Defense - Guard Penetration

[Billy Dat]

I think everyone watching was a little concerned at Wake's ability to drive on us at will during their 2nd half comeback last night. Ditto, Lawson shredding us last week. Obviously, that's going to be the formula, as it has been for the last few years, for trying to beat us. Wake even got what they wanted when we switched to that little 1-2-2 zone.

The question is, are Lawson, Teague/Smith so elite that you can't judge our defense's performance against them or is there a problem that will be very tough to remedy? Was Wake ability to hit those little pull-ups in the lane simply a fantastic offensive performance in a game where offense was the dominant theme for both teams - or more evidence that we can't stop penetration?

Now that EWill is starting with Nolan coming off the bench, we should be in a better position to plug the holes. But, I think we'd all agree that we can't be an even average defensive team if guards constantly beat us off the dribble.

It'll be interesting to see how we defend General Grevious this week.

[captmojo]

It looks to me that this team is best suited for playing a zone D, maybe not the 1-2-2 we saw last night though. Wake penetration was achieved by passing too, not just on the dribble. I would like to see a mix of 2-1-2 and 2-3 in combination with man-to-man. Man has to be the dominate plan so a zone on the next possession can have the "surprise" element.

Wake is a very talented group and when the NCAAs roll around, I expect them to go deep through the brackets. Their over 60% last night was no freak occurrence.

With the talent level of all guard positions in this league, it is most imperative to shield them away from the interior and higher percentage FG attempts.

[bjornolf]

I think that most guards can hit those little pull-ups in the lane. However, guards like Wake's and Carolina's hit them with more regularity than most guards and make better decisions than most guards. One reason they get those so easily is that our off the ball defenders can't afford to come help as quickly because their big men are smart and find an open lane for the pass and open dunk, and those guards are smart enough and have the court vision to hit them. Most guards DON'T have both of those two factors going for them. Therefore, most guards aren't going to GET those little jumpers quite as wide open as the guys from Wake and Carolina, cause our defense can adjust against them. Their all-around abilities, rather than in just one area, makes them harder to guard than most, but, as captmojo said, most of the ACC teams have such a guard, which I think is part of the reason we were so strong out of conference, but had more trouble in conference. That may actually play in our favor the first few rounds of the NCAAs.

[captmojo]

"A man's got to move with the times." Fishfinger in Jabberwockey


The ACC has a proliferate number of lightening quick guards. Our guys are taught a style of man D that overplays passing lanes, relying on help underneath. No one has to tell anybody that, it's been the same for years. However, this season, we don't have that defending "monster" in the middle to challenge that "would be" driver. I don't wish to mention anyone by name, but some have yet to prove to be that "monster" we've all been looking for. There is room to hope for improvement, though.

Experimental evolution should, imo, be moving this group to play a style which is predicated to keeping the opponents offensive on the perimeter. If that be a combination of zone patterns, so be it. At the very least, mindful of staying in a straight line between your man, with the ball, and the basket. Also, playing this manner in a posture of staying hands-up and on your toes, not rocked backed on your heels. "Watch your man's belt buckle", is what I was always taught. "The hips don't lie. If your man's buckle or hips turn left, he ain't going right. It's physically impossible. The eyes can lie. The head can lie. The shoulders can lie but the hips cannot." This method also places the defender in automatic position for rebounding advantage, just be sure to get your back on the shooter to block out.

I see an evolution with this team, as we all do. Now it just needs to become perfected.

[dukeENG2003]

Nolan is our best on ball defender, and got hosed on a couple hand check calls that took him out of the game. I'm confident he can turn it around and provide us with that lockdown defender when we need it coming down the stretch. Not to mention, putting a big on the opposing guard has worked as a change of pace (see McLure on McClinton and Lance in Ish Smith). This was a particularly tough situation b/c they had THREE players who could take us off the dribble almost at will in Teague, Smith, and Johnson. To me, I was more concerned with Singler's poor defense on Johnson than I was about our matchups on the guards.

[gumbomoop]

Nolan is our best on ball defender, and got hosed on a couple hand check calls that took him out of the game. I'm confident he can turn it around and provide us with that lockdown defender when we need it coming down the stretch. Not to mention, putting a big on the opposing guard has worked as a change of pace (see McLure on McClinton and Lance in Ish Smith). This was a particularly tough situation b/c they had THREE players who could take us off the dribble almost at will in Teague, Smith, and Johnson. To me, I was more concerned with Singler's poor defense on Johnson than I was about our matchups on the guards.

This is a very important issue for us this year, so this is a spot-on topic right now. I've quoted dukeENG03 here, but all posters on this new thread raise good points.

Imo, the single most important mental/psychological/character "talent" for a player in almost any sport is relentlessness. [In bball, think Havlicek, Moses Malone, Jordan.] In bball, the single most important physical talent is ball handling. It's always seemed to me that good handles lead to multiple good things, including better, though not always excelllent, shooting by the handler.

In Teague, Smith, Lawson, McClinton, Rice, Douglas, Vasquez, Delaney, the ACC has a set of unusually good handlers, almost all of whom can get into the lane virtually at will, have excellent mid-range games; and most of them are also unusually strong 3-pt bombers.

So, looked at from one perspective, no one is stopping these guys much. You gotta hope they have an off-night. Alas, they probably won't, so what to do? As previous posters note, 2 little experiments in last, what?, 5-6 minutes last night, might just have helped marginally: (1) a zone defense maybe twice? [Btw, in watching Duke-St John's '85 on ESPNClassic last Wed, I was surprised to see how much zone K used, even with a prolific backcourt defensive team of Dawkins-Amaker.] And (2), a la McClure, using LT 2-3 times on Smith.

So, I hope K at least uses zone as a surprise element, as a vibe/momentum-changer; and I'm pretty sure we'll see DMc/Lance out front in late game stages. If it's true - and it is - that UNC can't simply assume it'll outscore everyone, then it's true for us, too. I'd be happy to win, let's see, our remaining 13 games, by scoring 95 every time. But I don't count on it. We must find some defensive tics and tactics to stop big-mo. Maybe K's found a couple.

[Skitzle]

Last night's game had a LOT of possesions. Does anyone know how to calculate offensive/defensive efficiency numbers for the game? I don't... I want to know how far off they are from our previous numbers, but I would think it would provide a good background to understanding the "concern" about interior pentration

[Saratoga2]

We haven't had a defensive stopper inside like Shelden or Josh for a while now and we look more vulnerable inside. As good as Singler and Thomas are playing now, that is still inside help defense, blocking out and shot blocking are not their strengths.

The question I have is why Plumlee only played three minutes against Wake. I thought when he was in there he got involved in traps and didn't have the foul issues going. I think he might have been a reasonable sub for Thomas to give him a blow. Is there some technical issue I missed or is it just that coach K doesn't have confidence in him at this time?

[MChambers]

At one point, Duke had the best defensive ranking in Pomeroy. Have fallen all the way to 7th. I think Nolan and Z's disappointing play account for a chunk of this. I hope they can get back to where they were in January.

[roywhite]

The "book" on playing against Duke's defense is pretty well established. Attack with dribble drive, get in the lane for a shot or dish, and try to avoid charges. Elliot shows great promise as a defender, and additional experience in team defense can probably help. Additionally, IMO, the two main areas for better defense for the remainder of the year are:

1. Nolan Smith needs to play effectively and avoid foul trouble (hand checks are called frequently on him). He is able to at least slow down some of the quicker guards in the league.

2. More of a shot-blocking presence in the middle---can Miles Plumlee continue to progress, get more minutes, and swat away a few?

It's hard to believe teams can continually shoot over 50% against us; maybe they'll start "seeing a smaller rim", as Gminski might say.

[pfrduke]

Last night's game had a LOT of possesions. Does anyone know how to calculate offensive/defensive efficiency numbers for the game? I don't... I want to know how far off they are from our previous numbers, but I would think it would provide a good background to understanding the "concern" about interior pentration

In last night's game, Duke had 74 offensive possessions and Wake had 75. Our defensive efficiency was not strong - Wake scored 1.21 points per possession (our offensive efficiency, of course, was ridiculous - 1.36 points per possession).

The second half was really just an offensive freak show from both teams. Wake was ridiculous at the beginning, scoring on 19 of the first 22 possessions in the second half. Seriously. We got three stops in the first 22 possessions. Thankfully, our offense was almost equally good, scoring on 20 of the first 27 possessions of the half, and never relinquishing the lead.

[BlueintheFace]

I think that this is always an issue for us given our style of defense. Every defense has it's weaknesses and this is ours. I for one, like it over other brands. It is part of who Duke is and has always served us well. Additionally, it is not an outmoded Defense because UCLA just used it for a few final four runs (not all of them with a dominant shot blocker inside).

NOW, I am seeing a bit of overreaction here. We just played the fastest backcourt in America (maybe Marquette is up there too) with TWO guards who get a majority of their points from penetration, one of which is possibly the best in the country when he plays like he did last night, against Carolina, etc....

Sometimes good offense beats good defense. Throw your hands up, say "thats impressive," and move on.

[Skitzle]

In last night's game, Duke had 74 offensive possessions and Wake had 75. Our defensive efficiency was not strong - Wake scored 1.21 points per possession (our offensive efficiency, of course, was ridiculous - 1.36 points per possession).

The second half was really just an offensive freak show from both teams. Wake was ridiculous at the beginning, scoring on 19 of the first 22 possessions in the second half. Seriously. We got three stops in the first 22 possessions. Thankfully, our offense was almost equally good, scoring on 20 of the first 27 possessions of the half, and never relinquishing the lead.

PFR, Thanks for the info.

If you have time.... You think you could post the Points Per Possesion (O & D) for the last few games (St.Johns, BC, UNC?) and the numbers for the season as a whole.

Or you could "teach me to fish" as someone put it in one of the recruiting threads last week and show me how to find/calculate the numbers...

-Skitz

[pfrduke]

I think that this is always an issue for us given our style of defense. Every defense has it's weaknesses and this is ours.

NOW, I am seeing a bit of overreaction here. We just played the fastest backcourt in America (maybe Marquette is up there too) with TWO guards who get a majority of their points from penetration, one of which is possibly the best in the country when he plays like he did last night, against Carolina, etc....

Sometimes good offense beats good defense. Throw your hands up, say "thats impressive," and move on.

It's not just the Wake game though. Since the Clemson game, teams are throwing up ridiculous shooting numbers: efg% (fg% weighted for 3s) of .525, .553, .597, .667, .560, and .653 against us in the last 6 games.

I go back and forth on whether I not I think this is Zoubek related. Part of me says no - I watch him play recently, and he looks like a defensive liability. But part of me says his reduced usage is directly tied to our poorer defense. Even if he's not an athletic shot-blocking machine, he's still 7'1", and maybe he made guys think a little bit more about driving to the lane. There's really nothing that Thomas does to dissuade penetration, and it seems like the attacks of the lane come much stronger when he's down low than when Zoubek is.

[BlueintheFace]

It's not just the Wake game though. Since the Clemson game, teams are throwing up ridiculous shooting numbers: efg% (fg% weighted for 3s) of .525, .553, .597, .667, .560, and .653 against us in the last 6 games.

I go back and forth on whether I not I think this is Zoubek related. Part of me says no - I watch him play recently, and he looks like a defensive liability. But part of me says his reduced usage is directly tied to our poorer defense. Even if he's not an athletic shot-blocking machine, he's still 7'1", and maybe he made guys think a little bit more about driving to the lane. There's really nothing that Thomas does to dissuade penetration, and it seems like the attacks of the lane come much stronger when he's down low than when Zoubek is.

Well, with Carolina you have the same story as tonight except we lost. Lawson was just amazing and they had quite a few points in transition too. Statistically, we actually did very well against them in the halfcourt when Lawson wasn't putting the pedal to the medal.

Clemson.... well, I don't think a rational person would point to our defense for that one. We just got run out of the gym after playing with no heart in all facets. It wasn't a style of play issue. No defense is successful if you just sit on your butt. Proof lies in the fact that they hit a crap load of threes that our defense is geared to stop above all else.

The BC game we definitely missed a shot blocker. I agree. Same with SJU.

The real question for all of you criticizing is, what Defense would you rather run? Our defense now is BEST equipped to negate lack of size down low. IT is better at that than any other defense... by a significant margin.

[pfrduke]

PFR, Thanks for the info.

If you have time.... You think you could post the Points Per Possesion (O & D) for the last few games (St.Johns, BC, UNC?) and the numbers for the season as a whole.

Or you could "teach me to fish" as someone put it in one of the recruiting threads last week and show me how to find/calculate the numbers...

-Skitz

There are several ways. The easiest is Pomeroy's website. Here's the page for Duke (http://kenpom.com/team.php?y=2009&team=Duke). If you click the link that says "Game Plan" it takes you to our results for the season, and has "off eff." and "def eff." numbers, which is basically points per possession times 100.

The second way is figuring out possessions from the box score. It's total FGAs minus offensive rebounds (a missed shot that you get back doesn't end a possession) + turnovers + 0.475*FTAs. It's an estimate, but usually very accurate. Then you just divide points by possessions. Pomeroy's numbers are based on the estimated possessions, so they're a touch skewed - for example, last night estimated at ~73 possessions, but it was really 74 for Duke and 75 for Wake.

The third way is to go to the box score and count possessions - the box scores on GoDuke almost always have play-by-play information, and it's relatively quick and painless to count up how many possessions there were in the game. I do this for every game where there's a play-by-play to keep track of the data for my own personal interest (and for the website linked in the sig, although due to work, travel, etc., it hasn't been updated in about a week).

[SMO]

We haven't had a defensive stopper inside like Shelden or Josh for a while now and we look more vulnerable inside. As good as Singler and Thomas are playing now, that is still inside help defense, blocking out and shot blocking are not their strengths.

The question I have is why Plumlee only played three minutes against Wake. I thought when he was in there he got involved in traps and didn't have the foul issues going. I think he might have been a reasonable sub for Thomas to give him a blow. Is there some technical issue I missed or is it just that coach K doesn't have confidence in him at this time?

I think Plumlee will end up being a very good shot-blocker, at least as good as McBobs was his Soph year. The issue I see with Plum on the defensive end for now is that he gets lost on switches sometimes. Offensively if he calms down and gets into the flow I think he'll be fine, but I think he could earn more time right away if he gets into the flow defensively.

[pfrduke]

The real question for all of you criticizing is, what Defense would you rather run? Our defense now is BEST equipped to negate lack of size down low. IT is better at that than any other defense... by a significant margin.

It's not really any different than the defense that we ran when we did have a shot-blocker (or at least size) down low, with the possible exception of a few more possessions of amoeba zones. I don't think we should change the way we play defense, because the only other option is to sag way back off shooters (and out of the passing lanes) and let teams pass the ball around the perimeter and shoot jumpers all day, and I can't honestly conceive of K doing that (nor do I really want to see it).

The guys on the perimeter just need to do a better job of keeping their man out of the lane, and the rotation and help needs to be a little quicker.

[Kedsy]

The "book" on playing against Duke's defense is pretty well established. Attack with dribble drive, get in the lane for a shot or dish, and try to avoid charges.

This has been the book on us for quite a few years. It's not a new thing. Personally, I think we have to look at the defense as a healing process since the Clemson game and we're getting there. I also think the D will not be at its best until Nolan and Z are at full strength and feeling confident and playing meaningful and productive minutes. I'm not saying that's going to happen this year, but that's what we need to get our defense back to what it was earlier in the year. If it doesn't happen, hopefully the new lineup/new offense/new outlook will be enough to win a lot of games.

[captmojo]

1)...because the only other option is to sag way back off shooters (and out of the passing lanes) and let teams pass the ball around the perimeter and shoot jumpers all day, and I can't honestly conceive of K doing that (nor do I really want to see it).

2) The guys on the perimeter just need to do a better job of keeping their man out of the lane, and the rotation and help needs to be a little quicker.

1) Of course, not under Coach K, but there was a Duke team in '78 that rode this style all the way to the finals. Sag only has to be a step-and-a-half at most.

2) Agreed, but would it not be better if you never let them in that close to have to rely on the help?

[roywhite]

1) Of course, not under Coach K, but there was a Duke team in '78 that rode this style all the way to the finals. Sag only has to be a step-and-a-half at most.



I believe what you're talking about is a strange concept known as a "zone defense." Which actually did work pretty well for that team, until Goose Givens found holes.

[captmojo]

I believe what you're talking about is a strange concept known as a "zone defense." Which actually did work pretty well for that team, until Goose Givens found holes.

Is that guy's name allowed to be in print here? :D:eek::cool:

[ice-9]

I definitely think we have a defensive problem. However, I think our problem is not so much preventing the drive (though we should do it better, but it is something you get a lot of when you overplay the perimeter), so much as what to do once a guard is in the act of driving to the basket.

Here's what I wrote in the Wake Forest post-game thread...


The only thing I didn't like was the way we defended drives in the second half. We gave the dribbler way too much space for the pull-up jumper. If it's a long two, sure, good decision, but in the paint that pull-up jumper is a high percentage shot. We need to seal off the drive earlier, provide help defense, or defend closer during the drive. Either way we can't give opposing guards semi-open shots in the paint, especially guards like Teague.

Fortunately, it seemed we made enough adjustments late in the second half to contain those drives and spark our own run to win the game.

Our defense simply sagged waaay too much in defending the drive. It's as if we wanted to be sure to prevent the easy lay-up, but in doing so, always allowed the opposing guard to make the fairly easy pull-up short-range jumper. Our defenders need to anticipate what the guard is trying to do. Pull-up jumper? Get a little closer. Drive to the lay-up? Sag off a bit. But for a period of time in the Wake game, we ALWAYS sagged off so Wake ALWAYS went for the pull-up jumper and they scored something like 13 times in 14 posssesions.