Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA

    "Fourth Quarter" Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    We've had a closing issue in all our losses:

    Kansas - 73-72 Duke with 5:00 to play, Kansas closes 22-11 down the stretch
    Arizona - 49-49 with 10:00 to play, Arizona closes 23-17
    Notre Dame - 60-53 Duke with 12:00 to play, Notre Dame closes 26-17 down the stretch
    Clemson - 50-49 Duke with 10:00 to play, Clemson closes 23-9 down the stretch
    Syracuse is a bit of an exception (although we did give up 37 points in the last 16 minutes)
    Carolina - 60-58 Duke with 5:00 to play, Carolina closes 16-6 down the stretch
    Wake - 63-55 Duke with under 6:00 to play, Wake closes 27-9 down the stretch.

    Yeesh.
    I wanted to come back to the closing issues that we've had. Pomeroy has the "by quarter" scores for each of our games this season (treating each 10 minutes as a quarter). Not surprisingly, it shows that we have had a 4th quarter problem. Somewhat surprisingly, though, this has happened almost only in our losses.

    Across all ACC games, we're +47 through the first 10 minutes, +67 in the second 10 minutes (by far our best performance by quarter), +47 for the third 10 minutes, and then +7 for the last 10 minutes and overtime. That's a big disparity - we're 40 points worse at the end of conference games than in any other quarter, and 60 points worse in the last 10 minutes of a game than in the last 10 minutes of the first half (where we are consistently excellent).

    In only the losses, that disparity really rears its ugly head: we're -2 in the first 10 minutes, +11 in the second 10 minutes, +1 in the third 10 minutes, and then -45 in the last 10 minutes and overtime. Look at that again - in 5 conference losses we've collectively been ahead (by an average of 2 points, but still ahead) with 10 minutes to play, and then outscored by 45 points in the combined final 55 minutes. We break down on both offense and defense, but particularly on defense - by quarter, we scored 84, 95, 95, and 78 points and allowed 86, 84, 94, and 121(!). If we played a single 40 minute game the way we've played in 4th quarters in our losses, we'd be outscored roughly 88-57.* Yeesh.

    *This not a perfectly representative approach. We've played at a much faster pace down the stretch in these games due to extra possessions from free throws at the end (and shortened offensive possessions as we try to score quickly) and the margin is also somewhat inflated by those free throws.

    Looking at the wins only, the disparity completely goes away and we play consistent basketball across all segments: +49 through the first 10, +56 through the second 10, +46 through the third 10, and, critically, +52 in the last 10 minutes.

    A more concerning way to look at the trend is to isolate out only those games that have been close (that is, within a single digit margin) with 10 minutes to play. 8 of our 17 conference games so far have been within single digits with 10 to play. Although we've been ahead at that point in the game in 7 of those 8 games - and in the 8th we were down just 2 (@ Syracuse) - our collective record in those games is 3-5 and we outscored our opponent in the 4th quarter only twice (@ Pitt, where we finished +12, and home vs Syracuse, where we finished +3*). Our collective 4th quarter performance in the 8 "close" games is -30.

    In the 9 games that haven't been particularly close with 10 to play - that is, where we've had a double digit lead - we've not only won all of those games, but we've outscored our opponents in the 4th quarter in 6 of the 9 games, and only Virginia outscored us by more than 2 points (in the others, Wake cut our lead from 22 to 20 in the final ten minutes and BC cut our lead from 22 to 21).

    *Note that we got 3 points from the Boeheim double technical, at which point Syracuse had been +1 over the 4th quarter.

    So, we have had no problem (with one exception) closing out games where we're up 10 or more and had a big problem (with one exception) closing out games where we're not. The question is whether this is an actual flaw with the team (i.e., something likely to repeat) or just something that's happened to date. 17 games is not a huge sample size (and the sub-sets of 8 and 9 games are even smaller). And there doesn't seem to be a fundamental basketball reason that we play badly in close games down the stretch. But as we get to the point of the season where all the games are likely to be close, we need to reverse the trend or we're not going to get very far in either tournament.
    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. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    I wanted to come back to the closing issues that we've had. Pomeroy has the "by quarter" scores for each of our games this season (treating each 10 minutes as a quarter). Not surprisingly, it shows that we have had a 4th quarter problem. Somewhat surprisingly, though, this has happened almost only in our losses.

    Across all ACC games, we're +47 through the first 10 minutes, +67 in the second 10 minutes (by far our best performance by quarter), +47 for the third 10 minutes, and then +7 for the last 10 minutes and overtime. That's a big disparity - we're 40 points worse at the end of conference games than in any other quarter, and 60 points worse in the last 10 minutes of a game than in the last 10 minutes of the first half (where we are consistently excellent).

    In only the losses, that disparity really rears its ugly head: we're -2 in the first 10 minutes, +11 in the second 10 minutes, +1 in the third 10 minutes, and then -45 in the last 10 minutes and overtime. Look at that again - in 5 conference losses we've collectively been ahead (by an average of 2 points, but still ahead) with 10 minutes to play, and then outscored by 45 points in the combined final 55 minutes. We break down on both offense and defense, but particularly on defense - by quarter, we scored 84, 95, 95, and 78 points and allowed 86, 84, 94, and 121(!). If we played a single 40 minute game the way we've played in 4th quarters in our losses, we'd be outscored roughly 88-57.* Yeesh.

    *This not a perfectly representative approach. We've played at a much faster pace down the stretch in these games due to extra possessions from free throws at the end (and shortened offensive possessions as we try to score quickly) and the margin is also somewhat inflated by those free throws.

    Looking at the wins only, the disparity completely goes away and we play consistent basketball across all segments: +49 through the first 10, +56 through the second 10, +46 through the third 10, and, critically, +52 in the last 10 minutes.

    A more concerning way to look at the trend is to isolate out only those games that have been close (that is, within a single digit margin) with 10 minutes to play. 8 of our 17 conference games so far have been within single digits with 10 to play. Although we've been ahead at that point in the game in 7 of those 8 games - and in the 8th we were down just 2 (@ Syracuse) - our collective record in those games is 3-5 and we outscored our opponent in the 4th quarter only twice (@ Pitt, where we finished +12, and home vs Syracuse, where we finished +3*). Our collective 4th quarter performance in the 8 "close" games is -30.

    In the 9 games that haven't been particularly close with 10 to play - that is, where we've had a double digit lead - we've not only won all of those games, but we've outscored our opponents in the 4th quarter in 6 of the 9 games, and only Virginia outscored us by more than 2 points (in the others, Wake cut our lead from 22 to 20 in the final ten minutes and BC cut our lead from 22 to 21).

    *Note that we got 3 points from the Boeheim double technical, at which point Syracuse had been +1 over the 4th quarter.

    So, we have had no problem (with one exception) closing out games where we're up 10 or more and had a big problem (with one exception) closing out games where we're not. The question is whether this is an actual flaw with the team (i.e., something likely to repeat) or just something that's happened to date. 17 games is not a huge sample size (and the sub-sets of 8 and 9 games are even smaller). And there doesn't seem to be a fundamental basketball reason that we play badly in close games down the stretch. But as we get to the point of the season where all the games are likely to be close, we need to reverse the trend or we're not going to get very far in either tournament.
    I think the issue we have when games get tight at the end can be attributed to a lack of floor leadership and cohesion. I can't recall who posted it on the post-Wake thread, but I believe that the winning formula for your team involves a measure of talent, quality coaching, floor leadership, cohesion, experience, and toughness. Clearly, we have the first two elements in spades. Because of our relative youth, I think we're lacking a strong, assertive floor leader. This often translates into a lack of cohesion when games get tight, and devolves into a lack of toughness at those times as well. It's painful to watch us disintegrate, but that's how I see it. The upside is, we have a couple of guys talented enough to grab the leadership reigns and carry us as far as the ACC or even national championship. The question is whether that will actually happen. I'm still eager to watch and see, either way...

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa John View Post
    I think the issue we have when games get tight at the end can be attributed to a lack of floor leadership and cohesion. I can't recall who posted it on the post-Wake thread, but I believe that the winning formula for your team involves a measure of talent, quality coaching, floor leadership, cohesion, experience, and toughness. Clearly, we have the first two elements in spades. Because of our relative youth, I think we're lacking a strong, assertive floor leader. This often translates into a lack of cohesion when games get tight, and devolves into a lack of toughness at those times as well. It's painful to watch us disintegrate, but that's how I see it. The upside is, we have a couple of guys talented enough to grab the leadership reigns and carry us as far as the ACC or even national championship. The question is whether that will actually happen. I'm still eager to watch and see, either way...
    I was having this same conversation with another manic Duke fan (my dad) and we were discussing how we have both veterans and talent, but not really a talented veteran who can instill the confidence and leadership. I do wonder if it is partly because our experience and our talent aren't residing in the same bodies that we are seeing a vacuum in this regard. It is still possible for Hood or Parker to step up, but it needs to be post-haste. I'd love to see one of them basically put the team on their back for a few possessions and will the team to victory.

    I wouldn't even mention this, but since there's currently an article on ESPN about Parker's lack of certainty about the draft I could absolutely see him coming back and developing into that take charge guy with the killer instinct, and leading a talented young group to some serious victories.

    At any rate, I think that if anyone is going to step forward and claim that role this year, it will be Hood or Parker and it needs to happen immediately. I hope that the coaches are doing a little poking in this regard. There might possibly only be three games left of this season.

    Go Duke! Beat UNC!

  4. #4
    Thing is, this only outlines games they've lost. This is a trend, even in wins. They gave second-half, double-digit leads away against Vermont, ECU, 'Bama, Maryland, and UVA. I know a win is a win, etc but it's slightly unnerving, going into the tourney, that this can happen against bad teams as well as good ones.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Updating this with our last two games (in which we gave up 50 combined points in the final 10 minutes of both games):

    Across all ACC games, we're +60 through the first 10 minutes, +61 in the second 10 minutes, +64 for the third 10 minutes, and then -4 for the last 10 minutes and overtime.

    Look at that again - we outscore opponents by, collectively, 185 points through 30 minutes, and then get collectively outscored at the end.

    Isolating the close games again (which now includes the Clemson game), we've been ahead with 10 to play in 8 of the 9 games - and in the 9th we were down just 2 (@ Syracuse) - our collective record in those games is 4-5 and we outscored our opponent in the 4th quarter only twice (@ Pitt, where we finished +12, and home vs Syracuse, where we finished +3*). Our collective 4th quarter performance in the 9 "close" games is -37.

    *Note that we got 3 points from the Boeheim double technical, at which point Syracuse had been +1 over the 4th quarter.

    All told, we're 8-11 in our 4th quarter performance.
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    First of all, great thread and breakdown, pfr! This is THE critical issue for this Duke team. This team scares me more with a lead in the last 10 minutes of the game than any other Duke team I can remember.

    I have no idea why they lose these 4th quarter leads. The tendencies which I think I've picked up are:

    1) Inability to get stops. I'd be interested to see defensive efficiency stats in the last 10 minutes of our games, and I'm willing to guess they're pretty ugly. But why? Clearly our guys are focused during the closing minutes. It's almost like they defensively "choke" - having critical communication lapses that allow other teams crucial baskets.

    2) Offensive hesitancy. I put this down to PG play. We don't have a guy who seems able to reliably set up the offense in crunch time. Therefore, some of our late game offensive possessions, when the opponent is bearing down defensively, turn into one guy trying to create against set defense.

    3) Go to guy. We have two of the best scorers in the ACC, but neither Parker nor Hood have been able to "take over" or "put the team on his shoulders" when we need those late buckets, at least not reliably. K has talked about Jabari's conditioning, which has improved over the season. Is Jabari gassed by end of game? FWIW, late in the season I've found myself wanting the ball in Sulaimon's hands when we need a score late in the game. If he can improve his ability to dish out of a drive, given his ability to get to the rim against virtually anyone, he could become that guy that absolutely terrifies opponents when he gets the ball in his hands late in a close game.

    One thing interesting, and frustrating, is that this is a deep Duke team. Our guys should be as strong, or stronger, than most opponents by the end of the game. But, especially in our losses and in a couple of close wins, when the opponent picks up the intensity, our guys seem to be unable to respond. Are they gassed, tight, or what? I had hoped we'd sorted that out, but the UNC and Wake losses, and the Clemson win, all within the last month, have shown that the team still can suffer from these strange end-game struggles.

    At this point of the season, every game is a championship game. If they win seven more games, leading each one by 10 points with 6 minutes left and barely clinging on to win each by 1, I won't care too much about these disturbing "fourth quarter" differentials. But if we end our season on a loss in a game where we gave up a late lead, this tendency will be THE problem we couldn't quite figure out this season.

  7. #7

    Conditioning

    I have seen or heard or read K stating - after multiple games this year - that the team was "tired" down the stretch.

    Johnny Dawkins has been gone for many years now. My understanding is that he was a task master as far as building the players' stamina up through distance running etc.

    I believe Nate Dogg took over the conditioning role, but has different responsibilities, recruiting perhaps, but who is the strength and conditioning coach, or is there one?

    I also wonder if today's video game culture, and the likelihood that the players all have cars or friends with cars, has an impact on each player's endurance.

    I didn't have a car in four years at Duke. I was a distance runner until junior year. I would bet that Duke players do not walk as much as I did, and after hearing K say the team is "tired" I get the impression they do not run for distance all that often.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Atlanta 'burbs

    Possible reasons for playing tired

    Here goes, along with my suggestions for correcting the problem: (Tongue planted in cheek, somewhat)

    1) Poor substitution pattern - - Coaches should do better

    2) Practices too hard - - Coaches should do better

    3) Conditioning - - Too late to correct this year. Coaches should institute better conditioning next year

    4) Nutrition - - Coaches should stop players from eating/drinking what I eat/drink

    5) Ankle weights - - Coaches should inspect players before games to insure they aren't wearing them

    I am still amazed that we were tired at the end of the Clemson game (according to coach K) after 5 days off, but Clemson seemed to have a lot of bounce in their step after 2 consecutive overtime games.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Updating this through the end of the ACC season:

    Across all ACC games, we're +52 through the first 10 minutes, +67 in the second 10 minutes, +74 for the third 10 minutes, and then -13 for the last 10 minutes and overtime.

    We outscore opponents by, collectively, 193 points through 30 minutes, and then get collectively outscored at the end. We appear to improve each set of 10 minutes and then crater down the stretch.

    Isolating just the "close" games again (i.e., where there was a single-digit margin at the 30-minute mark - which now includes all ACCT games), we've been ahead with 10 to play in 9 of the 11 games - and in the others we were down just 2 (@ Syracuse), and 1 (UVA ACCT) - our collective record in those games is 5-6 and we outscored our opponent in the 4th quarter only twice (@ Pitt, where we finished +12, and home vs Syracuse, where we finished +3*). Our collective 4th quarter performance in the 11 "close" games is -46; in the 6 losses it's -53 (we've lost those 6 games by a total of 44 points).

    *Note that we got 3 points from the Boeheim double technical, at which point Syracuse had been +1 over the 4th quarter.

    All told, we're 8-13 in our 4th quarter performance in ACC play.
    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

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TruBlu View Post
    Nutrition - - Coaches should stop players from eating/drinking what I eat/drink

    Ankle weights - - Coaches should inspect players before games to insure they aren't wearing them
    Great insight. Thoughtful, balanced and deeply pondered. No eye-rolling necessary.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by nyesq83 View Post
    I also wonder if today's video game culture... has an impact on each player's endurance.
    Do you say this when you get tired of yelling "Get off my lawn?"

    Conditioning may play a part in 4th qtr letdowns, but video games play no part in this. Unless you honestly think Duke players' video game habits impact their conditioning more than those of players at other Div I schools. Which just sounds stupid.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    I believe we got outscored 20 to 8 over the final 4:30 today. Can anyone confirm?

    It really is amazing that all out losses ended the same way. There's a fundamental problem with this particular mix of guys and coaches, and we never figured out how to identify it and correct it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I believe we got outscored 20 to 8 over the final 4:30 today. Can anyone confirm?

    It really is amazing that all out losses ended the same way. There's a fundamental problem with this particular mix of guys and coaches, and we never figured out how to identify it and correct it.
    We were up 63 - 58 with 4:53 to go.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    I believe we got outscored 20 to 8 over the final 4:30 today. Can anyone confirm?

    It really is amazing that all out losses ended the same way. There's a fundamental problem with this particular mix of guys and coaches, and we never figured out how to identify it and correct it.
    Yeah, it is uncanny. It shouldn't be a minutes issue (at least not in this one), as only 3 players topped 30 mpg. Maybe it is a leadership issue? A "not able to handle pressure" issue? Hard to say. But it really is amazing.

    We got just 3 defensive stops in the last 7:42 of the game...

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Yeah, it is uncanny. It shouldn't be a minutes issue (at least not in this one), as only 3 players topped 30 mpg. Maybe it is a leadership issue? A "not able to handle pressure" issue? Hard to say. But it really is amazing.

    We got just 3 defensive stops in the last 7:42 of the game...
    It is the enigma of this specific team. Duke teams usually understand how to build a lead - how to get and make good shots at critical moments and how to get stops. This team has had leads in most every game this year at money time (3-4 minutes to go) and they went south in a hurry. I think it is a pressure management thing. Duke players also have the weight of the entire program on them. When Duke loses - it is a big deal. Some players learn to handle it and some don't. Some players refuse to lose. We have had our share of those over time.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Quote Originally Posted by dukelifer View Post
    It is the enigma of this specific team. Duke teams usually understand how to build a lead - how to get and make good shots at critical moments and how to get stops. This team has had leads in most every game this year at money time (3-4 minutes to go) and they went south in a hurry. I think it is a pressure management thing. Duke players also have the weight of the entire program on them. When Duke loses - it is a big deal. Some players learn to handle it and some don't. Some players refuse to lose. We have had our share of those over time.
    In our last 7 tournament losses, we have been outscored 332-247 in the second half for an average of 47.4 - 33.4. In all but one of those games, Duke was seeded higher. There was a late game problem this year, but there is a second half problem for Duke overall. I posted some thoughts as to why in the post-game thread which I won't repeat here.
    Singler is IRON

    I STILL GOT IT! -- Ryan Kelly, March 2, 2013

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. synellinden View Post
    In our last 7 tournament losses, we have been outscored 332-247 in the second half for an average of 47.4 - 33.4. In all but one of those games, Duke was seeded higher. There was a late game problem this year, but there is a second half problem for Duke overall. I posted some thoughts as to why in the post-game thread which I won't repeat here.
    And you were spot on with those comments! The bottom line is that Duke generally hasn't been getting as good a look at the basket late as the other team has. And I believe that boils down to something really simple that I've mentioned from the beginning of this season - lack of a PG that can break down the defense with penetration. As much as I love Tyler's grit, that certainly has never been his strong suit. And as much as I love Quinn it's not his strong suit either. He has shown flashes of this in times past, but he's really not a guard that penetrates consistently in the half court. And when you don't have a player that can do this, you are forced into what we did all season long - depend on individual talent to create their own shot. We saw it game in and game out from Jabari, Rodney and Rasheed. The vast majority of their points came off their own "work", not moving without the ball and receiving a well-timed and well-placed assist. That kind of play generally tightens up and becomes less available as the game comes to a close. The need for "team" offense, facilitated normally (but not always) by a guard that can beat his man off the dribble, is critical down the stretch. We never really had this the entire year. And that's what killed us time and time again late in games on the offensive end of the court. Defense is a whole another animal that I'll refrain from posting about right now.

  18. #18
    Well, I said in another thread I wasn't going to do this...I lied. Here is a breakdown of the offensive and defensive efficiencies for the first 35 minutes of games and the last 5 minutes of games (Syracuse OT was ignored) (please, please don't tell me Pomeroy already calculates efficiency for his "quarters." I'll be sad).

    I was interested in Defensive Efficiency in the first 35 minutes vs the last 5 minutes (I would have chosen the last official timeout, but it comes at different times in the games). Here are the averages for Offensive Efficiency in the first 35 vs last 5 minutes and Defensive Efficiency in the first 35 vs last 5 minutes:
    35OEff 5OEff 35DEff 5DEff
    Full Season 119.7 127.5 100.5 120.6
    Since ACC play 119.8 119.7 103.5 120.9

    I don't know what sorting or subsets people would be interested in (eg conference, Top25, games we lost, away games). So, I'll leave you with the full table so you can manipulate it however you'd like. If you are want of ideas, though, maybe you'd like to see a graphical representation of the differences in OEff and DEff per game. So, here you go:
    5minuteEfficiency.jpg

    And, here's the full table. Possessions were calculated using Pomeroy's formula, including average Duke & Opponents possessions. Possessions in the first 35 minutes, though, was calculated by subtracting the possessions I tabulated for the last 5 minutes from the total possessions listed on Statsheet. My calculations were done using ESPN play-by-play data.
    35Pos = Possessions in the first 35 minutes
    Duke35Pts = Points Duke scored in the first 35 minutes
    Opp35Pts = Points Opponent scored in the first 35 minutes
    5Pos = Possessions in the last 5 minutes
    and so on.

    Team 35Pos Duke35Pts Opp35Pts 5Pos Duke5Pts Opp5Pts 35OEff 5OEff 35DEff 5DEff
    Dav 59 95 69 11 16 8 161.0 145.5 116.9 72.7
    KU 64 73 72 11 10 22 114.1 90.9 112.5 200.0
    FAU 61 79 50 11 18 14 129.5 163.6 82.0 127.3
    UNCA 61 79 49 8 12 6 129.5 150.0 80.3 75.0
    ECU 63 67 64 9 16 10 106.3 177.8 101.6 111.1
    UVM 55 75 78 9 16 12 136.4 177.8 141.8 133.3
    ALA 62 58 51 12 16 13 93.5 133.3 82.3 108.3
    Ariz 56 51 57 11 15 15 91.1 136.4 101.8 136.4
    Mich 54 60 44 12 19 25 111.1 158.3 81.5 208.3
    Webb 56 77 58 7 8 8 137.5 114.3 103.6 114.3
    UCLA 61 65 57 11 15 6 106.6 136.4 93.4 54.5
    EMU 60 71 50 9 11 9 118.3 122.2 83.3 100.0
    Elon 63 75 37 9 11 11 119.0 122.2 58.7 122.2
    ND 54 64 65 10 13 14 118.5 130.0 120.4 140.0
    GT 54 66 55 7 13 2 122.2 185.7 101.9 28.6
    Clem 56 57 64 8 2 8 101.8 25.0 114.3 100.0
    UVA 51 56 47 10 13 18 109.8 130.0 92.2 180.0
    NCSU 62 84 52 7 11 8 135.5 157.1 83.9 114.3
    MIA 50 58 40 7 9 6 116.0 128.6 80.0 85.7
    FSU 57 67 54 6 11 2 117.5 183.3 94.7 33.3
    PITT 52 67 57 9 13 8 128.8 144.4 109.6 88.9
    SU 58 76 81 9 13 10 131.0 144.4 139.7 111.1
    WFU 56 74 57 6 9 6 132.1 150.0 101.8 100.0
    BC 55 80 56 7 9 12 145.5 128.6 101.8 171.4
    MARY 60 59 60 8 10 7 98.3 125.0 100.0 87.5
    GT 51 60 42 7 8 9 117.6 114.3 82.4 128.6
    UNC 58 57 56 10 9 18 98.3 90.0 96.6 180.0
    SU 50 53 49 10 13 11 106.0 130.0 98.0 110.0
    VT 55 60 44 6 6 4 109.1 100.0 80.0 66.7
    WFU 53 66 61 13 6 21 124.5 46.2 115.1 161.5
    UNC 55 79 65 13 14 16 143.6 107.7 118.2 123.1
    CLEM 50 56 50 6 7 12 112.0 116.7 100.0 200.0
    NCSU 46 65 54 9 10 13 141.3 111.1 117.4 144.4
    UVA 50 53 57 10 10 15 106.0 100.0 114.0 150.0
    MERC 50 60 58 13 11 20 120.0 84.6 116.0 153.8

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled View Post
    So, I'll leave you with the full table so you can manipulate it however you'd like. If you are want of ideas, though, maybe you'd like to see a graphical representation of the differences in OEff and DEff per game. So, here you go:
    5minuteEfficiency.jpg
    Nice graph (and great work overall)! Looks like towards the end of the season, both offense and defense would crumble at the end of games. Whereas earlier in the season, it was usually just the defense.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled View Post
    Well, I said in another thread I wasn't going to do this...I lied. Here is a breakdown...
    Wow - over the entire last six weeks of the season, there were only three games in which we outscored our opponents in the final five minutes of the game.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-05-2012, 03:54 PM
  2. Ryan Kelly, "The Bridge" That Spanned "The Gap"
    By Newton_14 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-25-2012, 12:07 PM
  3. Relative productivity of "big" and "small" lineups
    By Kedsy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 03-21-2011, 11:14 PM
  4. Icing the Shooter: "Good" play or "Bad"
    By greybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 03:53 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
  •