PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke vs. UCLA Pre-game and In-game Thread



gofurman
12-16-2013, 10:34 PM
The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

OldPhiKap
12-16-2013, 10:57 PM
The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

This should be a very good game and a good measure of where our young team is. Fascinating year ahead, for sure.

kAzE
12-16-2013, 11:57 PM
Jabari might be matched up against Kyle Anderson, that should be fun to watch. Both of them are great offensive players, so I'm looking forward to the fireworks.

tommy
12-17-2013, 02:21 AM
Jabari might be matched up against Kyle Anderson, that should be fun to watch. Both of them are great offensive players, so I'm looking forward to the fireworks.

Jabari probably won't play Anderson much. Anderson, though he's 6'9" is essentially a point guard, though sometimes he plays more of a point forward thing for the Bruins. Jabari usually guards opposing bigs, which means for UCLA the Wear twins and Tony Parker.

Anderson is a terrific player, the key to UCLA's team IMO, but he's not an electric scorer who will provide those kinds of "fireworks" that you mentioned. He is a really unique player. He is slow afoot and he can't jump -- his nickname even is "Slo-Mo" -- but he sees the game very well, seemingly a step or two ahead of everybody else. So he's always in the right place at the right time, makes the right pass, plays the angles very well, knows where the rebound is going and gets there first, that kind of thing. Very smart and instinctive as well. And with his height and natural passing ability, as well as his handle, he's a very difficult guy to prepare for and to play against on the perimeter, and becomes more so when he goes inside if the opponent tries to guard him with a smaller guy who brings quickness. Some have even likened Anderson to a poor man's Magic Johnson, and while he doesn't have that kind of personality at all -- Anderson is much more laid back -- he is a very big point guard (at heart) and a stat sheet stuffer, as he's averaging 13.8 ppg, along with 8.7 boards and 6.7 assists, all in 31 minutes per night. I think Rodney Hood would be an excellent guy to put on Anderson.

brevity
12-17-2013, 02:24 AM
The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

Surprised to see them sticking with college. I imagined it would go quite differently in Chapel Hill...

"I think we've outgrown a full-time education."
"Yeah, I've been feeling that way myself."
"Time to test our talents in the real world, d'you reckon?"
"Definitely."

Edouble
12-17-2013, 03:47 AM
The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

I believe they are on the team.

Troublemaker
12-17-2013, 08:19 AM
Anderson is a terrific player, the key to UCLA's team IMO, but he's not an electric scorer who will provide those kinds of "fireworks" that you mentioned. He is a really unique player. He is slow afoot and he can't jump -- his nickname even is "Slo-Mo" -- but he sees the game very well, seemingly a step or two ahead of everybody else. So he's always in the right place at the right time, makes the right pass, plays the angles very well, knows where the rebound is going and gets there first, that kind of thing. Very smart and instinctive as well. And with his height and natural passing ability, as well as his handle, he's a very difficult guy to prepare for and to play against on the perimeter, and becomes more so when he goes inside if the opponent tries to guard him with a smaller guy who brings quickness. Some have even likened Anderson to a poor man's Magic Johnson, and while he doesn't have that kind of personality at all -- Anderson is much more laid back -- he is a very big point guard (at heart) and a stat sheet stuffer, as he's averaging 13.8 ppg, along with 8.7 boards and 6.7 assists, all in 31 minutes per night.

Excellent description of Anderson. He was one of my faves in high school; Howland might possibly still be employed at UCLA had he used Anderson as the PG last year instead of Drew.

Anderson is definitely a matchup conundrum for opposing teams as a 6'9" 235-lb point guard. I think, despite the size difference, Duke will use Quinn to guard him. Hopefully Quinn's ball pressure will get Anderson to turn his back at times.

JasonEvans
12-17-2013, 08:30 AM
Will Tony Parker's news conference be done in time for him to play?

UCLA's backup PG/SG is Bryce Alford. Just a freshman but he plays a lot and is lethal from three. His daddy is his coach. Like nearly everyone on their team, he plays around 20 minutes a game. This club makes great use of its bench.

UCLA is a good matchup for us, the kind of team we are likely to face in the second round of the NCAA tourney if we get a bad break in the seedings. The top ten streak will most definitely be on the line in this game.

-Jason "we've done pretty well against UCLA under K... hope it continues" Evans

HCheek37
12-17-2013, 10:24 AM
Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

jv001
12-17-2013, 10:44 AM
Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

Hopefully we win against UCLA and then make up the difference with some good away game wins during the ACC season. GoDuke!

nocilla
12-17-2013, 11:34 AM
Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

Don't forget Michigan. They aren't a top level team but about the same as UCLA.

Goduke2010
12-17-2013, 11:55 AM
Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

Hey, I'm always happy to have someone else sound the alarm. :-)

After reading your post, I went to Kenpom for the last 8 years and looked at Off-Eff minus Def-Eff. I then compared that to actual tourney seed as well as the seed Duke "should" have been based on that differential difference (in other words, trying to adjust for seeding bias, which in Duke's case, is usually (except for 2007) upwards.

Right now our differential is 118 - 100 = 18. Based on the past 8 years, that's somewhere between a 3 and a 5 seed. If we climb to the 22 - 24 range in terms of differential, we're looking at a 2 or 3 seed. The two years where we were a 1 seed (2010 and 2011), our differential was 31 and 24, respectively.

The only year where our O-Eff was higher than 118 was in 2010, a 120. Overall, our current 118 is really, really good. Which means, we might expect a bit of regression during ACC play. Which also means, we have to lower of D-Eff by at least 5 points if we want a good shot at a 3 seed.

I'm really confused why our D has been so average this year. Sure we don't have size under the basket, but does that explain how some really good athletes (Jabari and Hood especially) are so mediocre? Going into the season, K had said Jabari could guard 2 - 5 and Hood could guard 1 - 4. So far that seems preposterous.

I noticed we played some zone yesterday. Is there data which shows D-Eff based on defense being played? I'm curious if that was better or worse than our usual D.

sagegrouse
12-17-2013, 12:15 PM
Hey, I'm always happy to have someone else sound the alarm. :-)

After reading your post, I went to Kenpom for the last 8 years and looked at Off-Eff minus Def-Eff. I then compared that to actual tourney seed as well as the seed Duke "should" have been based on that differential difference (in other words, trying to adjust for seeding bias, which in Duke's case, is usually (except for 2007) upwards.

Right now our differential is 118 - 100 = 18. Based on the past 8 years, that's somewhere between a 3 and a 5 seed. If we climb to the 22 - 24 range in terms of differential, we're looking at a 2 or 3 seed. The two years where we were a 1 seed (2010 and 2011), our differential was 31 and 24, respectively.

The only year where our O-Eff was higher than 118 was in 2010, a 120. Overall, our current 118 is really, really good. Which means, we might expect a bit of regression during ACC play. Which also means, we have to lower of D-Eff by at least 5 points if we want a good shot at a 3 seed.

I'm really confused why our D has been so average this year. Sure we don't have size under the basket, but does that explain how some really good athletes (Jabari and Hood especially) are so mediocre? Going into the season, K had said Jabari could guard 2 - 5 and Hood could guard 1 - 4. So far that seems preposterous.

I noticed we played some zone yesterday. Is there data which shows D-Eff based on defense being played? I'm curious if that was better or worse than our usual D.

Puh-leese. Number 1: you have only eight data points, and you are stretching these to make really finely graded predictions, such as the ordinal ranking of a team in NCAA tournament seeds. Most stat guys want 30 degrees of freedom (more than 30 observations) or more.

Number 2: although I have a quantitative background, I really am fond of wins and losses in predicting NCAA tournament seed. Now, you may believe that offense minus defense efficiency ratings predict wins and losses, but you didn't say that.

Number 3 is the first part of Sage Grouse's Lament: (a) Many teams are much better (or much different) in February and March than in November and December, and this Duke team, with all the turnover, is early in the development process, esp. on defense.

sage
'The other two parts of the Lament are: (b) The only games that occur after early January are conference games. (c) The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee, because of (a) and (b), has no logical way to rank teams between conferences; thererfore, the process of making seedings is a fool's errand. But, that is a topic for another day.'

Goduke2010
12-17-2013, 12:26 PM
Puh-leese. Number 1: you have only eight data points, and you are stretching these to make really finely graded predictions, such as the ordinal ranking of a team in NCAA tournament seeds. Most stat guys want 30 degrees of freedom (more than 30 observations) or more.

Number 2: although I have a quantitative background, I really am fond of wins and losses in predicting NCAA tournament seed. Now, you may believe that offense minus defense efficiency ratings predict wins and losses, but you didn't say that.

Number 3 is the first part of Sage Grouse's Lament: (a) Many teams are much better (or much different) in February and March than in November and December, and this Duke team, with all the turnover, is early in the development process, esp. on defense.

sage
'The other two parts of the Lament are: (b) The only games that occur after early January are conference games. (c) The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee, because of (a) and (b), has no logical way to rank teams between conferences; thererfore, the process of making seedings is a fool's errand. But, that is a topic for another day.'

8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

UrinalCake
12-17-2013, 12:41 PM
Don't forget Michigan. They aren't a top level team but about the same as UCLA.

OP was only talking about neutral court games. Michigan was at home, which doesn't carry as much weight with the RPI/Selection Committee.

I think we're a long ways from needing to worry about a 1 seed. Let's focus on improving our defense and getting our bench guys some minutes.

flyingdutchdevil
12-17-2013, 12:58 PM
8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

For someone with 3 years at a top consulting firm, you're not great at getting your points across. You may want to provide more analysis and then come to a conclusion - rather than the other way around - in order to get taken seriously around here.

BD80
12-17-2013, 01:26 PM
For someone with 3 years at a top consulting firm, you're not great at getting your points across. You may want to provide more analysis and then come to a conclusion - rather than the other way around - in order to get taken seriously around here.

"I will graciously overlook the fact that she is an arrogant sub-par scientist, who actually believes loop quantum gravity better unites quantum mechanics with general relativity than does string theory."

Sheldon: BBT

Gotta love nerd smacktalk.

sagegrouse
12-17-2013, 01:42 PM
8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

I guess this is the Rand Corporation against McKinsey; but never mind. Eight data points are still eight data points, as you would find if you did a stat test, such as regressing NCAA seeding against your preferred variable and looking at the t-statistics on the resulting coefficient. It doesn't really matter how aggregated the data are.

Of course, what's important is that you made more at McKinsey than I did at Rand in the 1970's. Heck, when I left Rand to go into government, I got a pay raise!

Kindly, Sage

Troublemaker
12-17-2013, 02:05 PM
Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Yes, agreed. This is a huge game. If Duke emerges victorious, which I think we will, you'll hear the term "program win" used by our coaches and players in the postgame.

Besides the seeding implications of avoiding the 0-3 in major neutral site games, it's important to just get a win against the type of team UCLA is. Duke is a team trying to fix our defense, especially our 2-pt defense and defense against penetration. Right now, Pomeroy has UCLA ranked as the best offense we've played all season (although it's essentially a tie between them and Kansas and Arizona), and they are shooting 59.3% from 2-pt range (3rd best in the country). UCLA likes to spread the court and drive to the basket using the athleticism of Adams, Powell, and Lavine and the craftiness of Anderson. On defense, UCLA plays mostly zone, which has bothered us at times. They have size inside with the Wear twins and Tony Parker. Altogether, the Bruins represent a test of a lot of our early-season problems.

Our players just finished their academic final exams. UCLA as an opponent is a nice basketball final exam for the non-conference slate.

Troublemaker
12-17-2013, 02:21 PM
Other considerations from a Duke fan's perspective. (I don't think the coaches or players care a bit about these things).


Don't want to go 0-3 in major non-conf games while Carolina goes 3-0
Don't want to lose to Tony Parker
Don't want to have a losing record in MSG. C'mon, that's like our 2nd or 3rd home.
Don't want to go 0-2 against Pac-10 teams Arizona & UCLA who, like Duke, are also recruiting Chase Jeter and Tyler Dorsey in the class of 2015

I really want this win.

GGLC
12-17-2013, 04:42 PM
I think LaVine is going to have a really big game. Kid is talented.

Olympic Fan
12-17-2013, 06:53 PM
It's going to be interesting.

Pomeroy gives Duke a 53 percent chance to win ... that's almost a tossup

UCLA is a solid 9-1 this season, but seven wins have come at home and five of those seven have come against teams out of the top 100. Their top 100 wins are by five over No. 54 Drexel and by 13 over No. 71 UC Santa Barbara. They beat No. 205 Nevada and No. 116 Northwestern in Las Vegas. Their one loss was at No. 41 Missouri.

They play a lot of people -- nine players average 19.3 or more minutes a game.

Their record is fairly similar to ours -- Duke's two losses were to No. 5 Arizona and No. 9 Kansas (all ratings are Pomeroy's). The only two top 100 teams that Duke has beaten are No. 44 Alabama (in MSG) and No. 22 Michigan in Cameron.

UCLA is No. 27 in Pomeroy.

Definitely agree with Jason's point -- our six-year long streak of AP top 10 appearances hangs in the balance of this game ...

77devil
12-17-2013, 07:33 PM
I guess this is the Rand Corporation against McKinsey; but never mind. Eight data points are still eight data points, as you would find if you did a stat test, such as regressing NCAA seeding against your preferred variable and looking at the t-statistics on the resulting coefficient. It doesn't really matter how aggregated the data are.

Of course, what's important is that you made more at McKinsey than I did at Rand in the 1970's. Heck, when I left Rand to go into government, I got a pay raise!

Kindly, Sage

I've worked with plenty of McKinsey consultants and have been largely unimpressed, particularly with the younger ones who drank the firm Kool Aid and believed they actually knew what they were talking about.

Now back to the game: The annual December game in MSG/Meadowlands draws a large pro Duke crowd. Let's be loud on Thursday and keep up the "home" court advantage.

slower
12-17-2013, 09:13 PM
I think LaVine is going to have a really big game. Kid is talented.

Seriously. One 2014 NBA mock draft has LaVine going #5, another has him at #10, and has the caption "Russell Westbrook with a jump shot?"

The team better have their act together or it could be another long night. Quinn needs to have his head in the game for BOTH halves. Some have speculated that Dre will get the start - we shall see. Would LOVE to see Sheed get some burn (which he has to earn, of course), and maybe we'll see more of Matt Jones (I'm a BIG Matt Jones fan). I'm at the point where I just don't worry about Jabari and Rodney any more - thank God for those two.

I know there are a lot of folks on here who are WAY more patient and optimistic than I am, but a loss here (which would not be unexpected, btw) is going to sound some louder alarms about the tournament potential of our team. You'll notice that there aren't many voices touting us as a Final Four team any more, in contrast to the beginning of the season. Just sayin'.

conmanlhughes
12-17-2013, 09:42 PM
Seriously. One 2014 NBA mock draft has LaVine going #5, another has him at #10, and has the caption "Russell Westbrook with a jump shot?"

The team better have their act together or it could be another long night. Quinn needs to have his head in the game for BOTH halves. Some have speculated that Dre will get the start - we shall see. Would LOVE to see Sheed get some burn (which he has to earn, of course), and maybe we'll see more of Matt Jones (I'm a BIG Matt Jones fan). I'm at the point where I just don't worry about Jabari and Rodney any more - thank God for those two.

I know there are a lot of folks on here who are WAY more patient and optimistic than I am, but a loss here (which would not be unexpected, btw) is going to sound some louder alarms about the tournament potential of our team. You'll notice that there aren't many voices touting us as a Final Four team any more, in contrast to the beginning of the season. Just sayin'.

We lost to some of the 2 best teams in the nation and we had a lead over both for most of the game(s). Give them time and we will be back in the conversation. Our defense has already improved, and the team itself is starting to gel more. My bet for this team is at least a 3 seed.

18258
12-17-2013, 09:46 PM
when did the Defense improve?

Saratoga2
12-17-2013, 09:50 PM
I would like to see defensive improvement in this game regardless of the end result. That would mean that we would make it hard to penetrate while contesting 3 point shooting. We would not give up uncontested shots, would box out and rebound with energy and not give up gratuitous fouls. Good communication on defense and 40 minutes of effort are required. If all our guys, including bench player commit to determined and smart defense, good things will happen.

We have solid offensive players in Quinn, Jabari, Rodney and Andre and we need guys like Matt, Amile and Tyler to contribute. The team needs to cut out careless passes, work the ball to get good shots and hit the open man in rythmn. One real biggie is to hit a high % of foul shots.

No head hanging out there, just go on to the next play with energy and determination. This is a key game to move this team forward.

-jk
12-17-2013, 09:55 PM
I want to see communication, so switches result in switches and hedges result in hedges. I'm tired of switches resulting in a double team and a wide open opponent. Usually with an easy dump for two.

-jk

gep
12-17-2013, 11:15 PM
I would like to see defensive improvement in this game regardless of the end result. That would mean that we would make it hard to penetrate while contesting 3 point shooting. We would not give up uncontested shots, would box out and rebound with energy and not give up gratuitous fouls. Good communication on defense and 40 minutes of effort are required. If all our guys, including bench player commit to determined and smart defense, good things will happen.

We have solid offensive players in Quinn, Jabari, Rodney and Andre and we need guys like Matt, Amile and Tyler to contribute. The team needs to cut out careless passes, work the ball to get good shots and hit the open man in rythmn. One real biggie is to hit a high % of foul shots.

No head hanging out there, just go on to the next play with energy and determination. This is a key game to move this team forward.

I have been looking for good box out on rebounds from the beginning of this season. I think I saw MP3 "try" to do this, but unfortunately, the rebound went the other way. But he had the right idea.

And very importantly, *next play*.

sagegrouse
12-17-2013, 11:59 PM
8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.


I guess this is the Rand Corporation against McKinsey; but never mind. Eight data points are still eight data points, as you would find if you did a stat test, such as regressing NCAA seeding against your preferred variable and looking at the t-statistics on the resulting coefficient. It doesn't really matter how aggregated the data are.

Kindly, Sage

Anyway, the data are no good, and any conclusion would be extraordinarily weak. I used all the years 2003 through 2013. In these eleven years, Duke was a #1 five times, a #2 four times, one #3 and one #6. Oops! Over 70 percent of the variance in the outcome (NCAA seed position) is due to one data point -- the #6 seed by Duke in 2007. One can't conclude anything from those data, if the results are dominated by a single data point.

But I did run a regression on the eight years you cited. The regression was insignificant, and the coefficient on KenPom scores was only marginally significant. Using eleven years, the regression is significant and the coefficient on KenPom scores is more significant. The standard errors of both equations are greater than one seeding position, eally unimpressive since nine of the eleven Duke seeds were within one position (#1 or #2). And again, all these results are due to one outlier year -- 2007.

There's more -- but you get the idea.

sage

duke96
12-18-2013, 12:22 AM
8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

Do they speak English at this McKinsey?

Kedsy
12-18-2013, 12:32 AM
You'll notice that there aren't many voices touting us as a Final Four team any more, in contrast to the beginning of the season. Just sayin'.

I'm probably not the voice you're looking for, but I still believe we have a great chance at the Final Four. And I'll still think it after the UCLA game, no matter the result.

mgtr
12-18-2013, 06:58 AM
Do they speak English at this McKinsey?

It is called "consultant-speak."

dukebballcamper90-91
12-18-2013, 07:15 AM
This is a huge game for both clubs. Recruiting battle, ACC vs PAC, Alford trying to prove himself @ UCLA...... I think UCLA will throw some zone at us. I would like to see Jabari on the block more. I think his quickness vs big guys gets overlooked.

grad_devil
12-18-2013, 10:16 AM
I'm not Coach K (surprised? anyone?), and I don't know what Rasheed's issues are, but I wonder if some refocusing is in order?

It seems to me, from watching the games, that Rasheed drives the ball hard into the teeth of the defense, forces up a layup, gets contact and/or blocked, then immediately turns to the ref with a sour look on his face.

I don't recall seeing this type of demonstration from Rasheed last year. I'm pretty sure I don't like it. Nope, I'm sure of it. Makes me wish that the coaching staff would put together a "highlight video" of these looks, like the one they did for Hurley, to show him how he looks on the court.




I think LaVine is going to have a really big game. Kid is talented.

Seriously. One 2014 NBA mock draft has LaVine going #5, another has him at #10, and has the caption "Russell Westbrook with a jump shot?"...

This is where the refocusing comes in.

Even during this period of...ineptness(?), Rasheed has played great on-ball defense. I wish the coaching staff would task Rasheed with up-close and personal defense with LaVine, much as they did with Thornton/Cook on Stauskas from UMich, and the guy from UNCA (sorry I've forgotten his name) to let him focus on something other than his offensive game, which has been woeful.

More likely, Thornton/Cook will get the nod again (if they choose to show that much attention to LaVine) and I understand completely.

Just pulling for Rasheed to get out of his funk and play like we all know he is capable. Thought maybe a personal challenge (do not let him touch the ball/score/etc) might do the trick.

GGLC
12-18-2013, 10:31 AM
Even during this period of...ineptness(?), Rasheed has played great on-ball defense. I wish the coaching staff would task Rasheed with up-close and personal defense with LaVine, much as they did with Thornton/Cook on Stauskas from UMich, and the guy from UNCA (sorry I've forgotten his name) to let him focus on something other than his offensive game, which has been woeful.

More likely, Thornton/Cook will get the nod again (if they choose to show that much attention to LaVine) and I understand completely.

Just pulling for Rasheed to get out of his funk and play like we all know he is capable. Thought maybe a personal challenge (do not let him touch the ball/score/etc) might do the trick.

Let's give Matt Jones his due here for the job he did defensively on Stauskas. :) Jones and Thornton both shut him down.

flyingdutchdevil
12-18-2013, 10:42 AM
Let's give Matt Jones his due here for the job he did defensively on Stauskas. :) Jones and Thornton both shut him down.

The good news for Duke is that Adams (37.5%), LaVine (46.5%), Anderson (60%), and Alford (44.8%) are all amazing 3pt shooters (okay, Adams is only decent). Our 3pt defense is probably the only positive thing you can say about our defense right now. It's one of the tops in the country.

However, if these UCLA players start driving, that's a different story.

My advice to UCLA - don't drive. Continue to try and get 3pt looks. ;)

timmy c
12-18-2013, 06:25 PM
Looking forward to some interesting match ups tomorrow.

As Tommy mentioned, kyle Anderson is fascinating player--a 6-8 pg. I would like to see Rodney pick him up and use his length and speed to bother him. I expect kyle will guard Rodney on the other end. If Quinn guards kyle, what is the strategy when he takes Quinn to the blocks?

How does UCLA guard Jabari? Parker/ wear twins? Will they go small?

jipops
12-18-2013, 08:43 PM
A lot of shots are going up in this one. It could very well be won at the ft line in the end. I don't expect to see a clinic on defense. I wonder if the over/under is hovering close to 200?

Hopefully we can force some turnovers. That may give us the best chance because ucla is going to get easy looks.

Troublemaker
12-18-2013, 09:36 PM
As Tommy mentioned, kyle Anderson is fascinating player--a 6-8 pg. I would like to see Rodney pick him up and use his length and speed to bother him. I expect kyle will guard Rodney on the other end. If Quinn guards kyle, what is the strategy when he takes Quinn to the blocks?

How does UCLA guard Jabari? Parker/ wear twins? Will they go small?

UCLA will zone. They've done that most of the season. If Duke can execute well and bring them out of the zone, UCLA probably doesn't have much of a chance guarding us m2m.

I agree with you and Tommy that Rodney will be the guy to check Anderson if UCLA is successfully posting him up against Quinn. I expect Duke to start the game testing the waters with Quinn on Anderson, though. Coach K really likes the ball pressure Quinn is providing at the point and will be hesitant to relinquish that, imo. But Anderson could force his hand.

Goduke2010
12-18-2013, 11:00 PM
Anyway, the data are no good, and any conclusion would be extraordinarily weak. I used all the years 2003 through 2013. In these eleven years, Duke was a #1 five times, a #2 four times, one #3 and one #6. Oops! Over 70 percent of the variance in the outcome (NCAA seed position) is due to one data point -- the #6 seed by Duke in 2007. One can't conclude anything from those data, if the results are dominated by a single data point.

But I did run a regression on the eight years you cited. The regression was insignificant, and the coefficient on KenPom scores was only marginally significant. Using eleven years, the regression is significant and the coefficient on KenPom scores is more significant. The standard errors of both equations are greater than one seeding position, eally unimpressive since nine of the eleven Duke seeds were within one position (#1 or #2). And again, all these results are due to one outlier year -- 2007.

There's more -- but you get the idea.

sage

Ha, laughing at the McKinsey insults. McKinsey's strategy work is top-notch. But it's often not actionable, due to internal corporate dynamics, among other issues. Many of us were most disappointed in our exclusive strategy role - getting stuff done is often more rewarding. It's why I left for the Marketing world where my team manages the corporate P&L.

Re: the stats, we're (I think) talking about two different approaches. I'm not just looking at Duke each year, but every team's differential and how that mapped to their eventual tourney seed. Intra-season analysis, for 8 seasons, rather than 1 data point each year. Sort of like comparing 8 (statistically significant) customer surveys that ask the same questions to statistically similar customers each time.

Not sure if that makes my thoughts more clear. I didn't run a regression, was just back-of-the-enveloping.

sagegrouse
12-18-2013, 11:11 PM
Ha, laughing at the McKinsey insults. McKinsey's strategy work is top-notch. But it's often not actionable, due to internal corporate dynamics, among other issues. Many of us were most disappointed in our exclusive strategy role - getting stuff done is often more rewarding. It's why I left for the Marketing world where my team manages the corporate P&L.

Re: the stats, we're (I think) talking about two different approaches. I'm not just looking at Duke each year, but every team's differential and how that mapped to their eventual tourney seed. Intra-season analysis, for 8 seasons, rather than 1 data point each year. Sort of like comparing 8 (statistically significant) customer surveys that ask the same questions to statistically similar customers each time.

Not sure if that makes my thoughts more clear. I didn't run a regression, was just back-of-the-enveloping.

No problem. How many teams did you use? That clearly gives you enough data points.

sage

Dukeface88
12-19-2013, 12:46 AM
UCLA will zone. They've done that most of the season. If Duke can execute well and bring them out of the zone, UCLA probably doesn't have much of a chance guarding us m2m.


While I know most are looking at our defensive trouble/possible improvement (with good reason), I think this is another area of interest. We've really struggled against the zone at times (vs. Eastern Carolina, Vermont, Alabama). However, we looked much better against Michigan and Gardner-Webb, so I think there's some reason for optimism here.

kAzE
12-19-2013, 01:12 AM
Wow, when was the last time this many teams used a zone defense? Is it just because that's the gameplan that works against our team or is it because of the new rules? I don't recall seeing this much zone in a good long while. If they go zone all game, it's gonna be another good day for Andre Dawkins.

Saratoga2
12-19-2013, 08:35 AM
They have a great deal of size to throw at us and it is size with a degree of bulk as well. We have quickness, skill and outside shooting. Do we try to run? Does Marshall get more PT to counter their size? It will be interesting. We need to stay fresh for 40 minutes and stay out of foul trouble. We also need to hit our foul shots. Shooting foul shots at a a percentage less than in the 70's range is too much to overcome.

rsvman
12-19-2013, 10:17 AM
While I know most are looking at our defensive trouble/possible improvement (with good reason), I think this is another area of interest. We've really struggled against the zone at times (vs. Eastern Carolina, Vermont, Alabama). However, we looked much better against Michigan and Gardner-Webb, so I think there's some reason for optimism here.

IIRC, Michigan somewhat unexpectedly played a straight-up man-to-man defense for most of the game. I figured since a) we had had some trouble against zone defenses, and b) Michigan's zone is almost legendary that we would see a lot of the zone. But, again, I think they played man-to-man for almost the entire contest, with zone thrown in from time to time, rather than the other way around.

I still think our offense struggles more against a zone, and I suspect UCLA will rely heavily on zone defense.

I fully expect a complete dog fight of a game that is undecided with a minute or two left, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong by a dominant Duke performance.

Bluedog
12-19-2013, 10:23 AM
IIRC, Michigan somewhat unexpectedly played a straight-up man-to-man defense for most of the game. I figured since a) we had had some trouble against zone defenses, and b) Michigan's zone is almost legendary that we would see a lot of the zone. But, again, I think they played man-to-man for almost the entire contest, with zone thrown in from time to time, rather than the other way around.

I still think our offense struggles more against a zone, and I suspect UCLA will rely heavily on zone defense.

I fully expect a complete dog fight of a game that is undecided with a minute or two left, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong by a dominant Duke performance.

Not with Andre "zone busting" Dawkins now on the court! :) (But I agree that overall this year, the zone defense has bit a bit more effective at stopping our offense.)

Olympic Fan
12-19-2013, 11:38 AM
The early success of the zone might have something to do with the way the team has prepared. Not sure of the exact details in this case, but I've heard coaches in the past talk about how their zone offense is one of the last things to go in preseason.

While we have had some problems with it (mostly in the second half against ECU), I think our offense has been better against it in recent games. Gardner-Webb used a zone almost the entire first half and Duke shredded it. Andre had a great half, it's true, but so did almost everybody else -- Duke shot 58 percent and scored 53 points. In the second half, they went to man-to-man and did better.

I don't think zones will be a long-term problem for this team. I will be interesting to play them play the Syracuse zone in a few weeks.

Dukehky
12-19-2013, 01:05 PM
At the beginning of the thread people were talking about who will guard anderson. People said Jabari, Quinn, and Rodney. I would be willing to bet that its TT for the vast majority of the game. If K will put Thornton on Harry Barnes, he'll definitely put him on Anderson.

Please, Please Please, Steve Alford, put Tony Parker on Jabari Parker for like at least 3 minutes this game. Please do it, I'll become a member of your booster program if you do. I'll donate 20 dollars, get a number and start getting bombarded with emails if you put that scrub on our best player.

jv001
12-19-2013, 02:54 PM
At the beginning of the thread people were talking about who will guard anderson. People said Jabari, Quinn, and Rodney. I would be willing to bet that its TT for the vast majority of the game. If K will put Thornton on Harry Barnes, he'll definitely put him on Anderson.

Please, Please Please, Steve Alford, put Tony Parker on Jabari Parker for like at least 3 minutes this game. Please do it, I'll become a member of your booster program if you do. I'll donate 20 dollars, get a number and start getting bombarded with emails if you put that scrub on our best player.

I have a feeling Coach K just might try this. But the problem might be Anderson post's up TT. If that happens someone else might take over that role. TT is a very good off the ball defender and I can see him stealing the ball from Anderson when he makes one of his spin moves. GoDuke!

Kfanarmy
12-19-2013, 04:05 PM
I've worked with plenty of McKinsey consultants and have been largely unimpressed, particularly with the younger ones who drank the firm Kool Aid and believed they actually knew what they were talking about.

Now back to the game: The annual December game in MSG/Meadowlands draws a large pro Duke crowd. Let's be loud on Thursday and keep up the "home" court advantage.

wow...might want to reread this from the other persons point of view.

HCheek37
12-19-2013, 04:06 PM
OP was only talking about neutral court games. Michigan was at home, which doesn't carry as much weight with the RPI/Selection Committee.

I think we're a long ways from needing to worry about a 1 seed. Let's focus on improving our defense and getting our bench guys some minutes.

Definitely in agreement here from an on-court standpoint....we need improvements across the board.

From the fans standpoint, our grand hope each year is for a National Title which is only done by winning the NCAA title. Higher seeds have an easier path and blah blah blah. I just tend to take the look down the road and I know when they compare resumes of top 20 teams for 1-5 seeds, H2H matchups play into the situation alot. Additionally, some of the losses the ACC is taking (pitt to cincy and UNC to texas at home) just this week and it seems like a 14-4 ACC record might not be as impressive as needed to boost our seeding.

Either way, lets get the win tonight and continue to grow as a team for March!

Kfanarmy
12-19-2013, 04:09 PM
I want to see communication, so switches result in switches and hedges result in hedges. I'm tired of switches resulting in a double team and a wide open opponent. Usually with an easy dump for two.

-jk I just want to see the guys on the interior stay between there man and the ball or there man and the rim...to often they are getting caught out of position to guard either the entry pass or the shot in the paint.

CLW
12-19-2013, 04:21 PM
I think I'll take the OVER tonight and I have no clue what it is but neither of these teams plays much D.

Bob Green
12-19-2013, 05:22 PM
I think I'll take the OVER tonight and I have no clue what it is but neither of these teams plays much D.

The over/under is currently set at 162.5 in Las Vegas with Duke favored by five points:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/las-vegas/

So 84-79 is a ball park prediction.

Dukehky
12-19-2013, 05:40 PM
I have a feeling Coach K just might try this. But the problem might be Anderson post's up TT. If that happens someone else might take over that role. TT is a very good off the ball defender and I can see him stealing the ball from Anderson when he makes one of his spin moves. GoDuke!

Not saying I agree with the move, just saying I think it's what is going to happen. If TT's on Anderson when he's in the game, he's going to get a foul called on him every other time down the court.

CDu
12-19-2013, 05:42 PM
I just want to see the guys on the interior stay between there man and the ball or there man and the rim...to often they are getting caught out of position to guard either the entry pass or the shot in the paint.

Spelling police: "their", not "there."

Dukehky
12-19-2013, 05:58 PM
This is an article on ESPN.COM about Rasheed. Feel free to move, it but I didn't think it needed its own thread. Sounds kind of promising, but its also very informative. Sounds like everyone is really behind Sulaimon and Sulaimon is blaming no one but himself for this slump. Which is a great sign of a mature kid. For a lot of kids (I guess like me, I'm kind of young... okay not that young) it's easy to blame other people for everything.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10163935/duke-rasheed-sulaimon-trying-find-way

Good article, with some positive vibes stemming from a pretty negative situation. I always wanted Dre to get mo minutes though.

BD80
12-19-2013, 06:33 PM
This is an article on ESPN.COM about Rasheed. Feel free to move, it but I didn't think it needed its own thread. Sounds kind of promising, but its also very informative. Sounds like everyone is really behind Sulaimon and Sulaimon is blaming no one but himself for this slump. Which is a great sign of a mature kid. For a lot of kids (I guess like me, I'm kind of young... okay not that young) it's easy to blame other people for everything.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10163935/duke-rasheed-sulaimon-trying-find-way

Good article, with some positive vibes stemming from a pretty negative situation. I always wanted Dre to get mo minutes though.

Interesting article, tracks what we suspected.

Great part of the story is Ricky Price being involved, and trying to help. Some of us remember his struggles that year. Having someone still a part of the program who suffered through a similar period should be encouraging and valuable for Sheed.

jv001
12-19-2013, 07:06 PM
Well time to get Bob Harris and the radio feed going. Dick Vitale looks to be doing the game for ESPN. GoDuke!

-jk
12-19-2013, 07:19 PM
DBR Chat (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/misc.php?do=cchatbox) is open. Let's go Duke!

-jk

thewoosh31
12-19-2013, 08:03 PM
DBR Chat (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/misc.php?do=cchatbox) is open. Let's go Duke!

-jk

why does the chat link always take me to the FAQ smilie list?

CR9
12-19-2013, 08:04 PM
why does the chat link always take me to the FAQ smilie list?

Does the same for me.

arnie
12-19-2013, 08:05 PM
I'm not a wanker, but agree with the previous post. Lets jack up some more threes without our feet set.

-jk
12-19-2013, 08:12 PM
So it doesn't crash, DBR chat is limited to a group of about 666 of the most active, contributing members - created
by a mashup of points, posts,
and longevity.

I imagine we'll expand the group again in Jan after the regular ACC season gets underway - and we see how it behaves under more stress.

-jk

Tucknut
12-19-2013, 08:14 PM
T o o m a n y t h r e e s !

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 08:15 PM
I'm not a wanker, but agree with the previous post. Lets jack up some more threes without our feet set.

Duke has to play D and get the ball inside. This is entertaining but frustrating.

CLW
12-19-2013, 08:18 PM
I'd like to personally thank Jay Bilas and his ilk for ruining college basketball. Every team eventually is just going to play nothing but 2-3 zone the entire game to avoid a 90 free throw game and its nothing but a 3 point shooting contest which increases the variance of each team's performance.

Of course, I'm sure Bilas et al. will respond and eventually ban the zone and anything resembling a defense eventually it will just take then a few years to catch up to the mess they have created.

jv001
12-19-2013, 08:20 PM
I'd like to personally thank Jay Bilas and his ilk for ruining college basketball. Every team eventually is just going to play nothing but 2-3 zone the entire game to avoid a 90 free throw game and its nothing but a 3 point shooting contest which increases the variance of each team's performance.

Of course, I'm sure Bilas et al. will respond and eventually ban the zone and anything resembling a defense eventually it will just take then a few years to catch up to the mess they have created.

You can bet Duke won't be one of those every teams playing zone. GoDuke!

Dukehky
12-19-2013, 08:22 PM
4 more three point attempts than 2 pointers. 19-15.

I had no idea Quinn could be this bad at defense. Kyle Anderson and Alford have just torched him several times. Neither of those players is exactly John Wall out there.

vick
12-19-2013, 08:25 PM
I'd like to personally thank Jay Bilas and his ilk for ruining college basketball. Every team eventually is just going to play nothing but 2-3 zone the entire game to avoid a 90 free throw game and its nothing but a 3 point shooting contest which increases the variance of each team's performance.

Of course, I'm sure Bilas et al. will respond and eventually ban the zone and anything resembling a defense eventually it will just take then a few years to catch up to the mess they have created.

What? This has been a well-reffed half of offensive basketball not marred by the interior wrestling matches that had come to blight the game over the past few years. If we aren't going to play effective zone offense by penetrating and dishing (as Wojo said in his halftime interview), coaches are rightly going to play zone against us, and it has nothing to do with Bilas's desire for the rules to actually be enforced.

iragsdale
12-19-2013, 08:36 PM
DBR Chat (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/misc.php?do=cchatbox) is open. Let's go Duke!

-jk

I've gotta say, it makes for a WAY less pleasant experience for the new and not-anointed. We miss a lot of the usual posts here (this current thread was essentially empty at the half), and there's no indication to those of us that aren't anointed why we're just going straight to the home page when we click the link. Not at all friendly to newcomers, or to someone like me, a long-time lurker and occasional poster. Please consider either opening to all, adding an error message, or otherwise making it clear that some of us won't be able to participate.

- Ian

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 08:38 PM
Wear is killing Duke!

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 08:41 PM
What? This has been a well-reffed half of offensive basketball not marred by the interior wrestling matches that had come to blight the game over the past few years. If we aren't going to play effective zone offense by penetrating and dishing (as Wojo said in his halftime interview), coaches are rightly going to play zone against us, and it has nothing to do with Bilas's desire for the rules to actually be enforced.

I agree. This is not even a good zone and Duke is falling into a trap of trying to shoot over it. They need to go inside. Duke needs to be patient and attack.

ChrisP
12-19-2013, 08:42 PM
Wear is killing Duke!

Parker in particular. Jabari was totally lost on that last 3. Actually had his back turned to Wear. How does that happen???

RoyalBlue08
12-19-2013, 08:47 PM
Love seeing Dre celebrating with Sheed after the last UCLA timeout. Guys are competing for the same playing time, but are family first. Good sign for this team going forward.

ICP
12-19-2013, 08:49 PM
I've gotta say, it makes for a WAY less pleasant experience for the new and not-anointed. We miss a lot of the usual posts here (this current thread was essentially empty at the half), and there's no indication to those of us that aren't anointed why we're just going straight to the home page when we click the link. Not at all friendly to newcomers, or to someone like me, a long-time lurker and occasional poster. Please consider either opening to all, adding an error message, or otherwise making it clear that some of us won't be able to participate.

- Ian

I second that. Sadly, the in-game threads lost most of their appeal because the top voices many of us were looking forward to reading are now on the Chat. I don't really see the positive difference that a Chat brings to you as opposed to this thread style.

vick
12-19-2013, 08:52 PM
I agree. This is not even a good zone and Duke is falling into a trap of trying to shoot over it. They need to go inside. Duke needs to be patient and attack.

I'm quite impressed with Jefferson's positioning and passing in the second half against the zone. It's not a crazy stat line but he's definitely been valuable so far.

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 08:52 PM
Much better movement in the zone. Set shots against the zone is much easier.

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 08:57 PM
Much better movement in the zone. Set shots against the zone is much easier.

Now back to heaving threes. Focus!

ChrisP
12-19-2013, 08:57 PM
Ugh would have been nice if Sheer could have knocked down that open 3 when it was 49-61 :(

gwlaw99
12-19-2013, 09:01 PM
Why is Jabari not in the middle of the zone getting wide open 10 foot jumpers?

18258
12-19-2013, 09:01 PM
just got home, has sulaimon done anything good tonight

-jk
12-19-2013, 09:05 PM
I second that. Sadly, the in-game threads lost most of their appeal because the top voices many of us were looking forward to reading are now on the Chat. I don't really see the positive difference that a Chat brings to you as opposed to this thread style.

I do appreciate your point of view. We're still in beta with the dbr chat, though, and have to factor that in.

What makes any discussion board work - what makes our pub thrive - is active participation in the community.

Alternatively, lurkers don't bring much to the table, though I'm glad you find it a compelling place to visit.

Right now, we're using that participation as a yardstick for the beta group.

I guess that's a long-winded way if saying: the easiest way to get into the chat beta group is to actively participate the board. And asking good questions is just as useful as phd-number-crunching here.

(Damn, composing during TOs is tough! Let's go Duke!)

-jk

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 09:07 PM
Cannot foul

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 09:08 PM
just got home, has sulaimon done anything good tonight

Some good - some bad. But has been much more active

iragsdale
12-19-2013, 09:11 PM
I do appreciate your point of view. We're still in beta with the dbr chat, though, and have to factor that in.

What makes any discussion board work - what makes our pub thrive - is active participation in the community.

Alternatively, lurkers don't bring much to the table, though I'm glad you find it a compelling place to visit.

-jk

I assume that some part of what keeps this site running is ad impressions, no? Or do you guys get paid by the post? I tend to refresh MANY times during a game. If that is unwanted traffic, you're certainly doing a good job of getting rid of it.

lotusland
12-19-2013, 09:12 PM
am I the only one who groaned when the camera switched from the UCLA cheerleaders to the Duke band?

iragsdale
12-19-2013, 09:13 PM
I assume that some part of what keeps this site running is ad impressions, no? Or do you guys get paid by the post? I tend to refresh MANY times during a game. If that is unwanted traffic, you're certainly doing a good job of getting rid of it.

Of course, I could also just start making lots of replies with the all too common "me too", "right on", or "GTHC", if that's what it takes for me to be a valued part of the community, but I tend to prefer to keep the signal to noise ratio high, unless I actually have something useful to say.

dukelifer
12-19-2013, 09:16 PM
Anderson is scoring at will. Nice shot by Rasheed!

lotusland
12-19-2013, 09:17 PM
Of course, I could also just start making lots of replies with the all too common "me too", "right on", or "GTHC", if that's what it takes for me to be a valued part of the community, but I tend to prefer to keep the signal to noise ratio high, unless I actually have something useful to say.

Just make wise cracks about cinder blocks to up your post count.

18258
12-19-2013, 09:19 PM
THANKS, he just knocked down a 3, got a turnover, hope he's turning it around. My gosh Jabari is just better than anyone on the court, period

arnie
12-19-2013, 09:20 PM
Anderson is scoring at will. Nice shot by Rasheed!

Like this lineup- cook, Parker, hood , Sheed and Amile to finish