Drilling Down into Duke's Interior Defense By The Numbers That Matter

[Goduke2010]

I agree 3 point shooting may not be as good as this years team but as you say, Sheed and Cook might continue to improve. Also we don't know what we'll have in Allen. He's supposed to be a good shooter. I just hope he can play defense and get some minutes. GoDuke!

I'm much happier we targeted Allen instead of Booker. Booker a better shooter but struggles on D. From what I've read, Allen is a decent defender but by no means elite.

Getting Justise was huge, because the rest of next year's class is not known for its D (including Okafor). Getting Turner - admittedly a longshot - would be huge. A rim protector helps negate a porous perimeter D. Obviously, Okafor will be a huge improvement over our interior D right now, but adding a 2nd elite defender would make next year's team even more special.

[Kedsy]

Look at Kenpom the past 10 years and see how a D-efficiency outside the top 20 = early end to the season.

This myth never goes away. It's simply not valid to use the final Pomeroy rankings as a predictive tool for what happened in the tournament, because those rankings include the tournament games. I only have five years of data, but if you look at the Pomeroy rankings before the tournament started, you'll find that in the past five seasons more than half of the Final Four teams had defensive efficiency rankings outside the top 20:

2009: UNC (35), Villanova (25)
2010: West Virginia (24), Michigan State (27)
2011: Kentucky (22), UConn (31), Butler (77), VCU (143)
2012: none
2013: Michigan (58), Syracuse (23), Wichita State (30)

That's 11 out of 20 Final Four teams that didn't meet your criteria.

(NOTE: obviously these numbers are using Pomeroy's old formula, rather than the one he just changed to this season.)

[Troublemaker]

Still plenty of time to improve on that 50th D ranking, too. If I had to bet on whether Duke would finish the season with a top 20 defense, I definitely would bet yes.

Give Coach K this many athletes and he should create a good defense eventually. That would've been my default opinion going into this season, and it's going to take many, many, more games of poor defensive play to change my mind.

[tommy]

I would agree with your last paragraph, yes. I think the rules change (if it continues to be enforced) completely changes the way we need to look at perimeter defense. I still think interior defense will be a concern, especially once we face a team that really uses post scorers (as many noted pre-game, Kansas' bigs aren't great interior scorers). But there aren't going to be too many of those teams. I think the rebounding and stopping dribble penetration are the real concerns moving forward.

As for help with clarity, I tend to think less is more (fewer tables). That, and perhaps more importantly put better titles on the table columns. It's hard to scroll back and forth from the tables to the definitions.

Yeah, I had thought about both of these suggestions. I included more tables because I didn't know which set of tables different posters would find more or less enlightening, so rather than choose for them, I figured I'd let them choose what to focus on. For me, the last two (or with L, three) columns may be the most important, as they answer the question of whether our defense against the post -- which was the concern coming into the season -- is in fact a weakness such that our numbers in that area are any worse than our overall defensive numbers, in terms of efficiency. So far, the answer is actually no, our defense against the post has been better than our overall defensive efficiency.

And yes, I would've like to have put some kind of titles on the columns, but although I could make up names for each one, such as, I don't know, "% bad interior possessions," not only is that clunky and impossible to fit in the limited space I'd have at the top of the column, but isn't self-explanatory anyway, so you'd find yourself scrolling back to the top anyway to see how the number was calculated. If you or anyone else has any suggestions or better know-how for creating workable layouts for these kinds of tables, I'm all ears.

What I’m finding interesting so far in this discussion is how a number of posters have shifted, after just a handful of games, their outlook on what our main weakness is going to be defensively, going forward. Pre-season, it was all about not having a true big guy to protect the rim, to control the glass, etc. We were going to get killed inside, and that was going to be our achilles heel unless Marshall Plumlee miraculously blossomed into something none of us have ever seen from him before. Now, after 5 games, many appear to be moving away from that viewpoint and saying that no, actually our inability to stop dribble penetration is our biggest challenge. A viewpoint that is backed up by the numbers I’ve compiled thus far, difficult as they may be to wade through. Interesting.

[Troublemaker]

What I’m finding interesting so far in this discussion is how a number of posters have shifted, after just a handful of games, their outlook on what our main weakness is going to be defensively, going forward. Pre-season, it was all about not having a true big guy to protect the rim, to control the glass, etc. We were going to get killed inside, and that was going to be our achilles heel unless Marshall Plumlee miraculously blossomed into something none of us have ever seen from him before. Now, after 5 games, many appear to be moving away from that viewpoint and saying that no, actually our inability to stop dribble penetration is our biggest challenge. A viewpoint that is backed up by the numbers I’ve compiled thus far, difficult as they may be to wade through. Interesting.

Let the record note that I have always been okay with conceding mediocre post defense and mediocre rebounding. I think Duke can contend with the top 5 if those are our only weaknesses. The other contenders have their own weaknesses. For example, many of them are poor FT shooting teams. That is why it is so crucial for Duke to have a competitive advantage there to help negate our competitive disadvantages elsewhere. Luckily, Duke currently seems on track to righting our earlier FT shooting problems (knock on wood).

But yes, the dribble penetration issue was unexpected. We'll have to solve it either on the frontend of denying penetration better or on the backend of protecting the rim better. Preferably both.

[CDu]

I agree 3 point shooting may not be as good as this years team but as you say, Sheed and Cook might continue to improve. Also we don't know what we'll have in Allen. He's supposed to be a good shooter. I just hope he can play defense and get some minutes. GoDuke!

I agree with Kedsy that it would be quite unlikely for Allen to crack the rotation. He isn't playing ahead of Cook, Sulaimon, or T. Jones, and it is unlikely he beats out the more experienced M. Jones. Coach K rarely plays 5 guards significant minutes, so I would expect that next year is a learning year for Allen.

[MChambers]

It's possible that the rule changes make preventing dribble penetration far more difficult than it used to be, so that Duke will have to be less aggressive on the perimeter. On the other hand, the 1986 team was awfully good defensively, and the rules then were applied in a way that is at least similar to the new rules, with the exception of the block/charge call. (That team featured two very quick guards, of course.)

It's also possible that if we generate enough turnovers, allowing dribble penetration isn't that big of a deal. But so far this team hasn't created as many turnovers as I hoped and expected.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, I had thought about both of these suggestions. I included more tables because I didn't know which set of tables different posters would find more or less enlightening, so rather than choose for them, I figured I'd let them choose what to focus on. For me, the last two (or with L, three) columns may be the most important, as they answer the question of whether our defense against the post -- which was the concern coming into the season -- is in fact a weakness such that our numbers in that area are any worse than our overall defensive numbers, in terms of efficiency. So far, the answer is actually no, our defense against the post has been better than our overall defensive efficiency.

And yes, I would've like to have put some kind of titles on the columns, but although I could make up names for each one, such as, I don't know, "% bad interior possessions," not only is that clunky and impossible to fit in the limited space I'd have at the top of the column, but isn't self-explanatory anyway, so you'd find yourself scrolling back to the top anyway to see how the number was calculated. If you or anyone else has any suggestions or better know-how for creating workable layouts for these kinds of tables, I'm all ears.

OK, I've made an effort to reorganize the data to have fewer tables expressing the information in a (hopefully) more meaningful way. Assuming Tommy both approves the format and verifies that I got the numbers right, what do people think of this? More helpful? Less helpful? About the same?

    Game         Tot       Tot       Catch   Unsucc.    GR     NR    BR    %BR     %BR
               Entries   Catches       %     Entries   after               all    after
                                                       catch             entries  catch
-----------   --------   --------    ------  -------   ------  ---  ---  -------  ------
Davidson         23         21        91.3%     2        5      5    11    47.8%   52.4%
Kansas           30         24        80.0%     6        1      9    14    46.7%   58.3%
UNCA             10          9        90.0%     1        5      3     6    60.0%   66.7%
ECU               4          4       100.0%     0        2      0     2    50.0%   50.0%

    Game         Tot      Poss.      %      Total   Half    Interior    Int.    Int.        Int.     Overall  Halfcourt
              Halfcourt  w/ Entry   Att    Points   Court    Points      %       %       Defensive    Def.      Def.
                Sets     Attempts                  Points             Tot pts  HC pts    Efficiency   Eff.      Eff.
-----------   --------   -------- ------   ------  -------  --------  -------  -------  -----------  -------  ---------
Davidson         66         23     34.8%    77       61        15     19.5%     24.6%     0.652       1.09      0.79
Kansas           66         29     43.9%    94       67        27     28.7%     40.3%     0.931       1.26      1.02
UNCA             65          8     12.3%    55       43         6     10.9%     14.0%     0.750       0.85      0.78
ECU              62          4      6.5%    74       58         6      8.1%     10.3%     1.500       1.01      0.78

Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets

[CDu]

OK, I've made an effort to reorganize the data to have fewer tables expressing the information in a (hopefully) more meaningful way. Assuming Tommy both approves the format and verifies that I got the numbers right, what do people think of this? More helpful? Less helpful? About the same?

    Game         Tot       Tot       Catch   Unsucc.    GR     NR    BR    %BR     %BR
               Entries   Catches       %     Entries   after               all    after
                                                       catch             entries  catch
-----------   --------   --------    ------  -------   ------  ---  ---  -------  ------
Davidson         23         21        91.3%     2        5      5    11    47.8%   52.4%
Kansas           30         24        80.0%     6        1      9    14    46.7%   58.3%
UNCA             10          9        90.0%     1        5      3     6    60.0%   66.7%
ECU               4          4       100.0%     0        2      0     2    50.0%   50.0%

    Game         Tot      Poss.      %      Total   Half    Interior    Int.    Int.        Int.     Overall  Halfcourt
              Halfcourt  w/ Entry   Att    Points   Court    Points      %       %       Defensive    Def.      Def.
                Sets     Attempts                  Points             Tot pts  HC pts    Efficiency   Eff.      Eff.
-----------   --------   -------- ------   ------  -------  --------  -------  -------  -----------  -------  ---------
Davidson         66         23     34.8%    77       61        15     19.5%     24.6%     0.652       1.09      0.79
Kansas           66         29     43.9%    94       67        27     28.7%     40.3%     0.931       1.26      1.02
UNCA             65          8     12.3%    55       43         6     10.9%     14.0%     0.750       0.85      0.78
ECU              62          4      6.5%    74       58         6      8.1%     10.3%     1.500       1.01      0.78

Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets

MUCH more intuitive. Thanks!

PS to tommy and Kedsy: thanks for putting in lots of effort on this. I hope I didn't sound ungrateful. Just wanted to make it more interpretable.

[DaleDuke7]

I think a big problem with our defense (for now at least) is not that we have bad defenders, but how we're actually playing defense. It almost looks like we're playing a mix between man-to-man and zone. We switch A LOT and that sometimes leads to open looks inside, especially of the opposing team is utilizing good ball movement. It seems to me that we would have better defense if we played strictly man defense. But, I could be wrong. It may just be that it's gonna take time for our players to fully execute the defensive strategy that Coach K has. Whatever the problem is, we need to correct it, quickly. We can't rely on scoring 93 a game if we have realistic hopes at a title. Watching the Duke-Vermont game right now, I'm thoroughly disappointed in our defense. Terrible.

[-jk]

I think a big problem with our defense (for now at least) is not that we have bad defenders, but how we're actually playing defense. It almost looks like we're playing a mix between man-to-man and zone. We switch A LOT and that sometimes leads to open looks inside, especially of the opposing team is utilizing good ball movement. It seems to me that we would have better defense if we played strictly man defense. But, I could be wrong. It may just be that it's gonna take time for our players to fully execute the defensive strategy that Coach K has. Whatever the problem is, we need to correct it, quickly. We can't rely on scoring 93 a game if we have realistic hopes at a title. Watching the Duke-Vermont game right now, I'm thoroughly disappointed in our defense. Terrible.

There's always been a gray area between Duke's switching man and (for instance) John Chaney's match-up zone.

Given our similar size/athleticism and the tighter foul calls (with penalties for fighting through screens), switching may make more sense this year.

-jk

[DaleDuke7]

There's always been a gray area between Duke's switching man and (for instance) John Chaney's match-up zone.

Given our similar size/athleticism and the tighter foul calls (with penalties for fighting through screens), switching may make more sense this year.

-jk

It does make more sense, theoretically. But if we can't execute, then it's useless. If we can figure it out, great. I just fear that we can't.

[Goduke2010]

This myth never goes away. It's simply not valid to use the final Pomeroy rankings as a predictive tool for what happened in the tournament, because those rankings include the tournament games. I only have five years of data, but if you look at the Pomeroy rankings before the tournament started, you'll find that in the past five seasons more than half of the Final Four teams had defensive efficiency rankings outside the top 20:

2009: UNC (35), Villanova (25)
2010: West Virginia (24), Michigan State (27)
2011: Kentucky (22), UConn (31), Butler (77), VCU (143)
2012: none
2013: Michigan (58), Syracuse (23), Wichita State (30)

That's 11 out of 20 Final Four teams that didn't meet your criteria.

(NOTE: obviously these numbers are using Pomeroy's old formula, rather than the one he just changed to this season.)

Fair enough. So move the number to 35 and many of those examples disappear. Then, check how many teams that entered the tourney with d-efficiencies > 35 made it to the final four. That provides another way to calculate the tourney success of a team that starts the tourney with that level of d-efficiency. The ratio in that case makes my point a bit better.

Thanks for looking up that info.

[Kedsy]

Tommy wasn't available to chart the Vermont game, so I gave it a shot. Once again our opponent didn't try post entries very often. I counted 6 attempted post entries, but half of them might have been pseudo-backdoor cuts rather than true post entries. Nevertheless, I've updated our table to include the game.

Obviously post defense wasn't our big issue in this game. In my next post, I plan to analyze our many defensive breakdowns to determine what our biggest issues are at the moment. Stay tuned.

    Game         Tot       Tot       Catch   Unsucc.    GR     NR    BR    %BR     %BR
               Entries   Catches       %     Entries   after               all    after
                                                       catch             entries  catch
-----------   --------   --------    ------  -------   ------  ---  ---  -------  ------
Davidson         23         21        91.3%     2        5      5    11    47.8%   52.4%
Kansas           30         24        80.0%     6        1      9    14    46.7%   58.3%
UNCA             10          9        90.0%     1        5      3     6    60.0%   66.7%
ECU               4          4       100.0%     0        2      0     2    50.0%   50.0%
Vermont           6          6       100.0%     0        2      2     2    33.3%   33.3%

    Game         Tot      Poss.      %      Total   Half    Interior    Int.    Int.        Int.     Overall  Halfcourt
              Halfcourt  w/ Entry   Att    Points   Court    Points      %       %       Defensive    Def.      Def.
                Sets     Attempts                  Points             Tot pts  HC pts    Efficiency   Eff.      Eff.
-----------   --------   -------- ------   ------  -------  --------  -------  -------  -----------  -------  ---------
Davidson         66         23     34.8%    77       61        15     19.5%     24.6%     0.652       1.09      0.79
Kansas           66         29     43.9%    94       67        27     28.7%     40.3%     0.931       1.26      1.02
UNCA             65          8     12.3%    55       43         6     10.9%     14.0%     0.750       0.85      0.78
ECU              62          4      6.5%    74       58         6      8.1%     10.3%     1.500       1.01      0.78
Vermont          60          6     10.0%    90       81         8      8.9%      9.9%     1.333       1.38      1.35

Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets

[Kedsy]

OK, after charting every defensive possession in the Vermont game, I've attempted to categorize where our defense broke down. Employing a tip from -jk, I paid close attention to our switching on ball screens, and I was somewhat dismayed. On 18 different occasions, we came out of the ball screen with both defenders covering the ball handler and nobody covering the screener. On another 8 occasions (beyond the 18 described above), the man guarding the screener attempted a hedge but was slow to recover. The biggest culprits were Jabari, who either wanted to double the ball handler or simply forgot to go back to his man, and Quinn, who either didn't switch when he was supposed to or didn't communicate to his teammate that he could get through the screen so the teammate should cover somebody else.

Note that the 26 not-so-great defense of ball screens happened in 65 Vermont possessions, so almost half of their possessions included bad ball screen defense on our part.

It should be additionally noted that Tyler, Josh, Rasheed, and (perhaps surprisingly) Andre were probably our best players at performing the switch or hedge properly. Rodney and Jabari (and Quinn, presumably through his apparent lack of communication) were the worst offenders. Also, we were much better at this in the game's final 10 minutes than we were in the first 30 minutes.

As has been discussed at great length elsewhere, we also had trouble with dribble-penetration. I'm sure some (but probably not all) of that has to do with the new rules. Here are all my categories, and the damage done:

-- Bad switches and/or doubles: 18, directly leading to 15 points, plus a missed wide-open three.

-- Slow hedges: 8, directly leading to 2 points, plus a missed wide-open mid-range shot and a missed layup.

-- Blow-by layups: 3, directly leading to 6 points.

-- Dribble-penetration, leading to easy mid-range jumper or pass for layup or other easy shot: 11, directly leading to 16 points, plus a couple of missed FTs.

-- Jabari playing center field/one-man-zone: I didn't count how many times he did this when it didn't hurt us, but at least 3 occasions he got burned, directly leading to 8 points.

-- Andre, losing his man for back-door-cut: 2 times, directly leading to 2 points.

-- Tyler overplaying (or stupidly fouling a desperation 3-point heave): I didn't count how many times he did this when it didn't hurt us, but at least 2 occasions he got burned, directly leading to 3 points (plus a couple of missed FTs).

-- Offensive rebounds, directly leading to 8 points (I said 6 in another thread, but I missed a couple FTs in my earlier calculation).

-- Post entries (6 poss.), directly leading to 8 interior points (though as I said above, a couple of these baskets could possibly be categorized as dribble-penetration leading to pass and score).

-- Transition or secondary breaks (5 poss.), leading to 9 points.

-- Rasheed, tripping and inadvertently fouling a three-point shooter, leading to 1 very important free throw.

-- Decent defense but they scored anyway: 12 points.

I know Jabari's defense is being discussed in the post-game thread. By my count he was almost single-handedly responsible for 16 "bad" Vermont points, plus a wide-open missed three, a missed layup, and a couple missed FTs. I suppose we need to remember he's a freshman, and while he doesn't make too many mistakes on offense, it may take some time for his defense to catch up.

My conclusions are the two biggest concerns at the moment are dealing with dribble-penetration (22 points) and successfully defending ball-screens (17 points). The good news is the first category might work out better if the refs ease up on the new rules and the second category might work out better if our players communicate better and our new players learn the defense, and the likelihood is those things will happen at least to some extent over the course of the season.

I charted every defensive possession, so if anybody has any questions, please ask and hopefully I'll be able to answer.

[Kedsy]

I know Jabari's defense is being discussed in the post-game thread. By my count he was almost single-handedly responsible for 16 "bad" Vermont points, plus a wide-open missed three, a missed layup, and a couple missed FTs. I suppose we need to remember he's a freshman, and while he doesn't make too many mistakes on offense, it may take some time for his defense to catch up.

I forgot to mention here that two of Vermont's offensive-rebound-putbacks were Jabari's responsibility. Once when he left his man to try a help-side block (even though the shooter's defender was right there) and once (after he switched onto Quinn's man) when he left his assignment to stand in the middle of the key. I should have put both of those baskets in the "Jabari playing center field/one-man-zone" category, and that would up his responsibility to 20 Vermont points.

Now, could he have prevented all 20 points if he'd played proper defense? Almost certainly not. But even 10 or 15 prevented points would have turned the game into a double-digit Duke win, and might have prevented a great deal of angst on the part of Duke fans.

In a way, though, this is good news. Coach K has emphasized how much Jabari wants to learn and how fast he's developing. Presumably learning defense is a part of that evolution. I'm more confident that Jabari can improve on this sort of thing than I would be about most or all of our other players. I'm just not sure how quickly that improvement will come. So if we see improvement this week in New York, maybe we can cancel our mail orders of Maalox.

[-jk]

Thanks, Kedsy! It's nice to have the hard numbers. (Even if it was less than appetizing to watch!)

-jk

[MChambers]

Duke's defense is so bad it dropped another spot, to 177, without playing a game!

[Billy Dat]

OK, after charting every defensive possession in the Vermont game, I've attempted to categorize where our defense broke down.

This is really interesting - yeoman's work. Thanks for the effort. Naturally, it makes me wish we had this data for every game to compare it.

As you say, the ball screen defense should really improve with time, and you have to assume we'll adjust team principles to try and slow down the dribble penetration. It is amazing, though, how many different ways we played bad defense - like death by a thousand cuts. Even worse, the good D but they scored anyway was only 13% of their points.

It is also surprising that our switch/hedge defense was better in the last 10 minutes as it felt like we couldn't get any big stops during that stretch. Maybe my memory is clouded by the fact that the score got closer because we simply weren't scoring as easily.

The glass is definitely half full if Jabari's improvement alone can account for some solid overall team improvement.

[tommy]

OK, so using Kedsy's simplified and more understandable way to display the data, I have added in the interior defense numbers from the Alabama, Arizona, and Michigan games. The first table shows how we did on post defense. Michigan barely fed the post at all -- and I even counted some borderline "entries" that were really more like screen rolls, but they were sorta kinda close to constituting a feeding of the post. Arizona fed the post a lot, but not as often as Davidson did. How bout that? More importantly, though it seemed upon watching the games casually that Arizona did a lot more damage with their post-up game, they really didn't. They didn't cause "bad results" from those interior catches at a particularly high rate at all -- in fact it was the lowest % of the games I've charted so far. Huh.

	Total	Total	Catch %	Unsucc.	GR after	NR	BR after	% BR all	%BR after
	Entries	Catches		Entries	catch		catch	entries	catch
Davidson	23	21	91.3%	2	5	5	11	47.8%	52.4%
Kansas	30	24	80.0%	6	1	9	14	46.7%	58.3%
UNC-A	10	9	90.0%	1	5	3	6	60.0%	66.7%
ECU	4	4	100.0%		2		2	50.0%	50.0%
Alabama	14	11	78.6%	3	4	1	6	42.9%	54.5%
Arizona	22	20	90.9%	2	9	1	10	45.5%	50.0%
Michigan	10	9	90.0%	1	4		5	50.0%	55.6%

Then looking at interior defense more generally, not limited to just post entries, we have this:

	Total	Poss. w/	% Attempted	Total	Half Court	Interior	Interior %	Interior %	Interior Def.	Overall Def.	Halfcourt Def.
	Halfcourt	Entry	Entries	Points	Points	Points	of Total Pts.	Halfcourt	Efficiency	Efficiency	Efficiency
	Sets	Attempts						Points
Davidson	66	23	34.8%	77	61	15	19.5%	24.6%	0.652	1.09	0.924
Kansas	66	29	43.9%	94	67	27	28.7%	40.3%	0.931	1.26	1.015
UNC-A	65	8	12.3%	55	43	6	10.9%	14.0%	0.750	0.85	0.662
ECU	62	4	6.5%	74	58	6	8.1%	10.3%	1.500	1.01	0.935
Alabama	61	14	23.0%	64	46	17	26.6%	37.0%	1.214	0.87	0.754
Arizona	64	22	34.4%	72	57	25	34.7%	43.9%	1.136	1.08	0.891
Michigan	60	10	16.7%	69	56	10	14.5%	17.9%	1.000	1.00	0.933

Nobody has forced the issue with the post against us more regularly than Kansas did. Nobody has gotten a higher % of their points against us on the interior than did Arizona, though. Perhaps the most surprising number still, though, is our interior defensive efficiency against Kansas being much better than our overall defensive efficiency against them. That was not the case against Arizona (but barely) and certainly not against Alabama, though that was a lower scoring game with less overall action on the interior. But still.

Still talking pretty small sample sizes here, but it's growing. Will be interesting to see how these numbers look as we get further into the season and have more to compare them to and face teams with a variety of styles. And as Duke's interior defenders gain additional experience.