PDA

View Full Version : Help with a statistic please



gofurman
02-05-2009, 10:16 AM
I saw something that said Duke was like 21-1 in their last 22 games played in January? And then something far worse in February?

Can anyone perhaps give me Dukes record in last 25 games in Jan?
And then Duke record in last 25 games played in Feb? MUCH APPRECIATED

Would be curious - tks

CDu
02-05-2009, 10:24 AM
I saw something that said Duke was like 21-1 in their last 22 games played in January? And then something far worse in February?

Can anyone perhaps give me Dukes record in last 25 games in Jan?
And then Duke record in last 25 games played in Feb? MUCH APPRECIATED

Would be curious - tks

ESPN has these stats pretty easily calculated. We are 23-3 in January over our last three seasons. Two of those losses came in 2007. We are 11-8 in February in that time, although we still have much of this February to go. We had five of those losses in 2007.

mr. synellinden
02-05-2009, 05:19 PM
ESPN has these stats pretty easily calculated. We are 23-3 in January over our last three seasons. Two of those losses came in 2007. We are 11-8 in February in that time, although we still have much of this February to go. We had five of those losses in 2007.

Weight training.

I have no specific knowledge of how much Duke does as a program, but we consistently seem to be less "strong" than other teams. Perhaps, it is a function of having more demanding academic schedules or training philosophy. But we do seem to have been wearing out the last few seasons and those stats are striking. Do we weight train during the season? January is as much filled with ACC games as February, so something is going on.

Take Kyle for instance. He looked filled out a little to start the season - but not twenty pounds of muscle filled out. And so far his seasonal performance is matching his trajectory last season. Through the beginning of February, he was playing at an All-ACC level, and then tailed off drastically. And I fear that might be happening again. He is too good of a talent for the difference in quality of play that we have seen the last four games or so to be a coincidence. Is he tired? Is Nolan? Is Jon?

Who knows? Maybe. Is our style of defending a contributing factor? I don't know. But those Jan. Feb. won-loss stats are very striking and I wonder what its main contributing factors are.

Bluedog
02-05-2009, 05:39 PM
Who knows? Maybe. Is our style of defending a contributing factor? I don't know. But those Jan. Feb. won-loss stats are very striking and I wonder what its main contributing factors are.

I also think that we just happen to play better competition in Feb. We usually play 1-2 easy out of conference opponents in Jan. Plus, we always play UNC in Feb and never in Jan. Not saying that accounts for it all, but it certainly skews the statistics.

mr. synellinden
02-05-2009, 05:43 PM
I also think that we just happen to play better competition in Feb. We usually play 1-2 easy out of conference opponents in Jan. Plus, we always play UNC in Feb and never in Jan. Not saying that accounts for it all, but it certainly skews the statistics.

I don't know if that's true. I think we play most teams that we play twice once in Jan. and once in Feb. The UNC portion wouldn't account for such a big discrepancy. I think we think it's a tougher schedule because we remember losing more games in Feb. It might be reverse perception.

gofurman
02-05-2009, 09:25 PM
I also think that we just happen to play better competition in Feb. We usually play 1-2 easy out of conference opponents in Jan. Plus, we always play UNC in Feb and never in Jan. Not saying that accounts for it all, but it certainly skews the statistics.

I think you have a point - and one we have considered... but not one that justifies THAT much of a difference. Yes we play UNC in Feb and, like this year, perhaps have a few easier (2?) games in Jan but the difference is too striking. I will be most disappointed if this trend holds this year since so much lip service was given to it by Jon and Kyle as to how they were ready for March this year... we shall see. ALso, K was supposed to be holding slightly easier practices and he said he would keep in mind the recent March slides throughout the year and we would be more strong this time. Plus our players are older and should be mentally and physically stronger - we returned pretty much everyone.

If - and I hope not - the slide happens this year someone needs to get up the *** of the coaching staff. As brilliant as the staff is, 3 years of same downward trajectory is NOT a coincidence. 2 years, perhaps coincidence, 3 years TREND and due to something for sure...

kill miami!

CDu
02-06-2009, 12:45 AM
I also think that we just happen to play better competition in Feb. We usually play 1-2 easy out of conference opponents in Jan. Plus, we always play UNC in Feb and never in Jan. Not saying that accounts for it all, but it certainly skews the statistics.

The non-conference games argument actually leans in favor of February being easier. Over the span I described, here are our non-conference games:

Jan: Temple, Cornell, Temple, Davidson, and Georgetown.
Feb: St John's, St John's, St John's.

I'd argue that the three of the easiest of those games were the St John's games, and they were in February. Temple was a cakewalk one year and a tougher game one year. Davidson and Georgetown weren't easy games by any means.

Also, UNC accounts for only one of the February losses (in 2007, as we got the win last year in February). So if you take out non-conference games and UNC games, we're 18-3 in January and 7-7 in February over that span.

devil84
02-06-2009, 07:48 AM
February would mark the time that, if we play a conference team twice, we'll play them the second time. It stands to reason that the experience gained by the losing team in the first game will be used to their advantage in the second.

ice-9
02-06-2009, 01:19 PM
February would mark the time that, if we play a conference team twice, we'll play them the second time. It stands to reason that the experience gained by the losing team in the first game will be used to their advantage in the second.

As it would us, no?

Hard to see how this statistic isn't troubling. I agree with a previous poster who said that if we repeat the same downward slide in February this year, I would be concerned.

That said, looking at our remaining February games we could very well end up at 4-3 including the Clemson loss. But if we can split a game between Wake and UNC and take care of business the rest of the way and end up at 5-2, I guess that's not so bad. 6-1 would be more in line with keeping to January excellence though.

We play FSU and @UNC in March.

CDu
02-06-2009, 01:26 PM
As it would us, no?

Hard to see how this statistic isn't troubling. I agree with a previous poster who said that if we repeat the same downward slide in February this year, I would be concerned.

That said, looking at our remaining February games we could very well end up at 4-3 including the Clemson loss. But if we can split a game between Wake and UNC and take care of business the rest of the way and end up at 5-2, I guess that's not so bad. 6-1 would be more in line with keeping to January excellence though.

We play FSU and @UNC in March.

In fairness, this year the schedule is actually tougher in February than January. We play @Clemson, UNC, Miami, Wake, FSU, @BC, and @Va Tech. In January, our toughest games were @Wake, @FSU, Va Tech, Davidson and G'Town.

But I agree - if it's actually a trend and not random variation, it's a point of concern. We shouldn't be consistently performing worse in February than in January. Ideally, we'd be getting stronger at least as much as our opponents, not having them catch up to us. Hopefully, it's not a real trend.

devil84
02-07-2009, 12:06 AM
February would mark the time that, if we play a conference team twice, we'll play them the second time. It stands to reason that the experience gained by the losing team in the first game will be used to their advantage in the second.


As it would us, no?

Yes. But the winner of the first game doesn't need to change their strategies that worked (that would generally be us, assuming we played in January and won). The team with the loss (that would be "them") will change their offense/defense. We know what their weaknesses were that we exploited, but they'll change those weaknesses. We won't change our scheme as much. The losing team will likely be at a greater advantage with fewer anticipated changes to the game plan from the previous matchup. Not to mention bringing yet another "best shot" for Duke which is now coupled with "revenge."

CDu
02-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Yes. But the winner of the first game doesn't need to change their strategies that worked (that would generally be us, assuming we played in January and won). The team with the loss (that would be "them") will change their offense/defense. We know what their weaknesses were that we exploited, but they'll change those weaknesses. We won't change our scheme as much. The losing team will likely be at a greater advantage with fewer anticipated changes to the game plan from the previous matchup. Not to mention bringing yet another "best shot" for Duke which is now coupled with "revenge."

My hypothesis is that we've come into the last few seasons more prepared to play early in the season than most other teams. Coach K is a master motivator, and he gets our guys ready to go very early. I think other teams have trouble with motivation and playing with full intensity early. In January, I think we win a lot of games on talent as well as focus and intensity. Teams that see us in January may come back more focused in February for the second meeting, as they realize (a) what they need to do to compete with Duke. We're already playing at that high intensity level, so there's less room to "amp it up" more. Perhaps that plays a factor, both in February and in the tournament?

devil84
02-07-2009, 09:35 AM
Teams that see us in January may come back more focused in February for the second meeting, as they realize (a) what they need to do to compete with Duke. We're already playing at that high intensity level, so there's less room to "amp it up" more. Perhaps that plays a factor, both in February and in the tournament?

Precisely. Once an opponent has played Duke (or any other team) and experienced their intensity, style of play, etc., that experience is vital to winning the second game. With Duke playing at the high intensity from Day 1, other teams may "get it" (if they aren't there already) after they play Duke (or many other top achieving programs).

Even if the team hasn't played Duke before, the experience of the previous 20 games or so has gelled the team. Every team should be nearing the peak. Every team (including Duke) is playing better ball than they did in January (which is better than December, and so on).

Don't forget the other factors, too. School, social lives, cold and flu season, full-out ACC schedule with no more OOC games so each game means so much more, complacency with how good we are or that our teammates can step it up if one takes a mental break (and they all took their mental break on the same night)...the list goes on.

Just a little reality check: most teams would give anything to have our collective February and March records.

Let's see what happens in today's game.

ice-9
02-07-2009, 09:48 AM
Precisely. Once an opponent has played Duke (or any other team) and experienced their intensity, style of play, etc., that experience is vital to winning the second game. With Duke playing at the high intensity from Day 1, other teams may "get it" (if they aren't there already) after they play Duke (or many other top achieving programs).

Even if the team hasn't played Duke before, the experience of the previous 20 games or so has gelled the team. Every team should be nearing the peak. Every team (including Duke) is playing better ball than they did in January (which is better than December, and so on).

Don't forget the other factors, too. School, social lives, cold and flu season, full-out ACC schedule with no more OOC games so each game means so much more, complacency with how good we are or that our teammates can step it up if one takes a mental break (and they all took their mental break on the same night)...the list goes on.

Just a little reality check: most teams would give anything to have our collective February and March records.

Let's see what happens in today's game.


I'd like a plausible explanation about Duke's February struggles (relative to January at least) as much as anyone here, but I wonder whether we're giving this whole "opponents improve tactics with a learning advantage in the rematch" thing too much credence? I could maybe see it when it's two evenly matched teams; two teams with about the same talent. But Duke usually has the better talent, so assuming we play at least as hard as our opponents do I don't see why we should lose the rematch.

Also, assuming the 11-8 record in February statistic is accurate, I don't think that's the kind of record an NCAA tourney team would aspire to. That's a 58% winning percentage; if applied over a 30 game season, that translates to a record of 17-13. Of course, if you mean against ACC competition that's a different story, but then at 58% that still translates to a 9-7 conference record which is just about NCAA tourney worthy but not much more.

I guess what I'm saying is that no matter how you cut it, an 11-8 record isn't that great. (Unless you're playing 19 top 25 opponents maybe.)

CDu
02-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Just a little reality check: most teams would give anything to have our collective February and March records.

Let's see what happens in today's game.

Well, I wouldn't say most teams would kill to have our February/March records over the past three years. That's kind of the point of this discussion. I'm guessing the trend doesn't carry back much further than that, when we were doing exceptionally well in the NCAA tournament.

I'm not convinced that learning is a primary factor. It MAY be a factor, as may the focus/intensity increase. As may be many other things, as you listed in your last post.