PDA

View Full Version : Post Entry Pass Study



airowe
12-17-2011, 05:41 PM
Hey all, I have decided to take a look at Duke's post entry passes, among other things. My first look at the Belmont game revealed some interesting info. Please let me know what you think and if there are any more things you want me to look at while I'm reviewing the game tape.

http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2011/12/17/post-entry-pass-study-duke-vs-belmont/

SilkyJ
12-17-2011, 06:58 PM
Great analysis, Adam. Look forward to seeing the analysis of later games as well.

tommy
12-17-2011, 08:40 PM
Love it. I really enjoy this kind of analysis, which is why I try to do a little of it too. It really takes us out of the realm of the perception, which can be colored and skewed by so many factors, and into the realm of the real. Great stuff Adam. Keep it up! (though I know -- very time consuming)

Kedsy
12-17-2011, 10:28 PM
Interesting stuff, Adam. I look forward to seeing this analysis for the later games.

greybeard
12-18-2011, 01:13 AM
This is great but I think that you can and should add something about the quality of the entry pass--whether it created or took advantage of separation or anticipated separation, how early in the clock it was made, were there multiple touches on a single possession, did the pass call for an athletic catch that gave advantage (one handed to create angle to the basket, etc.) This might seem like a lot, but we all know an effective entry when we see one--I'm not talking a classic assist, but rather one that depends on the intelligence, read ability, creativity, footwork, and hands of the receiver, all of which are taken into account in a split second or two by the passer.

In other words, did the pass and catch impress you and why. Touches in awkward positions with defenders leaning on the reciver, where helpis nearby to prevent a bounce, where it is late in the clock and the receiver has nopt touched it in a while, will lead to difficult makes, out of timing deliveries, questions like, "should I go or should I not," etc. that will kill percentagae analyuses, in my opinion.

You watch that big from Butler, I'm sure you have the tape, and you will see what I'm talking about. Granted, he was real gifted but so were his teammates who obviously were part of an offense that was designed to get him the ball early and often in the ways I've described. This was true has junior year in which the other guy was misstakenly ided as the MVP on that team. The MVP, in my opinion, was the big, the inside out, help defense play his touches demanded. No one can convince me that Masonm does not have that in him.

airowe
12-18-2011, 01:20 AM
Great idea. I'll add a "quality" column for the Presbyterian game and moving forward.

Mike Corey
12-18-2011, 08:51 AM
Posts like these are why I come to DBR.

Thanks, Airowe.

Keep up the good work, my friend.

But don't be too good: We wouldn't want you giving our opponents a competitive advantage. ;)

airowe
12-18-2011, 10:01 AM
I'm not that good! Besides, we have the greatest coach in the world at adjusting his offense. I seriously doubt any of this will stay the same all the way through the year.

greybeard
12-18-2011, 08:55 PM
Henry Simms, not exactly a household name, a 6'10" senior at Georgetown who barely got any playing time his first three years, is now at the vortex of Georgetown's Princeton. The Washington Post reported that Georgetown had a tenuous 6 point lead over American U, not exactly a ranked team, when Sims came out in the second half and tore things up: "Sims assisted on four consecutive backdoor cuts . . . [and] then scored six of his team's next eight points." That's 7 touches that lead led to scores in what had to have been maybe 4 minutes.

No way Simms is better then either of the Plumlees, but he plays the pivotal role in their Georgetown's offense and I believe that that is why he has been so effecti8ve and efficehnt ihn his scoring. You ask any serious Georgetown fan and they'd tell you that they are shocked. Give a big guy lots of touches, make him at least a coequal in playmaking with the other guys on the floor, and let him know he can miss just like the other guys without getting (we're talking mostly Miles here), and interesting things happen.

Simm's play in this game was no aberration--he has been the play-through guy for Georgetown all season and the one time I saw him previously, it was a close game against a quality opponent and he scored several times going down the stretch including on the final shot of the game which gave Georgetwon the win. BTW, it is not like Georgetown has a dirth of quality outside players.

Maybe the Plumlees deserve a break.

Kedsy
12-18-2011, 10:15 PM
Henry Simms, not exactly a household name, a 6'10" senior at Georgetown who barely got any playing time his first three years, is now at the vortex of Georgetown's Princeton.

Well, the Princeton offense is designed to go through the post. We don't play the Princeton offense. A lot of your ideas are interesting and innovative, but there is more than one correct way to play basketball, and sometimes you don't seem willing to accept that.

greybeard
12-18-2011, 11:20 PM
Well, the Princeton offense is designed to go through the post. We don't play the Princeton offense. A lot of your ideas are interesting and innovative, but there is more than one correct way to play basketball, and sometimes you don't seem willing to accept that.

I do accept that. I thought that the recent championship team had the most unusual offense I have seen, perhaps ever, because of the zeal with which Z ran around setting picks. Just about every other championship team I can think of played inside out as a mainstay of its offense; in fact, off the top of my head I can think of none that didn't. Personally, I think that the most effective way to have an inside player score the ball is to have him play the pivot role in the offense. Roy likes to have his bigs do it by getting it early before the defense has a chance to set and then go. But, if you watch Zeller this year you will see an inside out game, a cutting game off the pivot.

MJ played the pivot in the Triangle; when he was off the court, it was Pippen. LA used to use Kobe in that spot until Gasol arrived and he was terrific there but almost exclusively on the left side. When the ball went to the other side, it was Kobe mostly.

So, there have been lots of Duke teams in the post Shelden era that have not played inside out; only one came anywhere close to winning it and that was because they had the most unusual 7 foot fast and strong player who completely gave himself to running screen after screen.

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed watching the Duke teams that had no inside game (except during Z's freshman year when I thought he displayed a terrific ability to set up his man, get an edge and move to space only to have the outside guys ignore him or almost worse yet, hold it until the defender was all over him and pushing him from low. It broke the kid's confidence, and the team thereafter never even thought about looking for him at all. But, even while I thought that Zoubek could have been much more of a scorer before he took on the role of a pulling guard or tackle, I really liked the way Duke played after Selden left. I thought that K displayed real "genuis" in coming up with ways of creating dribble penetration by the wings to the foul line, kicking it or, if they saw a lane without a big having a chance to get to them attacking the rim--creating inside out play in that fashion, mixing it up with screens for Singler to catch cutting into the lane, well, the offense was thrilling and quite effective.

I'd like to give K the same kind of credit for the championship Z's senior year but I believe he would tell you that the genuis there was Zoubek. The more he displayed the willingness to set multiple screens on a single possession, in the beginning probably all corriographed, the more the offense became formidable. When Z started reading defenses that were predicting screens in certain places and began improvising, the team went to an entirely different level. Then, when he started crashing the board from a final screen for a three, grabbing rebounds with more than a reasonable chance to score the ball on his own but instead picked among the perimeter guys to find the guy with the step in three or at least a reasonably open one, forgettabout it. Duke became practically indefensible.

That was an extraordinary exception, due I believe to the most extraordinary display of will, determination, vision, and talent on offense I have ever seen by a big man that rarely had him even touching the ball on offense off a pass, and almost never taking a shot in such circumstances, except when he, at K's direction, hurt some people in the tournament by scoring that way several times early.

I hope that that explains my views to you. This year, I have yet to see a meaningful inside out game for Duke and that to me spells trouble against the elite teams, which will kill Duke off points in the paint with no hope of getting a big into foul trouble or tired out, put back on his heals, or be anything other than free and aggressive on the offensive end. I think that, to the extent that view matches what happens, it would be unfortunate because I think that Mason could be a terror inside, that Kelly could probably kill people too, and Miles, if he softens up a bit when he gets the ball inside, could be a handfill as well. How that would play out against Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio State, and others I do not know. I think it fair to say we never will.

niveklaen
12-19-2011, 09:19 AM
I do accept that. I thought that the recent championship team had the most unusual offense I have seen, perhaps ever, because of the zeal with which Z ran around setting picks. Just about every other championship team I can think of played inside out as a mainstay of its offense; in fact, off the top of my head I can think of none that didn't. Personally, I think that the most effective way to have an inside player score the ball is to have him play the pivot role in the offense. Roy likes to have his bigs do it by getting it early before the defense has a chance to set and then go. But, if you watch Zeller this year you will see an inside out game, a cutting game off the pivot.

MJ played the pivot in the Triangle; when he was off the court, it was Pippen. LA used to use Kobe in that spot until Gasol arrived and he was terrific there but almost exclusively on the left side. When the ball went to the other side, it was Kobe mostly.

So, there have been lots of Duke teams in the post Shelden era that have not played inside out; only one came anywhere close to winning it and that was because they had the most unusual 7 foot fast and strong player who completely gave himself to running screen after screen.

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoyed watching the Duke teams that had no inside game (except during Z's freshman year when I thought he displayed a terrific ability to set up his man, get an edge and move to space only to have the outside guys ignore him or almost worse yet, hold it until the defender was all over him and pushing him from low. It broke the kid's confidence, and the team thereafter never even thought about looking for him at all. But, even while I thought that Zoubek could have been much more of a scorer before he took on the role of a pulling guard or tackle, I really liked the way Duke played after Selden left. I thought that K displayed real "genuis" in coming up with ways of creating dribble penetration by the wings to the foul line, kicking it or, if they saw a lane without a big having a chance to get to them attacking the rim--creating inside out play in that fashion, mixing it up with screens for Singler to catch cutting into the lane, well, the offense was thrilling and quite effective.

I'd like to give K the same kind of credit for the championship Z's senior year but I believe he would tell you that the genuis there was Zoubek. The more he displayed the willingness to set multiple screens on a single possession, in the beginning probably all corriographed, the more the offense became formidable. When Z started reading defenses that were predicting screens in certain places and began improvising, the team went to an entirely different level. Then, when he started crashing the board from a final screen for a three, grabbing rebounds with more than a reasonable chance to score the ball on his own but instead picked among the perimeter guys to find the guy with the step in three or at least a reasonably open one, forgettabout it. Duke became practically indefensible.

That was an extraordinary exception, due I believe to the most extraordinary display of will, determination, vision, and talent on offense I have ever seen by a big man that rarely had him even touching the ball on offense off a pass, and almost never taking a shot in such circumstances, except when he, at K's direction, hurt some people in the tournament by scoring that way several times early.

I hope that that explains my views to you. This year, I have yet to see a meaningful inside out game for Duke and that to me spells trouble against the elite teams, which will kill Duke off points in the paint with no hope of getting a big into foul trouble or tired out, put back on his heals, or be anything other than free and aggressive on the offensive end. I think that, to the extent that view matches what happens, it would be unfortunate because I think that Mason could be a terror inside, that Kelly could probably kill people too, and Miles, if he softens up a bit when he gets the ball inside, could be a handfill as well. How that would play out against Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio State, and others I do not know. I think it fair to say we never will.

You're kidding right? You do realize that the reason Z was a non-factor his first 3 years was because he was injured? His confidence wasn't broken, his body was. Coach K didn't just wake up one morning and decide to abandon the offensive philosophy that took advantage of the post abilities of Brand and Boozer and S.Williams, he woke up one morning to find he had no one able to play in the post (due to early entry to the NBA, recruiting misses, and injury to Z...).

Kedsy
12-19-2011, 10:19 AM
Just about every other championship team I can think of played inside out as a mainstay of its offense; in fact, off the top of my head I can think of none that didn't.

2003 Syracuse, 2008 Kansas, 2011 UConn, just to name three in the last nine years. Personally, I'd also include 2000 Michigan State, 2001 Duke, and 2002 Maryland as not playing inside-out, although all three teams had a good inside presence, and of course you already mentioned 2010 Duke. Also, if you want to go back 15 years, I'd include 1999 UConn and 1997 Arizona, and if we go back further I'm sure we'd find many more.

So, depending on your definition, I'd say (contrary to your contention) it's even money or worse that a college championship team goes inside out.


I hope that that explains my views to you. This year, I have yet to see a meaningful inside out game for Duke and that to me spells trouble against the elite teams, which will kill Duke off points in the paint with no hope of getting a big into foul trouble or tired out, put back on his heals, or be anything other than free and aggressive on the offensive end. I think that, to the extent that view matches what happens, it would be unfortunate because I think that Mason could be a terror inside, that Kelly could probably kill people too, and Miles, if he softens up a bit when he gets the ball inside, could be a handfill as well. How that would play out against Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio State, and others I do not know. I think it fair to say we never will.

Thank you for explaining. Personally, I do think we've seen a good amount of inside out game for Duke this year. Perhaps not to the extent or in the manner you think is ideal, but I think we've seen a lot of it.

I also think our offense, using our current offensive scheme, will be quite sufficient to battle the powers, although as we saw against Ohio State, we are not yet there against a super-elite defense. Where I think we may run into trouble against the best of the best is on defense, but that's a different debate and I'm sure Coach K is working on it.

Wander
12-19-2011, 10:24 AM
I don't agree with all of those examples, but 2001 Duke and 2011 UConn definitely played through their point guards. It's clearly not a requirement to play inside-out to win a title.

Kedsy
12-19-2011, 10:29 AM
I don't agree with all of those examples, but 2001 Duke and 2011 UConn definitely played through their point guards. It's clearly not a requirement to play inside-out to win a title.

Out of curiosity, which of the teams I mentioned did you think went inside out?

Wander
12-19-2011, 10:51 AM
I remember Kansas playing through their big guys a lot.

Interestingly enough, I also sorta remember UNC playing through Lawson when the 2009 tournament came around, and thought they had a bit of a different identity in March than their regular season (and prevoius few years).

But I'd have to check on both of those.

Kedsy
12-19-2011, 02:05 PM
I remember Kansas playing through their big guys a lot.

Interesting. I didn't see a lot of Kansas that year except for the Final Four (which I attended). My recollection is they seemed to be all guards/wing players: Chalmers, Rush, Robinson, Collins. And that the big men (Kaun, Arthur) mostly set screens, pick-and-rolled, and crashed the boards. Actually, pretty Duke-like. At least that's what I remember. Sometimes it looks different at the arena.

greybeard
12-19-2011, 03:07 PM
2003 Syracuse, 2008 Kansas, 2011 UConn, just to name three in the last nine years. Personally, I'd also include 2000 Michigan State, 2001 Duke, and 2002 Maryland as not playing inside-out, although all three teams had a good inside presence, and of course you already mentioned 2010 Duke. Also, if you want to go back 15 years, I'd include 1999 UConn and 1997 Arizona, and if we go back further I'm sure we'd find many more.

So, depending on your definition, I'd say (contrary to your contention) it's even money or worse that a college championship team goes inside out.
.

Answer: Come on Keds, let's lay em out, some of da facts.

Syracyse had two 6'9" stars, Melo, and Warrick or was it Warwick (7'1" wingspan and jumped through the ceiling). One of them didn't post up most of the time? I don't recall who their center was so I cannot speak to whether he was a distributor, but saying that Syracuse did not play inside out is just not so (I'm pretty sure that Warrick did not have much of a jumper at that time in his career. At any rate, Melo was an extraordinary player, whose post game was extraordinary, and McNamara put on a three point exhibition in that final that might go down as unprecidented.

Duke3: was loaded, JWill was probably the best point ever, but Boozer played that game after missing most of the season with a broken foot, and I believe had a double double. He is and always has been an inside player and when he was on the court they went to him often--19 points in the semi-finals that year. And, Duke had how many pros on that team (I'm pretty sure it was five, they started 4, two of whom were players of the year, if I'm npot misstaken. And, you have to say that Boozer has had the best pro career of all of them, and is a killer inside, whom every team he has been on plays through to establish, dare I say it, an inside out game.

Michigan State had only 4 pros, and their Centerhand 19 points in the Championship game, was known for having great hands and being a great passer. He averaged 0.8 points that year; hardly chopped liver on a team with some terrific scorers. In addition, Peterson and their other pro foreward were inside scorers, who often caught it in the paint.

Maryland also had four pros, including Baxter whom you have to label as estalishing an inside out game all by hisownself, but they also had Wilcox, who also played inside and Haj was no slouch.--a fifth, Nichols, was as important a sixth man in the league that year and played like 11 years in Europe, where he won best player of the year honors his first or second year there. They got the ball Inside and that was key to their offsense.

Conneticutt too went inside to a manchild quite often, to Oriakhi, who in the championship game had a double-double; Calhoun's directions before the game, "pound it inside."

Whom am I missing? Duke 2008, which had the mowst unusual offense ever and don't come close to winning a Championship without their unhearalded 7'1" heady and steel-willed cog. I don't know how to charactize that offense because no one has ever seen anything like it before--never. That is the sole reason that they won the Championship--how do you prepare for such an offense, which got me on local radio after every game and on PTI twice.

So, I don't think that your point is well taken.

CDu
12-19-2011, 03:11 PM
Interesting. I didn't see a lot of Kansas that year except for the Final Four (which I attended). My recollection is they seemed to be all guards/wing players: Chalmers, Rush, Robinson, Collins. And that the big men (Kaun, Arthur) mostly set screens, pick-and-rolled, and crashed the boards. Actually, pretty Duke-like. At least that's what I remember. Sometimes it looks different at the arena.

They actually played 3 very solid big men (Arthur, Jackson, and Kaun), with a freshman Aldrich coming off the bench for foul trouble minutes. They worked it in to those big guys quite a bit. They also shot really well from the perimeter with the guys you mentioned. That team had about as much balance as anybody, with all 7 guys averaging at least 7ppg and only one guy averaging over 13ppg. I'd say they were neither specifically a perimeter team or an inside-out team.

greybeard
12-19-2011, 10:15 PM
You're kidding right? You do realize that the reason Z was a non-factor his first 3 years was because he was injured? His confidence wasn't broken, his body was. Coach K didn't just wake up one morning and decide to abandon the offensive philosophy that took advantage of the post abilities of Brand and Boozer and S.Williams, he woke up one morning to find he had no one able to play in the post (due to early entry to the NBA, recruiting misses, and injury to Z...).

Z wa not injured at all his freshman year, which is when he showed, at least to me, a real feel for setting his man up to lean toward the baseline, for example, then wrong foot him to the middle where the pass should have been meeting him upon his arrival. Instead, if he got it at all, it was after the defender was on his back, pushing him below Zoubeks center of gravity which made it very difficult to hold his position and even more difficult to straightenj after catching it, and putting up a decent shot. That is when he lost confidence.

I remember him hurting his foot sometime well into the season his next year, when he got the ball even more rarely than his freshman year and never with a hope of doing anything with it in rythm. As a consequence, all but a few on this board called him a stiff who had no hands and no ability to score the ball, neither of which I believe was true. I do not think he missed his entire Junior year, and when he returned he practically never saw it, when he did it was only when he posted up as if he was Brand, Boozer or Shelden which is the only way Duke I'd have to say ever since Ferry could play it inside, except to the extent Latner ventured there.

Zoubek began his senior year in much the same fashion. A muffed offensive opportunity and he was gone. Eventually, K came up with the blocking back sequences, Z took the role beyond (I really cannot find an appropriate word) and became what was denied him for his career if he had tried to play conventionally, the way most big men get to play the position. Z refused to go quietly into the night and became THE FORCE that was key to Duke's offense.

Look, Zoubek arrived displaying a talent that few guys his size display in today's game--a really keen ability to see angles, passing lanes, to hold his position, make the defender guard the basket, and make a well timed move to the opening he saw developing before the outside players did. If they had looked to find possible openings and looked to read Zoubek and follow, instead of insisting that they lead and dictate that he would get the ball maybe, and rarely, but only if he had the guy sealed, i.e., on his back, Zoubek would have been on his way to a well rounded career. Who knows, he might even have become as good as Simms, and maybe if he hadn't had to play push and be pushed offense all the time, maybe that fifth metatarsel don't break.

Finally, I think that Zoubek displayed a terrific feel for the game and a really keen vision and mind. I saw that in him when he arrived as a freshman, and no one can deny that he displayed it on both ends as a senior, and did so with an intelligence, focus and all out effort that matches anyone who ever wore a Duke uniform, and that is saying something. I think he had way more to offer as a scorer, distributer than he was allowed to develop. That is my view. I understand yours, but yours is the view that we heard for 3 1/2 years before Zoubek busted out and took that Duke team to heights it could not have come close to approaching without him. Proof? How did they do the year before and after?

greybeard
12-19-2011, 10:24 PM
They actually played 3 very solid big men (Arthur, Jackson, and Kaun), with a freshman Aldrich coming off the bench for foul trouble minutes. They worked it in to those big guys quite a bit. They also shot really well from the perimeter with the guys you mentioned. That team had about as much balance as anybody, with all 7 guys averaging at least 7ppg and only one guy averaging over 13ppg. I'd say they were neither specifically a perimeter team or an inside-out team.

Collison, 6'9" was far and away Kansas' best player; they played through him in the half court set, but, like all Roy teams, ran whenever they could, Collison often setting up inside as if on a delayed break and catching it on the move, jump stop with advantage, aka Hansborough. He scored 19 against Duke and had he made a foul shot or two, Kansas would have won. He drew a double whenever he touched it, and was a great distributer. Kansas, if I am not misstaken, had another big who could really play and saw the ball often--the two played one-two combinations really well if my memory on this is not failing me.

Finally, the fact that a team plays through a pivot man a lot does not mean that they cannot generate offense through a penetrating guard (Lawson) or one who can kill you finishing at the rim or dishing, and kill you worser with the three (JWill). Nor am I saying that a team that has a great distributer, can shoot and score the ball if he must, but gives it up easily and often cannot also be key to an inside-out game, i.e., Blake. What I am saying that the game is fashioned in a way that makes guarding the rim essential, that getting it inside to a big with advantage who can finish, or shoot a little bank shot, maybe a hook shot, not only does that, butalso puts the ball BEHIND THE DEFENSE. Four defnders therefore are at an extreme disadvantage--they can't see where the ball is going or when, they must help inside by turning and losing track of where the rest of the offensive players might have relocated to, and the offense can, as a team, exercise dominion on the attack by sharing the ball and the initiative. Playing that way is the game's mainstay, at least how I understand it.

Kedsy
12-20-2011, 01:45 AM
Answer: Come on Keds, let's lay em out, some of da facts.

OK, Gray, I'm all in favor of facts. Carmelo was (and is) a wing (he's also not 6'9"). He started with the ball on the perimeter. Warrick played inside, but the ball always started with Carmelo or McNamara. That was not by any stretch of the imagination an "inside out" team.

AJ Granger did score 19 points in the championship game for Michigan State in 2000, but in general he was the 4th or 5th option on offense. He averaged 1.2 assists per game (double his previous best assist average), so I don't know where you heard he was such a great passer. Oriakhi was also UConn's 4th option on offense, and he averaged 0.4 assists per game. A lot of his points came on offensive rebound putbacks.

I already said 2001 Duke and 2002 Maryland had a strong inside presence. That is very different from saying they went inside out. Both of those teams started their offense from the perimeter. If it went inside to Baxter (0.8 assists per game) or Boozer (1.2 assists per game) it rarely came back out.

(Also, Wilcox was a slasher who didn't post up much, and Holden was a sub for Baxter -- the two didn't play together much if at all. And there wasn't anybody named "Nichols" on Maryland's 2002 team. There was a Nicholas, but he was a 6'3" guard, so I have no idea why you even brought him up.)

Oh, and since you want facts, Duke won the championship in 2010, not 2008.

But here's why your argument makes no sense: Mason Plumlee is currently averaging a double-double. If he could shoot free throws he'd be averaging at least 14 ppg. Yet your original statement was that Duke doesn't play inside out. So if this year's team doesn't play inside out, despite Mason's and Ryan's scoring, why do you think the fact that all championship teams play a center "proves" that they went inside out? None of the teams you've mentioned ran their offense through the post. If they passed it inside the guy usually went up with it.

Also, for what it's worth, Mason's usage % of 23.1% is better than all the big men you've mentioned except Baxter (23.6%) and Wilcox (23.9%, but didn't play in the post very much so for the purposes of our discussion I don't think he counts). You didn't mention him, but Darrell Arthur of 2008 Kansas also had a higher usage % (24.8%). What this means is the ball is going through Mason more than it went through Boozer or Oriakhi or Warrick or Holden or Kaun or Granger.

So I think it's your point that's not well taken. I also think you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.


Collison, 6'9" was far and away Kansas' best player; they played through him in the half court set, but, like all Roy teams, ran whenever they could, Collison often setting up inside as if on a delayed break and catching it on the move, jump stop with advantage, aka Hansborough.

We were talking about Kansas' 2008 team that won the national championship. Collison graduated in 2003.

tommy
12-20-2011, 03:16 AM
Z wa not injured at all his freshman year, which is when he showed, at least to me, a real feel for setting his man up to lean toward the baseline, for example, then wrong foot him to the middle where the pass should have been meeting him upon his arrival. Instead, if he got it at all, it was after the defender was on his back, pushing him below Zoubeks center of gravity which made it very difficult to hold his position and even more difficult to straightenj after catching it, and putting up a decent shot. That is when he lost confidence.

Sounds like a typical problem experienced by freshmen big men: they're not strong enough, especially in the legs, so they can't hold their position. Perhaps that's why so many go into the weight room after their freshman year, get stronger, and come back ready to make a big advance as sophs.


I remember him hurting his foot sometime well into the season his next year, when he got the ball even more rarely than his freshman year and never with a hope of doing anything with it in rythm.

Actually, he first broke the foot in the summer between his freshman and sophomore years. He rehabbed after surgery and made it back around mid-season, which in hindsight was probably too soon, and he re-injured the foot, which required another surgery after the season. His sophomore year was pretty much an injury-riddle washout.


As a consequence, all but a few on this board called him a stiff who had no hands and no ability to score the ball, neither of which I believe was true. I do not think he missed his entire Junior year, and when he returned he practically never saw it, when he did it was only when he posted up as if he was Brand, Boozer or Shelden which is the only way Duke I'd have to say ever since Ferry could play it inside, except to the extent Latner ventured there.

I can't tell what you're trying to say in the last part of that sentence, but you're right, he didn't miss his entire junior year. He played his entire junior year, appearing in 36 games. In the pre-ACC season he was getting solid minutes -- double figures minutes in all but one game (the opener), averaging 14 min per game. In those 14 minutes, he averaged almost 5 FG attempts and about 7.5 ppg. To me, that's not indicative of "never seeing it." His minutes dropped off markedly after the first 6 or so ACC games.


Look, Zoubek arrived displaying a talent that few guys his size display in today's game--a really keen ability to see angles, passing lanes, to hold his position, make the defender guard the basket, and make a well timed move to the opening he saw developing before the outside players did. If they had looked to find possible openings and looked to read Zoubek and follow, instead of insisting that they lead and dictate that he would get the ball maybe, and rarely, but only if he had the guy sealed, i.e., on his back, Zoubek would have been on his way to a well rounded career.

You really think Zoubek's ability to get position and score the ball from inside was so great that he could've scored and scored a lot, but that our outside guys repeatedly and intentionally ignored him for some (apparently selfish) reasons, and our coaching staff abided that? Really? If Brian had demonstrated that kind of offensive game, which I saw him display on a very infrequent basis, why wouldn't the coaches have taken advantage of it? Makes no sense.

airowe
12-20-2011, 10:48 AM
Kedsy, I agree with everything you posted, but usage% is a tricky stat and I don't think is being used properly to make your point.

The stat is compiled by weighing and combining field goal attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers. It is an approximation (and the best one available by looking at the box scores) of how many times a possession ends with a player either shooting the ball and it not getting rebounded, turning the ball over, or assisting on a made basket. It doesn't truly tell you how many times a player touched the ball within the offense.

The only way to truly track whether the player was utilized in a possession is to go back through game film and see it with your eyes. This is a big reason why I started this project. I've started working on more games and have added another stat, BMT (Big Man Touches) to calculate the very thing you're talking about. I'm also noting where the player received the pass since a lot of the BMTs in Duke's offense occur outside the perimeter I'm finding based on the limited sample size. I hope to gain a clearer picture of how the bigs are being used in Duke's offense through the course of this venture, not just the fact that they are.

See the methodology here: http://www.ehow.com/how_2096381_calculate-usage-rate-basketball.html

Kedsy
12-20-2011, 10:59 AM
Kedsy, I agree with everything you posted, but usage% is a tricky stat and I don't think is being used properly to make your point.

The stat is compiled by weighing and combining field goal attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers. It is an approximation (and the best one available by looking at the box scores) of how many times a possession ends with a player either shooting the ball and it not getting rebounded, turning the ball over, or assisting on a made basket. It doesn't truly tell you how many times a player touched the ball within the offense.

The only way to truly track whether the player was utilized in a possession is to go back through game film and see it with your eyes. This is a big reason why I started this project. I've started working on more games and have added another stat, BMT (Big Man Touches) to calculate the very thing you're talking about. I'm also noting where the player received the pass since a lot of the BMTs in Duke's offense occur outside the perimeter I'm finding based on the limited sample size. I hope to gain a clearer picture of how the bigs are being used in Duke's offense through the course of this venture, not just the fact that they are.

See the methodology here: http://www.ehow.com/how_2096381_calculate-usage-rate-basketball.html

Thanks, airowe, I look forward to seeing your analysis. I understand how usage is calculated and agree it doesn't really measure touches, but it's the best I had, and it does give an approximation. If Duke were underutilizing its bigs as much as Greybeard seems to think, I would expect Mason's usage % to much lower, especially compared to the many bigs that Grey says had their team's offense run through them.

airowe
12-20-2011, 11:04 AM
Thanks, airowe, I look forward to seeing your analysis. I understand how usage is calculated and agree it doesn't really measure touches, but it's the best I had, and it does give an approximation. If Duke were underutilizing its bigs as much as Greybeard seems to think, I would expect Mason's usage % to much lower, especially compared to the many bigs that Grey says had their team's offense run through them.

Oh absolutely, it's definitely the best thing out there when looking on paper. I think it does more heavily weigh "aggressive" bigs (as Mason has become this year) because it gives weight to free throw attempts (getting fouled is a sign of an aggressive player), turnovers (a more cautious and careful player wouldn't commit as many turnovers as someone who was more aggressive), and field goal attempts (not makes). We'll see what I can come up with by watching the game tape...

Steven43
12-20-2011, 08:58 PM
Wow, Kedsey and Greybeard, y'all are hardcore. You've both made sincere efforts at proving your point. Just when I start to side with one of you the other comes back and has me doubting again. I have no idea which of you is closer to being correct. And Airowe, man, his detaled analyses are something to behold. Keep up the great work. My amateur take on the matter of Brian Zoubek's ability to score is that he really wasn't particularly skilled in that area. He was much slower afoot and less nimble than, say, Mason. He couldn't jump very high and very rarely dunked. He didn't have a good hook shot. He couldn't use his left hand. He didn't have a reliable jumper from 8-10 feet. From what I remember he mostly scored on putbacks and garbage baskets. Still, Greybeard's comments about his contributions in the other areas of the game seemed right on, particularly from the Maryland game on. For what he brought to the team during his senior year I'll forever remember Zoubs fondly. Gotta love that beard, too.

greybeard
12-20-2011, 10:55 PM
Kedsy, I agree with everything you posted, but usage% is a tricky stat and I don't think is being used properly to make your point.

The stat is compiled by weighing and combining field goal attempts, free throw attempts, assists and turnovers. It is an approximation (and the best one available by looking at the box scores) of how many times a possession ends with a player either shooting the ball and it not getting rebounded, turning the ball over, or assisting on a made basket. It doesn't truly tell you how many times a player touched the ball within the offense.

The only way to truly track whether the player was utilized in a possession is to go back through game film and see it with your eyes. This is a big reason why I started this project. I've started working on more games and have added another stat, BMT (Big Man Touches) to calculate the very thing you're talking about. I'm also noting where the player received the pass since a lot of the BMTs in Duke's offense occur outside the perimeter I'm finding based on the limited sample size. I hope to gain a clearer picture of how the bigs are being used in Duke's offense through the course of this venture, not just the fact that they are.

See the methodology here: http://www.ehow.com/how_2096381_calculate-usage-rate-basketball.html

I think Z could have been effective on offense; wscoring alot, I doubt it. Scoring at a good percentage, yes.

I don't think that anyone was trying to shut Z out. Duke historically throws it inside when a big has a guy shielded and can hold his position and score off it. It seems that for some reason they don't do it any other way except on lobs to the basket. I think thaat the outside players did not perceive Z's advantage about to happen because that kind of thing is outside their awareness. You look for certain cars, you don't see the others, at least not clearly. McRob was incapable of playing the shield and hold game and made a shambles of it trying. I think that like Z, he would have faired much better seeing the floor as a receiver as well as he did as a passer, and catching it as he was about to get to where he saw a passing lane open for a receipt from which he could score with proficiency. By the way, a person can move in any direction including UP much more quickly from a relatively upright position, feet no more than hip width apart, preferrably closer, than getting wide and low as in a shield-and-hold game. Very difficult to beat someone with quickness from the latter.

greybeard
12-20-2011, 11:06 PM
Wow, Kedsey and Greybeard, y'all are hardcore. You've both made sincere efforts at proving your point. Just when I start to side with one of you the other comes back and has me doubting again. I have no idea which of you is closer to being correct. And Airowe, man, his detaled analyses are something to behold. Keep up the great work. My amateur take on the matter of Brian Zoubek's ability to score is that he really wasn't particularly skilled in that area. He was much slower afoot and less nimble than, say, Mason. He couldn't jump very high and very rarely dunked. He didn't have a good hook shot. He couldn't use his left hand. He didn't have a reliable jumper from 8-10 feet. From what I remember he mostly scored on putbacks and garbage baskets. Still, Greybeard's comments about his contributions in the other areas of the game seemed right on, particularly from the Maryland game on. For what he brought to the team during his senior year I'll forever remember Zoubs fondly. Gotta love that beard, too.

See my previous post about moving from a shield-and-hold position. Z had no confidence after he started getting eaten when he tried to play off such catches. By mid year as a senior, you saw a good hook shot from him, a little jumper, and some effective finishes--see, the beginning of the Championship game. Being able to jump, having quick feet are not the only way to clear oneself for a shot. Using momentum, raising one's eyebrow, raising the ball slightly, tightening one's face a little, will often cause a defender to reactively start to come to his toes. Once he does that, he is lost, no matter how much quicker, faster, and a better elevator than the defender is. Catching it upright with a little space gives a player the time to collect himself and shooting a little jump shot or hook comes much easier. If the defender closes quickly, it becomes easier to beat him. If the defender stays fixed to the ground off a slight eye and ball fake, you let go of it, collect yourself and you know you have an uncontested shot. I could go on, and on. This was my game, and I was damn good at it. Except for being quick, you couldn't even imagine slow or an inability to lift. :o

greybeard
12-20-2011, 11:57 PM
OK, Gray, I'm all in favor of facts. Carmelo was (and is) a wing (he's also not 6'9"). He started with the ball on the perimeter. Warrick played inside, but the ball always started with Carmelo or McNamara. That was not by any stretch of the imagination an "inside out" team.

AJ Granger did score 19 points in the championship game for Michigan State in 2000, but in general he was the 4th or 5th option on offense. He averaged 1.2 assists per game (double his previous best assist average), so I don't know where you heard he was such a great passer. Oriakhi was also UConn's 4th option on offense, and he averaged 0.4 assists per game. A lot of his points came on offensive rebound putbacks.

I already said 2001 Duke and 2002 Maryland had a strong inside presence. That is very different from saying they went inside out. Both of those teams started their offense from the perimeter. If it went inside to Baxter (0.8 assists per game) or Boozer (1.2 assists per game) it rarely came back out.

(Also, Wilcox was a slasher who didn't post up much, and Holden was a sub for Baxter -- the two didn't play together much if at all. And there wasn't anybody named "Nichols" on Maryland's 2002 team. There was a Nicholas, but he was a 6'3" guard, so I have no idea why you even brought him up.)

Oh, and since you want facts, Duke won the championship in 2010, not 2008.

But here's why your argument makes no sense: Mason Plumlee is currently averaging a double-double. If he could shoot free throws he'd be averaging at least 14 ppg. Yet your original statement was that Duke doesn't play inside out. So if this year's team doesn't play inside out, despite Mason's and Ryan's scoring, why do you think the fact that all championship teams play a center "proves" that they went inside out? None of the teams you've mentioned ran their offense through the post. If they passed it inside the guy usually went up with it.

Also, for what it's worth, Mason's usage % of 23.1% is better than all the big men you've mentioned except Baxter (23.6%) and Wilcox (23.9%, but didn't play in the post very much so for the purposes of our discussion I don't think he counts). You didn't mention him, but Darrell Arthur of 2008 Kansas also had a higher usage % (24.8%). What this means is the ball is going through Mason more than it went through Boozer or Oriakhi or Warrick or Holden or Kaun or Granger.

So I think it's your point that's not well taken. I also think you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.



We were talking about Kansas' 2008 team that won the national championship. Collison graduated in 2003.

I'll try to be quick. Melo is listed at 6'8" and, we'll have to disagree on this, always had a post-up game that was a big part of his play in the half court game.

If a big catches it close with advantage and with his body organized to make a move and shoot, he does. Players who are good at doing both, aka Baxter, Hansborough, Adrian Dantly, rarely passed it out. They shot remarkably high percentages, drew fouls, and drew outside defenders to either help, or have their attention diverted towars the inside enough to give outside players room to maneuver, be able to step into a three. If the inside player is an effective scorer, things really open up on the outside--inside out play. I think that inside out play is at its best when the inside scorer gets it early as part of a set play or in a rotation scheme, and winds up being a first option as the ball rotates and so does he or he makes a well timed cut, sometimes off a screen.

Kansas 2008 had a terrific inside scorer, at least he really caught my eye during the tournament, in AJ Arthur. He was a terrific receiver of the ball in every element that that term can mean, and could shoot off the catch and beat people with his speed, jumping ability and facility to finish. If you wanted to beat Kansas, you had to pay serious attention to keep Arthur from catching it with advantage in the paint. He didn't take bad shots and was integral to ball movement; that is how Self's teams play, no matter the outside talent that he has, that is, when they are not running.

Maryland had an awesome inside game, Wilcox was not a slasher--if he put it on the ground more than once and then only when he was wide open, he lost it as did Gary, he had a reliable jump shot from between 7 to roughly 10 feet, and could "slash" to the basket and dunk off the pass when inside defenders were occupied with Baxter. He was within my definition of an inside scorer. He was not a slasher as I understand that term.

Assists are in my view are over sold as a measure of whether a guy is a good passer.
Assist men are usually points who occupy the ball an awful lot, are blazers who are adroit at getting into the lane and have finishing moves that make them extremely dangerous. They get assists when an inside big commits too early on help defense, leaving the lob dunk or a little flip pass for a wide open dunk available. I am not saying that those passes do not take touch, but I don't think that having that be the list in your arsenal does not come close to making a player a good distributer. Blake was the best guard I have seen as a passer this side of Magic who was a one-of-a-kind talent, most of whose amazing displays came off the break. Bird, now there was a guy who could pass. The thing I liked most about Blake is how he gave it up easy and quickly to someone on the wing whom he saw as ready to initiate by pass penetration, or give it to a third player who would be when the defense tried to adjust. Blake also was a great pass penetrator. That is my idea of a great distributor. Centers in the Princeton are great distributors; the Princeton's effectiveness depends on it. The best Georgetown had was Green. Chris Webber in Sacramento was excellent at it also, and was, if memory serves, a dgreat distributor when he was at Michigan as was Jalen.

The center at Mich State but the offense often went through him. That is the way State always plays, and, if the big guy was not integrally involved in the inside out passing game, the ability to cheat to help against State's amazing array of slashers would have been diminished. That said, I probably overstated the extent to which State that year could genuinely be said to be an inside out team, even though it almost always is; I'm blocking on his name, but that is how their hall of fame quality coach sees the game.

Only a few of Mason's 11 point average come off shots or finishes off moves from pass penetration. He does get set play Oops once or twice a game, an occasional lefty hook, but two or three baskets come off grabbing rebounds, an occasional breakout, and, dare I say it, from the foul line. I do not think he touches it enough, I do not think that he touches it at all on the move in set plays except for one or two attempted Oops from distance. I'd like to see him get more touches (I think on our threads you have said exactly that), and would really like to see him get it on the move, other than just behind the defense on Oops.

Eliminating the diffent definitions of what constitutes inside-out play, the importance of assists and the need for throwing it out if you have great position from which you can and do score in order to be deemed an inside out player, I think that we actually agree on a lot, certainly on whether Duke might benefit if they got it inside to Mason. I think many of your threads are quite insightful, but often go a step or two too far. I should know, right. ;):o

Kedsy
12-21-2011, 11:49 AM
Only a few of Mason's 11 point average come off shots or finishes off moves from pass penetration. He does get set play Oops once or twice a game, an occasional lefty hook, but two or three baskets come off grabbing rebounds, an occasional breakout, and, dare I say it, from the foul line. I do not think he touches it enough, I do not think that he touches it at all on the move in set plays except for one or two attempted Oops from distance. I'd like to see him get more touches (I think on our threads you have said exactly that), and would really like to see him get it on the move, other than just behind the defense on Oops.

Eliminating the diffent definitions of what constitutes inside-out play, the importance of assists and the need for throwing it out if you have great position from which you can and do score in order to be deemed an inside out player, I think that we actually agree on a lot, certainly on whether Duke might benefit if they got it inside to Mason. I think many of your threads are quite insightful, but often go a step or two too far. I should know, right. ;):o

We do agree on many things. Mostly I was disagreeing with two things you said: that all championship teams go inside-out, and that Duke this year is not utilizing Mason. The reason Mason is getting all those free throws (whether he hits them or not) is because he's getting the ball so much. The vast majority of the times he's fouled have come from "shots off moves from pass penetration."

greybeard
12-22-2011, 01:12 AM
We do agree on many things. Mostly I was disagreeing with two things you said: that all championship teams go inside-out, and that Duke this year is not utilizing Mason. The reason Mason is getting all those free throws (whether he hits them or not) is because he's getting the ball so much. The vast majority of the times he's fouled have come from "shots off moves from pass penetration."

If you think Izzo, Boeheim, Calhoun, K, Dean Smith, Roy, the General, etc. do not believe that an offense must be played by forcing the defense to defend the rim from real or threatened attacks, I have to say that I was misstaken. Our disagreement goes to the core. As I mentioned, after Shelden left, Duke has not had a shield and hold big--it looked to make McRob into one but failed. McRob's scoring came off catches made when he was relatively upright and could maneuver. He was a terrific inside-out passer. Shelden was darn good too. Duke played through both of them, creating an inside out passing game. Shelden got far more touches than the two, because he was like an oak tree when he caught it in the middle, and a defender's weight being pressed against him had no influence on his ability to score. The number os passes that go into Mason is not in the same universe as either of them, and is a pittling by most standards. In the post-McRob years, when I think and have written that K did some of his most innovative and exciting coaching, he found ways to generate inside out play through deploying his wings as described above; and then there was the master piece that Z took to unthough of levels.

The players this year who create inside play are Rivers and Curry. Mason is an afterthought. Rivers and Curry attract a crowd of bigs, but do not draw the outside defenders back, and do nothing to generate meaningful team offense. Mason and his brother spend most of their time setting high screens, with not nearly the effectiveness, creativity, determination of Zoubek. I believe that Mason should get the ball inside the paint or on the mid block much, much more often than he does, and many more set plays should be run that have him curling off a screen or diving down the lane off a backscreen--that outside players should look for him to make athletic catches that draw him away from the defender not to shield them.

As for your use of statistics, where are they? By my watch, Mason draws most of his fouls while collecting balls off the glass on either end and putting the offensive rebounds back up. He does not get many touches inside, and will occasionally draw a foul off that lefty hook move which seems to be the only one worked into the offense. He also draws fouls off of steals and securing loose balls. He is extremely good at seeing such opportunities and taking advantage of them successfully. He does not receive a meaningful number of touches off pass penetration, and is not responsible for fully participating in an offensive schema, assuming one has developed. The offense depends on Rivers or Curry getting to the rim, those two, Dre and Kelly shooting the three, and Kelly's mid-range and occasional inside game thrown in. Oh, they also score off runouts, mostly off of steals.

I think that the season is still young, and I would hope that we will see the type of pass penetration game that was displayed when the season started, which was much different from the shield and hold game we have seen from Duke in the past. Sorry for having misspoken. The scism is wide.

BTW, I think that Miles carries himself with way too much rigidity through his spine, ribs, while his flexer muscles, caused by all the ab work, pull him into folding. The consequence, his head is not free to move easily and his arm movement and hands fail him too often. Instead of Pilates, I recommend belly dancing--for real. You probably have statistics to argue with that suggestion to. Later.

CDu
12-22-2011, 07:36 AM
The players this year who create inside play are Rivers and Curry. Mason is an afterthought. Rivers and Curry attract a crowd of bigs, but do not draw the outside defenders back, and do nothing to generate meaningful team offense. Mason and his brother spend most of their time setting high screens, with not nearly the effectiveness, creativity, determination of Zoubek. I believe that Mason should get the ball inside the paint or on the mid block much, much more often than he does, and many more set plays should be run that have him curling off a screen or diving down the lane off a backscreen--that outside players should look for him to make athletic catches that draw him away from the defender not to shield them.

As for your use of statistics, where are they? By my watch, Mason draws most of his fouls while collecting balls off the glass on either end and putting the offensive rebounds back up. He does not get many touches inside, and will occasionally draw a foul off that lefty hook move which seems to be the only one worked into the offense. He also draws fouls off of steals and securing loose balls. He is extremely good at seeing such opportunities and taking advantage of them successfully. He does not receive a meaningful number of touches off pass penetration, and is not responsible for fully participating in an offensive schema, assuming one has developed. The offense depends on Rivers or Curry getting to the rim, those two, Dre and Kelly shooting the three, and Kelly's mid-range and occasional inside game thrown in. Oh, they also score off runouts, mostly off of steals.

Mason is most certainly not an afterthought this year. He gets the ball on the block a lot this year. I'd say we dump the ball into him in a post up situation MUCH more often than Dawkins or Kelly shooting threes and Kelly's inside game combined. And most of his fouls come off of post plays in which the team voluntarily passed him the ball in the post. The fact that you don't see this makes me suspect that you haven't seen many games this year, or that you haven't watched them very closely.

Newton_14
12-22-2011, 08:32 AM
The players this year who create inside play are Rivers and Curry. Mason is an afterthought. Rivers and Curry attract a crowd of bigs, but do not draw the outside defenders back, and do nothing to generate meaningful team offense. Mason and his brother spend most of their time setting high screens, with not nearly the effectiveness, creativity, determination of Zoubek. I believe that Mason should get the ball inside the paint or on the mid block much, much more often than he does, and many more set plays should be run that have him curling off a screen or diving down the lane off a backscreen--that outside players should look for him to make athletic catches that draw him away from the defender not to shield them.

As for your use of statistics, where are they? By my watch, Mason draws most of his fouls while collecting balls off the glass on either end and putting the offensive rebounds back up. He does not get many touches inside, and will occasionally draw a foul off that lefty hook move which seems to be the only one worked into the offense. He also draws fouls off of steals and securing loose balls. He is extremely good at seeing such opportunities and taking advantage of them successfully. He does not receive a meaningful number of touches off pass penetration, and is not responsible for fully participating in an offensive schema, assuming one has developed. The offense depends on Rivers or Curry getting to the rim, those two, Dre and Kelly shooting the three, and Kelly's mid-range and occasional inside game thrown in. Oh, they also score off runouts, mostly off of steals.

I think that the season is still young, and I would hope that we will see the type of pass penetration game that was displayed when the season started, which was much different from the shield and hold game we have seen from Duke in the past. Sorry for having misspoken. The scism is wide.

BTW, I think that Miles carries himself with way too much rigidity through his spine, ribs, while his flexer muscles, caused by all the ab work, pull him into folding. The consequence, his head is not free to move easily and his arm movement and hands fail him too often. Instead of Pilates, I recommend belly dancing--for real. You probably have statistics to argue with that suggestion to. Later.


Mason is most certainly not an afterthought this year. He gets the ball on the block a lot this year. I'd say we dump the ball into him in a post up situation MUCH more often than Dawkins or Kelly shooting threes and Kelly's inside game combined. And most of his fouls come off of post plays in which the team voluntarily passed him the ball in the post. The fact that you don't see this makes me suspect that you haven't seen many games this year, or that you haven't watched them very closely.

GB, sorry, but I have to agree with CDu here. Mason is certainly not an aferthought. He is one of the main focal points of the offense. Ask Davidson, Kansas, Presbyterian, CSU, Washington, etc. Duke gets him the ball far more than you are suggesting, and the fouls Mase is drawing, are being drawn on post moves, by a wide margin. It's not even close. Airowe just started a new project where he is charting the touches of all of the bigs, including where they received the ball, how they received it, and what the end result was. He just got the project off the ground, so he only has one game of data to date. You may want to check that out on his blog. Revisiting the game tapes would be a good idea as well. I watched the Presbyterian game this week for example, and the ball went into Mason numerous times.

Duke is feeding the bigs inside for scoring opportunities far more than they have in the last 4 to 5 years, by a very wide margin. You have provided a great deal of insight on post play in this thread, but on this particular point, the evidence disproves your assertion. Now if you were to state that Duke is not getting Miles enough touches down on the low block, I would agree. With Mason, and Ryan, different story.

Kedsy
12-22-2011, 11:21 AM
If you think Izzo, Boeheim, Calhoun, K, Dean Smith, Roy, the General, etc. do not believe that an offense must be played by forcing the defense to defend the rim from real or threatened attacks, I have to say that I was misstaken. Our disagreement goes to the core.

Sorry. I was trying to be nice.


As for your use of statistics, where are they?

OK, here you go. Using airowe's stats (linked in the very first post of this thread), against Belmont we made 24 post entry passes. Using Pomeroy's formula to determine total possessions, we had approximately 76 possessions in that game. Many of those possessions involved fouls or turnovers early in the shot clock (airowe details 5 such instances in the last 7 minutes alone) or involved fast breaks (2 in the last 7 minutes) or alley oops (1 in last 7 minutes). If you extrapolate the last seven minutes to the first 33 (which I admit is not a very reliable extrapolation), we could estimate there were approximately 33 possessions in which we never had a halfcourt set and thus had no opportunity to pass to the post (this is not counting alley oops). It was the end of a close game, so Belmont wasn't fouling like crazy, but let's assume a couple of those early fouls in the last 7 minutes were situational, leaving us 5 non-half-court situations in 7 minutes. That would extrapolate to 26 possessions where we never had a half-court set, giving us 50 possessions to analyze. If we made 24 post entry passes, plus at least one alley oop, that means we passed inside to a post man 50% of our possessions.

How many more do you want?

Obviously that's just one game, but it's the only data I have. If airowe continues his very interesting analysis, we can talk about additional games.

airowe
12-22-2011, 12:02 PM
I'm still working on it and Greybeard is mistaken. His theory was certainly true in years past, but not this year.

MChambers
12-22-2011, 12:05 PM
They actually played 3 very solid big men (Arthur, Jackson, and Kaun), with a freshman Aldrich coming off the bench for foul trouble minutes. They worked it in to those big guys quite a bit. They also shot really well from the perimeter with the guys you mentioned. That team had about as much balance as anybody, with all 7 guys averaging at least 7ppg and only one guy averaging over 13ppg. I'd say they were neither specifically a perimeter team or an inside-out team.

Just ask Ol' Roy if that KU team played inside out. My memory of the KU-UNC Final Four game is that Kansas absolutely destroyed UNC down low, in part because Hansbrough couldn't defend the Kansas bigs. When KU got a big lead (make that a huge lead), it got sloppy, and got away from getting the ball inside, and UNC made a comeback. Self got KU back on track by feeding the post.

tommy
12-22-2011, 01:48 PM
Sorry but I'm with CDu and Newton on this one too. K pretty much announced before the season started that pounding it into the post was going to be a point of emphasis for this year's team, and it has been. Mason is getting the ball a LOT on the block, and the reason is because he's really improved his ability to do something positive with it, as opposed to the last two years. He can shoot the little hook with either hand, he can spin, and most importantly, he has learned to play through contact and finish in traffic. That's huge. And that's why he has been getting the ball, being fed by our outside guys, to such a greater degree than ever before.


If you think Izzo, Boeheim, Calhoun, K, Dean Smith, Roy, the General, etc. do not believe that an offense must be played by forcing the defense to defend the rim from real or threatened attacks, I have to say that I was misstaken. Our disagreement goes to the core. As I mentioned, after Shelden left, Duke has not had a shield and hold big--it looked to make McRob into one but failed. McRob's scoring came off catches made when he was relatively upright and could maneuver.

I think the reason McRoberts didn't get as many feeds into the post as he could have is because it turned out he was a very poor finisher. He missed an awful lot of shots within 5-6 feet of the basket and had a lot of trouble in traffic. While I agree with you that he was an excellent passer, he was not much of a finisher -- he just didn't have very good touch around the rim.


The players this year who create inside play are Rivers and Curry. Mason is an afterthought. Rivers and Curry attract a crowd of bigs, but do not draw the outside defenders back, and do nothing to generate meaningful team offense.


The offense depends on Rivers or Curry getting to the rim.

How can both of these be true? If Rivers and Curry are attracting a crowd of bigs, and if the offense depends on them, how can it be that they are doing nothing to generate meaningful team offense?


Mason and his brother spend most of their time setting high screens, with not nearly the effectiveness, creativity, determination of Zoubek. I believe that Mason should get the ball inside the paint or on the mid block much, much more often than he does, and many more set plays should be run that have him curling off a screen or diving down the lane off a backscreen--that outside players should look for him to make athletic catches that draw him away from the defender not to shield them.

Miles does more screen-setting than posting, that's true. Not so for Mason.

And you really want 6'10" Mason Plumlee "curling off a screen?" I don't. One curls off a screen usually to receive a pass for a jumpshot, which is clearly not Mason's forte, or to receive a pass to then take a dribble or two and go to the hoop. For Mason, that would be a recipe for some quick offensive fouls.

I want him on the block, posting up, receiving good entry passes, and making strong moves if they're available and smart passes if they're not. Which, to my eyes, is exactly what he's been doing this year.



Oh, they also score off runouts, mostly off of steals.

I haven't seen numbers on this, but in my viewing of the games, this year's team actually is getting very, very few runouts for scores. This is, again in my view, at least partially due to our point guard situation, but that's another thread.



BTW, I think that Miles carries himself with way too much rigidity through his spine, ribs, while his flexer muscles, caused by all the ab work, pull him into folding. The consequence, his head is not free to move easily and his arm movement and hands fail him too often. Instead of Pilates, I recommend belly dancing--for real.

I wouldn't dream of questioning you, or anyone else, on the subject of belly dancing.

greybeard
12-22-2011, 03:13 PM
I think you will find that, after the Belmont game, and fairly repeatedly therafter, I commented on, not just the number, but the timing, type, and quality of entry passes made in that game and perhaps a few thereafter. I have been talking about that sort of passing fairly continuously since the earliest Zoubek days. I speculated that the change was due to Capel's arrival. I saw what I think was a step back to the more habituated way of playing against much tougher opponents, Michigan State comes to mind. I have not watched games against littles since, and cannot speak to the number, nature and timing of penetrating passes in them. I have also missed parts of other games, and probably a few entirely.

If Mason is getting the ball frequently in shield and hold positions and drawing fouls in games against serious opponents, I stand corrected and think that is great. Personally, I'd like to see more of the belmont passing game, best exemplified by two passes to Mason by Kelly in a hotly contested game that I raved about here--I think the guy sees facets of the game that few do, and that that vision contributes greatly.

In the end, we all root for Duke, we all think that Mason is a special talent who competes at the highest end of the K's vision, and contributes mightily every time he takes the court. We all enjoy kicking it around on DBR. When, in discussing this or any other matter, I write stuff that meets reasoned and reasonable resistance (opposition), some continued dialoge is fine, but beating the same horse to death serves no one, most of all me. I did that here. Thanks for your temperance please accept by apologies, and do have a great holiday season.

airowe
12-24-2011, 02:53 PM
Alright guys and gals, I finally got done making my way through the Presbyterian game. The added Big Man Touch (BMT) stat basically doubled the amount of time it took to look through this game, but I think it was worth it. I also think that Duke looked to get the ball down low early and often in this game so that surely extended my time as well.

As always, I hope you enjoy the post and I hope that the time I took was worth it: http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2011/12/24/post-entry-pass-and-big-man-touch-study-duke-vs-presbyterian/

Please let me know if you come to anymore conclusions or would like to see me look at anymore stats.

Thanks, Merry Christmas, and Go Duke!