SCMatt33
11-17-2010, 10:27 PM
This is a continuation of a post I made in response to the RTC article about Duke’s offensive efficiency in relation to the four factors. I have created this as a separate thread to talk about the same statistics in relation to defensive efficiency, which was not covered in the article. Please refer to my other post about the offense (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?23084-RTC-A-dissenter%E2%80%99s-opinion&p=447728#post447728) and this background article (http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm) for more info about the four factors and offensive efficiency.
For some minimal background on the defensive end, the statistics used are exactly the same (eFG%, TO%, OR%, and FT Rate), but they are usually expressed as the combined offensive stat’s of teams opponents. For example, the four factors will consider the opponent’s OR%, as opposed to the team in question’s DR%, although they mean the same thing.
As I did before, I give the stat and NCAA rank (or projected rank based off of 2010 numbers) for 2010, and what I perceive to be the best and worst case scenario for 2011. As this was not addressed by RTC, the worst case scenarios will be entirely my own guesses, and not influenced by anything in the article. Without further ado:
DEFENSE
eFG% (rank)
2010: 43.6% (7)
2011 worst: 47.7% (115)
2011 best: 44.5% (21)
This is one of those stats that will get worse simply as a result of style. As we saw against Princeton, Duke’s traditional pressing defense will sometimes lead to wide open layups/dunks, simply because of stretching the defense to try and get turnovers. In this type of defense, you have to accept an easy shot once in a while in exchange for fewer shots taken. In the worst case scenario, Duke reverts to the numbers from 2008 and 2009 (the number given is the average of those years). Duke has always defended the three point line well, and that shouldn’t change, but teams get many more looks at the rim, especially with the Plumlees selling out for blocks at times when Lance and Zoubs simply would have forced a harder shot. The best case scenario is that the few easy looks are the only cost of the change in style. The perimeter defense is good enough that even when Duke doesn’t get the turnover, teams will still have trouble getting to the rim one-on-one, and are forced to take a lot of tough mid-range jumpers which don’t fall. The numbers get worse for Duke, but only marginally.
TO% (rank)
2010: 21.3% (116)
2011 worst: 23.3% (32)
2011 best: 25.0% (8)
Turnover percentage will have the opposite movement of eFG%. Duke’s aggressive defense will create more turnovers by default. As we have already seen, Duke will look to get out in passing lanes and extend the defense. This is something that has done a lot under Coach K, but got away from in 2010 to suit the personnel. The worst case scenario is that while Duke does force more turnovers those numbers are mitigated by a few factors. First, Duke doesn’t have age and experience working in its favor. Even though there are two seniors starting, only Nolan has significant on court experience in this defense, and that is only off the bench. Kyle was a starter, but has yet to do it as a SF, and Kyrie and the Plumlees have only done it in practice. Despite the talent to pull it off, guys get a little over-aggressive and foul too much. If Ryan Kelly and Josh Hairston aren’t both playing significantly, this can be a deterrent in the front court, where guys will have to back off to stay out of foul trouble. This gradually gets better, but only enough to get to 2009 numbers. The best case scenario will occur if everyone clicks in the scheme right away (which has happened so far, but not against good offenses). Duke is able to keep fresh bodies on the court with no ill-effects to the chemistry. Duke gets into passing lanes without fouling and the turnover numbers get back up to 2000-2002 levels. The only teams in the NCAA who are ahead of Duke are those that press full-time.
OR% (rank)
2010: 32.1% (149)
2011 worst: 37.0% (318)
2011 best: 33.5% (210)
The fact is, Duke has not been a good defensive rebounding team under Coach K. In fact, since 1997, Duke’s best defensive rebounding season was in 2007, so it’s not exactly a bad thing that Duke doesn’t look to have a great defensive rebounding season. In the worst case scenario, Duke is simply too aggressive in going for turnover and the Plumlees go for a ton of blocks and despite being better than about a third of Duke teams since 1997, they finish outside the top 300 in the NCAA. In the best case scenario, a few teams try to follow Charlie Coles’ lead in trying to slow the fast break down. With some more size than a few earlier Duke teams have had, even very good ones, The rebounding numbers stay reasonable and are actually Duke’s fourth best since 1997, behind ’07, ’09, and ’10. I’m not entirely sure that the “best” number is actually what would be best for the team. Duke’s style isn’t conducive to defense rebounds, so the final number is less relevant than many of the other factors. Look for Duke to be bad at this, but make up for it in other areas.
FT Rate (rank)
2010: 34.0 (97)
2011 worst: 35.0 (121)
2011 best: 30.0 (35)
This is the one stat that’s hard to get a read on which way it will go. On the one hand, Duke’s aggressive style and relative youth could lead to more fouls. But I suspect this will come down to how big the front court rotation is. The worst case scenario will present if Coach K plays a full rotation in the front court which allows the big guys to be more aggressive. This is the number that has at least a decent chance of being worse than the worst case scenario. If the youth on the perimeter shows itself and Duke has bad luck with how tight the refs call games on the perimeter, this number could go up a little further, but I doubt it. The best case scenario will happen with a thinner front court and doesn’t have as many fouls to give. Of course, if this number is way down (even below 30) because of that, it will likely be compensating for something else not going to plan, but again I don’t see that happening and 30 would be a great spot to land.
OVERALL EFFICIENCY
These factors, both on offense and defense lead to the overall efficiency that is discussed so much now. I outlined the boundary scenarios, and while it’s likely that they won’t all end up at the best or worst ends of the spectrum, you can full expect the four factors to change from last year. The big question is will the new numbers add up to be better or worse. It is entirely too early to make an educated guess at that right now, but my hunch is that the defensive numbers will end up slightly worse than last year, and the offensive numbers slightly better. The defense has been off the charts so far, but Miami was one of the worst offensive teams that we have faced in a while, and was one of the lowest scoring teams in the country last year. While Princeton is usually synonymous with a steady offense, they were 283rd in the country last year in TO%, which really played into Duke’s hands. I would guess that the defense tails off a little against stiffer competition. I fully expect the offense to be clicking all year and we will see the most exciting Duke team that we have in a while.
I’m sure the trends in the numbers will start to take shape in the next month with more games under our belt, and really start to firm up in January with enough tough games and a few conference games to go on.
For some minimal background on the defensive end, the statistics used are exactly the same (eFG%, TO%, OR%, and FT Rate), but they are usually expressed as the combined offensive stat’s of teams opponents. For example, the four factors will consider the opponent’s OR%, as opposed to the team in question’s DR%, although they mean the same thing.
As I did before, I give the stat and NCAA rank (or projected rank based off of 2010 numbers) for 2010, and what I perceive to be the best and worst case scenario for 2011. As this was not addressed by RTC, the worst case scenarios will be entirely my own guesses, and not influenced by anything in the article. Without further ado:
DEFENSE
eFG% (rank)
2010: 43.6% (7)
2011 worst: 47.7% (115)
2011 best: 44.5% (21)
This is one of those stats that will get worse simply as a result of style. As we saw against Princeton, Duke’s traditional pressing defense will sometimes lead to wide open layups/dunks, simply because of stretching the defense to try and get turnovers. In this type of defense, you have to accept an easy shot once in a while in exchange for fewer shots taken. In the worst case scenario, Duke reverts to the numbers from 2008 and 2009 (the number given is the average of those years). Duke has always defended the three point line well, and that shouldn’t change, but teams get many more looks at the rim, especially with the Plumlees selling out for blocks at times when Lance and Zoubs simply would have forced a harder shot. The best case scenario is that the few easy looks are the only cost of the change in style. The perimeter defense is good enough that even when Duke doesn’t get the turnover, teams will still have trouble getting to the rim one-on-one, and are forced to take a lot of tough mid-range jumpers which don’t fall. The numbers get worse for Duke, but only marginally.
TO% (rank)
2010: 21.3% (116)
2011 worst: 23.3% (32)
2011 best: 25.0% (8)
Turnover percentage will have the opposite movement of eFG%. Duke’s aggressive defense will create more turnovers by default. As we have already seen, Duke will look to get out in passing lanes and extend the defense. This is something that has done a lot under Coach K, but got away from in 2010 to suit the personnel. The worst case scenario is that while Duke does force more turnovers those numbers are mitigated by a few factors. First, Duke doesn’t have age and experience working in its favor. Even though there are two seniors starting, only Nolan has significant on court experience in this defense, and that is only off the bench. Kyle was a starter, but has yet to do it as a SF, and Kyrie and the Plumlees have only done it in practice. Despite the talent to pull it off, guys get a little over-aggressive and foul too much. If Ryan Kelly and Josh Hairston aren’t both playing significantly, this can be a deterrent in the front court, where guys will have to back off to stay out of foul trouble. This gradually gets better, but only enough to get to 2009 numbers. The best case scenario will occur if everyone clicks in the scheme right away (which has happened so far, but not against good offenses). Duke is able to keep fresh bodies on the court with no ill-effects to the chemistry. Duke gets into passing lanes without fouling and the turnover numbers get back up to 2000-2002 levels. The only teams in the NCAA who are ahead of Duke are those that press full-time.
OR% (rank)
2010: 32.1% (149)
2011 worst: 37.0% (318)
2011 best: 33.5% (210)
The fact is, Duke has not been a good defensive rebounding team under Coach K. In fact, since 1997, Duke’s best defensive rebounding season was in 2007, so it’s not exactly a bad thing that Duke doesn’t look to have a great defensive rebounding season. In the worst case scenario, Duke is simply too aggressive in going for turnover and the Plumlees go for a ton of blocks and despite being better than about a third of Duke teams since 1997, they finish outside the top 300 in the NCAA. In the best case scenario, a few teams try to follow Charlie Coles’ lead in trying to slow the fast break down. With some more size than a few earlier Duke teams have had, even very good ones, The rebounding numbers stay reasonable and are actually Duke’s fourth best since 1997, behind ’07, ’09, and ’10. I’m not entirely sure that the “best” number is actually what would be best for the team. Duke’s style isn’t conducive to defense rebounds, so the final number is less relevant than many of the other factors. Look for Duke to be bad at this, but make up for it in other areas.
FT Rate (rank)
2010: 34.0 (97)
2011 worst: 35.0 (121)
2011 best: 30.0 (35)
This is the one stat that’s hard to get a read on which way it will go. On the one hand, Duke’s aggressive style and relative youth could lead to more fouls. But I suspect this will come down to how big the front court rotation is. The worst case scenario will present if Coach K plays a full rotation in the front court which allows the big guys to be more aggressive. This is the number that has at least a decent chance of being worse than the worst case scenario. If the youth on the perimeter shows itself and Duke has bad luck with how tight the refs call games on the perimeter, this number could go up a little further, but I doubt it. The best case scenario will happen with a thinner front court and doesn’t have as many fouls to give. Of course, if this number is way down (even below 30) because of that, it will likely be compensating for something else not going to plan, but again I don’t see that happening and 30 would be a great spot to land.
OVERALL EFFICIENCY
These factors, both on offense and defense lead to the overall efficiency that is discussed so much now. I outlined the boundary scenarios, and while it’s likely that they won’t all end up at the best or worst ends of the spectrum, you can full expect the four factors to change from last year. The big question is will the new numbers add up to be better or worse. It is entirely too early to make an educated guess at that right now, but my hunch is that the defensive numbers will end up slightly worse than last year, and the offensive numbers slightly better. The defense has been off the charts so far, but Miami was one of the worst offensive teams that we have faced in a while, and was one of the lowest scoring teams in the country last year. While Princeton is usually synonymous with a steady offense, they were 283rd in the country last year in TO%, which really played into Duke’s hands. I would guess that the defense tails off a little against stiffer competition. I fully expect the offense to be clicking all year and we will see the most exciting Duke team that we have in a while.
I’m sure the trends in the numbers will start to take shape in the next month with more games under our belt, and really start to firm up in January with enough tough games and a few conference games to go on.