Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Unfortunately those statistics are largely meaningless unless they're tempo based. The 2010 team likely would have a much better ranking since they had so few possesions relative to some of our other teams. Furthermore, using the ranking is not a good idea. It would be much better to use the actual number of assists, as the ranking may not actually be comparable year to year, and a tiny change in assists may have resulted in a huge change in ranking, which is not the result we want.

    So the best way to do this would again be total assists/(possesions/game) then correlating it with win percentage, or whatever metric you want to use for success in a given year.
    Assists as a percentage of made field goals is, I think, the best measure. We've been relatively consistent in this number over the past 10 years, and never posted particularly stellar numbers:

    2003 - assists on 49.4% of our field goals (276th nationally)
    2004 - 52.8% (219th)
    2005 - 49.4% (286th)
    2006 - 55.8% (169th - by far our best finish in this period)
    2007 - 52.7% (231st)
    2008 - 51.5% (244th)
    2009 - 50.5% (247th)
    2010 - 52.8% (189th)
    2011 - 50.9% (233rd)
    2012 - 48.4% (295th)

    This was a low year, even by our standards. We've averaged 51.4% over the last 10 years - to get there this year we would have needed another 26 assists, or 3 every 4 games.

    Broadly speaking, though, I'm not sure this is the best measure of our success.
    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

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Thanks. I figured someone would know a better tempo-based stat. Even then, might (assists/made fg) still fail to capture some relevant ball-sharing info, such as the impact of a player going 1 on 1 (AR comes to mind), driving the lane, getting fouled, and getting to the line?

    Another poster pointed out correctly that ranking may mean little when the numbers are packed close together. I agree that there are a lot of teams within the neighborhood of +/- 1 assist when you're ranked #206 or #199 etc., but it's still a long way to the top, esp. if you're talking season averages, not just a game here and there.

    Similarly, you don't really need tempo-based stats to know that we weren't exactly the most larcenous of on-ball defenders this year. There are a lot of telling stats that warned of our 1st round exit.

    Finally, I appreciate the poster who questioned whether what we saw was indeed regression ... given our early year squeaker vs. Belmont and our matador 2nd half defense vs. Washington. I think we tended to remember our big wins (Kansas, Mich St, UNC) and forgot that we were the same team that produced a bunch of nailbiters against thought-to-be lesser teams. If Pomeroy is to be believed, our defense did not regress in the last few weeks (it improved from its nadir after our win @ UNC, but still was #67) but our offense did drop off (again, rankings - down to 10). So I think our offense may have regressed a bit, but Kedsy is right that the defense was probably never great, so regression isn't the right term for our defense.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Some people need to open a dictionary and re-familiarize themselves with what the word "regress" means. In our first game we beat Belmont by 1 at home. Davidson was beating us at halftime. Unranked Washington scored 54 points against us in the 2nd half. In what way were those performances better than our winning handily in Tallahassee, or coming back from 20 down to beat NC State? You can argue our defense was substandard (for Duke) all year; you can argue we found it difficult to play our best for 40 minutes in any game this season. But nobody in this thread has made anywhere close to a convincing argument that we regressed over the last part of the season. And that's because it's simply not the case.
    Did most of our players individually regress over the last 3 or 4 games and did we regress collectively over the last 3 or 4 games, in your opinion?

    When would you say we lost our team chemistry? Or do you contend there was no problem with that even in the last 3 or 4 games?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by cspan37421 View Post
    If Pomeroy is to be believed, our defense did not regress in the last few weeks (it improved from its nadir after our win @ UNC, but still was #67) but our offense did drop off (again, rankings - down to 10). So I think our offense may have regressed a bit, but Kedsy is right that the defense was probably never great, so regression isn't the right term for our defense.
    Our offense was ranked #4 before Ryan got hurt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    Did most of our players individually regress over the last 3 or 4 games and did we regress collectively over the last 3 or 4 games, in your opinion?
    First of all, my opinion is you can "slump" over 3 or 4 games, but it's hard to say anybody "regresses" over such a short period.

    Especially when that period is marred by an injury to a key player. I would agree that we didn't adjust very well to Ryan's absence, and we went into a shooting slump that may or may not have been related to Ryan's absence, but that's a far different thing from saying our players or our team regressed.

    And if we're looking at the entire season, and not just the last 3 or 4 games, I personally believe our best performance of the season was on February 23, so if we progressed from November to February 23, it's hard to say we regressed over the course of the season just because we played poorly over the last few games while playing without one of our most important players.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC

    "Regression" and the analogy of the rising fastball

    In baseball, hitters will talk about pitchers whose fastballs "rise" as they reach the plate. Physics has basically proven that this is false, but that certain pitchers appear to have a rising fastball because it doesn't drop as far as the batter typically expects.

    I think that's what's going on here. Folks have shown that we didn't "regress" as we understand the word, and we did actually get better, particularly on defense. But it seems that we as a team and many of our players plateaued at some point before the end of the season, and we had a very high profile slump by Andre at the end of the season.

    So, our "regression" appears to me to be an illusion created by the fact that we didn't progress as much as many of us expected.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by dyedwab View Post
    In baseball, hitters will talk about pitchers whose fastballs "rise" as they reach the plate. Physics has basically proven that this is false, but that certain pitchers appear to have a rising fastball because it doesn't drop as far as the batter typically expects.

    I think that's what's going on here. Folks have shown that we didn't "regress" as we understand the word, and we did actually get better, particularly on defense. But it seems that we as a team and many of our players plateaued at some point before the end of the season, and we had a very high profile slump by Andre at the end of the season.

    So, our "regression" appears to me to be an illusion created by the fact that we didn't progress as much as many of us expected.
    I agree with this. Both players and the team progressed over the course of the season - just maybe not as much as many of us expected. Plateaus and slumps are to be expected, but there has definitely been an increase in skill and experience.

    Austin definitely progressed over the season. He had a slump in the middle of the season and perhaps, plateaued at the end, but he definitely improved.
    Mason progressed offensively in the first third of the season. Opposing teams countered with putting him at the free throw line. He responded in the latter third of the season by improving his free throw shooting dramatically.
    Curry started off the season hot. Then he struggled with his shot, but he responded by driving into the lane more in the latter third of the season. He's improved in that area, even though his offensive output may appear to have regressed due to his cooling down.
    Thornton progressed to become a very good role player in the beginning of the season, enough to earn him a starting position. Opposing teams responded by leaving him open. He's responded by shooting and those reps will eventually lead to improvement in that area.
    Hairston has started earning playing time this season. That experience will pay dividend down the road.
    Miles had a stretch where he was a dominant rebounder, but that stretch came during Mason's slump. When Mason improved, there were less rebounds available for the taking. But that's not regression on Miles part.
    Kelly has become a lot more consistent compared to last year. Remember how he always seemed be very hot or very cold last season?
    Cook dominated against a stretch of bad teams. He'll improve as he continues to learn how to defend and run a team.
    Dawkins is the only one that regressed. But even he has been doing less standing around and more running around to get open.

    There's a lot here to be proud of. I think we'll be very good next year.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    Assists as a percentage of made field goals is, I think, the best measure. We've been relatively consistent in this number over the past 10 years, and never posted particularly stellar numbers:

    2003 - assists on 49.4% of our field goals (276th nationally)
    2004 - 52.8% (219th)
    2005 - 49.4% (286th)
    2006 - 55.8% (169th - by far our best finish in this period)
    2007 - 52.7% (231st)
    2008 - 51.5% (244th)
    2009 - 50.5% (247th)
    2010 - 52.8% (189th)
    2011 - 50.9% (233rd)
    2012 - 48.4% (295th)

    This was a low year, even by our standards. We've averaged 51.4% over the last 10 years - to get there this year we would have needed another 26 assists, or 3 every 4 games.

    Broadly speaking, though, I'm not sure this is the best measure of our success.
    58.9% (653 assists to 1108 fg's) in 1992 when we had a nice roster and a great point guard.

    Doesnt this perspective leave out passes that lead to free throws though?

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    58.9% (653 assists to 1108 fg's) in 1992 when we had a nice roster and a great point guard.

    Doesnt this perspective leave out passes that lead to free throws though?
    Sure, but I can't think of a systematic reason why the relative percentages would be systematically different as a result of factoring in these types of plays. If you're more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a bucket, you're probably also more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a shooting foul but not a bucket.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Sure, but I can't think of a systematic reason why the relative percentages would be systematically different as a result of factoring in these types of plays. If you're more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a bucket, you're probably also more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a shooting foul but not a bucket.
    This is why Unc keeps the "Coach's Assists" stat, right? Good plays that are not technically assists, but lead to free throws or a muffed layup.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Our offense was ranked #4 before Ryan got hurt.



    First of all, my opinion is you can "slump" over 3 or 4 games, but it's hard to say anybody "regresses" over such a short period.

    Especially when that period is marred by an injury to a key player. I would agree that we didn't adjust very well to Ryan's absence, and we went into a shooting slump that may or may not have been related to Ryan's absence, but that's a far different thing from saying our players or our team regressed.

    And if we're looking at the entire season, and not just the last 3 or 4 games, I personally believe our best performance of the season was on February 23, so if we progressed from November to February 23, it's hard to say we regressed over the course of the season just because we played poorly over the last few games while playing without one of our most important players.
    What a real cop out...you didn't answer my question on team chemistry?

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    What a real cop out...you didn't answer my question on team chemistry?
    First of all, we were talking about whether the team regressed or not, so I didn't (and still don't) see why team chemistry was relevant to the discussion. I also don't see why not bothering to answer an irrelevant question could be considered a "cop out."

    Secondly, "[w]hen would you say we lost our team chemistry" is a loaded, leading question and I rarely feel the need to answer loaded, leading questions.

    Third, "team chemistry" is such an overused, underdefined term that your question is really impossible to answer because everyone has a different understanding of the term.

    Fourth, since I was never in the locker room and never on the court with the team, I don't know see how I (or anybody else who was not in the locker room or on the court with the team) could speculate whether or not the team lost its chemistry, or when.

    Finally, as far as I saw, the team never "lost" its team chemistry. We merely lost a couple of games while playing without one of our top players.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    First of all, we were talking about whether the team regressed or not, so I didn't (and still don't) see why team chemistry was relevant to the discussion. I also don't see why not bothering to answer an irrelevant question could be considered a "cop out."

    Secondly, "[w]hen would you say we lost our team chemistry" is a loaded, leading question and I rarely feel the need to answer loaded, leading questions.

    Third, "team chemistry" is such an overused, underdefined term that your question is really impossible to answer because everyone has a different understanding of the term.

    Fourth, since I was never in the locker room and never on the court with the team, I don't know see how I (or anybody else who was not in the locker room or on the court with the team) could speculate whether or not the team lost its chemistry, or when.

    Finally, as far as I saw, the team never "lost" its team chemistry. We merely lost a couple of games while playing without one of our top players.
    Obviously you aren't gonna change your opinion and neither am I, but as evidence by that article from the Durham Morning Sun...I think the players and coach k were saying they didn't play up to their potential and assuming they did prior in the yr, that would constitute regression and I think in that article they were implying they did not play "team basketball" an indication of lack of trust and team chemistry....by the way I believe most basketball followers know what is meant by team chemistry.

    Bottomline, I bet if you asked them, both Coach K and the team they would indeed say they regressed over the season and that their team chemistry was not what it should be.

    Your opinion would be different, no problem

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    I think the players and coach k were saying they didn't play up to their potential and assuming they did prior in the yr, that would constitute regression...
    Why would you make that assumption? I think earlier in the year the team (and others) thought and hoped they might reach their potential by the end of the season. I doubt they thought they'd already reached it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    and I think in that article they were implying they did not play "team basketball" an indication of lack of trust and team chemistry....
    That's quite a leap from the fairly innocuous statements in the article. It may not be justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    by the way I believe most basketball followers know what is meant by team chemistry.
    I have heard many knowledgeable followers of the game describe it in different ways. It is subjective and thus by definition is hard to measure or describe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    Bottomline, I bet if you asked them, both Coach K and the team they would indeed say they regressed over the season and that their team chemistry was not what it should be.
    I doubt it, but since I haven't asked them and don't intend to, I can't say for certain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke76 View Post
    Your opinion would be different, no problem
    Agreed.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Guess we will just have to wait and see if any of them publicly address further their disappointment, if any to aspects of the season, the reasons why and ways they might improve.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mount Kisco, NY
    Here are some of the more interesting quotes from the Herald-Sun:
    http://www.herald-sun.com/view/full_...n-with-a-thud?

    Sophomore guard Tyler Thornton said Lehigh simply outplayed and outhustled the more heralded Blue Devils.
    “In a game like that, it’s going to be possession-by-possession,” Thornton said. “If you don’t leave it all on the floor, what happened is what’s going to happen to you. That’s pretty much how you put it. They played hard for 40 minutes and we didn’t.”

    In the post-game locker room, some Duke players mentioned that the team didn’t have the proper unity on offense.
    “We needed to use each other on offense and not be so individual,” junior guard Andre Dawkins said.

    Junior center Mason Plumlee regretted that the team didn’t handle things better, and paid a big price for not doing so.
    “We should have addressed it,” Mason Plumlee said. “We should have gotten on one another. But for whatever reason, we couldn’t get in sync offensively in particular. It’s just not good when you aren’t working together and you aren’t in sync.”
    ------------------------
    This is where you'd love to know who they each had in mind. Did Tyler include himself among those who didn't play hard? Who did Andre think was so "individual" on offense? Who did Mason think needed to be "gotten on". As Kedsy mentioned, it's pretty pointless to try and guess, and it could just be the ventings of 20 year old after a historically bad loss for the program. But, it smells of some discord. Then again, it came out years later that JJ Redick and Shelden Williams really had no relationship at Duke or after Duke. I don't remember any talk about it at the time. Do we think that lack of chemistry kept the 2006 team from advancing past the Sweet 16? Or do we think it had more to do with Tyrus Thomas, Big Baby and Tasmin Mitchell?

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area

    lets put it another way then

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Some people need to open a dictionary and re-familiarize themselves with what the word "regress" means. In our first game we beat Belmont by 1 at home. Davidson was beating us at halftime. Unranked Washington scored 54 points against us in the 2nd half. In what way were those performances better than our winning handily in Tallahassee, or coming back from 20 down to beat NC State? You can argue our defense was substandard (for Duke) all year; you can argue we found it difficult to play our best for 40 minutes in any game this season. But nobody in this thread has made anywhere close to a convincing argument that we regressed over the last part of the season. And that's because it's simply not the case.
    I'll meet you halfway...the team didn't progress the way one might expect...individuals may have, clearly, but as a team they did not. In fact I think the individual progress, helped hide regression as a team. More and more individual effort it seemed as the season went on. Thats what my eyes told me. But if you believe the "team" was working as well on Friday as it was in January, so be it. Again, I think some individual performances were hiding some chemistry and lack of teamwork issues....but hey, you may know more than what the players seem to think.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I'll meet you halfway...the team didn't progress the way one might expect...individuals may have, clearly, but as a team they did not. In fact I think the individual progress, helped hide regression as a team. More and more individual effort it seemed as the season went on. Thats what my eyes told me. But if you believe the "team" was working as well on Friday as it was in January, so be it. Again, I think some individual performances were hiding some chemistry and lack of teamwork issues....but hey, you may know more than what the players seem to think.
    A lot of people have been mentioning the players' postgame quotes and using them as evidence the team had chemistry problems. I guess I have a hard time seeing that. I mean, it's incredibly routine for a player to say after any loss that "the other team wanted it more" or "we needed to play harder, and we didn't." This is run-of-the-mill athletespeak. This is especially true after an upset. Part of it is the players don't want to make excuses for themselves, certainly not in public. They aren't going to say that missing Kelly was a massive blow to the offense. Instead, you'll hear Mason say that if he knew what was wrong they would have fixed it. Again, that doesn't mean he's speaking of a creeping cancer on the team; far more likely, he's frustrated with losing two games in a row to end the season.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area

    on the other hand

    Quote Originally Posted by Des Esseintes View Post
    A lot of people have been mentioning the players' postgame quotes and using them as evidence the team had chemistry problems. I guess I have a hard time seeing that. I mean, it's incredibly routine for a player to say after any loss that "the other team wanted it more" or "we needed to play harder, and we didn't." This is run-of-the-mill athletespeak. This is especially true after an upset. Part of it is the players don't want to make excuses for themselves, certainly not in public. They aren't going to say that missing Kelly was a massive blow to the offense. Instead, you'll hear Mason say that if he knew what was wrong they would have fixed it. Again, that doesn't mean he's speaking of a creeping cancer on the team; far more likely, he's frustrated with losing two games in a row to end the season.
    its not that often that Duke players talk of not playing as a team or of too much individual play.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Des Esseintes View Post
    A lot of people have been mentioning the players' postgame quotes and using them as evidence the team had chemistry problems. I guess I have a hard time seeing that. I mean, it's incredibly routine for a player to say after any loss that "the other team wanted it more" or "we needed to play harder, and we didn't." This is run-of-the-mill athletespeak. This is especially true after an upset. Part of it is the players don't want to make excuses for themselves, certainly not in public. They aren't going to say that missing Kelly was a massive blow to the offense. Instead, you'll hear Mason say that if he knew what was wrong they would have fixed it. Again, that doesn't mean he's speaking of a creeping cancer on the team; far more likely, he's frustrated with losing two games in a row to end the season.
    This is what they actually said, in that article after the game:

    In the post-game locker room, some Duke players mentioned that the team didn’t have the proper unity on offense.

    “We needed to use each other on offense and not be so individual,” junior guard Andre Dawkins said.

    Junior center Mason Plumlee regretted that the team didn’t handle things better, and paid a big price for not doing so.

    “We should have addressed it,” Mason Plumlee said. “We should have gotten on one another. But for whatever reason, we couldn’t get in sync offensively in particular. It’s just not good when you aren’t working together and you aren’t in sync.”

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Watching the Dawkins-led Stanford play Illinois St. in the NIT 2nd round.

    It's strange to see another team play Duke defense. Pesky harassing D that forces turnovers with bigs that hedge out on the perimeter AND get back in time. #25 KenPom D.

Similar Threads

  1. Who will be our go to "clutch" guy this year?
    By matts83 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-19-2011, 08:52 PM
  2. Relative productivity of "big" and "small" lineups
    By Kedsy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 03-21-2011, 11:14 PM
  3. I'm tired of hearing that it's a "down year"...
    By moonpie23 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-31-2010, 02:43 PM
  4. Pagliuca "Walk-On of the Year"
    By westwall in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-2007, 04:43 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
  •