Reply With Quote(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:
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.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
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:
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.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
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:
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.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
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:
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.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%
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:
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.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%
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.
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.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
For example, let's compare the measurements for this year's probable top 7 versus the 2014 team notorious for its poor defense:
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?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
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.
Results 1 to 20 of 137
-
10-12-2017, 06:36 PM #1
Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
Phase 0 -- 2017-18, CTC and Exhibitions
Rev up the hype machine, stomp your feet on the bleachers, and chant "airball" at someone. It's time for the first Phase report of the 2017-18 Duke basketball season, and we're all feeling good.
The phase includes CTC and our two exhibitions. To make the post manageable, I'm splitting it into two parts.
Without further ado, let's go phasing!
(1) HEALTH!
After last season, could there be any doubt that this would be first? I sure hope not. In fact, I'm going to officially petition the DBR powers-that-be that "Health" needs to be the first topic in every phase report. Ever.
Javin DeLaurier missed some practices last week, but his condition is not supposed to be serious. And I imagine Duke nation will just have to perpetually hold its breath every time Grayson Allen flings his body into mortal danger (which I predict will be approximately every play). But as far as I can tell (I'm knocking vigorously on wood, though I strongly suspect it's only wood veneer), the team seems in pretty good health at the moment.
As far as our ability to sustain injuries, we appear to have plenty of depth in the frontcourt but our perimeter is perilously thin. If the worst happens and either Trevon Duval or Grayson Allen get injured, we could be in major you-know-what.
But let's not think about that. Here's hoping this topic stays on the back-burner.
(2) HEALTH!!
In deference to the weauxf gods, who saw fit to derail our 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, and (especially) 2017 seasons with critical injuries to important players, I'm making this topic both first and second. Gotta take this seriously, right?
(3) HEALTH!!!
Enough?
(4) ROTATION
As most of you probably know, I came up with a system which blends recruiting ranking and experience to predict Duke's rotation under Coach K. The rules are as follows (slightly tweaked this year to take into account our recent low-ranked recruits):
Freshmen players are assigned a number from 1 to 4 (lower being better), based on their RSCI recruting ranking, as follows:
1 to 10: 1
11 to 20: 2
21 to 35: 3
36 to 150: 4
151 to 250: 5
251+: 6
Non-freshmen players take their freshman number and subtract half a point (0.5) for each year they've been in college. Redshirt years count as a year in college, although if the player is away from the team (like Andre Dawkins in 2013), this could be debatable. A redshirt year due to a transfer counts an extra half point, because if the player hadn't exceeded the expectations of his recruiting ranking, Coach K probably wouldn't have accepted him as a transfer (Sean Obi notwithstanding).
Assuming a 7-man rotation, the theory is that the seven guys who play the most minutes will be the perimeter players with the four lowest numbers and the interior players with the three lowest numbers. If we have five perimeter guys with numbers of 2.5 or lower, the rotation should be 8 guys (5 perimeter, 3 interior).
In cases of ties, I generally go with the player who has more experience. If two players from the same class are tied for the last spot in the rotation, it's impossible to predict in advance which will be chosen, but if history is our guide, whoever wins the competition will play rotation minutes and the other won't play very much.
OK, off the bat, I'm going to dismiss the idea of a greater than 7-man rotation (Sorry, Sage). I know some people think it should happen every year, but (spoiler alert) it almost never does (and when it does, it's only when we have five or more perimeter guys with a "score" of 2.5 or better). Also, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm talking about guys with at least 10 mpg. Less than that and you're not in the rotation, per my definition. If you don't like that definition, sorry but I guess you ought to skip to the next section.
This year, absent injury or a major surprise, the top six in Duke's 7-man rotation are fairly obvious: Trevon Duval, Grayson Allen, Gary Trent, Marvin Bagley, Wendell Carter, and Marques Bolden. So in my opinion, the only question is who's going to be the 7th man?
There are two possible answers to this question, and which way we go is dependent on the answer to another question: whether one of our big men (i.e., Marvin Bagley or Javin DeLaurier) is capable of playing on the perimeter for part of the game? If either of them can do this, the system predicts a rotation as follows:
Predicted perimeter rotation: Trevon Duval (1.0), Grayson Allen (1.5), Gary Trent (2.0), Javin DeLaurier (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Marvin Bagley (1.0), Wendell Carter (1.0), Marques Bolden (1.5)
Other perimeter players: Jordan Tucker (4.0), Alex O'Connell (4.0), Jack White (4.5), Jordan Goldwire (6.0)
Other interior players: Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)
If neither Javin nor Marvin are capable of 10 to 15 mpg on the wing, then Javin would move into "other interior players," and either Jordan T or Alex (can't know which at this point) would move to the fourth spot in the "predicted perimeter rotation."
At the moment, I'm guessing that either Javin or Marvin will be able to play 10 to 15 mpg on the wing. We may know more on this point after this phase is over.
(5) INEXPERIENCE
No way to sugarcoat it. This is the least experienced team Coach K has ever had. How much does that matter? Well, that's less clear.
Here's a table of every Duke team under Coach K, along with how many upperclassmen played 300+ minutes in the season vs. how many underclassmen did so:
* I'm counting Kyrie Irving (2011) and Elton Brand (1998) as "top 6," even though (due to injury) they weren't in the top 6 based on minutes played.Code:Year jr/sr fr/so fr in top 6 NCAA finish 2018 1 6 4 ? 1999 2 6 1 2 2008 2 6 1 32 2001 2 5 1 1 2004 2 5 1 4 1984 2 5 1 32 2007 2 5 2 64 1983 2 5 4 n/a 2016 2 4 3 16 1998 3 6 3* 8 2011 3 6 1* 16 1987 3 5 0 16 2017 3 4 2 32 2014 3 4 1 64 2000 3 3 3 16 2002 3 3 1 16 1981 3 3 0 NIT 1991 4 5 1 1 1992 4 5 0 1 2015 4 5 3 1 1990 4 5 1 2 2003 4 4 2 16 1995 4 4 3 n/a 2006 4 3 2 16 1996 4 3 1 64 1982 4 2 1 n/a 1988 5 4 0 4 1993 5 4 0 32 2010 5 3 0 1 2013 5 3 1 8 2012 5 3 1 64 1986 5 2 1 2 1994 5 2 1 2 1985 5 2 0 32 2009 6 3 0 16 1997 6 3 0 32 1989 6 2 1 4 2005 6 1 1 16
While no Duke team in at least the last 37 years had only one upperclassman play 300+ minutes, as this year's edition will, there have been eight Duke teams under Coach K that had just two upperclassmen, and three of those eight made the Final Four, including the powerhouse 1999 team and the 2001 national champions.
The obvious conclusion is that talent can overcome experience. For example, all three of the above-mentioned Final Four teams had four or more players who were top 15 coming out of high school.
This year's team has five (Trevon, Marvin, Wendell, Gary, and Marques). Since the dawn of the RSCI 20 years ago, it will be Duke's ninth team with four or more top 15 players on its roster:
This year's team will be only the third Duke team with five top 15 players, though of course one of those teams was last year's, proving that talent doesn't guarantee anything, either. For what it's worth, we've only had four teams with two or fewer top 15 players, including the 2012 and 2014 first round busts, but also the very experienced 2013 Elite Eight team and the 2010 national champions, perhaps showing the value of upperclassmen.Code:Year jr/sr fr/so top 15 top 25 top 35 top 100 NCAA finish 2004 2 5 5 6 7 7 4 2017 3 4 5 8 10 10 32 2018 1 6 5 6 7 9 ? 2015 4 5 4 6 8 9 1 1999 2 6 4 8 9 9 2 2003 4 4 4 6 8 9 16 2009 6 3 4 7 8 12 16 2001 2 5 4 6 7 7 1 2006 4 3 4 6 6 9 16
It's also worth noting that the youth on the 1999, 2001, and 2004 teams were mostly sophomores, rather than freshmen (each of those teams had just one freshman in the rotation). The only other Duke team under Coach K with four freshmen in its top 6 players (based on minutes played) was the 1983 team that went 11-17.
This will be just the eleventh Duke team under Coach K with multiple freshmen in the top 6 (four of those eleven have come in the past four seasons). It's a mixed bag:
4: 2018, 1983
3: 2015, 1998, 2016, 2000, 1995
2: 2006, 2003, 2017, 2007
So the jury's still out on the effect of our lack of experience. This phase won't provide the answer.
(6) HYPE
Like last year's team, this season's edition is getting a lot of hype. That happens when you have a returning All-American and three of the country's best seven freshmen. But can we expect them to be as good as advertised?
Let's first take a look how these sorts of youngsters have fared in the past. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to look at minutes per game, because it gives an indication of (a) whether Coach K thought the player was deserving of playing time; (b) whether conditioning (often an issue for young players) limited playing time; and (c) whether foul trouble (again something with which young players often have trouble) limited playing time. For the purposes of this discussion, I've split the players into five groups -- top 10 interior players; 2nd 10 (11 to 20) interior players; top 10 perimeter players; 2nd 10 perimeter players; top 20 swing forwards (i.e., players who can probably best be described as SF but who played a lot of PF at Duke) (there were only two 2nd 10 swing forwards, so I lumped them in with the others). Here's the data:
TOP 10 INTERIOR PLAYERS
The only exception to heavy usage was Harry Giles, whose injuries obviously affected him. The only such freshman who played 30+ mpg was Jahlil Okafor, but (again) times have changed, though it's also possible there's a difference between top-ranked players and, e.g., 8th ranked players. I think we can expect 30+ mpg from Marvin Bagley and 25+ from Wendell Carter.Code:Player Rank Frosh min Soph min J Okafor 1 30.1 J McRoberts 1 24.5 35.3 C Boozer 8 23.7 25.6 S Williams 8 19.2 26.0 H Giles 2 11.5 M Bagley 1 ? W Carter 7 ?
SECOND 10 INTERIOR PLAYERS
Looking at this, Marques Bolden's freshman numbers were not really out of line, especially considering he was slowed by his various injuries. Looking at the sophomore numbers for this group, I think we can expect 20+ mpg from Marques.Code:Player Rank Frosh min Soph min Mas Plumlee 18 14.1 25.6 L Thomas 20 14.0 18.5 S Randolph 14 10.6 19.2 C Jeter 14 7.1 14.9 M Bolden 11 5.8 ? R Kelly 14 5.7 20.1 C Sanders 16 4.2 9.6
TOP 10 PERIMETER PLAYERS
Gerald Henderson was at the cusp of the 2nd 10 and also had asthma/conditioning problems as a freshman. Kyrie Irving also would have been higher if not for his injury. It seems clear Trevon Duval will be well over 30 mpg, probably in the 34 mpg range.Code:Player Rank Frosh min Soph min J Williams 3 34.0 31.8 Ty Jones 7 33.9 A Rivers 2 33.2 C Duhon 7 27.8 35.1 K Irving 2 27.5 G Henderson 10 19.3 26.2 T Duval 5 ?
SECOND 10 PERIMETER PLAYERS
This group ranges from 15 to 32 mpg, with those closer to 10th being in the upper 20s or lower 30s. I'd estimate Gary Trent's minutes in the 28 to 32 range.Code:Player Rank Frosh min Soph min G Paulus 13 32.3 32.4 J Redick 11 30.7 31.1 R Sulaimon 12 29.2 24.9 D Thornton 13 26.0 F Jackson 14 24.9 C Maggette 16 17.7 E Williams 15 15.2 N Smith 18 14.7 21.6 G Trent 14 ?
We don't really have a player like this on Duke's roster this season, but if we did he'd be looking at minutes in the 30s.Code:Player Rank Frosh min Soph min B Ingram 4 34.6 J Tatum 3 33.3 L Deng 2 31.1 J Parker 3 30.7 K Singler 6 28.6 32.2 J Winslow 13 29.1 D Nelson 18 19.2 21.5
What conclusions can we draw from the above analysis? Based on history, it seems likely all four freshman plus sophomore Marques Bolden should be able to play the minutes needed and expected of them. How does that translate into performance? In my view, if Coach K is willing to play a guy 20+, 25+, or 30+ mpg, that guy is probably performing accordingly. If they're not performing, he tends to play someone else.
But why should it be different than our four hyped freshmen from last season? First, Jayson Tatum and Frank Jackson fit right in to the above data. Second, Harry Giles was clearly hampered by injury. And third, based on the above data, those who expected Marques Bolden to carry a significantly heavier load had unrealistic expectations. Based on the data, he was never going to play much more than 10 mpg on last year's team and he had multiple injuries to boot (so to speak).
OK, great, they're all going to play. So how good will the team be? To try to answer that, I've adapted my above-mentioned system to rank this year's team among Duke teams of this millennium, by multiplying each player's score by the percentage of the team's minutes he played, and then adding them all together. For the purpose of this exercise, I've made an educated guess as to each player's minutes, as follows (and I'm assuming either Marvin or Javin can play 10 to 15 mpg at SF):
GUESS
Grayson Allen: 36 mpg
Trevon Duval: 34 mpg
Marvin Bagley: 30 mpg
Gary Trent: 30 mpg
Wendell Carter: 25 mpg
Marques Bolden: 23 mpg
Javin DeLaurier: 14 mpg
Jordan Tucker: 3 mpg
Alex O'Connell: 2 mpg
Jack White: 2 mpg
Antonio Vrankovic: 1 mpg
Here's how that roster and minute distribution would rank:
This comparison isn't entirely apples-to-apples, because to rank really high on this list you have to have top 10 players staying multiple years, or at least top 20 seniors (Grayson was #24, so for these purposes he's not a top 20 senior), and that really doesn't happen so much any more. But defining talent as a blend of ability and experience, this year's team should be more talented than any Duke team since Coach K embraced the one-and-done culture, significantly better than even the 2015 team.Code:Year Score NCAAT 2001 112.86 1 2004 120.70 4 2006 123.50 16 2009 127.76 16 2002 133.69 16 2010 138.01 1 2008 142.33 32 2011 148.61 16 2018 152.80 ? 2000 154.09 16 2003 155.17 16 2005 162.14 16 2015 168.87 1 2017 176.05 32 2007 178.38 64 2013 183.29 8 2014 185.19 64 2012 188.23 64 2016 204.66 16
So we've got that going for us.Last edited by Kedsy; 10-12-2017 at 06:44 PM.
-
10-12-2017, 06:37 PM #2
Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
Part Two:
-
10-12-2017, 06:56 PM #3
Member
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- New York, NY
Annnnndddddddd, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Originally Posted by Kedsy
Thanks, Kedsy!!! Too much information for me to even try a response. So I'll just say thanks, reread daily, and let others have at the discussion.
- Chillin
-
10-12-2017, 07:08 PM #4
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Thanks Kedsy. That’s quite an analysis!
I actually DO get a good sense of how the team will do based on the CTC
I’ve correctly predicted exactly how far in the tourney we will go immediately after the CTC for the past 3 seasons.
Hopefully I will get to go to CTC this year— they are only selling tickets as part of a package deal with a football and WBB game that I can’t attend.
Bring back the individual game ticket for CTC!!!
-
10-12-2017, 07:16 PM #5
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Too much to read!
-
10-12-2017, 07:46 PM #6
On Holiday
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Deeetroit City
I have a more basic complaint, too well done! It leaves no room for reasonable argument. Alas, no minutes discussion for an entire year! Originally Posted by Indoor66
-
10-12-2017, 07:47 PM #7
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Hudson Valley
Kedsy's analysis
"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Kedsy again."
My comment was going to be:
"Wow - but I am a little overwhelmed - give me a day or so to digest this.
So - What does it all mean leading into the year?"
-
10-12-2017, 08:06 PM #8
Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
I just realized I mashed two concepts together in my conclusion of the free throw section. Free throw rate has nothing to do with how well we shoot free throws. With the driving ability of Grayson, Trevon, and Gary, and with the (hopefully) unstoppability inside of Marvin and Wendell (and maybe Marques), we should get fouled a lot. Our free throw rate should be high and we should rank high on the above list. Originally Posted by Kedsy
My concluding sentence was speaking to whether us shooting a lot of free throws will be a good thing or not. Outside of Grayson, the jury's still out.
-
10-12-2017, 08:09 PM #9
Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
I think it means that absent injuries we should be really, really good. But with our youth, our as-yet-unproven defensive ability, and the high amount of luck needed to succeed in the NCAA tournament, I don't think we can say more than that. Originally Posted by Tappan Zee Devil
-
10-12-2017, 11:14 PM #10
Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
I like the tradition that K has developed of playing the defending D2 champs, and also trying to get the champ from another of the college leagues. They may not have as much talent, but they are always cohesive and solid.
The point you brought up about true low-post talent is very interesting, we have 3 on the same team whereas we are usually pretty lucky just to have one. Pair that with our dearth of dynamic wing players (as is generally assumed, although it is always possible someone defies expectations), and this is a rather unusual Duke squad.
As for defense, although the height of this team certainly lends itself to rebounding potential and post defense, i hadn't really thought of the length of this team in terms of its effects on disrupting passing lanes and otherwise disrupting the opponent's offense.
The shortest player among those with potential to be "in the rotation" or rotation+, is Duval at 6'3, and then Grayson at 6'5. Those are both average to above-average height for the PG and SG positions. We're not as freakishly tall as FSU has been lately, but we have 5 guys 6'10 or taller (and J Robinson is listed as 6'9 now) 4 of 5 of our 6'10+ guys are excellent athletes, and 4 of the 5 are highly skilled. Vrank is a good not great athlete (he's 7'0 and moves so smoothly) but he doesn't jump really high or run super fast, but he has pretty nice skills, good hands, good coordination, nice touch around the rim. Javin otoh is an excellent run-jump athlete, but hasn't shown much skill. They're almost the inverse of each other.
I'm excited to see what this team can do.
-
10-12-2017, 11:29 PM #11
Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
Wow, I hadn't realized that. I guess genes will out. Another couple inches and maybe Justin can be the answer to our big man shortage in 2018-19... Originally Posted by DukieInBrasil
-
10-13-2017, 09:57 AM #12
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Raleigh, NC
I think by way of the balance of the offense you mentioned, 3pt shooting should be pretty good. Why? In previous years, teams keyed in on preventing the 3s against Duke. Now, with legit post offense, they have to pick their poison. We might see way more open looks this year than in any other season, outside of the season where the offense was "miss a shot and let Zoubek kick the offensive board out for an open 3." Originally Posted by Kedsy
-
10-13-2017, 02:52 PM #13
Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Nashville
What an amazing, post, can't imagine my only reaction being about length
My main concern is lack of shooting. You address that in terms of the volume of threes that we'll likely be taking ending up close enough to our desired amount due to Grayson doing his best impersonation of JJ, which when it's put like that gives me some comfort. Still, though, I just hate that opposing defenses really only need to worry about one guy on the perimeter, especially if it makes it easier to defend us when Trevon is running pick and roll with Bagley or Carter. Do you have any comments on what we might do to combat that? Do we use Grayson to run the pick and roll? Or are we just so good in all other aspects offensively that we can overpower teams that plan to chase Grayson and pack everyone else in?
ETA: you also point out that we have reason to think we'll be good at the other "easy bucket" competencies as well, but I worry that looking at them in isolation ignores the fact that all those other areas will be challenged more than we would expect because they exist within the context of not a lot of outside shooting threats.Last edited by brlftz; 10-13-2017 at 02:59 PM.
-
10-13-2017, 03:25 PM #14
Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
I don't think guarding Duke will be nearly as simple as "chase Grayson and pack everyone else in." First of all, I assume we'll be running constant off-ball screens for Grayson, including baseline screens through the crowded paint area, so "chasing Grayson" won't be nearly as easy as it sounds. Second, we haven't spoken much about Gary Trent, but his scouting report says he's a potential big-time scorer. If teams just pack it in, and Gary is not guarded closely and/or is guarded by the opponent's weakest defender, then when Gary gets the ball I assume mostly good things would happen. Finally, if Trevon drives hard at the basket (easy to do if they're laying off him), someone will have to step up to him and he's skilled enough to take advantage when that happens. Originally Posted by brlftz
What an amazing, post, can't imagine my only reaction being about length
My main concern is lack of shooting. You address that in terms of the volume of threes that we'll likely be taking ending up close enough to our desired amount due to Grayson doing his best impersonation of JJ, which when it's put like that gives me some comfort. Still, though, I just hate that opposing defenses really only need to worry about one guy on the perimeter, especially if it makes it easier to defend us when Trevon is running pick and roll with Bagley or Carter. Do you have any comments on what we might do to combat that? Do we use Grayson to run the pick and roll? Or are we just so good in all other aspects offensively that we can overpower teams that plan to chase Grayson and pack everyone else in?
ETA: you also point out that we have reason to think we'll be good at the other "easy bucket" competencies as well, but I worry that looking at them in isolation ignores the fact that all those other areas will be challenged more than we would expect because they exist within the context of not a lot of outside shooting threats.
Having said all that, you may be right if we really can't shoot at all and it's too crowded in the post to convert down there, but I think we still should be OK if we look at the other "easy bucket" options: (a) fast breaks shouldn't be affected at all by the defensive strategy you're worrying about; (b) even if they pack it in, with our personnel we still have a pretty good chance at offensive rebounds; and (c) with other teams so intent on stopping our big men inside, and with Trevon and Gary and Grayson (and maybe Marvin) driving hard to the rim, we should still get to the line a lot, maybe even more so if it's that crowded inside the restricted arc. So even if a particular opponent manages to keep Grayson from shooting and also deny entry passes, we still should have at least three easy ways to score.
-
10-13-2017, 03:34 PM #15
Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Nashville
Thanks, and I too am prevented from providing richly deserved sporks. Originally Posted by Kedsy
The thought of Grayson zinging through a maze of screens makes me happy, I'm looking forward to that. Our success with JJ is helping me envision this working even with only 1 shooter. If Gary's reputation as a dangerous scorer carries over into college, though, we'll be in GREAT shape. There's also the possibility that Javin shows a dimension we haven't seen yet. Even just as a spot up shooter, if he's reliable that helps a ton I think.
-
10-13-2017, 05:45 PM #16
Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Mount Kisco, NY
Yeoman's work on this Phase post.
Interesting that the for the historical "easy score" categories, we haven't done well in most of them since 2010, save for 3 point shooting.
As someone with no inside sources, all I can do is try and read the tea leaves of K's comments, player comments, etc. My current reading is that Bagley is an absolute monster. We already know that Grayson qualifies as such on the college level. If Duval can orchestrate enough good shots for the two of them, and the other rotation guys are willing to find a niche, our offense will be fine. You basically indicate that Duke's offense is always fine and will be again, and I agree.
Defense? We can only hope.
I do think Bagley is X factor.
-
10-13-2017, 08:10 PM #17
Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- San Francisco
Yeah, Bagley's a monster, but a somewhat wiry monster. I'll be looking for the extent to which he gets pushed around underneath by the Udoka Azuibuikes of the world. Originally Posted by Billy Dat
As for Kedsy, we can't be assigning phase posts to people who are going to do a half-arse job with it."I don't like them when they are eating my azaleas or rhododendrons or pansies." - Coach K
-
10-13-2017, 08:19 PM #18
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
Defense
As usual, I’m more worried about the defense than anything else. The lack of experience is a big concern, because knowing your role and how to work together has always seemed to be key to Duke’s man-to-man. This team is very athletic and, yes, long, and that may mean better defense. Lord knows Calipari has put together some good defenses with young teams. But I’ll believe it when I see it. Originally Posted by Billy Dat
-
10-13-2017, 09:14 PM #19
Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Mount Kisco, NY
Kedsy made the point about how maybe as we recruited offensive dynamos the D just suffered regardless of our experience. Our most experienced recent squad, the 2013 team, only got as high as 26..which is a bit of a recent high water mark save for the post-season run in 2015, but that squad also was hurt by Kelly's injury and Curry not being able to practice. It was easy to overlook, during the "lean" immediate post JJ years, that we were very good defensively...and those were some young teams, especially 2007 and that was a top 5 defense. It's really a head scratcher. Originally Posted by MChambers
-
10-14-2017, 04:08 PM #20
Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
A friend of mine was at the Duke campus store with his daughter and they realized Bagley was standing nearby. He said Bagley is truly a huge looking guy. They are both avid Duke fans so is was a thrill to meet and greet the kid. Originally Posted by gam7
Similar Threads
-
2017 French Open and 2017 Wimbledon Championships
By Troublemaker in forum Off TopicReplies: 101Last Post: 07-19-2017, 05:31 PM -
Phase IV - 2016-2017 Season (Miami - Unc)
By superdave in forum Elizabeth King ForumReplies: 48Last Post: 02-10-2017, 01:46 PM -
Phase 0 2015-2016 (Exhibitions)
By SilkyJ in forum Elizabeth King ForumReplies: 33Last Post: 11-05-2015, 06:19 PM -
Phase V
By sagegrouse in forum Elizabeth King ForumReplies: 58Last Post: 03-08-2012, 01:34 PM -
2008 Phase VI(review); Phase VII(the future)
By devildeac in forum Elizabeth King ForumReplies: 2Last Post: 04-05-2008, 02:53 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
