(7)
OFFENSE
This year's team looks a lot different than past Duke teams, especially the recent past. We're a lot bigger, we don't really have a swing forward (who most would expect to be a SF but can move up to PF and allow Duke to play small). And most of all, we don't have a lot of shooters.
Last season, we had five players who attempted at least 3.5 threes per game (led by Grayson Allen's 6.5). This year, we'll probably be lucky to have two guys put up that many. Marvin Bagley and/or Javin DeLaurier may heave up one or two a game (but they may not). Marques Bolden and Wendell Carter might put up one or two a season. Trevon Duval reportedly can't hit from out there. And none of Jordan Tucker, Alex O'Connell, or Jack White figure to play enough to take many threes. That leaves us with Grayson Allen and Gary Trent. And the scouting report on Gary is that he's a "streaky" shooter. Supposedly he hit only 33.5% of his threes in high school. So he might put up 3.5 per game, but probably not more than that (and we might wish for less).
That leaves Grayson. He launched 6.0 threes per game as a sophomore and 6.5 as a junior. Coach K says he's going to shoot a lot, so the 6.5 is probably a lower limit. J.J. Redick attempted 9.1 threes per game as a junior and 9.2 as a senior, so that's probably the upper limit. My guess is Grayson is up around that upper limit, but that still leaves us at 17 or 18 three-attempts per game compared to last season's 22 per game.
How big a problem is that going to be? Well, if Coach K has shown anything during his tenure, it's that there's more than one way to skin a [your favorite opposing mascot here]. In other words, offense can come from a lot of places, and Duke's overall offense is almost always really, really good:
FINAL POMEROY DUKE OFFENSIVE RANKINGS
2017: 6
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 1
2013: 4
2012: 8
2011: 6
2010: 1
2009: 7
2008: 14
2007: 49
2006: 1
2005: 14
2004: 3
2003: 12
2002: 1
We've been top 8 in each of the past nine seasons, and top 15 in every season but one (#49 in 2007) since Pomeroy's been posting such rankings. We're going to put the ball in the basket. Except what if we can't shoot -- or put another way, what if someone puts a blanket over Grayson to keep him from shooting -- how are we going to score? Though perhaps a better way to phrase that is, when it comes to crunch time and we need an "easy," nearly guaranteed, high efficiency score, how are we going to do it?
There are five different ways to achieve high-efficiency scoring: (1) drain a three (least dependable but most devastating); (2) dump it down low to an unstoppable force in the paint; (3) grab an offensive rebound, leading to a putback or kickout three; (4) score on the fast break; and (5) hit free throws. I'll look at these one at a time, but what we're going to find is that in addition to our overall offensive efficiency, Duke's best teams have been really good at one or more of these things.
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
We've discussed this recently on the board, and it's something this year's team should be pretty good at, since we'll be really big and really long. It's also a quality that most of our teams that have been successfull in the NCAA tournament have possessed. Since the offensive rebounding stat has been kept (31 years), here's Duke's ten best offensive rebounding performances:
Code:
Year OR% NCAA
1999 44.3% 2
1990 40.9% 2
2010 40.6% 1
1988 40.5% 4
1998 39.7% 8
1992 39.5% 1
2004 39.2% 4
1996 38.3% 64
1994 38.0% 2
1991 38.0% 1
Eight Final Fours and an Elite Eight out of the top ten, and those eight Final Fours represent all but three (2015, 2001, 1989) in the 31 year period.
So if we're good at offensive rebounding this season, does that guarantee anything? Absolutely not. Does is prove anything? Maybe not. But does it
mean anything? I'm pretty sure it does, because on top of our generally efficient offense, it's one way those teams could get an "easy" score at crunch time, even if other things were going wrong.
FAST BREAKS
There are sites like
Hoop Math that measure transition scoring, but they don't go far back enough to compare to past Duke teams. But we can look at pace (measured by team possessions per 40 minutes) as an imperfect estimator. In other words, the more possessions we have, the faster we're going and the more transition opportunities we probably have. In any event, here are Duke's fastest 12 teams over the past 31 seasons:
Code:
Year Poss/gm NCAA
1990 79.34 2
1989 78.91 4
1991 78.53 1
2002 77.19 16
2001 76.65 1
1999 75.39 2
1988 75.02 4
1993 75.01 32
2000 74.82 16
2008 73.98 32
1992 73.67 1
1998 73.44 8
Again, six of the top seven (and 8 of 12) were Final Four teams, including two of the three that didn't make the cut for offensive rebounding.
It's also interesting to note that all four of our round of 64 exits were among our slowest 10 teams in the 31 year period (though two of our championships, 2010 and 2015, were as well).
This year's team, with Trevon Duval running the show and with Grayson, Marvin, et al. running the lanes, could be one of our fastest teams in recent years. Another plus for our 2018 chances.
FREE THROW RATE
No better way when you need points than to get them from the line. Here are Duke's top 10 teams at free throw rate (FTA/FGA) over the past 31 seasons:
Code:
Year FT rate NCAA
1992 50.41% 1
1990 48.58% 2
1999 46.86% 2
1991 45.36% 1
2003 45.28% 16
2012 45.12% 64
2006 45.00% 16
1989 44.00% 4
1993 42.97% 32
2005 42.87% 16
Perhaps not as strong an indicator as the first two, but still the teams in the top four spots all played in the NCAA championship game.
How this year's team will fare in this category is unknown at this point. We know Grayson shoots well from the line, and maybe Gary, but the jury's out on Trevon, Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin.
POST GAME
While sites like Hoop Math (again) have numbers for at-the-rim scoring, that's not really the same as having a load down low who can be relied on to get position, make the catch, and put the ball in the hoop. And it doesn't go back far enough in any event. So for this one, I'm left with unscientific analysis (ack, excuse me while I dodge that lightning bolt).
In the past 20 years, Duke has had four beasts in the middle -- Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams, and Jahlil Okafor. Those guys covered the seasons of 1998 to 2006, plus 2015, ten seasons that included two championships, four Final Fours, and five Elite Eights. Think maybe Mason Plumlee as a senior should count here? Add another Elite Eight to the list.
This year? We have
three guys who might be able to apply to the club. We won't know yet whether they'll all be unstoppable loads down low, but if only one of them can be, we'll have checked this box.
THREE POINT SHOOTING
Now we're back to three-point shooting. Here's the top 15 Duke three-point shooting teams, by percentage:
Code:
Year NCAA 3pt%
1992 1 43.4%
1987 16 40.2%
2013 8 39.9%
1993 32 39.7%
1999 2 39.6%
2014 64 39.5%
1990 2 38.9%
1997 32 38.9%
2006 16 38.8%
2015 1 38.7%
2010 1 38.5%
2001 1 38.5%
2016 16 38.5%
1991 1 38.3%
2000 16 38.3%
The list includes seven of the eight Duke teams that made the NCAA championship game. If Grayson takes the lion's share of the 2018 team's three-pointers, and Gary only takes them when he's wide open, this year's team has a pretty good shot of landing fairly high on this list.
Still not convinced? I have one last table. Whether we shoot a high percentage of our threes is one thing, but it seems clear we'll be shooting
fewer three-pointers. How many fewer? Going back 20 years (since the number of threes we've taken seemed to change about 20 years ago), our three-point attempts have always been between 30% and 40% of our overall shots (with one exception on each end). So here's a table showing what percentage of our shots have been three pointers ("%threes"), as well as the corresponding success rate ("3pt%"), in the past 20 seasons:
Code:
Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2001 1 38.5% 41.8%
2016 16 38.5% 39.8%
2005 16 38.0% 39.8%
2014 64 39.5% 39.7%
2008 32 37.7% 39.2%
2012 64 37.1% 38.6%
2017 32 38.9% 38.3%
2002 16 36.3% 37.6%
2011 16 37.4% 35.3%
2006 16 38.8% 35.2%
2009 16 34.9% 35.0%
2000 16 38.3% 34.2%
2003 16 36.3% 33.9%
2015 1 38.7% 33.4%
2004 4 36.4% 33.4%
2013 8 39.9% 33.3%
2010 1 38.5% 32.9%
1998 8 36.9% 32.4%
1999 2 39.6% 30.5%
2007 64 38.1% 29.6%
Crazily enough, six of our seven Elite Eights (or better) in the period were six of our seven
lowest number of three-point attempts as a percentage of shots. Proving nothing is absolute, the seventh one, our championship team of 2001, took the highest number of threes, and the team with the absolute lowest number (2007) got knocked out in the first round. Still, it looks like being lower on this list is better than being higher, so maybe the fact that we don't have so many shooters is not such a bad thing. At any rate, it's not going to torpedo our chances.
CONCLUSION
Of the five "easy" ways to score, this team should be really good at four of them, and maybe all five, despite the fact that we won't have a lot of three-point shooters.
Our offense is going to be fine.
(8)
DEFENSE
Duke's calling card used to be our D. From the mid-80s to the mid-00s, people feared our ability to take them out of their game on the defensive end. Approximately the time we increased our reliance on freshman, that reputation faded away.
Here's our Pomeroy defensive rank since he's published them. "Pre-T" means pre-NCAA tournament numbers, published at the time, and "Post-T" means final numbers, using his most recent calculation methodology.
Code:
Year Pre-T Post-T
2017 39 47
2016 110 86
2015 57 12
2014 102 87
2013 25 26
2012 62 78
2011 3 10
2010 4 5
2009 17 31
2008 7
2007 5
2006 18
2005 2
2004 3
2003 16
2002 1
The big question here is why? Has our defense eroded because of our increased reliance on freshmen? That may play a part, but since our 2012 and 2014 teams each had just one freshman in its top six minute-getters, there's obviously something else. Especially since our freshman-dominated 2015 team managed to see the light in the post-season and move it's defensive ranking all the into the top 12. It might simply be that we've recruited offensive-minded players, or players who weren't physically built for defense.
For example, let's compare the measurements for this year's probable top 7 versus the 2014 team notorious for its poor defense:
Code:
2014 Height Wingspan Standing Reach 2018 Height Wingspan Standing Reach
Amile Jefferson 6'9 7'0 8'5 Marques Bolden 6'11 7'5 9'3
Jabari Parker 6'8.5 6'11.5 8'8 Wendell Carter 6'10 7'3 9'0
Rodney Hood 6'8.5 6'8.5 8'7 Marvin Bagley 6'10.5 7'0.5 8'9
Andre Dawkins 6'4.5 6'8.5 8'2.5 Javin DeLaurier 6'9 7'0 8'10
Rasheed Sulaimon 6'4 6'7 8'5.5 Gary Trent 6'6 6'8.5 8'4
Quinn Cook 6'2 6'4 8'0.5 Grayson Allen 6'4.5 6'6.5 ?
Tyler Thornton 6'1 ? ? Trevon Duval 6'2.5 6'9.5 8'3
Sure, bigger and longer doesn't always equal better, but looking at the above, which team would you guess could play better defense? By a lot. Which team should better be able to bother the passing lanes? Which team should better be able to erase perimeter mistakes at the rim?
Obviously with so many newcomers we can't know yet how good (or not) this year's team will be on the defensive end. It's worth noting that Marvin, Wendell, and Trevon (as well as Marques) all came out of high school with reasonable defensive reputations, something we couldn't say about Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, Tyus Jones, or Jahlil Okafor.
Personally, I have high hopes.
(9)
THE EXHIBITIONS
I enjoy CTC, but I think as a preview of the team we get less out of it than some think we do. Mostly because the team plays against each other every day and knows each others habits, predilections, and proclivities. For example, the observation that Jordan Goldwire may seem to shut down Trevon Duval (or he may not, it's just an example) might mean that Jordan G is a plus-plus defender, it might mean Trevon isn't nearly as lightning quick as we'd hoped, or most probably it simply means that Jordan has guarded Trevon every day for a month and knows what he's going to do.
For that reason, I say enjoy the spectacle but don't read too much into it.
We can't read too much into the exhibitions, either, mostly because our team will be sooooo much bigger and better than our opponents. But at least we'll be playing against players we haven't seen, and who haven't seen us. And we should at least get a look at all 12 of our recruited scholarship players.
For the ninth straight year, we're playing against the reigning Division II champion. This year it's Northwest Missouri State, a team that went 35-1 last season. They return five of their eight rotation players, including Division II national player of the year Justin Pitts, a 5'10" guard who averaged 20.9 ppg and 5.1 apg, and shot 39.2% from three-point range. I've never seen him play, but for a 5'10" guy to be national POY, he must be quick and savvy. So it should give us our first picture of how we deal with a quick opposing PG.
NW Mo St shot a lot of threes last season, though two of their top three gunners (by volume) are no longer on the team (the third being Pitts). They're also pretty small (by Division I standards, anyway), with nobody taller than 6'8" and only one player taller than 6'7" (junior Dray Starzl), and he hardly played last season. Their front line will primarily consist of 6'6" senior Chris-Ebou Ndow and 6'6" senior Brett Dougherty. They're both decent Division II players, but if our gigantic front line doesn't dominate these guys,
then we'll have something to talk about. We'll also get to see how well our bigs can chase smaller guys around the perimeter.
Other than Pitts, the guy on NW Mo St. I'm most interested in watching is 6'7" sophomore guard Ryan Welty, who last season as a freshman playing 18 mpg attempted more than two threes per game, and made 66.7% (!!!) of them (52 for 78). It was such an accomplishment that
Luke Winn wrote an article about him.
I don't know anything about their freshmen, but NW Missouri State is a good, veteran Division II team, and the game should be entertaining. That said, I'll be surprised if the Bearcats hang around for more than a few minutes.
Our other exhibition is against the CIAA champion Bowie State, whose overall record last season was a mediocre 16-14. They also lack anybody taller than 6'8" and return three seniors: 6'0 guard Ahmaad Wilson, 6'1 guard Dayshawn Wells, and 6'3 swingman Omari George. I imagine this will give us another look at how we deal with quick, savvy guards, but beyond that this shouldn't be much of a game.
(10)
LET'S GO DUKE!!!
That's all for Phase 0. The season is finally here.