Phase V -- The ACC Tournament

[Monmouth77]

I'm not positive this is what you are looking for, but I think this is the relevant points-per-possession stat (I used the same possessions=FGA+(0.475*FTA)-ORB+TOV formula Kenpom uses, but his figures are adjusted for competition):

	
Year    FGA	FTA	ORB	TOV	PTS	Poss	Pts/Poss
2010	2375	899	582	440	3081	2660	1.158
2013	1772	675	301	337	2431	2129	1.142

So this year's offense is slightly less efficient, by about a point in an ordinary-paced game.

The 2010/2013 offensive efficiency comparison is really interesting, but I guess I was trying to grasp at something slightly different and more directed to the offensive rebounding "flaw," and how it might lead to an upset.

On the one hand, we are more efficient per possession than our offensive rebounding woes in isolation might suggest because more of the first shots go in (which is what those stats above roughly show-- in 9 fewer games we have roughly 825 fewer FT/FG attempts and a ton fewer ORBs but only 650 fewer points).

But the Giant Killer guys seem to think that offensive rebounding stats mean something significant beyond their contribution to overall offensive efficiency-- which is presumably why they single out that stat instead of just looking at tempo adjusted efficiency as a whole.

I am thinking that, whereas a lot of teams who don't get offensive rebounds-- say Michigan last year, which pulled down 28.3% of available offensive rebounds -- are vulnerable to upset (lost to 13 seed Ohio last year) those teams have other flaws that Duke doesn't have. For example, they shot 35% from 3 and lacked a real post presence.

I mean, maybe it is as simple as saying that 2012 Michigan was the 22nd most efficient offense (according to KenPom) and we are currently the 3rd most efficient.

But I was trying to reason through it by observation.

Seems like offensive rebounding doesn't tell you that much without looking at a team as a whole, even if it has been an historically good rule of thumb when looking for upsets.

[CDu]

The 2010/2013 offensive efficiency comparison is really interesting, but I guess I was trying to grasp at something slightly different and more directed to the offensive rebounding "flaw," and how it might lead to an upset.

On the one hand, we are more efficient per possession than our offensive rebounding woes in isolation might suggest because more of the first shots go in (which is what those stats above roughly show-- in 9 fewer games we have roughly 825 fewer FT/FG attempts and a ton fewer ORBs but only 650 fewer points).

But the Giant Killer guys seem to think that offensive rebounding stats mean something significant beyond their contribution to overall offensive efficiency-- which is presumably why they single out that stat instead of just looking at tempo adjusted efficiency as a whole.

I am thinking that, whereas a lot of teams who don't get offensive rebounds-- say Michigan last year, which pulled down 28.3% of available offensive rebounds -- are vulnerable to upset (lost to 13 seed Ohio last year) those teams have other flaws that Duke doesn't have. For example, they shot 35% from 3 and lacked a real post presence.

I mean, maybe it is as simple as saying that 2012 Michigan was the 22nd most efficient offense (according to KenPom) and we are currently the 3rd most efficient.

But I was trying to reason through it by observation.

Seems like offensive rebounding doesn't tell you that much without looking at a team as a whole, even if it has been an historically good rule of thumb when looking for upsets.

I think perhaps what you're trying to get at is the variability of scoring. A team that shoots a lot of 3s and doesn't rebound well could be more likely to experience peaks and valleys than a similarly good team that shoots fewer 3s and gets a lot of offensive rebounds. And as such, if they're more likely than most of their peers to have a "valley" game, they're more likely to be upset.

The idea being that the margin of victory for a #1 seed is such that, if they are a good offensive rebounding team, they can withstand a poor shooting night. But if you go cold, don't go inside, and can't rebound, you could be in danger.

Of course, the big difference is that, while we don't rebound well, we do two things very well offensively: most notably shoot the three well, but also score in the post.

[vick]

I think perhaps what you're trying to get at is the variability of scoring. A team that shoots a lot of 3s and doesn't rebound well could be more likely to experience peaks and valleys than a similarly good team that shoots fewer 3s and gets a lot of offensive rebounds. And as such, if they're more likely than most of their peers to have a "valley" game, they're more likely to be upset.

The idea being that the margin of victory for a #1 seed is such that, if they are a good offensive rebounding team, they can withstand a poor shooting night. But if you go cold, don't go inside, and can't rebound, you could be in danger.

Of course, the big difference is that, while we don't rebound well, we do two things very well offensively: most notably shoot the three well, but also score in the post.

Ah, variability. I can see how that could theoretically be the case, but from what I can tell, it isn't the case for us this year vs. 2010. To test, I took the offensive efficiency for each game from Kenpom's game plan, and divided by that team's average defensive efficiency (so to control for schedule difficulty)--in other words, how well the team did vs. the opponent's defense*. For 2010, we averaged 122.9% of the opponents' average with a 12.5% standard deviation. For 2013 to date, we've averaged 119.6% of the opponents' defensive efficiency with a 12.7% standard deviation. I also looked at how many games were more than two standard deviations below the mean, and it was one for both seasons--UVa in 2010 (in a victory, oddly enough), and Miami this year. So no noticeable difference that I can see there either. This is what the distribution looks like visually:

2010 vs. 2013 Efficiency.jpg

Those look pretty similar to me. By the way, the almost-off-the-charts-good performance in 2010 was the Final Four game against West Virginia, where we had an efficiency of 143.4 (!!!) against a team with a defensive efficiency of 89.4.

So while I have some concerns about the offense--I mean, we're worse than 2010, if not by a whole lot--at least from what I can quickly tell, variability isn't one of them.


* This isn't exactly right because Kenpom rankings weight later games more, but I'm comfortable with it for this purpose.

[archand1]

I think perhaps what you're trying to get at is the variability of scoring. A team that shoots a lot of 3s and doesn't rebound well could be more likely to experience peaks and valleys than a similarly good team that shoots fewer 3s and gets a lot of offensive rebounds. And as such, if they're more likely than most of their peers to have a "valley" game, they're more likely to be upset.

The idea being that the margin of victory for a #1 seed is such that, if they are a good offensive rebounding team, they can withstand a poor shooting night. But if you go cold, don't go inside, and can't rebound, you could be in danger.

Of course, the big difference is that, while we don't rebound well, we do two things very well offensively: most notably shoot the three well, but also score in the post.

I think a more important measure is defensive rebounding...those are the most important. If we did elect to crash the boards on offense, we risk giving up easy transition buckets. Also, the 3 guards we run on the perimeter along with Kelly being the stretch 4 are what really makes our offense click. If we keep Kelly inside to help pull down offensive boards, we lose that spacing which benefits Mason so much. I believe if we didn't have Mason to rely on, we would definitely be more likely to get upset on a cold shooting night. I think the UNC game proves we do have balance with Kelly on the floor. Just my opinion.

[Newton_14]

Sure a little. Doesn't mean it was the cause of the shooting change. Or that a shooting change is good evidence of the other.

Doesn't mean it wasn't, either. In general tired legs make a lot of players' shots a bit short.

Here is the thing with Seth's situation. (and he absolutely wore down against UNC) in these games where he gives out, it isn't the shin starting to hurt in most cases, but rather it is lack of stamina from not practicing. I think that is the bigger factor. Now there are times when the leg starts hurting in games, as at times you see him starting to limp, or favor it, or rub it. I have noticed that in several games.

The UNC game seemed to be moreso the stamina issue than a case of leg starting to hurt. In the first NC State game it was the opposite. In the 2nd game he starting limping in the 2nd half long before he went down with the ankle issue. He was still finding a way to fill it up that day though.

As for the ACC Tourney, contrary to other opinions, K is absolutely going all out to win this tournament. This year is no different than any other season. K puts this tourney at the top of his wish list and he will prepare the team as well as he possibly can to leave Greensboro Sunday evening with a trophy in hand and nets around his neck.

I like our chances to win it provided Seth and Ryan can hold up physically, Mason and Quinn bring their A games, and Rasheed bounces back from his current slump. I am not worried at all about Josh and Tyler as I am confident both will play their roles well. Amile, Alex, and Marshall just need to be ready to be called on in short stints if needed. I think we will see Amile and Murphy on Friday for brief spells, but come Saturday and Sunday K will go with the Top 7 throughout unless injury or foul trouble force his hand.

3 games in 3 days in the ACC Tournament environment against conference foes is taxing on the body. Good news is, the factors are the same for all of the Top 4 teams and worse on teams 5 thru 12, so it evens out. Should Miami make it to Sunday Reggie Johnson may actually collapse.

Miami is struggling at the moment and have not handled success well, but will still be a contender. NC State will likely be dangerous, and UNC could get hot enough from 3 to cause problems. Duke just needs to be the Duke of Atlantis. That level of play will get it done imo. I predict we leave there with the title. Our guys are good. Just need good health and good execution.

[Listen to Quants]

Ah, variability. I can see how that could theoretically be the case, but from what I can tell, it isn't the case for us this year vs. 2010. To test, I took the offensive efficiency for each game from Kenpom's game plan, and divided by that team's average defensive efficiency (so to control for schedule difficulty)--in other words, how well the team did vs. the opponent's defense*. For 2010, we averaged 122.9% of the opponents' average with a 12.5% standard deviation. For 2013 to date, we've averaged 119.6% of the opponents' defensive efficiency with a 12.7% standard deviation. I also looked at how many games were more than two standard deviations below the mean, and it was one for both seasons--UVa in 2010 (in a victory, oddly enough), and Miami this year. So no noticeable difference that I can see there either. This is what the distribution looks like visually:

2010 vs. 2013 Efficiency.jpg

Those look pretty similar to me. By the way, the almost-off-the-charts-good performance in 2010 was the Final Four game against West Virginia, where we had an efficiency of 143.4 (!!!) against a team with a defensive efficiency of 89.4.

So while I have some concerns about the offense--I mean, we're worse than 2010, if not by a whole lot--at least from what I can quickly tell, variability isn't one of them.


* This isn't exactly right because Kenpom rankings weight later games more, but I'm comfortable with it for this purpose.

Lovely. This is what ESPN *should* do if they were interested in vulnerability-of-favorites. High variance is the obvious key. Now, all ESPN has to do is steal this, assign some intern to run the numbers for the top, say, 100 KenPom teams and publish the high variance teams. To quibble, I would simply add the KenPom numbers for defense and offense in any one game and compute the variance across all games played in order to get a good guess at which team is really the most variable.

[CDu]

Ah, variability. I can see how that could theoretically be the case, but from what I can tell, it isn't the case for us this year vs. 2010. To test, I took the offensive efficiency for each game from Kenpom's game plan, and divided by that team's average defensive efficiency (so to control for schedule difficulty)--in other words, how well the team did vs. the opponent's defense*. For 2010, we averaged 122.9% of the opponents' average with a 12.5% standard deviation. For 2013 to date, we've averaged 119.6% of the opponents' defensive efficiency with a 12.7% standard deviation. I also looked at how many games were more than two standard deviations below the mean, and it was one for both seasons--UVa in 2010 (in a victory, oddly enough), and Miami this year. So no noticeable difference that I can see there either. This is what the distribution looks like visually:

2010 vs. 2013 Efficiency.jpg

Those look pretty similar to me. By the way, the almost-off-the-charts-good performance in 2010 was the Final Four game against West Virginia, where we had an efficiency of 143.4 (!!!) against a team with a defensive efficiency of 89.4.

So while I have some concerns about the offense--I mean, we're worse than 2010, if not by a whole lot--at least from what I can quickly tell, variability isn't one of them.


* This isn't exactly right because Kenpom rankings weight later games more, but I'm comfortable with it for this purpose.

Oh sure. I didn't mean to suggest that the 2013 team has more variability in scoring. I was just suggesting the theoretical basis for which the writers could have made their argument. The idea being that, for a #1 to lose to a #16, it'd need to be on a bad offensive day for the #1. And a team that doesn't get offensive rebounds well is more likely to be hurt by a bad shooting night than a similar team that does get offensive rebounds.

In our case, though, we have so many very good 3 point shooters AND we have such a good post scorer that our first-shot efficiency is much higher than normal. Whereas the 2010 team was pretty good on 3s, but made up the difference by getting tons of offensive rebounds (and thus more 3 attempts).

[CDu]

I think a more important measure is defensive rebounding...those are the most important. If we did elect to crash the boards on offense, we risk giving up easy transition buckets. Also, the 3 guards we run on the perimeter along with Kelly being the stretch 4 are what really makes our offense click. If we keep Kelly inside to help pull down offensive boards, we lose that spacing which benefits Mason so much. I believe if we didn't have Mason to rely on, we would definitely be more likely to get upset on a cold shooting night. I think the UNC game proves we do have balance with Kelly on the floor. Just my opinion.

I think in general the bolded statement is true. However, against a 16 seed (who typically are undersized and not usually great offensive rebounding teams) defensive rebounding prowess is less of a concern. More specifically, I think a #16 seed will make a poor defensive rebounding team look a bit better than they really are, just by virtue of the size difference (and potentially the #16's willingness to forego offensive rebounds to prevent fast breaks).

[BlueDevilBrowns]

We have covered about 20 separate topics in the five prior Phase Reports. About ten or so have been put to rest:



But big questions remain, and in Phase V we will turn our attention to these:



7. Can our defensive pressure stymie the Terps, produce turnovers, and keep their point total at 60 or below?

8. Will Mason and Ryan be effective on offense against the tall and bulky Maryland team?

9. Will our shooters be effective against the tall Terrapin guards?

Positive answers will mean victory.


That’s my take on the season so far and the ACC Tournament. Now we would like to hear from you –

sagegrouse

Hmmm... Well, I think we have the answers now:

7. NO.
8. Somewhat and definitely NO.
9. NO(unless we're down 3 possessions with 2 minutes left).


Can we start Phase VI now?