Length of rotation in the K era

[Kedsy]

We've been talking a lot about how long the rotation might be this year, and I've been babbling a fair amount about K's historical tendencies, so I decided to bite the bullet and do a detailed analysis of all 31 years of Coach K's time at Duke.

The table below shows how many "close" games after January 1 in which a certain number of players have played double-figure minutes. E.g., in 2011, in close games after Jan. 1, six times we had 6 players playing 10 or more minutes, nine times we had 7 players playing 10 or more minutes and five times we had 8 players playing 10 or more minutes. I wanted to avoid "cherry picking," so my definition of a "close" game was pretty broad: a fewer than 20 point outcome. I also included non-conference games, so long as they occurred after January 1.

Here's the data:



Year 5 6 7 8 9 10
---- - - - - - --
2011 6 9 5
2010 2 5 8 6
2009 1 4 10 4 1
2008 3 5 8 3
2007 1 3 11 2
2006 4 17 0
2005 6 14 0
2004 3 14 1
2003 3 17 2 1
2002 8 3 0
2001 8 8 0
2000 11 5 0
1999 2 7 2
1998 0 9 4
1997 1 9 7 1
1996 4 13 1
1995 1
1994 8 14 0
1993 7 8 4
1992 10 9 5
1991 0 13 0 4
1990 1 11 9
1989 1 9 7
1988 3 12 6 2
1987 3 11 6 1
1986 2 16 4 1
1985 10 7 2
1984 8 12 1
1983 2 6 5 1
1982 7 5 4 1
1981 7 6 3 1


For the 1995 season, I only counted the one close game after January 1 that K actually coached.

To summarize, while K has toyed with an 8-man rotation several times, in his 31 years we have only had one season in the majority of "close" games after January 1 featured 8 or more players with double-figure minutes. That year was 2008, and even then it was somewhat of a split (8 games with 7 or fewer; 11 games with 8 or more). So, in 30 out of 31 years we've had a 7-or-fewer-man rotation (or at least rotation of players playing 10 or more minutes in a game).

More strikingly, in K's 31 years, we have only had 17 games (less than 20 point margin, after Jan. 1) in which 9 or more players have had double-figure minutes. And a lot of those games were early, non-conference matchups. If you include games in which 9 or more players played 8 or more minutes (because 8 or 9 minutes is pretty close to 10), we've seen 33 such games in 31 years. So maybe we'll see this once this season, maybe we won't.

Also note that when we played 8 guys double-figure minutes, the 8th guy was almost always playing 10 or 11, rarely if ever more than that.

This history is pretty consistent and reasonably compelling. And, yes, Coach K has shown himself to be adaptable and try new things, but if we regularly go 8-deep this season it will pretty much be a first for Coach K. Not only that, even if it happens, the odds are the 8th guy will be playing 8 to 12 minutes a game.

For those of us who believe Michael or Josh will start or play significant minutes this season, pushing our regular rotation to 9 or 10, I would strongly suggest not putting any money on it.

[airowe]

Thanks for mining the data Kedsy. I know your purpose was to look strictly at Coach K's history to determine whether or not Duke's rotation would be spread out this year, but I wonder how this compares to other coaches. It seems like nearly every team tightens up their rotation as conference play kicks in, but I'd love to see the data on it...

[Kedsy]

Thanks for mining the data Kedsy. I know your purpose was to look strictly at Coach K's history to determine whether or not Duke's rotation would be spread out this year, but I wonder how this compares to other coaches. It seems like nearly every team tightens up their rotation as conference play kicks in, but I'd love to see the data on it...

Thanks, airowe. It took me three-plus hours to go through 31 years of game-by-game box scores. Too tired to look at any other coaches' tendencies.

[UrinalCake]

Awesome analysis, thanks for pulling this all together. Your data does support what I think a lot of us have intuitively suspected - that Coach K gravitates towards a 7-man rotation once we get into the meat of the season (and thus are playing more "close" games). I would guess that if you limited your analysis to games decided by 10 points or fewer, you'd see even fewer eight-person games. Coach K plays his best players, he'd rather have a tired starter in there than a rested bench player, and he isn't worried about fatigue over the course of the season.

One thing that stood out to me was that by glancing down the column of 8-person games, they have become a lot more common in the past four years than in the fifteen or so years preceeding 2008. This is a little bit surprising to me, as I felt like our teams from the late 90's and early 2000's were much deeper talent-wise than the last 4-5 years. Yet Coach K seems to be willing to use that 8-man rotation more recently, perhaps agreeing with critics that his teams wore down in 2005-2009. Our deepest team ever was 1999 (IMO) and we mostly stuck to 7 guys (though I believe there were probably 2 or 3 players just under the 10 MPG threshold). Our championship team in 2001 had five future NBA players but never went beyond 7.

On this year's roster we should expect to see Quinn, Seth, Austin, Andre, Ryan, Mason, and Miles play the bulk of minutes. 200 minutes divided by seven guys is about 28.5 minutes per player, though of course it won't be an even distribution. We have an unusual situation this year in that Quinn and Tyler are sort of platooning. I can't remember another season in which we had two point guards that were interchangeable (they have different skill sets, but neither is clearly superior to the other in terms of overall effectiveness). So I think we'll likely see more 8-person games from this point forward. If Quinn and Tyler split the PG spot and each get 20 minutes then that leaves 160 minutes for the remaining 6 players, or 26.7 minutes per. I definitely don't see Mike G or Josh putting in double-figure minutes unless we continue beating people by 30.

[Kedsy]

If Quinn and Tyler split the PG spot and each get 20 minutes then that leaves 160 minutes for the remaining 6 players, or 26.7 minutes per. I definitely don't see Mike G or Josh putting in double-figure minutes unless we continue beating people by 30.

It gets even cloudier if you add the fact that K almost always plays his top perimeter guys more than 30 mpg. So I'm assuming Seth and Austin will play 65 or so between them. Miles, Mason, and Ryan will divide 80 minutes at the 4/5 (perhaps 75 with Josh getting 5). And that only leaves 15 for Andre and Mike combined. I imagine Mike will at least get 2 or 3 minutes a game, leaving 12 or so for Andre.

To me, that's far too few minutes for Andre, but for him to get more, either the Tyler/Quinn combo has to combine for fewer than 40 minutes, or Seth and Austin have to play fewer than 30 each (which, again, would run against K's very strong tendencies). My guess is it will be the former, and Tyler's minutes will dwindle to the 10 to 12 range while Andre's settles in around 17 to 20. But obviously that's just a wild guess. K seems to really value what Tyler brings, so it's very hard to predict at this point.

[yancem]

Thanks, airowe. It took me three-plus hours to go through 31 years of game-by-game box scores. Too tired to look at any other coaches' tendencies.

While, I have also always looked at 10 minutes as the benchmark for playing time, I think that when you start looking at guys 8-10, 7-8 minutes is probably a better metric. No matter how deep a team is, there is always going to be some separation between 1-5 and 8-10 and in a close game you want your best players on the floor. If you assume 30 minutes for the starters that leaves only 10 minutes for the reserves. The thing is, you probably want guys 6 & 7 getting more minutes than 8-10. So if guys 6 & 7 get 15 minutes, then 8-10 loose just over 3 minutes a piece.

I'd be curious to see a break down of unc's minutes distribution under Ol'Roy. We all talk about his over use of the rotation but I doubt that players 8-10 routinely get double digit minutes but I bet they are closer to the 7-8 minute mark.

[OldPhiKap]

Excellent analysis, as are the follow-up comments. Good stuff. Miles, Mason, and Ryan will certainly get the "big" minutes. Seth, Austin, and 'Dre will certainly get the bulk of the minutes at the 2/3. I like the idea of Tyler and Quinn setting the table and putting pressure on the other end. Seth and Austin both look more comfortable hunting their shots than trying to be the initiator up top.

Josh and Mike should both have opportunities to make impacts in the situations they are on the floor this year, and should both blossom next year and down the road as they progress and mature. I am sure they will both have some deserving votes for player of the game as we get into conference play and the tournaments, even if the number of minutes are not as much as they will be next year.

Heck, Seth sat out a whole year just to be able to play here. Everyone has to work through the system at their own pace.

No worries.

[Kedsy]

While, I have also always looked at 10 minutes as the benchmark for playing time, I think that when you start looking at guys 8-10, 7-8 minutes is probably a better metric. No matter how deep a team is, there is always going to be some separation between 1-5 and 8-10 and in a close game you want your best players on the floor. If you assume 30 minutes for the starters that leaves only 10 minutes for the reserves. The thing is, you probably want guys 6 & 7 getting more minutes than 8-10. So if guys 6 & 7 get 15 minutes, then 8-10 loose just over 3 minutes a piece.

While everything you say here makes sense, I don't think it matches Coach K's tendencies. The 6 & 7 guys usually play more than 15 minutes. If the #8 guy is getting 7 to 10 minutes, it only leaves scraps for the last couple guys.

[sagegrouse]

While everything you say here makes sense, I don't think it matches Coach K's tendencies. The 6 & 7 guys usually play more than 15 minutes. If the #8 guy is getting 7 to 10 minutes, it only leaves scraps for the last couple guys.

I think there will be eight players in the rotation, now that Quinn has clearly earned a spot. Yep, there may not be precedent, but what does precedent have to do with deciding which players to play for how long?

sage

[Kedsy]

I think there will be eight players in the rotation, now that Quinn has clearly earned a spot. Yep, there may not be precedent, but what does precedent have to do with deciding which players to play for how long?

Agreed. Although the total amount of minutes available will have its say. To me, the interesting question to watch is who of the eight gets the short end of the stick (meaning playing only 10 to 12 minutes a game, and dropping down even further in games where K wants his top guys playing 35 to 40 minutes). Right now, the candidates seem to be Quinn, Tyler, or Andre (assuming Josh and Michael are #9 and #10). It's a tough choice, because Quinn's star seems to be rising, K seems to love what Tyler brings, and Andre is a very talented offensive force. Maybe K will really depart from his norm by cutting Austin's and Seth's minutes down to the 27 to 30 range (instead of the 30 to 33 range), which would leave decent minutes for all eight guys, but it would be a major departure if he goes that route.

[superdave]

I think there will be eight players in the rotation, now that Quinn has clearly earned a spot. Yep, there may not be precedent, but what does precedent have to do with deciding which players to play for how long?

sage

Two points I'd make. First, I think Coach K wants to find out how best to maximize the minutes of his best players. Second, minutes tend to be earned based on defensive prowess and performance in practice. I think both of those generalities about Duke's rotation under Coach K tend to produce an outcome of a short tail of the distribution of minutes rather than a long tail. Maybe another way to put it is that it's hard to stand out in practice as the #9 guy enough to become the #6 or 7 guy and increase your playing time once you get past January 1.

Elliot Williams leapt from #9 to about #6 after January 1. That's the one that stands out in recent memory. But I do recall Paulus playing big minutes vs. Miami down the stretch that year, suggesting you could see some outliers that will get people talking on these boards.

[superdave]

Agreed. Although the total amount of minutes available will have its say. To me, the interesting question to watch is who of the eight gets the short end of the stick (meaning playing only 10 to 12 minutes a game, and dropping down even further in games where K wants his top guys playing 35 to 40 minutes). Right now, the candidates seem to be Quinn, Tyler, or Andre (assuming Josh and Michael are #9 and #10). It's a tough choice, because Quinn's star seems to be rising, K seems to love what Tyler brings, and Andre is a very talented offensive force. Maybe K will really depart from his norm by cutting Austin's and Seth's minutes down to the 27 to 30 range (instead of the 30 to 33 range), which would leave decent minutes for all eight guys, but it would be a major departure if he goes that route.

I think if Duke pushes the pace a lot, we'll see more substitutions and a lid on Austin and Seth's minutes and first half glimpses of Josh and Mike. But if we are not as successful at a quicker pace, you'll see more of Austin and Seth.

I do think if Quinn can earn 25+ minutes per game, this team can make the leap to a legit top 5 team. His ability to stay on the floor for a majority of the minutes means we have a true point getting everyone better shots which reduces our concerns about transition D and allows our defense time to set up and start getting our scheme down pat. Self-perpetuating I'd argue.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Interesting speculation and tremendous analysis!

I have a question about the one "outlier" - the 1986 game when 10 players got double digit minutes. Was that the game AT Clemson? One year, our vastly superior team slept through the first half and trailed a significantly inferior team at the half by a lot (16?), and K started the "second five", or blue team if you prefer, at the start of the second half and they played a significant number of minutes. They clawed their way back into the game with exceptional effort, and K finally put the starters back in to win the game. So I'm thinking that's the game. :cool:

[Kedsy]

Interesting speculation and tremendous analysis!

I have a question about the one "outlier" - the 1986 game when 10 players got double digit minutes. Was that the game AT Clemson? One year, our vastly superior team slept through the first half and trailed a significantly inferior team at the half by a lot (16?), and K started the "second five", or blue team if you prefer, at the start of the second half and they played a significant number of minutes. They clawed their way back into the game with exceptional effort, and K finally put the starters back in to win the game. So I'm thinking that's the game. :cool:

I think I remember that Clemson game, and while a good guess, the answer is the 1986 outlier game was a mid-season 19 point win at Stetson. An 11th player played 9 minutes. Not sure what Coach K had been drinking before the game.

[UrinalCake]

This discussion got me thinking to the 1999 team, which I consider to be our deepest ever. I looked up the stats from that year and here are the minutes per game:


Trajan Langdon 31.1
William Avery 31.0
Elton Brand 29.3
Chris Carrawell 28.8
Shane Battier 24.0
Corey Maggette 17.7
Chris Burgess 15.5
Nate James 14.6
Taymon Domzalski 9.7

If you round up Taymon's 9.7 then we actually had nine guys average double figures! But this is mostly a product of our having lots of blowout wins. In close games we stuck to our top seven though the 7th guy wasn't always the same as Burgess and James averaged roughly the same number of minutes. IIRC Burgess was injured for part of the year so that may explain it.

Despite all that depth our top three guys were still playing around 30 minutes. Which supports the notion that this year Seth and Austin will do the same. Also, Corey was an insanely talented freshman, I mean he would have been the star player on a top-5 team. Yet he only averaged 17.7 minutes.

[jv001]

Thanks Kedsy for putting together what must have been a trying chart. I see the length of rotation something like this for the remainder of the year:
Austin=30, Seth=33, Mason=30, Ryan=25, Miles=20, Quinn=20, Tyler=14, Andre= 20, Josh=4, MG=4. I think that's 200. There will be some games that our front court will get into foul trouble and the minutes could be higher for one of the 3 bigs. Same for our perimeter guys. When Andre is on fire, he will get more minutes, but if he's not scoring then he will not get as many. I see an 8 man rotation(using 10 mpg) beginning next game. GoDuke!

[Greg_Newton]

Thanks for doing that research. I'm not sure what Seth has done to earn 30+MPG at the as a 6'1-6'2 shooting guard alongside a SF Rivers, though. It would certainly be great if someone besides Rivers could emerge as a must-play, 30+MPG guard, but it may just depend on who's hot.

K has certainly made a point to mention the depth on this team, and that he's emphasizing that no one should be holding out or "playing tired" because there's always someone behind them who can play. However, we seem to come up with rational reasoning for an 8-9 man rotation every year without out coming to fruition...

It does seem like an 8-man inevitability, barring injuries (knock on wood) - it's not like Dre or Miles will be getting frozen out, and the "two headed monster" approach to PG with Thornton/Cook seems to be a calculated move that will last going forward. Unfortunately, it seems like Gbinije will not see the floor in close games, and Hairston perhaps only if we need an injection of toughness/intensity.

Of course, with this year's ACC, I have a feeling we'll have a longer rotation in most games than we do on average...

[luvdahops]

Agreed. Although the total amount of minutes available will have its say. To me, the interesting question to watch is who of the eight gets the short end of the stick (meaning playing only 10 to 12 minutes a game, and dropping down even further in games where K wants his top guys playing 35 to 40 minutes). Right now, the candidates seem to be Quinn, Tyler, or Andre (assuming Josh and Michael are #9 and #10). It's a tough choice, because Quinn's star seems to be rising, K seems to love what Tyler brings, and Andre is a very talented offensive force. Maybe K will really depart from his norm by cutting Austin's and Seth's minutes down to the 27 to 30 range (instead of the 30 to 33 range), which would leave decent minutes for all eight guys, but it would be a major departure if he goes that route.

Agree that this is excellent analysis. My guess is that if Quinn continues to assert himself as he has recently, Tyler will be the one to drop to the 10-12mpg range, with Seth and/or Austin seeing occasional spot minutes at the point. As much as the staff likes Tyler and appeciates what he brings to the table in terms of toughness and leadership, he is easily the most limited skill-wise of the team's top 8 players.

As a long-timer (T '85), one thing I have noticed this year that seems like a bit of a departure for K is that he has seemed comfortable, at least over the past few games, playing the backups as a unit for extended minutes. Obviously not something to expect in conference play/close games, but I don't recall the last time I saw this with any frequency. So if the ACC is really as down as many fans seem to think, it may conceivable that we could have 10 guys average pushing 10 or more mpg. Not at all likely, mind you, just conceivable.

[jv001]

Thanks for doing that research. I'm not sure what Seth has done to earn 30+MPG at the as a 6'1-6'2 shooting guard alongside a SF Rivers, though. It would certainly be great if someone besides Rivers could emerge as a must-play, 30+MPG guard, but it may just depend on who's hot.

K has certainly made a point to mention the depth on this team, and that he's emphasizing that no one should be holding out or "playing tired" because there's always someone behind them who can play. However, we seem to come up with rational reasoning for an 8-9 man rotation every year without out coming to fruition...

It does seem like an 8-man inevitability, barring injuries (knock on wood) - it's not like Dre or Miles will be getting frozen out, and the "two headed monster" approach to PG with Thornton/Cook seems to be a calculated move that will last going forward. Unfortunately, it seems like Gbinije will not see the floor in close games, and Hairston perhaps only if we need an injection of toughness/intensity.

Of course, with this year's ACC, I have a feeling we'll have a longer rotation in most games than we do on average...

Great point, I can envision Miles and Andre getting 30 minutes. As I said earlier, if Andre is hot, he's playing. If Mason or Ryan do not defend or get's into foul trouble, Miles will get those minutes. I like what I see from Miles lately. He could really be the X-Factor for us. GoDuke!

[UrinalCake]

I see the length of rotation something like this for the remainder of the year:
Austin=30, Seth=33, Mason=30, Ryan=25, Miles=20, Quinn=20, Tyler=14, Andre= 20, Josh=4, MG=4.

That looks about right to me. One thing to note regarding Mason's minutes is the free-throw factor at the end of games. If we start pulling him for the last five minutes of close games, then he'd have to play 30 out of the first 35 minutes. I think it's more likely his number drops a bit to 27 or 28 (he's averaging 28.5 right now). That opens up some minutes to have an extra guard on the floor at the end of those games.

[Matches]

I think I remember that Clemson game, and while a good guess, the answer is the 1986 outlier game was a mid-season 19 point win at Stetson. An 11th player played 9 minutes. Not sure what Coach K had been drinking before the game.

We had a comfortable (>20pt) lead in the second half of that game. Most likely K was resting guys with a large lead, and the final margin dropped below 20 pts with the reserves in the game.

[jv001]

That looks about right to me. One thing to note regarding Mason's minutes is the free-throw factor at the end of games. If we start pulling him for the last five minutes of close games, then he'd have to play 30 out of the first 35 minutes. I think it's more likely his number drops a bit to 27 or 28 (he's averaging 28.5 right now). That opens up some minutes to have an extra guard on the floor at the end of those games.

And could give Ryan more mins and even Miles if a big is needed on defense/rebounding. Miles is not a great free throw shooter, but he's better than his younger brother. But like you say, it'll probably be a guard getting Mason's mins. GoDuke!

[superdave]

Thanks Kedsy for putting together what must have been a trying chart. I see the length of rotation something like this for the remainder of the year:
Austin=30, Seth=33, Mason=30, Ryan=25, Miles=20, Quinn=20, Tyler=14, Andre= 20, Josh=4, MG=4. I think that's 200. There will be some games that our front court will get into foul trouble and the minutes could be higher for one of the 3 bigs. Same for our perimeter guys. When Andre is on fire, he will get more minutes, but if he's not scoring then he will not get as many. I see an 8 man rotation(using 10 mpg) beginning next game. GoDuke!

Your rotation has the Quinn/Tyler platoon at 34 mpg meaning Seth would play 6 minutes per game at point. Is that what you mean or do you mean for Austin to play 6 mpg at point?

Hmmmm. I wonder if we see a few minutes of some non-Quinn/Tyler lineups the next game or two? I wonder if we'll ever see a crunch-time lineup of Austin or Seth at point?

[NSDukeFan]

Thanks for doing that research. I'm not sure what Seth has done to earn 30+MPG at the as a 6'1-6'2 shooting guard alongside a SF Rivers, though. It would certainly be great if someone besides Rivers could emerge as a must-play, 30+MPG guard, but it may just depend on who's hot.

K has certainly made a point to mention the depth on this team, and that he's emphasizing that no one should be holding out or "playing tired" because there's always someone behind them who can play. However, we seem to come up with rational reasoning for an 8-9 man rotation every year without out coming to fruition...

It does seem like an 8-man inevitability, barring injuries (knock on wood) - it's not like Dre or Miles will be getting frozen out, and the "two headed monster" approach to PG with Thornton/Cook seems to be a calculated move that will last going forward. Unfortunately, it seems like Gbinije will not see the floor in close games, and Hairston perhaps only if we need an injection of toughness/intensity.

Of course, with this year's ACC, I have a feeling we'll have a longer rotation in most games than we do on average...

I agree with most of your post, but I would say that Seth has done plenty to warrant as many minutes as he can handle. My opinion is that he has done well as captain and been one of the team's three best players and been consistent offensively and defensively.

[jv001]

Your rotation has the Quinn/Tyler platoon at 34 mpg meaning Seth would play 6 minutes per game at point. Is that what you mean or do you mean for Austin to play 6 mpg at point?

Hmmmm. I wonder if we see a few minutes of some non-Quinn/Tyler lineups the next game or two? I wonder if we'll ever see a crunch-time lineup of Austin or Seth at point?

As the season moves into conference play, I can see games where the ball will be in Austin's and Seth's hands, but I still see Quinn setting our offense. Tyler cannot create offense like Quinn. We could see a few minutes of non-Quinn/Tyler lineups but I hope they both keep playing well and Seth stays at the 2G. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

If you round up Taymon's 9.7 then we actually had nine guys average double figures! But this is mostly a product of our having lots of blowout wins.

Also, the season minute averages include pre-January 1 games, when K seems more inclined to play the end of the bench.

As you can see from the chart, that year we only played 11 games that meet my game criteria (so your point about blowouts is obviously true), but in only two of those games did we go 8 deep (also went 6 deep in two of those games). In 1997-98, we actually had 10 guys average double-figure minutes for the season (again rounding Taymon up from 9.9), but still basically went with a 7-man rotation in non-blowouts after January 1.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree with most of your post, but I would say that Seth has done plenty to warrant as many minutes as he can handle. My opinion is that he has done well as captain and been one of the team's three best players and been consistent offensively and defensively.

Agreed, and I think it will help him to play off of Quinn and Tyler so he can hunt his shot, as opposed to being squeezed into a pg slot. (To the extent we have "slots")

[Kedsy]

We had a comfortable (>20pt) lead in the second half of that game. Most likely K was resting guys with a large lead, and the final margin dropped below 20 pts with the reserves in the game.

That makes sense. I believe that sort of thing is also true in many of the other games from the chart where we played 8 or (especially) 9 guys. I also noticed K goes deeper into the bench during losses than he does during wins.

[mcches]

Not sure about the minutes breakdown of each player but Coach K rarely uses more than 8 players against good teams or at crunch time. Will Gbinije and Hairston get significant minutes against good competition? Despite their improved play (esp. Hairston), I kind of doubt it. In any event, I do see these players getting the significant minutes for the rest of the season: Rivers, Mason Plumlee, Curry, Kelly, Cook, Dawkins, Thornton and Miles Plumlee. As much as I love Tyler Thornton's leadership and tenacity, he has trouble bringing the ball up against quick guards and trapping defenses and it seems (like in the Penn game) the offense bogs down a bit with him in there. As for Andre, he is such a mystery.

[devildeac]

Interesting speculation and tremendous analysis!

I have a question about the one "outlier" - the 1986 game when 10 players got double digit minutes. Was that the game AT Clemson? One year, our vastly superior team slept through the first half and trailed a significantly inferior team at the half by a lot (16?), and K started the "second five", or blue team if you prefer, at the start of the second half and they played a significant number of minutes. They clawed their way back into the game with exceptional effort, and K finally put the starters back in to win the game. So I'm thinking that's the game. :cool:

I'd place a small amount of OPK's money that this is the game to which you are referring on 3/4/92. We trailed by 5 at the half and our deficit did reach 16 or 17 points early in the 2nd half at which time K yanked the starters and put in the "blue" team" and they played with such enthusiasm, perhaps cutting the deficit slightly (I did not look up the play-by-play). The starters responded with incredible support from the bench that K gave them another chance and we squeezed out a 1 point W.

[devildeac]

Interesting speculation and tremendous analysis!

I have a question about the one "outlier" - the 1986 game when 10 players got double digit minutes. Was that the game AT Clemson? One year, our vastly superior team slept through the first half and trailed a significantly inferior team at the half by a lot (16?), and K started the "second five", or blue team if you prefer, at the start of the second half and they played a significant number of minutes. They clawed their way back into the game with exceptional effort, and K finally put the starters back in to win the game. So I'm thinking that's the game. :cool:


I'd place a small amount of OPK's money that this is the game to which you are referring on 3/4/92. We trailed by 5 at the half and our deficit did reach 16 or 17 points early in the 2nd half at which time K yanked the starters and put in the "blue" team" and they played with such enthusiasm, perhaps cutting the deficit slightly (I did not look up the play-by-play). The starters responded with incredible support from the bench that K gave them another chance and we squeezed out a 1 point W.

Sorry to re-post. Idiot poster (:o) forgot to include linky so folks can review and confirm this is the game to which Ozzie and I are referring:

http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/games/boxscore.php?gameid=19920304

[yancem]

While everything you say here makes sense, I don't think it matches Coach K's tendencies. The 6 & 7 guys usually play more than 15 minutes. If the #8 guy is getting 7 to 10 minutes, it only leaves scraps for the last couple guys.

I think that we are in agreement. My point wasn't to say that would be the minutes distribution. It was more to point out how unrealistic it is to expect more than 7-8 players to routinely play 10+ minutes a game. Obviously any additional minutes played by someone higher in the pecking order means less minutes for a player lower on the list.

My prediction for Duke would be that that Curry, MP2, Kelly and Rivers all average in the 28-32 minute range while Thornton and Cook split 35-38 minutes at the pg spot. MP1 and Dawkins will see minute fluxuations depending on how they are playing (consistency not being either of their strong suites) but averaging in the 18-22 minute range. Hairston and Gbinije will get a couple of minutes in most games (mostly in the first half) but rarely more than 7-8 unless fouls, injuries, or blowout status dictates other wise. To me though that is pretty deep. I don't prescribe to the notion that a deep bench means big minutes for the reserves, as much as it means limiting the starters to reasonable minutes (not more that say 32) and playing 8-9 bodies at least a few minutes.

For giggles, I went through unc's box scores for the season so far. The have 8 players routinely playing 10+ minutes in mostly blowout games with occasionally a 9th or 10th breaking the 10 minute mark against the weakest opponents. My guess is that the starters start to play a little higher minutes once conference play and one of Bullock, McAdoo or Hairston drops below or right to 10 minutes. To be honest though, looking at their roster, there isn't a 10th player that should see more than the occasional spot duty in blowouts.

[Scorp4me]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but there is an disappointing trend when it comes to Tyler. Tyler is always seen as the players who will get left out or declines even over players who seem to be in a slump. And the simple fact that he is playing at all is always seen as "what the staff sees in him" compared to the message board who obviously sees very little. I've become a bigger Tyler fan through reading this message boards where he is constantly dumped on. Make your excuses if you like, but he is constantly dumped on. I'm just glad the staff sees something in him as well.


As for the actual thread, the rotation this year could be very interesting. With no real stars, comparable point guards, and three strong inside players, I could see a rotation that goes no deeper than usual, but with the minutes spread more evenly. And less time for those left out of the rotation.

[OldPhiKap]

I'd place a small amount of OPK's money . . . .

Jason took my last dime, slow-playing pocket aces. So we're betting on credit here.

I think the top eight is set as I stated above. The best way for Josh to get some burn time is work on solid defense and free throws so he can spell Mason down the stretch. The best way for {g} to get time is to work on defense, because he can guard a position that perhaps is otherwise unaccounted for.

Of course, having looked at what I typed, I guess it's not going out on a limb to say that the best way to get playing time for K is to show it on the defensive end. But I think in their particular cases, it rings truer than usual.

[OldPhiKap]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but there is an disappointing trend when it comes to Tyler. Tyler is always seen as the players who will get left out or declines even over players who seem to be in a slump. And the simple fact that he is playing at all is always seen as "what the staff sees in him" compared to the message board who obviously sees very little. I've become a bigger Tyler fan through reading this message boards where he is constantly dumped on. Make your excuses if you like, but he is constantly dumped on. I'm just glad the staff sees something in him as well.

Coach said after the last game that Tyler is a leader on the floor. We all know how important that is, especially to K.

I agree with you 100% regarding Tyler. I think a platoon of he and Quinn makes a lot of sense, and forces the other team to really defend against two kinds of offenses. (K also referred to this, sort of, in his post-game presser where he said that Tyler is more suited for running sets and Quinn is more suited for running open). Two very talented kids who can get the ball to Seth, Dre, Austin, Mason, Ryan, or take the shot/drive themselves. Coach likes the way they both pressure the point on defense, which works for me. How can that be anything other than good?

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Sorry to re-post. Idiot poster (:o) forgot to include linky so folks can review and confirm this is the game to which Ozzie and I are referring:

http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/games/boxscore.php?gameid=19920304
Yeah, that's it! Inthe back of my mind I kept thinking that Cherokee Parks was one of the subs, and he was. And if Marty Clark had gotten one minute more of playing time, this game would have been the second outlier with 10 players getting 10 or more minutes.

Good find, devildeac! :cool:

[uh_no]

Good analysis, but I think there is a better way to look at it

rather than saying "x players over 10 minutes," it would be more useful to say "number of minutes the Xth player in the rotation played"

so player 1 played 35mpg in close games, 2 played 32.....etc player 10 played 1

That way you avoid arbitrary divisions (10 minutes) which could affect the results (for instance they could be vastly different if it were 9mpg). and allows people to see how the whole roster is used rather than some somewhat related metric of roster usage.

I obviously understand that its difficult to do any relatively complicated analysis when you're going through 30 years worth of games, and if it were me id've done the same thing.

which brings me to my next question: is there a database of text based box scores of duke games or some list that's easier to navigate than the duke site? i'd like to throw together something to build a database of duke stats at some point so i could easily query it for things like this

[BD80]

It gets even cloudier if you add the fact that K almost always plays his top perimeter guys more than 30 mpg. So I'm assuming Seth and Austin will play 65 or so between them. Miles, Mason, and Ryan will divide 80 minutes at the 4/5 (perhaps 75 with Josh getting 5). And that only leaves 15 for Andre and Mike combined. I imagine Mike will at least get 2 or 3 minutes a game, leaving 12 or so for Andre.

To me, that's far too few minutes for Andre, but for him to get more, either the Tyler/Quinn combo has to combine for fewer than 40 minutes, or Seth and Austin have to play fewer than 30 each (which, again, would run against K's very strong tendencies). My guess is it will be the former, and Tyler's minutes will dwindle to the 10 to 12 range while Andre's settles in around 17 to 20. But obviously that's just a wild guess. K seems to really value what Tyler brings, so it's very hard to predict at this point.

I think you are overlooking Coach K's affinity for guards in crunchtime, particularly when trying to burn clock. I see 4 guards plus Kelly at the end of close games. Even if it is for a couple of possessions where we burn 30-40 seconds, it will skew the figures toward 8 players with double digit minutes.


That looks about right to me. One thing to note regarding Mason's minutes is the free-throw factor at the end of games. If we start pulling him for the last five minutes of close games, then he'd have to play 30 out of the first 35 minutes. I think it's more likely his number drops a bit to 27 or 28 (he's averaging 28.5 right now). That opens up some minutes to have an extra guard on the floor at the end of those games.

Mason also turns the ball over too much. In the last several possessions, we'll probably see a lot of defense/offense substitutions with Mason.

[Kedsy]

Good analysis, but I think there is a better way to look at it

rather than saying "x players over 10 minutes," it would be more useful to say "number of minutes the Xth player in the rotation played"

so player 1 played 35mpg in close games, 2 played 32.....etc player 10 played 1

That way you avoid arbitrary divisions (10 minutes) which could affect the results (for instance they could be vastly different if it were 9mpg). and allows people to see how the whole roster is used rather than some somewhat related metric of roster usage.

I obviously understand that its difficult to do any relatively complicated analysis when you're going through 30 years worth of games, and if it were me id've done the same thing.

which brings me to my next question: is there a database of text based box scores of duke games or some list that's easier to navigate than the duke site? i'd like to throw together something to build a database of duke stats at some point so i could easily query it for things like this

I used GoDuke, so I don't know if there's a better site. It would've taken me way too long to do it the way you suggest, although I'm sure the results would have been interesting. I did track down to 8 minutes played. I didn't post the results (although I can if people are interested?) because if any of our top eight get down to 8 minutes a game this season, it wouldn't support the various arguments being thrown around anyway.

I can say that even going down to 8 mpg, we have almost always played a 7-man rotation in close games after January 1. If anybody wants to see the full 8 and up chart, just ask and I'll post it.

[Kedsy]

I think you are overlooking Coach K's affinity for guards in crunchtime, particularly when trying to burn clock. I see 4 guards plus Kelly at the end of close games. Even if it is for a couple of possessions where we burn 30-40 seconds, it will skew the figures toward 8 players with double digit minutes.

You could be right. Still, it would only bring the 8th guy's minutes up to 13 or so, at the most.

[Bob Green]

Even if it is for a couple of possessions where we burn 30-40 seconds...

Seeing as the shot clock expires at 35 seconds, I do not believe we will be burning 40. :p

[OldPhiKap]

Seeing as the shot clock expires at 35 seconds, I do not believe we will be burning 40. :p

Well, Duke DOES get all the calls. . . .

[UrinalCake]

I don't prescribe to the notion that a deep bench means big minutes for the reserves, as much as it means limiting the starters to reasonable minutes (not more that say 32) and playing 8-9 bodies at least a few minutes.

I agree... in 2001 we mostly went six deep (the six that were used changed when Boozer got injured, but most games it was still six guys who played the majority of minutes). But Coach K often stated that because Mike Dunleavy was so versatile, it was like he filled the role of two or three bench players. So the starters could get their rest and Mike D. still averaged close to 30 minutes.

I guess there's two issues here when discussing the use of our bench. The first is whether our starters will wear down. That was a constant point of discussion on this and other boards, especially during the 2006-2009 stretch when we seemed to fade in the tournament and people thought our players were overworked and tired. Then in 2010 we won it all with three guys playing almost 40 minutes, so everyone stopped complaining about that.

The other issue is that we have so much talent on our bench this year that we have to decide how to get them all on the floor. It's kind of the opposite problem I guess. It goes without saying that we're talking about averages here, so there may not ever be one single game where everyone plays exactly the numbers we're projecting.

[Kedsy]

I agree... in 2001 we mostly went six deep (the six that were used changed when Boozer got injured, but most games it was still six guys who played the majority of minutes). But Coach K often stated that because Mike Dunleavy was so versatile, it was like he filled the role of two or three bench players. So the starters could get their rest and Mike D. still averaged close to 30 minutes.

Mike Dunleavy started every game in 2000-2001. K made that comment about him in 1999-2000, when Dunleavy came off the bench. Of all the years I charted, that year had the shortest rotation (mostly 6 -- more than two-thirds of the games, with sometimes 7). In 2000-2001, we went 6 half the time and 7 half the time, so a slightly longer bench with Dunleavy starting.

[niveklaen]

Awesome analysis, thanks for pulling this all together. Your data does support what I think a lot of us have intuitively suspected - that Coach K gravitates towards a 7-man rotation once we get into the meat of the season (and thus are playing more "close" games). I would guess that if you limited your analysis to games decided by 10 points or fewer, you'd see even fewer eight-person games. Coach K plays his best players, he'd rather have a tired starter in there than a rested bench player, and he isn't worried about fatigue over the course of the season.

One thing that stood out to me was that by glancing down the column of 8-person games, they have become a lot more common in the past four years than in the fifteen or so years preceeding 2008. This is a little bit surprising to me, as I felt like our teams from the late 90's and early 2000's were much deeper talent-wise than the last 4-5 years. Yet Coach K seems to be willing to use that 8-man rotation more recently, perhaps agreeing with critics that his teams wore down in 2005-2009. Our deepest team ever was 1999 (IMO) and we mostly stuck to 7 guys (though I believe there were probably 2 or 3 players just under the 10 MPG threshold). Our championship team in 2001 had five future NBA players but never went beyond 7.

On this year's roster we should expect to see Quinn, Seth, Austin, Andre, Ryan, Mason, and Miles play the bulk of minutes. 200 minutes divided by seven guys is about 28.5 minutes per player, though of course it won't be an even distribution. We have an unusual situation this year in that Quinn and Tyler are sort of platooning. I can't remember another season in which we had two point guards that were interchangeable (they have different skill sets, but neither is clearly superior to the other in terms of overall effectiveness). So I think we'll likely see more 8-person games from this point forward. If Quinn and Tyler split the PG spot and each get 20 minutes then that leaves 160 minutes for the remaining 6 players, or 26.7 minutes per. I definitely don't see Mike G or Josh putting in double-figure minutes unless we continue beating people by 30.

I think that this year's platooning of TT/Quin is very similar to Wojo's senior year platooning with Will Avery - very much a defense/offense split

[superdave]

I think that this year's platooning of TT/Quin is very similar to Wojo's senior year platooning with Will Avery - very much a defense/offense split

And I remember arguing late in the season that Coach K should have maximized Avery's minutes and minimized Wojo's minutes to reach the full potential of the team. I thought the same thing when Nolan started at point as a sophomore over senior Paulus.

[MChambers]

And I remember arguing late in the season that Coach K should have maximized Avery's minutes and minimized Wojo's minutes to reach the full potential of the team. I thought the same thing when Nolan started at point as a sophomore over senior Paulus.
Especially against Kentucky in the NCAA tournament. . .

[BluDvlsN1]

Kedsey, wow, what an unbelieveable analysis, thank you for all that effort !!

This original post and the subsequent thread is what makes this the best board in sports,IMO !
The history and tendencies and data sure support a traditional rotation!

I'm just trying to think when we've had so many tools available.
We have always had talent to be sure, but the depth that has developed this year is a bit, unique!
It will be interesting to see how it plays out and somebody with a better memory than mine should revisit this in April just for goofs to see what actually takes place!

Could it be that because over the overall talent in the bigs and guards,K realizes we can push the pace sigificantly on both ends, let the guys get their minutes, get winded , get em in and out, and keep the squad
Less concerned with total floor time,but buying into quality floor time at a fast pace?

Any merit at all in this thought?

[tele]

Interesting discussion. I tend to think the lineups we've seen so far, won't be the last we see and that iwth the lineup changes to come, minutes will be shifted accordingly.

Someone already mentioned this determination often tends to default to defensive ability, and so matchups in conference play or in other close games will refine this. Coach K mentioned he was looking for separation within the team, and that it was somewhat unusual to not see that and to have the less differentiated depth at this point of the season. I still expect that to change at some point, may take another loss or two, and it may wind up being based more on defensive ability than has been apparent so far. For instance, Andre may wind up starting more because he needs to be on the floor to guard big athletic threes. Another way to look at this particular instance is, for the minute distributions suggested here, who will be guarding Harrison Barnes? Mike G may get additional minutes too for these types of matchups. For more perimeter oriented opponents it may be the bigs who find their minutes reduced, with just one of the three bigs who've been getting the bulk of the minutes so far, on the floor. There still can be minutes earned for a big wing defender like Mike G.

So, we still may not have seen all the lineups changes yet, nor what will be the minute distribution that will be the one at the end of the season. I still think Seth or Austin will be playing point at some times too, they're too talented offensively to split time at one position. If one of them can guard a three that would change things though. Coach K has in prior years made these kind of lineup changes after losses, which may help the players feel the need for the changes and not just hear it being told to them. Not hoping for losses but if there are 2 or three ahead for this team, may see some changes then, and even changes back to something we've already seen. Just speculating along..

[Devilsfan]

Doesn't his friend who coaches the #1 team in the country 'cuse play all 15 players on his roster and run a zone defense, whatever that is?

[NSDukeFan]

Doesn't his friend who coaches the #1 team in the country 'cuse play all 15 players on his roster and run a zone defense, whatever that is?

I believe this thread is about the rotation during close games after conference play starts and I am pretty sure Boeheim, or just about any coach, would never play 15 players in a close game.

[Kedsy]

I still think Seth or Austin will be playing point at some times too, they're too talented offensively to split time at one position. If one of them can guard a three that would change things though.

Well, Austin has started the last five games at the 3, although admittedly only one of those teams had a big opposing SF.

[Kedsy]

I'm just trying to think when we've had so many tools available.
We have always had talent to be sure, but the depth that has developed this year is a bit, unique!

Interesting question. No real way to evaluate "tools" or "depth," but I've attempted to approximate it by looking at the number of "starters" on the bench. The table below shows how many 20+ game starters (over the course of their career) and 40+ game starters who were not the primary starters on their teams that year. If a guy made an NBA team, I counted him as a 40+ even if they didn't start that many games at Duke (e.g., Corey Maggette). If a guy transferred to a Division I team, I counted his starts on the other team as well as starts at Duke. I counted Andre, Tyler, Josh, and Michael as 20+, although of course they may all end up being 40+.

The last column in the table is the number of "close" games after Jan. 1 featuring 8 or more guys with 10+ minutes (taken from the table in the first post of this thread). Note also that the 2008 team included Taylor King, who didn't meet any of the criteria but could be considered quality depth.



Year 20+ 40+ 8+ rotation
---- --- --- -----------
2012 5 1 ?
2011 5 2 5
2010 5 3 6
2009 6 5 5
2008 4 2 11
2007 4 2 2
2006 3 2 0
2005 2 1 0
2004 2 2 1
2003 3 3 3
2002 2 1 0
2001 3 2 0
2000 2 1 0
1999 4 3 2
1998 6 5 4
1997 5 4 8
1996 1 1 1
1995 3 3 ?
1994 3 1 0
1993 2 1 4
1992 3 2 5
1991 4 2 4
1990 5 3 9
1989 5 3 7
1988 4 3 8
1987 4 4 7
1986 5 5 5
1985 3 3 2
1984 1 1 1
1983 3 2 6
1982 1 1 5
1981 1 0 4


So, if this concept is worth anything, the past four years have featured some of the deepest Duke teams ever. But it does not appear as if this year's team features unprecedented depth. It does appear that the more depth we have, the more likely we are to play an 8-man rotation (although the correlation is far from perfect).

I'm not sure this data does too much to further the discussion, but assuming it has value, I'd say the amount of "tools" or "depth" we have this year would support the possibility of an 8 man rotation, but wouldn't do too much to support the idea of a 9 or 10 man rotation.

[1999ballboy]

Interesting. These numbers prove my memory wrong. I always thought of 1998 as being an uncharacteristically deep Duke team, but it appears to be no deeper than other years. I'd be interested to see the numbers before conference play as well, in order to see how much the players' minutes drop off by. The main common denominators of "deep" seasons seem to be that we tend to be very young, and we tend to not stay quite as deep after January. We were loaded with freshmen in '98 and again in '03 (which I also thought of as a deep year), and now we have 3 freshmen and 2 sophomores, both of whose playing time was somewhat limited last year.

[Kedsy]

I always thought of 1998 as being an uncharacteristically deep Duke team, but it appears to be no deeper than other years.

Well, 1998 was one of the two or three deepest Duke teams in the K era, if not the deepest. Can't get much deeper than 5 starters and 6 future (or past) starters. That season featured 10 players averaging 9.9 or more mpg. Plus Nate James got hurt and redshirted (so I didn't count him in the chart, meaning the roster really included 5 starters plus 7 future or past starters if you count Nate). It's just that a lot of the playing time for the bench occurred in blowouts and before January 1. Elton Brand's injury skewed things a little, as well.

[NSDukeFan]

Well, 1998 was one of the two or three deepest Duke teams in the K era, if not the deepest. Can't get much deeper than 5 starters and 6 future starters. Also, that year featured 10 players averaging 9.9 or more mpg (plus another with around 8 mpg). It's just that a lot of the playing time for the bench occurred in blowouts and before January 1. Elton Brand's injury skewed things a little, as well.

The other issue is that there were only 13 non-blowouts after Jan.1 for this deep team, so there were 23 games the team played that were not included in your research where the team likely played more of its bench. The only other teams that had fewer data points were the 1999 and 2002 teams, both great teams which used fewer bench players, according to your chart. I would definitely agree that 1998 was one of Duke's deepest teams.

[-jk]

I'm going to toss a slight angle I don't think I've seen: It's not about "depth" so much as talent differential. It's axiomatic: K likes to win. He likes to win more than he likes to develop talent during game time. He'll play down the bench during blowouts where the chance of losing is minimal, but when the games tighten up, he plays to win, and that means the best 5 on the court. If the sixth player is a big drop from the fifth, we won't see him so much. If the eighth is a drop from the seventh, he'll sit more.

So far this season, we haven't seen too much separation after the first couple guys. As the season progresses, I won't be surprised to see some players establish themselves at a higher level, and earn more time.

Obviously, this is a factor among many - wanting to play up-tempo means accepting a bit more differential to stay fresh.

-jk

[BD80]

Well, 1998 was one of the two or three deepest Duke teams in the K era, if not the deepest. Can't get much deeper than 5 starters and 6 future (or past) starters. That season featured 10 players averaging 9.9 or more mpg. Plus Nate James got hurt and redshirted (so I didn't count him in the chart, meaning the roster really included 5 starters plus 7 future or past starters if you count Nate). It's just that a lot of the playing time for the bench occurred in blowouts and before January 1. Elton Brand's injury skewed things a little, as well.

Statistics. Meh.

I posit the proposition that when we play nine or more players in a game, we usually win by 20 or more points!

Therefore, we should ALWAYS play nine or more players per game ...

How many hours until tip?

[Olympic Fan]

And I remember arguing late in the season that Coach K should have maximized Avery's minutes and minimized Wojo's minutes to reach the full potential of the team. I thought the same thing when Nolan started at point as a sophomore over senior Paulus.

Except the Nolan Smith/Greg Paulus situation was nothing like that. Paulus started 33 of 34 games as a junior in '08, but he was coming off a summer injury and lost his starting job to Nolan in preseason. Nolan started the first half of the season that year and gradually lost his confidence as the offense sputtered (remember that 74-47 loss at Clemson?). K briefly tried returning Paulus to the starting lineup, but after two games, he revamped the team, moving WG Jon Scheyer to the point, inserting little-used freshman Elliott Williams at the wing and bringing BOTH Paulus and Smith off the bench. Smith was soon sidelined with a concussion, but returned for postseason and played well off the bench.

Just one additional note: There have been years when Duke's top players play A LOT of minutes. A year ago, Singler was second in the ACC in minutes per game and Nolan waqs fifth.

But so far this year, no Duke player is in the tp 10 in the ACC. Clemson's Andre Young leads the league at 35.4 mpg ... Maryland's Terrell Stoglin is 10th at 31.6 mpg. Not sure where Duke's most "overworked" player (Seth Curry) ranks, but at 29.2 mpg., he's not close to the top.

[superdave]

Except the Nolan Smith/Greg Paulus situation was nothing like that. Paulus started 33 of 34 games as a junior in '08, but he was coming off a summer injury and lost his starting job to Nolan in preseason. Nolan started the first half of the season that year and gradually lost his confidence as the offense sputtered (remember that 74-47 loss at Clemson?). K briefly tried returning Paulus to the starting lineup, but after two games, he revamped the team, moving WG Jon Scheyer to the point, inserting little-used freshman Elliott Williams at the wing and bringing BOTH Paulus and Smith off the bench. Smith was soon sidelined with a concussion, but returned for postseason and played well off the bench.


But why bench the experienced, 2008 3rd team All-ACC Paulus for the inexperienced sophomore Smith in 2009?

Wasn't the reasoning that the team had a higher ceiling if Nolan could become the full-time point guard with Paulus being the first guard off the bench? That was my point and the way I remember that switch to Nolan becoming the starter.

[Kedsy]

Obviously, this is a factor among many - wanting to play up-tempo means accepting a bit more differential to stay fresh.


This is a good point. The one year we had a majority (plurality?) of 8+ deep games (2008, despite a bit less quality depth than some other years) was the season we tried to play D'Antoni ball. If we continue pushing the ball the way we've done the past couple games it would again argue for going 8-deep this season.

[superdave]

I'm going to toss a slight angle I don't think I've seen: It's not about "depth" so much as talent differential. It's axiomatic: K likes to win. He likes to win more than he likes to develop talent during game time. He'll play down the bench during blowouts where the chance of losing is minimal, but when the games tighten up, he plays to win, and that means the best 5 on the court. If the sixth player is a big drop from the fifth, we won't see him so much. If the eighth is a drop from the seventh, he'll sit more.

So far this season, we haven't seen too much separation after the first couple guys. As the season progresses, I won't be surprised to see some players establish themselves at a higher level, and earn more time.

Obviously, this is a factor among many - wanting to play up-tempo means accepting a bit more differential to stay fresh.

-jk

Well said. Winning some more games in the regular season can often be a tradeoff though. Dare I bring up the tired legs or transfers arguments? Doh. (Ducking....)

[ncexnyc]

I think both tele and jk have hit upon something I've been talking about these past few weeks. This team has a lot of talent, however nobody has really seperated themselves from their peers, which is why I believe we'll see more people getting playing time this year.

My hat is off to Kedsy for some great charts. Sorry if I ruffled his feathers with the "cherrypicking" comment a few days ago.

I'm curious if the number of scholarship players has anything to do with our current situation and if this is something we can look forward to seeing more of in the future. Is this something that has resulted from Coach K adjusting to the one-and-done landscape?

[Kedsy]

I'm curious if the number of scholarship players has anything to do with our current situation and if this is something we can look forward to seeing more of in the future.

It probably does. The more scholarhips you use, the more starter-caliber players you have (thus more depth). It seems that in general when K has more such players he goes a little deeper -- still mostly 7-man rotations, but leaning toward an 8-man rotation. Still, based on history it appears unlikely that he'd go all the way to a 9-man rotation, even with the increased talent on the roster.

[superdave]

We played a deeper bench last night, likely out of Coach K's frustration. Josh and Mike both had 8 minutes a piece.

Anyone care to agree or disagree with this while it's still fresh!?

I think the one argument I'd make that has been made in the post-game thread is that Miles should have gotten a lot more minutes. He was the hot hand.

[Kedsy]

We played a deeper bench last night, likely out of Coach K's frustration. Josh and Mike both had 8 minutes a piece.

When I was doing the research, I noticed we were more likely to play a deeper bench in losses than in wins. I don't know if it's frustration or Coach K trying to find a combination that will get us out of our funk. Or perhaps a bit of both.

[UrinalCake]

When I was doing the research, I noticed we were more likely to play a deeper bench in losses than in wins. I don't know if it's frustration or Coach K trying to find a combination that will get us out of our funk. Or perhaps a bit of both.

Also maybe the starters are in foul trouble, which also explains why we're losing.

[Devilsfan]

That former heel coach used to sub 5 for 5 out of frustration.

[Newton_14]

We played a deeper bench last night, likely out of Coach K's frustration. Josh and Mike both had 8 minutes a piece.

Anyone care to agree or disagree with this while it's still fresh!?

I think the one argument I'd make that has been made in the post-game thread is that Miles should have gotten a lot more minutes. He was the hot hand.

I am still scratching my head at Miles 19 minutes last night. He got yanked for not handling a terrible pass on a rym run, which in my view should have gotten the passer yanked (can't recall which guard it was) and sat forever after that. I am still not sure what happened later on the play where he "tipped"? another bad lob with two hands and it went over the goal. Strange play. The camera angle was such I could not tell exactly what happened there. Someone said it was a missed dunk, but I did not think he tried to dunk that?

Head scratcher for me. The scary thing though, is when was the last time a non-starter was the best player in a game?

Perspective: At the end of the day, the guys are still 12-2 against a brutal schedule, and all teams lay eggs from time to time. I think the guys on the whole have been more consistent than maybe it feels like, but the two losses were so ugly, K felt shakeup measures were in order.

[Kedsy]

I am still not sure what happened later on the play where he "tipped"? another bad lob with two hands and it went over the goal. Strange play. The camera angle was such I could not tell exactly what happened there. Someone said it was a missed dunk, but I did not think he tried to dunk that?

I was near that basket and had a good look at the play. He didn't tip it. What it looked like from my angle was Miles expected an alley oop but the pass was a little deep. He grabbed it expecting to dunk and then realized he couldn't get there so in mid-air he tried to bank it in but missed the backboard entirely so it ended up as an airball from two feet away. Ugly, but not entirely Miles's fault. Not entirely not his fault, either, but I can't imagine that's why he was benched. Mason was heating up, so K wanted him in the game, and since we were losing, K also wanted Ryan's three-point shooting in the game. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.