2nd Half Defensive Deficiency

[utahdevil]

At halftime of the South Carolina game was anyone else having flashbacks to our Syracuse game? At halftime of the Syracuse game, I had a sinking feeling that we were in big trouble. Syracuse only shot 37.5% in the first half and we were only up 8. You knew they wouldn't continue to shoot that poorly. Well, the Orange shot 70.8% in the second half and scored 53 points in the second half.

It seems we were particularly bad all year at 2nd half field goal % defense as well as points given us. I realize some games are skewed b/c Duke was winning and would give up easy 2-pt baskets or foul shots down the stretch, but my cursory review of the stats from games this year shows we had some serious issues defending teams in the last half of our games. A sampling:

@VA Tech: I excluded this one b/c we basically stunk the entire game;
Ga Tech: I excluded this one b/c Ga Tech basically stunk the entire game;
Boston College: BC shot 55.9% in the second half while scoring 48-pts (I imagine this is due in large measure to Amile's absence in the 2nd half, but still...);
@FSU: 45.9% in the second half while scoring 47 points;
@Louisville: 58.6% in the second half while scoring 44 points;
Miami: 34.8% and 22 points;
NC State: 55.2% and 46 points.
@Wake: 44% and 41 points;
@Notre Dame: 56.7% and 49 points;
Pitt: 51.9% and 36 points;
UNC: 48.3% and 39 points;
Clemson: 56.7% and 44 points;
@UVA: 41.4% and 30 points;
Wake: 47.2% and 47 points;
@Miami: 41.4% and 33 points;
FSU: 45.9% and 47 points;

I haven't done enough research to know whether teams generally shoot much better and score more in the second half or whether the above numbers indicate some defensive failing specific to Duke. However, as I stated above, I had a bad feeling at halftime of our USC game that a repeat of our Syracuse game was on deck. And it was pretty much a carbon copy with USC shooting 71.4% while scoring 65 points.

Do you guys have any thoughts/insight into whether the above numbers are generally the same for most teams or whether this was unique to Duke? And if so, why?

Go Duke!

[uh_no]

I haven't done enough research to know whether teams generally shoot much better and score more in the second half or whether the above numbers indicate some defensive failing specific to Duke.

I think this is a big problem, at least with total points. intentional fouls will have a large increase in total point output, and garbage time may have an impact. That said, it shouldn't affect the shooting % all too much.

[Rich]

I haven't done enough research to know whether teams generally shoot much better and score more in the second half or whether the above numbers indicate some defensive failing specific to Duke. However, as I stated above, I had a bad feeling at halftime of our USC game that a repeat of our Syracuse game was on deck. And it was pretty much a carbon copy with USC shooting 71.4% while scoring 65 points.

Not a scientific or statistical answer by any means, but I'll take a shot. With our tendency to play a bench that seems to be shorter than most, any sort of foul trouble creates matador D type situations and, as a result, high percentage layups. That doesn't usually happen until a player has 3 or 4 fouls, which generally occurs in the second half. K opts to keep guys in "to play smart" (i.e., not foul) rather than go deeper in the bench to give more fouls.

[Spanarkel]

I think that the 6.5(+) man rotation used by Duke MAY cause some players to try to rest a bit on defense. For instance, even though it's pretty uncommon(1-2 times per game at most would be my guess)to see a foul called on a three point attempt, some of the Duke players do not seem to challenge three point shots on occasions when there seems to be ample opportunity to defend the shot. Simply taking a step or two towards the shooter or putting up your hand in the direction of the shooter's face is not going to affect the shot of most D-1 players. In the South Carolina game, one particular Duke defender had 5 three pointers made over his defensive "efforts." I wonder if it was in the South Carolina scouting report that this particular defender wouldn't really challenge the shot. It was suggested by another poster that Duke wasn't closing out on the three point shooters in that game due to foul trouble, but again it seems fairly uncommon to have a foul called on three point defense. Just my 0.02 worth.

[CDu]

I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

[peteandpete]

As I said in the post game thread, this wasn't about the crowd or the officiating. I believe this was the most points given up in a half by a K coached team...more than that UVa ACC tournament game that the staff swore to never forget. There have been only 3 worse performances in Blue Devil history. Illness may have been a factor, but even a bad second half defensively 50-55 allows us to have a chance. The old saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results comes to mind here. I remember a win in Chapel Hill years ago when they said how glad they were to be defending the last shot (Brickey blocked it) instead of being on offense. We have come a long way. Injuries, the point guard situation, four in four last weekend were all challenges for this team...but none of those situations should have impacted such a woeful defensive performance.

[MCFinARL]

I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

I agree that fatigue could be a factor here. And while you may be right that physical fatigue over the course of a whole season shouldn't really come into play, doing the four games in four days away from home and then traveling again to play 5 and 7 days later could have some cumulative effect--especially on Luke, who played monster minutes all season and did look a bit less than his usual self in Greenville.

[UrinalCake]

Fatigue and foul trouble are definitely huge factors. Also I think we just had offensive minded players on this team who didn't really care so much about D, they just wanted to outscore their opponent. I think that manifests itself more in the second half.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

I believe this was the most points given up in a half by a K coached team...more than that UVa ACC tournament game that the staff swore to never forget.

Even 1990 UNLV only scored 56 in the 2nd during that terrible game.

[UrinalCake]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how a team gives up 65 points in a half. Over three points per minute. If each team used the full 30 seconds of the shot clock, USC would have had to hit a three on every single possession just to score 60 points. It boggles the mind.

[sagegrouse]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how a team gives up 65 points in a half. Over three points per minute. If each team used the full 30 seconds of the shot clock, USC would have had to hit a three on every single possession just to score 60 points. It boggles the mind.

Well, U.C., 21 points were with the clocked stopped. South Carolina was 21-23 from the foul line in the second half (91 percent). It would have helped our cause if USC had shot its season average of 70 percent.

[CDu]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how a team gives up 65 points in a half. Over three points per minute. If each team used the full 30 seconds of the shot clock, USC would have had to hit a three on every single possession just to score 60 points. It boggles the mind.

Well, they scored 10 points in the final 1:09 of the game as we were fouling. So it was "only" 55 points in 19 minutes. Still awful. They scored on almost every possession in the second half: 32 of 41 possessions resulted in points. And only 2 of their possessions in the final 5 minutes didn't result in scores. And three of their failed possessions were on missed layups.

[Newton_14]

I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

Tried to spork you but couldn't but I agree with this 1000%. Every word.

I will put up a much longer post later but I basically disagree that we had to play the way we did rotation wise this year. And before everyone jumps on me for that statement, their are other successful basketball teams each season that win 25+ games and championships that don't play 6.5 man rotations in every single non-cupcake game.

[rsvman]

If they had shot their season average from the free-throw line, we would've won the game despite all that bad D.

[CDu]

If they had shot their season average from the free-throw line, we would've won the game despite all that bad D.

Not quite. They shot 27-32 from the line, or 84.4%. On the season, they shot 69.6%. That would have equated to 22-32. We would still have been fouling at the end in that scenario and hoping for good luck in the end-game.

[DukieInBrasil]

I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

This seems to be an excellent argument to lengthen the d**n bench. Especially when you've got inexperienced players trying to play thru fatigue, which is what happens now that Duke has fully embraced the OAD recruiting model. We just don't have enough experienced players who know A) how to play defense or B) how to play good defense while tired.
Hopefully this embarrassing exit will cause K to re-evaluate his methods in a similar way that the mega-embarrassing loss in 2014 caused him to finally abandon his cherished defensive tactics b/c Fr. just can't play that defensive scheme well.
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

[COYS]

This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

I don't completely disagree with you. Duke has not played up to the extremely high bar K set on the defensive end from '01-'10 (and from even before then). That being said, the amateur admirer of statistics in me thinks that when evaluating Duke's defense, it is problematic to point to three games and say that this is a pattern, especially since pointing at those three games also ignores the excellent defense played in the '13 (for the most part) and '15 tournaments.

I think it's more accurate to say that Duke's defense has been generally mediocre by Duke standards for much of the regular season during this time frame, which increases the chance that the team will get torched in the tournament. The first weekend losses are a symptom of our our defense being far more vulnerable over recent seasons rather than they are a pattern on their own. In other words, it's probably not entirely a coincidence that three first weekend losses have occurred during a span in which our defense has not been as good as we would have liked. We could have advanced to the Sweet 16 in all three of these seasons and our defense would still have been poorer than usual. It would just mean that we got lucky enough to advance. That makes it more likely that a hot team can beat us in the first weekend, especially if said team has the best player on either side (McCollum in '12) or is playing a virtual home game (SC this year). Yes, giving up 65 points in a half is truly awful, but it's worth noting that our '16 team was worse defensively than our '17 team, even accounting for that awful defensive performance against the Gamecocks.

Anyway, I do agree, though, that K hasn't quite found the magic when it comes to figuring out our defensive schemes. I would have preferred Duke to switch up the defense, ever so slightly. The biggest advantage of pressure man to man (not that we played extreme pressure this year, but we still played a little farther out than I might have liked) is that it can generate turnovers. It's just that Duke hasn't been generating enough turnovers in recent seasons to compensate for the vulnerabilities of extending a man-to-man defense (pick n' rolls, back door cuts, blow-byes on the perimeter). I wonder what a sagging man to man coupled with our soft zone press would have looked like. We had a size advantage against most teams on the perimeter, but not a quickness advantage. The zone press kept teams from punishing us in transition, but our moderately extended pressure left a lot of space between our perimeter defenders and the basket . . . putting a lot of pressure on Amile, Jayson, Harry and Marques to rotate correctly. I can't help but wonder if coming out of that soft zone press into a sagging man to man would have limited dribble penetration while simultaneously forcing the offense to work the ball around against our set defense after already wasting precious seconds bringing it up against the press. That type of D doesn't generate many live ball turnovers. But we weren't generating those, anyway.

On the other hand, K is the GOAT (or as close as anyone can get to beating out Wooden for that title) so I could be wrong.

[devildeac]

This seems to be an excellent argument to lengthen the d**n bench. Especially when you've got inexperienced players trying to play thru fatigue, which is what happens now that Duke has fully embraced the OAD recruiting model. We just don't have enough experienced players who know A) how to play defense or B) how to play good defense while tired.
Hopefully this embarrassing exit will cause K to re-evaluate his methods in a similar way that the mega-embarrassing loss in 2014 caused him to finally abandon his cherished defensive tactics b/c Fr. just can't play that defensive scheme well.
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

From twitter/Blue Devil Digest:

"This is...interesting.

Since 2011:

Arizona - 55 points in the 2nd half scored against Duke.
Lehigh - 47
Louisville - 50
Mercer - 44
Oregon - 46
South Carolina - 65"

So, 3 losses first round and 3 in regionals. Of course, 2010 and 2015 were fabulous results .

[Saratoga2]

From twitter/Blue Devil Digest:

"This is...interesting.

Since 2011:

Arizona - 55 points in the 2nd half scored against Duke.
Lehigh - 47
Louisville - 50
Mercer - 44
Oregon - 46
South Carolina - 65"

So, 3 losses first round and 3 in regionals. Of course, 2010 and 2015 were fabulous results .

I am one of those that believe the short bench has contributed to our issues on second half defense. Coach K continue to use the very short bench but has mentioned the need to adjust his approach into next year. Of course it requires fairly capable backup players and injuries have been a factor, but we had some unused depth on the bench that might have developed enough to give our regulars a breather and cut down on the foul trouble. DeLaurier, Vrankovic and White should be back next year along with two or more of our other rotation players from this year ( Bolden was not really a rotation player this year but I count him as coming back). We should be able to go 9 deep and develop those players.

[DukieInBrasil]

I am one of those that believe the short bench has contributed to our issues on second half defense. Coach K continue to use the very short bench but has mentioned the need to adjust his approach into next year. Of course it requires fairly capable backup players and injuries have been a factor, but we had some unused depth on the bench that might have developed enough to give our regulars a breather and cut down on the foul trouble. DeLaurier, Vrankovic and White should be back next year along with two or more of our other rotation players from this year ( Bolden was not really a rotation player this year but I count him as coming back). We should be able to go 9 deep and develop those players.

I was pleased with what i saw of them in their very limited minutes. Javin may have in fact given us the best play of the season in the 1st round victory over Troy.
However, not one of the three learned anything about playing tired this year. Of them, only Vrank played any against an opponent's rotation players. Vrank seems the most capable of the first 3 to make a meaningful impact next year.
If Bolden stays, and stays healthy, he could be a starter or in the rotation at C/PF. I was intrigued by what i saw him do, but his offense was pretty anemic. He had some flashes on defense, but couldn't not foul enough to play much.
If they make up the entirety of our non-Fr. next year, well be in big trouble, regardless of who comes. If Jackson returns along with those 4 (+Justin Robinson), we'll still struggle. We need at least one of Kennard or Allen to return, and of those 2, only Allen plays adequate (or better) defense.
Even with 2 Sr. defensive studs, a Jr. and a So. in the rotation this year, our defense was routinely porous. I don't expect that to improve next year no matter how many non-Sr. returnees we have.