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

[Kedsy]

Not surprisingly, our overall defensive efficiency against the Irish was the worst in any game this year except Vermont. And while the interior efficiency seemed bad when just watching the game, it actually was better than most of our other performances in that department. Much worse was the 1.30 non-interior defensive efficiency number. Again, the worst other than Vermont. We got hurt in lots of other ways besides post play against the Irish.

One caveat for the charting of this particular game, though. When Kedsy and I set out to do this charting this year, one major objective was to look at how this center-less team defended the post. So "interior points" are limited to points that result from post entry plays. In the Notre Dame game, they scored a lot of points in the paint that were not the result of post play (they hurt us in the post too, as the chart shows) but those non-post plays, for example the multiple breakdowns on inbounds plays, aren't captured in this chart as "interior points." Because it seemed to me to be a significant omission with respect to this particular game and the analysis of our defensive performance -- and if I had it to do over again I might alter our working definition of "interior points" -- I thought it was worth noting so that those who are reading this would know to consider these numbers in the context of the working definition we are in fact using.

Partially because of the problem with the working definition in this game, I am going to post in another thread, hopefully tomorrow, a much more detailed analysis of our defense, essentially play by play, to break down with specificity where and how we, uh, broke down in this game.

Thanks again, Tommy. I hear what you're saying about not capturing interior points, but frankly I don't think the inbound plays and the backdoor cuts had very much to do with interior defense, even though the points were scored in the paint, any more than an opposing guard blowing by his man (which also happened quite a few times vs. Notre Dame) to score a layup or dish to a big has to do with interior defense. Those sorts of breakdowns (the backdoor cuts and the inbound plays) probably would have happened with Shelden Williams in the middle. They speak to overall defensive breakdown rather than interior defensive breakdown. In my opinion, anyway.

[CDu]

Thanks again, Tommy. I hear what you're saying about not capturing interior points, but frankly I don't think the inbound plays and the backdoor cuts had very much to do with interior defense, even though the points were scored in the paint, any more than an opposing guard blowing by his man (which also happened quite a few times vs. Notre Dame) to score a layup or dish to a big has to do with interior defense. Those sorts of breakdowns (the backdoor cuts and the inbound plays) probably would have happened with Shelden Williams in the middle. They speak to overall defensive breakdown rather than interior defensive breakdown. In my opinion, anyway.

Yeah, those inbounds plays were absolutely not the fault of the post defenders, as the post defenders were the guys defending the inbounds pass (not the guys responsible for the players getting the layups).

I'm not ready to say that the "blow-bys" aren't in some way related to the interior defense though. Part of playing extended pressure defense on the perimeter is intended to try to make it difficult to get the ball to the post with ease. And one of the downsides of attempting pressure defense on the perimeter is an increased risk of getting beaten off the dribble.

If we sagged off on the perimeter, we'd see a lot fewer "blow-by" plays. But we probably would also see more open 3s and more easy entry passes to the post. So I do think that the two are linked in that case. Obviously not ALL of the blow-bys are the result of extended pressure defense to compensate for poor post defense, but I think there is some significant correlation there.

What we are doing appears to somewhat successfully combat our deficiencies inside. But the result is exploiting our deficiencies outside. Where we thought we had only the interior deficiency, it appears we actually have deficiencies both inside and outside, and right now it is a bit of a "pick your poison" situation. Right now, Coach K is going with the "limit the 3s and try to prevent good entry passes at the risk of getting beaten off the dribble" poison.

[Kedsy]

What we are doing appears to somewhat successfully combat our deficiencies inside. But the result is exploiting our deficiencies outside. Where we thought we had only the interior deficiency, it appears we actually have deficiencies both inside and outside, and right now it is a bit of a "pick your poison" situation. Right now, Coach K is going with the "limit the 3s and try to prevent good entry passes at the risk of getting beaten off the dribble" poison.

I agree. The original idea was that team defense could compensate for our lack of size and that appears to be true. Nothing's going to compensate for a lack of quickness or basic defensive fundamentals on the perimeter, though. So hopefully we improve in those areas.

[CDu]

I agree. The original idea was that team defense could compensate for our lack of size and that appears to be true. Nothing's going to compensate for a lack of quickness or basic defensive fundamentals on the perimeter, though. So hopefully we improve in those areas.

Well, to be complete, I thought the idea was that we could compensate for lack of size without compromising elsewhere (i.e., still be a good defensive team). That much remains in doubt. It does appear that we can maybe mask our interior defensive problems (helps that we've yet to face a really good post scorer - Sherman is as close as we've come). But that doesn't do much good if our masking approach creates a big problem elsewhere.

[Kedsy]

Well, to be complete, I thought the idea was that we could compensate for lack of size without compromising elsewhere (i.e., still be a good defensive team). That much remains in doubt. It does appear that we can maybe mask our interior defensive problems (helps that we've yet to face a really good post scorer - Sherman is as close as we've come). But that doesn't do much good if our masking approach creates a big problem elsewhere.

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

[tommy]

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

At least in the Notre Dame game, and I suspect this has been true in our other poor defensive performances as well, many of our breakdowns were essentially mental errors and failures to communicate rather than being beaten from a more purely physical standpoint. Most of our guys are indeed quick and athletic, but they are losing focus and attention far too often, and they're not talking enough. Seems to me from a close review of it that these kinds of things are happening a lot more than just being outquicked or outmuscled.

[CDu]

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

There is always a compromise if you do something to protect against something else. If you overplay on the perimeter to compensate for poor interior play, you risk getting beaten back-door and getting beaten off the dribble. If you sag off on the perimeter to protect against dribble penetration, you risk giving up threes and you make passing (both entry passes and perimeter passes) much easier.

Sort of like folks (not you) who said "we can solve the post problem by fronting the post." That can help prevent entry passes, but it puts you out of position for rebounding and you are still susceptible to post entry off a two-pass approach. Every strategy has a consequence. If there were a foolproof approach to defense, someone would have figured it out by now.

[CDu]

At least in the Notre Dame game, and I suspect this has been true in our other poor defensive performances as well, many of our breakdowns were essentially mental errors and failures to communicate rather than being beaten from a more purely physical standpoint. Most of our guys are indeed quick and athletic, but they are losing focus and attention far too often, and they're not talking enough. Seems to me from a close review of it that these kinds of things are happening a lot more than just being outquicked or outmuscled.

On the inbounds plays, I agree. That's absolutely a case of losing focus or not talking. But on the backdoor cuts and "blow-bys", I disagree. Backdoor cuts could be either the result of lack of focus or the result of overplay (anticipating a perimeter pass). The blow-bys are generally a result of getting outquicked or out-efforted, but both are much more likely when we overplay on the perimeter.

[Kedsy]

On the inbounds plays, I agree. That's absolutely a case of losing focus or not talking. But on the backdoor cuts and "blow-bys", I disagree. Backdoor cuts could be either the result of lack of focus or the result of overplay (anticipating a perimeter pass). The blow-bys are generally a result of getting outquicked or out-efforted, but both are much more likely when we overplay on the perimeter.

You may be right, but I also think some of our overplays and doubles aren't smart. They often seem to have little chance of causing a turnover or preventing an entry pass, so basically we're allowing backdoor cuts and blow-bys without any compensating benefit.

[CDu]

You may be right, but I also think some of our overplays and doubles aren't smart. They often seem to have little chance of causing a turnover or preventing an entry pass, so basically we're allowing backdoor cuts and blow-bys without any compensating benefit.

Oh I agree. With this team, I'm not sure that the overplay strategy is wise (at least not without substantial improvement in our guys' play at it). I would probably lean towards a sagging defense and hope that we can hold our own inside (and that teams don't go crazy from 3). Because right now we are pretty bad at the overplay defense.

If we do that, we'll probably see a dropoff in post defensive success. But it might still be a net positive for the team because we're getting abused off the dribble right now.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Oh I agree. With this team, I'm not sure that the overplay strategy is wise (at least not without substantial improvement in our guys' play at it). I would probably lean towards a sagging defense and hope that we can hold our own inside (and that teams don't go crazy from 3). Because right now we are pretty bad at the overplay defense.

If we do that, we'll probably see a dropoff in post defensive success. But it might still be a net positive for the team because we're getting abused off the dribble right now.

I think this brings in an interesting question about Hairston. Against ND, he only played 9 minutes. Against a BCS school, against a team at their home, and against a decent offensive team (28 in KenPom), you would think that Coach K would play Hairston a lot more than 9 minutes. Maybe this is the beginning of the changing of the guards. I could also be way off and Hairston plays 21 min against GT. Coach K is highly unpredictable this season. It feels weird.

If you are right about how we should play D moving forward (and I think you may be), it may make more sense to reduce Hairston's minutes as his value comes from understanding Duke defensive schemes and communication, both of which won't be as valuable through overplaying.

[Kedsy]

Maybe this is the beginning of the changing of the guards.

Or possibly a changing of the forwards.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Or possibly a changing of the forwards.

Hahahahahahahahaaha. Wow. I had to read your comment before understanding the joke.

Gave you some pitckforks. I'm slow today. Damn you Mondays!

[greybeard]

This is a remarkable undertaking. Brilliant.

One quibble around the very far edges. "M." I think that M is a Major factor in getting something good off the offense, major. The ball goes inside, independent of the reflexive draw to collapse, defenders on the exterior are placed at a considerable disadvantage. We all navigate with an ability to understand to one degree or another what is going on behind us, but "not knowing" when you are an outside defender creates the opportunity for poor judgments and surprises.

[Gthoma2a]

It would almost seem like getting our money's worth on a few fouls on the inside would be worth more than a lot of the matador defense that we saw. CBS had a compilation before one of the commercial breaks where they just showed ND scoring in the paint with our guys either moving away from them completely or just watching them score. That can't happen. When that happens, we will get abused all game because they will have no respect for anything or anyone we have down low. We may not have great play down low, but we could certainly have some hard fouls to make them think twice. Otherwise, they will just keep cashing in on their layups like they are free samples at a Sam's.

[jv001]

Or possibly a changing of the forwards.

I hope it's not the changing of guards or forwards, but a change at C. Amile for Josh. GoDuke!

[Newton_14]

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

Totally agree here. I would have never predicted our inability to depend at the wing and guard positions. I thought for sure it would be a key strength of the team.

At least in the Notre Dame game, and I suspect this has been true in our other poor defensive performances as well, many of our breakdowns were essentially mental errors and failures to communicate rather than being beaten from a more purely physical standpoint. Most of our guys are indeed quick and athletic, but they are losing focus and attention far too often, and they're not talking enough. Seems to me from a close review of it that these kinds of things are happening a lot more than just being outquicked or outmuscled.

And I think you hit nail with head with the bold. It is for the most part, not a physical deficiency. The personnel we have with this team has quickness, length, and athletic ability to defend the perimeter, as well as drivers and cutters. The mental and communication breakdowns in the Notre Dame game were mindboggling, especially given the progress made in the 3 prior games against arguably quicker teams. Going all the way back to the Drury game though, teams that use a lot of motion, or move the ball crisply and sharply, give our guys a heck of a time.

I will say that sometimes, including Saturday, Quinn will have that game or stretch in a game where he struggles to keep his guy from getting in the lane. However, he had been much better overall this year with that part of his defense than he was as a Soph and Jr. So far on the season though, I feel Quinn has defended well. Hopefull this was just an off game for him and he bounces back to where he has been most of the year.

I still wonder if it would be better to at times put Rasheed as the point defender, even when Quinn is in the game, and let Quinn defend the SG. Does not have to be all the time, but not seldom where it's just a change of pace. I would use it more regularly.

[jv001]

Totally agree here. I would have never predicted our inability to depend at the wing and guard positions. I thought for sure it would be a key strength of the team.



And I think you hit nail with head with the bold. It is for the most part, not a physical deficiency. The personnel we have with this team has quickness, length, and athletic ability to defend the perimeter, as well as drivers and cutters. The mental and communication breakdowns in the Notre Dame game were mindboggling, especially given the progress made in the 3 prior games against arguably quicker teams. Going all the way back to the Drury game though, teams that use a lot of motion, or move the ball crisply and sharply, give our guys a heck of a time.

I will say that sometimes, including Saturday, Quinn will have that game or stretch in a game where he struggles to keep his guy from getting in the lane. However, he had been much better overall this year with that part of his defense than he was as a Soph and Jr. So far on the season though, I feel Quinn has defended well. Hopefull this was just an off game for him and he bounces back to where he has been most of the year.

I still wonder if it would be better to at times put Rasheed as the point defender, even when Quinn is in the game, and let Quinn defend the SG. Does not have to be all the time, but not seldom where it's just a change of pace. I would use it more regularly.

I agree with putting Rasheed on the opponent's point guard. First, Rasheed seems to be the better on the ball defender and 2nd it takes some pressure off Quinn. GoDuke!

[tommy]

Totally agree here. I would have never predicted our inability to depend at the wing and guard positions. I thought for sure it would be a key strength of the team.



And I think you hit nail with head with the bold. It is for the most part, not a physical deficiency. The personnel we have with this team has quickness, length, and athletic ability to defend the perimeter, as well as drivers and cutters. The mental and communication breakdowns in the Notre Dame game were mindboggling, especially given the progress made in the 3 prior games against arguably quicker teams. Going all the way back to the Drury game though, teams that use a lot of motion, or move the ball crisply and sharply, give our guys a heck of a time.

I will say that sometimes, including Saturday, Quinn will have that game or stretch in a game where he struggles to keep his guy from getting in the lane. However, he had been much better overall this year with that part of his defense than he was as a Soph and Jr. So far on the season though, I feel Quinn has defended well. Hopefull this was just an off game for him and he bounces back to where he has been most of the year.

I still wonder if it would be better to at times put Rasheed as the point defender, even when Quinn is in the game, and let Quinn defend the SG. Does not have to be all the time, but not seldom where it's just a change of pace. I would use it more regularly.

I agree we should switch defensive assignments between Rasheed and Quinn, at least for stretches. Several benefits that I can see. First, Rasheed is a more focused, harrassing-type of on-ball defender than is Quinn, at least usually. His bigger body and longer arms can also cause trouble for opposing points. Second, change of pace/different looks is usually a good idea. I also think it is likely to help keep Rasheed's head in the game, for he won't be able to float if he's got on-ball, head-of-the-snake responsibilities more regularly.

There would be risk to the strategy, though, particularly if the opposing SG was big and rangy, and had a post-up game that he was comfortable going to and that fit into their offensive strategy. But I guess in that case, we could just leave Rasheed on that SG and let Quinn stay on the point. Even without being posted up, most SG's will be able to shoot over the 6'1" Cook. While we could live with that in most instances on the perimeter, it would be problematic if this theortetical SG was able to get into the lane against Quinn and shoot 12 footers right over him.

[jv001]

I agree we should switch defensive assignments between Rasheed and Quinn, at least for stretches. Several benefits that I can see. First, Rasheed is a more focused, harrassing-type of on-ball defender than is Quinn, at least usually. His bigger body and longer arms can also cause trouble for opposing points. Second, change of pace/different looks is usually a good idea. I also think it is likely to help keep Rasheed's head in the game, for he won't be able to float if he's got on-ball, head-of-the-snake responsibilities more regularly.

There would be risk to the strategy, though, particularly if the opposing SG was big and rangy, and had a post-up game that he was comfortable going to and that fit into their offensive strategy. But I guess in that case, we could just leave Rasheed on that SG and let Quinn stay on the point. Even without being posted up, most SG's will be able to shoot over the 6'1" Cook. While we could live with that in most instances on the perimeter, it would be problematic if this theortetical SG was able to get into the lane against Quinn and shoot 12 footers right over him.

And we can always bring in TT to just worry the heck out of the SG. If I were an opposing player, Tyler would drive me nuts. For our best offense, I believe it's best that TT spells Quinn with Rasheed at the other guard spot. Andre has been used as a 3 for Hood a lot but basically when he's in we have a 3 guard offense. GoDuke!