Relative productivity of "big" and "small" lineups

[Kedsy]

This seems to be somewhat of a hot topic, so I did some basic math, using pfrduke's +/- calculations. Since the debate started as a discussion of Kyle's role on the team, I calculated our +/- in three groups -- two bigs plus Kyle; two bigs without Kyle; and one big plus Kyle. Here's what it looks like so far:

PRINCETON
-----------
2 bigs + Kyle: 10 minutes; +22 (2.2 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 14 minutes; +6 (0.429 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 16 minutes; +9 (0.563 pdpm)

MIAMI (OH)
-----------
2 bigs + Kyle: 16 minutes; +9 (0.563 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 11 minutes; -3 (-0.273 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 13 minutes; +28 (2.154 pdpm)


TOTAL (2 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 26 minutes; +31 (1.192 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 25 minutes; +3 (0.120 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 29 minutes; +37 (1.276 pdpm)


So, after two games, all three configurations have been used for roughly the same amount of time. And the two configurations containing Kyle have had roughly the same aggregate success. It shouldn't be a surprise that our team isn't as good when Kyle isn't on the floor.

Of course, this doesn't take into account other factors. For example, Kyrie almost never played in a "2 bigs, no Kyle" configuration against Miami, which probably has something to do with the poor performance of that configuration, as does the fact that it was that configuration that played the last 6 minutes of the game while we appeared to be coasting. But it's a start. If people like this analysis, I can continue to update it after every game.

[COYS]

This seems to be somewhat of a hot topic, so I did some basic math, using pfrduke's +/- calculations. Since the debate started as a discussion of Kyle's role on the team, I calculated our +/- in three groups -- two bigs plus Kyle; two bigs without Kyle; and one big plus Kyle. Here's what it looks like so far:

PRINCETON
-----------
2 bigs + Kyle: 10 minutes; +22 (2.2 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 14 minutes; +6 (0.429 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 16 minutes; +9 (0.563 pdpm)

MIAMI (OH)
-----------
2 bigs + Kyle: 16 minutes; +9 (0.563 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 11 minutes; -3 (-0.273 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 13 minutes; +28 (2.154 pdpm)


TOTAL (2 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 26 minutes; +31 (1.192 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 25 minutes; +3 (0.120 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 29 minutes; +37 (1.276 pdpm)


So, after two games, all three configurations have been used for roughly the same amount of time. And the two configurations containing Kyle have had roughly the same aggregate success. It shouldn't be a surprise that our team isn't as good when Kyle isn't on the floor.

Of course, this doesn't take into account other factors. For example, Kyrie almost never played in a "2 bigs, no Kyle" configuration against Miami, which probably has something to do with the poor performance of that configuration, as does the fact that it was that configuration that played the last 6 minutes of the game while we appeared to be coasting. But it's a start. If people like this analysis, I can continue to update it after every game.

Hmm, applying actual data to a hotly contested debate . . . that's no fun! ;)

All kidding aside, I think this is excellent. By the time we get into the meat of the ACC schedule, these cumulative stats will really start to paint an accurate picture of what lineup is most effective. Early results indicate that the most accurate conclusion so far is that any lineup with Kyle = good while most lineups without Kyle are not as effective. I will be curious to see if this stat may change a bit as a lineup with Andre plus the starters (minus Singler, of course) plays a bit more together in competitive games. My hope is that such a lineup won't suffer as much as one might think so that Kyle can get some rest or sit because of foul trouble and the team can continue to function at a high level. More possessions equals more fouls per game for many of the players and so far Kyle has been the one most affected by this.

[MChambers]

It would be great if you could continue to update it.

[airowe]

I appreciate the work Kedsy but I caution people from drawing too many conclusions from this data because its insufficient. Claiming one side is right or wrong based on this data you'd have to rely on the assumption that every opponent we play is the same exact height, has the same talent distribution, and is playing the same style of defense.

Why was the bigger lineup more effective vs. Princeton? Maybe it had something to do with the Tigers having eight players over 6'8". Or maybe because they packed it in ona 2-3 zone?

How about Miami? Maybe the Redhawks only playing one guy over 6'8" impacted the smaller lineup's effectiveness?

I'm going to predict that this all ends up in a wash but that both sides of the argument claim victory...

[Kedsy]

I appreciate the work Kedsy but I caution people from drawing too many conclusions from this data because its insufficient. Claiming one side is right or wrong based on this data you'd have to rely on the assumption that every opponent we play is the same exact height, has the same talent distribution, and is playing the same style of defense.

Why was the bigger lineup more effective vs. Princeton? Maybe it had something to do with the Tigers having eight players over 6'8". Or maybe because they packed it in ona 2-3 zone?

How about Miami? Maybe the Redhawks only playing one guy over 6'8" impacted the smaller lineup's effectiveness?

I'm going to predict that this all ends up in a wash but that both sides of the argument claim victory...

I agree with your prediction airowe, but once we get more datapoints it will hopefully smooth over the one-game anomalies. And if not, at least we'll have some numbers to cite while we're arguing.

[airowe]

At least we'll have some numbers to cite while we're arguing.

That would make it worth it right there. Carry on!

BTW, I'll stake my claim in this debate now. Coach K will play whatever lineup he feels gives his team the best chance to win. We might disagree with it and not understand his rationale, but it will always be his opinion and more often than not, the right decision.

[COYS]

I agree with your prediction airowe, but once we get more datapoints it will hopefully smooth over the one-game anomalies. And if not, at least we'll have some numbers to cite while we're arguing.

Absolutely. That's actually why I targeted the middle of the ACC schedule as the moment when we can really start to see some clear patterns. Even then, my hope is that both lineups remain effective and it is almost impossible to make a definitive statement that one or the other is actually better. Andre looks like a new man and Mason is clearly improving. It is clear that Ryan is getting every chance, as well. It really looks like our top 8 guys have the potential to be interchangeable without sacrificing effectiveness.

[CDu]

I appreciate the work Kedsy but I caution people from drawing too many conclusions from this data because its insufficient. Claiming one side is right or wrong based on this data you'd have to rely on the assumption that every opponent we play is the same exact height, has the same talent distribution, and is playing the same style of defense.

Why was the bigger lineup more effective vs. Princeton? Maybe it had something to do with the Tigers having eight players over 6'8". Or maybe because they packed it in ona 2-3 zone?

How about Miami? Maybe the Redhawks only playing one guy over 6'8" impacted the smaller lineup's effectiveness?

I'm going to predict that this all ends up in a wash but that both sides of the argument claim victory...

As is usually the case with the regard to the bolded part. I also think that the debate has diverged away from the original discussion questions (i.e., will Singler start/play mostly at the 3?) into a big/small debate. The "big/small" debate is a different issue and a little bit more complicated than the "Singler's position" debate, but I think a lot of folks have simply lumped the two together.

The Singler debate is fairly black and white. He'll either start primarily at the 3 or he won't. He'll either play more at the 3 or more at the 4. This may vary from game to game, but there shouldn't be any post-game argument about either of these once we have the numbers. However, the "big/small" debate depends on whether you lump Dawkins with the smalls and whether you lump Hairston exclusively with the bigs. Personally, I'd call Dawkins a hybrid 2/3, but I think Hairston should be viewed exclusively as a big. But I think there are a lot of people who think of Dawkins as strictly a small and Hairston as a hybrid 3/4. Depending upon how you view these two players, two people might look at the same lineup and have a different opinion as to whether it's a big or small lineup.

To this point (and this is always subject to change), I think the only people who have been definitively wrong where those that said any of the following: Singler would play exclusively at the 3; Singler would play exclusively at the 4; Singler would start at the 4 (this is the one that could eventually change, but to this point hasn't happened). And I don't think there were many (if any) who said that Singler would exclusively play at either the 3 or the 4. For those of us who said Singler would split his time between the 3 and the 4 (which I think is the VAST majority of folks), we're all correct. The question comes down to how much of his time he spends at each spot, and that's likely to vary game to game based on matchups and foul trouble.

But with regard to the big/small debate, I think that there will be a lot of arguing past each other from both sides. There's far more room for people to be looking at the same variables from different perspectives. Which will lead to (as you said) both sides claiming victory when the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[-jk]

Perhaps this supports my contention earlier that Kyle is our best player, regardless of position. Figuring how to get the team to play better than the opponent in any game - that's the tough job. It involves understanding how the pieces can fit together (witness all the different lineups we've played in just two games), and which lineups will work best tonight.

Part of what makes college basketball so much fun (and march madness, especially) is there are so many different ways to win, any number of offensive and defensive schemes. Last year's team presented a consistent look, and it was very effective with the players we had.

A few years ago, we lost our best big man just before the UNC game. UNC was big and slow, so K went small and fast and ran them off the court.

It's early, but this year's team has a lot more versatility than last year's, so we'll likely use it in different ways for different opponents. For some, we'll go smaller and faster. For others we'll go bigger and not so fast. I'm sure we'll wind up in some half court, grind-'em-out games, too.

But worrying about whether Kyle is a better "3" or "4" misses the point. He's a damn good player on a damn good team.

-jk

[CDu]

I agree with your prediction airowe, but once we get more datapoints it will hopefully smooth over the one-game anomalies. And if not, at least we'll have some numbers to cite while we're arguing.

Yes, and the same can be said (and has been said) of the +/- numbers in general. Data from any one game is subject to anomaly. Hence the repeated refrain of "try not to read too much into the +/- from any single game." That's not to say that a single game +/- can't accurately reflect performance. It's just that point production in basketball can be so variable in small samples.

For individual player +/-, we should hopefully be able to see the "randomness" work it's way out of the season after 10 or 15 games. I'm a bit more skeptical with regard to the comparison of big/small lineups, but hopefully the same is true in that analysis as well.

[Kedsy]

However, the "big/small" debate depends on whether you lump Dawkins with the smalls and whether you lump Hairston exclusively with the bigs. Personally, I'd call Dawkins a hybrid 2/3, but I think Hairston should be viewed exclusively as a big.

This is a good point and, for the record, how you describe it is how I calculated it (Josh always counting as a "big" and when Andre is in for Kyle along with two bigs it goes in the middle category).

[Jderf]

BTW, I'll stake my claim in this debate now. Coach K will play whatever lineup he feels gives his team the best chance to win. We might disagree with it and not understand his rationale, but it will always be his opinion and more often than not, the right decision.

Ahh, come on, Airowe. That's no fun! :D It's like going into a scientific controversy saying, "I'll take whatever side Nature ends up on." You can't wait and pick your horse after the race is over.

[airowe]

Ahh, come on, Airowe. That's no fun! :D It's like going into a scientific controversy saying, "I'll take whatever side Nature ends up on." You can't wait and pick your horse after the race is over.

In this instance, I'd rather be accused of being unfair than of being wrong. ;)

[CDu]

This is a good point and, for the record, how you describe it is how I calculated it (Josh always counting as a "big" and when Andre is in for Kyle along with two bigs it goes in the middle category).

Yeah, it's a bit confusing in that Singler is actually bigger than Hairston. But in terms of skill set and positional experience, Singler is much more suited to play the wing than Hairston. Hairston is an undersized big, but his game is a big's game right now. Maybe sometime down the road he'll develop a more diverse game (and surely he'll get bigger with time too). But I think you have it right in calling Hairston exclusively a big, whereas Singler is definitely a hybrid 3/4.

[loran16]

I have no idea of what will in the end be more successful....It will probably depend upon the team.

Against Miami, we went small effectively, using our snipers to hit lots of baskets. If the snipers aren't hitting (due to D or just bad luck), we might try switching it up. Hard to tell.

[Kedsy]

I have no idea of what will in the end be more successful....It will probably depend upon the team.

Against Miami, we went small effectively, using our snipers to hit lots of baskets. If the snipers aren't hitting (due to D or just bad luck), we might try switching it up. Hard to tell.

My guess is the snipers will be hitting most of the time. What I think will be the determining factor is effectiveness on defense. Against a small team like Miami we weren't giving up much (if anything) on D with Andre or Seth defending their SF. And I know they say Andre guards Kyle in practice, but still it has to be a challenge to guard a much bigger guy, and if Seth (or Nolan) has to guard a Harrison Barnes/Chris Singleton-sized player, it could get dicey.

It should be interesting to watch as the season moves along.

[lotusland]

As is usually the case with the regard to the bolded part. I also think that the debate has diverged away from the original discussion questions (i.e., will Singler start/play mostly at the 3?) into a big/small debate. The "big/small" debate is a different issue and a little bit more complicated than the "Singler's position" debate, but I think a lot of folks have simply lumped the two together.

The Singler debate is fairly black and white. He'll either start primarily at the 3 or he won't. He'll either play more at the 3 or more at the 4. This may vary from game to game, but there shouldn't be any post-game argument about either of these once we have the numbers. However, the "big/small" debate depends on whether you lump Dawkins with the smalls and whether you lump Hairston exclusively with the bigs. Personally, I'd call Dawkins a hybrid 2/3, but I think Hairston should be viewed exclusively as a big. But I think there are a lot of people who think of Dawkins as strictly a small and Hairston as a hybrid 3/4. Depending upon how you view these two players, two people might look at the same lineup and have a different opinion as to whether it's a big or small lineup.

To this point (and this is always subject to change), I think the only people who have been definitively wrong where those that said any of the following: Singler would play exclusively at the 3; Singler would play exclusively at the 4; Singler would start at the 4 (this is the one that could eventually change, but to this point hasn't happened). And I don't think there were many (if any) who said that Singler would exclusively play at either the 3 or the 4. For those of us who said Singler would split his time between the 3 and the 4 (which I think is the VAST majority of folks), we're all correct. The question comes down to how much of his time he spends at each spot, and that's likely to vary game to game based on matchups and foul trouble.

But with regard to the big/small debate, I think that there will be a lot of arguing past each other from both sides. There's far more room for people to be looking at the same variables from different perspectives. Which will lead to (as you said) both sides claiming victory when the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Agree. Wer'e actually quit a bit bigger with Kyle at 4 (6'8) and Andre at 3 than with Josh at 4 (6'7) and the three smaller guards . It makes sense to separate when Kyle is on the bench but I'm not sure what we learn from it. I'll be interested to see what if any conclusions can be drawn. I predict having Kyle in the game will usually be a plus. Too bad he can't play 40 minutes every game.;)

[bluedevil2012]

That would make it worth it right there. Carry on!

BTW, I'll stake my claim in this debate now. Coach K will play whatever lineup he feels gives his team the best chance to win. We might disagree with it and not understand his rationale, but it will always be his opinion and more often than not, the right decision.

Well now you're starting to sound like John Fox, airowe. ;)

[loran16]

My guess is the snipers will be hitting most of the time. What I think will be the determining factor is effectiveness on defense. Against a small team like Miami we weren't giving up much (if anything) on D with Andre or Seth defending their SF. And I know they say Andre guards Kyle in practice, but still it has to be a challenge to guard a much bigger guy, and if Seth (or Nolan) has to guard a Harrison Barnes/Chris Singleton-sized player, it could get dicey.

It should be interesting to watch as the season moves along.

Eh, there are ALWAYS games (at least once or twice a year) when nobody can seemingly buy a basket. In those games it should be interesting to see what we do.

It shouldn't matter.Duke really has too much talent simply to be a sharpshooting team from the perimeter...with Irving and the bigs supposedly being better, we should be able to get a lot of good looks inside as well. Assuming we improve on that.

[hq2]

Given the versatility and depth of this team, I don't think K will stick with one configuration or the other; he'll simply use whatever the matchups and/or hot hand calls for. What he's trying to do now is not only discover which combinations are best, but use lots of different ones so he can have different ones ready when he needs them. I would guess he could use as many as four or five different starting lineups, depending on matchups and how individuals are playing.

[Kedsy]

Eh, there are ALWAYS games (at least once or twice a year) when nobody can seemingly buy a basket. In those games it should be interesting to see what we do.

It shouldn't matter.Duke really has too much talent simply to be a sharpshooting team from the perimeter...with Irving and the bigs supposedly being better, we should be able to get a lot of good looks inside as well. Assuming we improve on that.

I agree on your latter point. As far as games when nobody can shoot, it does usually seem like we have one or two games like that every year. But I'm not sure we've ever had as many high-quality perimeter threats as this year. Not even counting Ryan (because I'm not sure if he's really a good outside shooter or just a decent shooter for a big man), we have five guys who should take a lot of three-point shots and could hit 40%+. Last year we had four guys in the 38% to 40% range; the year before that we had two (and, yes, those two combined to go 3 for 16 from 3-point range in the loss to Villanova). Not saying it won't happen, but unless it's snowing or something inside the gym it's unlikely all five of this year's sharpshooters will go cold on the same day.


Given the versatility and depth of this team, I don't think K will stick with one configuration or the other; he'll simply use whatever the matchups and/or hot hand calls for. What he's trying to do now is not only discover which combinations are best, but use lots of different ones so he can have different ones ready when he needs them. I would guess he could use as many as four or five different starting lineups, depending on matchups and how individuals are playing.

Well, I suppose four or five starting lineups is possible, but I don't think it's all that likely. On the other hand, I think you're spot on when it comes to minute distribution. The configurations that are working that day are going to be on the court more frequently.

And I think you're right about touting our versatility and depth. I expect K to vary this up a lot during games because it will keep our opponents off balance. They won't be able to get comfortable with so many different looks and styles at K's disposal. E.g., the opposing 6'6" SF is trying to get himself in the mindset to stop a bigger Kyle and all of a sudden he has to guard Andre or Seth; an opposing PF is trying to jump screens and guard the alley-oop and suddenly he has to chase Kyle around the perimeter; an opposing SG gets comfortable laying back to stop Nolan's drive and all of a sudden he has Seth or Andre taking threes from NBA range. Game preparation for opposing coaches will be a nightmare.

[tele]

Not to complicate things, but here I go anyway, it is interesting to see what lineups do well, especially early in the season when things are getting tried out and minutes spread around. However, to me, it is more telling to see what lineups get used when the game is in the balance, when your team has to have a bucket or a stop.

I'm also waiting to see the 4 guard lineup play, that may have to wait until Duke has the lead and is letting the air out of the ball at then end of a game. Kyle, Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, and Andre could also put some points up on a zone or apply a full court press. May not see it, may not need to use it.

[Newton_14]

Great thread Kedsy. I just caution folks to not get so hung up on debating the Big/Small/Medium lineups that we miss the wonderful ride that started this past Sunday.
This team is an absolute dream to follow and root for.

Last year K was so limited in what he could do. Outside of rotating the bigs, there was just nothing there to change. This year he has as diverse team as he has had in years. Since 1998 in my view. He can throw so many different looks at opponents it almost isn't fair.

Regarding the debate, I count Mason/Miles/Ryan/Josh as the true "bigs" and that is looking at both size and skillset. Kyle is the hybrid 3/4, who I do think will spend more time at the 3 but still see good minutes at the 4 and a few more than I had originally anticipated.

Andre at a big 6'4 is a solid hybrid SG/SF. Nolan, Kyrie, Seth are the shrimps. My main point of contention in this spirited debate was that we would try to play the majority of the time with 2 of the true bigs on the floor, and we would not play the majority of the time with the Kyrie/Seth/Nolan/Kyle/1 True Big, lineup that many were pining for. I do feel we will occasionally see that lineup, but only when we are dictating terms, not reacting, and not for large stretches. So far, we actually have not seen that lineup very much. The lineups with Andre at the 3 and Kyle at the 4 have been very effective so far though. To me that is one of our "medium" lineups.


But again, lets not get so hung up on any of those points that we miss what is happening. This team has great potential. Andre's play has been a blessing to me. I wanted so bad to see him succeed after what he went through last year. So far he has not disappointed. His play has been well beyond what I "feared". Kudos to him for raising his game and not letting the presence of Seth and the future presence of Austin cause him to hang his head. He is staking his claim at minutes.

Still need Miles to get going, and I still feel he will. Mason is much improved as is Kelly.
Tyler is proving he can handle the pressure as well. Josh at this point, has further to go imo, than the rest, but even he has shown glimpses and there is upside there.


Based on the scrimmage and the 4 games I have seen thus far, come conference time I expect we will be very strong 1 thru 8, with a solid 8 man rotation, with Tyler's minutes going down a little bit, and Hairston's minutes resembling Kelly's from last year.

I have my Colgate and Mich St tickets in hand and cannot wait to see the boys in action again.

[Kedsy]

Not too much you can glean from a 50 point win, but once again the small lineup was by far the most effective (2 out of 3 games now) and the "middle" (no Kyle) lineup was by far the least effective (all three games).

Note that the big lineup was best against the biggest team we played (Princeton) and the small lineup was best against the two smaller teams. It will be interesting to see what happens when we play BCS teams with legitimate size.

COLGATE
-----------
2 bigs + Kyle: 11 minutes; +15 (1.363 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 18 minutes; +12 (0.667 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 11 minutes; +25 (2.273 pdpm)


TOTAL (3 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 37 minutes; +46 (1.243 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 43 minutes; +15 (0.349 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 40 minutes; +62 (1.550 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (3 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12.33 minutes; +15.33 (1.243 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 14.33 minutes; +5 (0.349 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 13.33 minutes; +20.67 (1.550 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Well, if today's game is a harbinger of things to come, then the small lineup people may ultimately be able to claim victory. We went small 65% of the game. On the other hand, although we are dealing with smaller numbers (which makes a one game sample even less reliable than usual) the big lineup was more effective tonight.

It's worth noting that the "middle" lineup barely played, as Kyle was on the court for 38 minutes.

MARQUETTE
------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12 minutes; +4 (0.333 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 2 minutes; -2 (-1.000 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle (or 0 big + Kyle): 26 minutes; +3 (0.115 pdpm)


TOTAL (4 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 49 minutes; +50 (1.020 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 45 minutes; +13 (0.289 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 66 minutes; +65 (0.985 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (3 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12.25 minutes; +12.50 (1.020 plus differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 11.25 minutes; +3.25 (0.289 pdpm)
1/0 big + Kyle: 16.50 minutes; +16.25 (0.985 pdpm)

[mepanchin]

I think we probably saw more of the smaller line-up because of Marquette's personnel. They are quick and small and this let us match up really well with that. There will be bigger teams where the 2 big line-up may be better.

[Saratoga2]

Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully enough, but I did see two bigs plus Kyle seemed to work better than other lineups. What I didn't see is differentiation of which bigs. Clearly Mason is one of those bigs but is the 2nd Kelly, Miles or Hairston. Based on what I saw of the Marquette game, Kelly looked more effective than Miles and Hairston DNP.

Miles may have a sore finger and than may have impacted his play. He is about the same size as Mason, has lots of hops and strength, but he seems not to catch the ball well and finish on rebounds around the basket. Kelly has less jumping ability and lateral quickness but seems to react better to the speed of the game. Miles has a lot of upside potential as does Kelly. It would be interesting to differentiate performance between the two.

[Kedsy]

Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully enough, but I did see two bigs plus Kyle seemed to work better than other lineups. What I didn't see is differentiation of which bigs. Clearly Mason is one of those bigs but is the 2nd Kelly, Miles or Hairston. Based on what I saw of the Marquette game, Kelly looked more effective than Miles and Hairston DNP.

It's way too much work to break down minutes on specific lineups. But going through pfrduke's +/- figures, in the Marquette game the Kyle/Mason/Ryan lineup was +3, the various Kyle/Mason/Miles lineups were +3 and the various Kyle/Ryan/Miles lineups were -2. Through four games, the various Kyle/Mason/Ryan lineups are +25 and the various Kyle/Mason/Miles lineups are +21. The other big combinations didn't play enough to bother calculating, although presumably they all combined for +4.

[Kedsy]

Incidentally, and this is neither here nor there but it is sort of relevant to the big/small debate, I was very interested in this quote from Buzz Williams after the Marquette game (quote from GoDuke's quotes page (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=205036062)): "They are very talented team particularly when No. 12 (Kyle Singler) is at the three."

The fact that he believes we are more talented when Kyle is at the 3 says to me he fears our big lineup more than he fears our small one. Of course that may be because his team plays a three-guard lineup and his bigs aren't very tall, so they match up better with our small lineup than our big lineup, but I thought it was an interesting quote nonetheless.

[Chitowndevil]

Incidentally, and this is neither here nor there but it is sort of relevant to the big/small debate, I was very interested in this quote from Buzz Williams after the Marquette game (quote from GoDuke's quotes page (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=205036062)): "They are very talented team particularly when No. 12 (Kyle Singler) is at the three."

The fact that he believes we are more talented when Kyle is at the 3 says to me he fears our big lineup more than he fears our small one. Of course that may be because his team plays a three-guard lineup and his bigs aren't very tall, so they match up better with our small lineup than our big lineup, but I thought it was an interesting quote nonetheless.

I noticed that quote as well. I think it has to be a matchup-specific comment, as you noted. I think Ryan Kelly has made some incredible strides but to say we get "less talented" when Andre Dawkins or Seth Curry come into the game for Kelly is a pretty big stretch.

Also, after last night, looking at this thread made me wonder whether maybe, just maybe, by the end of the season this debate will as much about Mason Plumlee at 5 vs 4 as about Kyle at 4 vs 3. Yes, I realize that's getting way ahead of ourselves. But still, how cool would that be?

[Kedsy]

Interesting that in a game where are opponent had a big front line the small lineup was the dominant one. Through five games, the small lineup has been on the floor 44% of the time (17.6 minutes per game) and has overall been the most effective.

It's also interesting that the reason for the small lineup's predominance has not really been Seth (as most of the small lineup advocates predicted) but rather the emergence of Andre as a viable option at the 3.

Still lots of season to play before this debate is settled.

KANSAS STATE
---------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12 minutes; -2 (-0.167 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 6 minutes; -6 (-1.000 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 22 minutes; +22 (1.000 pdpm)


TOTAL (5 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 61 minutes; +48 (0.787 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 51 minutes; +7 (0.137 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 88 minutes; +87 (0.989 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (5 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 12.20 minutes; +9.60 (0.787 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 10.20 minutes; +1.40 (0.137 pdpm)
1/0 big + Kyle: 17.60 minutes; +17.40 (0.989 pdpm)[/QUOTE]

[Newton_14]

Interesting that in a game where are opponent had a big front line the small lineup was the dominant one. Through five games, the small lineup has been on the floor 44% of the time (17.6 minutes per game) and has overall been the most effective.

It's also interesting that the reason for the small lineup's predominance has not really been Seth (as most of the small lineup advocates predicted) but rather the emergence of Andre as a viable option at the 3.

Still lots of season to play before this debate is settled.

Great point Kedsy. Andre's play has far and away been the most pleasant surprise to me. I totally did not expect to see him playing at this high of a level against good teams. That changes things quite a bit and gives K three or four different line-up size variations to throw out there. Andre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4, as well as Andre at the 3 with 2 Bigs have been effective. So 2 "Hybrid" medium sized lineups to mix in with the small lineup's and the big lineup's.

Great to see and it has made the team more dangerous. I hope Andre continue's to play at this high level and really see no reason why he can't.

[Kedsy]

Great point Kedsy. Andre's play has far and away been the most pleasant surprise to me. I totally did not expect to see him playing at this high of a level against good teams. That changes things quite a bit and gives K three or four different line-up size variations to throw out there. Andre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4, as well as Andre at the 3 with 2 Bigs have been effective. So 2 "Hybrid" medium sized lineups to mix in with the small lineup's and the big lineup's.

Great to see and it has made the team more dangerous. I hope Andre continue's to play at this high level and really see no reason why he can't.

I agree with you, Boozer, that the Andre at the 3, Kyle at the 4 lineup can (and possibly should) be considered a "medium" lineup, and that it has been by far the most effective lineup. For the purposes of this thread, however, I have been counting it as a "small" lineup, because the original debate was whether Kyle would be playing the 3 or the 4.

[CDu]

I agree with you, Boozer, that the Andre at the 3, Kyle at the 4 lineup can (and possibly should) be considered a "medium" lineup, and that it has been by far the most effective lineup. For the purposes of this thread, however, I have been counting it as a "small" lineup, because the original debate was whether Kyle would be playing the 3 or the 4.

Yeah, it is interesting to see this debate unfold. The original premise was largely a debate over whether the starting/main lineup would be Irving/Curry/Smith/Singler/Plumlee or Irving/Smith/Singler/Plumlee/Plumlee. In short, the debate was between a really small lineup and a really big lineup.

But as you note, to this point it's been a third option (with Dawkins at the 3) that has been the more effective lineup. The really small lineup (with Irving, Curry, and Smith) has been used infrequently, but at the same time we haven't really gone predominantly big, either.

I'm very pleased with the emergence of Dawkins, and I think his development as an impact player at the 3 is a real key for the versatility of this team. It allows the flexibility to put Singler at the 3 or at the 4 at Coach K's leisure, without sacrificing dramatically in either scenario.

[superdave]

Yeah, it is interesting to see this debate unfold. The original premise was largely a debate over whether the starting/main lineup would be Irving/Curry/Smith/Singler/Plumlee or Irving/Smith/Singler/Plumlee/Plumlee. In short, the debate was between a really small lineup and a really big lineup.

But as you note, to this point it's been a third option (with Dawkins at the 3) that has been the more effective lineup. The really small lineup (with Irving, Curry, and Smith) has been used infrequently, but at the same time we haven't really gone predominantly big, either.

I'm very pleased with the emergence of Dawkins, and I think his development as an impact player at the 3 is a real key for the versatility of this team. It allows the flexibility to put Singler at the 3 or at the 4 at Coach K's leisure, without sacrificing dramatically in either scenario.

I think rather than argue big/small, we should compare Duke's lineups and the associated +/- to the average size of the opponent's 3,4,5 positions. Let's go ahead and add that variable in which would not only make the stats more meaningful but it would also make this message board explode! Or at least some people's heads would explode trying to keep up with all 90 scenarios.

I guess my point here is it's all about matchups and exploiting the other team's weakness.

[hq2]

But as you note, to this point it's been a third option (with Dawkins at the 3) that has been the more effective lineup. The really small lineup (with Irving, Curry, and Smith) has been used infrequently, but at the same time we haven't really gone predominantly big, either.

I'm very pleased with the emergence of Dawkins, and I think his development as an impact player at the 3 is a real key for the versatility of this team. It allows the flexibility to put Singler at the 3 or at the 4 at Coach K's leisure, without sacrificing dramatically in either scenario.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along; playing Andre at 3 will be the way to go. At this point, both his shooting and defense have been effective. There's no reason why he shouldn't get some of Miles and Kelly's front line minutes; the team has been playing better with him out there. I want to see him getting about 25 a game, and he should be starting against smaller quicker teams. I think K may do that soon.

[Cockabeau]

K has the luxury to tinker with the lineups big or small.
But as I have predicted 4 months ago, the "dagger" team will be
Ki
Nolan
Curry/Dawkins
Singler
Plumlee

[davekay1971]

Here's the problem going with the "small" lineup. See, Coach K promised Kyle he'd play at the 3, and he promised Mason he'd play at the 4, while he promised Ryan he'd play at the 3, and he promised Seth, Andre, and Nolan they'd all start at the 2 and he promised Kyrie he'd get 40 mpg at the 1. So, there's no way he can go with the small lineup. Plus, there will be all those chemistry issues since our guys are all basically auditioning for the League!

(of course, all of the above is total b.s., but that what our friends on the IC are currently dealing with. And on this Thanksgiving weekend, I'm sure thankful I chose the right shade of blue!)

[superdave]

Here's the problem going with the "small" lineup. See, Coach K promised Kyle he'd play at the 3, and he promised Mason he'd play at the 4, while he promised Ryan he'd play at the 3, and he promised Seth, Andre, and Nolan they'd all start at the 2 and he promised Kyrie he'd get 40 mpg at the 1. So, there's no way he can go with the small lineup. Plus, there will be all those chemistry issues since our guys are all basically auditioning for the League!

(of course, all of the above is total b.s., but that what our friends on the IC are currently dealing with. And on this Thanksgiving weekend, I'm sure thankful I chose the right shade of blue!)

I'm pretty sure Coach K promised Kyrie 30 shots a game too. He really needs to start jacking it up if he's going to be a top 5 pick.

[johnb]

A few points on the efforts to differentiate big v small:

1. Varying the lineup complicates life for the other team, especially when considering the complexity of our plays and range of our players. So going big for a bit then going small can make the small lineup more effective than it would be if left out there for 35".

2. Varying the lineup allows everyone to go 100% all the time, which is daunting to teams that lack our quality depth.

3. In regards to the likelihood that our players won't all be cold at the same time: there's only 1 ball. It should be expected that we'll go in a streak of misses since there's a >60% likelihood that any particular 3 pointer will miss. That is one reason it's important to use a big lineup for chunks of every game all year so that Ryan, Miles, and Mason get comfortable playing with a variety of players so that, in the pinch that is inevitable, the team will be accustomed to the ball movement that can lead to layups. I assume that's one reason to pinch the bench a bit; while I like seeing Josh and Tyler play in games that we have in hand, it's important for the primary players on this particular team get used to playing a bunch of lineups against random good players.

4. So, from my perspective, the team during our last 5" of the game might be smallish: Kyrie/Nolan/Kyle/Mason/Dawkins or Curry, at least partly because they're best at ball handling and free throws, but if we make use of the prior 35" using the whole team, the last 5" can best be devoted to seeing if points can be scored by Casey and Todd.

[-jk]

K has the luxury to tinker with the lineups big or small.
But as I have predicted 4 months ago, the "dagger" team will be
Ki
Nolan
Curry/Dawkins
Singler
Plumlee

Tweet! Foul! You consistently said Andre had work to do, lacked lateral quickness, and was not prepared to supplant Curry in a projected starting lineup. For example:


... I love Dawkins but he really needs to work on his lateral quickness.

The best players play and I can't see anyone supplanting Curry as our fifth starter...


Let's put it this way. [Curry] is our best shooter, he fits in the scheme on Pressure defense, he is quick and he can handle the rock.

These are qualities that Miles,Andre or any other player threatening for the 5th spot don't possess.

With Curry, we force teams to play 5 on 5. Who is going to beat us?

Many have argued that Dawkins at the 3 is more effective defensively than Curry and that they aren't interchangeable.

We all make mistakes - being wrong is fine; revisionist history, not so much.

-jk

[Kedsy]

K has the luxury to tinker with the lineups big or small.
But as I have predicted 4 months ago, the "dagger" team will be
Ki
Nolan
Curry/Dawkins
Singler
Plumlee


Tweet! Foul! You consistently said Andre had work to do, lacked lateral quickness, and was not prepared to supplant Curry in a projected starting lineup.

-jk is totally correct here. You (Cockabeau) posted about 150,000 times that the starting and primary lineup would be Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Kyle, and a Plumlee (I'm pretty sure Mason but I can't swear to that). You never mentioned Andre as a possibility in your "dagger" lineup.

[InSpades]

The most interesting thing I find from these numbers is that Kyle has now played almost 60% of his minutes at the 4 (actually 59% but... close enough). To me the big/small lineup debate was more about where Kyle would play than anything else. The pro "big lineup" always thought that Kyle would spend some time at the 4, but he's now playing a decent-sized majority of his time there (admittedly in a pretty small sample size still).

I also wonder at what point does the starting lineup change to reflect the fact that Duke goes small more often than not when Kyle is in the lineup. Obviously it doesn't have to change... but I could definitely see it happening at some point. Dawkins is certainly playing well enough to warrant a starting spot (but so are a lot of people).

[Cockabeau]

-jk is totally correct here. You (Cockabeau) posted about 150,000 times that the starting and primary lineup would be Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Kyle, and a Plumlee (I'm pretty sure Mason but I can't swear to that). You never mentioned Andre as a possibility in your "dagger" lineup.

ok so five out of 5 .....

[Newton_14]

ok so five out of 5 .....

Look closely for that "dagger" lineup you harped on. I bolded it for you. (Helpful Hint: Start from the bottom up. You will get there faster)

LINEUPS
Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (52-30, x7, 22)
Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (23-4, x3, 19)
Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (29-11, x6, 18)
Irving-Smith-Singler-Mason-Kelly (53-38, x10, 15)
Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (20-6, x5, 14)
Irving-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles (35-24, x6, 11)
Irving-Smith-Curry-Singler-Miles (16-7, x5, 9)
Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (11-2, x2, 9)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Kelly (9-2, x1, 7)
Irving-Thornton-Smith-Kelly-Miles (10-4, x1, 6)
Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (9-3, x1, 6)
Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Kelly (7-2, x1, 5)
Curry-Peters-Dawkins-Hairston-Miles (4-0, x1, 4)
Thornton-Curry-Singler-Mason-Miles (4-0, x1, 4)
Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (22-19, x6, 3)
Thornton-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Kelly (13-10, x1, 3)
Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Mason-Miles (8-5, x2, 3)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Miles (6-3, x1, 3)
Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Hairston-Kelly (4-1, x1, 3)
Irving-Thornton-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (3-0, x2, 3)
Smith-Curry-Singler-Kelly-Miles (3-0, x1, 3)
Thornton-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Miles (16-14, x3, 2)
Thornton-Curry-Singler-Mason-Kelly (5-3, x1, 2)
Thornton-Smith-Curry-Singler-Miles (5-3, x1, 2)
Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Hairston-Miles (4-2, x2, 2)
Irving-Thornton-Curry-Hairston-Kelly (4-2, x1, 2)
Irving-Smith-Singler-Hairston-Mason (3-1, x1, 2)
Irving-Curry-Singler-Mason-Miles (2-0, x1, 2)
Irving-Thornton-Smith-Mason-Kelly (2-0, x1, 2)
Irving-Smith-Curry-Hairston-Mason (2-1, x2, 1)
Irving-Smith-Singler-Kelly-Miles (5-5, x3, 0)
Irving-Smith-Curry-Mason-Kelly (5-5, x2, 0)
Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (2-2, x1, 0)
Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (2-2, x1, 0)
Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly (0-0, x1, 0)
Thornton-Smith-Curry-Mason-Kelly (0-0, x1, 0)
Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Mason-Kelly (5-6, x2, -1)
Irving-Curry-Dawkins-Singler-Mason (4-5, x3, -1)
Thornton-Smith-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (1-2, x1, -1)
Thornton-Smith-Curry-Hairston-Mason (0-1, x1, -1)
Thornton-Smith-Curry-Singler-Hairston (2-4, x1, -2)
Irving-Dawkins-Singler-Kelly-Miles (0-2, x1, -2)
Thornton-Curry-Peters-Hairston-Miles (0-2, x1, -2)
Irving-Thornton-Dawkins-Hairston-Mason (0-2, x1, -2)
Irving-Smith-Curry-Mason-Miles (3-6, x1, -3)
Thornton-Curry-Peters-Hairston-Kelly (0-3, x1, -3)
Thornton-Curry-Peters-Hairston-Zafirovski (10-14, x2, -4)
Irving-Smith-Curry-Dawkins-Singler (0-4, x1, -4)
Thornton-Curry-Dawkins-Kelly-Miles (0-4, x1, -4)
Irving-Smith-Curry-Singler-Mason (21-26, x6, -5)
Irving-Smith-Dawkins-Mason-Kelly (0-5, x1, -5)
Irving-Smith-Singler-Hairston-Miles (0-5, x1, -5)

[Kedsy]

ok so five out of 5 .....

What does this even mean?

[Cockabeau]

it means Corona/ambien...ha ha!

As for Kedsey, im not sure what this is or how you obtained it.

[hedevil]

I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.

[CDu]

I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.

Pretty sure many of the "large lineup" folks are acknowledging that Dawkins is playing better than expected, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most people in the big lineup camp felt that Singler and Dawkins would split the time at the 3 (which has been correct). The only question was whether Dawkins would be ready to handle the responsibility of 20ish mpg at the 3. I'm happy to admit (and have already done so) that Dawkins has surprised me with his progress this year.

I'm personally amused at you and Cockabeau patting your backs when you both have been as wrong as the "big lineup" group. This debate was basically a debate of Irving/Smith/Singler/Two bigs versus Irving/Smith/Curry/Singler/One big. This was just as much about whether or not Curry would start/play in a lineup with three small guards as it was about whether or not Singler would play at the 4. The "pro-big" crowd said we wouldn't see much of the three small guards (Irving/Curry/Smith) together because they'd get exploited, while most of the "pro-small" group argued that Curry would start alongside Smith and Irving in a tiny backcourt. To this point, we have seen very little of the Irving/Curry/Smith backcourt. It's not the starting backcourt (which was the "pro small contention), and it has been rarely used. Revising your "pro small" argument to say "well, it could be Curry or Dawkins" is revisionist history.

Basically, almost everyone has been wrong in this debate (to this point), and that includes me. Unless you predicted that Dawkins (not Curry) would be the reason we haven't stayed primarily big, you don't have much of a basis to pat yourself on the back. I'm sure there were some that predicted this. And to those that did, kudos. But that was a small group if I recall correctly.

[Kedsy]

I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.

Well, to be fair to those (myself included) who argued for the big lineup, we consistently said Seth was too small to play the 3 for any length of time. And most of us still think so. Pretty much all the "small lineup" advocates had Kyrie, Nolan, and Seth in their starting/predominant lineup. Andre's name rarely came up during this debate (from either side) because neither the big lineup people nor the small lineup people realized how amazingly improved he would be on the defensive side of the ball.

As far as which side "wins" when we play Andre at the 3 and Kyle at the 4, I said just a few posts ago that I am counting it as "small," primarily (as you say) because the lineup has Kyle at the 4 and that was the core of the debate. However, if we all knew how strong Andre would be defending the SF position, I believe the debate would have unfolded very differently.

I guess my view on this subject is that both sides of this debate were wrong, but so far the small lineup people have been less wrong. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues in ACC games, as most ACC teams have pretty big SFs.


EDIT: Ah, I see CDu got there first and said pretty much the same thing. Great minds and all that.

[BD80]

... I also think that the debate has diverged away from the original discussion questions (i.e., will Singler start/play mostly at the 3?) into a big/small debate. ...



... Basically, almost everyone has been wrong in this debate (to this point), and that includes me. Unless you predicted that Dawkins (not Curry) would be the reason we haven't stayed primarily big, you don't have much of a basis to pat yourself on the back. ...

It seems that a big part of winning an argument is to frame the question.

My recollection of the "debate" is whether Kyle would be playing the "4." This was the fallout from the the predict who-gets-how-many-minutes insanity that continuously arose during the summer. Most claimed that Kyle would play the "3" (primarily because he had "become" a "3"), but conceded that he might get a "few" minutes at the "4" in end game situation. A few (of us) predicted that Kyle would get significant time at the "4," not that he would start there, because Coach K likes to go with "smaller" line-ups to take advantage of pressure D and ball control and becaue he prefers having his best players in the game.

The fact that Kyle is playing nearly as much at the "4" as the "3" would indicate to me that some were indeed correct and many were indeed incorrect. I don't really care either way, but enduring continued bickering does get a bit annoying - particularly dredging up and nit-picking old posts. Rather, lets focus more on the efficacy of the various line-ups, just for the fun of it.

Kedsey, thanks for compiling the stats, it is interesting to see how things break out.

Quick question, it appears that Kyle and Hairston have played together with another "big." Does that count as Kyle at the "3" or "4?" I have to admit I haven't watched closely enough to remember whether one guarded a post player while another guarded a wing.

[Cockabeau]

And the older thread was "removed" somehow. I wonder why that is?

[CDu]

I don't really care either way, but enduring continued bickering does get a bit annoying - particularly dredging up and nit-picking old posts. Rather, lets focus more on the efficacy of the various line-ups, just for the fun of it.

Completely agree.


Quick question, it appears that Kyle and Hairston have played together with another "big." Does that count as Kyle at the "3" or "4?" I have to admit I haven't watched closely enough to remember whether one guarded a post player while another guarded a wing.

Hairston has played pretty much exclusively as a 4 this year. His perimeter game (both offensivley and defensively) aren't developed enough to play the wing. So when Singler and Hairston are in together with another big, Singler is at the 3.

[-jk]

And the older thread was "removed" somehow. I wonder why that is?

No thread has been removed on this topic.

-jk

[SilkyJ]

Seth played only 13 mins tonight, to Andre's 21, and had a rough night going 1-6 for 3 pts. Dre was 4-7, all 3s, for 14 pts.

He is definitely the biggest surprise of the season so far, at least for me. He and Mason are neck and neck for most improved.


And the older thread was "removed" somehow. I wonder why that is?

I'm not sure what thread you are referring to, though -jk obviously linked to one previously that hasn't been removed. Here's another (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?18454-Return-to-small-ball-next-year&highlight=small+ball) that you started.

No mention of Dawkins by you, just Curry.


I am looking forward to a starting lineup next year of:

Irving
Smith
Curry
Dawkins
Plumlee

I can't see how teams can beat this team.

[Newton_14]

I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup". Most of the large lineup posters continuously stated that we would be exploited at the 3 spot if Andre were to play there for too many minutes in Kyle's absence. That Andre was too small for opposing teams 3's. The indisputable fact is, the smaller lineup included Kyle playing the 4 spot. Some may argue that I repeatedly stated that Seth would play the 3. I will concede that. However, I will also point out that I repeatedly stated that we would play small (3 guards) for most of the minutes in games, which to this point is correct. We all know that Dre is/was referred to as being a guard in these discussions.

All this being said, we are still very early in the season. We will see how things pan out.

I am amused that anyone thinks that after 5 games the rotation is set. Like BD80, all the arguing over it is annoying and taking away from enjoying what looks to be a great season, so this is my last post on that matter.

Below is my opening post when I started that thread where I clearly stated that Andre at the 3 was a "medium" sized lineup, and that what I, Boozer (cannot speak for the others), was debating, was that K would start and play for heavy minutes a the lineup of Kyrie/Nolan/Seth/Kyle/1 Big.


Duke Identity 2010/11- Big or Small?
Last season K said our identity was Defense-Rebounding with a 2 Big lineup most of the time and Kyle at the Small Forward (3) position. Going into the 2010/11 season the stable of big men is solid with 4 guys (Miles, Mason, Ryan, Josh).

However the stable of guards/wings is super large with 5 guys in (Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Andre, Tyler).

Kyle is the hybrid with the skill set to fit into either group. So the question is which group will Kyle spend the most time in? Now, if Kyle is at the 4 with Andre at the 3, then I would call that a medium size line up. However most of those arguing K will go small are basing that on a line up of Kyrie, Nolan, Seth, Kyle, 1 Big.So for the poll, the actual question revolves around how many minutes the trio of Kyrie, Nolan, and Seth play together?

The poll question from that thread was Kyle at the 4 with 2 bigs 25+minutes, or Kyle at the 3 with Kyrie/Nolan/Seth and 1 big for 25+ minutes. Like CDu so astutely pointed out, to date neither has been correct.

So far Kyle has played more minutes at the 4 than I expected, which is fine. Andre's play has been a big reason for that along with Miles having some struggles on the offensive end, and Kelly not quite ready for heavy minutes.

Either way it's a darn strong team and I am darn glad I was wrong about Andre. His play has allowed K even more options than I thought he would have. He can throw many different looks at teams. Today we went big a lot. Next Wed we may go small/medium a lot. We have that luxury, which again is a GREAT thing.

[Bob Green]

I was going to let things be, but I just couldn't let it go. It's amusing to see that all of the posters who were pushing for the larger lineup (70 %) have conveniently avoided this topic, now seeing that a smaller lineup may be our most effective after all, or have suddenly decided to call a lineup including Andre the new "middle sized lineup".....

Okay, two things: first, I was a summertime proponent of the big line-up and posted numerous times Miles and Mason Plumlee would both start. Second, I was wrong.

It doesn't appear to me anyone has "conveniently avoided this topic." I certainly am not avoiding it. However, the small line-up vocal minority who are now screaming, "I told you so" appear guilty of revisionism from where I sit as the effective line-up Duke is utilizing with Dawkins at the three was not proposed/discussed with passion by anyone over the dog days of summer.

[Kedsy]

Quick question, it appears that Kyle and Hairston have played together with another "big." Does that count as Kyle at the "3" or "4?" I have to admit I haven't watched closely enough to remember whether one guarded a post player while another guarded a wing.

I think Josh has been playing the 4 and guarding a post/inside player while he is in with Kyle. I have counted Kyle/Josh/big as a "big" lineup for the purposes of this thread.

[hedevil]

Boozer - I have always stated that coach K would rotate lineups for the first half of the season. Who believes that the lineup is set?

I agree with you and others that this topic can be annoying and distracting from the team and season that we have to look foward to.



Bob Green - I have addmitted to being a believer in the small lineup (Seth being included) in the later part of the season (which isn't here). There are no I told you so's from me, except for the fact that I did pick Kyle to play most of his minutes at the 4. In addition, I believe/believed that Dre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4 falls under the small lineup category. The fact that "some" of the big lineup supporters are now referring to the Dre and Kyle "middle sized lineup" seems a bit dishonest in regards to the summer debate. When Dre was discussed, it was in relation to him playing the 2 and 3 spot. Meaning: small lineup if Kyle slides to the 4. If there was going to be a mysterious middle sized lineup, there was ample opportunity to discuss it. It appears that Boozer had it right, but most posters (including myself) were debating between 2 lineups.

I cannot claim victory nor defeat due to my late-in-the season predictions. I do however want to make myself clear by repeating what I said all summer long. "This team is going to be great. I trust coach K to find out what works and go with it." I would rather Duke win a NC and be wrong on all things, than not win and be right.

[stickdog]

I predicted this thread.

[Cockabeau]

The meat and potatoes argument was Sing playing the 3 or 4 not necessarily who the 3rd guard was in regards to Curry or Dawkins.

My second argument was that a Sing/Plum/Plum is not codusive to effective pressure man -to-man defense. I think many posters were still in last year mode with LT and Z and to a lesser extent the greg Paulus era when the pressure man-to-man was not effective at at. Well history has shown that when K has the horses(and even when he doesnt) he will play small to enhance the effects of effective pressure man-to-man defense.

Dawkins has shocked me in the way has totally revamped his Defense.

[SilkyJ]

The meat and potatoes argument was Sing playing the 3 or 4 not necessarily who the 3rd guard was in regards to Curry or Dawkins.


I think you are partially right, but the two arguments were very much related as those voting for Kyle at the 3 USED the argument that Curry could not be the 3rd guard.

And please, no one was a bigger curry fan in the offseason than you. So don't act like all of a sudden you used Seth/Andre interchangeably.

Here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21054-Starting-lineup-with-Singler-back&p=401415#post401415) and Here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21054-Starting-lineup-with-Singler-back&p=401438#) (in addition to other places pointed out and other places I'm not going to link, b/c the point has been made) you said Curry would be our 3rd guard.



My second argument was that a Sing/Plum/Plum is not codusive to effective pressure man -to-man defense.

This is not revisionist history on your part. You said this before, and its a reasonable argument.



Cisco,
This team will play smaller not bigger.
Do you really believe K is going to not play pressure man-to-man when he has the horses?



But K prefers pressure man-to-man defense. He has the players to play this type of defense now.
In order to play KS at the 3, Duke would have to play both Plumlees. ...thats not going to happen my friend.
Do you really think K is going to change his preference for pressure man-to-man?

However, you also predicted that Curry would be a starter, which he is not, and so far Andre is our first guard off the bench, not Curry.

[Bob Green]

My second argument was that a Sing/Plum/Plum is not codusive to effective pressure man -to-man defense.

I believe you meant conducive but I digress....I am anxiously awaiting the +/- statistics from the Oregon game as Andre Dawkins once again had a great game. Additionally, Miles and Mason Plumlee played with each other on a couple of different occasions yesterday so I am interested in seeing how the "Big" line-up I predicted during my many summertime rants performed from a statistical standpoint. With the eyeball test, the "Big" line-up dominated the interior defensively and cleaned up on the glass.

[-jk]

So how 'bout everyone leave the "I told ya so" stuff behind, and let's talk about what we're actually seeing on the court this season? Let's discuss the lineups, what's working and not working, who's surprising us, and so forth. I'm sure we can find enough to fill the board...

-jk

[Cockabeau]

Yes. I meant conducive. I too am interested to see how and when K uses the "big" lineup.

As for Silky J, I still believe Curry is the better overall player than Dawkins, we will have to see about that one. I believe you were a big proponent of Singler/Plumlee/Plumlee. So while I got the Curry/Dawkins thing wrong so far, I am correct in the sense that K favors the 3 guard lineup at this point in the season.

[CDu]

Yes. I meant conducive. I too am interested to see how and when K uses the "big" lineup.

Well, he used the big lineup for most of the game yesterday, and it was pretty effective.

[ACCBBallFan]

Well, he used the big lineup for most of the game yesterday, and it was pretty effective.I would not be surprised if Andre gets the start versus Michigan State who plays a 3 guard set.

Miles could instead get rewarded for his rebounding and start over Ryan, but Miles needs to foul less or it is moot.

[JohnGalt]

Although those close within the fold hinted at it, I think all the bickering centers around two things:

1. This year - as opposed to last - Andre is physically larger and more imposing on the floor.
2. This year - as opposed to last - Andre is much more confident on both the defensive and offensive sides of the ball, resulting in a dramatic improvement of play.

What does that mean for this argument?

It substantially skews the entire debate because hardly anyone (IF anyone) predicted he would have this sort of impact this early on. He's physically large enough to defend - and defend well - opposing team's 3s and mentally confident enough to create and bury his own shot.

And it's oh, so sweet.

[Indoor66]

I would not be surprised if Andre gets the start versus Michigan State who plays a 3 guard set.

Miles could instead get rewarded for his rebounding and start over Ryan, but Miles needs to foul less or it is moot.

I get a sense of a Mason-Ryan combo and a Miles-Andre combo in the substitution pattern. I think Mason & Ryan will continue to start.

[Kedsy]

The big lineup made a huge comeback against an undersized, overmatched Oregon team. This performance makes the overall numbers look pretty even between the big and small lineups. As the season moves on, presumably one game won't have as much of an impact, although any time one lineup has a +27 and the other a goose egg, it's going to move the discussion a little bit.

Just to clarify, for the purposes of these numbers, any time Kyle is at the 4 I'm counting it as "small." So, for example, Kyrie, Nolan, Andre, Kyle, Mason is a "small lineup." If Kyle is at the 3 I'm counting it as "big," so Kyrie, Seth, Kyle, Josh, Miles is a "big lineup." The "middle" lineup in this analysis is when two bigs play but Kyle is on the bench (e.g., Nolan, Seth, Andre, Mason, Ryan).

OREGON
--------
2 bigs + Kyle: 25 minutes; +27 (1.080 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 5 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 10 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)


TOTAL (6 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 86 minutes; +75 (0.872 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 56 minutes; +7 (0.125 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 98 minutes; +87 (0.888 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (6 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 14.33 minutes; +12.50 (0.872 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 9.33 minutes; +1.40 (0.125 pdpm)
1/0 big + Kyle: 16.33 minutes; +14.50 (0.888 pdpm)

[hq2]

The "middle" lineup in this analysis is when two bigs play but Kyle is on the bench (e.g., Nolan, Seth, Andre, Mason, Ryan).


That would be one I'd like to see more of with Andre out there. At this point, it should be clear that Andre should be Kyle's backup at 3; they need extra size at the third guard/swing position when Kyle isn't in. That would put him in with Kyle at 4 about 10-15 minutes a game, which would give us a pretty big lineup about 25-30 minutes per game. That would optimize both Andre's P.T. and our rebounding and inside defense. I think that's the way K is likely to play it.

[Kedsy]

That would be one I'd like to see more of with Andre out there. At this point, it should be clear that Andre should be Kyle's backup at 3; they need extra size at the third guard/swing position when Kyle isn't in. That would put him in with Kyle at 4 about 10-15 minutes a game, which would give us a pretty big lineup about 25-30 minutes per game. That would optimize both Andre's P.T. and our rebounding and inside defense. I think that's the way K is likely to play it.

I agree. Before the season started I expected Kyle to play about 32 mpg, with 10 of those coming at the 4, and with Andre subbing for Kyle for 8 minutes and playing in a small lineup for 10 (18 mpg overall). In real life so far, Kyle is only playing 30.7 mpg, the small lineup is playing 16.3 minutes a game and Andre is playing 20.8 mpg. That means we are playing almost 5 minutes a game with neither Andre nor Kyle in the game, and that's a little bit of a surprise to me.

I would also note, however, that the two-bigs-no-Kyle lineup (sometimes with, sometimes without Andre) has struggled so far this year, although that's to be expected to some extent since our All-American candidate (Kyle) is by definition not playing in that lineup.

[BD80]

... I would also note, however, that the two-bigs-no-Kyle lineup (sometimes with, sometimes without Andre) has struggled so far this year, although that's to be expected to some extent since our All-American candidate (Kyle) is by definition not playing in that lineup.

That line-up is also our "bench-clearing" line-up, without Kyrie or Nolan or Mason, and ithe bench-clearing probably counts for at least 1/4 of the time this line-up plays. It should do far worse than, say the Kyle + 2 bigs, which is our STARTING line-up and more often includes Kyrie and Nolan than any other line-up (at least 4 -5 minutes to begin each game).

[hq2]

the small lineup is playing 16.3 minutes a game and Andre is playing 20.8 mpg

He should get more, getting them from Miles and Kelly. He should also be in with the one big and Kyle lineup more too. I believe that lineup is just as good as the two bigs and Kyle, maybe better. Andre is simply too good a shooter not to be playing more, especially since he can play D at 3 too. Gotta have 'Dre and his sweet J out there!

[sagegrouse]

I would not be surprised if Andre gets the start versus Michigan State who plays a 3 guard set.

Miles could instead get rewarded for his rebounding and start over Ryan, but Miles needs to foul less or it is moot.

I suspect that the Duke starting lineup will not change based on the opponent. After all, if MSU plays three guards, one of them has to guard Kyle, Mason, or Ryan. ;) But, I agree with your point, if broadened to mean that Andre may get increased minutes.

WRT Miles, you answered your own question. A guy that picks up five fouls in 19 minutes doesn't need more minutes at the BEGINNING of the game.

sagegrouse

[MChambers]

He should get more, getting them from Miles and Kelly. He should also be in with the one big and Kyle lineup more too. I believe that lineup is just as good as the two bigs and Kyle, maybe better. Andre is simply too good a shooter not to be playing more, especially since he can play D at 3 too. Gotta have 'Dre and his sweet J out there!
It's funny for me to say this, because I've always thought Kyle was the perfect Duke "4", like Shane, but I prefer the big lineups with the personnel we've got. In particular, I think having Andre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4 is just a little small. If Andre was a little bigger, maybe I wouldn't feel that way, but we're a little thin on the rebounding with Andre and Kyle as the forwards. Also, I think that Ryan and Miles are playing well, doing lots of little things, and they are likely to improve a lot over the course of the season. I expect Miles to have very solid +/- numbers over the rest of the season, especially if he can reduce his rate of fouling. I fully expect Miles bring the Zoubek Effect full force as the season progresses.

[hq2]

It's funny for me to say this, because I've always thought Kyle was the perfect Duke "4", like Shane, but I prefer the big lineups with the personnel we've got. In particular, I think having Andre at the 3 with Kyle at the 4 is just a little small.

Kind of depends on the opponent. Big will work better sometimes, small others. Note that the "small" lineup is actually the same heights as the starters on the 85-86 team, which still holds the record for Ws (although a little more height might have helped against Purvis in that title game...)

[MChambers]

Kind of depends on the opponent. Big will work better sometimes, small others. Note that the "small" lineup is actually the same heights as the starters on the 85-86 team, which still holds the record for Ws (although a little more height might have helped against Purvis in that title game...)
My sense is that college basketball lineups are smaller these days, with so many big men being one-and-done. But I still prefer the big lineup as our staple, with the small lineup thrown in as a treat from time to time, and to close out games.

[Kedsy]

He should get more, getting them from Miles and Kelly. He should also be in with the one big and Kyle lineup more too. I believe that lineup is just as good as the two bigs and Kyle, maybe better. Andre is simply too good a shooter not to be playing more, especially since he can play D at 3 too. Gotta have 'Dre and his sweet J out there!

I disagree. Miles and Ryan are currently only getting 16 and 14 mpg, respectively. If anything I would like to see them get a couple more, rather than a couple less. Andre at 21 mpg and Seth at 20 mpg are right about where I'd like to see them.

[Kedsy]

I'm sure most of us already suspected this, and the following numbers aren't so meaningful since I don't know how many minutes each configuration has played, but so far this season (6 games):

the various lineups with 2 guards, Andre, Kyle, and a big are +92
the various lineups with 2 guards, Seth, Kyle, and a big are +2

(and a lineup with 2 guards, Seth, Andre, and Kyle (and no "bigs") is -5, for those who want to make everything add up)

So through a combination of not being used so much and not being so effective, so far it seems that playing Seth, Nolan, and Kyrie together does not seem particularly feasible.

[pfrduke]

I'm sure most of us already suspected this, and the following numbers aren't so meaningful since I don't know how many minutes each configuration has played, but so far this season (6 games):

the various lineups with 2 guards, Andre, Kyle, and a big are +92
the various lineups with 2 guards, Seth, Kyle, and a big are +2

(and a lineup with 2 guards, Seth, Andre, and Kyle (and no "bigs") is -5, for those who want to make everything add up)

So through a combination of not being used so much and not being so effective, so far it seems that playing Seth, Nolan, and Kyrie together does not seem particularly feasible.

Across the board Seth is +59 (188-129) playing the "2" (i.e., playing with only one of Kyrie, Nolan, or Tyler), and +4 (4-0) in his solitary stint at the "1," meaning he's -2 (69-71) at the "3" (i.e., playing with two of Kyrie, Nolan, and Tyler). I don't have total playing time, either, but playing Seth at the small forward has not been a winning combination for us, so far.

[CDu]

Across the board Seth is +59 (188-129) playing the "2" (i.e., playing with only one of Kyrie, Nolan, or Tyler), and +4 (4-0) in his solitary stint at the "1," meaning he's -2 (69-71) at the "3" (i.e., playing with two of Kyrie, Nolan, and Tyler). I don't have total playing time, either, but playing Seth at the small forward has not been a winning combination for us, so far.

I might word that just a little bit differently to be "playing Seth in a lineup with three small guards...," as I suspect that Curry wasn't actually guarding the other team's 3 in any of those lineups. But your point remains valid: a lineup with three small guards (i.e., three of Irving/Smith/Curry/Thornton) has been far less effective than a lineup with either Singler or Dawkins as the third wing player. Obviously small sample size caveats are still in play of course.

[Kedsy]

Well, the "small" lineup played a lot of minutes against Michigan State (20, fully half of the game), but for the second straight game that lineup had a +/- of zero (0). The "big" lineup is now ever so slightly more effective per minute over our first seven games.

Both the +/- with Andre at the 3 and the +/- with Seth at the 3 were zero (0).

MICHIGAN STATE
-----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 19 minutes; +6 (0.316 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 1 minutes; -1 (-1.000 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle (including 0 big + Kyle): 20 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)


TOTAL (7 games)
----------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 105 minutes; +81 (0.771 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 57 minutes; +6 (0.105 pdpm)
1 big + Kyle: 118 minutes; +87 (0.737 pdpm)

PER GAME AVERAGE (7 games)
-----------------------------
2 bigs + Kyle: 15.00 minutes; +11.57 (0.771 point differential per minute)
2 bigs, no Kyle: 8.14 minutes; +0.86 (0.105 pdpm)
1/0 big + Kyle: 16.86 minutes; +12.43 (0.737 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

It seems like people are still interested in this debate, so I'm reviving this thread.

First of all, as a reminder, going into the Butler game, the minute distribution went like this on a per game basis:

BIG/MEDIUM/SMALL
-------------------
Princeton: 10/14/16
Miami OH: 16/11/13
Colgate: 11/18/11
Marquette: 12/2/26
Kansas St: 12/6/22
Oregon: 25/5/10
Michigan St: 19/1/20

The totals through our first seven games were:

7 game totals
----------------
BIG (2 bigs + Kyle): 105 minutes; +81 (0.771 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM (2 bigs, no Kyle): 57 minutes; +6 (0.105 pdpm)
SMALL (1 big + Kyle): 118 minutes; +87 (0.737 pdpm)


And now, the Butler game. This game was notable for Kyrie's injury, but also because it's the only game where we played "super small" (Kyle plus four guards) for more than a minute or so. (Note that the 4 minutes I'm attributing to the supersmall lineup is an estimate.)

BUTLER
-------
BIG: 7 minutes; -4 (-0.571 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 11 minutes; -1 (-0.091 pdpm)
SMALL: 18 minutes; +18 (1.000 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH BUTLER GAME (8 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 112 minutes; +77 (0.688 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 68 minutes; +5 (0.074 pdpm)
SMALL: 136 minutes; +105 (0.772 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)

TOTALS THROUGH BUTLER GAME (8 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 112 minutes; +77 (0.688 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 68 minutes; +5 (0.074 pdpm)
SMALL: 136 minutes; +105 (0.772 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)

AVERAGE THROUGH BUTLER GAME (8 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 14 minutes; +9.63 (0.688 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 8.5 minutes; +0.63 (0.074 pdpm)
SMALL: 17 minutes; +13.13 (0.772 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.5 minutes; -0.13 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Without Kyrie, we went from using the big lineup only 7 minutes to using the small lineup only 5. This abrupt turnaround would remain consistent through the Miami FL game.

BRADLEY
--------
BIG: 25 minutes; +25 (+1.000 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 10 minutes; +6 (+0.600 pdpm)
SMALL: 5 minutes; +4 (+0.800 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH BRADLEY GAME (9 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 137 minutes; +102 (+0.745 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 78 minutes; +11 (+0.141 pdpm)
SMALL: 141 minutes; +109 (+0.773 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH BRADLEY GAME (9 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 15.22 minutes; +11.33 (+0.745 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 8.67 minutes; +1.22 (+0.141 pdpm)
SMALL: 15.67 minutes; +12.11 (+0.773 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.5 minutes; -0.13 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

The small lineup only played 4 minutes against St. Louis, but they were four really good ones.

ST. LOUIS
----------
BIG: 29 minutes; +18 (+0.621 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 7 minutes; +6 (+0.857 pdpm)
SMALL: 4 minutes; +14 (+3.500 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH ST. LOUIS GAME (10 games)
---------------------------------------------
BIG: 166 minutes; +120 (+0.723 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 85 minutes; +17 (+0.200 pdpm)
SMALL: 145 minutes; +123 (+0.848 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH ST. LOUIS GAME (10 games)
----------------------------------------------
BIG: 16.60 minutes; +12.00 (+0.723 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 8.50 minutes; +1.70 (+0.200 pdpm)
SMALL: 14.50 minutes; +12.30 (+0.848 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.4 minutes; -0.10 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

ELON
-----
BIG: 28 minutes; +15 (+0.536 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 3 minutes; -4 (-1.333 pdpm)
SMALL: 9 minutes; +15 (+1.667 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH ELON GAME (11 games)
-----------------------------------------
BIG: 194 minutes; +135 (+0.696 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 88 minutes; +13 (+0.148 pdpm)
SMALL: 154 minutes; +138 (+0.896 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH ELON GAME (11 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 17.64 minutes; +12.27 (+0.696 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 8.00 minutes; +1.18 (+0.148 pdpm)
SMALL: 14.00 minutes; +12.55 (+0.896 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.36 minutes; -0.09 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

UNCG
-----
BIG: 24 minutes; +36 (+1.500 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 11 minutes; +10 (+0.909 pdpm)
SMALL: 5 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UNCG GAME (12 games)
-----------------------------------------
BIG: 218 minutes; +171 (+0.784 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 99 minutes; +23 (+0.232 pdpm)
SMALL: 159 minutes; +138 (+0.868 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UNCG GAME (12 games)
------------------------------------------
BIG: 18.17 minutes; +14.25 (+0.784 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 8.25 minutes; +1.92 (+0.232 pdpm)
SMALL: 13.25 minutes; +11.50 (+0.868 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.33 minutes; -0.08 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

This was the most minutes the big lineup played in a single game so far. And for the 2nd straight game, the big lineup outperformed the small.

MIAMI FL
---------
BIG: 33 minutes; +18 (+0.545 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 0 minutes; 0 (+0.000 pdpm)
SMALL: 7 minutes; -7 (-1.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH MIAMI FL GAME (13 games)
--------------------------------------------
BIG: 251 minutes; +189 (+0.753 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 99 minutes; +23 (+0.232 pdpm)
SMALL: 166 minutes; +131 (+0.789 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH MIAMI FL GAME (13 games)
---------------------------------------------
BIG: 19.31 minutes; +14.54 (+0.753 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 7.62 minutes; +1.77 (+0.232 pdpm)
SMALL: 12.77 minutes; +10.08 (+0.789 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.31 minutes; -0.08 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

UAB
----
BIG: 22 minutes; +17 (+0.773 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 5 minutes; -2 (-0.400 pdpm)
SMALL: 13 minutes; +6 (+0.462 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UAB GAME (14 games)
---------------------------------------
BIG: 273 minutes; +206 (+0.755 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 104 minutes; +21 (+0.202 pdpm)
SMALL: 179 minutes; +137 (+0.765 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 4 minutes; -1 (-0.250 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UAB GAME (14 games)
----------------------------------------
BIG: 19.50 minutes; +14.71 (+0.755 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 7.43 minutes; +1.50 (+0.202 pdpm)
SMALL: 12.79 minutes; +9.79 (+0.765 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.29 minutes; -0.07 (-0.250 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

The clunk you heard in the Maryland game was the big lineup crashing back to Earth. The supersmall success can probably mostly be attributed to only being out there on offense.

MARYLAND
----------
BIG: 21 minutes; -2 (-0.095 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
SMALL: 18 minutes; +5 (+0.278 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 1 minute; +4 (+4.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH MARYLAND GAME (15 games)
----------------------------------------------
BIG: 294 minutes; +204 (+0.694 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 104 minutes; +21 (+0.202 pdpm)
SMALL: 197 minutes; +142 (+0.721 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 5 minutes; +3 (+0.600 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH MARYLAND GAME (15 games)
-----------------------------------------------
BIG: 19.60 minutes; +13.60 (+0.694 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 6.93 minutes; +1.40 (+0.202 pdpm)
SMALL: 13.13 minutes; +9.47 (+0.721 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.33 minutes; +0.20 (+0.600 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

FSU
----
BIG: 17 minutes; -3 (-0.176 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 2 minutes; -2 (-1.000 pdpm)
SMALL: 20 minutes; +2 (+0.100 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 1 minute; -2 (-2.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH FSU GAME (16 games)
----------------------------------------
BIG: 311 minutes; +201 (+0.646 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 106 minutes; +19 (+0.179 pdpm)
SMALL: 217 minutes; +144 (+0.664 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH FSU GAME (16 games)
-----------------------------------------
BIG: 19.44 minutes; +12.56 (+0.646 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 6.44 minutes; +1.40 (+0.1792 pdpm)
SMALL: 13.56 minutes; +9.00 (+0.664 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.38 minutes; +0.20 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

I don't have plus/minus numbers yet for the Virginia or NC State games. But I do know the minute distribution.

Against Virginia, our small lineup played tied for the most minutes it has played all year. Against NCSU, our small lineup played tied for the least minutes it has played all year.

Here are the details:

BIG/MEDIUM/SMALL
-------------------
Virginia: 13/1/26
NCSU: 31/5/4


What does this prove? I'm beginning to think absolutely nothing. Coach K is varying his minute distribution to fit his opponent; no news flash there.

I'll put up the full numbers once plus/minus is available for these last two games.

Cheers.

[superdave]

I was actually praying for massive foul trouble among our guards vs. State late in the game (since we were up comfortably) so we could go Mason-Miles-Ryan-Kyle and Tyler. Then I'd say a prayer for them to go +4 in 1 minute just to see if a lightbulb went off in anyone's head on these boards.

These lineups are so situational depending on matchups. It does make you appreciate this year's depth though that we can even have this discussion.

[mgtr]

The conclusion is interesting, since I have heard coaches say that they didn't try to match up with other teams, they let the other team try to match up with them. In fact, I think that Coach K said that last year. However, since Kyrie went down, the plans are out the window, and he is trying all kinds of combos. I would hope that by the ACC tournament (assuming no Kyrie) that things will settle down some.

[superdave]

The conclusion is interesting, since I have heard coaches say that they didn't try to match up with other teams, they let the other team try to match up with them. In fact, I think that Coach K said that last year. However, since Kyrie went down, the plans are out the window, and he is trying all kinds of combos. I would hope that by the ACC tournament (assuming no Kyrie) that things will settle down some.

I dont know if that's the right perspective - Coach K is not matching up with the other team so much as exploiting their weaknesses.

If a team like UVA cannot handle our speed, he'll go small and outscore them with Kyle at the 4 and 3 guards. If a team like State is bigger, he'll go big and crash the boards with 4 and 5 guys which puts pressure on their guards to be really efficient. Maryland has Jordan Williams so we double down on him and see how well he likes passing to below-average guards.

My perspective is we are two teams - a smaller, faster high-scoring team and a larger team that is pretty tough defensively. I think we are the ones dictating matchups and tempo and not being reactive. We get in trouble when we play passively and dont dictate tempo (FSU).

[MChambers]

What does this prove? I'm beginning to think absolutely nothing. Coach K is varying his minute distribution to fit his opponent; no news flash there.
I'd say it tends to support what most of us think, that maybe this Krzyzewski guy is going to be a pretty good basketball coach.

[Kedsy]

A good game for the small lineup. Third straight game the big lineup had a negative plus/minus.

VIRGINIA
---------
BIG: 13 minutes; -2 (-0.154 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 1 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
SMALL: 26 minutes; +18 (+0.692 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH VIRGINIA GAME (17 games)
--------------------------------------------
BIG: 324 minutes; +199 (+0.614 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 107 minutes; +19 (+0.178 pdpm)
SMALL: 243 minutes; +162 (+0.667 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH VIRGINIA GAME (17 games)
----------------------------------------------
BIG: 19.06 minutes; +11.71 (+0.614 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 6.29 minutes; +1.12 (+0.178 pdpm)
SMALL: 14.29 minutes; +9.53 (+0.667 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.35 minutes; +0.06 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Pretty much the exact opposite of the last three games. But we already knew that, right?

I don't know that we can read too much into this analysis since Kyrie's been out, but with the small lineup averaging around 14 minutes a game, the people in the "10 to 12 mpg" group are closer to being right than the "most of the game" crowd. Having said that, if Kyrie were playing, I suspect by now we'd have the small lineup on the floor at least half the game (albeit with Andre as the third guard rather than Seth as many believed in the off-season). Alas, we may not ever know for sure.


NC STATE
----------
BIG: 31 minutes; +10 (+0.323 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 5 minutes; +4 (+0.800 pdpm)
SMALL: 4 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH NC STATE GAME (18 games)
---------------------------------------------
BIG: 355 minutes; +209 (+0.589 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 112 minutes; +23 (+0.205 pdpm)
SMALL: 247 minutes; +162 (+0.656 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH NC STATE GAME (18 games)
----------------------------------------------
BIG: 19.72 minutes; +11.61 (+0.589 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 6.22 minutes; +1.28 (+0.205 pdpm)
SMALL: 13.72 minutes; +9.00 (+0.656 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.33 minutes; +0.06 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Minute distribution was similar against Wake Forest to what it was against State. A big difference against Wake was the small lineup performed very well in limited minutes. For a minute or so against Wake we used a very rare lineup with Josh, Ryan, and Miles along the front line, which I included in the "medium" category because there was no Kyle on the court.

WAKE FOREST
--------------
BIG: 26 minutes; +15 (+0.577 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 9 minutes; +1 (+0.111 pdpm)
SMALL: 5 minutes; +8 (+1.600 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH WAKE FOREST GAME (19 games)
--------------------------------------------------
BIG: 381 minutes; +224 (+0.588 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 121 minutes; +24 (+0.198 pdpm)
SMALL: 252 minutes; +170 (+0.675 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH WAKE FOREST GAME (19 games)
--------------------------------------------------
BIG: 20.05 minutes; +11.79 (+0.588 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 6.37 minutes; +1.26 (+0.198 pdpm)
SMALL: 13.26 minutes; +8.95 (+0.675 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.32 minutes; +0.05 (+0.167 pdpm)

[CDu]

Minute distribution was similar against Wake Forest to what it was against State. A big difference against Wake was the small lineup performed very well in limited minutes. For a minute or so against Wake we used a very rare lineup with Josh, Ryan, and Miles along the front line, which I included in the "medium" category because there was no Kyle on the court.

WAKE FOREST
--------------
BIG: 26 minutes; +15 (+0.577 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 9 minutes; +1 (+0.111 pdpm)
SMALL: 5 minutes; +8 (+1.600 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH WAKE FOREST GAME (19 games)
--------------------------------------------------
BIG: 381 minutes; +224 (+0.588 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 121 minutes; +24 (+0.198 pdpm)
SMALL: 252 minutes; +170 (+0.675 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH WAKE FOREST GAME (19 games)
--------------------------------------------------
BIG: 20.05 minutes; +11.79 (+0.588 point differential per minute)
MEDIUM: 6.37 minutes; +1.26 (+0.198 pdpm)
SMALL: 13.26 minutes; +8.95 (+0.675 pdpm)
SUPERSMALL: 0.32 minutes; +0.05 (+0.167 pdpm)

Hmm... I agree with the idea of separating out the Non-Singler lineups for this exercise. But a lineup with Plumlee, Kelly, and Hairston is most definitely not medium. Perhaps for clarity you could consider retitling the "MEDIUM" category to be "NO SINGLER."

[BD80]

Hmm... I agree with the idea of separating out the Non-Singler lineups for this exercise. But a lineup with Plumlee, Kelly, and Hairston is most definitely not medium. Perhaps for clarity you could consider retitling the "MEDIUM" category to be "NO SINGLER."

Too negative. How about: "Singler in repose"

[Kedsy]

Hmm... I agree with the idea of separating out the Non-Singler lineups for this exercise. But a lineup with Plumlee, Kelly, and Hairston is most definitely not medium. Perhaps for clarity you could consider retitling the "MEDIUM" category to be "NO SINGLER."

When I started it that's more or less the way I did it. I can go back to it if that's what people want. The big/medium/small thing is just shorthand, anyway. It could just as easily be "Kyle at the 3," "Kyle on the bench," and "Kyle at the 4" instead of big, medium, small.

[Kedsy]

As of the BC game we seem to be settling into a pattern. Nothing out of the ordinary in the "big/small" debate.

BC
--
Kyle at 3: 29 minutes; +10 (+0.345 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minute; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 10 minutes; +6 (+0.600 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH BC GAME (20 games)
--------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 410 minutes; +234 (+0.571 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 122 minutes; +24 (+0.197 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 262 minutes; +176 (+0.672 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH BC GAME (20 games)
---------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.50 minutes; +11.70 (+0.571 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 6.10 minutes; +1.20 (+0.197 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13.10 minutes; +8.80 (+0.672 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.30 minutes; +0.05 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Well, this game shows one thing we already knew: the team is better with Kyle on the court. Aside from that, while no lineup played well, the big lineup slightly outperformed the small, which was a surprise to me after watching them press us all game.

ST JOHNS
----------
Kyle at 3: 23 minutes; -4 (-0.174 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 2 minutes; -5 (-5.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 15 minutes; -6 (-0.400 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH ST JOHNS GAME (21 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 433 minutes; +230 (+0.532 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 124 minutes; +19 (+0.153 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 277 minutes; +170 (+0.614 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH ST JOHNS GAME (21 games)
----------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.62 minutes; +10.95 (+0.532 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.90 minutes; +0.90 (+0.153 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13.19 minutes; +8.10 (+0.614 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.29 minutes; +0.05 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

The small lineup was in for the decisive 22 to 9 stretch in the 2nd half. While watching the game I thought the middle (no Kyle) lineup did well in the first half, but overall that lineup was outscored again.

In the first Maryland game, the small lineup played 18 minutes and this game it played 15. In the first NC State game, the small lineup only played 4 minutes, so it will be interesting to see what happens on Saturday.

MARYLAND 2
------------
Kyle at 3: 19 minutes; +4 (+0.211 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 6 minutes; -3 (-0.500 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 15 minutes; +17 (+1.133 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH MARYLAND 2 GAME (22 games)
------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 452 minutes; +234 (+0.518 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 130 minutes; +16 (+0.123 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 292 minutes; +187 (+0.640 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH MARYLAND 2 GAME (22 games)
-------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.55 minutes; +10.64 (+0.518 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.91 minutes; +0.73 (+0.123 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13.27 minutes; +8.50 (+0.640 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.27 minutes; +0.04 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Interesting that in the first NC State game the small lineup played a season low 4 minutes, and had a plus/minus of 0 (zero), while in this game the small lineup had an amazing +32 in 13 minutes. Obviously this can be partially explained by the fact that the small lineup was on the floor during the big 21-2 run in the first half against State, but I think it goes further. My guess is CJ Leslie's suspension is the culprit here -- he makes State a much bigger team, which could explain why we went so big in the game @State and didn't need to do it this time.

The medium lineup (no Kyle) played the most minutes it has played all year, but unfortunately also turned in its worst performance. Basically when Kyle isn't on the floor, we're not that good a team. Our plus/minus without Kyle in ACC play is -14. I'm too lazy to try and figure out if we're equally bad when Nolan is on the bench.

NCSU 2
-------
Kyle at 3: 15 minutes; 0 (0.000 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 12 minutes; -8 (-0.667 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13 minutes; +32 (+2.462 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH NCSU 2 GAME (23 games)
-------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 467 minutes; +234 (+0.501 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 142 minutes; +8 (+0.056 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 305 minutes; +219 (+0.718 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH NCSU 2 GAME (23 games)
--------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.30 minutes; +10.17 (+0.501 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 6.17 minutes; +0.34 (+0.056 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13.26 minutes; +9.52 (+0.718 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.26 minutes; +0.04 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Against a very skilled interior, our own bigs were differencemakers. The big lineup outplayed our small lineup tonight, and it was all about defense, at least in the second half.

UNC
----
Kyle at 3: 30 minutes; +13 (0.433 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 10 minutes; -7 (-0.700 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UNC GAME (24 games)
----------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 497 minutes; +247 (+0.497 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 142 minutes; +8 (+0.056 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 315 minutes; +212 (+0.673 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 6 minutes; +1 (+0.167 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UNC GAME (24 games)
-----------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.71 minutes; +10.29 (+0.497 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.92 minutes; +0.33 (+0.056 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13.13 minutes; +8.83 (+0.673 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.25 minutes; +0.04 (+0.167 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Again the big lineup was best against Miami. Trend, or a testament to the skills of Miami's guards?

MIAMI FL 2
-----------
Kyle at 3: 26 minutes; +10 (0.385 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13 minutes; -1 (-0.077 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 1 minute; +1 (+1.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH MIAMI FL 2 GAME (25 games)
----------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 523 minutes; +257 (+0.491 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 142 minutes; +8 (+0.056 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 328 minutes; +211 (+0.643 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH MIAMI FL 2 GAME (25 games)
-----------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.92 minutes; +10.28 (+0.491 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.68 minutes; +0.32 (+0.056 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 13.12 minutes; +8.44 (+0.643 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.28 minutes; +0.08 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

The Virginia game afforded the most minutes for the "Kyle on the bench" team since Kyrie went down, and the "middle" lineup had its best game in quite awhile. Perhaps more noteworthy, the "small" lineup had a negative plus/minus for the third consecutive game. Does it mean anything? Who can say? But for those who thought our "Kyle at the 4" lineup would dominate, it really hasn't.

UVA 2
------
Kyle at 3: 14 minutes; +9 (0.643 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 17 minutes; +7 (0.412 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 9 minutes; -1 (-0.111 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UVA 2 GAME (26 games)
------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 537 minutes; +266 (+0.495 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 159 minutes; +15 (+0.094 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 337 minutes; +210 (+0.623 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UVA 2 GAME (26 games)
-------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.65 minutes; +10.23 (+0.495 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 6.12 minutes; +0.58 (+0.094 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.96 minutes; +8.08 (+0.623 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.27 minutes; +0.08 (+0.286 pdpm)

[NSDukeFan]

The Virginia game afforded the most minutes for the "Kyle on the bench" team since Kyrie went down, and the "middle" lineup had its best game in quite awhile. Perhaps more noteworthy, the "small" lineup had a negative plus/minus for the third consecutive game. Does it mean anything? Who can say? But for those who thought our "Kyle at the 4" lineup would dominate, it really hasn't.

UVA 2
------
Kyle at 3: 14 minutes; +9 (0.643 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 17 minutes; +7 (0.412 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 9 minutes; -1 (-0.111 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UVA 2 GAME (26 games)
------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 537 minutes; +266 (+0.495 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 159 minutes; +15 (+0.094 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 337 minutes; +210 (+0.623 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UVA 2 GAME (26 games)
-------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.65 minutes; +10.23 (+0.495 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 6.12 minutes; +0.58 (+0.094 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.96 minutes; +8.08 (+0.623 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.27 minutes; +0.08 (+0.286 pdpm)

Thanks for keeping track of this. I have liked the discussions in this thread. I would say the biggest factor here has been the relative impacts of Ryan and Miles vs. Andre and Tyler. Where Andre's PT and effectiveness has declined, this has limited the use and effectiveness of the small lineup. Like most, I hope to see Andre bounce back with some great games in the difficult stretch of games ahead. Also, go Miles. Of course, I am very pleased with how Ryan, Mason, Seth and Tyler have been playing lately.

[Kedsy]

The "big" lineup played twice as much as the "small" lineup against Georgia Tech, as is fairly common, but it's unusual that both lineups achieved the exact same point differential per minute, as they did against Tech.

Ga Tech
--------
Kyle at 3: 24 minutes; +16 (0.667 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 4 minutes; -2 (-0.500 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12 minutes; +8 (+0.667 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH GA TECH GAME (27 games)
--------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 561 minutes; +282 (+0.503 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 163 minutes; +13 (+0.080 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 349 minutes; +218 (+0.624 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH GA TECH GAME (27 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 20.78 minutes; +10.44 (+0.503 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 6.04 minutes; +0.48 (+0.080 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.93 minutes; +8.07 (+0.624 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.26 minutes; +0.07 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

It's interesting that against a Temple team playing such a small lineup, K chose to stay big for so much of the game.

To me this brings up a good question: if you're playing against small, quick players, is it better to play big and try to take advantage of your height, or play small to try to neutralize the other team's quickness? I guess Temple wasn't quick enough that K felt the big lineup would be at a defensive disadvantage, so he went that route. Yet when we went small, we performed better. Not sure if there's anything to take away from that, though.

Ultimately, I suppose it's nice to have both options, because a lot of teams don't.

Temple
-------
Kyle at 3: 31 minutes; +9 (+0.290 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; +1 (+1.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 8 minutes; +7 (+0.875 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH TEMPLE GAME (28 games)
-------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 592 minutes; +291 (+0.492 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 164 minutes; +14 (+0.085 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 357 minutes; +225 (+0.630 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH TEMPLE GAME (28 games)
--------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 21.14 minutes; +10.39 (+0.492 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.86 minutes; +0.50 (+0.085 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.75 minutes; +8.04 (+0.630 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.25 minutes; +0.07 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Small lineup didn't play very much against VPI, but at least it outscored the opposition. I guess Allen and Davilla played well enough that our height advantage with the big lineup didn't turn into a scoring advantage.

Va Tech
--------
Kyle at 3: 33 minutes; -8 (-0.242 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 7 minutes; +4 (+0.571 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH VA TECH GAME (29 games)
--------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 625 minutes; +283 (+0.453 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 164 minutes; +14 (+0.085 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 364 minutes; +229 (+0.629 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH VA TECH GAME (29 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 21.55 minutes; +9.76 (+0.453 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.66 minutes; +0.48 (+0.085 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.55 minutes; +7.90 (+0.629 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.24 minutes; +0.07 (+0.286 pdpm)

[COYS]

Small lineup didn't play very much against VPI, but at least it outscored the opposition. I guess Allen and Davilla played well enough that our height advantage with the big lineup didn't turn into a scoring advantage.

Va Tech
--------
Kyle at 3: 33 minutes; -8 (-0.242 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 7 minutes; +4 (+0.571 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH VA TECH GAME (29 games)
--------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 625 minutes; +283 (+0.453 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 164 minutes; +14 (+0.085 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 364 minutes; +229 (+0.629 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH VA TECH GAME (29 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 21.55 minutes; +9.76 (+0.453 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.66 minutes; +0.48 (+0.085 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.55 minutes; +7.90 (+0.629 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.24 minutes; +0.07 (+0.286 pdpm)

I've commented on your posts a little too much to give you props for keeping this up, but just wanted to express my thanks for continuing to post these stats. With Kyrie out, the debate has lost a little luster, but I am definitely of the mind that Coach K still hasn't quite figured out the best rotation. I'd say this is mostly due to the inconsistency of Miles, Dawkins, and Curry who have each had their highs and lows this season. I am sure that solving this puzzle is the most important step in the development of the team over the final two regular season games and will open up this debate again.

[CDu]

I've commented on your posts a little too much to give you props for keeping this up, but just wanted to express my thanks for continuing to post these stats. With Kyrie out, the debate has lost a little luster, but I am definitely of the mind that Coach K still hasn't quite figured out the best rotation. I'd say this is mostly due to the inconsistency of Miles, Dawkins, and Curry who have each had their highs and lows this season. I am sure that solving this puzzle is the most important step in the development of the team over the final two regular season games and will open up this debate again.

Yeah, the debate was most interesting when it was the question of whether we'd go more often with three tiny guards (Irving/Smith/Curry) or more with Irving/Smith/Singler. The injury to Irving completely changed the dynamic of the debate, because now the three tiny guard lineup involves Thornton (which is substantially different than a three guard lineup with Irving).

I think you can add Kelly and Thornton to the "inconsistency" department. Basically, everyone but Singler and Smith have had highly inconsistent seasons. Obviously, Singler and Smith have each had the occasional clunker, but they've mostly been there every night. Part of the inconsistency of the others is a lot of those guys are still limited in particular areas of their games, so consistency can be hard to achieve.

[dukebluelemur]

To me what the averages are saying is more about Kyle than about the other guy on the floor with him. Let's be honest, he has been stuck in a really bad shooting slump for a long time. When he has been most effective this season is when he is banging inside, and the small lineup forces him to do that more.

Just my thoughts when I see the numbers.

[superdave]

To me what the averages are saying is more about Kyle than about the other guy on the floor with him. Let's be honest, he has been stuck in a really bad shooting slump for a long time. When he has been most effective this season is when he is banging inside, and the small lineup forces him to do that more.

Just my thoughts when I see the numbers.

I see two reasons for Kyle to head inside -1. Small defender he can abuse and 2. We need to win the game on the boards. I think those are both situational and depend on matchups. We're two very different teams - one big and good at defending/rebounding, and another small and fast and good at scoring. I think Coach K has done a good jump of identifying what we need and when.

[Kedsy]

I see two reasons for Kyle to head inside -1. Small defender he can abuse and 2. We need to win the game on the boards. I think those are both situational and depend on matchups. We're two very different teams - one big and good at defending/rebounding, and another small and fast and good at scoring. I think Coach K has done a good jump of identifying what we need and when.

Well, I think it's interesting that we play "big" so much more than "small," but the small lineup is much more effective. (And, yes, I've heard the arguments that plus/minus is not a good indicator of effectiveness.) I'm not sure it says anything about Kyle's slump or him playing inside or out in general; what it says to me is you're correct, and we have to choose our spots carefully for the small lineup.

[Kedsy]

Against Clemson, the small lineup played more than it has in awhile (since the first UVa game on January 15, to be precise). Not sure why, though. Also, despite the fact that the small lineup has been more effective over the course of the season, it's still unlikely we play the small lineup too much at Chapel Hill, based on the numbers from the UNC game in Cameron. Less than 24 hours away, though, so I guess we'll see pretty soon.

Clemson
--------
Kyle at 3: 20 minutes; +6 (+0.300 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 3 minutes; -4 (-1.333 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 17 minutes; +9 (+0.529 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH CLEMSON GAME (30 games)
--------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 645 minutes; +289 (+0.448 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 167 minutes; +10 (+0.060 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 381 minutes; +238 (+0.625 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH CLEMSON GAME (30 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 21.50 minutes; +9.63 (+0.448 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.57 minutes; +0.33 (+0.060 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.70 minutes; +7.93 (+0.625 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.23 minutes; +0.07 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

This was a solid team loss, so I guess it's no surprise that both big and small lineups were relatively equally ineffective.

UNC 2
------
Kyle at 3: 28 minutes; -10 (-0.357 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12 minutes; -4 (-0.333 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UNC 2 GAME (31 games)
------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 673 minutes; +279 (+0.415 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 167 minutes; +10 (+0.060 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 393 minutes; +234 (+0.595 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UNC 2 GAME (31 games)
-------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 21.71 minutes; +9.00 (+0.415 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.39 minutes; +0.32 (+0.060 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.68 minutes; +7.55 (+0.595 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.23 minutes; +0.06 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

The first two times we played Maryland, the small lineup played 19 and 15 minutes, but in the crunch time of the tournament, we only went small for 4 minutes. Not sure why Coach K diverged from his earlier strategy. I suppose if Mason is playing well enough to stay on the floor for 38 minutes, we're going to be big most of the time with Miles and Ryan also playing as well as they did against Maryland.

MARYLAND ACCT
----------------
Kyle at 3: 35 minutes; +11 (+0.314 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 4 minutes; +5 (+1.250 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH MARYLAND ACCT GAME (32 games)
----------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 708 minutes; +290 (+0.410 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 168 minutes; +10 (+0.060 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 397 minutes; +239 (+0.602 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH MARYLAND ACCT GAME (32 games)
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 22.13 minutes; +9.06 (+0.410 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.25 minutes; +0.31 (+0.060 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.41 minutes; +7.47 (+0.602 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.22 minutes; +0.06 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

Similar minute distribution to the first Virginia Tech game. Fortunately a better result this time.

VIRGINIA TECH ACCT
--------------------
Kyle at 3: 30 minutes; +8 (+0.267 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; -1 (-1.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 9 minutes; +7 (+0.778 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH VA TECH ACCT GAME (33 games)
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 738 minutes; +298 (+0.404 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 169 minutes; +9 (+0.053 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 406 minutes; +246 (+0.606 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH VA TECH ACCT GAME (33 games)
---------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 22.36 minutes; +9.03 (+0.404 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.12 minutes; +0.27 (+0.053 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 12.30 minutes; +7.45 (+0.606 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.21 minutes; +0.06 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

After playing 10 minutes in the first UNC game and 12 minutes in the 2nd UNC game, the "small" lineup played zero minutes this time. That's right, Kyle did not play the "4" at all in the scintillating smackdown of our arch rivals in the ACC tournament. We were wondering what wrinkle Coach K would give us in the ACCT, and personally I think this qualifies. I'm a little shocked that the small lineup couldn't get on the floor at all.

Overall in the ACC tournament, the small lineup played 13 minutes to the big lineup's 104. Despite the small lineup being more effective when it's on the court during the regular season, Coach K has clearly elected to go with the big lineup and he's been rewarded with the team playing its best basketball. Who'd have guessed?

Of course, if Kyrie's back then it all goes out the window. Against Marquette, Kansas State, and Michigan State, our small lineup averaged nearly 23 minutes a game, more than twice what the small lineup has played since Kyrie was injured (11 minutes a game). Of course that was with Andre playing 23.1 minutes per game while Seth was only playing 17.6 minutes per game, which is important because it was Andre and not Seth who was primarily the third guard in the "small" lineup. Will Seth lose minutes to Andre because of Kyrie's return? Hard to see that the way Seth has been playing. But if he doesn't, it's also hard to see Coach K employing a Nolan/Kyrie/Seth lineup and disrupting our defense as well as we played D in the ACCT.

All in all, a very interesting question ancillary to Kyrie's return.


UNC ACCT
----------
Kyle at 3: 39 minutes; +17 (+0.436 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UNC ACCT GAME (34 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 777 minutes; +315 (+0.405 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 170 minutes; +9 (+0.053 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 406 minutes; +246 (+0.606 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UNC ACCT GAME (34 games)
----------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 22.85 minutes; +9.26 (+0.405 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.00 minutes; +0.26 (+0.053 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 11.94 minutes; +7.24 (+0.606 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.21 minutes; +0.06 (+0.286 pdpm)

[MChambers]

After playing 10 minutes in the first UNC game and 12 minutes in the 2nd UNC game, the "small" lineup played zero minutes this time. That's right, Kyle did not play the "4" at all in the scintillating smackdown of our arch rivals in the ACC tournament. We were wondering what wrinkle Coach K would give us in the ACCT, and personally I think this qualifies. I'm a little shocked that the small lineup couldn't get on the floor at all.

Overall in the ACC tournament, the small lineup played 13 minutes to the big lineup's 104. Despite the small lineup being more effective when it's on the court during the regular season, Coach K has clearly elected to go with the big lineup and he's been rewarded with the team playing its best basketball. Who'd have guessed?

Of course, if Kyrie's back then it all goes out the window. Against Marquette, Kansas State, and Michigan State, our small lineup averaged nearly 23 minutes a game, more than twice what the small lineup has played since Kyrie was injured (11 minutes a game). Of course that was with Andre playing 23.1 minutes per game while Seth was only playing 17.6 minutes per game, which is important because it was Andre and not Seth who was primarily the third guard in the "small" lineup. Will Seth lose minutes to Andre because of Kyrie's return? Hard to see that the way Seth has been playing. But if he doesn't, it's also hard to see Coach K employing a Nolan/Kyrie/Seth lineup and disrupting our defense as well as we played D in the ACCT.

All in all, a very interesting question ancillary to Kyrie's return.


UNC ACCT
----------
Kyle at 3: 39 minutes; +17 (+0.436 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 0 minutes; 0 (0.000 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH UNC ACCT GAME (34 games)
---------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 777 minutes; +315 (+0.405 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 170 minutes; +9 (+0.053 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 406 minutes; +246 (+0.606 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH UNC ACCT GAME (34 games)
----------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 22.85 minutes; +9.26 (+0.405 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.00 minutes; +0.26 (+0.053 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 11.94 minutes; +7.24 (+0.606 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.21 minutes; +0.06 (+0.286 pdpm)

Whether we go small (Dawkins as a 3) or really small (Curry, Smith, and Irving) may depend a lot on the matchups. Since we don't know who we'll be playing, it's very hard to predict. I doubt we'll see the really small lineup against Hampton, because I think when Irving is in the game the first emphasis will be having him read integrated into our primary lineup.

If we beat Hampton, and play Michigan or Tennessee, there might be occasions where having Irving on the floor would be very helpful. For example, I think it would be fun to attack a 1-3-1 zone with both Smith and Irving on the floor.

[Kedsy]

If we beat Hampton, and play Michigan or Tennessee, there might be occasions where having Irving on the floor would be very helpful. For example, I think it would be fun to attack a 1-3-1 zone with both Smith and Irving on the floor.

I fully expect that most of the time Kyrie is on the floor, Nolan will also be playing. What I don't expect is Seth to be a third guard very much with Kyrie and Nolan.

Put another way, I know several people have suggested Kyrie will come in to give Nolan a rest, but I disagree. I think Kyrie will sub in for Seth. And then, when Coach K decides to go small, the third guard will be Andre, as it has been for pretty much the entire year.

[jv001]

After playing 10 minutes in the first UNC game and 12 minutes in the 2nd UNC game, the "small" lineup played zero minutes this time. That's right, Kyle did not play the "4" at all in the scintillating smackdown of our arch rivals in the ACC tournament. We were wondering what wrinkle Coach K would give us in the ACCT, and personally I think this qualifies. I'm a little shocked that the small lineup couldn't get on the floor at all.


Of course, if Kyrie's back then it all goes out the window. Against Marquette, Kansas State, and Michigan State, our small lineup averaged nearly 23 minutes a game, more than twice what the small lineup has played since Kyrie was injured (11 minutes a game). Of course that was with Andre playing 23.1 minutes per game while Seth was only playing 17.6 minutes per game, which is important because it was Andre and not Seth who was primarily the third guard in the "small" lineup. Will Seth lose minutes to Andre because of Kyrie's return? Hard to see that the way Seth has been playing. But if he doesn't, it's also hard to see Coach K employing a Nolan/Kyrie/Seth lineup and disrupting our defense as well as we played D in the ACCT.
All in all, a very interesting question ancillary to Kyrie's return.



Great points Kedsy. If Kyrie is close to normal and plays defense as he did in the first 8 games someone will certainly lose some minutes. I agree with you it probably won't be Mason, Miles and even Ryan. Against unc our defense was terrific with that big lineup. It's going to be interesting to see how Coach K gets Kyrie back into the rotation. Go Duke!

[Kedsy]

Nothing like playing the 227th best team in the country to spruce up your stats. Kyrie played 20 minutes, but the small lineup still made only a cameo (4 minute) appearance, meaning that in four post-season games so far (the ACCT plus Hampton), the small lineup had yet to see even double-digit minutes (an average of 4.25 minutes per game).

Does that mean Coach K has given up on the small lineup? Well, I might have answered that question differently before the Michigan game (see next post).

HAMPTON NCCAT
-----------------
Kyle at 3: 20 minutes; +30 (+1.500 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 16 minutes; +11 (0.688 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 4 minutes; +1 (+0.250 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH HAMPTON NCCAT GAME (35 games)
----------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 797 minutes; +345 (+0.433 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 186 minutes; +20 (+0.108 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 410 minutes; +247 (+0.602 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 7 minutes; +2 (+0.286 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH HAMPTON NCCAT GAME (35 games)
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 22.77 minutes; +9.86 (+0.433 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.31 minutes; +0.57 (+0.108 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 11.71 minutes; +7.06 (+0.602 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.20 minutes; +0.06 (+0.286 pdpm)

[Kedsy]

The return of the small lineup came big-time in the Michigan game. We even got to see a little of "Kyle and the shrimps," plus three and a half minutes of "Ryan and the shrimps" (and note I included "Ryan and the shrimps" in the "Kyle at 5" category rather than the "Kyle on bench" category). But what I'm not sure about is why go small now?

In recent games we'd been sticking with the big lineup even against smaller, quicker teams, but obviously something about Michigan prompted K to go very small for much of the second half. Was it something about Kyrie? Was it the 1-3-1 zone? Was there an issue with the Plumlees? I admit I have no idea. So I also can't make an intelligent prediction whether this is the direction we'll be taking in the Arizona game or beyond. And as long as we keep winning, I suppose I don't care all that much...

MICHIGAN NCCAT
-----------------
Kyle at 3: 17 minutes; +1 (+0.059 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; -2 (-2.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 17 minutes; +6 (+0.353 pdpm)
Kyle at 5/only one big: 5 minutes; -3 (-0.600 pdpm)


TOTALS THROUGH MICHIGAN NCCAT GAME (36 games)
----------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 814 minutes; +346 (+0.425 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 187 minutes; +18 (+0.096 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 427 minutes; +253 (+0.593 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 12 minutes; -1 (-0.083 pdpm)


AVERAGE THROUGH MICHIGAN NCCAT GAME (36 games)
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyle at 3: 22.61 minutes; +9.61 (+0.425 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 5.19 minutes; +0.50 (+0.096 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 11.86 minutes; +7.03 (+0.593 pdpm)
Kyle at 5: 0.33 minutes; -0.03 (-0.083 pdpm)

[superdave]

MICHIGAN NCCAT
-----------------
Kyle at 3: 17 minutes; +1 (+0.059 point differential per minute)
Kyle on bench: 1 minutes; -2 (-2.000 pdpm)
Kyle at 4: 17 minutes; +6 (+0.353 pdpm)
Kyle at 5/only one big: 5 minutes; -3 (-0.600 pdpm)


Kedsy - I think your minutes may be off here. Kyle sat from the sub 10:00 mark to sub 6:00 mark I believe. I think he was at 35-36 minutes on the game. (or are you adding Kyle at 5 and Ryan at 5 with 4 guards together?)

I think Coach K's strategy with Ryan in the game was to get another shooter on the floor. Michigan was not a good enough rebounding team to make us pay for it, but I still feel like we missed some shot blocking and scariness that embiggened (Simpson's reference!) UM to drive the lane at will.

While we had two skilled drivers - Nolan/Kyrie - they just didnt seem to attack enough. Perhaps Kyrie would with more game experience. I would have thought the game plan would be to push tempo and attack the lane in the half court. Either way, it was frustrating to watch. Let's hope we are get out and attack from the start on Thursday.

[Kedsy]

(and note I included "Ryan and the shrimps" in the "Kyle at 5" category rather than the "Kyle on bench" category).


Kedsy - I think your minutes may be off here. Kyle sat from the sub 10:00 mark to sub 6:00 mark I believe. I think he was at 35-36 minutes on the game. (or are you adding Kyle at 5 and Ryan at 5 with 4 guards together?)

I don't think my minutes are off, because while you are right that Kyle sat from the 9:20 mark to the 5:54 mark, you are also right that I added "Kyle at the 5" and "Ryan at 5 with four guards" together, in the "Kyle at the 5" category. It seems to me that anybody "and the shrimps" should be in that ultra-small grouping.