Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 166
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I think Miles could become that man in the backcourt, and TT up top. Still think Seth could become a top-notch thief on the perimeter too -- he has very quick hands.
    Driving into work this morning the thought I had was this:

    Miles needs to foul out more.

    He's the most likely candidate to do a mid-late season emergence as a defensive stopper. He's got 5 fouls to give; if he has to use them to get into the right mode, then that's what should happen.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by loldevilz View Post
    Great work. The one thing I would say that really angers me is when I see Mason for instance just give up a lay up without trying to foul the guy. He does some lazy late shot block where he has absolutely no chance at preventing the layup. I think there should be a policy on the team that the #1 priority is that the other team does not get layups. If you have to foul them to put them on the line, do it. Frankly I'd like to see our bigs give a few hard fouls to the other team to let them know that you will get punished if you go to the rim. Duke has 4 bigs that can play. There is no reason why our bigs should be worrying about foul trouble.
    I disagree completely with this comment. I saw Mason contest several easy dunks and came close to getting clean blocks on a couple. If the policy is to not let the other team get layups, which i agree with, then the onus is on the guards, cuz they are the ones letting the opposition get past them at will, into the lane for a layup or forcing our bigs to rotate away from their man, thus allowing for an easy dish for a layup from someone else. If our bigs actually followed your policy, we would end the game with all 4 on the bench, which doesn't help very much.
    Yeah, lots of the layups are coming vs our bigs, but not b/c the bigs are failing to prevent easy layups, but b/c our guards are failing to prevent penetration.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    That was my original thought, too. But this morning, I wonder if our guards are tall enough to pull it off. Looking at the numbers, the 2010 team was only average (for a Duke team) at stopping the two, and if we played the same sort of D that team did, perhaps we can move our numbers stopping the two from awful to average. But that team stopped the three at by far the best rate of any Duke team in the past twelve years. We also featured a starting perimeter of 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. Our tallest perimeter now is 6'2, 6'5, 6'5. When Quinn or Tyler play, we're usually 6'0, 6'2, 6'5. And frankly I don't think Seth or Quinn are as tall as they're listed. If we're laying off the shooters and then running at them if they look like they're going to shoot, 6'0, 6'2, 6'5 is a LOT less likely to bother the shot than 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. So, I'm not sure the 2010 style would work for us this year.
    Seth and Quinn are both smaller than lister. I have stood next to both - I am 6' 2"- and they are shorter- maybe 6' and 5'11", respectively. I think that this team is fundamentally flawed to play K's defense as he has developed it. K can tinker but I am not sure it will help too much. Duke will need to outscore teams and mix up defenses down the stretch. This team is likely to be in every game it plays- but every game will come down to the wire in the ACC -particularly on the road. For Duke to win- they will need to make throws and limit turnovers. No one will take a night off against Duke- so this will be a wearing season- as it usually is. The D is not going to win it as in previous years. The margin for error is pretty small.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    It's interesting to look at 2010. We had the worst defensive rebounding rate of the dozen years I charted, the 2nd worst free throw rate, and the 2nd worst turnover percentage. Yet we had the 4th best adjusted defensive efficiency in the land. Why? Because our defensive eFG% was our 2nd best over the past twelve seasons. Our defense against two-pointers was decent but not great (7th best in the past 16 years), but the reason our defensive eFG% was so good was we stopped the three-pointer at an astonishing rate, compared to the other Duke teams I looked at.

    It's really cool. We were OK at stopping twos, but not that great, and we more or less sucked at every other component of defensive efficiency -- except we were amazing at just one thing. And that one thing made our defense good enough to win the national championship.

    So maybe there's hope for this year's team. Let's get amazing at one thing, and perhaps the rest will follow...
    Kedsy- ESPN wouldn't give me the numbers for some reason, but didn't the 2010 team have a really high offensive rebounding rate? I seem to recall Zoubs was at or near the top of the offensive rebounding charts, at least based on a per 40min rate. (He only played 19mpg even in his senior year).

    Point being, even then we were very good at two things so we've got to improve.

    (not that this relates to defense 100%, but we also made better plays down the stretch that year...at some point I throw all the comparisons and number crunching out the door and think it comes down to who can make good, smart plays in the clutch.)

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by bird View Post
    Driving into work this morning the thought I had was this:

    Miles needs to foul out more.

    He's the most likely candidate to do a mid-late season emergence as a defensive stopper. He's got 5 fouls to give; if he has to use them to get into the right mode, then that's what should happen.
    I never thought a Duke fan would want more Plumlee fouls but they've both done a good job eliminating the silly fouls they were both prone to commit in prior years.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    K must realize how good he had it with Nolan and Jon as his guards. He made reference to his recently graduated guards on his TV show. But that was then, this is now, let's look forward and hopefully bring in the kid from Nevada. Maybe he could be our Patriots #12.
    Last edited by Devilsfan; 01-22-2012 at 04:00 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Interesting numbers, but it seems that they don't take into account our unusually tough non conference sechedule this year. Seems like these sort of analysis comparing different years would be effected by how many weak teams we were able to dominate each season.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW View Post
    That would be a problem and I suppose the only possible solution would be:

    PG - Rivers 6'4"
    SG - Dawkins 6'4"
    SF - Gbinjie 6'7"
    PF - Plumlee 6'10"
    C - Plumlee 6'10"
    Well, that might be a solution if Michael was ready to start and play big minutes, but I don't think he is.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkyJ View Post
    Kedsy- ESPN wouldn't give me the numbers for some reason, but didn't the 2010 team have a really high offensive rebounding rate? I seem to recall Zoubs was at or near the top of the offensive rebounding charts, at least based on a per 40min rate. (He only played 19mpg even in his senior year).

    Point being, even then we were very good at two things so we've got to improve.

    (not that this relates to defense 100%, but we also made better plays down the stretch that year...at some point I throw all the comparisons and number crunching out the door and think it comes down to who can make good, smart plays in the clutch.)
    Yes, of course that's true. On offense our 2010 team was amazing at two things (low turnovers and offensive rebounding), which made up for our really awful two-point shooting. When I said one thing (which in retrospect is closer to two things because our defensive rebounding wasn't as bad as I originally thought), I was talking about defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalBlue08 View Post
    Interesting numbers, but it seems that they don't take into account our unusually tough non conference sechedule this year. Seems like these sort of analysis comparing different years would be effected by how many weak teams we were able to dominate each season.
    That may be, but they were the only numbers I had. Even Pomeroy doesn't adjust the "four factors" for competition, at least he doesn't as far as I know. I got my numbers from statsheet.com.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by dukelifer View Post
    Seth and Quinn are both smaller than lister. I have stood next to both - I am 6' 2"- and they are shorter- maybe 6' and 5'11", respectively. I think that this team is fundamentally flawed to play K's defense as he has developed it. K can tinker but I am not sure it will help too much. Duke will need to outscore teams and mix up defenses down the stretch. This team is likely to be in every game it plays- but every game will come down to the wire in the ACC -particularly on the road. For Duke to win- they will need to make throws and limit turnovers. No one will take a night off against Duke- so this will be a wearing season- as it usually is. The D is not going to win it as in previous years. The margin for error is pretty small.
    Hmm. Also, in my earlier post I mistakenly said 6'5 for Austin and Andre, when of course they're both 6'4. If you're right about Seth and Quinn (and as I said earlier, I suspect you are), that means the biggest we can be is 6'0, 6'4, 6'4, and the starting lineup with Quinn is 5'11, 6'0, 6'4. That's really, really small.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    It's interesting to look at 2010. We had the worst defensive rebounding rate of the dozen years I charted, the 2nd worst free throw rate, and the 2nd worst turnover percentage. Yet we had the 4th best adjusted defensive efficiency in the land. Why? Because our defensive eFG% was our 2nd best over the past twelve seasons. Our defense against two-pointers was decent but not great (7th best in the past 16 years), but the reason our defensive eFG% was so good was we stopped the three-pointer at an astonishing rate, compared to the other Duke teams I looked at.

    It's really cool. We were OK at stopping twos, but not that great, and we more or less sucked at every other component of defensive efficiency -- except we were amazing at just one thing. And that one thing made our defense good enough to win the national championship.

    So maybe there's hope for this year's team. Let's get amazing at one thing, and perhaps the rest will follow...
    The problem is that we aren't going to see major changes unless the personnel is adjusted. I don't know if it was you I had this discussion with, but someone was saying that they were certain that Duke would just get better on defense when Dawkins, Curry ect just played harder/ better. The problem is that this simply hasn't happened. Duke's defensive efficiency has basically been in free fall the last month.

    Also its pure speculation that Gbinije isn't able to play major minutes. This guy was top 25 player in his class, 5* talent that almost every scout said could contribute immediately. Every time he's played he's locked down the guy he's guard. I think its much more likely that the amount of guard depth Duke has prevents him from playing more.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Can someone with a Kenpom membership look up our "effective height" stats? I would bet it's one of the lowest in the ACC, and it has a lot to do with our guys not being able to get in the passing lanes and clog up the paint.
    Trinity '09

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazieDUMB View Post
    Can someone with a Kenpom membership look up our "effective height" stats? I would bet it's one of the lowest in the ACC, and it has a lot to do with our guys not being able to get in the passing lanes and clog up the paint.
    Strangely, we are 4th in the country in effective height according to KenPom. 2nd in the ACC behind only UNC. However, this is due primarily to being 16th at C and 2nd at PF from the combo of Miles, Mason and Ryan that get most of the minutes there. We are 174th, 153rd and 105th at SF, SG and PG, respectively. So you are correct that we are short in the backcourt.
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalBlue08 View Post
    Interesting numbers, but it seems that they don't take into account our unusually tough non conference sechedule this year. Seems like these sort of analysis comparing different years would be effected by how many weak teams we were able to dominate each season.
    Kedsy is correct that KenPom doesn't adjust the "four factors" for schedule. They are raw statistics. He computes the raw defensive efficiency from them and then calculates the Adjusted DE based on schedule strength. For reference, we are currently 149th in raw DE vs 84th in Adj DE. Along the same lines, we are 6th in raw OE vs 3rd in Adj OE.
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Effective height

    Quote Originally Posted by tbyers11 View Post
    Strangely, we are 4th in the country in effective height according to KenPom. 2nd in the ACC behind only UNC. However, this is due primarily to being 16th at C and 2nd at PF from the combo of Miles, Mason and Ryan that get most of the minutes there. We are 174th, 153rd and 105th at SF, SG and PG, respectively. So you are correct that we are short in the backcourt.
    I think effective height only measures the height of the two biggest players on the floor. As you say, Duke's big there.

    Of course, the 1986 team didn't have a very big perimeter, and had an amazing season. So size doesn't always matter. But we don't do a good job of pressuring the other team's guards.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Hmm. Also, in my earlier post I mistakenly said 6'5 for Austin and Andre, when of course they're both 6'4. If you're right about Seth and Quinn (and as I said earlier, I suspect you are), that means the biggest we can be is 6'0, 6'4, 6'4, and the starting lineup with Quinn is 5'11, 6'0, 6'4. That's really, really small.
    Both Rivers and Dawkins have been measured at 6'5" in shoes at camps. And every other team seems to list players in shoes (a personal pet peeve about basketball), so it might be a better measurement for comparison.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    I think effective height only measures the height of the two biggest players on the floor. As you say, Duke's big there.

    Of course, the 1986 team didn't have a very big perimeter, and had an amazing season. So size doesn't always matter. But we don't do a good job of pressuring the other team's guards.
    Just smiling recalling how Johnny Dawkins and Tommy Amaker could spring a trap on the opposing ball handler. Disrupted opposing offenses and often led to turnovers, and they knew what to do with turnovers!

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Stats

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    OK, I made a slight mistake. I put opposing Defensive rebound percentage in the table rather than our defensive rebounding percentage.

    Here's the correct table:

    Code:
    Year	DReb%	ft rate	to %	eFG%
    2012	68.5	30.1	20.0	48.0
    2011	66.8	29.6	21.0	44.5
    2010	67.5	34.0	21.4	43.6
    2009	66.8	31.0	23.5	47.8
    2008	66.2	40.6	17.1	47.5
    2007	69.6	31.9	24.7	46.0
    2006	62.2	27.6	22.5	46.1
    2005	63.2	32.0	21.8	42.2
    2004	62.9	31.9	24.4	44.7
    2003	65.1	37.6	24.4	47.5
    2002	65.9	32.1	25.6	46.0
    2001	63.8	28.3	24.9	45.7
    It actually doesn't change much. This year's team actually has the 2nd best defensive rebounding percentage of the twelve years (rather than 3rd as I reported above). Although the best Duke defensive rebounding team of the past dozen years was the 2007 team, which gave me a little shiver.

    The only substantive difference caused by my mistake is my analysis of the 2010 team. They were tied for 3rd best defensive rebounding pct, rather than the worst. Their free throw rate and turnover pct were both still 2nd worst, though, so for the most part my observation about that team still holds.

    Sorry about the mixup.
    Kedsy, I sliced and diced your data, and there was very little correlation between the team's total winning percentage and any of the stats. Then when the DReb% changed, there was a correlation -- but it was negative! For some reason, the last six years have had the highest defensive rebounding percentage of the last 12.


    So then I started looking for trend lines. Holy moly! Our defensive rebounding is increasing over time, with a correlation coefficient of +0.61 (the stat goes between +1.0 and -1.0). Our TO forced stat is declining over time with a -0.79 correlation coefficient. So, we are doing better in recent years with defensive rebounds, but our ballhawking is not as effective.

    I wouldn't make anything of the stats except that none of the other correlations seem to show anything.

    sage

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Kedsy, I sliced and diced your data, and there was very little correlation between the team's total winning percentage and any of the stats. Then when the DReb% changed, there was a correlation -- but it was negative! For some reason, the last six years have had the highest defensive rebounding percentage of the last 12.


    So then I started looking for trend lines. Holy moly! Our defensive rebounding is increasing over time, with a correlation coefficient of +0.61 (the stat goes between +1.0 and -1.0). Our TO forced stat is declining over time with a -0.79 correlation coefficient. So, we are doing better in recent years with defensive rebounds, but our ballhawking is not as effective.

    I wouldn't make anything of the stats except that none of the other correlations seem to show anything.

    sage
    OK, this is kind of embarrassing, but when I fixed the first error, I pasted the new data into the wrong table in my spreadsheet. My 2nd table had bad data for 2007 and 2008. But I just noticed I used the wrong table when I saw your post.

    So here is the correct data:

    Code:
    Year	DReb%	ft rate	to %	eFG%
    2012	68.5	30.1	20.0	48.0
    2011	66.8	29.6	21.0	44.5
    2010	67.5	34.0	21.4	43.6
    2009	66.8	31.0	23.5	47.8
    2008	66.2	31.9	24.7	47.5
    2007	69.6	29.5	22.1	46.0
    2006	62.2	27.6	22.5	46.1
    2005	63.2	32.0	21.8	42.2
    2004	62.9	31.9	24.4	44.7
    2003	65.1	37.6	24.4	47.5
    2002	65.9	32.1	25.6	46.0
    2001	63.8	28.3	24.9	45.7
    Maybe the correlation will be better now? Although obviously wins and losses are a combination of offense and defense -- according to Pomeroy, our defense in 2006-07 was 5th best in the country, but obviously the offense (and the wins) didn't correlate to that.

    Sorry about making another mistake.

    Regarding our defensive rebounding increasing over time, that makes sense. Rebounding was always considered our weakest defensive attribute back in the 80s and 90s, and obviously that continued into the mid 2000s.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    We keep talking about how this year's team has the worst defensive efficiency in the Pomeroy era, so I thought it might be worthwhile to break it down and analyze the pieces.

    According to Pomeroy, there are four factors that go into defensive efficiency: defensive rebounding percentage (what percentage of available defensive rebounds do you get); free throw rate (how often do you send your opponent to the free throw line); turnover percentage (what percentage of your opponents possessions end up in a turnover; and effective field goal percentage (shooting percentage counting made three-point shots as 1.5 and made two-point shots as 1.0).

    ...

    Our three-point defense seems OK. Six of the past 16 Duke teams were worse and two others were practically identical, so we're middle of the pack for a Duke team in defending the three. So far, so good. Except opponents try fewer threes against us this year than all but three of the past 16 seasons (2006, 2005, and 1997), which suggests the key lies in two-point shots. Where this year's team is tied for worst among the past 16 years in stopping the two-pointer.

    I assume this means we're giving up a lot more dunks and layups than usual. Which I suppose I should have been able to guess without all the charts. Combine that with the low turnover rate, and it spells bad D, like we saw in the 2nd half against Florida State today.

    How can we fix it? I don't know. Perhaps we should pack it in more, clog up the middle and force people to take more threes with people running at them, sort of like we saw from UVa. Maybe we need to take more chances and force more turnovers. Or possibly we just need to get better at rotating and/or stopping the penetration of opposing PGs.

    Frankly, I was hoping for more illumination from the numbers, but you can't force the data. Since I did the work, I'm posting the charts, and maybe someone else will have a better idea.
    Thanks for your research. Interesting thread that has led to some good discussion. I believe (maybe over optimistically so) that the answer is the bolded part above. I remember thinking last year's team would generate a bunch of turnovers leading to some easy hoops, but that didn't happen. This team does have a few quick guards, so there is the possibility of generating more turnovers, but I think the team has to get better at rotations first so that when our guards are beaten, the whole team is ready to help them recover. Then, the guards may be able to take more risks and perhaps generate some more steals and make interior passing more difficult. One reason I have confidence that this team can improve on its rotations is that I think the team was very focused the first half and did a great job as a defensive team. I am hoping for more of that and more consistency as the year goes on.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    No Pron

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    OK, this is kind of embarrassing, but when I fixed the first error, I pasted the new data into the wrong table in my spreadsheet. My 2nd table had bad data for 2007 and 2008. But I just noticed I used the wrong table when I saw your post.

    So here is the correct data:


    Maybe the correlation will be better now? Although obviously wins and losses are a combination of offense and defense -- according to Pomeroy, our defense in 2006-07 was 5th best in the country, but obviously the offense (and the wins) didn't correlate to that.

    Sorry about making another mistake.

    Regarding our defensive rebounding increasing over time, that makes sense. Rebounding was always considered our weakest defensive attribute back in the 80s and 90s, and obviously that continued into the mid 2000s.
    Kedsy:

    I think I accidentally used the correct data. I just stripped in the DReb% and left the other stats unchanged, and did not pick up the other problems. So, the results are as I stated above.

    sage

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 03:17 PM
  2. What's wrong with this picture?
    By Deladev in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 11:17 AM
  3. Is something wrong with Miles??? NO!!
    By redick4pres in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 01-22-2011, 06:14 AM
  4. We're in the wrong division
    By Olympic Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 01:26 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
  •