An In Depth Look at Depth

[devildeac]

Minutes played in the NCAA title game:

Kansas
Rush 42
Chalmers 40
Arthur 35
Collins 34
Jackson 29
Kaun 21
Robinson 20
Aldrich 4

Memphis
Rose 45
Douglas-Roberts 42
Anderson 42
Dozier 39
Dorsey 26
Taggart 24
Kemp 4
Mack 2
Niles 1

Take from it what you will...

KU won because their bench was much, much deeper having played 7 guys 20 minutes or more each and Memphis did not utilize their bench, therefore they were tired and lost. (please excuse me as I remove my tongue from my cheek)...I would bet that Jumbo's point is here that just about every coach 'shortens their bench' late in the year and this is pretty typical of year end games.

[whereinthehellami]

Part of it is knowing when to rest during a game. When to take a play off? Rose in particular was very effecient with using his energy. There wasn't much wasted energy, pretty remarkable for a freshman. I always think of Laettner during the 91 and 92 seasons walking down the court on offense. That must have drove teams nuts. Its amazing how simple this game is to some players.

[CDu]

Depth is, and always has been, a red herring. You win by being able to have the better team on the court for more of the game. Depth matters in making sure you can keep your best players fresh and not drop off too much when they're not in, and it matters in providing a safety net for when your best players don't have it and/or your best players are in foul trouble.

Kansas didn't have to play really deep to be great. They had seven guys who were all really good (yes, even Kaun). They could rotate those seven and keep everyone fresh while playing at an elite level. And if they ever got into foul trouble at all, they could send Aldrich, Reed, Case, or Stewart (before his injury) in to fill time, and the team would still function.

Memphis won because they had two of the best five players in the country (in my opinion) and surrounded them with long, athletic players at every position who bought into the system. They were actually pretty deep throughout the season (nine guys averaged 13+ minutes), but their depth took a hit when they lost their only backup at point guard (Allen) to suspension.

Unlike in previous years, we had pretty good depth this year. We didn't lose games this year because of lack of depth. In the Redick/Williams years, we lost some games due to lack of talent depth (i.e., not having enough top-tier players to support Redick and Williams), but not because Coach K didn't play more players.

[greybeard]

It is extremely difficult, almost impossible, to be a really good team without depth. Even if the starting 7 are set, good competition in practice seems irreplaceable.

Shortening the bench down the stretch seems to me to be an unfortunate practice. It might be an effective strategy (who knows, right), but at what cost. Coaches who shorten the bench are being hypocritical, although nobody in the profession would say it because everyone does it, even our heroes. Some heroes!

Coaching is a cool thing to have in college sports. Coaches micromanaging every part of the game is not cool, in my opinion. Coaches coming onto the court while play is going on is way uncool in my opinion. The idea that there could be a legal strategy that could deprive a team an opportunity for a game tying shot by a deliberate foul is beyond issues of cool, as is the legality of the tactic of icing the shooter; both should be legislated out of the game.

Sorry for the rant.

[ncexnyc]

I've always been critical of Coach K for what I've felt was his failure to develop his bench players. It seems to me that we've run out of gas a number of times in the NCAA's and during these games there were talented players on the bench, but they were never utilized because they hadn't gained the crunchtime seasoning that was necessary to throw them into a one and done situation.

I was firmly under the impression that 2008 was going to be different, as we were going quite deep into our bench and for some extended minutes as well. Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter. I realize the injury to Zoubek was part of this, however it seemed that McClure, King , and Smith all saw reduced playing time as the season progressed.

My point is, isn't the ultimate goal for the Duke Basketball Program a National Championship? Shouldn't we give the younger players more end game experience during the regular season, even if it means several more regular season loses? You can't be ready for March, if you've never experienced the pressure of having to play when the game is on the line.

[Jumbo]

I've always been critical of Coach K for what I've felt was his failure to develop his bench players. It seems to me that we've run out of gas a number of times in the NCAA's and during these games there were talented players on the bench, but they were never utilized because they hadn't gained the crunchtime seasoning that was necessary to throw them into a one and done situation.

I was firmly under the impression that 2008 was going to be different, as we were going quite deep into our bench and for some extended minutes as well. Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter. I realize the injury to Zoubek was part of this, however it seemed that McClure, King , and Smith all saw reduced playing time as the season progressed.

My point is, isn't the ultimate goal for the Duke Basketball Program a National Championship? Shouldn't we give the younger players more end game experience during the regular season, even if it means several more regular season loses? You can't be ready for March, if you've never experienced the pressure of having to play when the game is on the line.

I'm curious how you can rectify this statement ("Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter") with the following facts:
-Only one duke player averaged more than 30 mpg overall, and only two did in ACC games.
-The ACC Tourney would certainly count as the end of the season. Yet against Georgia Tech, 10 guys played at least six minutes, eight guys played at least 12 minutes and the bench combined to play 66 minutes. The next game, a tight loss against Clemson, one player played exactly 30 minutes (Nelson), 10 players played at least six minutes and nine players played at least 14 minutes. That's an absurd amount of depth.
-The only guy whose minutes declined consistently during the latter part of the season was Taylor King. Everyone else played pretty much the same amount of time. Nolan Smith's playing time fluctuated, but that was more performance based than linear. Note that he averaged 14.7 mpg on the season, yet went 19 minutes against Clemson and 12 against West Virginia. That's not exactly evidence of a shortened bench.

I've always said depth wasn't the number of guys you play, but the number of guys you can play. I've also always said that for people who worry strictly about guys playing too many minutes, you can distrubute starters' minutes just as conservatively with a seven-man rotation as a 10-man rotation. It's all about where a cut-off in talent occurs. For Duke this year, I saw three cut-offs in talent. Group 1: Nelson, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer (with Paulus probably thrown in there, too, I guess). Group 2: Thomas, Smith and Zoubek. Group 3: McClure and King. The first two groups, when healthy, generally played major minutes, with the exception of Zoubek on a couple of occasions where matchups dictated otherwise (i.e. WVU going really small, which made it tough to play Zoubek). And when that happened, McClure's minutes went up.

K used his reserves a lot this year because a) he actually had 10 scholarship players for a change (even after Marty got hurt) and b) there was a certain amount of parity among the players in terms of ability. Depth wasn't the problem this season, IMHO.

[greybeard]

K used his reserves a lot this year.

I agree. I think that he gave everyone of his scholarship players an appropriate opportunity to perform at meaningful times. I applaud K for this. I do not think doing so helped or hurt Duke's chances to win either individual games or throughout the season. I think it was a way cool goal that K achieved. I applaud him for it.

Somethings besides Championships are priceless.

.

[greybeard]

It might be the case that K's perspectives on the use of players, like other aspects of his approach to the game this season, were impacted by his experiences over the summer.

[bhd28]

I've always said depth wasn't the number of guys you play, but the number of guys you can play. I've also always said that for people who worry strictly about guys playing too many minutes, you can distrubute starters' minutes just as conservatively with a seven-man rotation as a 10-man rotation. It's all about where a cut-off in talent occurs. For Duke this year, I saw three cut-offs in talent. Group 1: Nelson, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer (with Paulus probably thrown in there, too, I guess). Group 2: Thomas, Smith and Zoubek. Group 3: McClure and King. The first two groups, when healthy, generally played major minutes, with the exception of Zoubek on a couple of occasions where matchups dictated otherwise (i.e. WVU going really small, which made it tough to play Zoubek). And when that happened, McClure's minutes went up.

K used his reserves a lot this year because a) he actually had 10 scholarship players for a change (even after Marty got hurt) and b) there was a certain amount of parity among the players in terms of ability. Depth wasn't the problem this season, IMHO.

Good assessment by Jumbo here. What is unfortunate is that, almost all our "big guys" (with the exception of Singler... who I feel kind of wore down at the end of the season ... around 7pppg and 4rpg the last 5 games... though he did play well vs. Virginia) are in Group 2 and Group 3. Depth isn't all about how many players play how many minutes (or even can play how many minutes), but WHERE those minutes come from and the quality of the players to whom they go. (i.e. Kansas and UNC had quality depth in their frontcourt and backcourt, where we had quality backcourt depth, but not much frontcourt depth... despite minutes played in some games). I mean Idaho State had 10 guys average double figure minutes... so they are one of the deeper teams in the country. Doesn't mean much when they go 12-19 in the Big Sky.

[Bluedawg]

IMHO, depth is only one factor in our fatigue problems.

I've wondered about this as well. I know he rotated more players than he normally does but yet they still looked fatigued. I couldn't figure that out.

We need more deapth in the post, because even if Coach K plays everyone on the bench, it won't help much if they are mostly small fowards and guards. We need depth inside and an increase in fitness IMO.

Agreed, and this has been a mantra of mine since WV. It appeared to me that their defense pushed out shooters a step or two beyond their comfort range because they didn't have to worry about an inside threat.

[MChambers]

I've wondered about this as well. I know he rotated more players than he normally does but yet they still looked fatigued. I couldn't figure that out.

Maybe, just maybe, the respiratory virus had something to do with that? Forget a big man coach, we need a new hospital. Let's get rid of the Duke Hospital and bring in the Mayo Clinic.

[greybeard]

Maybe, just maybe, the respiratory virus had something to do with that? Forget a big man coach, we need a new hospital. Let's get rid of the Duke Hospital and bring in the Mayo Clinic.

After the ACC tournament, didn't K say publicly that Singler was worn out, that he hoped the brief rest until the first round and maybe past it would allow him to recover? It didn't happen. Lance's inability to finish inside when he had the chances was somewhat disappointing; we now know that there was a contributing cause--his right hand needed surgery. The other inside player had a broken foot, and the best pull up jump shooter had a torn ligament in his wrist.

Teams overplayed the exterior players, and used their bigs, even if they were relatively small aka Belmont, to guard the basket against outside-to-the-rim penetration. With that option cut off and the bigs sub par, how could the outside game not look sluggish?

Then there is the flu, which hampered, in my opinion, the normal easy baskets that Markie and Scheyer normally would create off of steals. That put even more pressure on players like Markie to try to make something happen at the rim, against the odds.

[6th Man]

I think fatigue set in for Singler. The kid was asked to do a lot. He was almost always guarding a bigger, stronger player. He's 18, across the U.S from home, scrutinized on national TV everynight. I can't even imagine what an adjustment that had to be for him. I think Duke looked more tired as a whole even though they had some depth this year because they lacked big guys. Everyone had to take on a more physical role and you have to play intense man-to-man defense all night. If you have a couple of bangers down low that can be physical, it might lessen the load up on everyone else. As it was this season, everyone including guards had to play very physical to compete with bigger, stronger teams. Overall, that had to drain these kids physically.

[devildeac]

It might be the case that K's perspectives on the use of players, like other aspects of his approach to the game this season, were impacted by his experiences over the summer.

Hey GB,

Did you notice that you are Christian Laettner at 1149? Do you know who he is without Indoor66 looking him up or linking him for you ?(just kidding a little)

[Indoor66]

Hey GB,

Did you notice that you are Christian Laettner at 1149? Do you know who he is without Indoor66 looking him up or linking him for you ?(just kidding a little)

lol Greybeard and I are both getting older. We occasionally need a little help...

[devildeac]

lol Greybeard and I are both getting older. We occasionally need a little help...

Glad you took the gentle jab with the humor with which it was intended. Actually, I had forgotten the link to the stats page of GoDuke.com so when you remind me/us of that site/page, I find it quite useful to visit and learn a bit about the players who were a bit before my time. All in fun and in a days' postings .

[greybeard]

Hey GB,

Did you notice that you are Christian Laettner at 1149? Do you know who he is without Indoor66 looking him up or linking him for you ?(just kidding a little)

Do I have to answer that? I'm kinda liking having Indoor look out for me without using the usual rifle sight.

[ncexnyc]

I'm curious how you can rectify this statement ("Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter") with the following facts:
-Only one duke player averaged more than 30 mpg overall, and only two did in ACC games.
-The ACC Tourney would certainly count as the end of the season. Yet against Georgia Tech, 10 guys played at least six minutes, eight guys played at least 12 minutes and the bench combined to play 66 minutes. The next game, a tight loss against Clemson, one player played exactly 30 minutes (Nelson), 10 players played at least six minutes and nine players played at least 14 minutes. That's an absurd amount of depth.
-The only guy whose minutes declined consistently during the latter part of the season was Taylor King. Everyone else played pretty much the same amount of time. Nolan Smith's playing time fluctuated, but that was more performance based than linear. Note that he averaged 14.7 mpg on the season, yet went 19 minutes against Clemson and 12 against West Virginia. That's not exactly evidence of a shortened bench.

I've always said depth wasn't the number of guys you play, but the number of guys you can play. I've also always said that for people who worry strictly about guys playing too many minutes, you can distrubute starters' minutes just as conservatively with a seven-man rotation as a 10-man rotation. It's all about where a cut-off in talent occurs. For Duke this year, I saw three cut-offs in talent. Group 1: Nelson, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer (with Paulus probably thrown in there, too, I guess). Group 2: Thomas, Smith and Zoubek. Group 3: McClure and King. The first two groups, when healthy, generally played major minutes, with the exception of Zoubek on a couple of occasions where matchups dictated otherwise (i.e. WVU going really small, which made it tough to play Zoubek). And when that happened, McClure's minutes went up.

K used his reserves a lot this year because a) he actually had 10 scholarship players for a change (even after Marty got hurt) and b) there was a certain amount of parity among the players in terms of ability. Depth wasn't the problem this season, IMHO.

I pulled the info from ESPN's website, so feel free to verify it if you'd like.

Nolan Smith: In the first 22 games of the season he was in double digits for minutes in all of them, except for the Davidson game and he was a minute shy of being perfect. His average minutes per game during that 22 game span was a solid 16.
In the remaining 12 games, Nolan hit double digits in minutes played in 8 of the 12 games, but his average dropped down to 12.
Since you want to talk about Nolan's playing time during Tournament play let's include all four games, not just his best two. Against Tech, he logged only 7 minutes and against Belmont 10. As I've previously stated I feel talented players don't get a chance to shine during Tournament time as they aren't given the chance. Let's look at the minutes Smith played in the NCAA's vs those of Nelson. Smith gave us 10 minutes and 3 points against Belmont and 12 minutes and 5 points against WV. Nelson played 29 minutes against Belmont and gave us a whopping 2 points. Against WV he played 28 minutes and was good for six points. If I am not mistaken those came near the very end of the game. My question is why was Nelson given so much playing time if he wasn't producing and a quality replacement was on the bench?

David McClure: During that same 22 game span David had 4 DNP, 8 games of double digit minutes played and the Davidson game where he didn't get any minutes. His average was 10 minutes per game.
For the remaining 12 games, David had 4 double digit games and his average dropped to 8 minutes a game.

Taylor King: During the 22 game span, King had 14 double digit games, with an average of 12 minutes per game. His final 12 games as a Blue Devil saw him only breaking into double digits 3 times and his average was cut in half to 6 minutes per game.

Brian Zoubek: During the first 22 games of the season, Brian logged 9 DNP, and 8 double digit games. His average was 11 minutes per game. For the final 12 games, he logged 5 double digit games, but his average held fairly steady at 10 minutes per game.
Brian did exceptionally well in the final Clemson game, logging 20 minutes. but I'll never understand why he sat out the final 9 minutes of that game. Booker and Mays were using Thomas and Singler for human pinballs and whenever Brian was in that game, postive things seemed to happen for Duke. I was especially impressed with the way he worked with Scheyer. They seemed to have a good inside outside game going together. I agree that the Belmont and WV match-ups probably weren't good for us, but then you have to ask the question, "Isn't a match-up problem a two way street?" As I recall much was made of UNC's superior size the first time around, but many people didn't take into account that Hasbro would have to chase Singler on the perimeter and that would take away some of their rebounding advantage.

In closing, all 4 bench players did indeed see reduced minutes at the end of the season, the numbers don't lie.

[devildeac]

Do I have to answer that? I'm kinda liking having Indoor look out for me without using the usual rifle sight.

Nah, no answer necessary. That's why I added the emoticon and the parenthetical comment. I have been a huge fan for over 35 years and still have to look up some of the players from the 60's and all the players before that (except Mr. Groat, of course ).