Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 420
  1. #1

    Tracking Duke’s Defense

    From COYS’ Phase I post:

    No matter what defense Duke employs, keep a close eye on opponent 2pt% and turnover rates as indicators for which direction this Duke team is trending. The Michigan State game will be an excellent early test of this young Duke team’s defense.
    Excellent advice. Why don’t we do exactly that here.

  2. #2
    Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:

    2-point%: .367
    3-point%: .424
    %threes: 52.4%
    eFG%: 50.8%

    TO%: 20.2%
    DR%: 82.5%
    FTRate: 11.1%
    oRating: 0.91

    Everything good except letting them hit 42+% of their three-point shots.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:

    2-point%: .367
    3-point%: .424
    %threes: 52.4%
    eFG%: 50.8%

    TO%: 20.2%
    DR%: 82.5%
    FTRate: 11.1%
    oRating: 0.91

    Everything good except letting them hit 42+% of their three-point shots.
    Couple other things to add:

    A/TO: 1:1.5
    Assist rate: 40%
    Block %: 4.8% (10% of 2s)
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:

    2-point%: .367
    3-point%: .424
    %threes: 52.4%
    eFG%: 50.8%

    TO%: 20.2%
    DR%: 82.5%
    FTRate: 11.1%
    oRating: 0.91

    Everything good except letting them hit 42+% of their three-point shots.
    Just a question. Is there a "good" and "not so good" on percent of shots taken from two-point range, or is the stat just a weighting mechanism to determine effective field goal percentage?
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:

    2-point%: .367
    3-point%: .424
    %threes: 52.4%
    eFG%: 50.8%

    TO%: 20.2%
    DR%: 82.5%
    FTRate: 11.1%
    oRating: 0.91

    Everything good except letting them hit 42+% of their three-point shots.
    It does seem that given our size lots of opponents will resort to distance shots. I assume K will be happy to have teams make that adjustment if it means they aren't making easy baskets at the rim.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    As Troublemaker pointed out in the Elon post-game thread, Duke has allowed the opposing team to shoot a lot of threes relative to past Duke teams in all three of the exhibitions and now also the first real game. This is such a drastic departure from past Duke teams. If this trend continues, it’s possible my focus on opponent 2pt% and turnover rate could be a little misguided . . . Although if we’re allowing more threes then it is perhaps even more imperative that we limit opponents from taking and making two point shots.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Just a question. Is there a "good" and "not so good" on percent of shots taken from two-point range, or is the stat just a weighting mechanism to determine effective field goal percentage?
    I don't know that it's a matter of good or not good, but as COYS points out, it has always been a main goal of our defense to limit three-point attempts, since (as we all know) a made three is worth 1.5 of a made two. Here's 30 years worth of data:

    Code:
    Year	% 3s	%2s	3 pt success	2 pt success	1.5*3 succ
    2017	28.8%	71.2%	0.293		0.489		0.440
    2016	24.1%	75.9%	0.307		0.503		0.461
    2015	27.8%	72.2%	0.314		0.463		0.471
    2014	24.1%	75.9%	0.307		0.503		0.461
    2013	26.9%	73.1%	0.29		0.462		0.435
    2012	24.1%	75.9%	0.317		0.470		0.476
    2011	24.6%	75.4%	0.324		0.432		0.486
    2010	25.4%	74.6%	0.282		0.441		0.423
    2009	26.0%	74.0%	0.338		0.468		0.507
    2008	25.0%	75.0%	0.329		0.470		0.494
    2007	24.3%	75.7%	0.315		0.457		0.473
    2006	21.3%	78.7%	0.304		0.464		0.456
    2005	20.9%	79.1%	0.305		0.413		0.458
    2004	25.2%	74.8%	0.324		0.435		0.486
    2003	25.1%	74.9%	0.346		0.477		0.519
    2002	26.3%	73.7%	0.303		0.464		0.455
    2001	24.4%	75.6%	0.344		0.439		0.516
    2000	24.6%	75.4%	0.358		0.437		0.537
    1999	25.6%	74.4%	0.301		0.422		0.452
    1998	25.0%	75.0%	0.305		0.447		0.458
    1997	23.4%	76.6%	0.340		0.447		0.510
    1996	27.0%	73.0%	0.335		0.475		0.503
    1995	24.2%	75.8%	0.390		0.454		0.585
    1994	23.1%	76.9%	0.297		0.450		0.446
    1993	19.9%	80.1%	0.289		0.481		0.434
    1992	20.4%	79.6%	0.377		0.490		0.566
    1991	19.4%	80.6%	0.347		0.468		0.521
    1990	15.4%	84.6%	0.337		0.472		0.506
    1989	18.2%	81.8%	0.320		0.446		0.480
    1988	16.3%	83.7%	0.351		0.471		0.527
    1987	13.9%	86.1%	0.335		0.472		0.503
    Obviously we've only seen one game and two exhibitions so far, but our three opponents' aggregate info looks like this:

    Code:
    Year	% 3s	%2s	3 pt success	2 pt success	1.5*3 succ
    2018	49.2%	50.8%	0.336		0.317		0.504
    Since our previous team "record" for highest percentage of opponents' threes was 28.8% (set last season), the fact that almost half our opponents shots so far have been threes is a big change.

    The imbalance between opponents' two-point efficiency vs. three-point efficiency should also be something to watch this season. In four of the past five seasons, two-pointers have been more efficient against us than three-pointers (the exception being 2015 when they were close to even). But before 2013, in only five of the 26 seasons since the three-point shot was adopted were two-point shots more efficient against us than three-point shots (though 2010 was one of the five). Perhaps our defensive strategy this season is trying to deal with the recent trend?

    Presumably, the two efficiencies should be close to even (because if they're not then you have an exploitable flaw). In any event, we've never had anything close to a difference in efficiencies of .187 (.504 - .317). In only six of the 31 seasons since they adopted the three was our absolute difference larger than .055 (1988, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001), and in only two seasons was the absolute difference larger than .080 (2000: .100 and 1995: .131).

    Put another way, if our opponents' efficiency from two and three stay the same, then if we can lower the number of three-attempts they make our defense will get that much more effective. Even if attempting to limit opposing threes would increase opposing two-point efficiency, it would still seem to be a good strategy until the relative efficiencies were at least close to even.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:

    2-point%: .367
    3-point%: .424
    %threes: 52.4%
    eFG%: 50.8%

    TO%: 20.2%
    DR%: 82.5%
    FTRate: 11.1%
    dRating: 0.91
    Duke defensive stats vs. UVU:

    2-point%: .452
    3-point%: .240
    %threes: 37.3%
    eFG%: 41.8%

    TO%: 24.5%
    DR%: 62.8%
    FTRate: 23.9%
    dRating: 0.89

    A/to: 1:1.46
    Asst Rate: 52.0%
    Block %: 10.4% (16.7% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: -.092 (opposing two efficiency much better than opposing three efficiency)

    So, overall good but defensive rebounding and allowing easy cuts for twos less good.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. UVU:

    2-point%: .452
    3-point%: .240
    %threes: 37.3%
    eFG%: 41.8%

    TO%: 24.5%
    DR%: 62.8%
    These are UK's corresponding defensive stats against UVU:

    2-point: .474
    3-point: .278
    %threes: 32.1%
    eFG%: 45.5%

    TO%: 29.2%
    DR%: 55.6%

    So, we rebounded against Utah Valley better than Kentucky did and held UVU to a lower shooting percentage, but UK turned them over a lot more. And UVU attempted a higher percentage of threes against Duke than against UK. Our overall defensive efficiency (0.89) was a little better than Kentucky's (0.92).

  10. #10
    Duke defensive stats vs. Michigan State:

    2-point%: .611
    3-point%: .360
    %threes: 41.0%
    eFG%: 58.2%

    TO%: 22.5%
    DR%: 65.6%
    FT Rate: 29.5%
    dRating: 1.07

    A/to: 1.47:1
    Asst Rate: 80.6%
    Block %: 8.2% (13.9% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: -.071 (opposing two efficiency much better than opposing three efficiency)

    Considering that Marvin only played 10 minutes, this isn't bad against the #2 team in the country. But their 2-pt efficiency was really good (for them, bad for us). Lucky for us (or maybe it had little to do with luck), they took a lot of threes.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Michigan State:

    2-point%: .611
    3-point%: .360
    %threes: 41.0%
    eFG%: 58.2%

    TO%: 22.5%
    DR%: 65.6%
    FT Rate: 29.5%
    dRating: 1.07

    A/to: 1.47:1
    Asst Rate: 80.6%
    Block %: 8.2% (13.9% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: -.071 (opposing two efficiency much better than opposing three efficiency)

    Considering that Marvin only played 10 minutes, this isn't bad against the #2 team in the country. But their 2-pt efficiency was really good (for them, bad for us). Lucky for us (or maybe it had little to do with luck), they took a lot of threes.
    It sure felt like MSU hit more than 36% of threes when watching in real time.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Getting back on D and preventing uncontested layups - or, "rim runs" as the kids today like to say - might help our defensive efficiency.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by TKG View Post
    Getting back on D and preventing uncontested layups - or, "rim runs" as the kids today like to say - might help our defensive efficiency.
    Seriously. Felt like 60% of MSU points were on breaks or threes. They sure didn't get to the rim on sets like teams in past years.

    I was really pleased with our half court D against a solid, experienced, and disciplined team.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Michigan State:

    2-point%: .611
    3-point%: .360
    %threes: 41.0%
    eFG%: 58.2%

    TO%: 22.5%
    DR%: 65.6%
    FT Rate: 29.5%
    dRating: 1.07

    A/to: 1.47:1
    Asst Rate: 80.6%
    Block %: 8.2% (13.9% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: -.071 (opposing two efficiency much better than opposing three efficiency)

    Considering that Marvin only played 10 minutes, this isn't bad against the #2 team in the country. But their 2-pt efficiency was really good (for them, bad for us). Lucky for us (or maybe it had little to do with luck), they took a lot of threes.
    There was a moment in the first half where our 2-point defense was really, really good after we gave up those first three easy fast-break buckets. We didn't actually block any shots during this span, but our bigs altered a few and we forced some weird jumpers/floaters instead of letting MSU players get to the rim. Then Marvin got hurt and fouls started to mount for some of our guys, which seemed to limit their ability to contest shots. Also, because of Marvin's absence and foul trouble, we used a few less-than-idea lineups. Of course, in the second half, our bigs struggled with foul trouble for the entire half, so those same problems persisted.

    I'm hoping that the high 2pt% is related to the combination of foul trouble and playing without Marvin. Getting Marvin back should improve both (we'll have an extra five fouls to give in the post and we won't have to play a lineup with JGold, Vrank, AND Alex on the court at the same time in the first half of a competitive game). We might not have been excellent at preventing a high percentage from two, but I bet it would have been at least a little bit better.
    Who needs a moral victory when you can have a real one?

  15. #15
    Duke defensive stats vs. Southern:

    2-point%: .300
    3-point%: .412
    %threes: 25.4%
    eFG%: 38.1%

    TO%: 11.6%
    DR%: 71.1%
    FT Rate: 22.4%
    dRating: 0.88

    A/to: 1:1
    Asst Rate: 36.4%
    Block %: 14.9% (20.0% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: 23.7 (opposing three efficiency WAAAAAY better than opposing two efficiency)

    We stifled their inside game but they hit their threes. Good news is they didn't take so many threes, on a percentage basis. Also, we only forced 8 turnovers, which is pretty bad against a team like Southern.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Our two best turnover-producing games so far have been the two games we used zone -- Utah Valley and MSU. (Although for Utah Valley, we only used it for the last 60% of the game or so).

    As I wrote elsewhere, I have a strong gut feeling this pattern will continue where zone produces more opponent turnovers than man.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Yep

    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Our two best turnover-producing games so far have been the two games we used zone -- Utah Valley and MSU. (Although for Utah Valley, we only used it for the last 60% of the game or so).

    As I wrote elsewhere, I have a strong gut feeling this pattern will continue where zone produces more opponent turnovers than man.
    It's certainly the case that Duke's man defense hasn't produced as many turnovers in recent years as in the past. You'd think this roster might be able to produce more, with long, quick players, but maybe not.

  18. #18
    Duke defensive stats vs. Furman:

    2-point%: .457
    3-point%: .310
    %threes: 45.3%
    eFG%: 46.1%

    TO%: 19.4%
    DR%: 66.7%
    FT Rate: 9.4%
    dRating: 0.94

    A/to: 1.08:1
    Asst Rate: 52.0%
    Block %: 12.5% (22.9% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: 0.8, basically a wash between twos and threes.

    Considering how good our offense was tonight, the defense was more than adequate.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Duke defensive stats vs. Furman:

    2-point%: .457
    3-point%: .310
    %threes: 45.3%
    eFG%: 46.1%

    TO%: 19.4%
    DR%: 66.7%
    FT Rate: 9.4%
    dRating: 0.94

    A/to: 1.08:1
    Asst Rate: 52.0%
    Block %: 12.5% (22.9% of twos)

    Efficiency difference: 0.8, basically a wash between twos and threes.

    Considering how good our offense was tonight, the defense was more than adequate.
    Kedsy Knowing youre a stats geek. Do you have a chart of all the games, or a whole season average?

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Skitzle View Post
    Kedsy Knowing youre a stats geek. Do you have a chart of all the games, or a whole season average?
    Right now I have both. As the season advances, I'll probably stop keeping the game-by-game.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 617
    Last Post: 06-22-2017, 03:35 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-17-2015, 03:42 PM
  3. Dork Poll Tracking 2012-13
    By mr. synellinden in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 11:41 AM
  4. Dork Poll tracking (Pomeroy-Sagarin)
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 275
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 04:23 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
  •