tommy
01-19-2012, 01:24 AM
The defensive charts for this game are below.
After the charts for the Clemson game in this post, I also am going to include the sum totals for each of our players for the 5 games I've charted so far -- Western Michigan, Temple, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Clemson. I missed Penn and still may go back and do it if I have time, or I may not. The totals may provide additional insights (or maybe not) due to their representing a larger sample size, obviously.
I also wanted to let you guys know that defensive charting of a different sort will soon be posted on Airowe's blog, dukehoopblog.com. It will include some formulas conceived by experts to measure things like defensive efficiency, defensive rating, and the like, that are based on a lot of the numbers that I am putting together here on DBR, but will not include other numbers that I'm charting, like staying in front of your man, help, ball denial, etc. Both types of charting have value, in my opinion. One or the other may be more to your liking, or you may also enjoy both. This has been a public service message.
OK, so Copy/pasting from my posts from earlier games, the "legend" for the chart goes like this:
1. Which players were on the floor? If you're on the floor for a given possession, it counts for you, if not, not. Obviously.
2. Were you engaged in the outcome of the possession in my judgment? Shows general level of activity, but also perhaps how involved in the opponent's offense your man was.
3. Forcing a missed FG attempt, either a 2 or a 3. I tracked 3's separately, but lumped them together in the table below.
4. FG's allowed, again both 2 and 3 pointers.
5. Forced turnover. Many of these are shared. Also, turnovers include charges taken, but not blocked shots, as the latter are forced FG misses.
6. "Creating" a missed free throw.
7. "Creating" a made free throw.
8. General catch-all for good defensive play that doesn't fit into other categories. I call it deflection/peskiness/disruptiveness. DPD. Might be able to capture some of the "intangibles" that have interested many on these boards lately.
9. Ball denial, both on the wing and in the post. Good denial gets you a plus. Failure to deny when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
10. "SIF" My shorthand for staying in front. These are only counted when your man makes a definitive move to the hoop. Stay with him, you get a plus, lose him you get a minus.
11. Help. Good help gets you a plus; failure to help when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
12. Catch-all for defensive lapses not otherwise covered, sort of the flip side of #8. I just call this "got beaten - other."
Then below I did one additional analysis: on what % of plays that a guy was on the floor did the team get a stop vs. what % of plays that he was on the floor did we give up points? How did guys measure up against each other and compared to the team as a whole? I thought this might address a little bit the issue of "intangibles" as well, as if you're doing things to help the team make stops, even if they don't show up in other areas of the charting -- like how you move, your talk, being in the right spot, getting other guys in the right spot, leadership, etc., that might show up in the team's success defensively while you're on the floor. So that's the second chart below.
OK here's the first table for Clemson:
On floor
Engaged
FG miss (3's)
FG allowed (3's)
Turnover
FT miss
FT make
DPD
Denial +
Denial -
SIF +
SIF-
Help +
Help -
Beat-other
Curry
59
11
5(1)
2.5(1.5)
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
Rivers
49
3
1
1.5 (.5)
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
Dawkins
54
9
3.5 (2)
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
Mason
48
10
5
2 (.5)
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
Thornton
23
4
2 (2)
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
Kelly
50
12
6.5 (2)
3.5 (.5)
1.5
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
0
Miles
42
17
7 (1)
5.5
0
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
Cook
33
4
1(1)
1
.5
0
0
0
2
0
2
3
0
0
0
Gbinije
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hairston
6
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
These numbers, not surprisingly, look a lot better than they did in recent games. It was apparent that our defensive intensity (after the first 2 minutes anyway) was excellent for much of the rest of the game, and that turned up in the numbers.
Seth Curry was very active on the perimeter and did very well staying in front. Quinn continued to struggle in that area, as did Ty, which may be one reason why we went for extended stretches with Seth, Austin, and Andre on the perimeter, without either of our more "traditional" points.
I had documented a large number of poor defensive plays by Andre in the UVA game, and I wanted to acknowledge how much better he played in this game. (I know, K thought he was great in the UVA game too, but, well, see that thread for my feelings about that.) But Andre was way, way better in this game in terms of his activity level, not allowing hoops that he was responsible for, and just not getting beaten either on or off ball. I attribute a lot of it to increased attention and focus. The kid has the ability to play D, but I think his mind tends to wander, he loses focus, and therefore forgets where he is, where his man is, what his responsibilities are, and before he knows it he's in trouble. Didn't happen nearly as much in this game, which was great to see. Maybe he's better defensively when he's hitting his shot, I don't know, but whatever the reason, let's just hope it continues.
As for the guys on the interior, Miles did give up a number of hoops, way more than we normally see. But he was very active. Not only did Clemson go inside a lot, but he continued to provide excellent help for teammates who have been beaten. Just look at how many plays he was involved in defensively -- significantly more than Ryan or Mason, and he played fewer minutes and therefore fewer possessions.
By the way, in initially watching the game, I hadn't realized just how quick K's hook had been for the starters. He sent the 5 subs to the table after only four defensive possessions by the starters. The first we got a turnover, then two hoops, followed by a timeout. After the timeout, we gave up another hoop, but this one was on a runout/fastbreak. That was all it took. K had seen enough. Seemed to get everyone's attention though, that's for sure.
OK here's the second table:
Stops
Scores
Stop %
Curry
34
24
59%
Rivers
27
20
57%
Dawkins
28
24
54%
Mason
25
22
53%
Thornton
11
12
48%
Kelly
27
21
56%
Miles
25
16
61%
Cook
19
13
59%
Gbinije
2
4
33%
Hairston
2
4
33%
TEAM
40
32
56%
So despite Miles giving up a lot of hoops himself, the team did best when he was on the floor. Not surprising given the excellent help defender he is. Curry, as borne out by the individual numbers played very well defensively, and the team was excellent with him in there as well. Thornton's numbers here are obviously the outlier. Not sure what to make of it, but it may suggest that, at least in this game, the "intangibles" he is said to bring to the game did not impact it, at least at the defensive end.
OK now here are the cumulative numbers for the five games I've charted so far, as noted at the top of this post.
On floor
Engaged
FG miss (3's)
FG allowed (3's)
Turnover
FT miss
FT make
DPD
Denial +
Denial -
SIF +
SIF-
Help +
Help -
Beat-other
Curry
279
41
12.33 (2)
10.5 (3.5)
9.5
0
5
14
6
3
14
4
1
1
4
Rivers
268
37
8.5 (3.5)
13.5 (4.5)
4
4
2
6
15
1
11
5
1
2
10
Dawkins
197
37
10 (6)
16.33 (4)
2.33
1
8
5
3
3
6
8
3
3
12
Mason
251
58
23.833(2)
13.833 (1.5)
9.833
3
3
3
8
2
0
7
24
3
0
Thornton
165
31
12 (2)
3
5.33
3
5
5
5
0
10
13
3
2
1.5
Kelly
231
65
26.5 (4)
19.5 (1.5)
7.5
3
2
1
6
4
3
6
12
5
1.5
Miles
189
65
30.833 (2)
11.33
6.5
2
7
8
5
3
0
3
25
3
1
Cook
173
30
8 (2)
12.5 (4)
2.833
2
2
5
5
0
10
16
1
0
2
Gbinije
55
11
2
2 (1)
2.33
0
4
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
Hairston
66
13
2
5.5 (1)
.5
2
2
0
1
1
2
3
7
0
0
Lots of things of interest here. One that I see is that, per these numbers -- which again are compiled by a pretty meticulous viewing and reviewing of what each guy is doing on each and every possession, understanding that there is subjectivity involved sometimes in deciding whether and when to "credit" or "blame" a guy for something -- but per these numbers perhaps our most unsung defensive player so far (or at least in these 5 recent games) has been Seth Curry. He has been extremely active, he stays in front of his man the best of our perimeter guys, he's forcing a lot of turnovers, and he's allowed the second least hoops of that group, with Thornton leading in that latter category. Seth seems to be perceived by many as a marginal-at-best defensive player, and these numbers tell a different story.
The numbers really do show the difficulties that both Ty and Quinn have had with containing dribblers going to the hoop. Both are succeeding at that less than 50% of the time, while Austin and Seth combined are succeeding about 75% of the time in that area. Now maybe Ty and Quinn are covering better penetrators, I don't know -- no way to measure that -- but maybe not.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record already, but Miles Plumlee has just been superb defensively. HE is involved in so many plays as a % of the possessions he's been on the floor. He's a terrific help defender, is very active, and forces a lot of missed shots. I have to say, though, Mason's numbers look pretty good too.
Very interested to hear what you guys take from this chart.
OK the stop % cumulative chart will be the last one of this incredibly long post.
Stops
Scores
Stop %
Curry
136
121
53%
Rivers
136
113
55%
Dawkins
100
86
54%
Mason
116
118
50%
Thornton
82
71
54%
Kelly
117
100
54%
Miles
100
74
57%
Cook
87
75
54%
Gbinije
25
34
42%
Hairston
34
28
55%
TEAM
187
164
53%
After the charts for the Clemson game in this post, I also am going to include the sum totals for each of our players for the 5 games I've charted so far -- Western Michigan, Temple, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Clemson. I missed Penn and still may go back and do it if I have time, or I may not. The totals may provide additional insights (or maybe not) due to their representing a larger sample size, obviously.
I also wanted to let you guys know that defensive charting of a different sort will soon be posted on Airowe's blog, dukehoopblog.com. It will include some formulas conceived by experts to measure things like defensive efficiency, defensive rating, and the like, that are based on a lot of the numbers that I am putting together here on DBR, but will not include other numbers that I'm charting, like staying in front of your man, help, ball denial, etc. Both types of charting have value, in my opinion. One or the other may be more to your liking, or you may also enjoy both. This has been a public service message.
OK, so Copy/pasting from my posts from earlier games, the "legend" for the chart goes like this:
1. Which players were on the floor? If you're on the floor for a given possession, it counts for you, if not, not. Obviously.
2. Were you engaged in the outcome of the possession in my judgment? Shows general level of activity, but also perhaps how involved in the opponent's offense your man was.
3. Forcing a missed FG attempt, either a 2 or a 3. I tracked 3's separately, but lumped them together in the table below.
4. FG's allowed, again both 2 and 3 pointers.
5. Forced turnover. Many of these are shared. Also, turnovers include charges taken, but not blocked shots, as the latter are forced FG misses.
6. "Creating" a missed free throw.
7. "Creating" a made free throw.
8. General catch-all for good defensive play that doesn't fit into other categories. I call it deflection/peskiness/disruptiveness. DPD. Might be able to capture some of the "intangibles" that have interested many on these boards lately.
9. Ball denial, both on the wing and in the post. Good denial gets you a plus. Failure to deny when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
10. "SIF" My shorthand for staying in front. These are only counted when your man makes a definitive move to the hoop. Stay with him, you get a plus, lose him you get a minus.
11. Help. Good help gets you a plus; failure to help when you could've/should've gets you a minus.
12. Catch-all for defensive lapses not otherwise covered, sort of the flip side of #8. I just call this "got beaten - other."
Then below I did one additional analysis: on what % of plays that a guy was on the floor did the team get a stop vs. what % of plays that he was on the floor did we give up points? How did guys measure up against each other and compared to the team as a whole? I thought this might address a little bit the issue of "intangibles" as well, as if you're doing things to help the team make stops, even if they don't show up in other areas of the charting -- like how you move, your talk, being in the right spot, getting other guys in the right spot, leadership, etc., that might show up in the team's success defensively while you're on the floor. So that's the second chart below.
OK here's the first table for Clemson:
On floor
Engaged
FG miss (3's)
FG allowed (3's)
Turnover
FT miss
FT make
DPD
Denial +
Denial -
SIF +
SIF-
Help +
Help -
Beat-other
Curry
59
11
5(1)
2.5(1.5)
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
Rivers
49
3
1
1.5 (.5)
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
Dawkins
54
9
3.5 (2)
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
Mason
48
10
5
2 (.5)
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
Thornton
23
4
2 (2)
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
Kelly
50
12
6.5 (2)
3.5 (.5)
1.5
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
0
Miles
42
17
7 (1)
5.5
0
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
Cook
33
4
1(1)
1
.5
0
0
0
2
0
2
3
0
0
0
Gbinije
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hairston
6
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
These numbers, not surprisingly, look a lot better than they did in recent games. It was apparent that our defensive intensity (after the first 2 minutes anyway) was excellent for much of the rest of the game, and that turned up in the numbers.
Seth Curry was very active on the perimeter and did very well staying in front. Quinn continued to struggle in that area, as did Ty, which may be one reason why we went for extended stretches with Seth, Austin, and Andre on the perimeter, without either of our more "traditional" points.
I had documented a large number of poor defensive plays by Andre in the UVA game, and I wanted to acknowledge how much better he played in this game. (I know, K thought he was great in the UVA game too, but, well, see that thread for my feelings about that.) But Andre was way, way better in this game in terms of his activity level, not allowing hoops that he was responsible for, and just not getting beaten either on or off ball. I attribute a lot of it to increased attention and focus. The kid has the ability to play D, but I think his mind tends to wander, he loses focus, and therefore forgets where he is, where his man is, what his responsibilities are, and before he knows it he's in trouble. Didn't happen nearly as much in this game, which was great to see. Maybe he's better defensively when he's hitting his shot, I don't know, but whatever the reason, let's just hope it continues.
As for the guys on the interior, Miles did give up a number of hoops, way more than we normally see. But he was very active. Not only did Clemson go inside a lot, but he continued to provide excellent help for teammates who have been beaten. Just look at how many plays he was involved in defensively -- significantly more than Ryan or Mason, and he played fewer minutes and therefore fewer possessions.
By the way, in initially watching the game, I hadn't realized just how quick K's hook had been for the starters. He sent the 5 subs to the table after only four defensive possessions by the starters. The first we got a turnover, then two hoops, followed by a timeout. After the timeout, we gave up another hoop, but this one was on a runout/fastbreak. That was all it took. K had seen enough. Seemed to get everyone's attention though, that's for sure.
OK here's the second table:
Stops
Scores
Stop %
Curry
34
24
59%
Rivers
27
20
57%
Dawkins
28
24
54%
Mason
25
22
53%
Thornton
11
12
48%
Kelly
27
21
56%
Miles
25
16
61%
Cook
19
13
59%
Gbinije
2
4
33%
Hairston
2
4
33%
TEAM
40
32
56%
So despite Miles giving up a lot of hoops himself, the team did best when he was on the floor. Not surprising given the excellent help defender he is. Curry, as borne out by the individual numbers played very well defensively, and the team was excellent with him in there as well. Thornton's numbers here are obviously the outlier. Not sure what to make of it, but it may suggest that, at least in this game, the "intangibles" he is said to bring to the game did not impact it, at least at the defensive end.
OK now here are the cumulative numbers for the five games I've charted so far, as noted at the top of this post.
On floor
Engaged
FG miss (3's)
FG allowed (3's)
Turnover
FT miss
FT make
DPD
Denial +
Denial -
SIF +
SIF-
Help +
Help -
Beat-other
Curry
279
41
12.33 (2)
10.5 (3.5)
9.5
0
5
14
6
3
14
4
1
1
4
Rivers
268
37
8.5 (3.5)
13.5 (4.5)
4
4
2
6
15
1
11
5
1
2
10
Dawkins
197
37
10 (6)
16.33 (4)
2.33
1
8
5
3
3
6
8
3
3
12
Mason
251
58
23.833(2)
13.833 (1.5)
9.833
3
3
3
8
2
0
7
24
3
0
Thornton
165
31
12 (2)
3
5.33
3
5
5
5
0
10
13
3
2
1.5
Kelly
231
65
26.5 (4)
19.5 (1.5)
7.5
3
2
1
6
4
3
6
12
5
1.5
Miles
189
65
30.833 (2)
11.33
6.5
2
7
8
5
3
0
3
25
3
1
Cook
173
30
8 (2)
12.5 (4)
2.833
2
2
5
5
0
10
16
1
0
2
Gbinije
55
11
2
2 (1)
2.33
0
4
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
Hairston
66
13
2
5.5 (1)
.5
2
2
0
1
1
2
3
7
0
0
Lots of things of interest here. One that I see is that, per these numbers -- which again are compiled by a pretty meticulous viewing and reviewing of what each guy is doing on each and every possession, understanding that there is subjectivity involved sometimes in deciding whether and when to "credit" or "blame" a guy for something -- but per these numbers perhaps our most unsung defensive player so far (or at least in these 5 recent games) has been Seth Curry. He has been extremely active, he stays in front of his man the best of our perimeter guys, he's forcing a lot of turnovers, and he's allowed the second least hoops of that group, with Thornton leading in that latter category. Seth seems to be perceived by many as a marginal-at-best defensive player, and these numbers tell a different story.
The numbers really do show the difficulties that both Ty and Quinn have had with containing dribblers going to the hoop. Both are succeeding at that less than 50% of the time, while Austin and Seth combined are succeeding about 75% of the time in that area. Now maybe Ty and Quinn are covering better penetrators, I don't know -- no way to measure that -- but maybe not.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record already, but Miles Plumlee has just been superb defensively. HE is involved in so many plays as a % of the possessions he's been on the floor. He's a terrific help defender, is very active, and forces a lot of missed shots. I have to say, though, Mason's numbers look pretty good too.
Very interested to hear what you guys take from this chart.
OK the stop % cumulative chart will be the last one of this incredibly long post.
Stops
Scores
Stop %
Curry
136
121
53%
Rivers
136
113
55%
Dawkins
100
86
54%
Mason
116
118
50%
Thornton
82
71
54%
Kelly
117
100
54%
Miles
100
74
57%
Cook
87
75
54%
Gbinije
25
34
42%
Hairston
34
28
55%
TEAM
187
164
53%