Our Defense vs. Virginia Tech (and some numbers)

[tommy]

Ok well that was a little more like it. What I saw in closely watching both our on-ball and off-ball defense was a team that played with intensity, passion, determination, and intelligence on the defensive end. We denied well on the wing, we denied well in the post, we fought through screens very well. We hustled. We helped.

Yes, we were still beaten off the dribble some (I charted three times by Thornton being the most) but by and large we did OK even in that department.

Now Virginia Tech is not a very talented team offensively, let's not kid ourselves. But I don't think very many teams would have had a lot of success against us tonight. Josh Hairston absolutely played with the reckless abandon one would expect of a guy given an opportunity to start for the first time. Did he make an impression? He had to. Austin Rivers, I'm sorry, is a good defensive player. He has quick feet, he anticipates where his man is going to go and beats him to spots, he works hard to get around screens, he is rarely beaten off the dribble. Just thinking here, but if we really want to play our best defensive team, but also have a more "traditional" looking lineup than we've had, perhaps the starting combination in the backcourt should be Thornton and Rivers, with two killer shooters ready to come off the bench, and we ride whoever's hot. If K likes Hairston, could he maybe play the 3? Sure, we'd be a little challenged offensively, as neither Ty nor Josh gives us much, but if the idea is to try to lock it down better on D, then what about that?

The one guy who did not have a great game defensively really was Miles Plumlee. He was only on the floor for 14 defensive possessions and gave up two baskets and I considered him 1/3 responsible (with Seth and Ryan) for another, and also committed a foul that resulted in points and another silly foul as well, without forcing turnovers, forcing missed shots, or a whole lot else good in terms of denial, help, etc. That's three subpar defensive games for Miles in a row if I'm not mistaken, and his minutes have gone down as a result. For a guy who has been our best defender all year, this is not a good development.

Also on the defensive performance: I was watching and taking some notes on our hedging in this game. The results, as usual, were excellent. I counted 17 times that we hedged on a high screen, and of those 17, they only got 5 shots off as a result of the play, and made 3 of them, including the 3 pointer at the end of the half. There were two other hoops they got early in the second half, and that was it. I'll take a 14 of 17 success rate anytime.

By the way, I am posting a different kind of defensive charting of our games over on Airowe's dukehoopblog.com. They provide another perspective, data-based, on all of this. Virginia Tech should be up tomorrow, but I have a number of other games up, some recent and I'm catching up on some older ones. Check em out!

OK here are the stop% charts for this game and the cumulative for all the games I've charted this year.




Stops
Hoops
Stop%


Curry
22
18
55%


Rivers
35
27
56%


Dawkins
19
13
59%


Mason
30
21
59%


Thornton
26
22
54%


Kelly
30
19
61%


Miles
6
7
46%


Cook
11
7
61%


Gbinije





Hairston
10
11
48%


TEAM
38
29
57%




























OK here's the cumulative:




Stops
Hoops
Stop%


Curry
255
237
51.8%


Rivers
291
257
53.1%


Dawkins
202
198
50.5%


Mason
248
236
51.2%


Thornton
185
148
55.6%


Kelly
239
205
53.8%


Miles
162
147
52.4%


Cook
120
107
52.9%


Gbinije
31
41
43.1%


Hairston
66
60
52.4%


TEAM
361
322
52.9%


























Thornton and Rivers in the backcourt??

[COYS]

Also on the defensive performance: I was watching and taking some notes on our hedging in this game. The results, as usual, were excellent. I counted 17 times that we hedged on a high screen, and of those 17, they only got 5 shots off as a result of the play, and made 3 of them, including the 3 pointer at the end of the half. There were two other hoops they got early in the second half, and that was it. I'll take a 14 of 17 success rate anytime.



Awesome analysis as always, Tommy!

It appeared that the staff instructed the bigs to hedge slightly more passively, focusing more on keeping their shoulders parallel to the base line and cutting off dribble penetration into the lane. Am I imagining this slight shift in strategy? I don't recall a single time where a Duke big hedged hard in an attempt to force the VaTech guards to move backwards to get around the hedge, but also making it easier for our big to recover and making it harder for the VaTech guards to turn the corner. While I agree with you that our hedging has been pretty good most of the year, this seemed to make it almost flawless. Did I actually see a change in strategy or am I imagining this?

[jjasper0729]

Awesome analysis as always, Tommy!

It appeared that the staff instructed the bigs to hedge slightly more passively, focusing more on keeping their shoulders parallel to the base line and cutting off dribble penetration into the lane. Am I imagining this slight shift in strategy? I don't recall a single time where a Duke big hedged hard in an attempt to force the VaTech guards to move backwards to get around the hedge, but also making it easier for our big to recover and making it harder for the VaTech guards to turn the corner. While I agree with you that our hedging has been pretty good most of the year, this seemed to make it almost flawless. Did I actually see a change in strategy or am I imagining this?

I noticed this as well. In addition, the "delay" factor that being a little more passive created allowed the screened defender just that bit more time to get under the screen and get back to recovery. I also noticed that guard/guard screens were switched pretty regularly as well.

[greybeard]

Coys nailed it, "Awesome analysis." Thanks

[Kedsy]

If K likes Hairston, could he maybe play the 3?

Great analysis, as always, Tommy. It's interesting to me that Josh's stop percentage was so low. His inspired play seemed to energize the rest of the team, however, which in a way is more important. Personally, I'd be surprised if we trot him out at the 3, though. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe he can guard a smaller, quicker player (or even a similarly-sized, quicker player, like HB).

[tommy]

Awesome analysis as always, Tommy!

It appeared that the staff instructed the bigs to hedge slightly more passively, focusing more on keeping their shoulders parallel to the base line and cutting off dribble penetration into the lane. Am I imagining this slight shift in strategy? I don't recall a single time where a Duke big hedged hard in an attempt to force the VaTech guards to move backwards to get around the hedge, but also making it easier for our big to recover and making it harder for the VaTech guards to turn the corner. While I agree with you that our hedging has been pretty good most of the year, this seemed to make it almost flawless. Did I actually see a change in strategy or am I imagining this?

Yes, I noticed that too. I generally prefer the harder hedge, the big "push-out" as I like to call it, as that really prevents any possibility of dribble penetration, as it provides time for the screened defender to get back in position, and when he does so, it's way high on the floor. But this alternative method worked well against Va Tech, though to be honest I thought they didn't do a great job of attacking off the dribble when we didn't push out much, our big was kind of in no-man's land, and vulnerable. So yes, I agree with you that the strategy appears to have been different for Va Tech in terms of the style of hedging we did, and the results were quite positive. Against this team.



Great analysis, as always, Tommy. It's interesting to me that Josh's stop percentage was so low. His inspired play seemed to energize the rest of the team, however, which in a way is more important. Personally, I'd be surprised if we trot him out at the 3, though. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe he can guard a smaller, quicker player (or even a similarly-sized, quicker player, like HB).

Yes, I think this is a situation where the full game stop% was not indicative of the positive effect Josh had. I just checked my notes and his stop % in the first half, when we took control of this game, was 61.5%.

As to playing him at the 3, it was just a thought, that's all. He'd have trouble with Barnes, sure. But I wouldn't mind seeing him body him up and put him on his butt a couple of times and get in his head a little. I don't know what the plan for Miami is, but I'd like to see him get the start at the 3 and see how he can do against 3's less talented than Barnes, almost as a mini-tryout for the role, before Wednesday's showdown comes.

[Kedsy]

As to playing him at the 3, it was just a thought, that's all. He'd have trouble with Barnes, sure. But I wouldn't mind seeing him body him up and put him on his butt a couple of times and get in his head a little. I don't know what the plan for Miami is, but I'd like to see him get the start at the 3 and see how he can do against 3's less talented than Barnes, almost as a mini-tryout for the role, before Wednesday's showdown comes.

I understand what you're saying, but disagree. Josh at the 4 takes minutes from Miles, or could give Mason and Ryan a bit more rest, which would be fine. Josh at the 3 takes minutes from Andre and Seth and Quinn, all of whom could probably use more time if it were available. Big men bang and push more, so they need more rest than wing men.

And I don't think the problem with Josh at the 3 would be limited to people like Barnes. Against smaller, quicker SFs, I believe Josh would have even more defensive issues.