35" using the whole team, the last 5" can best be devoted to seeing if points can be scored by Casey and Todd.