Basketball Breakdown Duke vs Louisville

[deeejazzy]

Today the youtube channel basketball breakdown released a video breaking down the Duke vs Louisville game, making some interesting points as to why Duke was unable to keep up with Louisville. The coaching strategy seemed simple; take advantage of Duke's inferior quickness, but this video shows with great replays how exactly Pitino orchestrated it. I love this sort of thing, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nqfg8tXxBU

[duke09hms]

Wow this youtube video was EXTREMELY illuminating. Basically tears apart our defense, and the title "Pitino outcoaches K."

Pretty tough on Mason too, but you can't argue with the video evidence of his lackluster defense. "Louisville picking on Plumlee over and over again."

The guy does back it up well with evidence though - why didn't we adjust our defense to their high screen and roll play that they ran over and over again? Why didn't we send more cutters into the middle to help with their press?

[sporthenry]

Amazing to see how several of the breakdowns led to fouls by Kelly which doomed Duke even more. I disagree with many before who said it was our guard's lack of quickness when we have Sheed and TT who I consider both to be above average defenders in terms of staying in front and quickness. But our pick and roll defense was just lost. Whether they were supposed to hedge hard or not, it just seemed that the guards didn't know if they wanted to go under/over and the forwards weren't sure to hedge hard or sag off so both were kind of left in no man's land.

[Billy Dat]

The video is really well done - painful to watch - but it does demonstrate how well Louisville executed. Pitino, in the post game press conference, talked about how his son Richard suggested adding that wrinkle of screening the ball screener to negate the hedge. Once they had that established, they showed additional looks off the pick and roll, so we were always kind of guessing what to do. As the video showed, they also varied the full court press to keep us guessing.

[NSDukeFan]

The video is really well done - painful to watch - but it does demonstrate how well Louisville executed. Pitino, in the post game press conference, talked about how his son Richard suggested adding that wrinkle of screening the ball screener to negate the hedge. Once they had that established, they showed additional looks off the pick and roll, so we were always kind of guessing what to do. As the video showed, they also varied the full court press to keep us guessing.

The screen for the screener play was the best thing I got from this video as I didn't notice this when watching the game and explains why the team had such difficulty defending the high screens.

[g-money]

The video is really well done - painful to watch - but it does demonstrate how well Louisville executed. Pitino, in the post game press conference, talked about how his son Richard suggested adding that wrinkle of screening the ball screener to negate the hedge. Once they had that established, they showed additional looks off the pick and roll, so we were always kind of guessing what to do. As the video showed, they also varied the full court press to keep us guessing.

Yeah, "Ouch" was my first reaction to that video. I do think Louisville benefited by setting a lot of illegal screens, but that is never called in college so why not try for it. Beyond that, the lack of quickness from our big men was really exposed on defense.

I also suspect that several of Louisville's offensive and defensive wrinkles were intentionally held back in the game in the Bahamas. Smart strategy by Pitino if so.

To me it's a bit unfair for the YouTube guy to claim that Pitino outcoached Coach K, simply because it's impossible to tell if these breakdowns were the result of poor coaching or poor decisions/actions by the players.

Anyway, I can't wait to see Coach K get Pitino back the next time we play Louisville.

[moonpie23]

i need a few more days before i watch it.... :(

[FerryFor50]

I didn't realize Pitino invented the high screen offense (or illegal screens).

Having athletic guards who can finish consistently and a deep team that allows you to press constantly would make anyone seem like a coaching genius...

[dukelifer]

I didn't realize Pitino invented the high screen offense (or illegal screens).

Having athletic guards who can finish consistently and a deep team that allows you to press constantly would make anyone seem like a coaching genius...

I would like to see the first Duke Louisville game again to see if they did something different with regard to using the high ball screen and just failed to execute or if the screening the screener was the difference.

[PSurprise]

I didn't realize Pitino invented the high screen offense (or illegal screens).

Having athletic guards who can finish consistently and a deep team that allows you to press constantly would make anyone seem like a coaching genius...

Not trying to be snarky or anything here, but with your second point, isn't that recruiting, which is a significant part of coaching? And playing to your strengths, which obvious Louisville has.

[FerryFor50]

Not trying to be snarky or anything here, but with your second point, isn't that recruiting, which is a significant part of coaching? And playing to your strengths, which obvious Louisville has.

As Mark Gottfried has illustrated, recruiting has very little to do with coaching.

[freshmanjs]

As Mark Gottfried has illustrated, recruiting has very little to do with coaching.

not sure i follow. recruiting is obviously a huge component of the college coaching job.

[Newton_14]

As Mark Gottfried has illustrated, recruiting has very little to do with coaching.

To add to that, Duke started a Freshman, and Sophomore in the backcourt Sunday, who were going against two very experienced and talented Louisville backcourt players. It matters. One day a Senior Cook/Junior Suliamon backcourt will have their way with a rookie backcourt as well.

Lousiville is on a roll right now and playing at a very high level. I will be shocked if they do not cut the nets down Monday night.

[rsvman]

Whatever.

There's nothing in the video that I didn't see on my television in real time except for the screen of the screener, which apparently was not even Pitino's idea.

[FerryFor50]

I would like to see the first Duke Louisville game again to see if they did something different with regard to using the high ball screen and just failed to execute or if the screening the screener was the difference.

Well, what I recall of the game in Atlantis was this:

- Quinn Cook played well, with confidence
- Ryan Kelly was not in foul trouble early
- L'ville didn't get to the line nearly as much
- smith didn't shoot that well
- no Deng to block shots and hit foul line jumpers

I still contend that L'ville got away with a lot of hand checks and holds, which makes your press defense way more effective. Duke stuck with them until the 16 min mark and then panicked, settled for contested jumpers and didn't get Plumeee involved. They should have kept pounding it inside, especially when Deng got his 4th foul.

[freshmanjs]

do folks here not think Pitino did a good job coaching his team? several of the comments in this thread seem to be very dismissive of that. i thought he did a fine job and is an excellent college coach.

[FerryFor50]

not sure i follow. recruiting is obviously a huge component of the college coaching job.

It is a part of the job, but says nothing about your coaching ability. The premise of the video was that Pitino "out coached" K, which is silly.

[FerryFor50]

do folks here not think Pitino did a good job coaching his team? several of the comments in this thread seem to be very dismissive of that. i thought he did a fine job and is an excellent college coach.

I don't think anyone is saying Pitino is a bad coach. My point is that you can't confuse coaching and recruiting. K was not out coached. He just didn't have the athletes to match L'ville.

[luburch]

It is a part of the job, but says nothing about your coaching ability. The premise of the video was that Pitino "out coached" K, which is silly.

While I think Coach K is a better coach than Pitino it is not unreasonable to say that Pitino outcoached K this last game. Obviously there are other factors that contributed to the loss as well, but K is mortal.

[FerryFor50]

While I think Coach K is a better coach than Pitino it is not unreasonable to say that Pitino outcoached K this last game. Obviously there are other factors that contributed to the loss as well, but K is mortal.

So if Pitino doesn't have Russ Smith, does L'ville win? They already showed they couldn't win without Deng...

Having elite athletes affords a coach a lot more room for error.

[uh_no]

So if Pitino doesn't have Russ Smith, does L'ville win? They already showed they couldn't win without Deng...

Having elite athletes affords a coach a lot more room for error.

couldn't win without dieng?

they were 11-1 without dieng and their only loss came to us by 5 points in a game that was tied with 4 minutes to go....to say that they couldn't have won is not doing justice to how good their team is and was.

removing star players off a team and asking if they'd win is effectively an invalid argument....who cares? does uk win without davis? uconn without kemba? duke without singler? it's silly.

[luburch]

So if Pitino doesn't have Russ Smith, does L'ville win? They already showed they couldn't win without Deng...

Having elite athletes affords a coach a lot more room for error.

It's Dieng.

However I feel that is a poor argument. If you take away Nolan Smith from the 2010 Duke team do they still win the national title? Probably not, but that doesn't mean K didn't do a good job coaching. As Kentucky and NC State proved this year, simply having good athletes doesn't mean you will have good results.

[FerryFor50]

couldn't win without deng?

they were 11-1 without deng and their only loss came to us by 5 points in a game that was tied with 4 minutes to go....to say that they couldn't have won is not doing justice to how good their team is and was.

removing star players off a team and asking if they'd win is effectively an invalid argument....who cares? does uk win without davis? uconn without kemba? duke without singler? it's silly.

I meant against K. Not overall.

The point was not "take away their star." The point was that having star players doesn't mean a coach out coached another coach.

[FerryFor50]

It's Dieng.

However I feel that is a poor argument. If you take away Nolan Smith from the 2010 Duke team do they still win the national title? Probably not, but that doesn't mean K didn't do a good job coaching. As Kentucky and NC State proved this year, simply having good athletes doesn't mean you will have good results.

Everyone is missing my point. I'm simply saying that Pitino didn't out coach K. Pitino had better overall athletes. Had Pitino beaten K with lesser talent, then you could make the "out coached" argument.

[freshmanjs]

So if Pitino doesn't have Russ Smith, does L'ville win? They already showed they couldn't win without Deng...

Having elite athletes affords a coach a lot more room for error.

Louisville showed that they couldn't win without Dieng by losing a very close game 4 months ago?

It's obvious that having good players helps you win. No one is disputing that. That does not make it ridiculous to say that Pitino had a good gameplan or to hold a view that he outcoached K in this game.

[Greg_Newton]

K wins probably 90+% of his coaching "matchups", which we generally give him credit for when things go well... so I can acknowledge that Pitino probably got the best of him Sunday.

Smith and Siva are great players, but it's not like we were exactly a talentless team ourselves, and after all, we're talking about one projected 2nd round pick and one projected undrafted player. Pitino put them in a position to do what they do best - use their quickness to attack the basket coming off of screens downhill - and we didn't do much to stop them. I would have liked to see us try to make those two sub 33% and 31% 3PT shooters beat us from deep, for example. We also got killed by their press without ever really making them pay on the backside - so, by definition, you kind of have to give the edge to Pitino there.

That said, the terping in that video made it kind of hard to watch (also, "slow, plodding style of play??"). Guy clearly is not a fan of the ol' Blue Devils.

[Troublemaker]

Very good video. Confirmed what I thought maybe was happening but due to my immediate deletion of that game from the DVR, I couldn't/wouldn't check. As Billy Dat and the guy in the video pointed out, the screen-for-the-screener stuff in combination with Siva & Smith's speed killed us.

The angles the screens came from (directly behind our guards) also made it impossible to "go under" the screens. The only defense for Lville's screening + speed combo given our personnel would've been to sag our guards back in and pick their guards up at the 3-point line instead of 25-30 feet from the basket so that if the screen came, there would be less real estate for our defenders to cover (although with Lville's speed, they could probably score some of the times anyway). There are ways to beat a sagging defense as well, but I was disappointed that it was not attempted (or perhaps attempted too late; I don't know which was the case).

I think it's fair to say that Pitino's offensive gameplan was better than Coach K's defensive gameplan/adjustments in this particular 40 minute segment (which isn't to say he's the better coach or that Coach K couldn't return the favor the next time these programs play a 40 minute segment).

As for their defense vs our offense, Duke was in trouble when Ryan got into foul trouble (which was caused by Lville's pick-and-roll game, so everything goes back to that). Ryan's a better inbounder and press-breaker than Mason. By the advanced stats, Louisville is a historically great defensive team and we definitely needed Ryan out there for 35-40 minutes to combat that. When I was imagining scenarios where Duke would win, it always involved lots of Ryan inbounding the ball, getting it back, dribbling it into the halfcourt himself (or if a trap came, passing it to the open man). We didn't see enough of Ryan on the court breaking the press, unfortunately.

[freshmanjs]

I meant against K. Not overall.

The point was not "take away their star." The point was that having star players doesn't mean a coach out coached another coach.

So no coach with star players can ever outcoach another coach?

[FerryFor50]

Louisville showed that they couldn't win without Dieng by losing a very close game 4 months ago?

It's obvious that having good players helps you win. No one is disputing that. That does not make it ridiculous to say that Pitino had a good gameplan or to hold a view that he outcoached K in this game.

I never said it was ridiculous. It was my feeling that running the high screen with moving picks that are never called over and over again, as well as running a full court press on defense with superior athletes at guard isn't "out coaching." It's not like Pitino called brilliant plays or made any huge in-game adjustments. He stuck with what his teams always do, which is effective, but only with the right personnel.

[FerryFor50]

So no coach with star players can ever outcoach another coach?

Please, continue to extrapolate what I say to fit your argument.

[freshmanjs]

I never said it was ridiculous. It was my feeling that running the high screen with moving picks that are never called over and over again, as well as running a full court press on defense with superior athletes at guard isn't "out coaching." It's not like Pitino called brilliant plays or made any huge in-game adjustments. He stuck with what his teams always do, which is effective, but only with the right personnel.

you're right. you said silly, not ridiculous.

[freshmanjs]

Please, continue to extrapolate what I say to fit your argument.

my argument is simply that it is reasonable to hold a view that pitino outcoached k in this game. i agree with you that he had good players.

[FerryFor50]

Very good video. Confirmed what I thought maybe was happening but due to my immediate deletion of that game from the DVR, I couldn't/wouldn't check. As Billy Dat and the guy in the video pointed out, the screen-for-the-screener stuff in combination with Siva & Smith's speed killed us.

The angles the screens came from (directly behind our guards) also made it impossible to "go under" the screens. The only defense for Lville's screening + speed combo given our personnel would've been to sag our guards back in and pick their guards up at the 3-point line instead of 25-30 feet from the basket so that if the screen came, there would be less real estate for our defenders to cover (although with Lville's speed, they could probably score some of the times anyway). There are ways to beat a sagging defense as well, but I was disappointed that it was not attempted (or perhaps attempted too late; I don't know which was the case).

I think it's fair to say that Pitino's offensive gameplan was better than Coach K's defensive gameplan/adjustments in this particular 40 minute segment (which isn't to say he's the better coach or that Coach K couldn't return the favor the next time these programs play a 40 minute segment).

As for their defense vs our offense, Duke was in trouble when Ryan got into foul trouble (which was caused by Lville's pick-and-roll game, so everything goes back to that). Ryan's a better inbounder and press-breaker than Mason. By the advanced stats, Louisville is a historically great defensive team and we definitely needed Ryan out there for 35-40 minutes to combat that. When I was imagining scenarios where Duke would win, it always involved lots of Ryan inbounding the ball, getting it back, dribbling it into the halfcourt himself (or if a trap came, passing it to the open man). We didn't see enough of Ryan on the court breaking the press, unfortunately.

I don't disagree that Pitino ran what worked. I just think that what he ran worked because he had the type of athletes you need to execute it. The point about Kelly is spot on, but Plumlee did a good job helping break the press, too. He just made poor decisions after crossing half court. The real trouble on the press came from when guards let themselves get trapped on the sidelines after picking up the dribble. That was where most of the turnovers came from. But even then, there weren't *that* many turnovers - just 11 total, compared to 14 the previous matchup with L'ville. What changed this game was the half court defense and the shot blocking. And the real key was that run after it was tied at 42. Duke started jacking up contested shots (old habits die hard) and L'ville road Siva, Smith and Dieng on offense.

[uh_no]

I meant against K. Not overall.

The point was not "take away their star." The point was that having star players doesn't mean a coach out coached another coach.

That's a fair statement then. I think that said, I do feel that K could have made adjustments that might have changed the game and didn't....so I feel on that night, not only did UL have better players, they executed better, and coached better.

we could have made a point in the first half to set screens on the inbounds instead of just having quinn cut and the ball getting knocked away
we could have made a point to pass back to the inbounder out of the back-court double team (since the double team came from the guy guarding the inbounder just about every time..and we started to do this in the second half....but why did it take 10 minutes of turnovers to fix this?)
we could have gone under the high ball screen and made them shoot threes rather than open layups
we could have sagged back into a zone type look like we did for several minutes against miami when we couldn't stop the penetration
we could have gone inside out more often to at least take some pressure off the guards....the ball wasn't getting inside nearly enough....leading to excess dribbling and bad shots...doesn't matter if mason even scored...he can distribute from there

in the end, how coaching affected a game is very difficult to measure in any meaningful way, so it will all come down to how some person analyzed the game....I think K's insistence to sticking to our defensive strategy cost us...maybe he did try something different and players didn't execute...there's no way to know....but one thing i've picked up from reading K quotes/watching K press conferences/listening to K speak is almost a condescension for anyone who questions his coaching decisions (stuff like..."why don't you stick to writing and i'll stick to coaching", or (to a student) "you're wondering why we don't play more zone? did you hear that in the media?"), obviously it's not mean spirited or Boeheim-like in any stretch of the imagination, but when he thinks he's right, he's sticking to it, and there is certainly some value to that....but the armchair coach is not always wrong.

In the end I may not agree with every decision K makes, but that's okay, and should be okay for any duke fan. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and K is really good at skinning cats...but that doesn't mean someone might not be able to skin the stray better every once in a while....I'll take 9XX wins and 4 titles any day.

[FerryFor50]

That's a fair statement then. I think that said, I do feel that K could have made adjustments that might have changed the game and didn't....so I feel on that night, not only did UL have better players, they executed better, and coached better.

we could have made a point in the first half to set screens on the inbounds instead of just having quinn cut and the ball getting knocked away
we could have made a point to pass back to the inbounder out of the back-court double team (since the double team came from the guy guarding the inbounder just about every time..and we started to do this in the second half....but why did it take 10 minutes of turnovers to fix this?)
we could have gone under the high ball screen and made them shoot threes rather than open layups
we could have sagged back into a zone type look like we did for several minutes against miami when we couldn't stop the penetration
we could have gone inside out more often to at least take some pressure off the guards....the ball wasn't getting inside nearly enough....leading to excess dribbling and bad shots...doesn't matter if mason even scored...he can distribute from there

in the end, how coaching affected a game is very difficult to measure in any meaningful way, so it will all come down to how some person analyzed the game....I think K's insistence to sticking to our defensive strategy cost us...maybe he did try something different and players didn't execute...there's no way to know....but one thing i've picked up from reading K quotes/watching K press conferences/listening to K speak is almost a condescension for anyone who questions his coaching decisions (stuff like..."why don't you stick to writing and i'll stick to coaching", or (to a student) "you're wondering why we don't play more zone? did you hear that in the media?"), obviously it's not mean spirited or Boeheim-like in any stretch of the imagination, but when he thinks he's right, he's sticking to it, and there is certainly some value to that....but the armchair coach is not always wrong.

In the end I may not agree with every decision K makes, but that's okay, and should be okay for any duke fan. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and K is really good at skinning cats...but that doesn't mean someone might not be able to skin the stray better every once in a while....I'll take 9XX wins and 4 titles any day.

I think the thing K and Pitino have in common other than success is stubbornness. K tends to refuse to go away with what has worked for him for so long. Sometimes that comes back to bite him because he doesn't have the players to execute his vision.

To be honest, I don't think anything Duke did was stopping L'ville that night other than hitting shots and going to Mason more. Did they forget that Mason nearly fouled out the entire Mich St front line the previous game?

[Duke 81 LA]

It was the triple whammy. Quinn cook was particularly bad at getting over screens. (Or under)

Plumlee was so commonly running out late that he could get passed in the other direction over and over.

Kelly, who could usually rotate (and on O help break presses very well) got that quick second and third foul.

But the fact was, we didn't guard the pick and roll well ALL YEAR.

And we don't have a zone or even a saggy man to man to fall back on.

In 2010 we had the same problem. But late in the year, the coaches finally instructed Zoubek NOT to chase outside the lane and took their chances on conceding 15 footers.

Had that happened this year (and had Plumlee been taught that the ball was a hot potato on offense... Either make a move or pass or give it up... But not old the ball for more than 2-3 seconds or one dribble) this team would still be playing.

Too bad.

The breakdown was great.

It wasn't that our guards weren't quick. It's that we WERE lost against the pick and roll.



Amazing to see how several of the breakdowns led to fouls by Kelly which doomed Duke even more. I disagree with many before who said it was our guard's lack of quickness when we have Sheed and TT who I consider both to be above average defenders in terms of staying in front and quickness. But our pick and roll defense was just lost. Whether they were supposed to hedge hard or not, it just seemed that the guards didn't know if they wanted to go under/over and the forwards weren't sure to hedge hard or sag off so both were kind of left in no man's land.

[UrinalCake]

But even then, there weren't *that* many turnovers - just 11 total, compared to 14 the previous matchup with L'ville. What changed this game was the half court defense and the shot blocking. And the real key was that run after it was tied at 42. Duke started jacking up contested shots (old habits die hard) and L'ville road Siva, Smith and Dieng on offense.

I have to disagree about the turnovers, I think they were significant. Even when the press didn't directly create a turnover, it took us out of sync to have to work so hard just to get the ball down the court. Even though we were keeping the score close in the first half, it just felt like it was so much harder for us to score and that eventually it would catch up to us. In the second half it finally did, as turnovers and missed shots started leading to fast breaks the other way and that broke the game open.

Ryan's fouls were huge, not just for his defense and his ability to break the press, but for his scoring - early on he had 7 of our 17 points and it seemed like he was our only good matchup on the offensive end. I was a little surprised Coach K put him back in the game in the first half after he got two, but I guess he felt like he needed him to keep from falling behind.

[Mcluhan]

Everyone is missing my point. I'm simply saying that Pitino didn't out coach K. Pitino had better overall athletes. Had Pitino beaten K with lesser talent, then you could make the "out coached" argument.

I'd like to assume positive intent here, but I can't help but see the use of the word 'athletes' here, rather than 'players', as mildly insulting to Louisville.

[flyingdutchdevil]

...it's that plain and simple. Is Coach K the better coach overall? Absolutely. Does Coach K have the better legacy and the better record? Absolutely. Would Coach K beat Pitino 75% of the time with similar players? Absolutely. But Coach K does get out-coached. He's not invincible, despite what many posters on this board believe. And while Pitino may have the better athletes, we doesn't have the better players. The benchmark that I use is McD AAs. On this roster, Coach K has 6 McD AAs. Lousiville - 3 (Behanan, Blackshear, and Siva). And I'd argue that only one of those players was absolutely key in crushing us in the second half (Smith and Dieng aren't McDs).

We got beat with a game plan. Isn't one of the key strategies of a coach to exploit the weaknesses of his opponent? Well, Pitino did in an excellent fashion. We simply weren't as effective in that.

Congrats to Louisville, although I want to face them in the tournament again sooner rather than later.

[dukelifer]

...it's that plain and simple. Is Coach K the better coach overall? Absolutely. Does Coach K have the better legacy and the better record? Absolutely. Would Coach K beat Pitino 75% of the time with similar players? Absolutely. But Coach K does get out-coached. He's not invincible, despite what many posters on this board believe. And while Pitino may have the better athletes, we doesn't have the better players. The benchmark that I use is McD AAs. On this roster, Coach K has 6 McD AAs. Lousiville - 3 (Behanan, Blackshear, and Siva). And I'd argue that only one of those players was absolutely key in crushing us in the second half (Smith and Dieng aren't McDs).

We got beat with a game plan. Isn't one of the key strategies of a coach to exploit the weaknesses of his opponent? Well, Pitino did in an excellent fashion. We simply weren't as effective in that.

Congrats to Louisville, although I want to face them in the tournament again sooner rather than later.

Note that the entire All American first team was made up of players that were not McDonald AA's. There are a lot of good players out there. 4 of Duke's McD AA's are Sophomores or Freshman and 2 are role players right now.

[dukeofcalabash]

I don't think anyone is saying Pitino is a bad coach. My point is that you can't confuse coaching and recruiting. K was not out coached. He just didn't have the athletes to match L'ville.

Pitino did his job and he did it well. I still believe that our guards were overmatched, leading to too much pressure for Mason and/or Kelly to handle. Curry never showed in the game until it was too little and too late. It was just time for that to happen with him. At the same time, no one else could make a shot either. Much of that had to do with Louisville's defense which was loaded with speed. No need to be ashamed of losing to such a great team, especially with the emotional focus the injury added for them.

[roywhite]

K wins probably 90+% of his coaching "matchups", which we generally give him credit for when things go well... so I can acknowledge that Pitino probably got the best of him Sunday.

Smith and Siva are great players, but it's not like we were exactly a talentless team ourselves, and after all, we're talking about one projected 2nd round pick and one projected undrafted player. Pitino put them in a position to do what they do best - use their quickness to attack the basket coming off of screens downhill - and we didn't do much to stop them. I would have liked to see us try to make those two sub 33% and 31% 3PT shooters beat us from deep, for example. We also got killed by their press without ever really making them pay on the backside - so, by definition, you kind of have to give the edge to Pitino there.

That said, the terping in that video made it kind of hard to watch (also, "slow, plodding style of play??"). Guy clearly is not a fan of the ol' Blue Devils.

Seems about right.

Looking back, a few regrets about preparation and execution:
sagging man-to-man defense would have been our best bet IMO; keep the defense 20 feet and in; reduce their driving space
more help beating the press; unfortunately, Quinn does not have Hurley or Jay Williams type ability to break a press; got to have more guys involved even getting past half court
Kelly has got to be more careful about foul trouble, got to know their drivers like to initiate contact and he has to be purely vertical

Just my take, but not a game to dwell on. Lost to a better team, and a very good coaching job by Pitino, also.

[FerryFor50]

I'd like to assume positive intent here, but I can't help but see the use of the word 'athletes' here, rather than 'players', as mildly insulting to Louisville.

Because I think that Duke has talented players on the same level as L'ville. But when you stick that talent (or even a fraction less talent) into a player with the speed and contortionist ability of Russ Smith, you have issues.

[FerryFor50]

Pitino did his job and he did it well. I still believe that our guards were overmatched, leading to too much pressure for Mason and/or Kelly to handle. Curry never showed in the game until it was too little and too late. It was just time for that to happen with him. At the same time, no one else could make a shot either. Much of that had to do with Louisville's defense which was loaded with speed. No need to be ashamed of losing to such a great team, especially with the emotional focus the injury added for them.

I agree and that was the gist of my point. L'ville was better. Pitino is good. But I don't think K got outcoached.

[hudlow]

As Mark Gottfried has illustrated, recruiting has very little to do with coaching.

Dadgummit.

[fgb]

not sure i buy into this breakdown 100%. it's easy to make any point you want, when you have 100% control of the editing; sort of the sports analysis version of taking parts of a speech out of context and treating them as complete.

also, listen to the guy talk: i lost track of the number of times that, when talking about louisville's press, he throws in an aside like "that should have been traveling," or "cook carried the ball there, but no call," as an aside to the actual point he was making at the time. there was not a single such aside in reference to louisville. (a couple of "they should have gotten the steal there," as in they should have done better; but that's a lot different than essentially saying "they broke the rules and got away with it." think that might tell us anything?

[FerryFor50]

not sure i buy into this breakdown 100%. it's easy to make any point you want, when you have 100% control of the editing; sort of the sports analysis version of taking parts of a speech out of context and treating them as complete.

also, listen to the guy talk: i lost track of the number of times that, when talking about louisville's press, he throws in an aside like "that should have been traveling," or "cook carried the ball there, but no call," as an aside to the actual point he was making at the time. there was not a single such aside in reference to louisville. (a couple of "they should have gotten the steal there," as in they should have done better; but that's a lot different than essentially saying "they broke the rules and got away with it." think that might tell us anything?

Exactly.

"Consider the source."

[MCFinARL]

Seems about right.

Looking back, a few regrets about preparation and execution:
sagging man-to-man defense would have been our best bet IMO; keep the defense 20 feet and in; reduce their driving space
more help beating the press; unfortunately, Quinn does not have Hurley or Jay Williams type ability to break a press; got to have more guys involved even getting past half court
Kelly has got to be more careful about foul trouble, got to know their drivers like to initiate contact and he has to be purely vertical

Just my take, but not a game to dwell on. Lost to a better team, and a very good coaching job by Pitino, also.

Agree generally but especially with the point about help beating the press. It was frustrating to watch everyone run up court repeatedly leaving Quinn to struggle with at most the inbounder back to help him.

Re Kelly, I read somewhere (alas can't remember where) comments from Pitino in which he said that getting Kelly in foul trouble was a specific part of their game plan--they were running right at him for that purpose. And it worked. I agree that Kelly might have been more aware and avoided some of these fouls, but it's worth noting that he was a special target, which made his task harder.

[rsvman]

If there was a brilliant coaching move by Pitino, it was screening the screener.

I've never heard of this strategy before, but it worked beautifully. One of the earlier posters said that Mason was often a step late getting to the hedge; that's the reason it happened. He was attempting to get there but he was screened. Even a half-second of delay was enough to allow them to impose their will on offense. That was truly a genius piece of coaching by Pitino.

I think if Ryan didn't get into foul trouble early it still would've been a competitive game, with a chance to steal it at the end; however, I agree with others that defensive adjustments could/should have been made, specifically with the idea of challenging Louisville to beat us with the outside shot. The difficulty for Coach K, I think, is that that idea is anathema to his entire defensive philosophy, which is, in a nutshell, to challenge the other team to beat us with the two-point shot. Or, more accurately, to forbid them from beating us with the 3-point shot.

And it obviously works most of the time, given that Duke has been rated in the top 10 nationally for a very long time. It's just that Easter Sunday was one of those times when it not only didn't work, but, in my opinion, could not have worked.

[Zeb]

One point no one has made... the selective editing of this video makes it seem as if throughout the game Louisville was dominant on both ends of the floor and Duke was clueless. But the game was tied 42-42 in the middle of the second half. The final 10 minutes, we got beat soundly. But for the first 3/4 of the game, we were neck and neck with the supposedly superior coaching and athletes of Louisville. It is easy after the fact to point to things Duke didn't do or should have done, but its not as if Duke was completely unprepared for the Cardinals. No question they played brilliantly to close out the game, but this video would struggle to explain how we were able to play them even for the majority of the contest.

[rsvman]

One point no one has made... the selective editing of this video makes it seem as if throughout the game Louisville was dominant on both ends of the floor and Duke was clueless. But the game was tied 42-42 in the middle of the second half. The final 10 minutes, we got beat soundly. But for the first 3/4 of the game, we were neck and neck with the supposedly superior coaching and athletes of Louisville. It is easy after the fact to point to things Duke didn't do or should have done, but its not as if Duke was completely unprepared for the Cardinals. No question they played brilliantly to close out the game, but this video would struggle to explain how we were able to play them even for the majority of the contest.

True. That's because the video maker had an agenda. It is clear in his heavily biased commentary.

I maintain (as I pointed out in another thread) that had Kelly not gotten into foul trouble, Duke could've stuck with the first-half strategy of slowing the tempo and working for back-door cuts, alley-oops, etc., and stayed in the game even without any offensive production from Curry. Execution would have to have been sharp, but the game plan that Coach K had going into the game (at least on the offensive side) was really excellent.

A few defensive tweaks were probably in order, though.

[freshmanjs]

One point no one has made... the selective editing of this video makes it seem as if throughout the game Louisville was dominant on both ends of the floor and Duke was clueless. But the game was tied 42-42 in the middle of the second half. The final 10 minutes, we got beat soundly. But for the first 3/4 of the game, we were neck and neck with the supposedly superior coaching and athletes of Louisville. It is easy after the fact to point to things Duke didn't do or should have done, but its not as if Duke was completely unprepared for the Cardinals. No question they played brilliantly to close out the game, but this video would struggle to explain how we were able to play them even for the majority of the contest.

well..it WAS the most lopsided regional final in 16 years.

[CR9]

It was the triple whammy. Quinn cook was particularly bad at getting over screens. (Or under)

Plumlee was so commonly running out late that he could get passed in the other direction over and over.

Kelly, who could usually rotate (and on O help break presses very well) got that quick second and third foul.

But the fact was, we didn't guard the pick and roll well ALL YEAR.

And we don't have a zone or even a saggy man to man to fall back on.

In 2010 we had the same problem. But late in the year, the coaches finally instructed Zoubek NOT to chase outside the lane and took their chances on conceding 15 footers.

Had that happened this year (and had Plumlee been taught that the ball was a hot potato on offense... Either make a move or pass or give it up... But not old the ball for more than 2-3 seconds or one dribble) this team would still be playing.

Too bad.

The breakdown was great.

It wasn't that our guards weren't quick. It's that we WERE lost against the pick and roll.

This. This is a fantastic post and sums the game up for me. When Virginia killed Duke with the pick and roll I thought for sure K would change the way we defended it. Didn't happen and L'ville killed us with it. Simple as.

[FerryFor50]

well..it WAS the most lopsided regional final in 16 years.

It was a snowball effect. L'ville didn't dominate as the score suggested. I never felt like Duke was completely overmatched. They just forced/missed shots while L'ville hit everything they threw up. Teams don't even hit every shot in practices where they aren't playing defense.

22 points was more like 10-15 points IMO. The last few minutes were the "shoot a 3, hope it goes in, foul and make them hit FTs." And guess what? They hit FTs. We didn't hit 3s. It's kind of like in hockey when the score is 4-3 and the losing team pulls the goalie and the opposing team scores 2 more goals. Did the losing team get blown out? In terms of final score, yes. But that was the design of the high risk strategy of pulling the goalie.

Duke had to take some chances at the end of the game to be able to get within striking distance and the chances didn't pan out.

[freshmanjs]

It was a snowball effect. L'ville didn't dominate as the score suggested. I never felt like Duke was completely overmatched. They just forced/missed shots while L'ville hit everything they threw up. Teams don't even hit every shot in practices where they aren't playing defense.

22 points was more like 10-15 points IMO. The last few minutes were the "shoot a 3, hope it goes in, foul and make them hit FTs." And guess what? They hit FTs. We didn't hit 3s. It's kind of like in hockey when the score is 4-3 and the losing team pulls the goalie and the opposing team scores 2 more goals. Did the losing team get blown out? In terms of final score, yes. But that was the design of the high risk strategy of pulling the goalie.

Duke had to take some chances at the end of the game to be able to get within striking distance and the chances didn't pan out.

even a 10-15 point differential is a very lopsided regional final. most of them are close.

[rsvman]

even a 10-15 point differential is a very lopsided regional final. most of them are close.

Um, except for two of the other three that just got played. Marquette only scored 39 points total in their regional final; lowest point total in the tournament since the shot clock.

[robobevan]

We had 10 turnovers in the first half and only one in the second half. So the press, while it caused us problems and some turnovers, was not a factor in Louisville's big run in the second half.

[freshmanjs]

Um, except for two of the other three that just got played. Marquette only scored 39 points total in their regional final; lowest point total in the tournament since the shot clock.

um, i was looking at more than 1 year of data.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I agree and that was the gist of my point. L'ville was better. Pitino is good. But I don't think K got outcoached.

We're just gonna have to disagree. I think Coach K got out-coached, and that's nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering Coach K has played over 1,300 NCAA games.

Louisville didn't have the better talent, and they didn't have the better coach. But they did exploit our weaknesses better than we did theirs and they played to their strengths better than we did. If you think coaching has nothing to do with this, then please believe that. I think Pitino coached this game to perfection, especially in the second half.

[rsvman]

um, i was looking at more than 1 year of data.

I figured.


On the other hand, posting that comment immediately after 75% of the regional finals were blowouts struck me as an odd case of "reverse recentism."

[CDu]

We're just gonna have to disagree. I think Coach K got out-coached, and that's nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering Coach K has played over 1,300 NCAA games.

Louisville didn't have the better talent, and they didn't have the better coach. But they did exploit our weaknesses better than we did theirs and they played to their strengths better than we did. If you think coaching has nothing to do with this, then please believe that. I think Pitino coached this game to perfection, especially in the second half.

I completely agree. A big part of basketball is making adjustments. And in this game, it didn't appear that we made the adjustments. In general, I'd take Coach K over Pitino every day of the week and twice on Sundays. In this particular game, I think Pitino won the coaching battle.

The only thing working for Louisville was the press and the high screens. What's the best way to limit the effectiveness of those high screens? Sag off the ball (all the way inside the 3pt line). That's especially true when you have a big man (Mason) who is clearly not comfortable nor effective with the hedge-and-recover game. If you bring those screens to inside the 3pt line (1) you reduce the distance Mason has to cover and (2) you make it more difficult to pull off the double screen (because things get very congested). That might not completely eliminate the effectiveness of the screen-and-drive game, but it would theoretically have helped.

Now, Louisville does some things very well, but shooting 3s is not one of them. I would have preferred we let Louisville try to beat us on jumpshots rather than sticking with a strategy that so frequently resulted in Mason getting isolated on very quick, very aggressive guards.

[FerryFor50]

even a 10-15 point differential is a very lopsided regional final. most of them are close.

Lessee... if 10-15 points is still lopsided:

2013 Louisville beat Duke by 22; Mich beat Florida by 20; Syracuse beat Marquette by 16 - 3
2012 Kentucky beat Baylor by 12; Kansas beat UNC by 13 - 2
2011 VCU beat KU by 10 - 1
2010 no 10+ point games
2009 Mich St beat L'ville by 12; UNC beat Oklahoma by 12 - 2
2008 UCLA beat Xavier by 19; UNC beat L'ville by 10; Memphis beat Texas by 18 - 3
2007 UCLA beat KU by 13; Georgetown beat UNC by 12; Ohio St beat Memphis by 16 - 3
2006 LSU beat Texas by 10; Florida beat Nova by 13 - 2
2005 no 10+ point games
2004 UConn beat Alabama by 16 - 1
2003 Syracuse beat Oklahoma by 16; Marquette beat Kentucky by by 14 - 2
2002 Kansas beat Oregon by 18; Indiana beat Kent St by 12 - 2
2001 Duke beat USC by 10; Maryland beat Stanford by 14 - 2
2000 Florida beat Oklahoma St by 12; Mich St beat Iowa St by 11 - 2
1999 Duke beat Temple by 21 - 1
1998 UNC beat UConn by 11; Utah beat Zona by 15 - 2
1997 UNC beat L'ville by 23; Kentucky beat Utah by 13 - 2
1996 UMass beat Georgetown by 24; Kentucky beat WFU by 20; Miss St beat Cincy by 10 - 3
1995 Oklahoma beat UMass by 14 - 1
1994 Zona beat Missouri by 20 - 1
1993 Kentucky beat Florida St by 25 - 1
1992 Indiana beat UCLA by 27; Cincy beat Memphis St by 31 - 2
1991 Kansas beat Arkansas by 12; Duke beat St John's by 17; UNLV beat Seton Hall by 12 - 3
1990 UNLV beat Loyola by 30 - 1
1989 Seton Hall beat UNLV by 23; Michigan beat UVA by 37 - 2

That's 25 years of data, or 100 games (hope that's enough data for you). I highlighted all the 20+ point wins. Out of 100 games, 44 of them were 10+ point wins. That's 44% of all games. So if you're definition of "most"is 50% or more, then yes, "most" games are close in the regional finals in the past 25 years. However, then you have to define "what is close"? Is it less than 5 points? Less than 3 points? Then the numbers change...

A few points can be made from the data:

- blowouts happen at a pretty regular clip in the regional finals
- Duke did not lose by the largest margin in a regional final; 8 teams lost by more in the last 25 years
- 22 teams lost by 15+ in the last 25 years (22%)
- games in the past 10 years (17/40 = 42.5%) have been closer overall than games in the 10 years prior (18/40 = 45%), but only barely

So it's not that uncommon to see a team get beaten handily, but less common to see a 20+ point loss. I bet that the tournament as a whole trends very similarly. I might do the past 10 years or so just for "fun."

[freshmanjs]

Lessee... if 10-15 points is still lopsided:

2013 Louisville beat Duke by 22; Mich beat Florida by 20; Syracuse beat Marquette by 16 - 3
2012 Kentucky beat Baylor by 12; Kansas beat UNC by 13 - 2
2011 VCU beat KU by 10 - 1
2010 no 10+ point games
2009 Mich St beat L'ville by 12; UNC beat Oklahoma by 12 - 2
2008 UCLA beat Xavier by 19; UNC beat L'ville by 10; Memphis beat Texas by 18 - 3
2007 UCLA beat KU by 13; Georgetown beat UNC by 12; Ohio St beat Memphis by 16 - 3
2006 LSU beat Texas by 10; Florida beat Nova by 13 - 2
2005 no 10+ point games
2004 UConn beat Alabama by 16 - 1
2003 Syracuse beat Oklahoma by 16; Marquette beat Kentucky by by 14 - 2
2002 Kansas beat Oregon by 18; Indiana beat Kent St by 12 - 2
2001 Duke beat USC by 10; Maryland beat Stanford by 14 - 2
2000 Florida beat Oklahoma St by 12; Mich St beat Iowa St by 11 - 2
1999 Duke beat Temple by 21 - 1
1998 UNC beat UConn by 11; Utah beat Zona by 15 - 2
1997 UNC beat L'ville by 23; Kentucky beat Utah by 13 - 2
1996 UMass beat Georgetown by 24; Kentucky beat WFU by 20; Miss St beat Cincy by 10 - 3
1995 Oklahoma beat UMass by 14 - 1
1994 Zona beat Missouri by 20 - 1
1993 Kentucky beat Florida St by 25 - 1
1992 Indiana beat UCLA by 27; Cincy beat Memphis St by 31 - 2
1991 Kansas beat Arkansas by 12; Duke beat St John's by 17; UNLV beat Seton Hall by 12 - 3
1990 UNLV beat Loyola by 30 - 1
1989 Seton Hall beat UNLV by 23; Michigan beat UVA by 37 - 2

That's 25 years of data, or 100 games (hope that's enough data for you). I highlighted all the 20+ point wins. Out of 100 games, 44 of them were 10+ point wins. That's 44% of all games. So if you're definition of "most"is 50% or more, then yes, "most" games are close in the regional finals in the past 25 years. However, then you have to define "what is close"? Is it less than 5 points? Less than 3 points? Then the numbers change...

A few points can be made from the data:

- blowouts happen at a pretty regular clip in the regional finals
- Duke did not lose by the largest margin in a regional final; 8 teams lost by more in the last 25 years
- 22 teams lost by 15+ in the last 25 years (22%)
- games in the past 10 years (17/40 = 42.5%) have been closer overall than games in the 10 years prior (18/40 = 45%), but only barely

So it's not that uncommon to see a team get beaten handily, but less common to see a 20+ point loss. I bet that the tournament as a whole trends very similarly. I might do the past 10 years or so just for "fun."

yeah. same data i looked at. in how many of those games did the lead get extended at the end because the losing team took risks? remember, our loss was 22, not 10-15. by similar logic to yours, some of those 10+ point gaps were really 5-10.

i am not really sure what this argument is about anyway. duke got beaten soundly on sunday. yes, it was close for 30 minutes or so. so was the florida-michigan game. it is often the case that one big run is the difference in a game. i agree that the lead got extended at the end because Duke was taking risks. i don't agree that duke was super close to winning the game.

on the coaching point, i agree that duke didn't have the athletes to match up well with louisville, especially playing the type of defense we were trying to play. i do think a different approach may have worked better, but we'll never know.

[dukelifer]

yeah. same data i looked at. in how many of those games did the lead get extended at the end because the losing team took risks? remember, our loss was 22, not 10-15. by similar logic to yours, some of those 10+ point gaps were really 5-10.

i am not really sure what this argument is about anyway. duke got beaten soundly on sunday. yes, it was close for 30 minutes or so. so was the florida-michigan game. it is often the case that one big run is the difference in a game. i agree that the lead got extended at the end because Duke was taking risks. i don't agree that duke was super close to winning the game.

on the coaching point, i agree that duke didn't have the athletes to match up well with louisville, especially playing the type of defense we were trying to play. i do think a different approach may have worked better, but we'll never know.

Or how many games did the big lead reduce because the winning team took their foot of the pedal. A loss by 10 or a loss by 20 is a loss. No moral victories when you are a big-boy team like Duke. Take your lumps- go back and look at your 4 NC trophies - and get ready for next year.

[Billy Dat]

duke got beaten soundly on sunday. yes, it was close for 30 minutes or so. so was the florida-michigan game.

One nitpick, not to be a "let me annoyingly point out the one thing you got wrong DBR know-it-all", but because I want to distinguish us from Florida. Michigan led that game 16-2 and Florida never got closer then 11. I thought we gave Louisville a much better game, at least we were in it for more then a half. Florida was never in their game. I think their loss was far worse then ours.

[FerryFor50]

One nitpick, not to be a "let me annoyingly point out the one thing you got wrong DBR know-it-all", but because I want to distinguish us from Florida. Michigan led that game 16-2 and Florida never got closer then 11. I thought we gave Louisville a much better game, at least we were in it for more then a half. Florida was never in their game. I think their loss was far worse then ours.

Agreed. Florida never had a chance... now THAT was a beatdown.

Maybe Donovan got outcoached? :-P

[freshmanjs]

One nitpick, not to be a "let me annoyingly point out the one thing you got wrong DBR know-it-all", but because I want to distinguish us from Florida. Michigan led that game 16-2 and Florida never got closer then 11. I thought we gave Louisville a much better game, at least we were in it for more then a half. Florida was never in their game. I think their loss was far worse then ours.

yes, michigan's run was at the very beginning of the game, while louisville's was later. i agree that does make the quality of the game different. in the end, though, a 20+ point loss in a regional final is a beatdown regardless of how it happened.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There's a lot of crankiness and sensitivity on this thread.

Is Coach K the best coach in a generation? Without question. Does that mean it's impossible to imagine that Pitino won a round of chess against him this weekend? Of course not.

Louisville is the better team. They've been dominant in recent weeks, while Duke has been struggling. Going into the tournament, they were the prohibitive favorite and they still are. Was it impossible to imagine a Duke victory? Of course not - we have lots of talent and lots of potential. If Kelly hadn't gotten into early foul trouble, if Cook had gotten a few positive breaks early in the game and gained confidence rather than lost some, if Curry had started the game out hot... Everything might be different.

Watching K coach for the last 30 years or so, I generally notice our coaching advantage in four specific spots:

1) First four minutes of the game
2) Last four minutes of the first half
3) First four minutes of the second half
4) Last four minutes of the game.

If you can win any two of those stages decisively, your chances at winning the game go up dramatically. I might be crazy, but it seems to me that's where most strategy changes are seen. Frequently, this is where you will see Duke runs. Opening strong is obviously a factor of your game plan. If you can win the first two stages, you can have the game well in hand by halftime. If you win the second and third, you can take a close game and blow it open early in the second half. And end game strategy is its own different animal.

Did Coach K get out coached wire to wire? Of course not. Did Pitino make the proper adjustments midway through the second half to take advantage of a step-slowness in our perimeter defense that allowed his guards to get to the rim? Yes.

Personally, I had a real problem paying too much attention to the game after the Ware injury. I had so much built up excitement and anticipation for the game, and the injury really took away my ability to care too much about the outcome. I have never experienced anything like it. I can't imagine how players for either team managed to go out there and play basketball after something like that.

I have no problem saying Louisville is the better team. They are really coming together at the right time, and are a much better team than the one we faced a few months ago. We simply didn't have the same growth through the year.

I think a Louisville/Michigan championship game could be very entertaining. Our boys will have to rally together another year.

Go Duke!

[CDu]

I have no problem saying Louisville is the better team. They are really coming together at the right time, and are a much better team than the one we faced a few months ago. We simply didn't have the same growth through the year.

I think this is spot on. Early in the season, most experts agreed that Duke was playing the best ball of any team in the country (hard to argue against that based on results). But they also said that Duke was probably closer to their ceiling than most other teams in the country. The feeling was that Mason, Kelly, and Curry (as seniors) were already maxing out their abilities, and guys like Murphy, Jefferson, Hairston, and Marshall played too little to really impact the ceiling.

Now, at the time I disagreed with the assessment that Duke was playing closer to their ceiling than everyone else. I agreed that Mason, Curry, and Kelly were probably pretty close to their ceilings, but Cook and Sulaimon had room to grow and obviously Murphy, Jefferson, and Marshall had room to grow.

Unfortunately, Jefferson only showed occasional signs of that growth. He had a few terrific games, but his foul troubles and inconsistency locked him to the bench. Marshall never emerged even though we clearly could have used a stronger backup to Mason (especially while Kelly was hurt). And Murphy couldn't crack the rotation, forcing us to stay small on the perimeter and eliminating an option as a backup stretch PF.

The inability of those three freshmen to establish themselves as key contributors (or in Jefferson's case a key contributor on a consistent basis) really did mean that we were playing at close to our ceiling in November/December. That, combined with Kelly's injury (which put a dent into our identity) and Cook's shaky confidence down the stretch, and I might argue that we were actually as strong or stronger as a team in November/December than in the Elite-8 game.

[rsvman]

yes, michigan's run was at the very beginning of the game, while louisville's was later. i agree that does make the quality of the game different. in the end, though, a 20+ point loss in a regional final is a beatdown regardless of how it happened.

In the context of this thread in its totality, I don't think the discussion is really about whether it was "a beatdown" or not. The question is more "Why was it a beatdown?" People are getting somewhat defensive because it seems you're trying to make a point that one reason for the beatdown was that Pitino outcoached K.

I agree, somewhat, with the concept that for this one game, Coach K got outcoached, but only slightly, and mostly in the second half. Pitino is an excellent college basketball coach and he has an outstanding team. I don't think they're invincible, and I think if we played them 10 times we would likely win 3 or so of those games. But hats off to them; they had a great game plan and they executed it well.

The video that was linked at the top of this thread, though, is very far from objective and, in my opinion, somewhat insulting to our program. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think it has a lot of information to offer that wouldn't have been noticed by most people who have a reasonable knowledge of the game of basketball.

[NSDukeFan]

I think this is spot on. Early in the season, most experts agreed that Duke was playing the best ball of any team in the country (hard to argue against that based on results). But they also said that Duke was probably closer to their ceiling than most other teams in the country. The feeling was that Mason, Kelly, and Curry (as seniors) were already maxing out their abilities, and guys like Murphy, Jefferson, Hairston, and Marshall played too little to really impact the ceiling.

Now, at the time I disagreed with the assessment that Duke was playing closer to their ceiling than everyone else. I agreed that Mason, Curry, and Kelly were probably pretty close to their ceilings, but Cook and Sulaimon had room to grow and obviously Murphy, Jefferson, and Marshall had room to grow.

Unfortunately, Jefferson only showed occasional signs of that growth. He had a few terrific games, but his foul troubles and inconsistency locked him to the bench. Marshall never emerged even though we clearly could have used a stronger backup to Mason (especially while Kelly was hurt). And Murphy couldn't crack the rotation, forcing us to stay small on the perimeter and eliminating an option as a backup stretch PF.

The inability of those three freshmen to establish themselves as key contributors (or in Jefferson's case a key contributor on a consistent basis) really did mean that we were playing at close to our ceiling in November/December. That, combined with Kelly's injury (which put a dent into our identity) and Cook's shaky confidence down the stretch, and I might argue that we were actually as strong or stronger as a team in November/December than in the Elite-8 game.
I think the combination of Kelly and Curry's injuries made it very difficult for the team to improve a lot during the year as the nucleus didn't have the opportunity to work as much together as other teams, such as Louisville.

In the context of this thread in its totality, I don't think the discussion is really about whether it was "a beatdown" or not. The question is more "Why was it a beatdown?" People are getting somewhat defensive because it seems you're trying to make a point that one reason for the beatdown was that Pitino outcoached K.

I agree, somewhat, with the concept that for this one game, Coach K got outcoached, but only slightly, and mostly in the second half. Pitino is an excellent college basketball coach and he has an outstanding team. I don't think they're invincible, and I think if we played them 10 times we would likely win 3 or so of those games. But hats off to them; they had a great game plan and they executed it well.

The video that was linked at the top of this thread, though, is very far from objective and, in my opinion, somewhat insulting to our program. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think it has a lot of information to offer that wouldn't have been noticed by most people who have a reasonable knowledge of the game of basketball.

I agree the video is far from objective, the maker certainly had an agenda, but I still liked seeing an interpretation of what happened, though I cringed at some of the biased statements about Duke almost turning the ball over, etc. and watching Russ Smith travel as he caught the ball in transition and was surprised by a Duke player in his path with no comment. I did appreciate him pointing out the screen the screener play as that is something I didn't pick up watching the game and it explained a lot to me about why Duke kept struggling guarding high screens when they had defended screened plays so well in the previous two games.

[CameronBlue]

K was outcoached, it seems evident.....by the same coach who failed to guard the inbounds pass 21 years ago. It happens.

[dukelifer]

K was outcoached, it seems evident.....by the same coach who failed to guard the inbounds pass 21 years ago. It happens.

I think since 1992- K is 2-1 against Pitino. If both continue to coach in the ACC- we will see who stays on top.

[Duke76]

I completely agree. A big part of basketball is making adjustments. And in this game, it didn't appear that we made the adjustments. In general, I'd take Coach K over Pitino every day of the week and twice on Sundays. In this particular game, I think Pitino won the coaching battle.

The only thing working for Louisville was the press and the high screens. What's the best way to limit the effectiveness of those high screens? Sag off the ball (all the way inside the 3pt line). That's especially true when you have a big man (Mason) who is clearly not comfortable nor effective with the hedge-and-recover game. If you bring those screens to inside the 3pt line (1) you reduce the distance Mason has to cover and (2) you make it more difficult to pull off the double screen (because things get very congested). That might not completely eliminate the effectiveness of the screen-and-drive game, but it would theoretically have helped.

Now, Louisville does some things very well, but shooting 3s is not one of them. I would have preferred we let Louisville try to beat us on jumpshots rather than sticking with a strategy that so frequently resulted in Mason getting isolated on very quick, very aggressive guards.

well I agree that we never made the adjustment to the high ball screens sometimes double....but I don't necessarily think there should have been sag off the ball screen unless you are talking about the guard defense...I thought we should have cut off the dribbler more aggressively by the big guys guarding the Louisville guys setting the picks.....

I would bet that almost all the plays started from the left side of Louisville's offensive court....and they moved strong to their right down the lane...right handed predominate dribbles...if our big men would have turned them back to the left the dribbler is hemmed in...I don't think we ever did that and the coaching staff should have recognized that.....easier said than done by our players but that play goes back to elementary schools where you set up your offense to go the right in the middle not starting on the right side of the court because the kids mostly were right handed....not saying the college kids are of that quality far from it!!!but still if someone can check the tape and see if the plays all started that way??

[CDu]

well I agree that we never made the adjustment to the high ball screens sometimes double....but I don't necessarily think there should have been sag off the ball screen unless you are talking about the guard defense...I thought we should have cut off the dribbler more aggressively by the big guys guarding the Louisville guys setting the picks.....

I was talking about the guards sagging off the ball (not the ball screen). Our guards were picking up pressure 30-35 feet from the basket. That allowed Louisville's bigs to set screens 25-30 feet from the basket. That meant that our bigs were having to defend Siva and Smith from 25-30 feet out (not a good thing - especially once Kelly got in foul trouble).

If we had pulled our guards back to inside the 3pt line, those screens would have occurred inside the 3pt line. That would have given Siva and Smith much less room to attack (and required much less of Mason and Kelly in terms of court coverage).

The result would likely have been more 3pt shot attempts. But given that Louisville isn't a great 3pt shooting team, maybe that would have been preferable than allowing them to get isolations with Siva/Smith going at Plumlee/Hairston/Kelly/Jefferson with a head of steam.


I would bet that almost all the plays started from the left side of Louisville's offensive court....and they moved strong to their right down the lane...right handed predominate dribbles...if our big men would have turned them back to the left the dribbler is hemmed in...I don't think we ever did that and the coaching staff should have recognized that.....easier said than done by our players but that play goes back to elementary schools where you set up your offense to go the right in the middle not starting on the right side of the court because the kids mostly were right handed....not saying the college kids are of that quality far from it!!!but still if someone can check the tape and see if the plays all started that way??

Yes, most of Louisville's plays ran left to right. It would be great if our bigs could have hedged well enough to contain their guards. But our bigs (a) lack the lateral quickness and (b) lack the defensive awareness (Kelly excluded on this one). Our bigs tried to keep them from turning the corner but failed (thanks in part to the double screen approach).

That's why I suggested the idea of sagging off the ball pressure. If our guards aren't defending 30 feet from the hoop, they wouldn't get screened so far from the basket.

[Newton_14]

I think this is spot on. Early in the season, most experts agreed that Duke was playing the best ball of any team in the country (hard to argue against that based on results). But they also said that Duke was probably closer to their ceiling than most other teams in the country. The feeling was that Mason, Kelly, and Curry (as seniors) were already maxing out their abilities, and guys like Murphy, Jefferson, Hairston, and Marshall played too little to really impact the ceiling.

Now, at the time I disagreed with the assessment that Duke was playing closer to their ceiling than everyone else. I agreed that Mason, Curry, and Kelly were probably pretty close to their ceilings, but Cook and Sulaimon had room to grow and obviously Murphy, Jefferson, and Marshall had room to grow.

Unfortunately, Jefferson only showed occasional signs of that growth. He had a few terrific games, but his foul troubles and inconsistency locked him to the bench. Marshall never emerged even though we clearly could have used a stronger backup to Mason (especially while Kelly was hurt). And Murphy couldn't crack the rotation, forcing us to stay small on the perimeter and eliminating an option as a backup stretch PF.

The inability of those three freshmen to establish themselves as key contributors (or in Jefferson's case a key contributor on a consistent basis) really did mean that we were playing at close to our ceiling in November/December. That, combined with Kelly's injury (which put a dent into our identity) and Cook's shaky confidence down the stretch, and I might argue that we were actually as strong or stronger as a team in November/December than in the Elite-8 game.

One nit to pick. The Kelly injury destroyed any chance this team had at developing into an even stronger team. Because he came back it will never be remembered either. Ryan was just hitting his stride when he got hurt and we were heading in a direction where all 3 Seniors would likely average 17/18+ ppg, plus at the time both Rasheed and Quinn were averaging double figures. Had we played the entire season with those 5 guys starting, everything changes. First, the team likely develops into a stronger team than they already were. Second, we would not have lost 4 conference games, and would not have lost in the first round of the ACC. That would have secured a Number 1 seed in a different region, and we likely are on the way to Atlanta right now.

We will never know, but this is the 3rd season in a row where injuries derailed what would have been a better year. Especially the 2011 team and this year's team.

Instead, we had to regroup when Ryan went down, then regroup again when he came back. Sadly, outside of the Miami game, Ryan never made it back to full speed and hitting on all cylinders with health, stamina, and game.

Any post analysis of this team that leaves out the impact of Kelly's injury on the development of the team is flawed imo.

[sagegrouse]

yeah. same data i looked at. in how many of those games did the lead get extended at the end because the losing team took risks? remember, our loss was 22, not 10-15. by similar logic to yours, some of those 10+ point gaps were really 5-10.

i am not really sure what this argument is about anyway. duke got beaten soundly on sunday. yes, it was close for 30 minutes or so. so was the florida-michigan game. it is often the case that one big run is the difference in a game. i agree that the lead got extended at the end because Duke was taking risks. i don't agree that duke was super close to winning the game.

on the coaching point, i agree that duke didn't have the athletes to match up well with louisville, especially playing the type of defense we were trying to play. i do think a different approach may have worked better, but we'll never know.

FWIW, and since I had the three worst brackets in the universe this year -- not much -- here is what I think.

The loss of Kelly for most of the first half (only eight minutes) was ruinous. We played horribly; coughed it up 10 times, and still only trailed by three. Any reasonable performance in the first half -- and Ryan was hot at the start -- would have produced a solid Duke lead. And after that, who knows?

sagegrouse

[Neals384]

I completely agree. A big part of basketball is making adjustments. And in this game, it didn't appear that we made the adjustments. In general, I'd take Coach K over Pitino every day of the week and twice on Sundays. In this particular game, I think Pitino won the coaching battle.

The only thing working for Louisville was the press and the high screens. What's the best way to limit the effectiveness of those high screens? Sag off the ball (all the way inside the 3pt line). That's especially true when you have a big man (Mason) who is clearly not comfortable nor effective with the hedge-and-recover game. If you bring those screens to inside the 3pt line (1) you reduce the distance Mason has to cover and (2) you make it more difficult to pull off the double screen (because things get very congested). That might not completely eliminate the effectiveness of the screen-and-drive game, but it would theoretically have helped.

Now, Louisville does some things very well, but shooting 3s is not one of them. I would have preferred we let Louisville try to beat us on jumpshots rather than sticking with a strategy that so frequently resulted in Mason getting isolated on very quick, very aggressive guards.

Completely agree. I've never liked the hedge. Sending Mason out past the three point line can result in several bad things (1) a switch, Mason ends up guarding a guard (2) their big rolls to the basket, Mason out of position to defend/ rebound (3) ball passed elsewhere, Mason out of position to provide help defense/rebound, (4) Mason picks up a silly blocking or reach-in foul. This seemed to happen a lot in Mason's first three years; he avoided the silly fouls this year for the most part. None of this is intended to be critical of Mason - I believe he handled the hedge exactly the way he was coached to.

I've watched a lot of basketball this year, both regular season and tournament. Have been watching to see how other team play the pick and roll. I didn't find any other team that routinely sends their bigs out past the three point line to hedge. Louisville had the right personnel to exploit our hedging and "screen the screener" made it tough to execute our D as planned.

[sporthenry]

Completely agree. I've never liked the hedge. Sending Mason out past the three point line can result in several bad things (1) a switch, Mason ends up guarding a guard (2) their big rolls to the basket, Mason out of position to defend/ rebound (3) ball passed elsewhere, Mason out of position to provide help defense/rebound, (4) Mason picks up a silly blocking or reach-in foul. This seemed to happen a lot in Mason's first three years; he avoided the silly fouls this year for the most part. None of this is intended to be critical of Mason - I believe he handled the hedge exactly the way he was coached to.

I've watched a lot of basketball this year, both regular season and tournament. Have been watching to see how other team play the pick and roll. I didn't find any other team that routinely sends their bigs out past the three point line to hedge. Louisville had the right personnel to exploit our hedging and "screen the screener" made it tough to execute our D as planned.

Huh? I have to vehemently disagree that teams don't hedge. Just about every team that I've watched hedges in some capacity. Whether it is the big man just making the guard go around his hips or the big actively playing defense. Either way, teams don't want the guard to be able to turn the corner without having to make an adjustment b/c at that point (as witnessed in the Louisville game) it becomes a 2 on 1 if the guard is following on his hip.

Now people said we should have sagged off their guards at which point you'd more than likely see the guard take one side and the big the other and surround the screen. That is one option but it is still a type of hedging. Even a team like KU who had a rim protector like Withey still hedged.

Personally, the best defense in terms of hedging that I saw included the big guarding the dribbler and the defense effectively double teaming the guard 35-40 feet from the basket. This forced the ball out of your PGs hand but with the double, he usually wasn't able to beat the defense with a pass. I believe UVA ran this type of defense against us and it was very effective.

[Des Esseintes]

Huh? I have to vehemently disagree that teams don't hedge. Just about every team that I've watched hedges in some capacity. Whether it is the big man just making the guard go around his hips or the big actively playing defense. Either way, teams don't want the guard to be able to turn the corner without having to make an adjustment b/c at that point (as witnessed in the Louisville game) it becomes a 2 on 1 if the guard is following on his hip.

Now people said we should have sagged off their guards at which point you'd more than likely see the guard take one side and the big the other and surround the screen. That is one option but it is still a type of hedging. Even a team like KU who had a rim protector like Withey still hedged.

Personally, the best defense in terms of hedging that I saw included the big guarding the dribbler and the defense effectively double teaming the guard 35-40 feet from the basket. This forced the ball out of your PGs hand but with the double, he usually wasn't able to beat the defense with a pass. I believe UVA ran this type of defense against us and it was very effective.

Agreed. Hedging is a common strategy, and, at least at the NBA level, probably a stronger play than having the big man "sag" back. This Zach Lowe article (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/55110/the-sportvu-follow-up-answering-the-most-common-questions-and-more-ghost-players), which followed up a pretty interesting examination of the Raptors' statistical work, mentions that the best NBA defenses tend to most frequently have a big man come out. It's possible to build an effective sag-heavy system--Thibodeau is a defensive genius, and Chicago rarely jumps out--but most of the best systems employ a lot of hedging. (The "ghost" concept detailed in these Lowe articles is fascinating, by the way.)

[mapleleafdevil]

Gotta give credit where credit is due. Pitino definitely out coached K in this game. That is not to say he is a better coach, but he definitely won this battle. Combine this with the fact that Louisville would beat this Duke team 8 out of 10 times in a pickup game, and you get the beat down that was. Still very proud of our guys, nothing to hang our heads over. Everything would have had to go our way to win that game

[rsvman]

Agreed. Hedging is a common strategy...

Endorse.

Most teams hedge, to one degree or another. I've gone back and forth in my like/dislike for the idea, but I've come around to feeling like it does a lot of good things. Sure, bad things can happen, but I think it's selective memory that makes people think that bad things happen all the time and that no good comes from the hedge. If that were true, we would have lost a lot more games.

To be sure, there's hedging and then there's aggressive hedging. I think that if you watched the Duke team over the course of the season you would find that sometimes we hedge and sometimes we HEDGE. It depends on the team we're playing. I really don't think the hedge is done the same way in all the games. In some games the hedge is EXTREMELY aggressive, forcing the guard much further away from the basket. In many cases this disrupts the offensive flow in such a way that the opposing team is literally unable to run its sets. I think K uses it this way when he is facing teams that are heavily dependent on set plays and don't have much in the way of spontaneous offensive skills. In this setting it works great.

But in general I've decided that the hedge suffers from biased recall in the same way that stall ball does; in that failures of the hedge strategy stand out in the mind more than successes. In other words, the hedge could help you win 150 games, but people will only remember the 2 or 3 that is caused you to lose.

[Neals384]

Huh? I have to vehemently disagree that teams don't hedge. Just about every team that I've watched hedges in some capacity. Whether it is the big man just making the guard go around his hips or the big actively playing defense. Either way, teams don't want the guard to be able to turn the corner without having to make an adjustment b/c at that point (as witnessed in the Louisville game) it becomes a 2 on 1 if the guard is following on his hip.

Now people said we should have sagged off their guards at which point you'd more than likely see the guard take one side and the big the other and surround the screen. That is one option but it is still a type of hedging. Even a team like KU who had a rim protector like Withey still hedged.

Personally, the best defense in terms of hedging that I saw included the big guarding the dribbler and the defense effectively double teaming the guard 35-40 feet from the basket. This forced the ball out of your PGs hand but with the double, he usually wasn't able to beat the defense with a pass. I believe UVA ran this type of defense against us and it was very effective.

I'm talking about hedging out well past the 3 pt line. Where our big ends up 23-25 from the basket. Duke does it routinely, other teams rarely. Just sayin', our defense is different.

Let's watch the FF. If any big on D goes out 25 ft. from the basket, even once, I'll cede the argument to you.

[sporthenry]

I'm talking about hedging out well past the 3 pt line. Where our big ends up 23-25 from the basket. Duke does it routinely, other teams rarely. Just sayin', our defense is different.

Let's watch the FF. If any big on D goes out 25 ft. from the basket, even once, I'll cede the argument to you.

Fair enough, but just watching this video (which even with the bias is still enlightening), showed that when Plumlee didn't hedge and sat back, he was eaten alive. Siva and Smith are guards where you can't give them a full head of steam going to the basket. When this happened either in transition or off a ball screen, bad things happened. Sure, a defender like Dieng might be able to sit back a bit but the video showed 2-3 times when Plumlee sat back and either gave up an easy lay up or they got Dieng on an easy slip.

Now of course, there were a few times when Plumlee went out beyond the 3 point line and got burned, mainly b/c he was late b/c of the screening the screener wrinkle. But the one hedge with Kelly in the video is exactly what you want to do. You slow him up for a half second, have the help defense close the lane and gives the PG time to get back.

[Greg_Newton]

Yeah, I'd say the issue is more related to our guards pressing ballhandlers far beyond the 3PT line and rarely going under screens than it is to what we do with our bigs. They don't really have a choice at that point.

[sporthenry]

Yeah, I'd say the issue is more related to our guards pressing ballhandlers far beyond the 3PT line and rarely going under screens than it is to what we do with our bigs. They don't really have a choice at that point.

Good point and perhaps a caveat when watching the F4 for hedging. See how often the opponents guards are up into the guys 40 feet from the basket. When you play defense that high out, the guard has that much more space after the screen and then you have your big trying to hedge at 25 feet instead of 18 feet which is a fairly significant difference b/c the lane will be more clogged the closer in the screen occurs. I suspect Wichita State will give Smith and Siva 6-8 foot cushions when they start that far out which will make it near impossible to set a screen on the defender and will make the guards shoot over them.