PDA

View Full Version : Davidson 80, Kansas 74



burnspbesq
12-19-2011, 11:16 PM
Fabulous second half by the Wildcats. Cochran made huge threes when needed most. No turnovers in the second half.

davidson
12-19-2011, 11:22 PM
Way to go Cats! Great job tonight!

westwall
12-19-2011, 11:26 PM
At Kansas (City), too!

rfaison
12-20-2011, 12:51 AM
And they hit their free throws - except for one I believe - down the stretch!!

subzero02
12-20-2011, 01:01 AM
If only Davidson could hire a good head coach...

gep
12-20-2011, 01:04 AM
If only Davidson could hire a good head coach...

Is this one of those <sarcasm> ... </sarcasm> posts? :cool:

snowdenscold
12-20-2011, 01:13 AM
That contested 3-pointer as the shot clock was expiring with about 2 minutes left was just a killer.

COYS
12-20-2011, 08:57 AM
Duke has played a very tough schedule. We all know that. However, we also have noticed that our KenPom ratings aren't quite as good as they have been in recent seasons. Well, some of the primary culprits for that are Kansas and Ohio State. KenPom doesn't account for injuries. After the Buckeyes blew us out in Columbus, they vaulted to number 1 in the efficiency rankings having shut down a very good Duke offense and scored even more points than expected against a good but not particularly stout Duke defense. Then Sullinger gets injured and the Buckeyes promptly lose (sans Sullinger) to a Kansas team that Duke had already beaten. However, their much worse than expected showing knocks their efficiency stats down dramatically and also makes Duke's loss to OSU seem even worse. OSU has continued to be less than dominant as Sullinger sits due to injury, making them look worse than they are to KenPom. Kansas, on the other hand, vaults up the rankings, actually rising above Duke for a few days. Then, the JayHawks go on to lose to a decent, but not particularly strong Davidson team, tanking THEIR efficiency stats and again obscuring our own win against them as well as Ohio States' loss.

Our defense has not been vintage Duke, that is for sure. However, I think this might be an example in which the eye test, which says we have some big, impressive wins despite having some holes in our game, gives us a better understanding of what our team is capable of than the efficiency rankings, at least at this point.

ChillinDuke
12-20-2011, 09:07 AM
Duke has played a very tough schedule. We all know that. However, we also have noticed that our KenPom ratings aren't quite as good as they have been in recent seasons. Well, some of the primary culprits for that are Kansas and Ohio State. KenPom doesn't account for injuries. After the Buckeyes blew us out in Columbus, they vaulted to number 1 in the efficiency rankings having shut down a very good Duke offense and scored even more points than expected against a good but not particularly stout Duke defense. Then Sullinger gets injured and the Buckeyes promptly lose (sans Sullinger) to a Kansas team that Duke had already beaten. However, their much worse than expected showing knocks their efficiency stats down dramatically and also makes Duke's loss to OSU seem even worse. OSU has continued to be less than dominant as Sullinger sits due to injury, making them look worse than they are to KenPom. Kansas, on the other hand, vaults up the rankings, actually rising above Duke for a few days. Then, the JayHawks go on to lose to a decent, but not particularly strong Davidson team, tanking THEIR efficiency stats and again obscuring our own win against them as well as Ohio States' loss.

Our defense has not been vintage Duke, that is for sure. However, I think this might be an example in which the eye test, which says we have some big, impressive wins despite having some holes in our game, gives us a better understanding of what our team is capable of than the efficiency rankings, at least at this point.

Interesting. Thanks for pointing this out.

- Chillin

camion
12-20-2011, 09:11 AM
But wait!!

Duke > Davidson > Kansas > tOSU > Duke.

2204


Möbius transitivity proves conclusively that we are much better than us.



Seriously though, that was a fun game to watch. Kansas had the better athletes no doubt, but the Davidson team as a whole didn't take any plays off. Kansas did and they found themselves with no time left to take control of the game. Go Cats!

tele
12-20-2011, 09:17 AM
Duke has played a very tough schedule. We all know that. However, we also have noticed that our KenPom ratings aren't quite as good as they have been in recent seasons. Well, some of the primary culprits for that are Kansas and Ohio State. KenPom doesn't account for injuries. After the Buckeyes blew us out in Columbus, they vaulted to number 1 in the efficiency rankings having shut down a very good Duke offense and scored even more points than expected against a good but not particularly stout Duke defense. Then Sullinger gets injured and the Buckeyes promptly lose (sans Sullinger) to a Kansas team that Duke had already beaten. However, their much worse than expected showing knocks their efficiency stats down dramatically and also makes Duke's loss to OSU seem even worse. OSU has continued to be less than dominant as Sullinger sits due to injury, making them look worse than they are to KenPom. Kansas, on the other hand, vaults up the rankings, actually rising above Duke for a few days. Then, the JayHawks go on to lose to a decent, but not particularly strong Davidson team, tanking THEIR efficiency stats and again obscuring our own win against them as well as Ohio States' loss.

Our defense has not been vintage Duke, that is for sure. However, I think this might be an example in which the eye test, which says we have some big, impressive wins despite having some holes in our game, gives us a better understanding of what our team is capable of than the efficiency rankings, at least at this point.

Very true, although OSU should be right back on track by the end of the regular season, which will re balance this somewhat. I can't say the same for this Kansas team, they maybe up and down all year so could be a drag on Duke's ratings come seeding time. (Could be a challenging season for Coach Self)

MChambers
12-20-2011, 09:54 AM
Then, the JayHawks go on to lose to a decent, but not particularly strong Davidson team, tanking THEIR efficiency stats and again obscuring our own win against them as well as Ohio States' loss.

I'm a lawyer, not a statistician, but wouldn't Duke's rating be unaffected by the Davidson-Kansas outcome, given that we played both of teams?

COYS
12-20-2011, 10:21 AM
I'm a lawyer, not a statistician, but wouldn't Duke's rating be unaffected by the Davidson-Kansas outcome, given that we played both of teams?

In all honesty, it probably only makes a small difference, but Kansas losing to Davidson would probably retroactively make Pomeroy's model "expect" Duke to post better efficiency stats than we did against them.

Wander
12-20-2011, 10:34 AM
Duke has played a very tough schedule. We all know that. However, we also have noticed that our KenPom ratings aren't quite as good as they have been in recent seasons. Well, some of the primary culprits for that are Kansas and Ohio State. KenPom doesn't account for injuries. After the Buckeyes blew us out in Columbus, they vaulted to number 1 in the efficiency rankings having shut down a very good Duke offense and scored even more points than expected against a good but not particularly stout Duke defense. Then Sullinger gets injured and the Buckeyes promptly lose (sans Sullinger) to a Kansas team that Duke had already beaten. However, their much worse than expected showing knocks their efficiency stats down dramatically and also makes Duke's loss to OSU seem even worse. OSU has continued to be less than dominant as Sullinger sits due to injury, making them look worse than they are to KenPom. Kansas, on the other hand, vaults up the rankings, actually rising above Duke for a few days. Then, the JayHawks go on to lose to a decent, but not particularly strong Davidson team, tanking THEIR efficiency stats and again obscuring our own win against them as well as Ohio States' loss.


You're overreacting. Duke doesn't have as good efficiency stats as recent years because we got blown out by 30 million points at Ohio State, and because our defense in general isn't as good as usual (...yet). Kenpom has Duke as having the 18th toughest schedule in the country; for comparison, UNC is at 57, Kentucky at 147, Ohio State at 253. Clearly out opponents' strength isn't the problem in our ranking. Kansas has three losses and still is ranked 12th in the efficiency rankings: ahead of a few undefeated teams and many one-loss teams. Their efficiency stats didn't "tank," and as MChambers pointed out, since we played Davidson as well, it wouldn't matter if they did anyway.

toooskies
12-20-2011, 10:42 AM
The biggest thing hurting Duke's efficiency rating is our play in the last five minutes when we have big leads on good teams. We've had at least 4 games where double-digit leads have turned into single-digit wins against good competition. If we hold those leads, our efficiency is probably much better than advertised.

KenPom is just a tool. It isn't gospel.

COYS
12-20-2011, 11:20 AM
The biggest thing hurting Duke's efficiency rating is our play in the last five minutes when we have big leads on good teams. We've had at least 4 games where double-digit leads have turned into single-digit wins against good competition. If we hold those leads, our efficiency is probably much better than advertised.

KenPom is just a tool. It isn't gospel.

I completely agree with you here. I just thought it was interesting to see the variability in Duke's own rankings after the results of games involving some of our opponents. You are spot on about our defensive efficiency being poor during the final 5 minutes of a number of games. I actually wish it were possible to go into more detail to see defensive efficiency during various segments of games. I'd be willing to bet that Duke's defense looks a bit worse when you look at only the final segment of the game. I'd also argue that part of how bad the defense looks falls on the offense, as well, which has committed it's fair share of bad turnovers that lead to easy buckets through no real fault of our set defense.

COYS
12-20-2011, 11:24 AM
You're overreacting. Duke doesn't have as good efficiency stats as recent years because we got blown out by 30 million points at Ohio State, and because our defense in general isn't as good as usual (...yet). Kenpom has Duke as having the 18th toughest schedule in the country; for comparison, UNC is at 57, Kentucky at 147, Ohio State at 253. Clearly out opponents' strength isn't the problem in our ranking. Kansas has three losses and still is ranked 12th in the efficiency rankings: ahead of a few undefeated teams and many one-loss teams. Their efficiency stats didn't "tank," and as MChambers pointed out, since we played Davidson as well, it wouldn't matter if they did anyway.

I wasn't overreacting at all. I just thought the movement in the KenPom polls was interesting over the past week. Kansas actually had jumped ahead of us prior to their loss to Davidson and rose all the way to #6 yesterday. It was interesting to see how far they fell after losing to Davidson. Perhaps "tank" was too strong of a word, but it actually is pretty hard to move that much after one game in KenPom's system. It was also interesting to see Duke bounce around a little even while we weren't playing based on how our opponents did. Anyway, I meant my post as a point of interest, nothing more.

MChambers
12-20-2011, 12:10 PM
In all honesty, it probably only makes a small difference, but Kansas losing to Davidson would probably retroactively make Pomeroy's model "expect" Duke to post better efficiency stats than we did against them.

Doesn't it also make the model "expect" Duke to post worse stats against Davidson? And wouldn't those two things offset each other?

CDu
12-20-2011, 12:16 PM
Doesn't it also make the model "expect" Duke to post worse stats against Davidson? And wouldn't those two things offset each other?

Yeah, I believe that's correct. Games between two common opponents shouldn't affect the our efficiency ratings too much (if at all). The lost efficiency due to the Kansas loss (more specifically, their fall in adjusted efficiency) is offset by the gain in efficiency due to Davidson's win (more specifically, their improvement in adjusted efficiency). The OSU loss to Kansas didn't hurt either, for the same reason. The OSU struggle in their next game did hurt a bit.

The biggest impact on our efficiency stats has come from the loss to OSU. We dropped to the 25-30 range in defensive efficiency and we dropped to the 5-7 range in offensive efficiency.

TexHawk
12-20-2011, 12:27 PM
Very true, although OSU should be right back on track by the end of the regular season, which will re balance this somewhat. I can't say the same for this Kansas team, they maybe up and down all year so could be a drag on Duke's ratings come seeding time. (Could be a challenging season for Coach Self)
KU lost their top 7 after the title in '08, and still went on to win the Big12 again, with only two returning players who saw minutes. That season had some ugly losses in the beginning too (UMASS in KC, for one).

The Big12 is awful this year. KU, Baylor, Mizzou (of the #340 rated schedule, yay Tiggers!) are the only above average teams. I'll take Self over Drew and Haith any day. Nobody is expecting a national title, but it's crazy that most see this as a down/rebuilding year, when there is a good chance at another conference title and a Top 4 seed.

Wander
12-20-2011, 03:41 PM
The Big12 is awful this year.

Why do you think this? They look pretty good to me. A national title contender in Baylor, two more really good teams in Kansas and Mizzou, other teams that will likely contend for a tournament spot in Texas and Texas A&M, and no team at .500 or below. Other than the Big 10 and maybe the SEC, I don't see what conference is better.