Drilling Down into Duke's Interior Defense By The Numbers That Matter

[tommy]

Now here we go with the companion thread to the Defensive Rebounding thread I just started. Again, major, major props to Kedsy for his suggestions on (hopefully) effective and meaningful presentation of the raw data that I was collecting. No secret here, but he’s a smart dude.

Because of space limitations per post, I’m going to break this introductory post into two or even three posts.

Much more goes into the analysis of our interior/post defense. First of all, know that collecting this type of data is difficult, as is compiling it. I might miss something here or there, you may catch a number that doesn’t seem to comport with another number, or something like that. It’s gonna happen, but rarely I think, and it is very unlikely to affect any conclusions to be drawn from the numbers.

Also, some plays are borderline plays and difficult to categorize. For example, I’m looking only at half court sets and possessions. But was a particular play really a half-court set or was it sort of the residual of a secondary break, such that it shouldn’t count at all in the analysis? Those kinds of judgment calls have to be made. It’s one reason why statistical analysis of defense and all its complexities and the team nature of defense, is not capable of precise accuracy. But still, what I’m doing is going to provide some pretty good information, even if the numbers would be slightly different if charted by someone else. Anyone else want to step up? Didn’t think so. J All I can do is call em the way I see em.

So here’s what I’m tracking:
a) the opponent’s number of half-court sets or possessions
b) the number of post entry passes to a big man –center or power forward-type
c) the number of possessions that include such an entry pass (sometimes there may be more than one such pass per possession)
d) total opposing points scored on all half-court sets

Then, of the instances when an entry pass is attempted, I am charting the following: the times that the opposing big man:
a) gets an easy or moderately contested inside shot
b) makes a pass for an easy or lightly contested shot
c) puts up a moderately contested shot that leads to an offensive rebound
d) puts up a moderately contested shot that leads to a defensive rebound
e) puts up a heavily contested shot that is either made or leads to an offensive rebound, as well as the points that result from these plays
f) puts up a heavily contested shot that leads to a defensive rebound
g) kicks it out for an open 3-pointer
h) is fouled or passes to someone who is quickly fouled
i) gets his shot blocked
j) turns the ball over or Duke otherwise gets a steal
k) Duke gets a steal or turnover on the entry pass itself
l) Duke knocks the entry pass away, causing a re-set
m) Big man receives the entry, but ends up kicking it out for a re-set

Of this latter group, a, b, c, g, and h are categorized as “bad results”
On the other hand, d, f, i, j, and k are categorized as “good results”
The others are neutral.

I’m looking at how many possessions contain good and how many contain bad results, as well as how many points the opponents gets from “bad results” plays.

Finally, I’m comparing the opponents’ offensive efficiency on post plays to their overall offensive efficiency for the entire game.


OK now bear with me on putting together the interior defense chart. Because of space limitations on the chart itself, I have to create a legend for what each column represents. I’m not going to include what the formula is – like I said, if you really care about that, PM me and I’ll get it to you. So here’s the legend for what each column is:

A: possessions in which a post entry is attempted as a percentage of all half-court sets
B: % of successful entry passes into the post
C: (removed; don’t ask)
D: interior success after the catch
E: points on interior plays as % of all points in the halfcourt
F: % of Bad Results once ball is entered
G: % of Bad interior possessions
H: % of Good interior possessions
I: Ratio of Bad to Good interior possessions
J: Overall defensive efficiency on post entry plays
K: Overall defensive efficiency – all defensive plays
L: Overall defensive efficiency – non fast-break plays

It probably makes sense to group the data a bit. So the first table will just include A and B above, as those numbers reflect how often the opponent tries to feed the post, and how successful they are getting the pass in there.




A
B


Kansas
.439 (29 of 66)
.800 (24 of 30)


Davidson
.348 (23 of 66)
.913 (21 of 23)


UNC-A
.123 (8 of 65)
.900 (9 of 10)


ECU
.065 (4 of 62)
1.00 (4 of 4)








In the analysis of our interior defense, the UNC-A and the ECU data are essentially meaningless. Why? Because neither team made any real effort to feed the post in the first place. Their data set is tiny. UNC-A only tried to feed the post on 12% of their half court sets, and ECU just 6%. The rest of their numbers therefore don’t mean much as they’re based on a tiny sample size.

Comparing Kansas and Davidson as to all these numbers might be interesting. Kansas had a whole group of post guys to feed to – Black, Embiid, Traylor, and Ellis, and a reputation for running offense first and foremost through the post. Davidson, on the other hand, had their senior leader De’Mon Brooks, and another kid named McAuliffe a little bit on the inside, but mainly Brooks.

Kansas – they tried to feed the post on 44% of their sets. Against Kansas, we did something positive to prevent the entry pass from being successful on 20% of their attempted entries. Which is better than we did against Davidson, where they successfully got it in 91% of the time they tried. Why? Because their big man Brooks is experienced and strong, and posts up strong, and their perimeter guys are skilled at feeding the post.

Next, columns D and E make sense to look at together. D essentially is the number of points from “bad results” interior plays divided by the number of possessions with an entry pass. This is a sort of defensive efficiency number once the opponent successfully feeds the post. In other words, how do we do stopping them after the catch has been made? E is the number of points from “bad results” interior plays divided by the opponent’s total points on all half-court sets.




D
E


Kansas
.724 (21 over 29)
.313 (21 over 67)


Davidson
.652 (15 over 23)
.246 (15 over 61)


UNC-A
.500 (4 over 8)
.093 (4 over 43)


ECU
1.00 (4 over 4)
.069 (4 over 58)








Again, the UNC-A and ECU numbers are basically meaningless, as neither team made any real attempt to feed the post. Once they got it into the post, Kansas was more successful at putting the ball in the hole, or setting a teammate up for an easy shot or getting fouled, than was Davidson.

[tommy]

Continuing the introductory post above:

Columns F, G, H, and I will be grouped next, as they look at the number of “bad results” plays and interior possessions and “good results” plays and interior possessions as a percentage of all interior possessions.




F
G
H
I


Kansas
.467 (14 of 30)
.483 (14 of 29)
.241 (7 of 29)
2.0


Davidson
.500 (11 of 22)
.478 (11 of 23)
.304 (7 of 23)
1.57


UNC-A
.600 (6 of 10)
.750 (6 of 8)
.125 (1 of 8)
6.0


ECU
.333 (2 of 6)
.500 (2 of 4)
.500 (2 of 4)
1.00










While Kansas’s big guys are for the most part bigger than Davidson’s post men, they didn’t really do any more damage on a percentage basis than did the Wildcats’ guys. We did do better against Davidson in making good things happen against the post once he had the ball – plays like getting a steal or some other type of turnover from the big, while when Kansas’ bigs weren’t doing something positive – like scoring – they would do something more “neutral” –like passing back out to the perimeter – rather than giving up possession entirely.

Finally, overall efficiency numbers. Those are columns J and K, with L a work in progress right now. These may be the most important numbers of all, as they show us whether we’re doing any better or worse in defending the post than we are defending the opponent as a whole.

Again, J is our overall defensive efficiency on post entry plays. K is our overall defensive efficiency on all plays. L slightly refines K by taking out fast break plays, so it’s our overall defensive efficiency on non-fast break plays. Remember, the lower the number the better the defense.




J
K
L


Kansas
.931
1.26
1.19


Davidson
.652
1.09



UNC-A
.750
.849



ECU
1.50
1.01










So here while it’s true that all our defensive numbers were better against Davidson than against Kansas – heck, we blew Davidson out and lost by giving up 94 points to Kansas, so that’s not a surprise – the interesting thing is that in both games, our defense performed better on plays in which the opponent fed the post. Against Kansas, our defensive efficiency against post entries was .931, as opposed to our overall defensive efficiency of 1.26. So we did significantly better defensively when Kansas fed the post than when they didn’t. How do you like that? And even if you remove fast break points from the equation (column L), as those possessions don’t really say much about defense, our efficiency on the interior was still significantly better than was our overall D.

Now the same was true against Davidson. On a percentage basis we did even better in that game against the post vis-à-vis the defense as a whole. But here, what I take from it isn’t whether we did better, relatively speaking, against the post vs. Kansas or vs. Davidson. What is notable as far as I’m concerned is that in both games – against the multi-headed, highly-touted (by many) post play of Kansas, as well as against the experienced, mature-bodied, focus-of-the-offense D’Mon Brooks, we did better defensively when those guys were fed the ball than when they weren’t. That to me suggests that our defense against post play, even though it was manned primarily by the skinny 6’9” Amile Jefferson and the 6’8” Jabari Parker, as well as some against Davidson by the undersized, floor-bound Josh Hairston, held up just fine. Against Kansas, where we gave up 94 points in all, the problems primarily lay elsewhere.

I know this is a very small sample size, and I don’t know whether the actual percentages are good or not, as there’s nothing from prior years or from other teams to compare them to. But if you guys are interested, I’ll be adding to them as the season progresses and we’ll see how we fare, by the numbers, against teams that sport skilled big guys and teams that don’t, and we’ll continue to see whether the hypothesis of many – that our short and/or skinny post defenders are the Achilles heel of this team – is borne out by the evidence.

[MChambers]

This is great, as is the defensive rebounding thread! Hope you are able to continue this.

[CDu]

I think that what this shows is this:

1. Kansas has bad PG play, resulting in a slight inability to deliver the entry pass.
2. When they got the ball into the post, they punished us.
3. Kansas has terrific slashers, which result in a bunch of driving fouls drawn (which explains why their efficiency was so high on non-post plays)

When we face teams with good post play and good PG, we're going to be in trouble. Don't know how many times we'll face that, but I'd venture that it is going to happen.

What this (and the rebounding numbers) really suggests is that we have multiple defensive flaws:
1. post defense
2. defensive rebounding
3. stopping dribble penetration

The first two we knew would be problems coming into the season. The third is a surprise, and it's likely due to the rules changes.

[Newton_14]

I think that what this shows is this:

1. Kansas has bad PG play, resulting in a slight inability to deliver the entry pass.
2. When they got the ball into the post, they punished us.
3. Kansas has terrific slashers, which result in a bunch of driving fouls drawn (which explains why their efficiency was so high on non-post plays)

When we face teams with good post play and good PG, we're going to be in trouble. Don't know how many times we'll face that, but I'd venture that it is going to happen.

What this (and the rebounding numbers) really suggests is that we have multiple defensive flaws:
1. post defense
2. defensive rebounding
3. stopping dribble penetration

The first two we knew would be problems coming into the season. The third is a surprise, and it's likely due to the rules changes.

Good post and good observations. The ECU guards played really well the other night, but clearly did not trust any of the 3 post players. Time and time again the Stith kid, and the other two big kids that rotated in the post, had their defender pinned on their back in a post up and were begging for the ball, but the guards chose to ignore and drive a good 95% of the time. Which to their credit, was not a horrible decision as they had a lot of success. I was actually hoping they would feed the post on several of those times, as I wanted to see how well we would defend it. Just did not happen though.

The biggest disappointment to me right now is our perimeter defense. I was not expecting it to be anything less than really good, but it is just not there at the moment. Not sure if it is just the new rules or a combination of the new rules plus poor defense, but we are not doing a good job of keeping the ball handler in front of us. That's why I said in the post game thread that people need to get off Tyler's back (and Andre's too for that matter) as he is not getting beat off the dribble any more than the others are.

I think it can improve as it is still well early and I believe this team will get better game over game, but it is concerning nonetheless.

[Troublemaker]

Thanks for all your hard work, tommy! I couldn't spork you, but wanted you to know that this stuff is really appreciated.

Yes, you have my vote for you to continue doing this throughout the season, if possible. If it's not possible, I shan't complain. It's a lot of work. Found out the hard way when I was assembling Plus Minus a couple of seasons back with only DVR and pen and paper.

But this is really good stuff that will eventually pay great dividends, brother. We can see as the season progesses if Duke has improved in these areas.

I would ditch the rebounding analysis thread b/c it doesn't provide the gold that you're providing here. And use that saved time to capture how successful our defense has been against dribble penetration.

You're right, Kedsy's a smart guy. He told me in the Kansas postgame thread that the key might be for Duke to defend the perimeter better, and he's right.

As smart guy CDu notes above, Coach K would've been fine with or at least expected Duke to be a little less than ideal in post defense and rebounding. But all this dribble penetration for easy shots at the rim is going to have to stop. If we're going to take our defensive rating out of the 50s as it's currently ranked by Pomeroy, that is.

The key to this season, it seems to me, is how will Duke stop dribble penetration plays by the opponent from being efficient? We solve that, and we can put ourselves back into the conversation of Final Four and National Championship contenders. Our 50th ranked defense won't do it.

[Kedsy]

I think that what this shows is this:

1. Kansas has bad PG play, resulting in a slight inability to deliver the entry pass.
2. When they got the ball into the post, they punished us.
3. Kansas has terrific slashers, which result in a bunch of driving fouls drawn (which explains why their efficiency was so high on non-post plays)

When we face teams with good post play and good PG, we're going to be in trouble. Don't know how many times we'll face that, but I'd venture that it is going to happen.

What this (and the rebounding numbers) really suggests is that we have multiple defensive flaws:
1. post defense
2. defensive rebounding
3. stopping dribble penetration

The first two we knew would be problems coming into the season. The third is a surprise, and it's likely due to the rules changes.

What in the data tells you Kansas punished us? What I see is once they got the ball inside, the managed a "bad result" (for Duke) less than half the time, and they only scored 21 points in 29 post possessions (and the 21 points includes offensive rebound-putbacks and passes from the big man for scores, so Tommy's been pretty thorough here).

I have no idea what the numbers would look like for teams with supposedly good post defense, but both those things sound reasonably positive for us. What kind of numbers would you expect if our post defense wasn't a "flaw"?

[CDu]

What in the data tells you Kansas punished us? What I see is once they got the ball inside, the managed a "bad result" (for Duke) less than half the time, and they only scored 21 points in 29 post possessions (and the 21 points includes offensive rebound-putbacks and passes from the big man for scores, so Tommy's been pretty thorough here).

I have no idea what the numbers would look like for teams with supposedly good post defense, but both those things sound reasonably positive for us. What kind of numbers would you expect if our post defense wasn't a "flaw"?

Either one of the two of us isn't reading the table correctly, or the tables themselves are telling inconsistent stories, or we're just looking at different things.

IF I'm reading correctly, Table D shows that Kansas had a 72.4% "bad result" (for Duke) on post plays (21 of 29). Those successes represented 31% of the overall possessions for the team (Table E). I think Table D pretty clearly suggests that when Kansas went inside, they succeeded 72% of the time. Table I suggests that the ratio of Bad to Good interior possessions was 2:1, suggesting that 2 of every 3 interior possessions was a bad result.

Both of those seem to suggest that Duke got killed when Kansas was able to get it inside.

That being said, I think there may need to be some tweaking of tables for clarity. There's a lot of information, and I'm not sure all of the tables are consistent. But that may just be not fully understanding Tables F+. For example, it appears that there are 8 results missing for the Kansas stats (14 bad, 7 good = 21 out of 29 total).

[Kedsy]

One of the two of us isn't reading the table correctly.

IF I'm reading correctly, Table D shows that Kansas had a 72.4% "bad result" (for Duke) on post plays. Those successes represented 31% of the overall possessions for the team (Table E). I think Table D pretty clearly suggests that when Kansas went inside, they succeeded 72% of the time. Table I suggests that the ratio of Bad to Good interior possessions was 2:1, suggesting that 2 of every 3 interior possessions was a bad result.

Both of those seem to suggest that Duke got killed when Kansas got it inside.

I'm pretty sure it's you who is reading the table incorrectly.

As Tommy explained it to me, column D is points scored on bad defensive possessions divided by number of possessions. So it's not a success rate as you suggest. That would be column F, the % of bad result plays, and that equals .467 (less than half).

So Kansas only succeeded 47% of the time. The bad to good ratio of 2:1 doesn't count the times the big is forced to send it back out for a reset. So basically, out of the 29 possessions Kansas went to the post, 14 times we had a bad result (for Duke), 7 times we had a good result (for Duke), and 8 times the Kansas big couldn't do anything and tossed it back out to the perimeter (for a reset, not for a shot). So 2 out of every 3 interior possessions did not lead to a bad result.

I understand all these numbers may not be entirely intuitive (and that's my fault as I suggested many of these ratios to Tommy), but I think this analysis is very helpful. Again, I don't know if 47% is good or not or if scoring 21 points in 29 possessions is good or not, but they both sound pretty good to me.

[CDu]

I'm pretty sure it's you who is reading the table incorrectly.

As Tommy explained it to me, column D is points scored on bad defensive possessions divided by number of possessions. So it's not a success rate as you suggest. That would be column F, the % of bad result plays, and that equals .467 (less than half).

So Kansas only succeeded 47% of the time. The bad to good ratio of 2:1 doesn't count the times the big is forced to send it back out for a reset. So basically, out of the 29 possessions Kansas went to the post, 14 times we had a bad result (for Duke), 7 times we had a good result (for Duke), and 8 times the Kansas big couldn't do anything and tossed it back out to the perimeter (for a reset, not for a shot). So 2 out of every 3 interior possessions did not lead to a bad result.

I understand all these numbers may not be entirely intuitive (and that's my fault as I suggested many of these ratios to Tommy), but I think this analysis is very helpful. Again, I don't know if 47% is good or not or if scoring 21 points in 29 possessions is good or not, but they both sound pretty good to me.

Then it appears that I've misread it. As such (I think I'm a pretty smart guy), I'd suggest a MUCH more clear presentation, because it is really not at all clear.

[Kedsy]

Then it appears that I've misread it. As such (I think I'm a pretty smart guy), I'd suggest a MUCH more clear presentation, because it is really not at all clear.

I'm sure Tommy (and I) would appreciate any suggestions to make the presentation clearer, if you can think of any.

Also, now that you understand what the numbers represent, do you have an opinion on what it means vis-a-vis Duke's interior D?

It seems to me the numbers show that our interior D is currently less of a concern than keeping the perimeter players out of the lane. Of course, that doesn't mean interior D isn't a concern, and we don't have any other teams' performances or past Duke performances in this area to compare, but hypothetically, if we can keep opposing bigs down below 1 point per interior possession, it sounds like we're doing about as good a job as we could expect or hope, doesn't it?

[azzefkram]

What this (and the rebounding numbers) really suggests is that we have multiple defensive flaws:
1. post defense
2. defensive rebounding
3. stopping dribble penetration

The first two we knew would be problems coming into the season. The third is a surprise, and it's likely due to the rules changes.

Completely agree. I am not sure if you put your list in order of importance but if you did I'd flip 1 and 3. Dribble penetration tends to negatively impact post defense and defensive rebounding. Good new is that I think our ability to stop dribble penetration has a good chance to get better as the season progresses. I don't think Sheed is quite at 100% so a more healthy Sheed should help. I am assuming that as the season progresses the rules changes could become less of a point of emphasis (a big assumption, I know) which should help Tyler. Quinn has made some good progress on the defensive end. Matt has been a pleasant surprise on defense. I don't think Andre will ever be a defensive dynamo but he is light years better than he was during his first three years. That's 5 guys (with burgers and fries) that are okay to really good on the perimeter. Will we have issues with elite guards? Sure, but so will most of the other top 25 teams. We'll just have to outperform in the other aspects of the game when playing those teams.

I think we have the pieces to get better at post defense and defensive rebounding. It's way early but I think Semi has shown some promise. I think Amile might settle down with more regular minutes. Marshall is a wild card. I think he's been our best post defender (non-Jabari division) in his limited minutes. Unfortunately his rebounding has been woefully lacking. Still I'd rather run a poor rebounding 7-footer who can protect the rim than a poor rebounding 6-8 guy who can't no matter how awesome and manly that guy's facial hair may be.

Tommy thanks for putting this post together. It seems like a crazy amount of work.

[CDu]

I'm sure Tommy (and I) would appreciate any suggestions to make the presentation clearer, if you can think of any.

Also, now that you understand what the numbers represent, do you have an opinion on what it means vis-a-vis Duke's interior D?

It seems to me the numbers show that our interior D is currently less of a concern than keeping the perimeter players out of the lane. Of course, that doesn't mean interior D isn't a concern, and we don't have any other teams' performances or past Duke performances in this area to compare, but hypothetically, if we can keep opposing bigs down below 1 point per interior possession, it sounds like we're doing about as good a job as we could expect or hope, doesn't it?

I would agree with your last paragraph, yes. I think the rules change (if it continues to be enforced) completely changes the way we need to look at perimeter defense. I still think interior defense will be a concern, especially once we face a team that really uses post scorers (as many noted pre-game, Kansas' bigs aren't great interior scorers). But there aren't going to be too many of those teams. I think the rebounding and stopping dribble penetration are the real concerns moving forward.

As for help with clarity, I tend to think less is more (fewer tables). That, and perhaps more importantly put better titles on the table columns. It's hard to scroll back and forth from the tables to the definitions.

[FerryFor50]

For the record, any team that faces a team with good post and pg play would be in trouble...

[CDu]

I am not sure if you put your list in order of importance but if you did I'd flip 1 and 3.

I agree:

1. Dribble penetration
2. Rebounding
3. Interior defense

My original list was stream of consciousness rather than a true ordinal rating.

[jv001]

For the record, any team that faces a team with good post and pg play would be in trouble...

Hopefully, next season Duke will be that team. The one with good post and point guard play. But on with this season in our quest for another NCAA Championship. GoDuke!

[CDu]

Hopefully, next season Duke will be that team. The one with good post and point guard play. But on with this season in our quest for another NCAA Championship. GoDuke!

Yes, with Okafor and Jefferson inside and Cook, Sulaimon, and Jones attacking off the dribble, we should absolutely be that team.

The only potential weakness I'd see with next year's team is that we might not have great perimeter shooting. Though if Sulaimon and Cook continue to improve their consistency and Jones emerges to be the shooter he was touted to be, that may not even be a weakness.

[jv001]

Yes, with Okafor and Jefferson inside and Cook, Sulaimon, and Jones attacking off the dribble, we should absolutely be that team.

The only potential weakness I'd see with next year's team is that we might not have great perimeter shooting. Though if Sulaimon and Cook continue to improve their consistency and Jones emerges to be the shooter he was touted to be, that may not even be a weakness.

I agree 3 point shooting may not be as good as this years team but as you say, Sheed and Cook might continue to improve. Also we don't know what we'll have in Allen. He's supposed to be a good shooter. I just hope he can play defense and get some minutes. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

I agree 3 point shooting may not be as good as this years team but as you say, Sheed and Cook might continue to improve. Also we don't know what we'll have in Allen. He's supposed to be a good shooter. I just hope he can play defense and get some minutes. GoDuke!

With Quinn, Tyus, Rasheed, Justise, and Matt on the perimeter, it would be very surprising if Grayson gets much meaningful PT his freshman year. More likely he'll be at the end of the bench, learning, and hopefully be ready to contribute in 2015-16.

[Goduke2010]

Nice work. I didn't take the time to read the analysis but agree with your conclusions.

The only reason I'm surprised by our D being so poor is that the coaching staff talked up their intent to press any chance we could. Yet, within the first half of the first game, apparently we realized our team was unable to full-court press effectively. I'm wondering why we didn't figure that out before the season started. Being in great shape helps sustain defensive pressure, but athleticism / lateral quickness is what enables it. We have the former but not the latter, unless it's on our bench (Jones? Semi?)

As Coach K said after KU, we don't get any trades and have to deal with the team we have. Look at Kenpom the past 10 years and see how a D-efficiency outside the top 20 = early end to the season. I hope we'll improve on 50th (scary, given the level of competition we've played outside KU), but don't see top 20 - or a championship - as realistic. Just too many issues...

[Goduke2010]

I agree 3 point shooting may not be as good as this years team but as you say, Sheed and Cook might continue to improve. Also we don't know what we'll have in Allen. He's supposed to be a good shooter. I just hope he can play defense and get some minutes. GoDuke!

I'm much happier we targeted Allen instead of Booker. Booker a better shooter but struggles on D. From what I've read, Allen is a decent defender but by no means elite.

Getting Justise was huge, because the rest of next year's class is not known for its D (including Okafor). Getting Turner - admittedly a longshot - would be huge. A rim protector helps negate a porous perimeter D. Obviously, Okafor will be a huge improvement over our interior D right now, but adding a 2nd elite defender would make next year's team even more special.

[Kedsy]

Look at Kenpom the past 10 years and see how a D-efficiency outside the top 20 = early end to the season.

This myth never goes away. It's simply not valid to use the final Pomeroy rankings as a predictive tool for what happened in the tournament, because those rankings include the tournament games. I only have five years of data, but if you look at the Pomeroy rankings before the tournament started, you'll find that in the past five seasons more than half of the Final Four teams had defensive efficiency rankings outside the top 20:

2009: UNC (35), Villanova (25)
2010: West Virginia (24), Michigan State (27)
2011: Kentucky (22), UConn (31), Butler (77), VCU (143)
2012: none
2013: Michigan (58), Syracuse (23), Wichita State (30)

That's 11 out of 20 Final Four teams that didn't meet your criteria.

(NOTE: obviously these numbers are using Pomeroy's old formula, rather than the one he just changed to this season.)

[Troublemaker]

Still plenty of time to improve on that 50th D ranking, too. If I had to bet on whether Duke would finish the season with a top 20 defense, I definitely would bet yes.

Give Coach K this many athletes and he should create a good defense eventually. That would've been my default opinion going into this season, and it's going to take many, many, more games of poor defensive play to change my mind.

[tommy]

I would agree with your last paragraph, yes. I think the rules change (if it continues to be enforced) completely changes the way we need to look at perimeter defense. I still think interior defense will be a concern, especially once we face a team that really uses post scorers (as many noted pre-game, Kansas' bigs aren't great interior scorers). But there aren't going to be too many of those teams. I think the rebounding and stopping dribble penetration are the real concerns moving forward.

As for help with clarity, I tend to think less is more (fewer tables). That, and perhaps more importantly put better titles on the table columns. It's hard to scroll back and forth from the tables to the definitions.

Yeah, I had thought about both of these suggestions. I included more tables because I didn't know which set of tables different posters would find more or less enlightening, so rather than choose for them, I figured I'd let them choose what to focus on. For me, the last two (or with L, three) columns may be the most important, as they answer the question of whether our defense against the post -- which was the concern coming into the season -- is in fact a weakness such that our numbers in that area are any worse than our overall defensive numbers, in terms of efficiency. So far, the answer is actually no, our defense against the post has been better than our overall defensive efficiency.

And yes, I would've like to have put some kind of titles on the columns, but although I could make up names for each one, such as, I don't know, "% bad interior possessions," not only is that clunky and impossible to fit in the limited space I'd have at the top of the column, but isn't self-explanatory anyway, so you'd find yourself scrolling back to the top anyway to see how the number was calculated. If you or anyone else has any suggestions or better know-how for creating workable layouts for these kinds of tables, I'm all ears.

What I’m finding interesting so far in this discussion is how a number of posters have shifted, after just a handful of games, their outlook on what our main weakness is going to be defensively, going forward. Pre-season, it was all about not having a true big guy to protect the rim, to control the glass, etc. We were going to get killed inside, and that was going to be our achilles heel unless Marshall Plumlee miraculously blossomed into something none of us have ever seen from him before. Now, after 5 games, many appear to be moving away from that viewpoint and saying that no, actually our inability to stop dribble penetration is our biggest challenge. A viewpoint that is backed up by the numbers I’ve compiled thus far, difficult as they may be to wade through. Interesting.

[Troublemaker]

What I’m finding interesting so far in this discussion is how a number of posters have shifted, after just a handful of games, their outlook on what our main weakness is going to be defensively, going forward. Pre-season, it was all about not having a true big guy to protect the rim, to control the glass, etc. We were going to get killed inside, and that was going to be our achilles heel unless Marshall Plumlee miraculously blossomed into something none of us have ever seen from him before. Now, after 5 games, many appear to be moving away from that viewpoint and saying that no, actually our inability to stop dribble penetration is our biggest challenge. A viewpoint that is backed up by the numbers I’ve compiled thus far, difficult as they may be to wade through. Interesting.

Let the record note that I have always been okay with conceding mediocre post defense and mediocre rebounding. I think Duke can contend with the top 5 if those are our only weaknesses. The other contenders have their own weaknesses. For example, many of them are poor FT shooting teams. That is why it is so crucial for Duke to have a competitive advantage there to help negate our competitive disadvantages elsewhere. Luckily, Duke currently seems on track to righting our earlier FT shooting problems (knock on wood).

But yes, the dribble penetration issue was unexpected. We'll have to solve it either on the frontend of denying penetration better or on the backend of protecting the rim better. Preferably both.

[CDu]

I agree 3 point shooting may not be as good as this years team but as you say, Sheed and Cook might continue to improve. Also we don't know what we'll have in Allen. He's supposed to be a good shooter. I just hope he can play defense and get some minutes. GoDuke!

I agree with Kedsy that it would be quite unlikely for Allen to crack the rotation. He isn't playing ahead of Cook, Sulaimon, or T. Jones, and it is unlikely he beats out the more experienced M. Jones. Coach K rarely plays 5 guards significant minutes, so I would expect that next year is a learning year for Allen.

[MChambers]

It's possible that the rule changes make preventing dribble penetration far more difficult than it used to be, so that Duke will have to be less aggressive on the perimeter. On the other hand, the 1986 team was awfully good defensively, and the rules then were applied in a way that is at least similar to the new rules, with the exception of the block/charge call. (That team featured two very quick guards, of course.)

It's also possible that if we generate enough turnovers, allowing dribble penetration isn't that big of a deal. But so far this team hasn't created as many turnovers as I hoped and expected.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, I had thought about both of these suggestions. I included more tables because I didn't know which set of tables different posters would find more or less enlightening, so rather than choose for them, I figured I'd let them choose what to focus on. For me, the last two (or with L, three) columns may be the most important, as they answer the question of whether our defense against the post -- which was the concern coming into the season -- is in fact a weakness such that our numbers in that area are any worse than our overall defensive numbers, in terms of efficiency. So far, the answer is actually no, our defense against the post has been better than our overall defensive efficiency.

And yes, I would've like to have put some kind of titles on the columns, but although I could make up names for each one, such as, I don't know, "% bad interior possessions," not only is that clunky and impossible to fit in the limited space I'd have at the top of the column, but isn't self-explanatory anyway, so you'd find yourself scrolling back to the top anyway to see how the number was calculated. If you or anyone else has any suggestions or better know-how for creating workable layouts for these kinds of tables, I'm all ears.

OK, I've made an effort to reorganize the data to have fewer tables expressing the information in a (hopefully) more meaningful way. Assuming Tommy both approves the format and verifies that I got the numbers right, what do people think of this? More helpful? Less helpful? About the same?



Game Tot Tot Catch Unsucc. GR NR BR %BR %BR
Entries Catches % Entries after all after
catch entries catch
----------- -------- -------- ------ ------- ------ --- --- ------- ------
Davidson 23 21 91.3% 2 5 5 11 47.8% 52.4%
Kansas 30 24 80.0% 6 1 9 14 46.7% 58.3%
UNCA 10 9 90.0% 1 5 3 6 60.0% 66.7%
ECU 4 4 100.0% 0 2 0 2 50.0% 50.0%





Game Tot Poss. % Total Half Interior Int. Int. Int. Overall Halfcourt
Halfcourt w/ Entry Att Points Court Points % % Defensive Def. Def.
Sets Attempts Points Tot pts HC pts Efficiency Eff. Eff.
----------- -------- -------- ------ ------ ------- -------- ------- ------- ----------- ------- ---------
Davidson 66 23 34.8% 77 61 15 19.5% 24.6% 0.652 1.09 0.79
Kansas 66 29 43.9% 94 67 27 28.7% 40.3% 0.931 1.26 1.02
UNCA 65 8 12.3% 55 43 6 10.9% 14.0% 0.750 0.85 0.78
ECU 62 4 6.5% 74 58 6 8.1% 10.3% 1.500 1.01 0.78



Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets

[CDu]

OK, I've made an effort to reorganize the data to have fewer tables expressing the information in a (hopefully) more meaningful way. Assuming Tommy both approves the format and verifies that I got the numbers right, what do people think of this? More helpful? Less helpful? About the same?



Game Tot Tot Catch Unsucc. GR NR BR %BR %BR
Entries Catches % Entries after all after
catch entries catch
----------- -------- -------- ------ ------- ------ --- --- ------- ------
Davidson 23 21 91.3% 2 5 5 11 47.8% 52.4%
Kansas 30 24 80.0% 6 1 9 14 46.7% 58.3%
UNCA 10 9 90.0% 1 5 3 6 60.0% 66.7%
ECU 4 4 100.0% 0 2 0 2 50.0% 50.0%





Game Tot Poss. % Total Half Interior Int. Int. Int. Overall Halfcourt
Halfcourt w/ Entry Att Points Court Points % % Defensive Def. Def.
Sets Attempts Points Tot pts HC pts Efficiency Eff. Eff.
----------- -------- -------- ------ ------ ------- -------- ------- ------- ----------- ------- ---------
Davidson 66 23 34.8% 77 61 15 19.5% 24.6% 0.652 1.09 0.79
Kansas 66 29 43.9% 94 67 27 28.7% 40.3% 0.931 1.26 1.02
UNCA 65 8 12.3% 55 43 6 10.9% 14.0% 0.750 0.85 0.78
ECU 62 4 6.5% 74 58 6 8.1% 10.3% 1.500 1.01 0.78



Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets

MUCH more intuitive. Thanks!

PS to tommy and Kedsy: thanks for putting in lots of effort on this. I hope I didn't sound ungrateful. Just wanted to make it more interpretable.

[DaleDuke7]

I think a big problem with our defense (for now at least) is not that we have bad defenders, but how we're actually playing defense. It almost looks like we're playing a mix between man-to-man and zone. We switch A LOT and that sometimes leads to open looks inside, especially of the opposing team is utilizing good ball movement. It seems to me that we would have better defense if we played strictly man defense. But, I could be wrong. It may just be that it's gonna take time for our players to fully execute the defensive strategy that Coach K has. Whatever the problem is, we need to correct it, quickly. We can't rely on scoring 93 a game if we have realistic hopes at a title. Watching the Duke-Vermont game right now, I'm thoroughly disappointed in our defense. Terrible.

[-jk]

I think a big problem with our defense (for now at least) is not that we have bad defenders, but how we're actually playing defense. It almost looks like we're playing a mix between man-to-man and zone. We switch A LOT and that sometimes leads to open looks inside, especially of the opposing team is utilizing good ball movement. It seems to me that we would have better defense if we played strictly man defense. But, I could be wrong. It may just be that it's gonna take time for our players to fully execute the defensive strategy that Coach K has. Whatever the problem is, we need to correct it, quickly. We can't rely on scoring 93 a game if we have realistic hopes at a title. Watching the Duke-Vermont game right now, I'm thoroughly disappointed in our defense. Terrible.

There's always been a gray area between Duke's switching man and (for instance) John Chaney's match-up zone.

Given our similar size/athleticism and the tighter foul calls (with penalties for fighting through screens), switching may make more sense this year.

-jk

[DaleDuke7]

There's always been a gray area between Duke's switching man and (for instance) John Chaney's match-up zone.

Given our similar size/athleticism and the tighter foul calls (with penalties for fighting through screens), switching may make more sense this year.

-jk

It does make more sense, theoretically. But if we can't execute, then it's useless. If we can figure it out, great. I just fear that we can't.

[Goduke2010]

This myth never goes away. It's simply not valid to use the final Pomeroy rankings as a predictive tool for what happened in the tournament, because those rankings include the tournament games. I only have five years of data, but if you look at the Pomeroy rankings before the tournament started, you'll find that in the past five seasons more than half of the Final Four teams had defensive efficiency rankings outside the top 20:

2009: UNC (35), Villanova (25)
2010: West Virginia (24), Michigan State (27)
2011: Kentucky (22), UConn (31), Butler (77), VCU (143)
2012: none
2013: Michigan (58), Syracuse (23), Wichita State (30)

That's 11 out of 20 Final Four teams that didn't meet your criteria.

(NOTE: obviously these numbers are using Pomeroy's old formula, rather than the one he just changed to this season.)

Fair enough. So move the number to 35 and many of those examples disappear. Then, check how many teams that entered the tourney with d-efficiencies > 35 made it to the final four. That provides another way to calculate the tourney success of a team that starts the tourney with that level of d-efficiency. The ratio in that case makes my point a bit better.

Thanks for looking up that info.

[Kedsy]

Tommy wasn't available to chart the Vermont game, so I gave it a shot. Once again our opponent didn't try post entries very often. I counted 6 attempted post entries, but half of them might have been pseudo-backdoor cuts rather than true post entries. Nevertheless, I've updated our table to include the game.

Obviously post defense wasn't our big issue in this game. In my next post, I plan to analyze our many defensive breakdowns to determine what our biggest issues are at the moment. Stay tuned.



Game Tot Tot Catch Unsucc. GR NR BR %BR %BR
Entries Catches % Entries after all after
catch entries catch
----------- -------- -------- ------ ------- ------ --- --- ------- ------
Davidson 23 21 91.3% 2 5 5 11 47.8% 52.4%
Kansas 30 24 80.0% 6 1 9 14 46.7% 58.3%
UNCA 10 9 90.0% 1 5 3 6 60.0% 66.7%
ECU 4 4 100.0% 0 2 0 2 50.0% 50.0%
Vermont 6 6 100.0% 0 2 2 2 33.3% 33.3%





Game Tot Poss. % Total Half Interior Int. Int. Int. Overall Halfcourt
Halfcourt w/ Entry Att Points Court Points % % Defensive Def. Def.
Sets Attempts Points Tot pts HC pts Efficiency Eff. Eff.
----------- -------- -------- ------ ------ ------- -------- ------- ------- ----------- ------- ---------
Davidson 66 23 34.8% 77 61 15 19.5% 24.6% 0.652 1.09 0.79
Kansas 66 29 43.9% 94 67 27 28.7% 40.3% 0.931 1.26 1.02
UNCA 65 8 12.3% 55 43 6 10.9% 14.0% 0.750 0.85 0.78
ECU 62 4 6.5% 74 58 6 8.1% 10.3% 1.500 1.01 0.78
Vermont 60 6 10.0% 90 81 8 8.9% 9.9% 1.333 1.38 1.35



Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets

[Kedsy]

OK, after charting every defensive possession in the Vermont game, I've attempted to categorize where our defense broke down. Employing a tip from -jk, I paid close attention to our switching on ball screens, and I was somewhat dismayed. On 18 different occasions, we came out of the ball screen with both defenders covering the ball handler and nobody covering the screener. On another 8 occasions (beyond the 18 described above), the man guarding the screener attempted a hedge but was slow to recover. The biggest culprits were Jabari, who either wanted to double the ball handler or simply forgot to go back to his man, and Quinn, who either didn't switch when he was supposed to or didn't communicate to his teammate that he could get through the screen so the teammate should cover somebody else.

Note that the 26 not-so-great defense of ball screens happened in 65 Vermont possessions, so almost half of their possessions included bad ball screen defense on our part.

It should be additionally noted that Tyler, Josh, Rasheed, and (perhaps surprisingly) Andre were probably our best players at performing the switch or hedge properly. Rodney and Jabari (and Quinn, presumably through his apparent lack of communication) were the worst offenders. Also, we were much better at this in the game's final 10 minutes than we were in the first 30 minutes.

As has been discussed at great length elsewhere, we also had trouble with dribble-penetration. I'm sure some (but probably not all) of that has to do with the new rules. Here are all my categories, and the damage done:

-- Bad switches and/or doubles: 18, directly leading to 15 points, plus a missed wide-open three.

-- Slow hedges: 8, directly leading to 2 points, plus a missed wide-open mid-range shot and a missed layup.

-- Blow-by layups: 3, directly leading to 6 points.

-- Dribble-penetration, leading to easy mid-range jumper or pass for layup or other easy shot: 11, directly leading to 16 points, plus a couple of missed FTs.

-- Jabari playing center field/one-man-zone: I didn't count how many times he did this when it didn't hurt us, but at least 3 occasions he got burned, directly leading to 8 points.

-- Andre, losing his man for back-door-cut: 2 times, directly leading to 2 points.

-- Tyler overplaying (or stupidly fouling a desperation 3-point heave): I didn't count how many times he did this when it didn't hurt us, but at least 2 occasions he got burned, directly leading to 3 points (plus a couple of missed FTs).

-- Offensive rebounds, directly leading to 8 points (I said 6 in another thread, but I missed a couple FTs in my earlier calculation).

-- Post entries (6 poss.), directly leading to 8 interior points (though as I said above, a couple of these baskets could possibly be categorized as dribble-penetration leading to pass and score).

-- Transition or secondary breaks (5 poss.), leading to 9 points.

-- Rasheed, tripping and inadvertently fouling a three-point shooter, leading to 1 very important free throw.

-- Decent defense but they scored anyway: 12 points.

I know Jabari's defense is being discussed in the post-game thread. By my count he was almost single-handedly responsible for 16 "bad" Vermont points, plus a wide-open missed three, a missed layup, and a couple missed FTs. I suppose we need to remember he's a freshman, and while he doesn't make too many mistakes on offense, it may take some time for his defense to catch up.

My conclusions are the two biggest concerns at the moment are dealing with dribble-penetration (22 points) and successfully defending ball-screens (17 points). The good news is the first category might work out better if the refs ease up on the new rules and the second category might work out better if our players communicate better and our new players learn the defense, and the likelihood is those things will happen at least to some extent over the course of the season.

I charted every defensive possession, so if anybody has any questions, please ask and hopefully I'll be able to answer.

[Kedsy]

I know Jabari's defense is being discussed in the post-game thread. By my count he was almost single-handedly responsible for 16 "bad" Vermont points, plus a wide-open missed three, a missed layup, and a couple missed FTs. I suppose we need to remember he's a freshman, and while he doesn't make too many mistakes on offense, it may take some time for his defense to catch up.


I forgot to mention here that two of Vermont's offensive-rebound-putbacks were Jabari's responsibility. Once when he left his man to try a help-side block (even though the shooter's defender was right there) and once (after he switched onto Quinn's man) when he left his assignment to stand in the middle of the key. I should have put both of those baskets in the "Jabari playing center field/one-man-zone" category, and that would up his responsibility to 20 Vermont points.

Now, could he have prevented all 20 points if he'd played proper defense? Almost certainly not. But even 10 or 15 prevented points would have turned the game into a double-digit Duke win, and might have prevented a great deal of angst on the part of Duke fans.

In a way, though, this is good news. Coach K has emphasized how much Jabari wants to learn and how fast he's developing. Presumably learning defense is a part of that evolution. I'm more confident that Jabari can improve on this sort of thing than I would be about most or all of our other players. I'm just not sure how quickly that improvement will come. So if we see improvement this week in New York, maybe we can cancel our mail orders of Maalox.

[-jk]

Thanks, Kedsy! It's nice to have the hard numbers. (Even if it was less than appetizing to watch!)

-jk

[MChambers]

Duke's defense is so bad it dropped another spot, to 177, without playing a game!

[Billy Dat]

OK, after charting every defensive possession in the Vermont game, I've attempted to categorize where our defense broke down.

This is really interesting - yeoman's work. Thanks for the effort. Naturally, it makes me wish we had this data for every game to compare it.

As you say, the ball screen defense should really improve with time, and you have to assume we'll adjust team principles to try and slow down the dribble penetration. It is amazing, though, how many different ways we played bad defense - like death by a thousand cuts. Even worse, the good D but they scored anyway was only 13% of their points.

It is also surprising that our switch/hedge defense was better in the last 10 minutes as it felt like we couldn't get any big stops during that stretch. Maybe my memory is clouded by the fact that the score got closer because we simply weren't scoring as easily.

The glass is definitely half full if Jabari's improvement alone can account for some solid overall team improvement.

[tommy]

OK, so using Kedsy's simplified and more understandable way to display the data, I have added in the interior defense numbers from the Alabama, Arizona, and Michigan games. The first table shows how we did on post defense. Michigan barely fed the post at all -- and I even counted some borderline "entries" that were really more like screen rolls, but they were sorta kinda close to constituting a feeding of the post. Arizona fed the post a lot, but not as often as Davidson did. How bout that? More importantly, though it seemed upon watching the games casually that Arizona did a lot more damage with their post-up game, they really didn't. They didn't cause "bad results" from those interior catches at a particularly high rate at all -- in fact it was the lowest % of the games I've charted so far. Huh.








Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%



2



2


50.0%


50.0%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4



5


50.0%


55.6%




Then looking at interior defense more generally, not limited to just post entries, we have this:










Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency








Sets


Attempts






















Points

































































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754



Arizona

64


22


34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933




Nobody has forced the issue with the post against us more regularly than Kansas did. Nobody has gotten a higher % of their points against us on the interior than did Arizona, though. Perhaps the most surprising number still, though, is our interior defensive efficiency against Kansas being much better than our overall defensive efficiency against them. That was not the case against Arizona (but barely) and certainly not against Alabama, though that was a lower scoring game with less overall action on the interior. But still.

Still talking pretty small sample sizes here, but it's growing. Will be interesting to see how these numbers look as we get further into the season and have more to compare them to and face teams with a variety of styles. And as Duke's interior defenders gain additional experience.

[Kedsy]

OK, so using Kedsy's simplified and more understandable way to display the data, I have added in the interior defense numbers from the Alabama, Arizona, and Michigan games. The first table shows how we did on post defense. Michigan barely fed the post at all -- and I even counted some borderline "entries" that were really more like screen rolls, but they were sorta kinda close to constituting a feeding of the post. Arizona fed the post a lot, but not as often as Davidson did. How bout that? More importantly, though it seemed upon watching the games casually that Arizona did a lot more damage with their post-up game, they really didn't. They didn't cause "bad results" from those interior catches at a particularly high rate at all -- in fact it was the lowest % of the games I've charted so far. Huh.

Nobody has forced the issue with the post against us more regularly than Kansas did. Nobody has gotten a higher % of their points against us on the interior than did Arizona, though. Perhaps the most surprising number still, though, is our interior defensive efficiency against Kansas being much better than our overall defensive efficiency against them. That was not the case against Arizona (but barely) and certainly not against Alabama, though that was a lower scoring game with less overall action on the interior. But still.

Still talking pretty small sample sizes here, but it's growing. Will be interesting to see how these numbers look as we get further into the season and have more to compare them to and face teams with a variety of styles. And as Duke's interior defenders gain additional experience.

You left out Vermont. I've put them in the tables for you:








Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%


0

2


0

2


50.0%


50.0%



Vermont

6


6


100.0%


0

2


2


2


33.3%


33.3%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4


0

5


50.0%


55.6%











Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency








Sets


Attempts






















Points

































































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935



Vermont

60


6


10.0%


90


81


8


8.9%


9.9%


1.333


1.38


1.35



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754



Arizona

64


22


34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933

[tommy]

You left out Vermont. I've put them in the tables for you:








Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%


0


2


0


2


50.0%


50.0%



Vermont

6


6


100.0%


0


2


2


2


33.3%


33.3%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4


0


5


50.0%


55.6%











Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency








Sets


Attempts






















Points

































































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935



Vermont

60


6


10.0%


90


81


8


8.9%


9.9%


1.333


1.38


1.35



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754



Arizona

64


22


34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933





Thats because you charted that one, not me. Forgot it. Thanks.

[AncientPsychicT]

Is there any particular reason why you guys have left out the Florida Atlantic game? Not trying to be snarky; honest question.

[Troublemaker]

Thanks for the great work guys!


Is there any particular reason why you guys have left out the Florida Atlantic game? Not trying to be snarky; honest question.

My guess - the FAU game wasn't televised, therefore not DVRable, therefore very difficult to chart. (It would have to be charted off ESPN3 online streaming which isn't going to pause and rewind and fast forward as reliably)

[Saratoga2]

With Quinn, Tyus, Rasheed, Justise, and Matt on the perimeter, it would be very surprising if Grayson gets much meaningful PT his freshman year. More likely he'll be at the end of the bench, learning, and hopefully be ready to contribute in 2015-16.

It may seem a bit trite to talk about the basics of how people earn PT on the Duke team but I will state my conclusions after watching for many years.

A Team Like duke is handled as a meritocracy, with no one having ideal talents but all the recruited players having ability with some standing out more. I would say Jabari would represent the top tier on this years team, etc.

The object of the university is to have a winning program using student athletes who play in a way that represents the high standards of the institution. The coaches understands the objectives of the university and the recruits and develops players who can maintain those high standards.

The categories of merit that seem to me to be defining are:

Talent
-Athleticism
-Fitness
-Intelligence (coolness under pressure)

Experience
-Hard won in competition (some through pre-college and most through practice and play in Div I)
-Ability to recognize situations and abilities of teammates and opponents

Fit for position
-Characteristics to handle position played (no 7 foot PG, etc)

Attitude
-Positive outlook (no head hanging-next play)
-Team orientation
-Assertiveness
-Leadership

While the relative merit of some players will be higher than others in a normal situation, several factors can equalize or skew the merit of players, those are:
-Fatigue
-Foul Issues
-Illness
-Outside issues (interrelationships, school worries, family)

Up and down the lineup, the recruited players all have good to great capabilities and clearly the coaches have to determine when to substitute based on the merit of the player at that point in time and relative to the opponent. Nothing is static out there. We have seen a lot of discussion this year about Hairston, Sualimon and Thornton to date and next year it will be no different, but probably Allen, Murphy and others being identified. My hope is that players will get PT in the more winnable games so that they will be more prepared when circumstances require them to contribute in key situations.

As far as next years lineup, time will tell, but Quinn probably still will be here along with Tyus and Jahlil. The rest may be up in the air but certainly Matt and Rasheed will get a lot of time and Semi and Justise are going to be key at the SF. not clear who best fits the PF but will still will have Marshall and Alex, either of whom could be penciled in.

[Kedsy]

My guess - the FAU game wasn't televised, therefore not DVRable, therefore very difficult to chart. (It would have to be charted off ESPN3 online streaming which isn't going to pause and rewind and fast forward as reliably)

Bingo. This is exactly correct.

[Kedsy]

As far as next years lineup, time will tell, but Quinn probably still will be here along with Tyus and Jahlil. The rest may be up in the air but certainly Matt and Rasheed will get a lot of time and Semi and Justise are going to be key at the SF. not clear who best fits the PF but will still will have Marshall and Alex, either of whom could be penciled in.

You forgot Amile, who probably best fits the PF position. This is getting way ahead of ourselves, and isn't really the topic of this thread, but right now I'm assuming Semi will also get his minutes at PF. Coach K usually uses a 4 or 5 player rotation for the three perimeter positions and a three player rotation for the two interior positions. If we assume Quinn, Tyus, Rasheed, Matt, and Justise will be in the primary perimeter rotation, then three of Jahlil, Amile, Marshall, Semi, and Alex will be in the primary interior rotation. Obviously Semi and Alex could also compete with Grayson for a couple wing minutes each game, but there probably won't be more than that available, except in blowouts.

[Billy Dat]

This is a great thread with tons of interesting info, and since improving our defense is such a key to our getting closer to our potential, I wanted to bump it back to the front page.

It seems that those closest to the data, Tommy and Kedsy, aside from stating that overall sample sizes are relatively small and, therefore, tough to draw firm conclusions from, are finding false the perception that soft interior defense is the core of our poor defensive ranking(s).

As such, it might be interesting to try and broaden this thread to an overall look at our defense, inclusive of stats that might help assess our perimeter. Food for thought, understanding that charting all of these games is a bear.

[Newton_14]

This is a great thread with tons of interesting info, and since improving our defense is such a key to our getting closer to our potential, I wanted to bump it back to the front page.

It seems that those closest to the data, Tommy and Kedsy, aside from stating that overall sample sizes are relatively small and, therefore, tough to draw firm conclusions from, are finding false the perception that soft interior defense is the core of our poor defensive ranking(s).

As such, it might be interesting to try and broaden this thread to an overall look at our defense, inclusive of stats that might help assess our perimeter. Food for thought, understanding that charting all of these games is a bear.

Thanks and totally agree with the bold. Defending the post player after catching on the block has not been much of a weakness this year. In the Michigan game for example, just about everyone who guarded McGary in the post that night (none moreso than Josh) defended him well, and prevented him from scoring on a post move most of the time. That's not how MM got his 14 points.

The weakness in the interior defense thus far, has been about defending the slashers attacking the basket. Poor rotations, poor help defense, being totally lost and thus nowhere near where one is supposed to be on the court, have been the main issues.

Props to Tommy and Kedsy for putting in all the hours to track and calculate the data.

[NSDukeFan]

Thanks and totally agree with the bold. Defending the post player after catching on the block has not been much of a weakness this year. In the Michigan game for example, just about everyone who guarded McGary in the post that night (none moreso than Josh) defended him well, and prevented him from scoring on a post move most of the time. That's not how MM got his 14 points.

The weakness in the interior defense thus far, has been about defending the slashers attacking the basket. Poor rotations, poor help defense, being totally lost and thus nowhere near where one is supposed to be on the court, have been the main issues.

Props to Tommy and Kedsy for putting in all the hours to track and calculate the data.

I agree with your premise, but my understanding is Michigan is a poor example, because as a team they don't go to the low post much at all as part of the offence.

[Kedsy]

I agree with your premise, but my understanding is Michigan is a poor example, because as a team they don't go to the low post much at all as part of the offence.

While this does appear to be true, it's also true that in the pre-season some mentioned Michigan as a team we'd have trouble with because they had a legitimate 7-foot offensive threat.

[Troublemaker]

I took your numbers and added a column for Halfcourt Non-Interior Defensive Efficiency, which is (Half Court Points - Interior Points) / (Halfcourt Sets - Post Entry Attempts)

Do you think that might be useful? Halfcourt Non-Interior would basically capture penetration plays plus a few other things (e.g. 3-point attempts by screening), right?





Halfcourt Non-Interior Def Eff


Davidson
1.07


Kansas
1.08


UNC-A
0.649


ECU
0.897


Vermont
1.35


Alabama
0.617


Arizona
0.762


Michigan
0.920



I like how after Vermont, Duke has given up less than 1.0 Def Eff on these plays since. Previously, Davidson, Kansas and Vermont had all gone over 1.0.

[tommy]

This is a great thread with tons of interesting info, and since improving our defense is such a key to our getting closer to our potential, I wanted to bump it back to the front page.

It seems that those closest to the data, Tommy and Kedsy, aside from stating that overall sample sizes are relatively small and, therefore, tough to draw firm conclusions from, are finding false the perception that soft interior defense is the core of our poor defensive ranking(s).

As such, it might be interesting to try and broaden this thread to an overall look at our defense, inclusive of stats that might help assess our perimeter. Food for thought, understanding that charting all of these games is a bear.

Some of you may remember I did a fair amount of charting two seasons ago, when our Austin Rivers-led team struggled so much to defend penetration, and I tried to track how/why that was happening and who the culprits were. While it was useful (or at least I thought so) I ended up moving towards using a semi-standardized system used by other analysts out there that strove to result in individual players getting a Defensive Rating. The DR was something calculable by the numbers in a box score.

I ended up quite frustrated by the exercise, however, because upon a close watching of the games, as well as general basketball knowledge, it's very obvious that players do and don't do all sorts of things that contribute to good and bad defense, and they don't/can't show up in a box score. Did a guy hedge and recover well? Did he switch properly? Did he help when he was supposed to? Did he cut off dribble penetration by moving his feet well? Those things matter -- a lot -- but they're very hard to quantify. At the beginning, I was simply counting those sorts of things when they were done well and not well, by each guy, but that was a pretty unsophisticated approach, and that's why I moved towards Defensive Rating, but like I said that was very unsatisfying as well. Not sure what would be the best approach to trying to quantify some of these other aspects of defense, in particular on the perimeter. Just noting how tough a task it really is.


Thanks and totally agree with the bold. Defending the post player after catching on the block has not been much of a weakness this year. In the Michigan game for example, just about everyone who guarded McGary in the post that night (none moreso than Josh) defended him well, and prevented him from scoring on a post move most of the time. That's not how MM got his 14 points.

The weakness in the interior defense thus far, has been about defending the slashers attacking the basket. Poor rotations, poor help defense, being totally lost and thus nowhere near where one is supposed to be on the court, have been the main issues.

Props to Tommy and Kedsy for putting in all the hours to track and calculate the data.

Thanks. Glad that you and some others see what I see, and what the numbers show, at least so far this year.


I took your numbers and added a column for Halfcourt Non-Interior Defensive Efficiency, which is (Half Court Points - Interior Points) / (Halfcourt Sets - Post Entry Attempts)

Do you think that might be useful? Halfcourt Non-Interior would basically capture penetration plays plus a few other things (e.g. 3-point attempts by screening), right?





Halfcourt Non-Interior Def Eff



Davidson
1.07


Kansas
1.08


UNC-A
0.649


ECU
0.897


Vermont
1.35


Alabama
0.617


Arizona
0.762


Michigan
0.920



I like how after Vermont, Duke has given up less than 1.0 Def Eff on these plays since. Previously, Davidson, Kansas and Vermont had all gone over 1.0.

Thanks Trouble. Great idea! And yes, I think the number you've added would pretty much capture what you're seeking to capture. Note it would include plays made by big guys that are not more strictly post plays, as the Interior Points number primarily covers points that result from entry passes and plays closely related to it. When a big catches 15 feet from the hoop and takes two dribbles and gets to the hoop, that has not been counted as 2 Interior Points, because it's essentially a failure to stop a drive rather than being out-sized or outmuscled, which was the original concern coming into the year. And that Vermont number does look pretty huge, doesn't it??

[tommy]

OK so I have updated the defensive charts (and the defensive rebounding as well -- see other thread) with the numbers from UCLA and Eastern Michigan, for those interested. While the defensive numbers look fine, in my opinion they really don't tell us much because neither the Bruins nor the Eagles even attempted to feed the post or do much of anything on the interior very often. The raw numbers are tiny. Eastern Michigan went inside a couple of times, but mainly their offense consisted of Mike Talley shooting long jump shots or taking it to the hole himself, as well as getting what they could in transition, but as you can tell by the efficiency numbers (I added Troublemaker's suggestion which is the last column in the second table) nothing worked very well, as our efficiency numbers against them in the half court, both interior and non-interior, as well as overall, were all very good. On the post-up defense chart (the first one below) even EMU's "bad results after catch" percentage, which is pretty decent, was aided by a couple of borderline plays that I counted for them as "entries" though reasonable minds could have differed if they even qualified as such. So their numbers, benign as they were, might not even be to this level if the game was charted by someone else a little less strict as to what counts as an "entry pass." And as the second table shows, even when they got it in there and got a "bad result," a couple of times the bad result didn't even translate into points. Two interior points the whole game.










Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%

0

2

0

2


50.0%


50.0%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4

0

5


50.0%


55.6%



UCLA

4


4


100.0%

0

3


1

0

0.0%


0.0%



East Mich

7


7


100.0%


1


3

0

4


57.1%


57.1%
















Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.


Halfcourt








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency


Non-Interior








Sets


Attempts






















Points













Def Efficiency
























































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924


1.07



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015


1.08



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662


0.65



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935


0.90



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754


0.62



Arizona

64


22


34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891


0.76



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933


0.92



UCLA

57


3


5.3%


63


59


4


6.3%


7%


1.333


0.86


1.035


1.02



East Mich

57


7


12.3%


59


40


2


3.4%


5%


0.286


0.84


0.702


0.76

[Kedsy]

OK so I have updated the defensive charts (and the defensive rebounding as well -- see other thread) with the numbers from UCLA and Eastern Michigan, for those interested.

Thanks, Tommy. Great stuff, as usual.

You left out Vermont again. I assume you, like many of us, would like to forget that one. Here's the table with the Catamounts included:











Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%

0

2

0

2


50.0%


50.0%



Vermont

6


6


100.0%


0

2


2


2


33.3%


33.3%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4

0

5


50.0%


55.6%



UCLA

4


4


100.0%

0

3


1

0

0.0%


0.0%



East Mich

7


7


100.0%


1


3

0

4


57.1%


57.1%
















Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.


Halfcourt








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency


Non-Interior








Sets


Attempts






















Points













Def Efficiency
























































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924


1.07



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015


1.08



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662


0.65



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935


0.90



Vermont

60


6


10.0%


90


81


8


8.9%


9.9%


1.333


1.38


1.35


1.35



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754


0.62



Arizona

64


22


[FONT=Calibri]34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891


0.76



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933


0.92



UCLA

57


3


5.3%


63


59


4


6.3%


7%


1.333


0.86


1.035


1.02



East Mich

57


7


12.3%


59


40


2


3.4%


5%


0.286


0.84


0.702


0.76

[Kedsy]

The defensive picture is interesting, overall. With 10 data points (not counting the uncharted Florida Atlantic and Gardner-Webb, but neither of them scored much so I think they fit into the larger picture), we only had two truly poor defensive performances, against Kansas and Vermont. The teams that hurt us most on the interior were Alabama and Arizona, but watching those games live, it didn't really appear that way.

Our defensive rebounding percentage is 71.0%, which is 88th in the country and (if we keep it up) would be by a decent amount the best Duke has rebounded since at least 1996-97 (the earliest season for which I have data). So instead of the weakness many predicted, right now defensive rebounding is a Duke strength.

Pomeroy may still rank us 60th defensively, but it's possible we're not all that bad.

[jv001]

The defensive picture is interesting, overall. With 10 data points (not counting the uncharted Florida Atlantic and Gardner-Webb, but neither of them scored much so I think they fit into the larger picture), we only had two truly poor defensive performances, against Kansas and Vermont. The teams that hurt us most on the interior were Alabama and Arizona, but watching those games live, it didn't really appear that way.

Our defensive rebounding percentage is 71.0%, which is 88th in the country and (if we keep it up) would be by a decent amount the best Duke has rebounded since at least 1996-97 (the earliest season for which I have data). So instead of the weakness many predicted, right now defensive rebounding is a Duke strength.

Pomeroy may still rank us 60th defensively, but it's possible we're not all that bad.

Thanks to you and Tommy for the charts. I think we'll continue to improve on defense because Jabari will improve on defense. He doesn't appear to be the kind of player that is resting on his offense alone. He'll want to be a better defender and will work at it. Playing the other team's big, PF, SF has to be a task for a freshman. Even if he's the best frosh in the country. GoDuke!

[Troublemaker]

I think we'll continue to improve on defense because Jabari will improve on defense.

Agreed. A lot of Duke's upside is tied into getting our two most talented players, Jabari and Rodney, to make more of a defensive impact than they have been so far this season. That's far more important to this team's development than, say, getting more playing time for our 10th man.

Hopefully by March we'll be saying things like, "Jabari and Rodney are completely different defensive players than they were earlier in the season."

[wk2109]

Agreed. A lot of Duke's upside is tied into getting our two most talented players, Jabari and Rodney, to make more of a defensive impact than they have been so far this season. That's far more important to this team's development than, say, getting more playing time for our 10th man.

Hopefully by March we'll be saying things like, "Jabari and Rodney are completely different defensive players than they were earlier in the season."

I think it's important that Duke hasn't played Jabari and Rodney at the 4 and 5 spots much, if at all, during the past few games. Rodney seems to be a much more effective wing defender than post defender, and Jabari doesn't always have to match up with the opposing center.

[tommy]

OK updating the charts after what the eye told most folks was a woeful defensive performance against Notre Dame:









Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%



2



2


50.0%


50.0%



Vermont

6


6


100.0%



2


2


2


33.3%


33.3%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4



5


50.0%


55.6%



UCLA

4


4


100.0%



3


1



0.0%


0.0%



East Mich

7


7


100.0%


1


3



4


57.1%


57.1%



Notre Dame

24


21


87.5%


3


7


3


14


58.3%


66.7%






Obviously, Notre Dame fed the post, primarily Sherman, a lot, and of the teams that have fed the post a lot against us this year -- Davidson, Kansas, and Arizona primarily -- Notre Dame hurt us the most with those plays.











Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.


Halfcourt








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency


Non-Interior








Sets


Attempts






















Points













Def Efficiency
























































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924


1.07



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015


1.08



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662


0.65



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935


0.90



Vermont

60


6


10.0%


90


81


8


8.9%


9.9%


1.333


1.38


1.350


1.35



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754


0.62



Arizona

64


22


34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891


0.76



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933


0.92



UCLA

57


3


5.3%


63


59


4


6.3%


7%


1.333


0.86


1.035


1.02



East Mich

57


7


12.3%


59


40


2


3.4%


5%


0.286


0.84


0.702


0.76



Notre Dame

60


23


38.3%


79


69


21


26.6%


30%


0.913


1.25


1.15


1.30





Not surprisingly, our overall defensive efficiency against the Irish was the worst in any game this year except Vermont. And while the interior efficiency seemed bad when just watching the game, it actually was better than most of our other performances in that department. Much worse was the 1.30 non-interior defensive efficiency number. Again, the worst other than Vermont. We got hurt in lots of other ways besides post play against the Irish.

One caveat for the charting of this particular game, though. When Kedsy and I set out to do this charting this year, one major objective was to look at how this center-less team defended the post. So "interior points" are limited to points that result from post entry plays. In the Notre Dame game, they scored a lot of points in the paint that were not the result of post play (they hurt us in the post too, as the chart shows) but those non-post plays, for example the multiple breakdowns on inbounds plays, aren't captured in this chart as "interior points." Because it seemed to me to be a significant omission with respect to this particular game and the analysis of our defensive performance -- and if I had it to do over again I might alter our working definition of "interior points" -- I thought it was worth noting so that those who are reading this would know to consider these numbers in the context of the working definition we are in fact using.

Partially because of the problem with the working definition in this game, I am going to post in another thread, hopefully tomorrow, a much more detailed analysis of our defense, essentially play by play, to break down with specificity where and how we, uh, broke down in this game.

[Kedsy]

Not surprisingly, our overall defensive efficiency against the Irish was the worst in any game this year except Vermont. And while the interior efficiency seemed bad when just watching the game, it actually was better than most of our other performances in that department. Much worse was the 1.30 non-interior defensive efficiency number. Again, the worst other than Vermont. We got hurt in lots of other ways besides post play against the Irish.

One caveat for the charting of this particular game, though. When Kedsy and I set out to do this charting this year, one major objective was to look at how this center-less team defended the post. So "interior points" are limited to points that result from post entry plays. In the Notre Dame game, they scored a lot of points in the paint that were not the result of post play (they hurt us in the post too, as the chart shows) but those non-post plays, for example the multiple breakdowns on inbounds plays, aren't captured in this chart as "interior points." Because it seemed to me to be a significant omission with respect to this particular game and the analysis of our defensive performance -- and if I had it to do over again I might alter our working definition of "interior points" -- I thought it was worth noting so that those who are reading this would know to consider these numbers in the context of the working definition we are in fact using.

Partially because of the problem with the working definition in this game, I am going to post in another thread, hopefully tomorrow, a much more detailed analysis of our defense, essentially play by play, to break down with specificity where and how we, uh, broke down in this game.

Thanks again, Tommy. I hear what you're saying about not capturing interior points, but frankly I don't think the inbound plays and the backdoor cuts had very much to do with interior defense, even though the points were scored in the paint, any more than an opposing guard blowing by his man (which also happened quite a few times vs. Notre Dame) to score a layup or dish to a big has to do with interior defense. Those sorts of breakdowns (the backdoor cuts and the inbound plays) probably would have happened with Shelden Williams in the middle. They speak to overall defensive breakdown rather than interior defensive breakdown. In my opinion, anyway.

[CDu]

Thanks again, Tommy. I hear what you're saying about not capturing interior points, but frankly I don't think the inbound plays and the backdoor cuts had very much to do with interior defense, even though the points were scored in the paint, any more than an opposing guard blowing by his man (which also happened quite a few times vs. Notre Dame) to score a layup or dish to a big has to do with interior defense. Those sorts of breakdowns (the backdoor cuts and the inbound plays) probably would have happened with Shelden Williams in the middle. They speak to overall defensive breakdown rather than interior defensive breakdown. In my opinion, anyway.

Yeah, those inbounds plays were absolutely not the fault of the post defenders, as the post defenders were the guys defending the inbounds pass (not the guys responsible for the players getting the layups).

I'm not ready to say that the "blow-bys" aren't in some way related to the interior defense though. Part of playing extended pressure defense on the perimeter is intended to try to make it difficult to get the ball to the post with ease. And one of the downsides of attempting pressure defense on the perimeter is an increased risk of getting beaten off the dribble.

If we sagged off on the perimeter, we'd see a lot fewer "blow-by" plays. But we probably would also see more open 3s and more easy entry passes to the post. So I do think that the two are linked in that case. Obviously not ALL of the blow-bys are the result of extended pressure defense to compensate for poor post defense, but I think there is some significant correlation there.

What we are doing appears to somewhat successfully combat our deficiencies inside. But the result is exploiting our deficiencies outside. Where we thought we had only the interior deficiency, it appears we actually have deficiencies both inside and outside, and right now it is a bit of a "pick your poison" situation. Right now, Coach K is going with the "limit the 3s and try to prevent good entry passes at the risk of getting beaten off the dribble" poison.

[Kedsy]

What we are doing appears to somewhat successfully combat our deficiencies inside. But the result is exploiting our deficiencies outside. Where we thought we had only the interior deficiency, it appears we actually have deficiencies both inside and outside, and right now it is a bit of a "pick your poison" situation. Right now, Coach K is going with the "limit the 3s and try to prevent good entry passes at the risk of getting beaten off the dribble" poison.

I agree. The original idea was that team defense could compensate for our lack of size and that appears to be true. Nothing's going to compensate for a lack of quickness or basic defensive fundamentals on the perimeter, though. So hopefully we improve in those areas.

[CDu]

I agree. The original idea was that team defense could compensate for our lack of size and that appears to be true. Nothing's going to compensate for a lack of quickness or basic defensive fundamentals on the perimeter, though. So hopefully we improve in those areas.

Well, to be complete, I thought the idea was that we could compensate for lack of size without compromising elsewhere (i.e., still be a good defensive team). That much remains in doubt. It does appear that we can maybe mask our interior defensive problems (helps that we've yet to face a really good post scorer - Sherman is as close as we've come). But that doesn't do much good if our masking approach creates a big problem elsewhere.

[Kedsy]

Well, to be complete, I thought the idea was that we could compensate for lack of size without compromising elsewhere (i.e., still be a good defensive team). That much remains in doubt. It does appear that we can maybe mask our interior defensive problems (helps that we've yet to face a really good post scorer - Sherman is as close as we've come). But that doesn't do much good if our masking approach creates a big problem elsewhere.

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

[tommy]

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

At least in the Notre Dame game, and I suspect this has been true in our other poor defensive performances as well, many of our breakdowns were essentially mental errors and failures to communicate rather than being beaten from a more purely physical standpoint. Most of our guys are indeed quick and athletic, but they are losing focus and attention far too often, and they're not talking enough. Seems to me from a close review of it that these kinds of things are happening a lot more than just being outquicked or outmuscled.

[CDu]

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.

There is always a compromise if you do something to protect against something else. If you overplay on the perimeter to compensate for poor interior play, you risk getting beaten back-door and getting beaten off the dribble. If you sag off on the perimeter to protect against dribble penetration, you risk giving up threes and you make passing (both entry passes and perimeter passes) much easier.

Sort of like folks (not you) who said "we can solve the post problem by fronting the post." That can help prevent entry passes, but it puts you out of position for rebounding and you are still susceptible to post entry off a two-pass approach. Every strategy has a consequence. If there were a foolproof approach to defense, someone would have figured it out by now.

[CDu]

At least in the Notre Dame game, and I suspect this has been true in our other poor defensive performances as well, many of our breakdowns were essentially mental errors and failures to communicate rather than being beaten from a more purely physical standpoint. Most of our guys are indeed quick and athletic, but they are losing focus and attention far too often, and they're not talking enough. Seems to me from a close review of it that these kinds of things are happening a lot more than just being outquicked or outmuscled.

On the inbounds plays, I agree. That's absolutely a case of losing focus or not talking. But on the backdoor cuts and "blow-bys", I disagree. Backdoor cuts could be either the result of lack of focus or the result of overplay (anticipating a perimeter pass). The blow-bys are generally a result of getting outquicked or out-efforted, but both are much more likely when we overplay on the perimeter.

[Kedsy]

On the inbounds plays, I agree. That's absolutely a case of losing focus or not talking. But on the backdoor cuts and "blow-bys", I disagree. Backdoor cuts could be either the result of lack of focus or the result of overplay (anticipating a perimeter pass). The blow-bys are generally a result of getting outquicked or out-efforted, but both are much more likely when we overplay on the perimeter.

You may be right, but I also think some of our overplays and doubles aren't smart. They often seem to have little chance of causing a turnover or preventing an entry pass, so basically we're allowing backdoor cuts and blow-bys without any compensating benefit.

[CDu]

You may be right, but I also think some of our overplays and doubles aren't smart. They often seem to have little chance of causing a turnover or preventing an entry pass, so basically we're allowing backdoor cuts and blow-bys without any compensating benefit.

Oh I agree. With this team, I'm not sure that the overplay strategy is wise (at least not without substantial improvement in our guys' play at it). I would probably lean towards a sagging defense and hope that we can hold our own inside (and that teams don't go crazy from 3). Because right now we are pretty bad at the overplay defense.

If we do that, we'll probably see a dropoff in post defensive success. But it might still be a net positive for the team because we're getting abused off the dribble right now.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Oh I agree. With this team, I'm not sure that the overplay strategy is wise (at least not without substantial improvement in our guys' play at it). I would probably lean towards a sagging defense and hope that we can hold our own inside (and that teams don't go crazy from 3). Because right now we are pretty bad at the overplay defense.

If we do that, we'll probably see a dropoff in post defensive success. But it might still be a net positive for the team because we're getting abused off the dribble right now.

I think this brings in an interesting question about Hairston. Against ND, he only played 9 minutes. Against a BCS school, against a team at their home, and against a decent offensive team (28 in KenPom), you would think that Coach K would play Hairston a lot more than 9 minutes. Maybe this is the beginning of the changing of the guards. I could also be way off and Hairston plays 21 min against GT. Coach K is highly unpredictable this season. It feels weird.

If you are right about how we should play D moving forward (and I think you may be), it may make more sense to reduce Hairston's minutes as his value comes from understanding Duke defensive schemes and communication, both of which won't be as valuable through overplaying.

[Kedsy]

Maybe this is the beginning of the changing of the guards.

Or possibly a changing of the forwards. ;)

[flyingdutchdevil]

Or possibly a changing of the forwards. ;)

Hahahahahahahahaaha. Wow. I had to read your comment before understanding the joke.

Gave you some pitckforks. I'm slow today. Damn you Mondays!

[greybeard]

This is a remarkable undertaking. Brilliant.

One quibble around the very far edges. "M." I think that M is a Major factor in getting something good off the offense, major. The ball goes inside, independent of the reflexive draw to collapse, defenders on the exterior are placed at a considerable disadvantage. We all navigate with an ability to understand to one degree or another what is going on behind us, but "not knowing" when you are an outside defender creates the opportunity for poor judgments and surprises.

[Gthoma2a]

It would almost seem like getting our money's worth on a few fouls on the inside would be worth more than a lot of the matador defense that we saw. CBS had a compilation before one of the commercial breaks where they just showed ND scoring in the paint with our guys either moving away from them completely or just watching them score. That can't happen. When that happens, we will get abused all game because they will have no respect for anything or anyone we have down low. We may not have great play down low, but we could certainly have some hard fouls to make them think twice. Otherwise, they will just keep cashing in on their layups like they are free samples at a Sam's.

[jv001]

Or possibly a changing of the forwards. ;)

I hope it's not the changing of guards or forwards, but a change at C. Amile for Josh. GoDuke!

[Newton_14]

Honestly, it never occurred to me we wouldn't be able to defend the perimeter. I'm not sure we're compromising elsewhere so much as we just aren't that good out there. But we have the athletes, so there's always hope for improvement.
Totally agree here. I would have never predicted our inability to depend at the wing and guard positions. I thought for sure it would be a key strength of the team.


At least in the Notre Dame game, and I suspect this has been true in our other poor defensive performances as well, many of our breakdowns were essentially mental errors and failures to communicate rather than being beaten from a more purely physical standpoint. Most of our guys are indeed quick and athletic, but they are losing focus and attention far too often, and they're not talking enough. Seems to me from a close review of it that these kinds of things are happening a lot more than just being outquicked or outmuscled.

And I think you hit nail with head with the bold. It is for the most part, not a physical deficiency. The personnel we have with this team has quickness, length, and athletic ability to defend the perimeter, as well as drivers and cutters. The mental and communication breakdowns in the Notre Dame game were mindboggling, especially given the progress made in the 3 prior games against arguably quicker teams. Going all the way back to the Drury game though, teams that use a lot of motion, or move the ball crisply and sharply, give our guys a heck of a time.

I will say that sometimes, including Saturday, Quinn will have that game or stretch in a game where he struggles to keep his guy from getting in the lane. However, he had been much better overall this year with that part of his defense than he was as a Soph and Jr. So far on the season though, I feel Quinn has defended well. Hopefull this was just an off game for him and he bounces back to where he has been most of the year.

I still wonder if it would be better to at times put Rasheed as the point defender, even when Quinn is in the game, and let Quinn defend the SG. Does not have to be all the time, but not seldom where it's just a change of pace. I would use it more regularly.

[jv001]

Totally agree here. I would have never predicted our inability to depend at the wing and guard positions. I thought for sure it would be a key strength of the team.



And I think you hit nail with head with the bold. It is for the most part, not a physical deficiency. The personnel we have with this team has quickness, length, and athletic ability to defend the perimeter, as well as drivers and cutters. The mental and communication breakdowns in the Notre Dame game were mindboggling, especially given the progress made in the 3 prior games against arguably quicker teams. Going all the way back to the Drury game though, teams that use a lot of motion, or move the ball crisply and sharply, give our guys a heck of a time.

I will say that sometimes, including Saturday, Quinn will have that game or stretch in a game where he struggles to keep his guy from getting in the lane. However, he had been much better overall this year with that part of his defense than he was as a Soph and Jr. So far on the season though, I feel Quinn has defended well. Hopefull this was just an off game for him and he bounces back to where he has been most of the year.

I still wonder if it would be better to at times put Rasheed as the point defender, even when Quinn is in the game, and let Quinn defend the SG. Does not have to be all the time, but not seldom where it's just a change of pace. I would use it more regularly.

I agree with putting Rasheed on the opponent's point guard. First, Rasheed seems to be the better on the ball defender and 2nd it takes some pressure off Quinn. GoDuke!

[tommy]

Totally agree here. I would have never predicted our inability to depend at the wing and guard positions. I thought for sure it would be a key strength of the team.



And I think you hit nail with head with the bold. It is for the most part, not a physical deficiency. The personnel we have with this team has quickness, length, and athletic ability to defend the perimeter, as well as drivers and cutters. The mental and communication breakdowns in the Notre Dame game were mindboggling, especially given the progress made in the 3 prior games against arguably quicker teams. Going all the way back to the Drury game though, teams that use a lot of motion, or move the ball crisply and sharply, give our guys a heck of a time.

I will say that sometimes, including Saturday, Quinn will have that game or stretch in a game where he struggles to keep his guy from getting in the lane. However, he had been much better overall this year with that part of his defense than he was as a Soph and Jr. So far on the season though, I feel Quinn has defended well. Hopefull this was just an off game for him and he bounces back to where he has been most of the year.

I still wonder if it would be better to at times put Rasheed as the point defender, even when Quinn is in the game, and let Quinn defend the SG. Does not have to be all the time, but not seldom where it's just a change of pace. I would use it more regularly.

I agree we should switch defensive assignments between Rasheed and Quinn, at least for stretches. Several benefits that I can see. First, Rasheed is a more focused, harrassing-type of on-ball defender than is Quinn, at least usually. His bigger body and longer arms can also cause trouble for opposing points. Second, change of pace/different looks is usually a good idea. I also think it is likely to help keep Rasheed's head in the game, for he won't be able to float if he's got on-ball, head-of-the-snake responsibilities more regularly.

There would be risk to the strategy, though, particularly if the opposing SG was big and rangy, and had a post-up game that he was comfortable going to and that fit into their offensive strategy. But I guess in that case, we could just leave Rasheed on that SG and let Quinn stay on the point. Even without being posted up, most SG's will be able to shoot over the 6'1" Cook. While we could live with that in most instances on the perimeter, it would be problematic if this theortetical SG was able to get into the lane against Quinn and shoot 12 footers right over him.

[jv001]

I agree we should switch defensive assignments between Rasheed and Quinn, at least for stretches. Several benefits that I can see. First, Rasheed is a more focused, harrassing-type of on-ball defender than is Quinn, at least usually. His bigger body and longer arms can also cause trouble for opposing points. Second, change of pace/different looks is usually a good idea. I also think it is likely to help keep Rasheed's head in the game, for he won't be able to float if he's got on-ball, head-of-the-snake responsibilities more regularly.

There would be risk to the strategy, though, particularly if the opposing SG was big and rangy, and had a post-up game that he was comfortable going to and that fit into their offensive strategy. But I guess in that case, we could just leave Rasheed on that SG and let Quinn stay on the point. Even without being posted up, most SG's will be able to shoot over the 6'1" Cook. While we could live with that in most instances on the perimeter, it would be problematic if this theortetical SG was able to get into the lane against Quinn and shoot 12 footers right over him.

And we can always bring in TT to just worry the heck out of the SG. If I were an opposing player, Tyler would drive me nuts. For our best offense, I believe it's best that TT spells Quinn with Rasheed at the other guard spot. Andre has been used as a 3 for Hood a lot but basically when he's in we have a 3 guard offense. GoDuke!

[flyingdutchdevil]

And we can always bring in TT to just worry the heck out of the SG. If I were an opposing player, Tyler would drive me nuts. For our best offense, I believe it's best that TT spells Quinn with Rasheed at the other guard spot. Andre has been used as a 3 for Hood a lot but basically when he's in we have a 3 guard offense. GoDuke!

But if you put TT on the SG when Sulaimon is on the PG, where is Quinn?

If there is one consistency I see for the remainder of the year, it's Quinn's minutes. He's average 35.2 min a game, highest on the team. Against BCS schools this year, he's average 37.2 min.

[jv001]

But if you put TT on the SG when Sulaimon is on the PG, where is Quinn?

If there is one consistency I see for the remainder of the year, it's Quinn's minutes. He's average 35.2 min a game, highest on the team. Against BCS schools this year, he's average 37.2 min.

Quinn would be getting a short rest, lol. GoDuke!

[tommy]

Here are the interior defense numbers, updated to include Georgia Tech. Miller was effective, and I had the same perception that many others on the board did while watching the game -- that Tech would've been well-served to continue pounding the ball into him. The numbers on the first chart back it up. We got "bad results" a very high percentage of the time they got it into the post -- the highest all year, in fact.


The second chart shows a couple of things, some of which may have been apparent in watching the game casually, some not. Georgia Tech got only two points all night that were not generated in the half court, that is, via the fast break or secondary fast break. That surprises me a little, given that they didn't have Robert Carter, Jr. I would've thought they would've tried to run at least a little. But then again, their inside game with Miller was working. GT did get a high percentage of their points on the interior -- 31.6%. That is pure post play, and doesn't include plays such as when they would drive past our perimeter guys and score in the paint. The efficiency numbers all look pretty good for us. Not as good as against Alabama, but taking all three numbers together, one of the better performances of the year given the competition, hard as that may be to fathom given some of the easy shots we gave up in the first half. I guess the lesson is: it's a 40 minute game, and the numbers reflect what happened over the full course of those 40 minutes, not just the lapses in the first half.











Total


Total


Catch %


Unsucc.


GR after


NR


BR after


% BR all

%BR after







Entries


Catches






Entries


catch






catch


entries

catch












































Davidson

23


21


91.3%


2


5


5


11


47.8%


52.4%



Kansas

30


24


80.0%


6


1


9


14


46.7%


58.3%



UNC-A

10


9


90.0%


1


5


3


6


60.0%


66.7%



ECU

4


4


100.0%



2



2


50.0%


50.0%



Vermont

6


6


100.0%



2


2


2


33.3%


33.3%



Alabama

14


11


78.6%


3


4


1


6


42.9%


54.5%



Arizona

22


20


90.9%


2


9


1


10


45.5%


50.0%



Michigan

10


9


90.0%


1


4



5


50.0%


55.6%



UCLA

4


4


100.0%



3


1



0.0%


0.0%



East Mich

7


7


100.0%


1


3



4


57.1%


57.1%



Notre Dame

24


21


87.5%


3


7


3


14


58.3%


66.7%



G Tech

22


19


86.4%


3


3


2


14


63.6%


73.7%














Total


Poss. w/


% Attempted


Total


Half Court


Interior


Interior %


Interior %


Interior Def.


Overall Def.


Halfcourt Def.


Halfcourt








Halfcourt


Entry


Entries


Points


Points


Points


of Total Pts.


Halfcourt


Efficiency


Efficiency


Efficiency


Non-Interior








Sets


Attempts






















Points













Def Efficiency
























































Davidson

66


23


34.8%


77


61


15


19.5%


24.6%


0.652


1.09


0.924


1.07



Kansas

66


29


43.9%


94


67


27


28.7%


40.3%


0.931


1.26


1.015


1.08



UNC-A

65


8


12.3%


55


43


6


10.9%


14.0%


0.750


0.85


0.662


0.65



ECU

62


4


6.5%


74


58


6


8.1%


10.3%


1.500


1.01


0.935


0.90



Vermont

60


6


10.0%


90


81


8


8.9%


9.9%


1.333


1.38


1.350


1.35



Alabama

61


14


23.0%


64


46


17


26.6%


37.0%


1.214


0.87


0.754


0.62



Arizona

64


22


34.4%


72


57


25


34.7%


43.9%


1.136


1.08


0.891


0.76



Michigan

60


10


16.7%


69


56


10


14.5%


17.9%


1.000


1.00


0.933


0.92



UCLA

57


3


5.3%


63


59


4


6.3%


7%


1.333


0.86


1.035


1.02



East Mich

57


7


12.3%


59


40


2


3.4%


5%


0.286


0.84


0.702


0.76



Notre Dame

60


23


38.3%


79


69


21


26.6%


30%


0.913


1.25


1.15


1.30



G Tech

63


22


34.9%


57


55


18


31.6%


33%


0.818


0.98


0.873


0.90

[sagegrouse]

Here are the interior defense numbers, updated to include Georgia Tech. Miller was effective, and I had the same perception that many others on the board did while watching the game -- that Tech would've been well-served to continue pounding the ball into him. The numbers on the first chart back it up. We got "bad results" a very high percentage of the time they got it into the post -- the highest all year, in fact.
]

Tommy: This looks like really insightful data, but can you publish a legend every now and then? I don't know what they mean.

I also admire your ability to work in html -- where did you figure out how to produce real demarcated tables -- beyond just using
?

[tommy]

Tommy: This looks like really insightful data, but can you publish a legend every now and then? I don't know what they mean.

I also admire your ability to work in html -- where did you figure out how to produce real demarcated tables -- beyond just using ?

Sure. The legend was published in one of the early posts, but you're right, I should include it each time. Here it is:



Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries

Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets


As for working in HTML, I have no idea how to do that. All I do is follow the instructions in the FAQ thread: maintain the data in an Excel spreadsheet, copy/paste the sheet onto WordPad or whatever similar thing there is on my Mac, then copy paste it again into a post, and put the Code tags around it.


I used to do charts by just creating a table using the icons at the top of each post, adding columns and rows, etc as needed, but it's much harder to work with and they don't look as good as using the Code tags. That's all I gots!