PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Krzyzewski or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Stall



-jk
03-22-2011, 11:35 AM
It's topical, so I thought I'd dust this one off:

From observation and conversation, K predictably slows the pace if we're up by more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game, and if we're tired or in foul trouble he may push it a bit. He's been doing it for decades. We've been stressing and obsessing over it for decades, too. (OK, when we have an absolutely dominant team - i.e., '99 - he hasn't slowed as often, he generally won't slow until the last 10 minutes, etc. This post is for the more common end-game situations.)

The math, as best I can figure it:

Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

If we average just over half a point per possession and hold them to average just under 2 points per possession, the math works. We should be able to average half a point per possession, even if we occasionally (or even three times in a row) get no shot off. On the other hand, it takes an extraordinary performance for a team to average 2 points per possession over multiple possessions. If we hold them to under 1.5 points per possession and 45 second exchanges then we don't even have to score to hold on. We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls. (I'm looking at both of you, Butler and Pitt!)

If the other team does start immediate fouling so that we go to exchanges every 15 seconds instead of 45, we need to hit 75% free-throws (shooting 2; 1-and-1 won't last long) to get 1.5 points per possession while still holding them just under 2 points per possession. We must inbound and pass to the best free throw shooters, and make sure everyone can shoot adequately (sorry, Mason).

Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always.

Some people deem slowing the game to be giving up the initiative. I don't. Whether you like stall ball or not, when we use it we dictate the pace of the game. The opponent must react to us. They can play straight up defense or start fouling - and when they start fouling, they admit to desperation.

I won't dispute stalling does change the nature of the game considerably. However, an opponent capable of averaging 2 points or more per possession over a long stretch could also beat us without K slowing the game down.

I'll trust K. And the math.

-jk

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 11:42 AM
If only a game played out that way.

Other scenario:

-- we lose the initiative on offense, and end up with a bad shot.
-- other team pushes, gets a lay-up or a three point play. Crowd reacts.
-- they press, we turn the ball over. Crowd gets louder.
-- other team scores again. Crowd erupts.
-- we walk it up, come away empty on a long outside shot.
-- they come down and score on the run-out. K calls time out because momentum has clearly shifted.

Suddenly, the 12 point lead with 5 minutes to go is now a 5 point lead with 3 to go. Back to a two-possession game.

And, all that took was two empty trips and a turn-over.

rsvman
03-22-2011, 11:43 AM
The math is all fine and good. I used a simpler method to come to the same conclusion: I watched the games and tracked what happened when we went to "stall ball." I did this for an entire season.

At the end of this experiment, I was satisfied that "stall ball" was effective, if sometimes nerve-wracking.

gwlaw99
03-22-2011, 11:46 AM
The math is all fine and good. I used a simpler method to come to the same conclusion: I watched the games and tracked what happened when we went to "stall ball." I did this for an entire season.

At the end of this experiment, I was satisfied that "stall ball" was effective, if sometimes nerve-wracking.

I have learned to accept stall ball as effective. I just think, in the future, against the 1-3-1, we needed to stall by passing the ball around to get the zone out of position for a drive and kick and not by dribbling.

dcdevil2009
03-22-2011, 11:47 AM
Thanks for the explanation, very solid post. Is there any chance you could put that in a graph for us visual learners?

superdave
03-22-2011, 11:47 AM
If only a game played out that way.

Other scenario:

-- we lose the initiative on offense, and end up with a bad shot.
-- other team pushes, gets a lay-up or a three point play. Crowd reacts.
-- they press, we turn the ball over. Crowd gets louder.
-- other team scores again. Crowd erupts.
-- we walk it up, come away empty on a long outside shot.
-- they come down and score on the run-out. K calls time out because momentum has clearly shifted.

Suddenly, the 12 point lead with 5 minutes to go is now a 5 point lead with 3 to go. Back to a two-possession game.

And, all that took was two empty trips and a turn-over.

That's every bit the fault of the defensive effort for giving up easy baskets as it is the problem with slowing the pace while we have the ball on offense. In fact, I'd argue much more of what Duke does in a game is predicated upon our defensive efforts than offensive. The spread offense should never hurt our defensive efforts. If it appears to have done so, our guys were not focused enough, I'd argue.

COYS
03-22-2011, 11:49 AM
It's topical, so I thought I'd dust this one off:

From observation and conversation, K predictably slows the pace if we're up by more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game, and if we're tired or in foul trouble he may push it a bit. He's been doing it for decades. We've been stressing and obsessing over it for decades, too. (OK, when we have an absolutely dominant team - i.e., '99 - he hasn't slowed as often, he generally won't slow until the last 10 minutes, etc. This post is for the more common end-game situations.)

The math, as best I can figure it:

Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

If we average just over half a point per possession and hold them to average just under 2 points per possession, the math works. We should be able to average half a point per possession, even if we occasionally (or even three times in a row) get no shot off. On the other hand, it takes an extraordinary performance for a team to average 2 points per possession over multiple possessions. If we hold them to under 1.5 points per possession and 45 second exchanges then we don't even have to score to hold on. We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls. (I'm looking at both of you, Butler and Pitt!)

If the other team does start immediate fouling so that we go to exchanges every 15 seconds instead of 45, we need to hit 75% free-throws (shooting 2; 1-and-1 won't last long) to get 1.5 points per possession while still holding them just under 2 points per possession. We must inbound and pass to the best free throw shooters, and make sure everyone can shoot adequately (sorry, Mason).

Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always.

Some people deem slowing the game to be giving up the initiative. I don't. Whether you like stall ball or not, when we use it we dictate the pace of the game. The opponent must react to us. They can play straight up defense or start fouling - and when they start fouling, they admit to desperation.

I won't dispute stalling does change the nature of the game considerably. However, an opponent capable of averaging 2 points or more per possession over a long stretch could also beat us without K slowing the game down.

I'll trust K. And the math.

-jk

Excellent post, JK! I think people incorrectly blame the stall for Michigan's comeback. The defense allowed just about 2 points per possession over that final 5 minute span. In addition, we actually did attack the 1-3-1 a number of times before going into the stall . . . the results were just as bad as when we were intentionally draining the clock. We missed a number of jumpers while only taking about 15 seconds off the clock. I actually think those missed jumpers coming BEFORE the stall are what put Michigan into position to make things interesting.

Also, as many others have noted in other threads, the stall has helped us win far more frequently than it has played a part in losses. In fact, last year the stall was employed to brilliant effect in almost every win. It is obviously a debatable point, but i think the execution of the players has more to do with whether or not stall ball is successful than the actual strategy. The final five minutes against Michigan represented such poor execution that it rivaled the final five minutes against VaTech for worst stretch in the season. Luckily we were up 13 when the poor play started. With better execution on both ends, no one would have even remembered that we started to take the air out of the ball with 5 minutes left.

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 11:55 AM
I guess what I would like to see is a statistic on offensive efficiency when running our non-stall offense versus when we stall. Because my sense is that we are basically allowing the other side to cut the margin and betting that time runs out before the margin shrinks to zero. If so, all stall ball does is bring losing into the equation by giving us less margin.

If what we've been running has jumped us out to a big lead, why go away from it (absent foul problems)?

Especially when the other team is in a zone, so we cannot run our foul-line-extended spread?

Chitowndevil
03-22-2011, 11:56 AM
Coach K said in the postgame presser that we were NOT in a designed delay against Michigan. He seemed to suggest it was our guards' lack of experience against the 1-3-1. He also suggested that this was exacerbated by Kyrie having only 3 practices.

dukebluesincebirth
03-22-2011, 12:00 PM
It's topical, so I thought I'd dust this one off:

From observation and conversation, K predictably slows the pace if we're up by more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game, and if we're tired or in foul trouble he may push it a bit. He's been doing it for decades. We've been stressing and obsessing over it for decades, too. (OK, when we have an absolutely dominant team - i.e., '99 - he hasn't slowed as often, he generally won't slow until the last 10 minutes, etc. This post is for the more common end-game situations.)

The math, as best I can figure it:

Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

If we average just over half a point per possession and hold them to average just under 2 points per possession, the math works. We should be able to average half a point per possession, even if we occasionally (or even three times in a row) get no shot off. On the other hand, it takes an extraordinary performance for a team to average 2 points per possession over multiple possessions. If we hold them to under 1.5 points per possession and 45 second exchanges then we don't even have to score to hold on. We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls. (I'm looking at both of you, Butler and Pitt!)

If the other team does start immediate fouling so that we go to exchanges every 15 seconds instead of 45, we need to hit 75% free-throws (shooting 2; 1-and-1 won't last long) to get 1.5 points per possession while still holding them just under 2 points per possession. We must inbound and pass to the best free throw shooters, and make sure everyone can shoot adequately (sorry, Mason).

Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always.

Some people deem slowing the game to be giving up the initiative. I don't. Whether you like stall ball or not, when we use it we dictate the pace of the game. The opponent must react to us. They can play straight up defense or start fouling - and when they start fouling, they admit to desperation.

I won't dispute stalling does change the nature of the game considerably. However, an opponent capable of averaging 2 points or more per possession over a long stretch could also beat us without K slowing the game down.

I'll trust K. And the math.

-jk

Well written and a great summary of this topic that my brother, dad, me, and many Dukies have been debating for decades, as you wrote. I think the most common statement after this latest "slow down mode" was "I can't believe Coach K took the air out of the ball like that... but it WAS his 900th win!" It can be excruciating when he does it, but then again, he's the master at it. So at the end of the day, will I accept the frustration for the most wins all time? No question.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 12:01 PM
Coach K said in the postgame presser that we were NOT in a designed delay against Michigan. He seemed to suggest it was our guards' lack of experience against the 1-3-1. He also suggested that this was exacerbated by Kyrie having only 3 practices.

Did you watch the game? Do you think this is really true? Do you think when Kyrie and Nolan were dribbling and passing back and forth 30 feet from the basket they were "confused" by the zone?

timmy c
03-22-2011, 12:02 PM
If only a game played out that way.

Other scenario:

-- we lose the initiative on offense, and end up with a bad shot.
-- other team pushes, gets a lay-up or a three point play. Crowd reacts.
-- they press, we turn the ball over. Crowd gets louder.
-- other team scores again. Crowd erupts.
-- we walk it up, come away empty on a long outside shot.
-- they come down and score on the run-out. K calls time out because momentum has clearly shifted.

Suddenly, the 12 point lead with 5 minutes to go is now a 5 point lead with 3 to go. Back to a two-possession game.

And, all that took was two empty trips and a turn-over.

Your scenario could happen, but seems that it’s just as likely that the opposing team presses, takes a poor shot, and gives the ball back to Duke with less time on the clock and even more pressure on the losing team.

Scheyer's composure and free throw prowess made him an assassin in last year’s tourney. I’d take my chances that Irving or Nolan will be as effective.

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 12:02 PM
Did you watch the game? Do you think this is really true? Do you think when Kyrie and Nolan were dribbling and passing back and forth 30 feet from the basket they were "confused" by the zone?

Agreed. I was at the game, and there was no movement from anyone. I know that's what he said, but if he wanted to attack I am sure he could have drawn something up.

It was Four Corners, 2011-style.

COYS
03-22-2011, 12:03 PM
Especially when the other team is in a zone, so we cannot run our foul-line-extended spread?

I think this may be the key point. We looked really bad against the zone. Against man to man, I think the foul-line-extended spread has generally been one of our best offenses. In fact, spreading the floor and letting Nolan go to work was how we jumped out to our big lead against Michigan. If Michigan continued to play man and we just waited for Nolan to attack at the 10 second mark on the shot clock, I think we would have had similarly excellent results.

-jk
03-22-2011, 12:03 PM
I guess what I would like to see is a statistic on offensive efficiency when running our non-stall offense versus when we stall. Because my sense is that we are basically allowing the other side to cut the margin and betting that time runs out before the margin shrinks to zero. If so, all stall ball does is bring losing into the equation by giving us less margin.

If what we've been running has jumped us out to a big lead, why go away from it (absent foul problems)?

A lot of big leads are driven by runs, and runs tend to go both ways when two good teams are involved. I like to think of stall-ball as the basketball equivalent of siege warfare. Try to take some of the variability out of the equation, limit the number of possessions, limit the runs.

-jk

InSpades
03-22-2011, 12:15 PM
Agreed. I was at the game, and there was no movement from anyone. I know that's what he said, but if he wanted to attack I am sure he could have drawn something up.

It was Four Corners, 2011-style.

If Duke was so "confused" by the zone, wouldn't K have called a timeout and given them something to run against it? Duke called a timout at 9:20 left in the game (to halt a Michigan 7-0 run that cut the lead from 15 to 8). The next timeout called was at 1:18 after Hardaway hit the 3 to cut the lead to 1.

This was a prime example of the "stall" almost blowing the game. Duke had 3 plays in the last minute that if any of them had gone the other way they could have lost (the offensive rebound of Dre's missed 3, Kyrie's floater and Morris' missed shot in the lane).

oldnavy
03-22-2011, 12:16 PM
That's every bit the fault of the defensive effort for giving up easy baskets as it is the problem with slowing the pace while we have the ball on offense. In fact, I'd argue much more of what Duke does in a game is predicated upon our defensive efforts than offensive. The spread offense should never hurt our defensive efforts. If it appears to have done so, our guys were not focused enough, I'd argue.

I'd agree. I think the strategy is solid, but like any strategy you need to execute and we didn't very well at the end of the Michigan game.

But here is the thing about the Michigan game, we were up against a unique style of play both on the defensive side of the ball and on offense. It was almost like the perfect storm scenario where we were befuddled when we had the ball by the 1-3-1 zone and were unsure of where the attack points were, and they put 4 three point shooters on the court with a guy that could get in the lane… I don’t care who you are, that is hard to defend when the shots are dropping.

I don't like the stall ball, but I have learned to accept it. You can't argue with 900 wins.

The flip side to stall ball is to continue to run your normal offense. But that can backfire as well. When UNC is struggling in a game, I have often commented to my wife that they should burn some clock. They most often do not, and at times it has let teams get back in a game so I bet you could go over to IC and they would be complaining about not stalling!

So, on the whole I guess stall ball is the right way to go, again you have a hard time arguing against the math and the number of games we have won doing it.

pfrduke
03-22-2011, 12:21 PM
Did you watch the game? Do you think this is really true? Do you think when Kyrie and Nolan were dribbling and passing back and forth 30 feet from the basket they were "confused" by the zone?

Well, I watched the game, and I think it was both. We may have been running the slow down game, but unlike the usual situation when we do so, when it came time to run an offense in the last 10-15 seconds of the shot clock, we (and especially Nolan and Kyrie) looked like we had absolutely no idea how to get a decent shot against the 1-3-1. I think there was a lot of uncertainty about how to attack that defense.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 12:28 PM
Well, I watched the game, and I think it was both. We may have been running the slow down game, but unlike the usual situation when we do so, when it came time to run an offense in the last 10-15 seconds of the shot clock, we (and especially Nolan and Kyrie) looked like we had absolutely no idea how to get a decent shot against the 1-3-1. I think there was a lot of uncertainty about how to attack that defense.

Oh no doubt we struggled against the 1-3-1 when we were stalling. This shouldn't come as a huge surprise. You have to work the ball around to get a good shot against the zone and having only 10-15 seconds to do it is not enough time. We did it just fine in the 1st half (Kyrie hitting Kyle for his wide open 3). We managed to do it okay on the last play when Nolan found Kyrie for a nice drive. The zone is traps and double teams. You have to work the ball around, get them out of position and then you can exploit it. Dribbling the ball for 15 seconds plays right into the hands of the zone.

oldnavy
03-22-2011, 12:28 PM
If Duke was so "confused" by the zone, wouldn't K have called a timeout and given them something to run against it? Duke called a timout at 9:20 left in the game (to halt a Michigan 7-0 run that cut the lead from 15 to 8). The next timeout called was at 1:18 after Hardaway hit the 3 to cut the lead to 1.

This was a prime example of the "stall" almost blowing the game. Duke had 3 plays in the last minute that if any of them had gone the other way they could have lost (the offensive rebound of Dre's missed 3, Kyrie's floater and Morris' missed shot in the lane).

Yea, BUT the problem with what if's is you can play that game on both sides. What if AD's three goes in? What if Kyle had gotten the 4 points he left on the foul line earlier, what if they miss one or just two of the three's they made...

I think the discussion is better if we don't apply it to any one game, but look at it over time and measure the results. Any one game can be pointed to and argued either for or against the stall ball strategy, but then once again you get into the what if's. Look at the record, 900 wins and counting. Speaking for myself, I just do not feel that I am in a position to question the tactics deployed by the soon to be winningest coach in the history of the NCAA...

pfrduke
03-22-2011, 12:39 PM
This was a prime example of the "stall" almost blowing the game. Duke had 3 plays in the last minute that if any of them had gone the other way they could have lost (the offensive rebound of Dre's missed 3, Kyrie's floater and Morris' missed shot in the lane).

There's no question we didn't execute particularly well in the last 6:25. But that's not a condemnation of the stall as an overall strategy - no end of game strategy is 100% successful. We could just as easily have tried to force offense earlier in the shot clock, resulting in missed shots/turnovers, leading to even more opportunities for Michigan to score.

As it was, we limited Michigan to 9 offensive possessions in the last 6 1/2 minutes of the game. They executed extremely well and we defended very poorly - they got 15 points in those 9 possessions. We had 8 offensive possessions in that same stretch, during which we executed poorly - scoring just 5 points. That's 6 1/2 minutes of really outlying performances by both teams on both ends of the court and it still wasn't enough to get Michigan all the way back.

Certainly the game was closer than we would have wanted, and much of that was due to poor execution of the closing strategy down the stretch. But again, I think execution (and, to a certain degree, randomness - there are simply going to be times when a strategy doesn't work) more than strategy is responsible for that. And in the end, the fact that there weren't more than 8-9 possessions in the last 6 1/2 minutes could have been the difference maker - another 3-4 trips for each team might have allowed Michigan the window it needed to fully complete the comeback.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 12:48 PM
Yea, BUT the problem with what if's is you can play that game on both sides. What if AD's three goes in? What if Kyle had gotten the 4 points he left on the foul line earlier, what if they miss one or just two of the three's they made...

Kyle missed his free throws in the 1st half, what do they have to do with the discussion to go into stall mode? Michigan was 7 of 21 on 3s... it's not like they were on fire or something. Obviously Duke had chances to extend their lead in the last 8 or so minutes and failed on most of them. That was unlucky... but they didn't exactly make their own luck there either.


I think the discussion is better if we don't apply it to any one game, but look at it over time and measure the results. Any one game can be pointed to and argued either for or against the stall ball strategy, but then once again you get into the what if's. Look at the record, 900 wins and counting. Speaking for myself, I just do not feel that I am in a position to question the tactics deployed by the soon to be winningest coach in the history of the NCAA...

How do you measure the results of stall ball? I mean... if you're in the position to go to stall ball then you have an extremely high chance to win the game no matter what strategy you employ the rest of the way. The idea that "it's worked a lot, it must be a good strategy" is flawed. It's like the guy who goes all-in pre-flop with 7-2 off-suit and hits quad 7s. Sure it worked but that doesn't make it the right play.

It's not like there's a universal consensus that stall ball is the way to go. A vast majority of coaches use it a lot less than Coach K. Are they all wrong? I'm not saying you should never go to stall ball, I just think Coach K went to it too soon against Michigan and against precisely the wrong defense. I'm sure he had his reasons... maybe Kyle's 4th foul. Maybe just his sixth sense on how the momentum was turning. Duke usually executes far better in the stall offense and I think it's great. If you can get just as good a shot in 30 seconds as you can in 15 seconds then why not go for it? However when you get a significantly worse shot in 30 seconds than in 15 seconds I think the benefit of stall ball needs to be weighed. I would've been much happier if Duke spent 30 seconds attacking the zone. Potentially getting fouled. Potentially finding a big open under the basket. Potentially getting a clean look at a 3 for a good shooter. Instead of pounding the ball against the floor for 15 seconds.

SCMatt33
03-22-2011, 12:50 PM
I don't think that stalling can be characterized in general. It all depends on how good the team is at running it as opposed to our normal offense. The last two years, the team has been as good in the stall-fense as I've ever seen. I think about that Maryland game where Duke had two great stall possessions in the last two minutes. On the first one Nolan drove into the middle for a layup. On the second, Nolan and Kyle ran a perfect pick and pop at the top of the key. Both defenders stayed with Nolan honoring what he just showed in the last possession leaving Kyle wide open for a three to ice it.

As for Sunday, I just watched Duke's last several possessions (the last 5 minutes) on offense, and while they were hit and miss, they weren't all terrible like I had thought Sunday (probably had something to do with the nerves of the game).

1. Looks like it was supposed to be stall-fense, but Dawkins took a corner three off of a pass from the wing from Kyrie with 15 left on the shot clock. I'm not sure that Kyrie expected him to take that shot, but Dre had to turn 90 degrees to take the shot, and a long rebound led to a transition layup. This was probably the worst possession of the bunch because it was a quick shot without any legit attempts to get the ball inside the three point arc at any point.

2. Nolan had a great bounce pass in the middle of the shot clock off of dribble penetration that was not caught by either Miles or Ryan (I forget which one). Again, this was only a semi stall, because we ran time off without doing much, but didn't wait until 10 seconds to do something. This was a good possession that just didn't get finished.

3. After a missed three, this was the first true stall possession. There wasn't much going on, but at the end, Nolan passed from about the top of the key to Kyrie who took one dribble for an 18-foot jumper. It wasn't a great possession but was saved by Ryan Kelly with an easy put-back.

4. After Michigan got a layup in a timeout, Duke had what I thought was a pretty good stall possession that unfortunately ended with a badly missed shot. Kyrie drove into the lane and kicked to Nolan for three. It was like the Dre three where he had to turn. With Kyrie getting into the lane, Nolan was able to catch it facing the basket, but he just missed the shot badly, and didn't even give anyone a chance for a rebound.

5. Duke had actually responded to the last possession well, but Michigan made a tough shot clock buzzer beating turnaround jumper to wipe it away. This possession ended up with the shot clock violation, but I thought it was a well run play until Kyrie made a mistake near the end. Kyrie drove into the lane, but Michigan stepped in to take a charge. Kyrie had just picked up a charge on the possession before the first one mentioned here, and instead of taking a Nolan style floater, he dumped it to Kyle on the baseline, who really wasn't in good position to make a move. By the time he passed it back and Kyrie tried to get a shot off, it was too late.

6. Duke's final stall possession. This was another one where Dre took a less than ideal three, but given the shot clock, it wasn't nearly as bad as the earlier one. Duke got lucky that Michigan couldn't control the rebound and got it out of bounds. Instead of worrying about the defense setting up like the possession before, Kyrie made a nice little floater and the rest is history.

All in all, I saw two semi-stall possessions and four true stall possessions. I have to say, 4 of them were executed well, but only one ended with points. Ironically one of the two not-so-great possessions actually got points as well. I think one of the things that got lost is that Duke let the lead get whittled down from 15 to 8 in the normal course of the game. From that point Tim Hardaway Jr. made two consecutive tough shots during those stall possessions while Duke missed some open ones and you wind up with a two point game instead of an 8 point game. In this way, however, the stall-fense worked to perfection, because instead of being down 1 with 3 minutes to go after a run, there was only a minute left and Duke was able to hold on.

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 12:51 PM
If only a game played out that way.

Other scenario:

-- we lose the initiative on offense, and end up with a bad shot.
-- other team pushes, gets a lay-up or a three point play. Crowd reacts.
-- they press, we turn the ball over. Crowd gets louder.
-- other team scores again. Crowd erupts.
-- we walk it up, come away empty on a long outside shot.
-- they come down and score on the run-out. K calls time out because momentum has clearly shifted.

Suddenly, the 12 point lead with 5 minutes to go is now a 5 point lead with 3 to go. Back to a two-possession game.

And, all that took was two empty trips and a turn-over.

And we still have a five point lead plus the ball. K draws up a good play during the timemout, we score to go ahead 7 with under 3 minutes to go, and the other team has to start fouling.

Assuming we hit most of our free throws, even in your worst case scenario we probably win.

Of course, if we draw up a second worst case scenario, where we come out of the timeout and miss a three, giving up a runout and now it's a one-possession game with under 3 to go, then we have to go out and play straight up and try to regain the momentum. Assuming we deserved the initial 12 point lead because we're the better team, we still have the advantage, although obviously not as much because they have the momentum. We may have to go down to the last possession, like we did against Michigan.

So, it seems to me, using this unscientific analysis, that going into the stall has the following chart:

(A) stall goes well, we win;
OR
(B) disaster (your scenario), leading to timeout, Duke;

(B)(1) we get the first score after the timeout; they start fouling;
OR
(B)(2) they score first after the timeout, and it's a one possession game;

(B)(1)(a) we hit most of our free throws, and we win;
OR
(B)(1)(b) we miss our first couple free throws and it's a one possession game;

(B)(2) & (B)(1)(b) lead to us playing the last two and a half minutes straight up, with our opponent having the momentum and us having a three point lead.


If every branching on this decision tree has a 50/50 chance, we still win 81.25% of the time. If you assign a 70% probability to (A) (stall goes well); a 60% probability to (B)(1) (we score first, with us starting with the ball); and a 67% probability to (B)(1)(a) (we hit most of our free throws), and a 50/50 probability to the last few minutes (although that might be low since we have a three point lead), then we win 91% of the time. And even though I just made those percentages up, I think my estimates are pretty conservative.

What would our winning percentage be if we played straight up every time we had a 12 point lead with 5 minutes to go? Would it be more than 91%? I don't know, but in your hypothetical, the other team is scoring 2.33 points per possession. Five minutes to play would generally give each team 8 or 9 possessions, although obviously teams might hurry up in the last few seconds. If they score 2.33 points per for 9 possessions that's 21 points. If we score our average of 1.2 point per for 9 possessions that's 11 points, which would leave us with a 2 point win. If we only score 1.0 point per and it's overtime, and any less than 1.0 and we lose in regulation. To me, that doesn't sound appreciably better than a 91% probability to win. Or even 81%.

Starter
03-22-2011, 12:57 PM
Mathematical equations or no mathematical equations, if Duke had lost, should we still stop worrying and love the stall? I know, I know -- they didn't lose. But they very well could have. And they have lost in the past decade in this exact scenario, in some very high profile situations I'm sure we're all quite familiar with, when the sand just didn't go out of the hourglass quickly enough. Not to mention, our notable size advantage was stripped when the Plumlees were glued to the bench (and they've been ballin' lately).

I'm a huge Krzyzewski fan. I think he's one of the four top coaches in America on any level, next to Phil Jackson, Doc Rivers and Bob Hurley. I feel we're blessed to have him, and I'm proud to have gotten to know him a bit. But like any other human being, 900 wins or not, he's eminently fallible. I don't buy into this embargo against evaluating, or even criticizing, a strategy he chooses to employ. No, I've never won a single game as a coach. But that doesn't mean I can't formulate opinions based on years of watching thousands of games.

Meanwhile, everyone's still defending him for employing a strategy he claims we weren't mindfully doing in the first place, which doesn't even make sense, since we clearly were. His 900th win and rationales following the game might have been shakier than any of the 899 that came before it. The important part is indeed that they did win, and move on with Kyrie in tow. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss and even question decisions and elements of the game that got us to that point.

COYS
03-22-2011, 12:58 PM
I think one of the things that got lost is that Duke let the lead get whittled down from 15 to 8 in the normal course of the game. From that point Tim Hardaway Jr. made two consecutive tough shots during those stall possessions while Duke missed some open ones and you wind up with a two point game instead of an 8 point game. In this way, however, the stall-fense worked to perfection, because instead of being down 1 with 3 minutes to go after a run, there was only a minute left and Duke was able to hold on.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. This is how I remembered the game as well, but I had not had the time to check the play by play. Michigan actually gained the momentum BEFORE we went to the stall. If anything, the slow-down game was a reaction to the game getting away from us as we forced our offense against the 1-3-1 and started playing poorly on the defensive end. The argument has been that the stall almost cost us the game. Your post actually indicates that the stall may very well have saved us the game, delaying Michigan's comeback until it was just too late.

-bdbd
03-22-2011, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by InSpades:
"Did you watch the game? Do you think this is really true? Do you think when Kyrie and Nolan were dribbling and passing back and forth 30 feet from the basket they were "confused" by the zone?"

Well, I watched the game, and I think it was both. We may have been running the slow down game, but unlike the usual situation when we do so, when it came time to run an offense in the last 10-15 seconds of the shot clock, we (and especially Nolan and Kyrie) looked like we had absolutely no idea how to get a decent shot against the 1-3-1. I think there was a lot of uncertainty about how to attack that defense.

Good discussion lead-in by JK. I've done the (very similar) math in the past and don't generally have a problem with stall-ball if executed properly. But it requires a disciplined team with clear roles, which K usually has, that can resist the temptations of lost momentum and which knows exactly where it is going down the shot-clock stretch.

If you can hold the ball for 20+ seconds and then still get off quality shots/cuts, thereby minimizing the number of possessions in the game, that absolutely serves the team with the lead. However, versus Mich there WAS confusion -- but I blame this confusion a little less on the 1-3-1 and more on the Duke team chemistry/roles in the post-KI-return situation. It just seemed we didn't know who was going to take charge and run the play or make the cut or take the shot. But having a shot-clock violation and another possession with a poor (low-percentage) shot in the last 2.5 minutes of a close game is just unacceptable. (Thank goodness we play great D this year!)

The marginal benefit of running off 35 seconds versus 28 seconds is almost nil. So often we seem to START running our offense with only 7-8 seconds left on the shot clock (and the ball 35+ feet from the bucket). I'd much rather see us start at the 13-15 second mark, as the improved probability of making points certainly outweighs the "cost" of an extra 7 seconds.

I'm sure that the staff is working a lot this week on those end-of-game situations. Having the guys spend more practice time together over this Mon.-Thurs. certainly will help firm up the 'roles' questions a bit as well. I expect that we'll see clear improvement. 'just hope that we're in a position to run the stall come late Thursday night!! :D (And make those FT's - always helpful to stall-ball success!!)

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 01:04 PM
Mathematical equations or no mathematical equations, if Duke had lost, should we still stop worrying and love the stall?

Sorry, but yes. The whole point of the stall is the math. No strategy gives 100% success. If you've watched thousands of games, like you say, and in 100 of them the stall was employed, how many resulted in a loss? Probably only a couple. Sure those stand out in our memories, but if our success rate with any strategy is 98% (and I'm not saying it is; obviously I just made those numbers up), then it's a pretty good strategy.

Now, if we'd lost 30 of those 100 games, then it doesn't sound like such a good strategy. But the number of games we've lost after employing a stall is a lot closer to 2 per 100 than it is to 30 per 100, and that's why the mathematical equation is a better judge than a one game sample.

Starter
03-22-2011, 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by InSpades:


If you can hold the ball for 20+ seconds and then still get off quality chots/cuts, thereby minimizing the number of possessions in the game, that absolutely serves the team with the lead. However, versus Mich there WAS confusion -- but I blame this confusion a little less on the 1-3-1 and more on the Duke team chemistry/roles in the post-KI-return situation. It just seemed we didn't know who was going to take charge and run the play or make the cut or take the shot. But having a shot-clock violation and another possession with a poor (low-percentage) shot in the last 2.5 minutes of a close game is just unacceptable. (Thank goodness we play great D this year!)

The marginal benefit of running off 35 seconds versus 28 seconds is almost nil. So often we seem to START running our offense with only 7-8 seconds left on the shot clock (and the ball 35+ feet from the bucket). I'd much rather see us start at the 13-15 second mark, as the improved probability of making points certainly outweighs the "cost" of an extra 7 seconds.



Terrific points here. When you wait too long to start an offensive set during stall ball, you basically create a late-game scramble for yourself on every single possession. If you run some clock, shorten the game but still get off a good shot, that's probably the ideal scenario.

But against a tricky, junk defense, I want to be able to have enough time to figure out how to get the best shots I possibly can -- which is why our offense was so much more effective when they were playing straight-up (with a bigger lineup) earlier in the game. Taking shot-clock-affected lousy shots only helps Michigan get numbers on the other end anyway.

UrinalCake
03-22-2011, 01:09 PM
2. Nolan had a great bounce pass in the middle of the shot clock off of dribble penetration that was not caught by either Miles or Ryan (I forget which one). Again, this was only a semi stall, because we ran time off without doing much, but didn't wait until 10 seconds to do something. This was a good possession that just didn't get finished.


I'm pretty sure it was Kelly that bobbled the pass, and I remember thinking at the time that this is why I don't like stall ball. The problem is that you have asked your guys to stand around for thirty seconds doing nothing (except for Smith and Irving, who basically lobbed the ball back and forth). Then, all of a sudden you expect them to make a "winning" play. Mentally you've put them in a mindset of complacency and of "let's not lose" rather than continuing to attack and be aggressive. So Kelly wasn't really ready to receive the pass, perhaps because at some level he's more concerned about the clock. On top of that, you're allowing the defense to rest for thirty seconds, which can be a factor at the end of a game.

Great mathematical analysis by the OP, but I have two quibbles. First off, the opposing team generally doesn't start fouling until there's less than two minutes left. In theory you could say that if you're down ten with four minutes left it might make mathematical sense to start fouling then, but I've never seen it happen. Secondly, the last five or so minutes of a game constitute a small sample size, where a single empty possession or turnover can drastically affect your average points per possession. If your opponent hits a three, steals the inbounds pass and hits another three, all of a sudden they've scored six points in what should be one possession. Just ask Maryland about this.

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 01:11 PM
But against a tricky, junk defense, I want to be able to have enough time to figure out how to get the best shots I possibly can -- which is why our offense was so much more effective when they were playing straight-up (with a bigger lineup) earlier in the game. Taking shot-clock-affected lousy shots only helps Michigan get numbers on the other end anyway.


This.


If the team was confused as to how to attack, why not call a time out and tell them?

Again, just asking because it doesn't make sense to me.



(Great thread, btw -- thanks to the OP for posting it, even if we are on different sides of the question).

Starter
03-22-2011, 01:14 PM
Sorry, but yes. The whole point of the stall is the math. No strategy gives 100% success. If you've watched thousands of games, like you say, and in 100 of them the stall was employed, how many resulted in a loss? Probably only a couple. Sure those stand out in our memories, but if our success rate with any strategy is 98% (and I'm not saying it is; obviously I just made those numbers up), then it's a pretty good strategy.



You're leaving out the human ability to adjust when a tactic clearly isn't working. If Duke had squandered this game, with a totally loaded team that has a golden opportunity to compete for a championship, you can tell me all you want about how your made-up numbers indicate doing this usually works. It would not have mattered. We went away from what was working for something that didn't, and left it that way. I can't possibly get on board with that.

Morris missed, we move on. I'd imagine it goes down as a learning experience.

Starter
03-22-2011, 01:15 PM
(Great thread, btw -- thanks to the OP for posting it, even if we are on different sides of the question).

I completely agree, by the way. I absolutely respect both arguments, especially when this much hard work went into the mathematics behind them. Kudos to all.

oldnavy
03-22-2011, 01:24 PM
Kyle missed his free throws in the 1st half, what do they have to do with the discussion to go into stall mode? Michigan was 7 of 21 on 3s... it's not like they were on fire or something. Obviously Duke had chances to extend their lead in the last 8 or so minutes and failed on most of them. That was unlucky... but they didn't exactly make their own luck there either.



How do you measure the results of stall ball? I mean... if you're in the position to go to stall ball then you have an extremely high chance to win the game no matter what strategy you employ the rest of the way. The idea that "it's worked a lot, it must be a good strategy" is flawed. It's like the guy who goes all-in pre-flop with 7-2 off-suit and hits quad 7s. Sure it worked but that doesn't make it the right play.

It's not like there's a universal consensus that stall ball is the way to go. A vast majority of coaches use it a lot less than Coach K. Are they all wrong? I'm not saying you should never go to stall ball, I just think Coach K went to it too soon against Michigan and against precisely the wrong defense. I'm sure he had his reasons... maybe Kyle's 4th foul. Maybe just his sixth sense on how the momentum was turning. Duke usually executes far better in the stall offense and I think it's great. If you can get just as good a shot in 30 seconds as you can in 15 seconds then why not go for it? However when you get a significantly worse shot in 30 seconds than in 15 seconds I think the benefit of stall ball needs to be weighed. I would've been much happier if Duke spent 30 seconds attacking the zone. Potentially getting fouled. Potentially finding a big open under the basket. Potentially getting a clean look at a 3 for a good shooter. Instead of pounding the ball against the floor for 15 seconds.
Well, the opposite argument would be that it has worked a lot and therefore we need to abandon it. Not sure I follow that line of logic, but I do get your point. In any ONE game we can look at stall ball and pick it apart or praise it depending on the execution of the team and the results. In this case, your arguments have merit, but in the overall scheme of things, I think going to stall ball the way coach K has done in the past is the way to go. And yes, I do think that his winning 900 games is relevant to the strategy he employs and makes it extremely difficult to criticize his methods when they result 900+ wins. Have we lost some games because of stall ball, yes, but how many versus how many were won? Others have made better arguments for using stall ball in previous posts than I can make.

My example of Kyle’s' missed front ends, was just to illustrate that with 4 more points things are not as close at the end. Having a 11 point lead with 3 minutes is a world of difference than a 7 point lead. I used that example with a couple of others in an attempt to point out the problem with citing specific plays or execution of plays to support or decry stall ball.

Listen, I have fussed and cussed about slowing the game down for years, and I do not think that it is a perfect strategy either, but it is one that has won a lot. Sure you can point to coaches that don't use it, but the problem with that is they are not Coach K and he is soon to be the all time leader in NCAA wins including NCAA wins, so that might not be such a good example to use in support of your argument. Give me an example of a coach who has won more consistantly who employs a different strategy if you can find one. Coach K isn't perfect, but he is the best.

NSDukeFan
03-22-2011, 01:45 PM
I guess what I would like to see is a statistic on offensive efficiency when running our non-stall offense versus when we stall. Because my sense is that we are basically allowing the other side to cut the margin and betting that time runs out before the margin shrinks to zero. If so, all stall ball does is bring losing into the equation by giving us less margin.

If what we've been running has jumped us out to a big lead, why go away from it (absent foul problems)?

Especially when the other team is in a zone, so we cannot run our foul-line-extended spread?
In theory, and probably in practice, using less time to find a good shot probably results in a decreased offensive efficiency. The point, however, is that it doesn't matter. As long as offensive efficiency is not atrocious and defensive efficiency remains high, the team will still win, with the opponents getting fewer offensive possessions.

I think this may be the key point. We looked really bad against the zone. Against man to man, I think the foul-line-extended spread has generally been one of our best offenses. In fact, spreading the floor and letting Nolan go to work was how we jumped out to our big lead against Michigan. If Michigan continued to play man and we just waited for Nolan to attack at the 10 second mark on the shot clock, I think we would have had similarly excellent results.
I agree and would argue that this would be the case with a regular 2-3 and maybe even a 3-2 matchup zone as well. In those cases, the team can set a high screen for Nolan and he has been very efficient at getting an efficient shot in a short period of time. With the 1-3-1 having an extra guy up top, I just think it makes it a bit more crowded and difficult for penetration without any ball movement.

If Duke was so "confused" by the zone, wouldn't K have called a timeout and given them something to run against it? Duke called a timout at 9:20 left in the game (to halt a Michigan 7-0 run that cut the lead from 15 to 8). The next timeout called was at 1:18 after Hardaway hit the 3 to cut the lead to 1.

This was a prime example of the "stall" almost blowing the game. Duke had 3 plays in the last minute that if any of them had gone the other way they could have lost (the offensive rebound of Dre's missed 3, Kyrie's floater and Morris' missed shot in the lane).
I have been brought over to the side of the stall over the past couple of years and find the biggest argument against it typically is that the team "almost lost the game." On the way to the pre-season, ACC, regional and national championships, Duke almost lost a bunch of games, but they won a high enough percentage using stall ball that I think it worked very well. I don't know that it has worked as well this year, but Nolan is a greater weapon in getting a good shot in very little time than any of the big 3 were last year.

There's no question we didn't execute particularly well in the last 6:25. But that's not a condemnation of the stall as an overall strategy - no end of game strategy is 100% successful. We could just as easily have tried to force offense earlier in the shot clock, resulting in missed shots/turnovers, leading to even more opportunities for Michigan to score.

As it was, we limited Michigan to 9 offensive possessions in the last 6 1/2 minutes of the game. They executed extremely well and we defended very poorly - they got 15 points in those 9 possessions. We had 8 offensive possessions in that same stretch, during which we executed poorly - scoring just 5 points. That's 6 1/2 minutes of really outlying performances by both teams on both ends of the court and it still wasn't enough to get Michigan all the way back.

Certainly the game was closer than we would have wanted, and much of that was due to poor execution of the closing strategy down the stretch. But again, I think execution (and, to a certain degree, randomness - there are simply going to be times when a strategy doesn't work) more than strategy is responsible for that. And in the end, the fact that there weren't more than 8-9 possessions in the last 6 1/2 minutes could have been the difference maker - another 3-4 trips for each team might have allowed Michigan the window it needed to fully complete the comeback.
Very well put.

... (great discussion of the final possessions of the game)
Thanks for the recap on what actually happened at the end of the Michigan game.

Stall ball certainly isn't pretty and I think Kedsy brings up good points about % chance of winning in stall vs. not, but I think that it does give the team a better chance of winning if the team executes poorly down the stretch and if the team executes well, it doesn't take long for the game to be out of reach.

I wasn't a fan of the 3-point shot as a big weapon until I learned a bit more about efficiency numbers and now am drinking the coach K Kool-Aid on both using and defending the 3-pointer and stall ball. I agree with others that say that does not necessarily mean it is right and there can't be dissenting views, which is why I am enjoying this thread very much.

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 01:52 PM
You're leaving out the human ability to adjust when a tactic clearly isn't working. If Duke had squandered this game, with a totally loaded team that has a golden opportunity to compete for a championship, you can tell me all you want about how your made-up numbers indicate doing this usually works. It would not have mattered. We went away from what was working for something that didn't, and left it that way. I can't possibly get on board with that.

You can't judge a strategy after the fact. If historically and mathematically stalling gives us the best chance to win, then it makes no sense to deviate from it.

And I assume you read SCMatt33's analysis, but we didn't "[go] away from what was working." Our lead had dropped from 15 points to 8 points before we went into the stall. If we'd played the next five minutes like we played the previous 5 minutes, it would have been a one possession game. Which it was anyway, but it would be much more accurate to say we went away from what was NOT working for something else that didn't work any better.

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 01:55 PM
In theory, and probably in practice, using less time to find a good shot probably results in a decreased offensive efficiency. The point, however, is that it doesn't matter. As long as offensive efficiency is not atrocious and defensive efficiency remains high, the team will still win, with the opponents getting fewer offensive possessions.

We disagree on this (although your entire post was very well-stated and reasoned).

1. Our decreased offensive efficiency often leads to a decreased defensive efficiency, because the other team can push the missed shot upcourt and not face our set defense. Michigan had several lay-ups right down the pipe when we got beat on run-outs.

2. From the "best defense is a good offense" file -- if we have increased offensive efficiency in our regular set, and we get more possessions, we keep pushing the score out to the point that the other side has to start fouling us to keep the game in reach. Which gets us to the double bonus, and a better chance of setting up the defense after a made free throw.

3. Stall ball allows a squeezing of the lead margin in a race to run out the clock. As the game gets closer, though, the fans get back into it. In Charlotte (UNC country), that made the end very much like a hostile away game and engergized the opponent.

superdave
03-22-2011, 01:58 PM
And I assume you read SCMatt33's analysis, but we didn't "[go] away from what was working." Our lead had dropped from 15 points to 8 points before we went into the stall. If we'd played the next five minutes like we played the previous 5 minutes, it would have been a one possession game. Which it was anyway, but it would be much more accurate to say we went away from what was NOT working for something else that didn't work any better.

Bingo. If our defense had held up and gotten us a couple of stops, this thread probably would not have happened either! We played poorly on both ends to close the game out.

4decadedukie
03-22-2011, 02:01 PM
-jk: I appreciate your fine analysis, and I agree with it as far as it goes (in fact, I had also independently ascertained a Coach K "rule of thumb" of two points per minute in, roughly, the game’s final eight minutes). My concern, however, is that this approach’s essential underpinnings simply does not go far enough, do not incorporate the psychological as well as the arithmetic.

By "stalling," we obviously make the clock our ally and we reduce the possibility of a Duke player either fouling-out or being injured (sometime, as we all know and have observed, emotions are especially elevated during a highly contested game’s final minutes). Unfortunately, what I fear we additionally do is reduce the individual Duke player’s and the team’s aggregate aggressiveness -- going “for the throat” and putting the opponent away with certainty and finality. I am not at all sure that the average twenty-year-old student-athlete (even those with superb talents, intelligence and coaching like our guys) is able to modulate ferocity and “killer instinct” with the time-precision and exactness of activating and deactivating a light switch. Further, I particularly worry that allowing the game’s initiative to migrate to our adversary risks generating an antagonist’s run at the worst time for Duke.

The leadership skills we developed, learned and practiced in the Navy, which do not differ materially from those Coach K mastered at West Point, strongly suggested that the exact time one wishes to be unremittingly aggressive is when the opposition is in extremis (badly behind with time expiring).

The foregoing are my feelings re “stall ball.” Representing the converse position -- that, used with exactitude and judiciousness, it is an effective tactic -- is (IMHO) history’s greatest, most proven, and most enduringly successful collegiate basketball coach, Michael William Krzyzewski. I have VERY little doubt (or concern) that Coach K knows exactly what he is doing, but I must admit my cardiovascular and pulmonary rates are less convinced than is my brain.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 02:03 PM
And I assume you read SCMatt33's analysis, but we didn't "[go] away from what was working." Our lead had dropped from 15 points to 8 points before we went into the stall. If we'd played the next five minutes like we played the previous 5 minutes, it would have been a one possession game. Which it was anyway, but it would be much more accurate to say we went away from what was NOT working for something else that didn't work any better.

We went away from something that had worked for 29 minutes and didn't work for what... 90 seconds? There's no reason to think it wouldn't have continued to work for the last 8 minutes. We went to something that absolutely didn't "work" for the last 8 minutes. It may have ended up winning the game, but we were grossly outplayed during those last 8 minutes.

As a fan I'd much rather see Duke lose playing their game than lose trying to play the clock. I know that's entirely irrelevant to Coach K and maybe everyone else. There's a chance we lose either way, but one of them would leave a terrible taste in my mouth.

roywhite
03-22-2011, 02:06 PM
As the game gets closer, though, the fans get back into it. In Charlotte (UNC country), that made the end very much like a hostile away game and engergized the opponent.

Not to derail this thread, but it's a bit unfortunate to follow the geographical proximity of last year's opponents (Baylor in Houston and Butler in Indy) with more of the same this year, AZ and poss. San Diego St. in Anaheim. That plus the usual underdog factor should lead to a majority hostile crowd this weekend.

Not only is this thread good, the title is superb. :)

House G
03-22-2011, 02:25 PM
It seems to me that there may be some parallels between stall-ball and playing "prevent defense" in football. Although one is an offensive strategy and the other a defensive strategy, they both are used at the end of the game/half to decrease the chances of a successful comeback by the opposing team when the amount of time left is an issue. People question the strategy of stall-ball when it doesn't work. Similarly, it doesn't go over too well when your football team plays lockdown defense all game long only to lose by going to a prevent "D".

swood1000
03-22-2011, 02:25 PM
If historically and mathematically stalling gives us the best chance to win, then it makes no sense to deviate from it.

If stalling is appropriate maybe we should add a more aggressive version. Instead of stalling by trying to hold the ball near mid-court we stall by moving the ball around or running plays but restricting the criteria for taking a shot: i.e. only layups or other high-probability shots can be taken until we reach the end of what would be the normal stall period.

Not as safe as a more conservative stall, but at least we're probing the defense and increasing the likelihood of finding something. Also, the team would not be dropping out of offensive mode, which in some cases might cause them to lose their touch.

Starter
03-22-2011, 02:27 PM
You can't judge a strategy after the fact. If historically and mathematically stalling gives us the best chance to win, then it makes no sense to deviate from it.

And I assume you read SCMatt33's analysis, but we didn't "[go] away from what was working." Our lead had dropped from 15 points to 8 points before we went into the stall. If we'd played the next five minutes like we played the previous 5 minutes, it would have been a one possession game. Which it was anyway, but it would be much more accurate to say we went away from what was NOT working for something else that didn't work any better.

Or you can look at it as Duke had an eight-point lead and then their next move made the game a toss-up. Seems pretty subjective to assume that a strategy that had for the most part worked most of the half -- even building a 15-point lead at one point -- would completely fall apart in the regular flow of the game if they had continued it. But who knows? Maybe Hardaway continues to evoke terrible visions of Tim Sr.'s Miami Heat days against the Knicks. Anything's possible.

You'll have to take my word for it, but I wouldn't exactly say I judged this strategy after the fact. While having flashbacks of previous tourney games that had slipped away, I was pleading with them to push the tempo as soon as they slowed it down, begging for them to start their offensive sets earlier toward the beginning of SC Matt33's analysis, when they began squandering possessions. (Unlike him, I didn't think any of those possessions were particularly well executed, by the way, though this admittedly is also subjective.)

We can go back and forth all day, but suffice it to say I'm glad we can disagree cordially about a strategic maneuver in a game we won. Lord knows I can only hope we'll be in a similar position after the next four games.

jv001
03-22-2011, 02:40 PM
Using the clock(or stall ball) does not bother me, but settling for a 3 with the clock running out actually does bother me. There is more pressure on the shooter in this situation than taking a 3 in the flow of the game. This was particularly true against Michigan with their small lineup. I would have like to have seen Kyle at the high post position in the stall. Not outside taking a 3. I would think we get this worked out this week because Kyrie will probably get more minutes against Ariz. Go Duke!

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 02:41 PM
We went away from something that had worked for 29 minutes and didn't work for what... 90 seconds? There's no reason to think it wouldn't have continued to work for the last 8 minutes. We went to something that absolutely didn't "work" for the last 8 minutes. It may have ended up winning the game, but we were grossly outplayed during those last 8 minutes.

As a fan I'd much rather see Duke lose playing their game than lose trying to play the clock. I know that's entirely irrelevant to Coach K and maybe everyone else. There's a chance we lose either way, but one of them would leave a terrible taste in my mouth.

With 10:51 to play we were up by 15. With 8:55 to play we were up by 6. No stalling, we coughed up 9 points of our lead in less than 2 minutes. We went on a mini-rally and built the lead back up to 12 at 7:04, but it was back down to 8 by 5:18 when we arguably went into the stall (although as SCMatt33 points out we took a shot at 4:53 with 10 seconds left on the shot clock). Between 10:51 to play and 5:18 to play we never, not once, got as deep as 20 seconds into the shot clock, so I have no idea what "8 minutes" you are talking about.

I would argue that the time from 10:51 to 5:18 what we were doing was not working. I don't know exactly when Michigan went into the 1-3-1 to stay, but I'd guess it was somewhere around the 10:51 mark (someone please correct me if they know exactly when it happened). So rather than the 90 seconds you suggest, I'd say we had five and a half minutes of not working before the stall. And after five and a half minutes, I think there was plenty of reason to think it might continue to not work for the rest of the game.

rsvman
03-22-2011, 02:41 PM
I keep seeing the use of the term "almost lost" in this thread, and in previous threads about stall ball.

The cogent issue here, in my opinion is this: "almost lost"= won.

An "almost loss" is a win. Period. In other words, there's really no such thing as an "almost loss." It's like an "almost miss." If you take a shot from behind the 3-point line, and it bounces around or rolls around the rim and ultimately goes through the basket, what just happened is that you MADE a shot. "Almost miss" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "made." Similarly, "almost lost" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "won."

I would love to have an entire season of "almost losses." That would make us undefeated.:D

cato
03-22-2011, 02:42 PM
It's not like there's a universal consensus that stall ball is the way to go. A vast majority of coaches use it a lot less than Coach K.

I may not agree with your overall argument, but I do think you make some good points -- except this one. If we're going to look at which coaches use which strategies, then we have to look at the relative outcomes. I think K takes all comers on that front.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 02:42 PM
One thing that annoys me about how we run the stall... why are we in such a hurry to inbound the ball when we're trying to stall? We go so far as to handicap ourself on offense (be it slightly or greatly) in order to run some more clock and yet we don't take the opportunity to run clock on the inbound. We could easily run 3 seconds before inbounding the ball. And if the other team is not pressuring (like Michigan wasn't) we could run a few more before actually touching the inbounds pass. I'm not sure why no teams use this to their advantage. You could easily get an extra 5-8 seconds per possession without any disadvantage. Am I missing something? This obviously only works after a made basket when the clock is running. I'm assuming the other team would adjust, but this would atleast take them out of what they are trying to do.

Matches
03-22-2011, 02:45 PM
I really do think that Kyle having 4 fouls played a role in our going to the stall on Sunday. (And I don't care what K said afterward - I have eyes - that was stallball.) With Kyle defending Michigan's "5", I think he had a greater chance of picking up his 5th foul than he would normally.

I do think there's something to the notion that once a team stops attacking and goes into "prevent" mode, it loses its aggressiveness and opens itself up to a run by the other team. In general, though, I think our team (which is obviously coached to run stallball) is pretty efficient at running it and is equipped to handle the psychological part of it.

Sunday's game, needless to say, was a good example of how NOT to run it. Any strategy executed poorly will look bad in retrospect. In general, though, I think the math bears out that stallball is a reasonable strategy, and much more often than not we seem to run it pretty well.

NSDukeFan
03-22-2011, 02:46 PM
We went away from something that had worked for 29 minutes and didn't work for what... 90 seconds? There's no reason to think it wouldn't have continued to work for the last 8 minutes. We went to something that absolutely didn't "work" for the last 8 minutes. It may have ended up winning the game, but we were grossly outplayed during those last 8 minutes.

As a fan I'd much rather see Duke lose playing their game than lose trying to play the clock. I know that's entirely irrelevant to Coach K and maybe everyone else. There's a chance we lose either way, but one of them would leave a terrible taste in my mouth.
But, would you much rather see Duke lose playing their game than win ugly using stalling techniques that mathematically give the team an excellent chance to win? :p (I realize it's not a fair question.)

If stalling is appropriate maybe we should add a more aggressive version. Instead of stalling by trying to hold the ball near mid-court we stall by moving the ball around or running plays but restricting the criteria for taking a shot: i.e. only layups or other high-probability shots can be taken until we reach the end of what would be the normal stall period.

Not as safe as a more conservative stall, but at least we're probing the defense and increasing the likelihood of finding something. Also, the team would not be dropping out of offensive mode, which in some cases might cause them to lose their touch.
Maybe a more aggressive version would have worked better against Michigan's zone, but I think pfrduke made the point earlier in the thread that if you start attacking earlier, you may also slightly increase the slight chances of a turnover.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?24982-Dr.-Krzyzewski-or-How-I-Learned-to-Stop-Worrying-and-Love-the-Stall&p=491267#post491267

...

We can go back and forth all day, but suffice it to say I'm glad we can disagree cordially about a strategic maneuver in a game we won. Lord knows I can only hope we'll be in a similar position after the next four games.
Wouldn't it be great to have a long discussion about how coach K managed/mismanaged another championship victory in a week and a half? I believe we can all (not to discount kong, shoutingunc, chicagoheel, klemnop, etc.) agree on that.

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 02:47 PM
While having flashbacks of previous tourney games that had slipped away...

I hear you but really, how many previous tourney games have slipped away from us after we've gone into the stall? I remember the 1986 championship game and the 1998 Elite Eight game. But Coach K has won 79 NCAA tournament games, and my guess is the vast majority of those wins have featured at least a little bit of stall ball. Once again I go back to the math.

MChambers
03-22-2011, 02:51 PM
I would love to have an entire season of "almost losses." That would make us undefeated.:D
The stress level would be unbelievable, however. We would need advice from heart care specialists.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 02:53 PM
I may not agree with your overall argument, but I do think you make some good points -- except this one. If we're going to look at which coaches use which strategies, then we have to look at the relative outcomes. I think K takes all comers on that front.

If you made a list of the most important attributes for a college coach being successful where would you put "end-game strategy with a big lead" on the list? I'm guessing not very highly. Coach is *fantastic* at so many different things. He's one of the best (if not the best) recruiters in the business. He's a fantastic leader. Etc. Just because he's the best coach in college basketball doesn't mean he's the best at every single thing.

Starter
03-22-2011, 02:57 PM
I hear you but really, how many previous tourney games have slipped away from us after we've gone into the stall? I remember the 1986 championship game and the 1998 Elite Eight game. But Coach K has won 79 NCAA tournament games, and my guess is the vast majority of those wins have featured at least a little bit of stall ball. Once again I go back to the math.

Well, he's also lost 22 NCAA Tournament games. My guess is the vast majority of those losses...

:o I'm just playin'. But seriously, get tapes of all this stuff, you and I can have a marathon watching/analysis session. (Let's focus on 2001 and last year, they're more fun to watch.) I have popcorn and surround-sound.

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 02:57 PM
I keep seeing the use of the term "almost lost" in this thread, and in previous threads about stall ball.

The cogent issue here, in my opinion is this: "almost lost"= won.

An "almost loss" is a win. Period. In other words, there's really no such thing as an "almost loss." It's like an "almost miss." If you take a shot from behind the 3-point line, and it bounces around or rolls around the rim and ultimately goes through the basket, what just happened is that you MADE a shot. "Almost miss" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "made." Similarly, "almost lost" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "won."

I would love to have an entire season of "almost losses." That would make us undefeated.:D

Yeah, but.

Any strategy/execution which gives the other side the last shot to tie or win is not necessarily a sign of good strategy/execution. We got lucky that the kid missed a seven foot floater, or that they did not kick out for a shot to win it all.

NSDukeFan
03-22-2011, 03:04 PM
Well, he's also lost 22 NCAA Tournament games. My guess is the vast majority of those losses...

:o I'm just playin'. But seriously, get tapes of all this stuff, you and I can have a marathon watching/analysis session. (Let's focus on 2001 and last year, they're more fun to watch.) I have popcorn and surround-sound.

If you focus on 2001 and last year, you won't have a very good opportunity to see how particular strategies didn't work in the NCAA tournament. ;)

Starter
03-22-2011, 03:05 PM
If you focus on 2001 and last year, you won't have a very good opportunity to see how particular strategies didn't work in the NCAA tournament. ;)

That's the idea! :D

RoyalBlue08
03-22-2011, 03:08 PM
I know how much the stall ball is hated by many, and I don't think there is any argument that will bring those in that camp around. But I would invite people who watch basketball games other than Duke to keep track of how many games are choked away in the final four minutes when the team that was ahead takes quick shots instead of working the clock down. I see this all the time. And when it is happening, I think...there goes another team losing a game just because they don't understand the situation.

FellowTraveler
03-22-2011, 03:11 PM
What would our winning percentage be if we played straight up every time we had a 12 point lead with 5 minutes to go? Would it be more than 91%?

I think there may be other, perhaps better models out there, but to add some context to this discussion, this Ken Pomeroy post (http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/in-game_win_probabilities/) suggests a team up 12 with 5 minutes to play has a 96.6 percent chance of winning. That doesn't account for game pace or which team has the ball, and assumes the two teams are evenly matched.

As far as I'm concerned, "Team X wins a lot using Strategy Y" tells us very little. The important question isn't "Does Team X win and employ Strategy Y?" -- it's "Does strategy Y maximize Team X's chances of winning?"

I don't know of advanced studies that have addressed the efficacy of stall-ball in a meaningful way, though I suspect some exist. In the absence of such studies, I believe the following:

1) Teams with significant* late** leads are very likely to win regardless of strategic decisions. Therefore most of the approaches we tend to discuss (begin stalling at 6 minutes vs. 4, or run 20 seconds off the clock rather than 25, etc) are likely to have fairly small marginal benefits or drawbacks (I.e. shifting win probability from 93 percent to 91 percent, or vice versa.)

2) I don't generally think Duke starts to take the air out of the ball too early in the game, but my guess is that the strategy would be (slightly -- see above) more successful if they ran down less time per possession. I'd like to see them initiate the offense at the 15-16 second mark, not 9-12.

3) In my opinion, any attempt to decide when to start holding the ball that is based on figuring out how many net points a team can afford to lose per possession without surrendering the lead should set a minimum end goal of a 4-point lead with 0.0 seconds remaining, rather than a 1-point lead with 0.0 seconds remaining. The reason for this is that "the math," as it has been referred to in this thread, does not account for the possibility of a fluke play/bounce/whatever that leads to a buzzer-beating three by the opposition. If you have a sizable lead, your model for maintaining it should be based around a goal of maintaining a fluke-play-proof lead. Yes, the chances of such a play are small -- but remember, we're talking about small marginal gains to begin with, as a 12 point lead with 5 minutes to play is already quite likely to result in victory.

* Yes, that's vague
** That too

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 03:18 PM
I know how much the stall ball is hated by many, and I don't think there is any argument that will bring those in that camp around. But I would invite people who watch basketball games other than Duke to keep track of how many games are choked away in the final four minutes when the team that was ahead takes quick shots instead of working the clock down. I see this all the time. And when it is happening, I think...there goes another team losing a game just because they don't understand the situation.

I don't think the "no stall" folks are suggesting that we should come down and take a quick shot. If we agree that the goal of each offensive trip is to move the ball and get the best possible shot, and it has given us the lead to that point, why go away from that by just having the pg hold the ball until 10 seconds before initiating?

Again, I do not have a problem with the foul-line extended set we run in games when we are ahead. It is one of our best offensive sets, frankly. But just lobbing the ball between two guards from 40 feet, while the other team sits in a zone, does not seem to lead to good offensive opportunities. If the mantra is "attack, attack, attack" -- why become passive when the defense wants you to do exactly that? Aren't you doing exactly what the defense wants you to do when you throw up a rushed outside shot because there were no screens, drives, etc. to try and break down the zone?

Chitowndevil
03-22-2011, 03:27 PM
Coach K said in the postgame presser that we were NOT in a designed delay against Michigan. He seemed to suggest it was our guards' lack of experience against the 1-3-1. He also suggested that this was exacerbated by Kyrie having only 3 practices.


Did you watch the game? Do you think this is really true? Do you think when Kyrie and Nolan were dribbling and passing back and forth 30 feet from the basket they were "confused" by the zone?

Yes, I watched the game.

Yes, I think there is an element of truth to what Coach K said. Besides, I felt our Coach's comments on our late game offense were pertinent to the current topic.

More precisely, a lot of the discussion in this thread (and on this topic in general) is about the mathematics of the stall, i.e. whether it is optimal to run a delay offense when you are up by X points with Y minutes left. But as Sunday's game suggests (and other posters have mentioned), the value of the stall depends on factors other than time and score, for example Kyle having four fouls and Michigan switching to a trapping 1-3-1- zone, which we hadn't had much work against. I took K's comments as being less about WHETHER we were in a delay than WHY we were in one.

Kfanarmy
03-22-2011, 03:42 PM
If what we've been running has jumped us out to a big lead, why go away from it (absent foul problems)?
By limiting possessions, you limit what is in the realm of the possible for the other team. If you are ahead by 10 but only give the opposing team four possessions to beat you, odds are against them as they need to outscore you by 2.5 points per offensive/defensive set of possessions.

If you give them 8 possessions, however, they only need to outscore you 1.25 points per possession...which is much more possible with decent shooting, solid defense and a little luck.

Kfanarmy
03-22-2011, 03:51 PM
How do you measure the results of stall ball? .... I'm not saying you should never go to stall ball, I just think Coach K went to it too soon against Michigan and against precisely the wrong defense. I was VERY uncomfortable with going into stall ball that early; however, I would say coach K ALMOST went to it to soon. Fortunately this isn't throwing hand grenades and almost didn't cost Duke the win. Ultimately measuring everything about how a coach does in basketball (not the moral/ethical piece) is measured in Ws and Ls, so while it may make the game more exciting than it needs to be, it seems to work in Coach Ks hands and keeps audiences watching until the end....

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 03:52 PM
By limiting possessions, you limit what is in the realm of the possible for the other team. If you are ahead by 10 but only give the opposing team four possessions to beat you, odds are against them as they need to outscore you by 2.5 points per offensive/defensive set of possessions.

If you give them 8 possessions, however, they only need to outscore you 1.25 points per possession...which is much more possible with decent shooting, solid defense and a little luck.

That assumes that we're not putting points on the board on our possessions, though, which goes back to my original question: what is the offensive efficiency of our "stall" ball as opposed to just running the offense?

Even if you assume they are even (let's say an average of 1.5 points per possession), if we have four possessions we score 6 points in the stall ball. In the "normal" eight possessions, we score 12 points. Again, by scoring more, we force the other side to foul which gets their players off the court.

Matches
03-22-2011, 03:57 PM
By limiting possessions, you limit what is in the realm of the possible for the other team. If you are ahead by 10 but only give the opposing team four possessions to beat you, odds are against them as they need to outscore you by 2.5 points per offensive/defensive set of possessions.

If you give them 8 possessions, however, they only need to outscore you 1.25 points per possession...which is much more possible with decent shooting, solid defense and a little luck.

Actually harder than it sounds. If you score only .5 points per possession (i.e. hit a shot 1 out of every 4 times down the floor - pretty poor execution), they've got to score 1.75 points per possession. Not out of the question, particularly with a limited sample, but still pretty darn hard to do.

dukelifer
03-22-2011, 04:04 PM
I keep seeing the use of the term "almost lost" in this thread, and in previous threads about stall ball.

The cogent issue here, in my opinion is this: "almost lost"= won.

An "almost loss" is a win. Period. In other words, there's really no such thing as an "almost loss." It's like an "almost miss." If you take a shot from behind the 3-point line, and it bounces around or rolls around the rim and ultimately goes through the basket, what just happened is that you MADE a shot. "Almost miss" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "made." Similarly, "almost lost" is EXACTLY THE SAME as "won."

I would love to have an entire season of "almost losses." That would make us undefeated.:D

But "almost loss" by blowing a lead is much more stress inducing for the fan base- fans would rather come from behind and win a close game than have a big lead and almost lose- even though, as you say, the result is exactly the same. Somehow pulling out a win- like UNC did in the first two ACC games- makes you feel better than blowing the big lead to just win with a missed shot. Even the press/media/talking heads give a team many more kudos for coming from behind and winning than those that hang on- you somehow forget they managed to get a huge lead somehow. In my book, they are both close games. But in the end- you have to win them and K is pretty good at it. You win and move on- every game is different and sometimes the stall can work to perfection as it has many, many times.

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 04:07 PM
That assumes that we're not putting points on the board on our possessions, though, which goes back to my original question: what is the offensive efficiency of our "stall" ball as opposed to just running the offense?

Even if you assume they are even (let's say an average of 1.5 points per possession), if we have four possessions we score 6 points in the stall ball. In the "normal" eight possessions, we score 12 points. Again, by scoring more, we force the other side to foul which gets their players off the court.

1.5 is way high. From a "raw" (unadjusted) offensive efficiency (http://kenpom.com/summary.php?s=RankOE) perspective, only one team in the country has scored more than 1.2 points per possession (Ohio State). Duke has scored 1.15 points per possession.

But that's not relevant to Kfanarmy's point. The better team doesn't always win, or score exactly what they've averaged over the course of the year. If you have a 10 point lead and you and your opponent both get 12 possessions, then if they get 1.9 points per possession and you get 1.0 points per possession, they win. If you limit the number of possessions to six each, even if you can only manage 0.5 points per possession yourself, your opponent would have to average more than 2.3 points per possession to beat you, which would be verrry difficult.

Indoor66
03-22-2011, 04:11 PM
I know how much the stall ball is hated by many, and I don't think there is any argument that will bring those in that camp around. But I would invite people who watch basketball games other than Duke to keep track of how many games are choked away in the final four minutes when the team that was ahead takes quick shots instead of working the clock down. I see this all the time. And when it is happening, I think...there goes another team losing a game just because they don't understand the situation.

Yeah, check out a couple of unc wins this year!

Mcluhan
03-22-2011, 04:22 PM
One point that can't be left out:

A key to effective stall ball is: don't stall too long! Stall for 15-20 seconds, not for 25 or more.

And even in the stall phase, other players could easily continue to run around, and try to shake something loose. We could end up with an easy Plumlee-oop.

SCMatt33
03-22-2011, 04:23 PM
I was VERY uncomfortable with going into stall ball that early; however, I would say coach K ALMOST went to it to soon. Fortunately this isn't throwing hand grenades and almost didn't cost Duke the win. Ultimately measuring everything about how a coach does in basketball (not the moral/ethical piece) is measured in Ws and Ls, so while it may make the game more exciting than it needs to be, it seems to work in Coach Ks hands and keeps audiences watching until the end....

What's too soon. If we agree that stall ball is waiting until the clock hits 10 to start the offense, then we didn't go to it until there was 4 minutes left. With about 6 minutes left, we went to a semi-stall offense where we started to move at 15-20 left on the shot clock. Michigan was able to whittle that lead down from 8 to 1 with Duke only having two possessions (The lead had been hovering around 8 long before Duke went to stall ball). In that time, Tim Hardaway Jr. had a layup on a good play drawn up in a time out, a really tough shot clock beating jumper, and a contested three pointer. In Duke's two possessions in between, Nolan missed an open three that came off of a Kyrie drive and kick (so it wasn't just "settling"), and then we turned it over after Kyrie got stuck in the lane. Two possessions and some hot shooting from Hardaway was all it took. Again, out of just four "true" stall possessions, Duke scored on two of them.

This game was made close by letting get down to 8 before slowing it down, and some hot offense once we did.

Lauderdevil
03-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Here's legendary statistician Bill James on when a college basketball lead is unassailable:

The Lead Is Safe
How to tell when a college basketball game is out of reach.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185975/?from=rss

superdave
03-22-2011, 05:04 PM
Here's legendary statistician Bill James on when a college basketball lead is unassailable:

The Lead Is Safe
How to tell when a college basketball game is out of reach.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185975/?from=rss

Pretty cool. I played around with his calculator and here's what I found:

10 point lead

with 5 minutes left = 19% safe
with 4 minutes left = 23% safe
with 3 minutes left = 31% safe
with 2 minutes left = 47% safe
with 1 minute left = 94% safe
with 59 seconds = 95% safe
with 58 seconds = 97% safe
with 57 seconds = 99% safe
with 56 seconds = 100% safe

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 05:05 PM
with 56 seconds = 100% safe

Apparently Mr. James hasn't heard of "gone in 54 seconds."

uh_no
03-22-2011, 05:21 PM
Pretty cool. I played around with his calculator and here's what I found:

10 point lead

with 5 minutes left = 19% safe
with 4 minutes left = 23% safe
with 3 minutes left = 31% safe
with 2 minutes left = 47% safe
with 1 minute left = 94% safe
with 59 seconds = 95% safe
with 58 seconds = 97% safe
with 57 seconds = 99% safe
with 56 seconds = 100% safe

so clearly we should be playing stall ball only from the 2 minute to the 1 minute mark...i mean its worth like 47% points! not the measely 10 or 15 everywhere else

SCMatt33
03-22-2011, 05:24 PM
Pretty cool. I played around with his calculator and here's what I found:

10 point lead

with 5 minutes left = 19% safe
with 4 minutes left = 23% safe
with 3 minutes left = 31% safe
with 2 minutes left = 47% safe
with 1 minute left = 94% safe
with 59 seconds = 95% safe
with 58 seconds = 97% safe
with 57 seconds = 99% safe
with 56 seconds = 100% safe

That's only if the team has the ball. Maryland never had possession up 10. To be safe without possession up 10, there has to be 42 seconds or less.

OldPhiKap
03-22-2011, 05:24 PM
So with 2 minutes left, you only win 47% of the games in which you have a ten-point lead? That can't be right.

InSpades
03-22-2011, 05:42 PM
So with 2 minutes left, you only win 47% of the games in which you have a ten-point lead? That can't be right.

You didn't read the article... it's not the percentage chance that you win, just the percentage that the lead is "safe". He says something along the lines of the team with that lead is 47% of the way towards being entirely safe.

Reilly
03-22-2011, 05:45 PM
You can't judge a strategy after the fact. If historically and mathematically stalling gives us the best chance to win, then it makes no sense to deviate from it.
....

The football team had a large lead at Navy last Fall. Went very conservative and bled the clock. Nearly everything that could go right for Navy and wrong for Duke did in fact happen, and yet still Duke won b/c there was no more time left. A lot of fans said "we almost lost; look what happens when you stall; we better not do it again." My response was that if we find ourselves up 24 in the 4th quarter again, I hope to God we're stalling. All K can do is give us the greatest percentage chance of victory. Limiting the other team's possessions is a great way to give a large chance of victory.

Even if the stall had resulted in a loss to Michigan that does not make it the "wrong" call. Perhaps we would have lost by even more had we tried to increase the number of possessions each team had at the end of the game. Just as if Hayward's prayer went in does not mean K having Z miss the second FT was the "wrong" call --- still the right call. Judge the strategy at the time it was made, not after, and only on whether it gave the greatest chance of victory, not whether victory followed the strategic call.

For our psychological health, instead of viewing the "stall" as a "delay" that "almost" loses Duke games, next time you see it, get happy, as the "final twist of the knife" is being implemented that "guarantees" victory.

mehmattski
03-22-2011, 06:33 PM
Yeah, check out a couple of unc wins this year!

For example, check out this team's sequence after they built a 16 point lead with 7:35 to play (a larger lead at the same time Duke's "stall" started against Michigan):

7:35 16 point lead-- 17 seconds, turnover
7:12 13 point lead-- 30 seconds, missed jumper
6:35 10 point lead-- 17 seconds, missed jumper
6:07 7 point lead-- 19 seconds, missed 3 pt jumper
5:33 7 point lead-- 7 seconds, missed layup
5:15 4 point lead-- 32 seconds, missed 3 pt jumper
4:26 4 point lead-- fast break, fouled (made 1 of 2)
4:21 3 point lead-- 17 seconds, offensive foul
3:55 1 point lead-- 25 seconds, made layup (and 1, missed)
3:20 1 point lead-- 19 seconds, 3 missed layups followed by offensive rebounds, finally a foul on the floor
2:39 1 point lead-- 18 seconds, missed layup
1:55 1 point lead-- 14 seconds, missed 3 pt jumper
1:01 1 point lead-- foul on defensive rebound, made 1 of 2
0:48 tie game-- turnover (last possession)

Yeah, the Hurricanes left about a full minute on the clock for Carolina to get back in that game. Anecdotal cherry-picked evidence? Yes, but so is pointing at the 2002 Duke-Indiana game every time.

throatybeard
03-22-2011, 06:35 PM
I hear you but really, how many previous tourney games have slipped away from us after we've gone into the stall? I remember the 1986 championship game and the 1998 Elite Eight game.

Not the 1998 Kentucky game. We were up 71-54, but with too long left to run the stall. In fact, we were taking some quick threes.

Then they murder us on their next five possessions, getting three points on four of the possessions and four on the other one to cut it to 71-70. It was a blitzkrieg the likes of which you probably never saw before and probably will never see again. It makes JWill and Reggie Miller look like guys screwing around on their back yard hoop. (After all, Reggie only hit two threes).

Too, I thought the basic deal with the 1986 Louisville game was that Dawkins and Henderson just couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a banjo down the stretch. But there was a 45-second shot clock back then, making a stall more attractive. It's been 25 years since I saw that game (my parents didn't own a VCR untill 1987), so I can't speak too definitively to it.

Anyway, the best thing is that now we have a thread in which to merge all future horse-beatings of this topic.

dyedwab
03-22-2011, 07:31 PM
...so here goes :-) This is a very interesting thread, btw.

My take is that there are three basic question about "stall ball" and how they apply to the Michigan game.

Should we run "stall ball"?
How should we run "stall ball"?
Did we run "stall ball" effectively?


To the first question, I think the numbers are pretty clear that "stall ball" is a fairly effective strategy - the math works. I grant that there are potential issue with our players losing their aggressive mentality, but, it generally seems to work. I admit that I was actually happy to see us go into a stall against Michigan because they had fought back from the 15 point lead, it seemed that they were making every shot, and they seemed to be dictating pace. Now, we didn't run it that effectively, but we still won....

To the second question, I have always thought they we started our offense too late during the shot clock. I have always thought that we bring the shot clock down too low before we initiate offense - I've preferred that it start at 13-14 secs, not the 10 that we normally due. However, with Nolan's ability to turn the corner on nearly every defender and his array of shots in the lane, I've become less worried about. (And with Kyrie able to do it also?). Against Michigan, I'm not sure that it would have mattered when we started our offense because....

...how did we execute at the end of the game? Not all that well. Instead of having Kyrie or Nolan taking his man one-on-one off the dribble to initiate, they dribbled into a trap - with three men guarding him. And it befuddled us... And, on the other side of the court, we didn't do as good a job stopping MI as we needed too - thus the game was closer than we would have liked.

To sum up, it seems that our failure to execute at the end of the game is leading to questions about strategic decisions that, at least to me, seemed pretty sound.

TampaDuke
03-22-2011, 07:43 PM
The whole point of the stall is the math. No strategy gives 100% success. If you've watched thousands of games, like you say, and in 100 of them the stall was employed, how many resulted in a loss? Probably only a couple. Sure those stand out in our memories, but if our success rate with any strategy is 98% (and I'm not saying it is; obviously I just made those numbers up), then it's a pretty good strategy.

Now, if we'd lost 30 of those 100 games, then it doesn't sound like such a good strategy. But the number of games we've lost after employing a stall is a lot closer to 2 per 100 than it is to 30 per 100, and that's why the mathematical equation is a better judge than a one game sample.


Stall ball certainly isn't pretty and I think Kedsy brings up good points about % chance of winning in stall vs. not, but I think that it does give the team a better chance of winning if the team executes poorly down the stretch and if the team executes well, it doesn't take long for the game to be out of reach.


I understand these points, but would you agree that employing stall ball wouldn't be the proper tactic, mathematically, if a different tactic resulted in greater odds of winning?

The fact that stall ball might lead to wins in, say, 90% of our games doesn't by itself demonstrate it's the best tactic.

As several others have hit on, what's missing from much of this analysis is a comparison with non-stall tactics and the expected percentage of winning when employing those tactics.

Kedsy
03-22-2011, 08:16 PM
I understand these points, but would you agree that employing stall ball wouldn't be the proper tactic, mathematically, if a different tactic resulted in greater odds of winning?

I think the analysis is probably a bit more complicated than that, but I'd be willing to entertain the idea. Unfortunately, I don't have those stats. If you do, please share; don't be shy.

Jderf
03-22-2011, 08:21 PM
I would love to have an entire season of "almost losses." That would make us undefeated.:D

It would also put a large portion of our fan base into psychiatric institutions.

juise
03-22-2011, 08:32 PM
I would love to have an entire season of "almost losses." That would make us undefeated.:D

This sounds like UNC's last 6 weeks (save the Duke ACCT game).

Dr. Tina
03-22-2011, 08:57 PM
I love the name of this thread! Gave me a good laugh....that's all... :)

TampaDuke
03-22-2011, 09:22 PM
I think the analysis is probably a bit more complicated than that, but I'd be willing to entertain the idea. Unfortunately, I don't have those stats. If you do, please share; don't be shy.

I don't have the stats, and I agree that the analysis would be quite complicated. Not necessarily meaning to single you out here, I'm just pointing out that a review of the percentage success rate of stall ball doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether it's the best tactic amongst several admittedly good options.

I'm not a stats guy, but I guess if someone where to do analysis, my suggestion for a starting point would be a comparison of def and off efficiency of each team while using stall ball versus employing typical non-stall tactics, while somehow also factoring in the number of expected possessions each tactic would permit both teams. That's just my initial thought, however. Personally, I'd also like to see home versus non-home forums factored in as well (stall ball never really bothers me at Cameron, but on a hostile floor I tend to think momentum, particularly when playing as the favorite in a tournament format, is vastly underrated).

Newton_14
03-22-2011, 10:25 PM
Awesome thread with great discussion and cool title. This is why I love DBR. Good stuff and I commend all on both sides of the debate.

I have to confess that I love the stall and fully believe it is the best option when you have the personnel to run it properly. I have to also confess that in every "big" game, if we get a double digit lead at any time in the 2nd Half, I immediately start watching the clock and praying we can make it to the under 8 Minute Timeout and still have a double digit lead.

My "magic" number is 13 points. If we can make the under 8 TO with at least a 13 point lead I always feel very confident we will win. Especially when we have a PG that is effective at getting into the lane and finishing. We have Nolan who is great at this. If Kyrie had not gotten hurt he would have been the ultimate.

I am sure K has the math calculated to a science with the margin of the lead/time left, but he varies the strategy game by game based on variables such as foul trouble, fatigue, opponent, how the game has gone, etc. So he starts the delay at different times, almost always sometime after the under 8 TO. I have seen him start it right out of the timeout, or sometime between there and the 3 minute mark, depending on the variables.

He also will sometimes "ease" into the delay, meaning he will deliberately slow the pace after the under 8 TO, but not make it obvious, and not use the entire 35 seconds. Then at some point he will go into the full delay with Nolan holding it out top in the corner.

I do agree with "InSpades" on the idea of waiting longer to inbounds after made shots to burn even more time. Not sure why we do not do that. I also agree with Royal08, in that I have watched many games where a team had a good working lead with less than 6 minutes and gave it all away by not working the clock and taking quick shots.

I did not get upset with the delay against Michigan. Like Matt pointed out we lost much of the lead before we went to the delay. I was upset with the lineups K went with. I thought he made a mistake by going small to adjust to Michigan vs going big to force them to adjust to us. I know Mason had a bad game, but most of his mistakes were on offense. Same for Miles.

I thought the line up of 4 guards with Kyle at the 5 was a bad idea for 3 reasons:
1. We had rarely deployed that lineup with or without Kyrie, and had not deployed it at all since prior to Christmas except for a couple of times with less than 2 minutes and the opponent fouling on purpose. That put the guys in different roles than normal on offense and I feel it confused them.
2. We just got Kyrie back. So we have a player that has not been on the floor since December, and that too made it tough on the other 4 guys as they are not used to having him out there, and they are in a rarely used lineup configuration anyway.
3. The 1-3-1 zone was extremely difficult and our smallish lineup was probably the worst lineup for us to attack that zone. We needed one of our "2 Bigs lineup with Kyle at the 3" to give us our best chance against that zone. (My Opinion)

The lineup of 3 guards + Kyle and Ryan was a little better, but still a lineup we have rarely used and one of the guards was Kyrie, which again made it more difficult on the other 4 players.

I am convinced that K went to those 2 lineups for defensive purposes exclusively, but the fact that Michigan was scoring anyway seemed to negate any benefit of having that lineup out there. Maybe K also used those two lineups to give us five 3 point shooters against the zone, but the problem there was we did not move the ball fast enough to get one of those shooters a wide open look.

I rarely question K on strategy. There is a reason he has won 900 games. Sunday was the rare occasion where I questioned who he had on the floor, and like someone else mentioned, there is nothing wrong with questioning the King on occasion, and in the case of K, I think he would agree with that.


That's my take on both the delay and the strategy down the stretch Sunday. At the end of the day, I am simply glad the end result was win number 900. I get to start watching the clock in the 2nd half at least one more time this season, praying for that 13 point Duke lead at the under 8 TO! :D

InSpades
03-22-2011, 10:40 PM
If we wanted we could truly do some math and analyze this properly. Assume that their points scored and our points scored is a distribution (the sum of binomial trials?). Figure out the variances and when things overlap with the other team making up the lead differential.

We would need to make some assumptions about possession times for each team in each scenario (stall vs. non-stall). As well as points per possession in each scenario. It wouldn't be *that* difficult and I think we could come up w/ some reasonable conclusions (such as going to stall in a certain scenario gives us a 97% chance to win, whereas not going to stall gives us a 95% chance to win).

The flaw in the math I saw before is that it didn't really take into account variances. I mean, pretty much any strategy we employ is going to win us these games if things go averagely. It's the times that things go badly that we need to worry about and aren't really reflected well without looking at full distributions. I think we will all agree that stall ball decreases variance but also puts us closer to losing. While playing normally will increase variance but hopefully keep us further ahead on average.

Someone want to volunteer to do the math? :). This may be a project for the off-season!

Newton_14
03-22-2011, 10:54 PM
If we wanted we could truly do some math and analyze this properly. Assume that their points scored and our points scored is a distribution (the sum of binomial trials?). Figure out the variances and when things overlap with the other team making up the lead differential.

We would need to make some assumptions about possession times for each team in each scenario (stall vs. non-stall). As well as points per possession in each scenario. It wouldn't be *that* difficult and I think we could come up w/ some reasonable conclusions (such as going to stall in a certain scenario gives us a 97% chance to win, whereas not going to stall gives us a 95% chance to win).

The flaw in the math I saw before is that it didn't really take into account variances. I mean, pretty much any strategy we employ is going to win us these games if things go averagely. It's the times that things go badly that we need to worry about and aren't really reflected well without looking at full distributions. I think we will all agree that stall ball decreases variance but also puts us closer to losing. While playing normally will increase variance but hopefully keep us further ahead on average.

Someone want to volunteer to do the math? :). This may be a project for the off-season!

Excellent idea for a summer project and discussion. Surely there are a few "Math Experts" amongst our regular DBR Members...

Richard Berg
03-23-2011, 12:17 AM
The fact that stall ball might lead to wins in, say, 90% of our games doesn't by itself demonstrate it's the best tactic.
You're right. But just for completeness, a different strategy with a higher win rate in "equivalent" game scenarios isn't necessarily better, either. Variance/skew in the results matters. The best choice could be radically different in the regular season vs a single-elimination tournament.

MarkD83
03-23-2011, 02:30 AM
Here is a crude attempt at the math. Lets take the up 13 with 8 minutes left scenario. (Please check my math if you have a chance.)

This is 480 seconds and lets assume Duke takes 30 seconds off the clock and the other team takes 10 seconds to do something (score, miss etc.). This is 40 seconds for a possession each which means 12 possessions per team in 480 seconds.

If we divide the point differential into 11 bins separated by 0.2 points per possession ranging from Duke scores 1 point more per possession to Duke scores 1 point less per possession. If all things go according to plan Duke wins in all scenarios (-12 with a 13 point lead is the worst case).

However, on the last few possessions of the game the other team could have the ball and be within 2 or 3, depending upon how Duke scores. For example, lets take the almost unbelievable scenario where Duke hits 2 freethrows on each possession and the other team hits three pointers each time down....

Duke up 13; 3 ptr by other team Duke up 10; 2 free throws Duke up 12; etc....with ~2:00 left the game is a 1 possession game and the other team will change their strategy because the game is wide open once again. So...what is the point differential to make the game a 1 possession game with ~ 1 minute left.

If Duke hits 2 free throws and the other team scores a three pointer two out of three possessions and a two the other possession (a differential of 0.67) Duke would have a three point lead and the ball with 40 seconds left. Lets count this as a possible OT game (Duke misses and the opponent hits a three at the buzzer to tie the game).

So the entire distribution goes from +1 to -1 and -0.67 is the cut off for a tie, so 83.33% of the distribution is a tie or win and 16.67% chance of a loss.

Hummmmm......I think I would like Duke to be leading by 16 with 8 minutes left.

sporthenry
03-23-2011, 03:30 AM
Of course, it is difficult to criticize K. But I have to say that saying the effectiveness of stall ball when we are up 10 is 90% effective is misleading when I'm sure playing non stall ball is very similar. I think the most important part of the situation is being up 10 with x minutes left.

For getting to 900 wins, stall ball is obviously very effective but in a one and done elimination style, statistics have a funny way of not always working. So forgive me if I'm a bit hesitant to get away from what got us that lead. This game might have been a bit different b/c we really started stall ball when they switched to the zone (which they probably should have played more but I guess they feared Duke's offense). And we really didn't get many opportunities to run as KI isn't back to his full speed so I get the pulling the ball out especially vs a zone where there is absolutely no pressure. I also believe it was started when Kyle was saddled with foul trouble. And KI never saw the 1-3-1 and Michigan's offense was fluky and I could understand wanting to cut their possessions.

However, the original poster mentioned Duke's offense with the likes of Jay Williams and Boozer and how they didn't need to run stall ball however, I would claim that with a full strength KI, this Duke's offense is its strength. Using kenpom, our offensive efficiency obviously fell once KI left comparing our 4 major non conference games with KI to the conference games. But Duke put up top 5th best offensive efficiency games against MSU, Butler, and K-state when MSU and K-state are the 29 and 30th most efficient defenses in the country. So if KI can get his speed and quickness back, I would say that stall ball shouldn't happen until Thornton is checking in as that was our best offense all year.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 09:14 AM
Two problems with stall ball.

1) The way we run it, the strategy too often amounts ZERO offense and horrendous shot on every possession. From a purely strategic standpoint, this is my problem with it. The only year I can remember in which we were consistently good at executing an offense via stall ball was 2004, Chris Duhon's last year. Senior-year Duhon knew how to work the point in a 4-corners-style offense (which is what this is, and boy does it leave a bad taste in my mouth saying that), so we frequently got great shots out of it. Of course, that didn't stop us from losing to Maryland while running it in the ACC tournament final.

2) But, I admit that my biggest problem with stall ball is that it just feels like such a cheap, unmanly, "loser's mentality" approach to winning (there. I said it!). I mean, really, the basic idea is, let's try to work out a mathematical formula that allows us to stop playing anything that looks like basketball and win the game by simply standing around, milking the clock for as many as 10 minutes. I get angry and frustrated just thinking about it.

It takes a lot for me to get to this point with a strategy because I am, typically, a VERY pragmatic guy when it comes to sports. I want to win. And I'm not typically for style points or anything like that. Heck, even with stall ball, if I knew it were going to work, I'd probably hold my nose and accept it. But it's not infallible. The original post suggested that K has been trying to boil it down to an invincible formula. Well, if that's the case, K has yet to find that formula -- if it even exists. We've lost games with stall ball (most painfully for me the 2002 sweet 16 to Indiana). We've blown leads and fallen behind with stall ball. We've won games with stall ball. And we've done all those same things by continuing to run our offense. K's winning percentage has been outstanding over the years, whether he's used this stomach-turning (to me anyway) approach or not. So (and here I will stress that I know it's K's program, he has no idea who I am, nor does he care, and he'll do what he wants. Doesn't mean I can't have my opinion.) I would much prefer he went at it in a matter that made me feel proud to put on one of my Duke basketball T-shirts. No matter what the outcome, when we go to stall ball, I'm ashamed to admit I'm a Duke fan. It's hard for me to even look other fans in the face after we trotted out that stuff.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 09:29 AM
Not the 1998 Kentucky game. We were up 71-54, but with too long left to run the stall. In fact, we were taking some quick threes.

Then they murder us on their next five possessions, getting three points on four of the possessions and four on the other one to cut it to 71-70. It was a blitzkrieg the likes of which you probably never saw before and probably will never see again. It makes JWill and Reggie Miller look like guys screwing around on their back yard hoop. (After all, Reggie only hit two threes).




IIRC, the biggest problem we had with Kentucky 1998 was that we had a very young team and K had to keep calling timeouts to try to build and maintain that lead. He made a lot of adjustments and did a lot of soothing. Unfortunately, that left us with zero timeouts for the last 8 to 10 minutes of the game. When Kentucky started making its decisive run, only the TV timeouts stood in their way, and that wasn't enough to stem the tide. We most certainly didn't run stall ball. In fact, we didn't seem to have much of any plan during the critical stretch of that game because we became rattled. Chalk that one up to youth. That was the Battier class's freshman year. Super-talented group. There were better days ahead. :)

trinity92
03-23-2011, 09:45 AM
I really do think that Kyle having 4 fouls played a role in our going to the stall on Sunday. (And I don't care what K said afterward - I have eyes - that was stallball.) With Kyle defending Michigan's "5", I think he had a greater chance of picking up his 5th foul than he would normally.


Matches points out something that very few have acknowledged here-- Kyle's fourth foul made limiting the number of times Kyle had to defend and risk fouling out more important than limiting Michigan's offensive possessions in general. To me, it was the best reason to have gone to the stall.

Having said that, we were playing against the 1-3-1, which takes time to pick apart even if you're running your normal offense-- if our goal was to shorten the game, Michigan did us a favor. We could have initiated our offense normally with instructions from the coaches to be methodical and had a much better chance at a good shot. In addition, Michigan would have had to defend rather than being able to rest and be fresher on offense. The zone we were facing was designed to protect the middle from our superior size, not to create turnovers on the perimeter. I don't think there was a big downside to running our offense trying to crack it.

Although I've struggled with going to 4 corners in the past, I've gotten to the point where I see us up and starting to stall and think "well the game's over now-- good win." I just don't think the stall was employed effectively against Michigan. I mean, we won, but I'm not prepared to say we won because of how we ran the stall-- we may have won in spite of it.

InSpades
03-23-2011, 10:04 AM
Here is a crude attempt at the math. Lets take the up 13 with 8 minutes left scenario. (Please check my math if you have a chance.)

This is 480 seconds and lets assume Duke takes 30 seconds off the clock and the other team takes 10 seconds to do something (score, miss etc.). This is 40 seconds for a possession each which means 12 possessions per team in 480 seconds.

If we divide the point differential into 11 bins separated by 0.2 points per possession ranging from Duke scores 1 point more per possession to Duke scores 1 point less per possession. If all things go according to plan Duke wins in all scenarios (-12 with a 13 point lead is the worst case).

However, on the last few possessions of the game the other team could have the ball and be within 2 or 3, depending upon how Duke scores. For example, lets take the almost unbelievable scenario where Duke hits 2 freethrows on each possession and the other team hits three pointers each time down....

Duke up 13; 3 ptr by other team Duke up 10; 2 free throws Duke up 12; etc....with ~2:00 left the game is a 1 possession game and the other team will change their strategy because the game is wide open once again. So...what is the point differential to make the game a 1 possession game with ~ 1 minute left.

If Duke hits 2 free throws and the other team scores a three pointer two out of three possessions and a two the other possession (a differential of 0.67) Duke would have a three point lead and the ball with 40 seconds left. Lets count this as a possible OT game (Duke misses and the opponent hits a three at the buzzer to tie the game).

So the entire distribution goes from +1 to -1 and -0.67 is the cut off for a tie, so 83.33% of the distribution is a tie or win and 16.67% chance of a loss.

Hummmmm......I think I would like Duke to be leading by 16 with 8 minutes left.

My general idea of how the math would work would be something like...

Michigan has 12 possessions left. They score 2 points on a possession with a probability of 55%. So you could create a full distribution of the probability of Michigan scoring from 0-24 points for the rest of the game (obviously we could add in 3s as well).

Duke while playing the stall scores 2 points on a possession with probability of 40%. So you could create Duke's full distribution of scoring from 0-24 points.

You could also combine the distributions and look at Michigan - Duke's score.

On average Duke would give up about 4 points of their lead over 12 possessions at these scoring rates. Not a surprise, Duke is expected to win even scoring less than Michigan. However when things vary from the expected Michigan has a % chance to win.

Once you had the distributions you could have results like... Michigan scores 18 points 5% of the time... Duke scores 8 or less points 30% of the time so in that scenario Duke loses 1.5% of the time. If you sum up all of these you would get Duke's probability of losing the game.

The goal would be to decide if the decreased number of possessions makes up for Duke's decreased chances of scoring. This would obviously vary heavily with time and score (as well as your scoring assumptions). There may be too many variables to have it be very meaningful but I'd like to see the results.

Edit: It may be easier to do the math using a normal approximation for the scoring. Though I'm not sure if 12 trials is enough to make a normal approximation entirely justified. Probably good enough though. In that case you could say that Michigan's score would be approximately normal with a mean of 12*.55 and a variance of 12*.55*.45*(4). I think that's the appropriate variance formula (the 4 coming from each basket being worth 2 points). So then Duke's score would be normal with mean of 12*.4 and variance of 12*.4*.6*4. You can subtract them to create a new normal approximation, though at the moment calculating the variance of that is slipping my mind. Regardless... the result is a normal with mean of say 6 and a variance of some number and you can just look up on a normal distribution table the probability of that being less than 0 (which equates to the probability of michigan winning).

Matches
03-23-2011, 10:05 AM
1) The way we run it, the strategy too often amounts ZERO offense and horrendous shot on every possession. From a purely strategic standpoint, this is my problem with it. The only year I can remember in which we were consistently good at executing an offense via stall ball was 2004, Chris Duhon's last year. Senior-year Duhon knew how to work the point in a 4-corners-style offense (which is what this is, and boy does it leave a bad taste in my mouth saying that), so we frequently got great shots out of it. Of course, that didn't stop us from losing to Maryland while running it in the ACC tournament final.




Oh I dunno, I thought we were pretty good with it last season. Scheyer was a big part of that IMO - he just seemed to have a knack for making a play at the end of the shot clock.

The key IMO to running stall ball well is to have guys who can get into the lane at will and create offense quickly. Kyrie at full strength should be a wizard at it - he's just not at full strength. Nolan also has the potential to be really good at it, though sometimes his decisionmaking is suspect. If Kyrie gets back to or near full speed, I think you'll see much better execution of stallball than we did last Sunday.


2) But, I admit that my biggest problem with stall ball is that it just feels like such a cheap, unmanly, "loser's mentality" approach to winning (there. I said it!). I mean, really, the basic idea is, let's try to work out a mathematical formula that allows us to stop playing anything that looks like basketball and win the game by simply standing around, milking the clock for as many as 10 minutes. I get angry and frustrated just thinking about it.

It does feel like LawyerBall sometimes, I'll concede. I hated Four Corners with a passion. Probably my acceptance of stallball has something to do with the fact that it's being run by guys wearing darker blue....

Udaman
03-23-2011, 10:11 AM
Watching the Michigan game I was mad at the stall ball as well...then I heard Coach K's comments, and then went back and watched the end again. He was right. We were not in the "stall" offense. Why do I say this:

1) Coach K always gives a signal when he wants us to move to the stall. It's taking his index finger pointing it straight up and then twirling it in a circle. He never did that.

2) With the stall, we almost always wait until there are under 10 seconds left on the shot clock to start our play. Against Michigan, we did so several times with 15 plus seconds left.

3) With the stall, if a guard has it and is not being guarded, he'll just sit there and dribble. We only did this once. If you watch it again, you'll see we were passing the ball back and forth, and looked kind of timid, and then when there were 20 second or so left, we would hold it a while, and then pass it in with 13 seconds or so.

4) On two possessions we took fast shots - Nolan took a terrible 3 that he missed. Irving drove and made a bank shot but charged.

We weren't stalling.

That said - I agree that Coach K should have called a timeout to settle us down.

superdave
03-23-2011, 10:31 AM
I thought the line up of 4 guards with Kyle at the 5 was a bad idea for 3 reasons:
1. We had rarely deployed that lineup with or without Kyrie, and had not deployed it at all since prior to Christmas except for a couple of times with less than 2 minutes and the opponent fouling on purpose. That put the guys in different roles than normal on offense and I feel it confused them.
2. We just got Kyrie back. So we have a player that has not been on the floor since December, and that too made it tough on the other 4 guys as they are not used to having him out there, and they are in a rarely used lineup configuration anyway.
3. The 1-3-1 zone was extremely difficult and our smallish lineup was probably the worst lineup for us to attack that zone. We needed one of our "2 Bigs lineup with Kyle at the 3" to give us our best chance against that zone. (My Opinion)

The lineup of 3 guards + Kyle and Ryan was a little better, but still a lineup we have rarely used and one of the guards was Kyrie, which again made it more difficult on the other 4 players.

I am convinced that K went to those 2 lineups for defensive purposes exclusively, but the fact that Michigan was scoring anyway seemed to negate any benefit of having that lineup out there. Maybe K also used those two lineups to give us five 3 point shooters against the zone, but the problem there was we did not move the ball fast enough to get one of those shooters a wide open look.


I agree with you that the small lineup gave us a good chance of switching perimetter screens and keeping track of 3-point shooter. But it also left no one to really protect the rim, which has been one of our defensive strenghts this year, especially against smaller teams.

My thoughts on Kyrie in late game situations mirror yours. We had been running the spread pretty well (albeit not against a 1-3-1) with Nolan Seth and Kyle in the backcourt, Andre on the wing and a big setting the screen and rolling to the rim. I'm not sure it was a good idea to replace Seth in that set. Also, Seth had struggled in the first half but he's very important to our offense at this point in the season so I'd like to see him get a play or two run for him when he's struggled out of the agte in order to get him on track.

Our size is a significant advantage this season on the defensive end. I dont want to see us go away from that very often unless there's a different advantage to be exploited. To me, the Michigan game was clear evidence that we should have continued exploiting our size advantage, not evidence against the spread. I dont think putting an untested lineup into a tight NCAA game was a good idea in retrospect.

Kedsy
03-23-2011, 10:31 AM
Using kenpom, our offensive efficiency obviously fell once KI left comparing our 4 major non conference games with KI to the conference games.

Our adjusted offensive efficiency when Kyrie went out was 121.8. And I know it's adjusted, but that included several early blowouts against inferior teams. Our adjusted offensive efficiency when Kyrie came back was 119.8, including a couple of clunkers against difficult ACC defenses. So, yeah it fell a little, but really not that much.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 10:38 AM
I hear you but really, how many previous tourney games have slipped away from us after we've gone into the stall? I remember the 1986 championship game and the 1998 Elite Eight game.

1998 Kentucky, no. But 2002 Indiana, yes.

oldnavy
03-23-2011, 10:40 AM
I agree with you that the small lineup gave us a good chance of switching perimetter screens and keeping track of 3-point shooter. But it also left no one to really protect the rim, which has been one of our defensive strenghts this year, especially against smaller teams.

My thoughts on Kyrie in late game situations mirror yours. We had been running the spread pretty well (albeit not against a 1-3-1) with Nolan Seth and Kyle in the backcourt, Andre on the wing and a big setting the screen and rolling to the rim. I'm not sure it was a good idea to replace Seth in that set. Also, Seth had struggled in the first half but he's very important to our offense at this point in the season so I'd like to see him get a play or two run for him when he's struggled out of the agte in order to get him on track.

Our size is a significant advantage this season on the defensive end. I dont want to see us go away from that very often unless there's a different advantage to be exploited. To me, the Michigan game was clear evidence that we should have continued exploiting our size advantage, not evidence against the spread. I dont think putting an untested lineup into a tight NCAA game was a good idea in retrospect.

How much do you think this helps us in the short run (rest of NCAAT)? I think getting KI in this particular situation where he is on the floor in a crunch time situation is a good thing given the outcome. Now had we lost, well that would be a different argument altogether.

KI had to have gained some confidence hitting that little pull up in the paint. I also think the team learned from this close call much more so than had we put Michigan away by 12-20 points...

Not saying that this was the plan at all, but given that it is the way it turned out, I believe it will be a good thing moving forward.

OldPhiKap
03-23-2011, 10:42 AM
How much do you think this helps us in the short run (rest of NCAAT)? I think getting KI in this particular situation where he is on the floor in a crunch time situation is a good thing given the outcome. Now had we lost, well that would be a different argument altogether.

KI had to have gained some confidence hitting that little pull up in the paint. I also think the team learned from this close call much more so than had we put Michigan away by 12-20 points...

Not saying that this was the plan at all, but given that it is the way it turned out, I believe it will be a good thing moving forward.

KI was 9-10 from the line, and hit the game-winning soft bank. He has lottery-pick talent. Hard to keep him off the floor, even though I have all the faith in the world in both Seth and Andre. As K has said, KI's just that good. (Raw, but good)

roywhite
03-23-2011, 10:49 AM
KI was 9-10 from the line, and hit the game-winning soft bank. He has lottery-pick talent. Hard to keep him off the floor, even though I have all the faith in the world in both Seth and Andre. As K has said, KI's just that good. (Raw, but good)

Just to quibble a bit, I'd say he was "rusty" not "raw".

The KI we saw in November had an advanced game and understanding for a freshman. With some practice time and working things out, I look for him to have a break-out weekend.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 11:05 AM
Can anyone remember when K adopted stall ball as a regular tactic? My earliest recollection of it is 2002. I remember K running it with Dunleavy and J-Will. I was unhappy with it, naturally, but it seemed to me that it was new. Can anyone remember K adopting it before then?

superdave
03-23-2011, 11:19 AM
How much do you think this helps us in the short run (rest of NCAAT)? I think getting KI in this particular situation where he is on the floor in a crunch time situation is a good thing given the outcome. Now had we lost, well that would be a different argument altogether.

KI had to have gained some confidence hitting that little pull up in the paint. I also think the team learned from this close call much more so than had we put Michigan away by 12-20 points...

Not saying that this was the plan at all, but given that it is the way it turned out, I believe it will be a good thing moving forward.

I think close games are helpful, in general. I think there's a lot to be learned from the Michigan game. Namely, our offense is much better when we attack rather than just take what they give us. But just as important as Kyrie getting into that situation is his practice this week with the team. Hopefully Kyrie and Nolan have learned quickly how to compliment one another. I also hope that none of this hurts Seth's game. I know his minutes will diminish but he's a real weapon and a very smart player.

Kedsy
03-23-2011, 11:22 AM
Can anyone remember when K adopted stall ball as a regular tactic? My earliest recollection of it is 2002. I remember K running it with Dunleavy and J-Will. I was unhappy with it, naturally, but it seemed to me that it was new. Can anyone remember K adopting it before then?

I remember us running it in the 1986 championship game. I doubt that was the first time, though.

OldPhiKap
03-23-2011, 11:28 AM
I remember us running it in the 1986 championship game.

Hence my adversion to it.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 11:29 AM
I remember us running it in the 1986 championship game. I doubt that was the first time, though.

Wow! I don't remember it all until 2002. I'm going to have to look into this. Maybe it's just something he's started to a little more often.

rsvman
03-23-2011, 11:33 AM
.......
For getting to 900 wins, stall ball is obviously very effective but in a one and done elimination style, statistics have a funny way of not always working. ....
.....

This is blatantly obvious, yet, given the fact that no strategy is infallible, has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

Consider this example: A patient comes to the hospital and has a deep pelvic abscess. Surgical excision is the best treatment; it cures people of this problem 97% of the time. However, sometimes patients have adverse reactions to anesthetics, and in some cases, these reactions are fatal. The doctor informs the patient of the risks and benefits of the procedure.

If the patient dies on the operating table, then the statistics had a "funny way" of not working for HIM. That's because, for any individual patient the outcome is actually dichotomized. But for a POPULATION of patients, the surgical procedure is clearly the best option.

My argument is this: You can't mount a cogent argument against the surgery, even though it results in the death of a small number of patients. This is true despite the fact that for the individual patient, the outcome is dichotomized, and if he dies, it's obviously a bad outcome.

The same is true for the approach to a basketball game. The outcome is dichotomized; you either win it or you lose it. For EACH INDIVIDUAL GAME, this is the case, not just for an NCAA tournament game. So, choosing the approach that has the BEST LIKELIHOOD of producing a win is the correct approach, despite the fact that it might produce a loss.

Lost in all this discussion is the fact that there is no way to guarantee a win under any circumstances, stall ball or otherwise.

SCMatt33
03-23-2011, 12:33 PM
I remember us running it in the 1986 championship game. I doubt that was the first time, though.

It couldn't of been that far off, since the current form of stall-ball as we know it couldn't exist without a shot clock. I'm sure we did it at some point earlier that season, but before 1986, you just held the ball until they fouled or you turned it over.

ns7
03-23-2011, 12:53 PM
Pretty cool. I played around with his calculator and here's what I found:

10 point lead

with 5 minutes left = 19% safe
with 4 minutes left = 23% safe
with 3 minutes left = 31% safe
with 2 minutes left = 47% safe
with 1 minute left = 94% safe
with 59 seconds = 95% safe
with 58 seconds = 97% safe
with 57 seconds = 99% safe
with 56 seconds = 100% safe

Not so fun fact, I only know of two games that violate this.
1) The 2011 first round game between Miami and Virginia
2) The 1974 Duke-UNC game where UNC scored 8 points in 17 seconds to take the game to OT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina%E2%80%93Duke_rivalry#March_2.2C_1974:_.23 4_North_Carolina_96.2C_Duke_92_.28OT.29

superdave
03-23-2011, 12:58 PM
Not so fun fact, I only know of two games that violate this.
1) The 2011 first round game between Miami and Virginia
2) The 1974 Duke-UNC game where UNC scored 8 points in 17 seconds to take the game to OT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina%E2%80%93Duke_rivalry#March_2.2C_1974:_.23 4_North_Carolina_96.2C_Duke_92_.28OT.29

Duke scored 10 on Maryland in 54 seconds in 2001. So that's 3. Also, Illinois came back on Arizona in 2005: down 15 with 4 minutes to go. The Bill James calculator says that lead was 65% safe.

sporthenry
03-23-2011, 01:02 PM
Our adjusted offensive efficiency when Kyrie went out was 121.8. And I know it's adjusted, but that included several early blowouts against inferior teams. Our adjusted offensive efficiency when Kyrie came back was 119.8, including a couple of clunkers against difficult ACC defenses. So, yeah it fell a little, but really not that much.

Well actually 2 of the 3 games against the most inferior teams came after KI left so don't buy that it was inflated. And if you take Duke's 4 games vs top 50 teams with KI vs. without him, there is a decent drop off.
With KI in those 4 games, they had a 113.15 efficiency as compared to 106.68 without him. Of course, that involves the second worst performance by us vs the best defense in the country. And there is something to be said about ACC teams knowing more about our game plan.

And of course, the tempo increased as we averaged 74.75 possessions with KI compared to 69.33 without him in said games. So if we see some vintage KI, I'd love to see us attack.

sporthenry
03-23-2011, 01:11 PM
This is blatantly obvious, yet, given the fact that no strategy is infallible, has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

Consider this example: A patient comes to the hospital and has a deep pelvic abscess. Surgical excision is the best treatment; it cures people of this problem 97% of the time. However, sometimes patients have adverse reactions to anesthetics, and in some cases, these reactions are fatal. The doctor informs the patient of the risks and benefits of the procedure.

If the patient dies on the operating table, then the statistics had a "funny way" of not working for HIM. That's because, for any individual patient the outcome is actually dichotomized. But for a POPULATION of patients, the surgical procedure is clearly the best option.

My argument is this: You can't mount a cogent argument against the surgery, even though it results in the death of a small number of patients. This is true despite the fact that for the individual patient, the outcome is dichotomized, and if he dies, it's obviously a bad outcome.

The same is true for the approach to a basketball game. The outcome is dichotomized; you either win it or you lose it. For EACH INDIVIDUAL GAME, this is the case, not just for an NCAA tournament game. So, choosing the approach that has the BEST LIKELIHOOD of producing a win is the correct approach, despite the fact that it might produce a loss.

Lost in all this discussion is the fact that there is no way to guarantee a win under any circumstances, stall ball or otherwise.

Well for one, you didn't bring in that another procedure has a very similar effectiveness. And I'm not a doctor so I don't know how all t hat stuff works whether they use their gut or if they have to follow guidelines. And I know we all love the math approach but if people played and coached sports strictly according to statistics, then you'd probably see some weird outcomes or wouldn't have seen some great sports moments. And at the moment, I can't think of an example, but I'm sure there are times when people went against statistics and it worked (and I'm sure some didn't). But a lot of coaching is about instincts so bringing up a doctor example is probably not the best example.

rsvman
03-23-2011, 02:39 PM
Well for one, you didn't bring in that another procedure has a very similar effectiveness. And I'm not a doctor so I don't know how all t hat stuff works whether they use their gut or if they have to follow guidelines. And I know we all love the math approach but if people played and coached sports strictly according to statistics, then you'd probably see some weird outcomes or wouldn't have seen some great sports moments. And at the moment, I can't think of an example, but I'm sure there are times when people went against statistics and it worked (and I'm sure some didn't). But a lot of coaching is about instincts so bringing up a doctor example is probably not the best example.

I think you're missing the point of the analogy. The main point is that ALL math and ALL statistics have a tendency to do some crazy stuff when you're only looking at a single outcome (such as whether you win or lose a basketball game). That, however, does not mean that odds should be disregarded when planning an approach to winning a game; it simply means that there is no foolproof way of guaranteeing your outcome of choice.

oldnavy
03-23-2011, 03:10 PM
This is blatantly obvious, yet, given the fact that no strategy is infallible, has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

Consider this example: A patient comes to the hospital and has a deep pelvic abscess. Surgical excision is the best treatment; it cures people of this problem 97% of the time. However, sometimes patients have adverse reactions to anesthetics, and in some cases, these reactions are fatal. The doctor informs the patient of the risks and benefits of the procedure.

If the patient dies on the operating table, then the statistics had a "funny way" of not working for HIM. That's because, for any individual patient the outcome is actually dichotomized. But for a POPULATION of patients, the surgical procedure is clearly the best option.

My argument is this: You can't mount a cogent argument against the surgery, even though it results in the death of a small number of patients. This is true despite the fact that for the individual patient, the outcome is dichotomized, and if he dies, it's obviously a bad outcome.

The same is true for the approach to a basketball game. The outcome is dichotomized; you either win it or you lose it. For EACH INDIVIDUAL GAME, this is the case, not just for an NCAA tournament game. So, choosing the approach that has the BEST LIKELIHOOD of producing a win is the correct approach, despite the fact that it might produce a loss.

Lost in all this discussion is the fact that there is no way to guarantee a win under any circumstances, stall ball or otherwise.

I agree that you cannot make a judgment based on an N of 1. The one thing missing in your example is what would happen to the patient if you didn't operate? Let's assume that the fatality rate of a deep pelvic abscess is 100% if untreated or treated with IV antibiotics only. Then the decision is obvious, you have to operate. But what if the success rate for IV antibiotics alone is 40% or that there is a 10% chance the abscess resolves on its own? It is all about risk versus benefit.

So for stall ball, the question would be, what is the success rate running our normal offense through the end of the game vice going with stall ball? We don't know, and probably never will. What we do know is that going to stall ball is what Coach K does and most likely continue to do. Coach K is the best in the business and this is his given style like it or not.

What has struck me about this discussion is that we are fretting over the end of game management of the coach with more NCAA Division I wins in history. For comparison, NC State is just trying to find a coach that can get them to the tournament. We are very blessed indeed.

Reilly
03-23-2011, 03:18 PM
It couldn't of been that far off, since the current form of stall-ball as we know it couldn't exist without a shot clock. I'm sure we did it at some point earlier that season, but before 1986, you just held the ball until they fouled or you turned it over.

In the mid-1980s, Duke ran it with a double high post: two guys at each elbow, with the PG out front between the circles, then one of the guys would dart out from the elbow to get the pass, or dart back down and screen for the other guy to pop out ....

Matches
03-23-2011, 03:46 PM
So for stall ball, the question would be, what is the success rate running our normal offense through the end of the game vice going with stall ball? We don't know, and probably never will.

It'd be nice to know, for purposes of this discussion, what the overall win %age is for ALL college b-ball teams leading by 10-12 points with 4-5 minutes left in the game. That still wouldn't be a perfect indicator, because it would include teams who stall and teams who don't, and in any event wouldn't be limited to *Duke's* performance - but at least that would give a baseline stat to work from.

Reilly
03-23-2011, 04:00 PM
1998 Kentucky, no. But 2002 Indiana, yes.

I watched from the 12:10 mark forward. I did not see any evidence of a stall that cost Duke to give up the lead.

Duke led by 13 w/ 12:10 ... took a shot 6 seconds into shot clock.

Duke led by 12 w/ 11:34 ... went inside to score and turned over (15 secs into clock)

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:54 ... FAST BREAK (travel)

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:38 .... JWill misses wide open layup

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:12 .... went inside quickly, turnover, no stall

Duke led by 8 w/ 9:46 ... went inside some 18 seconds into clock, miss FT

Duke led by 10 w/ 9:04 ... 10 seconds into shot clock, turnover, no stall

Duke led by 8 w/ 8:44 ... 10 seconds into clock, JWill misses 3

Duke led by 8 w/ 8:27 .... 19 seconds into clock, shoot a 3, no stall

Duke led by 6 w/ 7:20 .... shoot 10 seconds into clock

Duke led by 6 w/ 6:45 ... no stall, turnover

Duke led by 4 w/ 6:17 ... shoot 20 seconds into clock

Duke led by 1 w/ 5:48 ... went inside

Duke had a 5-point lead and the ball w/ 2:41 ... WE SHOULD HAVE STALLED ... instead we tried to go inside immediately and turned it over.

I saw lots of turnovers, missed easy shots, no grabbing of defensive rebounds, and fouls .... but no stall ball. Watch the gore yourself:

http://vault.ncaa.com/

sporthenry
03-23-2011, 04:16 PM
I think you're missing the point of the analogy. The main point is that ALL math and ALL statistics have a tendency to do some crazy stuff when you're only looking at a single outcome (such as whether you win or lose a basketball game). That, however, does not mean that odds should be disregarded when planning an approach to winning a game; it simply means that there is no foolproof way of guaranteeing your outcome of choice.

No I understand that, but my main point is that math shouldn't be the only thing used. I know everyone has fallen in love with the new way to look at the game analytically but the beauty of sports is that there is no way to use statistics to ensure anything. So at that point, it becomes about coaching instinct. Again, specific examples allude me but I bet there are certain times when leaving in a pitcher or hitting and running aren't optimal but managers do it b/c they can feel something. And I'm sure there are games when K doesn't stall. I have already analyzed this current game and found that you can't argue with stall ball with the issues such as Singler's foul trouble, their tricky offense, and everyone apart from Kyle and Nolan's inexperience with the 1-3-1. So I trust K won't necessarily do it at all times which is what the math would dictate and what I am trying to say.

Reilly
03-23-2011, 04:34 PM
No I understand that, but my main point is that math shouldn't be the only thing used. I know everyone has fallen in love with the new way to look at the game analytically but the beauty of sports is that there is no way to use statistics to ensure anything. So at that point, it becomes about coaching instinct. Again, specific examples allude me but I bet there are certain times when leaving in a pitcher or hitting and running aren't optimal but managers do it b/c they can feel something. ....

sporthenry, I believe coaches use their instinct all the time *in conjunction with* the math. What are the chances, in a vacuum, that a #1 seed could outplay and beat a #5 seed in the NCAA Finals for a 5-minute overtime? Probably more than 50%, given the relative seeding. Maybe 75% or so (or even 84% like kenpom has Duke over #5 Arizona?). So, just using those numbers, go for OT if you are #1, you have a good shot at winning.

But K, using his instinct, thought Duke's chances were much, much lower in OT against Butler. So, he used his instinct to plug in a new value, and then he did the math, and the "new math" said make Butler take a tough 3 now, b/c we don't have much of a shot in OT.

K did not "go against the odds" and he did not choose "instinct over math". Rather, he used his instinct and knowledge to plug in the values into the equation that he thought were correct, and *then* he followed the math. Every time a coach is using "instinct" the coach is still going with the option that the coach believes gives him the best chance of victory, for whatever reasons. In other words, the coach is still going with the math (or should be).

Nugget
03-23-2011, 04:36 PM
Wow! I don't remember it all until 2002. I'm going to have to look into this. Maybe it's just something he's started to a little more often.

We ran it a great deal with the Bobby Hurley teams and were extremely effective with it -- regularly bleeding the shot clock down to just a few seconds, before Laettner or Thomas Hill, in particular, would hit big shots.

sporthenry
03-23-2011, 06:05 PM
sporthenry, I believe coaches use their instinct all the time *in conjunction with* the math. What are the chances, in a vacuum, that a #1 seed could outplay and beat a #5 seed in the NCAA Finals for a 5-minute overtime? Probably more than 50%, given the relative seeding. Maybe 75% or so (or even 84% like kenpom has Duke over #5 Arizona?). So, just using those numbers, go for OT if you are #1, you have a good shot at winning.

But K, using his instinct, thought Duke's chances were much, much lower in OT against Butler. So, he used his instinct to plug in a new value, and then he did the math, and the "new math" said make Butler take a tough 3 now, b/c we don't have much of a shot in OT.

K did not "go against the odds" and he did not choose "instinct over math". Rather, he used his instinct and knowledge to plug in the values into the equation that he thought were correct, and *then* he followed the math. Every time a coach is using "instinct" the coach is still going with the option that the coach believes gives him the best chance of victory, for whatever reasons. In other words, the coach is still going with the math (or should be).

Well seedings are irrelevant and using the 5 seed from this year to compare it to the 5 seed who went to the finals means nothing b/c Butler was underseed last year. But the point is the coach creates his own input value which makes it more than math.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, these other variables are often left out or too hard to account for. How do you value Z fouling out compared to Howard who also had 4 fouls? Sure, after he comes to an assumption that Duke wouldn't be better off in OT he is following the math, but getting to that math is using a lot of intuition. Similarly, this argument about stall ball should be done using a WAR against non-stall ball but even we are having trouble finding the time and info to do this analysis. But then you would have other variables that the coach has to use like foul trouble, oppositions momentum, etc that a value can't really be placed upon. K cited foul trouble last year in the title game, well Howard also had 4 fouls so if he fouls out, Butler is probably in more trouble than if Z fouls out. So yes, the coach will use math but he decides the different variables as well as the weight that each variable carries which should again be a detraction from having a set score/time to implement stall ball. And maybe this is obvious,

ns7
03-23-2011, 06:35 PM
Duke scored 10 on Maryland in 54 seconds in 2001. So that's 3. Also, Illinois came back on Arizona in 2005: down 15 with 4 minutes to go. The Bill James calculator says that lead was 65% safe.

Maryland's lead was not 100% safe because they did not have possession when they had the 10 point lead.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 07:09 PM
We ran it a great deal with the Bobby Hurley teams and were extremely effective with it -- regularly bleeding the shot clock down to just a few seconds, before Laettner or Thomas Hill, in particular, would hit big shots.

I don't remember any of that. I wonder if there is even a way for me to research it at this point.

devildownunder
03-23-2011, 07:11 PM
I watched from the 12:10 mark forward. I did not see any evidence of a stall that cost Duke to give up the lead.

Duke led by 13 w/ 12:10 ... took a shot 6 seconds into shot clock.

Duke led by 12 w/ 11:34 ... went inside to score and turned over (15 secs into clock)

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:54 ... FAST BREAK (travel)

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:38 .... JWill misses wide open layup

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:12 .... went inside quickly, turnover, no stall

Duke led by 8 w/ 9:46 ... went inside some 18 seconds into clock, miss FT

Duke led by 10 w/ 9:04 ... 10 seconds into shot clock, turnover, no stall

Duke led by 8 w/ 8:44 ... 10 seconds into clock, JWill misses 3

Duke led by 8 w/ 8:27 .... 19 seconds into clock, shoot a 3, no stall

Duke led by 6 w/ 7:20 .... shoot 10 seconds into clock

Duke led by 6 w/ 6:45 ... no stall, turnover

Duke led by 4 w/ 6:17 ... shoot 20 seconds into clock

Duke led by 1 w/ 5:48 ... went inside

Duke had a 5-point lead and the ball w/ 2:41 ... WE SHOULD HAVE STALLED ... instead we tried to go inside immediately and turned it over.

I saw lots of turnovers, missed easy shots, no grabbing of defensive rebounds, and fouls .... but no stall ball. Watch the gore yourself:

http://vault.ncaa.com/

I'll go into the vault when I get a chance later but I know we were standing around in a corner formation in that game. That part I remember well. But, again, I'll have to go back into the vault when I have a chance.

NashvilleDevil
03-23-2011, 07:34 PM
I don't remember any of that. I wonder if there is even a way for me to research it at this point.

Rewatch the '92 title game. Duke takes the air out of the ball in the 2nd half (at what point I do not remember) and they actually increase the lead. Pretty impressive to watch as they just make the Fab 5 submit to their will.

Kedsy
03-23-2011, 10:19 PM
Well seedings are irrelevant and using the 5 seed from this year to compare it to the 5 seed who went to the finals means nothing b/c Butler was underseed last year.

Last year, pre-tournament, Butler was #26 in Pomeroy, #22 in Sagarin (#18 ELO Chess & #31 Predictor), and #12 RPI. So they were only underseeded in RPI, which at least in my mind means "not at all."

This year, pre-tournament, Arizona was #25 in Pomeroy, #22 in Sagarin (#24 ELO Chess & #19 Predictor), and #19 in RPI. I'd say from a ratings standpoint the two teams are fairly equivalent, although admittedly Butler's RPI was a little better.

Newton_14
03-23-2011, 10:46 PM
sporthenry, I believe coaches use their instinct all the time *in conjunction with* the math. What are the chances, in a vacuum, that a #1 seed could outplay and beat a #5 seed in the NCAA Finals for a 5-minute overtime? Probably more than 50%, given the relative seeding. Maybe 75% or so (or even 84% like kenpom has Duke over #5 Arizona?). So, just using those numbers, go for OT if you are #1, you have a good shot at winning.

But K, using his instinct, thought Duke's chances were much, much lower in OT against Butler. So, he used his instinct to plug in a new value, and then he did the math, and the "new math" said make Butler take a tough 3 now, b/c we don't have much of a shot in OT.

K did not "go against the odds" and he did not choose "instinct over math". Rather, he used his instinct and knowledge to plug in the values into the equation that he thought were correct, and *then* he followed the math. Every time a coach is using "instinct" the coach is still going with the option that the coach believes gives him the best chance of victory, for whatever reasons. In other words, the coach is still going with the math (or should be).

I agree with this. I think K absolutely uses the non-math variables, while also factoring in the math, and combining the two, makes his decision. Over the years he has used variations of the delay (from very subtle, not fully noticeable, to full out obvious delay) and started the strategy somewhere between the under 8 TO and the 3 minute mark and it has always varied based on a gazillion "human variables" and of course, "the math". K talks a lot about "living in the moment" and not looking backwards or forwards, but I do believe he knows the math at every single point of "the moment" when he is in it and applies that to the situation at hand and uses all of that to make his decision.

I even recall one game several years ago, where he actually went to it right after the under 12 TO. Can't recall the opponent, but we had like a 17 point lead but were in foul trouble big time, and much to my surprise he went to the full blown delay coming out of that timeout. (and yes, Duke won the game:))

roywhite
03-23-2011, 11:00 PM
Just watched the Duke--UM replay on CBS College Sports (UNC--Washington is on now in case anybody cares). Still made me nervous.

From another look:
Michigan made some great plays and shots
We just weren't suire how to attack the zone, and there was some role confusion with Kyrie and Nolan; the shot clock violation was a major error
Nolan's contested 3 from about 24 feet was not a good choice of shots
Kyrie made two really excellent plays...the diagonal pass to Ryan for the layup and the short floating kiss off the backboard
Mostly it was a matter of poor execution by Duke and excellent play by UM that made it so close, not an indictment of overall delay game strategy

Survive, advance, live, learn.

Utley
03-23-2011, 11:27 PM
Maryland's lead was not 100% safe because they did not have possession when they had the 10 point lead.

Didn't the Clemson-Miami game in the ACC tournament have a 10 point or larger lead overcome in the last 10 minutes.

Even if not, I'm a big Black Swan believer (but not black pigeon) and think it's ludicrous to say something like a 10 point lead is 100% safe with 44 seconds left. Let's never underestimate the capacity for human stupidity.

gus
03-23-2011, 11:28 PM
http://vault.ncaa.com/

How did I not know this existed!? I"m watching the '92 game now...

throatybeard
03-24-2011, 02:06 AM
Even if not, I'm a big Black Swan believer (but not black pigeon) and think it's ludicrous to say something like a 10 point lead is 100% safe with 44 seconds left. Let's never underestimate the capacity for human stupidity.

"Dumb loses more games than smart wins." --- RMK

I forget whether he said this this past weekend about UNC-UW, Arizona-Texas, or Pittsburgh-Butler. I'm guessing the last.

Matches
03-24-2011, 08:06 AM
I even recall one game several years ago, where he actually went to it right after the under 12 TO. Can't recall the opponent, but we had like a 17 point lead but were in foul trouble big time, and much to my surprise he went to the full blown delay coming out of that timeout. (and yes, Duke won the game:))

You may be thinking of the 2001 ACC Championship Game, when we went to the stall with a big lead almost immediately after Jay Williams got hurt. Great win but an incredibly dull 2nd half.

Matches
03-24-2011, 08:07 AM
Didn't the Clemson-Miami game in the ACC tournament have a 10 point or larger lead overcome in the last 10 minutes.



The UVa/ Miami ACCT game was actually the first game ever to "beat" the formula.

JTH
03-24-2011, 08:19 AM
Didn't the Clemson-Miami game in the ACC tournament have a 10 point or larger lead overcome in the last 10 minutes.

Even if not, I'm a big Black Swan believer (but not black pigeon) and think it's ludicrous to say something like a 10 point lead is 100% safe with 44 seconds left. Let's never underestimate the capacity for human stupidity.

I totally agree that no lead should ever be considered safe until the buzzer sounds. I know we all can offer many examples, but one that always sticks with me is a loss Davidson suffered. I believe the time frame was 1991 or thereabouts.They had a six point lead and ball possession with only four seconds left, and still lost the game. The opponent was UNC-Asheville.

Davidson rebounded a missed UNCA shot with four seconds left. UNCA batted the ball loose from the rebounder and made a quick 3 pointer. UNCA called timeout with 2 seconds left. UNCA intercepted the inbounds pass and called another TO with one second left. You can probably guess that on the inbounds, UNCA drained another three to tie the game. Then, of course, they won in overtime.

BTW, in regulation, Davidson also had a nine point lead with 42 seconds left, before the debacle with four seconds left.

I know there are lots of differing opinions about stall ball, but you can consider me as one that supports it. I believe Duke runs it very effectively and I have come to feel that if we are down to about eight minutes and have a 1.5 point per minute lead, our best strategy for insuring a win is to slow it down and limit the other teams opportunities to score more points. I accept that it isn't going to work all the time, but I believe it is going to work most of the time. Either way, if you have a 1.5 point per minute lead, the odds are you are going to win. I just think the odds are better if you are good at stalling, to stall, and limit the other team's opportunities to make up the difference. Duke does this the best of any team I have seen. It isn't going to work every time, but it has worked most of the time.

The bottom line is that, K believes it is our best strategy and he seems to know what he's doing. In K I trust.

rsvman
03-24-2011, 09:55 AM
No I understand that, but my main point is that math shouldn't be the only thing used. I know everyone has fallen in love with the new way to look at the game analytically but the beauty of sports is that there is no way to use statistics to ensure anything. So at that point, it becomes about coaching instinct. Again, specific examples allude me but I bet there are certain times when leaving in a pitcher or hitting and running aren't optimal but managers do it b/c they can feel something. And I'm sure there are games when K doesn't stall. I have already analyzed this current game and found that you can't argue with stall ball with the issues such as Singler's foul trouble, their tricky offense, and everyone apart from Kyle and Nolan's inexperience with the 1-3-1. So I trust K won't necessarily do it at all times which is what the math would dictate and what I am trying to say.
sporthenry, we are in complete agreement.

devildownunder
03-24-2011, 11:10 AM
I watched from the 12:10 mark forward. I did not see any evidence of a stall that cost Duke to give up the lead.

Duke led by 13 w/ 12:10 ... took a shot 6 seconds into shot clock.

Duke led by 12 w/ 11:34 ... went inside to score and turned over (15 secs into clock)

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:54 ... FAST BREAK (travel)

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:38 .... JWill misses wide open layup

Duke led by 12 w/ 10:12 .... went inside quickly, turnover, no stall

Duke led by 8 w/ 9:46 ... went inside some 18 seconds into clock, miss FT

Duke led by 10 w/ 9:04 ... 10 seconds into shot clock, turnover, no stall

Duke led by 8 w/ 8:44 ... 10 seconds into clock, JWill misses 3

Duke led by 8 w/ 8:27 .... 19 seconds into clock, shoot a 3, no stall

Duke led by 6 w/ 7:20 .... shoot 10 seconds into clock

Duke led by 6 w/ 6:45 ... no stall, turnover

Duke led by 4 w/ 6:17 ... shoot 20 seconds into clock

Duke led by 1 w/ 5:48 ... went inside

Duke had a 5-point lead and the ball w/ 2:41 ... WE SHOULD HAVE STALLED ... instead we tried to go inside immediately and turned it over.

I saw lots of turnovers, missed easy shots, no grabbing of defensive rebounds, and fouls .... but no stall ball. Watch the gore yourself:

http://vault.ncaa.com/

Clearly I can't trust my memory anymore. My recollection of that game was way off. I was sure I remember at least a few possessions of stall ball.

Geez, maybe I've remembered my childhood wrong as well.