Phase III 2014-15 MBB (BC through St. John's)

[Kedsy]

The calendar has flipped to 2015, and Duke charges into the serious part of its schedule -- the ACC season. Phase III includes three home ACC games (#128 BC; #69 Miami; #56 Pitt), three road ACC games (#122 Wake; #81 NC State; #7 Louisville), plus a bonus game at Madison Sqaure Garden against #22 St. John's. (All rankings are from Pomeroy's current rankings as of the time I wrote this.) The Duke team is currently #2 in the AP poll, #2 in the Coach's poll, #3 in Pomeroy, and #6 in the RPI. Most Duke fans seem pretty happy with the season so far, so let's jump right in.

WILL WE STAY HEALTHY?

The last time Duke wasn't ranked in the AP top ten on January 1 was 1997, when the team was ranked #13. But since JJ Redick graduated this is only the third time Duke has been ranked higher than #5. The other two such seasons, 2011 (#1 on 1/1) and 2013 (also #1 on 1/1), were both derailed by injuries to key players. Right now, Duke seems healthy. I know my fingers are crossed that we stay that way.

If you're interested, here's the list of Duke's AP rankings on January 1 since 1997. It's not related to health, of course, but it's still a pretty impressive list:

DUKE'S AP RANK ON JANUARY 1

2015: 2
2014: 9
2013: 1
2012: 7
2011: 1
2010: 7
2009: 5
2008: 10
2007: 5
2006: 1
2005: 5
2004: 2
2003: 3
2002: 1
2001: 3
2000: 9
1999: 2
1998: 3
1997: 13


HOW CHALLENGING IS OUR SCHEDULE?

There are some, both in these forums and on the interwebz in general, who believe the ACC is the toughest conference in the land, and thus represents a minefield just daring a young Duke team to take missteps. Presumably this belief stems from the impressive array of talented teams at the top of the conference. Based on Pomeroy's rankings, the ACC has four Top 10 teams (#2 Virginia; #3 Duke; #7 Louisville; #9 UNC) while no other conference has more than one. And Duke does play three road games against those top ten teams, as well as a home game against UNC, although only one of those games (Louisville) occurs during this Phase.

After we get past the top of our top-heavy conference, however, the rest don't stack up very well against the other major conferences. Here's a glance at the ten most prestigious conferences and how many top 25, top 40, and top 100 teams each has, as a percentage of overall teams (again, ranks are from Pomeroy's most recent rankings):

TOP 25
------
Big 12 -- 60.0%
Big East -- 30.0%
Big 10 -- 28.6%
ACC -- 26.7%
Pac 12 -- 16.7%
SEC -- 14.3%
WCC -- 10.0%
MVC -- 10.0%
Atl 10 -- 7.1%
AAC -- 0%

TOP 40
------
Big 12 -- 70.0%
Big East -- 60.0%
Big 10 -- 42.9%
ACC -- 40.0%
SEC -- 35.7%
WCC -- 20.0%
MVC -- 20.0%
Pac 12 -- 16.7%
Atl 10 -- 14.3%
AAC -- 9.1%

TOP 100
-------
Big 10 -- 85.7%
Big 12 -- 80.0%
Big East -- 80.0%
SEC -- 78.6%
Pac 12 -- 75.0%
ACC -- 66.7%
AAC -- 54.5%
Atl 10 -- 50.0%
WCC -- 40.0%
MVC -- 20%

Of course this brings us back to the eternal debate over whether a schedule's value lies in the number of games against great teams (no non-ACC team plays as many as four Top 10 opponents in its conference schedule) or whether it's the overall schedule that matters (if you're counting top 100 teams, the ACC ranks worst among the big six conferences). I'll leave it to others to continue this debate.

For what it's worth, here's how the ACC has stacked up as a percentage of Pomeroy top 100 teams for as long as Pomeroy has published ratings (year-end, post-tourney ratings used, except for 2015):

PERCENTAGE OF POMEROY TOP 100 IN ACC

2015: 67%
2014: 73%
2013: 58%
2012: 75%
2011: 83%
2010: 100%
2009: 92%
2008: 83%
2007: 83%
2006: 92%
2005: 100%
2004: 89%
2003: 89%
2002: 67%

It may be worth noting that in the only two seasons out of the past 13 with percentages as low or lower than this season (2013 and 2002), the ACC only got four NCAA tournament bids. It's possible it could happen again this season.


HOW DEEP IS OUR TEAM, REALLY?

At the season's outset, many Duke observers hailed Duke's depth as a major strength and called this year's team the deepest we'd seen since 1998. Many suggested this would signal a departure from Coach K's traditional 7 or 8 man rotation, and called for 9 or even 10 (including Semi Ojeleye) players to get significant rotation minutes. We had so many good players, Duke fans couldn't agree on who would start. It seemed the perimeter starting spots would be a merry-go-round for Tyus Jones, Quinn Cook, Rasheed Sulaimon, Justise Winslow, Matt Jones, and Grayson Allen, a perception reinforced by Matt Jones starting our two exhibition games. Others called for a return to the line changes tried by Duke last season for a few games and employed this season by John Calipari at UK.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the ACC season: none of it went that way. In our seven games so far against top 100 opponents, our minute distribution looks like this:

2015 MPG AGAINST TOP 100 TEAMS

Quinn Cook: 35.9 mpg
Tyus Jones: 32.4 mpg
Justise Winslow: 31.3 mpg
Jahlil Okafor: 30.7 mpg
Amile Jefferson: 25.0 mpg
Rasheed Sulaimon: 17.1 mpg
Matt Jones: 16.6 mpg
Marshall Plumlee: 7.9 mpg
Grayson Allen: 2.3 mpg

The same old 7/8 man rotation as always. Coach K has a habit of tightening his rotation as January rolls around, so it'll be interesting to see how tight it gets. Will Grayon's minutes disappear altogether? Will Rasheed's and/or Matt's minutes decrease even further. Will our bench remain a strength, or is it starting to become a weakness? These are things to look for in this Phase.

Another possible wrinkle to look for in the upcoming games is the impact of Coach K trying the "twin towers" approach with Jahlil and Marshall on the court together. He tried it for 3 minutes against Wofford and declared the experiment a success in the post-game presser. Is it something he'll use regularly or situationally? Will we ever see the two towers for more than 5 or 6 minutes a game?

As far as the starting lineup is concerned, the early merry-go-round idea couldn't have been more wrong. We've used the same starting lineup for every game this season. If this continues, it will be the first time ever in the Coach K era. Below is a list of the number of players who started at least one game in every season under Coach K. While it's true this list includes Senior Game starters, subs inserted as a wake up call, and walk-ons starting one game for shock value and to foul Chris Paul, it's still somewhat eye opening:

NUMBER OF DUKE PLAYERS STARTING AT LEAST ON GAME

2015: 5
2014: 9
2013: 8
2012: 9
2011: 9
2010: 8
2009: 11
2008: 9
2007: 8
2006: 7
2005: 11
2004: 8
2003: 8
2002: 8
2001: 7
2000: 8
1999: 8
1998: 10
1997: 10
1996: 8
1995: 9
1994: 8
1993: 8
1992: 8
1991: 10
1990: 7
1989: 8
1988: 8
1987: 8
1986: 7
1985: 7
1984: 6
1983: 9
1982: 10
1981: 9


CAN OUR DEFENSE KEEP IT UP?

Duke's defense is currently ranked #15 by Pomeroy, a welcome change from last year's disastrous D. Can we keep it up, or even get better? Where is there room for improvement?

If we look at the "four factors," it seems Duke is doing reasonably well at all facets of defense. Starting with defensive rebounding, our defensive rebound percentage of 72.8% would be Duke's best mark ever, since they started keeping the offensive rebound stat (Duke's best full-season mark is 69.6%, set in the 2006-07 season), and currently ranks 58th in the country (unadjusted for schedule). Of course, last year at this time the team was also over 70%, so we'll see whether we can keep up our defensive boards over the ACC and post-season.

Our turnover percentage of 21.2% (also unadjusted) is 120th in the country, and is the best Duke mark since 2010. However, it's also worse than every Duke team from 1997 to 2010 (and I don't have numbers before 1997, so it could be a lot longer), so we're not really forcing turnovers at that prodigious a pace. It would be nice to get this number a little higher, but it's probably critical that it not sink much (if any) lower.

Our free throw rate (measuring the amount we allow opponents to get to the line) is absolutely outstanding. At 23.2 (again unadjusted), we rank 6th in the country in this stat. If we continue at this rate, it will be our best rate since at least 1997 (as far back as my stats go), a welcome improvement after last season allowing our opponents to get to the line at an alarming rate of 40.8 (our worst rate since at least 1997). Once again we make more free throws than our opponents attempt (by a lot actually -- we average 17.6 made FTs a game while our opponents attempt only 13.3 per game).

Finally, our opposing eFG% of 44.8% (unadjusted) ranks 75th in the country. Breaking it down further, we're preventing our opponents from taking threes -- only 27.6% of opposing FG attempts have been from behind the arc, our lowest mark since 2006. Even better, opposing teams have sank only 27.2% of their three point attempts, which if it continues will be Duke's best mark ever since the three-point shot was adopted. On the other hand, opponents make 46.6% of their two-point shots against us, not nearly as bad as last season's horrific 50.3% mark, but still with seeming room for improvement.


WILL FREE THROWS COME AROUND TO BITE US?

We're currently shooting free throws at 69.3%, our worse mark since 2006-07. It's also almost the same as our team FT% in 2001-02 (69.0%), a season in which probably the nation's best team lost in the Sweet 16 due in large part to missed free throws at the end of the game.

Could that happen again this season? Unlike 2002, when only three players on the team shot above 70% from the line (none as high as 76%) and our two primary ballhandlers combined to shoot 68.6% on their free throws, this year's team's free throw problem lies almost exclusively in the frontcourt:

STARTERS' FREE THROW PERCENTAGES

Jahlil Okafor: 50.9%
Justise Winslow: 57.1%
Amile Jefferson: 57.6%

Quinn Cook: 95.5%
Tyus Jones: 86.0%

Sixth man Rasheed Sulaimon: 73.7%

So, to improve, one of two things need to happen. Either our frontcourt trio need to improve their shooting, or they need to take fewer free throws compared to the backcourt players.

We discussed this at length on the boards after the Elon game, in which Jahlil/Justise/Amile shot two-thirds of our team's free throws and made only 38.9% of them (while the rest of the team shot 78.9% on nine attempts). Some opined that the trio had to get their shooting above 70%. In our next three games, it went like this:

Jahlil: 50.0%
Justise: 78.9%
Amile: 64.3%
-------------
TOTAL: 60.0%

The team, however, shot between 72% and 73.5% in each of the three games, in part because the rest of the team shot an outstanding 86.4% from the line, in part because 60% is a lot better than 39%, and in part because in the three games our three frontcourt starters only took 50.6% of our free throws instead of the 66.7% they took in the Elon game.

Ultimately, if these three guys can average 60% and we can get Tyus and Quinn to the line when it really matters, we'll probably be OK.

I hope.

HOW WILL OUR TEAM PERSONALITY EVOLVE?

Every team has its own personality. Last season, we seemed to wilt and/or panic down the stretch. In other years we've seemed to get our gym shoes on our opponents' necks and never let up. This year's team's personality seems different from any Duke team I can remember. We seem steady but unspectacular, building leads but not too large, but whenever it gets a little uncomfortable, stepping up and pushing it back into the comfort zone. In the end we've won every game by double-digits, but haven't had any wow! games like the beatdown Kentucky put on Kansas.

In short, I think the team reflects the personality of our point guard, Tyus Jones. He's steady and very talented, but not generally flashy or spectacular. He's satisfied with running the team and sharing the ball, until the situation calls for someone to step up and then he does. It's kind of uncanny, actually.

But Tyus is a freshman. Will he keep his cool all season? Will the team? If things go poorly for the team or for Tyus, how will he and the team react?

I have no idea. Hopefully, if any of that happens, upperclass captains Quinn Cook and Amile Jefferson can take over and keep the team on course. We may get some preliminary answers here during the relative adversity of the ACC season.

IS THIS TEAM WHAT WE THINK IT IS?

There seems to be a general consensus that this is a special Duke team, destined to go far, achieve much, and go down in Duke history as one of the great ones. On the other hand, we start three freshmen and while they seem very mature beyond their years, nobody can accurately predict how they'll respond as things get tougher.

We have what appears to be the best offense in the country, and a defense good enough to support a championship team, but we still haven't seen what might happen when the chips are down.

An interesting stat that, to me, reflects the above uncertainty is offensive rebounding. Below is a chart of Duke's offensive rebound percentage since they started using the stat in 1987, sorted highest to lowest:

OFFENSIVE REBOUND PERCENTAGE



Year OR% Rank Finish
1999 44.3% 3 2
1990 40.9% ? 2
2010 40.6% 6 1
1988 40.5% ? 4
1998 39.7% 39 8
1992 39.5% ? 1
2004 39.2% 16 4
1996 38.3% ? 64
1994 38.0% ? 2
1991 38.0% ? 1
2015 37.9% 34
1987 37.9% ? 16
2009 37.4% 40 16
2000 37.4% 69 16
2005 37.3% 49 16
2003 37.0% 65 16
2001 37.0% 62 1
1995 36.9% ? n/a
1993 36.7% ? 32
2007 36.4% 76 64
1997 36.3% 129 32
1989 36.3% ? 4
2014 35.2% 54 64
2011 35.1% 87 16
2012 34.7% 88 64
2002 34.5% 150 16
2008 34.0% 135 32
2006 30.9% 275 16
2013 28.8% 273 8


Of the top ten Duke teams in this category, eight made the Final Four and one made the Elite Eight. Of the 18 teams not in the top ten in this category, only two made the Final Four and one made the Elite Eight. The 2014-15 team is currently tied for 11th, just below the mighty top ten. Will the team push higher, and fulfill expectations? Or will it coast a little lower and disappoint? The next phase will be a start in answering those questions.

Or maybe the past can't predict where this team will go. Maybe the team and its seemingly unique personality will run its own race and accomplish great things no matter the statistics. Who can say?

Go Duke.

[Wander]

The worst part of our defense: free throw percentage defense! Step it up, home crowd?

[Duke71]

Kedsy,

Your industriousness and thoroughness on this post is absolutely awesome.

I 've told you more than a year ago that I'm not as big a fan of metrics as you are, but I recognize clearly how much hard work went into your posted compilation and can't help but be proud of calling you a fellow alumnus. Your analysis and data gathering was off-the-charts. It's a springboard for discussion. I just wish that Coach K would find a way to go 10 deep (OK, 9 deep now that "O" is gone) this season. This would be good for the already good team chemistry....the likes of which we haven't had in awhile.

You deserve credit for launching relevant thought and you shall have it.

[sagegrouse]

Thanks. Kedsy -- lawyer, raconteur, statistician! Good work!

A few things -- the first emphasizing one of your key points:

Defense Means Wins? As Al McGuire used to say, "Offense goes up and down from game to game, but defense is a constant." Teams with outstanding records have great defenses. Can we continue to show progress in team defense?

Can Justise fulfill His Potential? Yes, this year, 'cuz I am not counting on any future years from anybody. He can do virtually anything on the basketball court, but he needs to take advantage of his abundant talent.

Will Marshall Become a Full-fledged Member of the Rotation? Coach K has hinted as much, so we shall see. He's become a good college center, who can get easy shots and give other players easy shots.

Is Rasheed Destined to Be a Variable Force Off the Bench -- Sometimes Great, Sometimes Erratic -- or Will He Become a Star?

Again, thanks for posting.

[Bob Green]

Absolutely fantastic job with this Phase post. I'd throw some well deserved reputation points your way except I need to spread things around first!




WILL WE STAY HEALTHY?

The last time Duke wasn't ranked in the AP top ten on January 1 was 1997, when the team was ranked #13. But since JJ Redick graduated this is only the third time Duke has been ranked higher than #5. The other two such seasons, 2011 (#1 on 1/1) and 2013 (also #1 on 1/1), were both derailed by injuries to key players. Right now, Duke seems healthy. I know my fingers are crossed that we stay that way.

The importance of team health can never be overstated.




HOW CHALLENGING IS OUR SCHEDULE?

Based on Pomeroy's rankings, the ACC has four Top 10 teams (#2 Virginia; #3 Duke; #7 Louisville; #9 UNC) while no other conference has more than one. And Duke does play three road games against those top ten teams, as well as a home game against UNC, although only one of those games (Louisville) occurs during this Phase.

Our ACC schedule is plenty challenging enough. This team will be tested and ready to go come March. With games at Louisville, at Virginia and at North Carolina, hostile crowds will have been encountered multiple times before the tournament.




HOW DEEP IS OUR TEAM, REALLY?

Another possible wrinkle to look for in the upcoming games is the impact of Coach K trying the "twin towers" approach with Jahlil and Marshall on the court together. He tried it for 3 minutes against Wofford and declared the experiment a success in the post-game presser. Is it something he'll use regularly or situationally? Will we ever see the two towers for more than 5 or 6 minutes a game?

Marshall Plumlee is the rotation wild card in my not at all humble opinion. If Coach K decides the "twin towers" is effective, Plumlee's minutes will increase accordingly and the rotation could stay at a solid eight players during January.




WILL FREE THROWS COME AROUND TO BITE US?

We're currently shooting free throws at 69.3%, our worse mark since 2006-07. It's also almost the same as our team FT% in 2001-02 (69.0%), a season in which probably the nation's best team lost in the Sweet 16 due in large part to missed free throws at the end of the game.

Missed free throws are always frustrating. They are called "free" for a reason.




HOW WILL OUR TEAM PERSONALITY EVOLVE?

But Tyus is a freshman. Will he keep his cool all season? Will the team? If things go poorly for the team or for Tyus, how will he and the team react?

This is where Quinn Cook's experience and leadership will either make us or break us. Based on his early season performance, I say it will make us. Cook is off to a great start and is positioning himself to have a monster senior season.




IS THIS TEAM WHAT WE THINK IT IS?

Or maybe the past can't predict where this team will go. Maybe the team and its seemingly unique personality will run its own race and accomplish great things no matter the statistics. Who can say?

We are going to know a lot more about this team when January rolls to February. Hopefully, the results are positive but I am convinced this team is unique.

[Bob Green]

1. The main thing I will be watching for during Phase III is whether or not the team consistently plays inside out. There are going to be possessions where Okafor doesn't touch the ball such as in transition after a turnover or when inbounding the ball from the baseline and the team takes a quick 3 pointer, but those possessions need to be the exception and not the rule. Almost every time we are in our half court offense, the ball needs to go inside to Okafor. Okafor is a match-up nightmare so it is imperative we use him to our advantage.

2. On the Twin Towers thing - is this a viable option when the opponent goes zone on us? I'm probably overlooking the obvious here, but Plumlee in the low post with Okafor at the free throw line could be effective. Jefferson does a great job operating at the free throw line; however, he is limited by his inability to knock down the jump shot. Okafor has the skills to pass, drive or take the jump shot. I don't know that we will ever see it, but it is worth discussing.

[jv001]

Great job as always Kedsy. My observations to Phase III:

1) Health is always my main concern when it comes to Duke basketball. Injuries to Kyrie, Ryan and all the way back to Tate Armstrong and Bob Verga come to mind. Hope and prayer will be a point of emphasis for me.
2) Schedule. Our schedule in the ACC will be tough because of road games to: Louisville, Virginia, Uncheaters, Notre Dame, Syracuse and maybe NC State will be tough as well. What I don't like is a chance to play Virginia at home. This could come back to bite us if we lose at Charlottesville.
3) The rotation. Kedsy has pretty much nailed it in his post. I think it will be a 7 or 8 man rotation for the most part. That's if we are injury free. See #1. It's going to be interesting in how Coach K uses Marshall. Will we see more of MPIII with Jah in ACC play? Will Marshall's minutes get a little longer in ACC play? Are we better on defense and rebounding with those two together. Will Marshall's increase in minutes take away from Amile's minutes on the court. Amile is very important to Duke's success.
4) Defense. Right behind health is defense in my view. We have a very efficient offensive team, but will the defense keep up the pace as ACC play begins? It will need to in order for the Blue Devils to reach their ceiling. In the back of mind, I keep wondering if one game we see Coach K all of sudden come out of a time out and Duke goes into a zone. With the personnel we have on this team, I think we could pull it off in short stretches. Justise could be a great up top defender in a 1-3-1 zone. I know, I'm just dreaming.
5) Who is this team? Well, I don't think we've seen the best from this squad yet and for that I'm thankful. I've seen many Duke teams reach their ceiling and go stagnant. But this team is in my eyes, special. I think we'll know more about the team personality by the middle of ACC play.

Thanks Kedsy for a great Phase III. GoDuke!

[Saratoga2]

Depth

We are one injury to Jahlil from becoming an average team. Opposing coaches may use the hack attack to effectively reduce Jahlil's contribution. Any one other injury we can survive, although we are thin inside so Amile is also a key. Losing Semi has reduced our flexibility inside.

In addition, our bench guards all are potentially very good to servicable but all are struggling with some aspect of their game. Getting more out of at least one of our bench guards on the offensive side would be a help.

Free Throw Shooting

Jahlil's form isn't bad so it is hard to understand why he continues to sit around 50%. Amile has had his issues but has tried hard to get a consistent approach from the line. It seems to me that his main problems come when his shot flattens out. Justise also has reasonable form so his numbers may rise. Fortunately MP3 looks much better on the line this year. If he plays more, it stands to reason he will get more attempts and bring our overall shooting percentage for big men up.

[Kedsy]

On the Twin Towers thing - is this a viable option when the opponent goes zone on us? I'm probably overlooking the obvious here, but Plumlee in the low post with Okafor at the free throw line could be effective. Jefferson does a great job operating at the free throw line; however, he is limited by his inability to knock down the jump shot. Okafor has the skills to pass, drive or take the jump shot. I don't know that we will ever see it, but it is worth discussing.

I think if we take Jahlil out of the low post for any length of time, we're taking away our own best advantage. He could be successful in the high post or even a little further out, but he probably won't be best-player-in-the-country successful out there. Put another way, I believe our opponents would breathe a sigh of relief if we placed Jahlil at the free throw line, and if the opponent is happy about a move then it's probably not the best move.

If we face a zone, I'd go with Justise as the guy at the foul line. Amile (or Marshall, though I think Amile would probably be better at it) can try to find a hole on the baseline somewhere, and if the particular zone we're facing doesn't have such a hole, then we can go small and use Rasheed (or Matt, if he shakes his shooting slump) along with Quinn and Tyus to extend the defense on the perimeter while Jahlil occupies them inside and Justise does the triple threat thing from the free throw line.

[Kedsy]

In another thread, a few pointers have jokingly pointed out that our "free throw defense" hasn't been so good this year. So I looked it up and, you know what? Duke's opponents are shooting the best from the free throw line in the entirety of the Coach K era!

FREE THROW DEFENSE -- OPPONENTS' FREE THROW PERCENTAGE AGAINST DUKE

2015: 73.2%
2014: 69.3%
2013: 72.4%
2012: 68.9%
2011: 65.0%
2010: 68.7%
2009: 68.9%
2008: 67.2%
2007: 69.5%
2006: 66.7%
2005: 71.2%
2004: 69.4%
2003: 70.9%
2002: 69.3%
2001: 69.5%
2000: 66.9%
1999: 66.3%
1998: 66.0%
1997: 67.9%
1996: 69.5%
1995: 72.2%
1994: 68.6%
1993: 64.3%
1992: 65.0%
1991: 66.3%
1990: 69.5%
1989: 68.3%
1988: 67.3%
1987: 71.6%
1986: 68.8%
1985: 70.2%
1984: 68.1%
1983: 71.3%
1982: 67.5%
1981: 70.7%

Not only is this year's free throw D the worst ever under Coach K, if our opponents keep on burning the nets on free throws at the current 73% it will be only the fourth time in the past 20 years we've given up 70% or better and only the sixth time in 30 years. Crazy, right?

Assuming this is a random variation, and not due to pace or some other non-obvious factor, this may bode well for this year's team. Because if our opponents free throw percentage reverts to the mean, it would mean our performance-to-date this season is even better than the statistics show.

Or not, but it seemed like a fun fact to point out.

[jv001]

In another thread, a few pointers have jokingly pointed out that our "free throw defense" hasn't been so good this year. So I looked it up and, you know what? Duke's opponents are shooting the best from the free throw line in the entirety of the Coach K era!

FREE THROW DEFENSE -- OPPONENTS' FREE THROW PERCENTAGE AGAINST DUKE

2015: 73.2%
2014: 69.3%
2013: 72.4%
2012: 68.9%
2011: 65.0%
2010: 68.7%
2009: 68.9%
2008: 67.2%
2007: 69.5%
2006: 66.7%
2005: 71.2%
2004: 69.4%
2003: 70.9%
2002: 69.3%
2001: 69.5%
2000: 66.9%
1999: 66.3%
1998: 66.0%
1997: 67.9%
1996: 69.5%
1995: 72.2%
1994: 68.6%
1993: 64.3%
1992: 65.0%
1991: 66.3%
1990: 69.5%
1989: 68.3%
1988: 67.3%
1987: 71.6%
1986: 68.8%
1985: 70.2%
1984: 68.1%
1983: 71.3%
1982: 67.5%
1981: 70.7%

Not only is this year's free throw D the worst ever under Coach K, if our opponents keep on burning the nets on free throws at the current 73% it will be only the fourth time in the past 20 years we've given up 70% or better and only the sixth time in 30 years. Crazy, right?

Assuming this is a random variation, and not due to pace or some other non-obvious factor, this may bode well for this year's team. Because if our opponents free throw percentage reverts to the mean, it would mean our performance-to-date this season is even better than the statistics show.

Or not, but it seemed like a fun fact to point out.

I say we pick out the other teams worst free throw shooters to foul, :cool: Good work on those stats. GoDuke!

[Philadukie]

In another thread, a few pointers have jokingly pointed out that our "free throw defense" hasn't been so good this year. So I looked it up and, you know what? Duke's opponents are shooting the best from the free throw line in the entirety of the Coach K era!

FREE THROW DEFENSE -- OPPONENTS' FREE THROW PERCENTAGE AGAINST DUKE

2015: 73.2%
2014: 69.3%
2013: 72.4%
2012: 68.9%
2011: 65.0%
2010: 68.7%
2009: 68.9%
2008: 67.2%
2007: 69.5%
2006: 66.7%
2005: 71.2%
2004: 69.4%
2003: 70.9%
2002: 69.3%
2001: 69.5%
2000: 66.9%
1999: 66.3%
1998: 66.0%
1997: 67.9%
1996: 69.5%
1995: 72.2%
1994: 68.6%
1993: 64.3%
1992: 65.0%
1991: 66.3%
1990: 69.5%
1989: 68.3%
1988: 67.3%
1987: 71.6%
1986: 68.8%
1985: 70.2%
1984: 68.1%
1983: 71.3%
1982: 67.5%
1981: 70.7%

Not only is this year's free throw D the worst ever under Coach K, if our opponents keep on burning the nets on free throws at the current 73% it will be only the fourth time in the past 20 years we've given up 70% or better and only the sixth time in 30 years. Crazy, right?

Assuming this is a random variation, and not due to pace or some other non-obvious factor, this may bode well for this year's team. Because if our opponents free throw percentage reverts to the mean, it would mean our performance-to-date this season is even better than the statistics show.

Or not, but it seemed like a fun fact to point out.

Interesting! So what is the difference then for opponents' point totals per game this year between this high % and, say, the mean of the last 30 years? In other words, how many more points are opponents getting at this high percentage vs. what it would be if they were shooting the 30-year mean? It can't be much right? If opponents are averaging say 10 free throw attempts a game, how many points is that vs. the mean? A point? If that?

[flyingdutchdevil]

Interesting! So what is the difference then for opponents' point totals this year between this high % and, say, the mean of the last 30 years? In other words, how many more points are opponents getting at this high percentage vs. what it would be if they were shooting the 30-year mean? It can't be much right? If opponents are averaging say 10 free throw attempts a game, how many points is that vs. the mean? A point? If that?

Let me get this straight. 1) We haven't won by less than 10 points. 2) Teams are shooting an all-time high against us in FT%. 3) Our defense is only ranked #16 in the country.

Ummm....our offense is kinda nasty, huh?

Conclusion: Coach K - from here on our, let the kids wear their head hear and facial hear however they would like. It's clearly working.

[tux]

I personally think K's decision to practice (and sometimes play) with both Okafor and Plumlee in the line-up is more about preparation for a potential matchup with UK (and maybe to a lesser extent UNC). I recall Jim Calhoun saying after the 1999 championship (still hurts) that UConn had prepped for Duke during the *entire* season, putting in pick and roll offense specifically designed to attack Duke's defense. I'm not sure how many coaches would prepare for some hypothetical NCAA match up, but if you're a top team with championship aspirations and you see another dominant team like UK standing in your way, it may be a good idea to start adding the necessary wrinkles as early as possible.

Of course, that's not really K's MO since he insists on looking no further than the next game. So, I doubt he'd ever tell the team that he's thinking about UK at all... or the media... but I think K knows he'll probably need to go big at some point.

...


Random thought: Marshall, Matt, and Amile are great defensive players IMO. Matt is particularly smart and disruptive on the defensive end. Whether those guys can find ways to make positive offensive contributions (Marshall/Amile getting offensive rebounds or putbacks; Matt scoring the ball when open) will be a major factor in how this team finishes the season IMO.

[Henderson]

I personally think K's decision to practice (and sometimes play) with both Okafor and Plumlee in the line-up is more about preparation for a potential matchup with UK (and maybe to a lesser extent UNC). I recall Jim Calhoun saying after the 1999 championship (still hurts) that UConn had prepped for Duke during the *entire* season, putting in pick and roll offense specifically designed to attack Duke's defense. I'm not sure how many coaches would prepare for some hypothetical NCAA match up, but if you're a top team with championship aspirations and you see another dominant team like UK standing in your way, it may be a good idea to start adding the necessary wrinkles as early as possible.

Of course, that's not really K's MO since he insists on looking no further than the next game. So, I doubt he'd ever tell the team that he's thinking about UK at all... or the media... but I think K knows he'll probably need to go big at some point.

I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know. And you aren't alone here in having suggested that K is prepping for Kentucky with the Twin Towers lineup.

But it seems unlikely to me. A Duke matchup with Kentucky is so very speculative at this point. So very speculative with so much ball to play. I'm guessing K is focused on ACC play right now and getting the team ready for all the teams to be faced. That includes working out different looks for different opposing teams and game situations.

As you say, Duke's MO is to look to the next game, though we know they scout further out. But I doubt it involves choosing lineups now in anticipation of a speculative matchup with UK in April.

[Kedsy]

Interesting! So what is the difference then for opponents' point totals per game this year between this high % and, say, the mean of the last 30 years? In other words, how many more points are opponents getting at this high percentage vs. what it would be if they were shooting the 30-year mean? It can't be much right? If opponents are averaging say 10 free throw attempts a game, how many points is that vs. the mean? A point? If that?

Our opponents are averaging almost 13 free throws a game. As you suggest, the difference is less than a point a game, probably around three-quarters of a point. Not much, of course, but it's probably the difference between us being #15 in Pomeroy's defensive efficiency and us being around #8.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Let me get this straight. 1) We haven't won by less than 10 points. 2) Teams are shooting an all-time high against us in FT%. 3) Our defense is only ranked #16 in the country.

Ummm....our offense is kinda nasty, huh?

Conclusion: Coach K - from here on our, let the kids wear their head hear and facial hear however they would like. It's clearly working.

hear hear

[Philadukie]

Our opponents are averaging almost 13 free throws a game. As you suggest, the difference is less than a point a game, probably around three-quarters of a point. Not much, of course, but it's probably the difference between us being #15 in Pomeroy's defensive efficiency and us being around #8.


Ahh, got it. So that does make our defense look better then. If that high % reverts to the mean and all else stays the same (and it never does!) our defensive efficiency ranking will improve to top 10.

I used to think that a team needed to be in the top 10 of both D and O efficiency to have a good chance at the Final Four and Championship (notwithstanding random outliers every so often), but the results over the past several years make me think that's not the case. It seems to be about 50/50 over the last five years of teams in the Final Four that were in the top 10 of both efficiency numbers vs. teams that were not. I have to double check that, but that's what I recall the last time I looked. I think I was also looking at the post-tourney numbers though too. In any case, all things considered, it's probably still best to be in the top 10 of both efficiency numbers.

[BrazyATX]

Well done. Excellent Phase post.

[Kedsy]

It seems to be about 50/50 over the last five years of teams in the Final Four that were in the top 10 of both efficiency numbers vs. teams that were not. I have to double check that, but that's what I recall the last time I looked. I think I was also looking at the post-tourney numbers though too.

Actually, it's much lower, if you look at pre-tournament numbers (Pomeroy, of course). Only four teams in the past five years have made the Final Four after being in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff, which translates to only 20% (and three of those four teams did it in the same season, 2012).

FINAL FOUR TEAMS (pre-tournament OffEff/DefEff rank)

2014
Florida 17/5
Wisconsin 5/59
Kentucky 19/35
UConn 80/11

2013
Louisville 15/1
Michigan 2/58
Syracuse 16/23
Wichita St 50/30

2012
Kentucky 2/6
Ohio St 7/1
Kansas 8/8
Louisville 122/2

2011
Kentucky 7/22
UConn 21/31
Butler 39/77
VCU 59/143

2010
Duke 1/4
West Virginia 11/24
Michigan State 38/27
Butler 55/15

So it's only 50/50 that a Final Four team was in the top 10 in either OffEff OR DefEff over the last five seasons (ten teams out of twenty).


(Note that I'm using Pomeroy's numbers that he actually used during the season in question. The historical numbers behind the paywall on his website are recalculated using his current formula.)

[Philadukie]

Actually, it's much lower, if you look at pre-tournament numbers (Pomeroy, of course). Only four teams in the past five years have made the Final Four after being in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff, which translates to only 20% (and three of those four teams did it in the same season, 2012).

FINAL FOUR TEAMS (pre-tournament OffEff/DefEff rank)

2014
Florida 17/5
Wisconsin 5/59
Kentucky 19/35
UConn 80/11

2013
Louisville 15/1
Michigan 2/58
Syracuse 16/23
Wichita St 50/30

2012
Kentucky 2/6
Ohio St 7/1
Kansas 8/8
Louisville 122/2

2011
Kentucky 7/22
UConn 21/31
Butler 39/77
VCU 59/143

2010
Duke 1/4
West Virginia 11/24
Michigan State 38/27
Butler 55/15

So it's only 50/50 that a Final Four team was in the top 10 in either OffEff OR DefEff over the last five seasons (ten teams out of twenty).


(Note that I'm using Pomeroy's numbers that he actually used during the season in question. The historical numbers behind the paywall on his website are recalculated using his current formula.)

Cool, thanks! I guess when I was looking I was looking at only top 10 in one or the other and not both like I was remembering. Good stuff.

[Philadukie]

As an addendum: (and mods, feel free to move somewhere else if it's getting too far afield, but hopefully it's related tangentially since we often discuss our KenPom rankings) I'd be interested to know, what does this Final Four data say to you? Do you see any meaningful trends here in terms of KenPom's DefEff or OffEff stats and Tourney performance? If not, it begs the question (at least from me): if the Tournament, for better or worse, is generally considered the end-all-be-all differentiator among teams in college basketball, what ultimate ranking value are KenPom's numbers (because, really, the data only exist to rank and compare teams) if they don't have any predictive value for performance in the Tournament within a pretty broad band? (Other than maybe helping to predict outcomes of individual match-ups during the season?). And why should we even care about being in the top 10 DefEff or OffEff if what we really care about are Final Fours and Championships? (And I don't mean that in a snarky way but in a truly inquisitive way).

[tux]

As an addendum: (and mods, feel free to move somewhere else if it's getting too far afield, but hopefully it's related tangentially since we often discuss our KenPom rankings) I'd be interested to know, what does this Final Four data say to you? Do you see any meaningful trends here in terms of KenPom's DefEff or OffEff stats and Tourney performance? If not, it begs the question (at least from me): if the Tournament, for better or worse, is generally considered the end-all-be-all differentiator among teams in college basketball, what ultimate ranking value are KenPom's numbers (because, really, the data only exists to rank teams) if they don't have any predictive value for performance in the Tournament within a pretty broad band? (Other than maybe helping to predict outcomes of individual match-ups during the season?). And why should we even care about being in the top 10 DefEff or OffEff if what we really care about are Final Fours and Championships? (And I don't mean that in a snarky way but in a truly inquisitive way).


I'm not sure. Those are good questions. But, let's imagine a world in which KenPom's numbers where highly predictive for Tournament performance. Seems worse, at least to me.

[blUDAYvil]

Actually, it's much lower, if you look at pre-tournament numbers (Pomeroy, of course). Only four teams in the past five years have made the Final Four after being in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff, which translates to only 20% (and three of those four teams did it in the same season, 2012).


Thanks for looking into this, Kedsy. While it's interesting to note that only 20% of FF teams over the last 5 years have been top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff, I'm much more interested in what percentage of teams that have been top 10 in both OffDeff and DefEff have made the final 4.

2014: No teams
2013: Louisville (made FF)
2012: Kentucky (made FF), Ohio State (made FF)
2011: No teams
2010: Duke (made FF), Kansas (did not make FF)

So, 80% of teams that were in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff over the last 5 years have made the FF! Going back a bit further

2009: No teams
2008: Kansas (made FF), Memphis (made FF), UCLA (made FF)
2007: UNC (no Final Four - yipee!)
2006: Florida (made FF)
2005: Illinois (made FF)

Make that 82% of teams in the last 10 years. So while it seems like a top 10 OffEff and DefEff ranking isn't a requisite for making the final four, it sure helps! Sort of like saying most smart people didn't go to Duke, but most people who went to Duke are smart (or something like that).

[gam7]

Thanks for looking into this, Kedsy. While it's interesting to note that only 20% of FF teams over the last 5 years have been top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff, I'm much more interested in what percentage of teams that have been top 10 in both OffDeff and DefEff have made the final 4.

2014: No teams
2013: Louisville (made FF)
2012: Kentucky (made FF), Ohio State (made FF)
2011: No teams
2010: Duke (made FF), Kansas (did not make FF)

So, 80% of teams that were in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff over the last 5 years have made the FF! Going back a bit further

2009: No teams
2008: Kansas (made FF), Memphis (made FF), UCLA (made FF)
2007: UNC (no Final Four - yipee!)
2006: Florida (made FF)
2005: Illinois (made FF)

Make that 82% of teams in the last 10 years. So while it seems like a top 10 OffEff and DefEff ranking isn't a requisite for making the final four, it sure helps! Sort of like saying most smart people didn't go to Duke, but most people who went to Duke are smart (or something like that).

Not sure whether it changes the numbers, but are you looking at end-of-season efficiency rankings (which would include the Final Four and championship games)? Or rankings going into the Final Four? Or rankings going into the NCAA tournament? Or rankings as of the end of the regular season? Or rankings as of the beginning of conference play (where we are now)?

Maybe kenpom devotees know - does he have an archive that allows you to see what the rankings were on a particular date (or as of various key points in the schedule - like just before NCAA tournament, just before Final Four, etc.)?

[Kedsy]

Maybe kenpom devotees know - does he have an archive that allows you to see what the rankings were on a particular date (or as of various key points in the schedule - like just before NCAA tournament, just before Final Four, etc.)?

Kenpom now has an archive behind his paywall. I don't pay his fee, so I don't know for certain, but I believe it shows the ratings just before the NCAA tournament each season. However, I would note that I don't think his archives are really snapshots of what was on his site at that time, because they all use his current formula and not the formula in use at the time.

If you want to see what Pomeroy said at various times in the past, I use the way back machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20130420061734/http://kenpom.com/). The issue there is you may not get the exact date you want because the site wasn't backed up every day (or even every week).

[Kedsy]

Thanks for looking into this, Kedsy. While it's interesting to note that only 20% of FF teams over the last 5 years have been top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff, I'm much more interested in what percentage of teams that have been top 10 in both OffDeff and DefEff have made the final 4.

2014: No teams
2013: Louisville (made FF)
2012: Kentucky (made FF), Ohio State (made FF)
2011: No teams
2010: Duke (made FF), Kansas (did not make FF)

So, 80% of teams that were in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff over the last 5 years have made the FF! Going back a bit further

2009: No teams
2008: Kansas (made FF), Memphis (made FF), UCLA (made FF)
2007: UNC (no Final Four - yipee!)
2006: Florida (made FF)
2005: Illinois (made FF)

Make that 82% of teams in the last 10 years. So while it seems like a top 10 OffEff and DefEff ranking isn't a requisite for making the final four, it sure helps! Sort of like saying most smart people didn't go to Duke, but most people who went to Duke are smart (or something like that).

I believe you're using post-tourney data, which is sort of self-fulfilling. I only have "true" pre-tourney data going back to 2009 (as I explained in my earlier post, if you use the Kenpom archives, you're getting his new formula; I'm using the ratings he actually published pre-tournament), but here's the list of all teams that were in the top 10 in both OffEff and DefEff in that timeframe:

2014:
Louisville, 10/6
Wichita St, 8/10

2013
Florida, 5/2

2012
Kentucky, 2/6 (made FF)
Ohio St, 7/1 (made FF)
Kansas, 8/8 (made FF)

2011
Ohio St, 1/10
Duke, 3/5

2010
Duke, 1/4 (made FF)
Kansas, 2/5

2009
Gonzaga, 6/9

So, it's really four out of 11 (36.4%), and three of the four happened in 2012. I don't have the info from 2005 to 2008.

[Dukehky]

We have a brutal 9 game stretch coming up, with games @UL, @ND, @St John's, and @UVA. Personally, I believe Duke is better than all of those teams even on their home courts. I have faith in this roster, and over the next 9 games, I think that 7-2 would be a really good result, but I think 8-1 is more likely than that, with a loss coming at a relatively unexpected place like @ND. I think 9-0 is just as likely as a 6-3 finish, but 6-3 would hurt us. I think because of UVA's easier schedule, if we go 6-3 in our next 9 games, we are gonna be in real danger of losing out on a 1 seed to AZ, UVA, UK, and Wiscy. I think having a 1 seed is going to be of more value this year than in years past, and the last thing we need is to have Duke and UK in the same bracket or something crazy.

[OldPhiKap]

We have a brutal 9 game stretch coming up, with games @UL, @ND, @St John's, and @UVA. Personally, I believe Duke is better than all of those teams even on their home courts. I have faith in this roster, and over the next 9 games, I think that 7-2 would be a really good result, but I think 8-1 is more likely than that, with a loss coming at a relatively unexpected place like @ND. I think 9-0 is just as likely as a 6-3 finish, but 6-3 would hurt us. I think because of UVA's easier schedule, if we go 6-3 in our next 9 games, we are gonna be in real danger of losing out on a 1 seed to AZ, UVA, UK, and Wiscy. I think having a 1 seed is going to be of more value this year than in years past, and the last thing we need is to have Duke and UK in the same bracket or something crazy.

I would not overlook @Wake either. We lost there last year IIRC, and they looked strong at home versus the 'Ville.

[jv001]

I would not overlook @Wake either. We lost there last year IIRC, and they looked strong at home versus the 'Ville.

You're right, if Duke over looks Wake, it could be big trouble. Like you stated, we lost there last year. All it takes is for Wake to get off to a good start and the crowd get's into it, we'll be in for a fight. Wake's close loss to Louisville should let our guys know, they'll have to play hard to win. This is first ACC road game for the freshmen. I hope the Coaches and our captains, Amile and Quinn have them ready for a battle. GoDuke!

[TruBlu]

You're right, if Duke over looks Wake, it could be big trouble. Like you stated, we lost there last year. All it takes is for Wake to get off to a good start and the crowd get's into it, we'll be in for a fight. GoDuke!

. . . or for all of our starters to foul out at Wake. It has happened before.

[jv001]

. . . or for all of our starters to foul out at Wake. It has happened before.

Did Coach K get a "T" in that game? Seems like I remember that happening, just don't know if was the Wake game. GoDuke!

[peterjswift]

Kedsy,

Great post. Thoroughly enjoyed it. I had a question about offensive rebounding. Do you think that our high 3pt% has something to do with our offensive rebounding numbers? Likewise, our high FG% overall might have something to do with it? I understand that Offensive Rebounding numbers are a percentage of opportunities, but if there are less opportunities, I would think the players would have less of an expectation or even practice rebounding in games. I think this is particularly true with rebounding 3 pt shots. I don't have the numbers to back me up, but just based on my experience playing and watching games, I feel like a higher percentage of missed 3pt shots are rebounded by the offense, since there seems to be a little more unpredictability with where the ball will go...and particularly bad shots will often rebound far out into the court.

Again - this is all anecdotal - but I wonder if you cross referenced 3pt shooting percentages with offensive rebounding percentages, do you think there would be a correlation?

[Kedsy]

Kedsy,

Great post. Thoroughly enjoyed it. I had a question about offensive rebounding. Do you think that our high 3pt% has something to do with our offensive rebounding numbers? Likewise, our high FG% overall might have something to do with it? I understand that Offensive Rebounding numbers are a percentage of opportunities, but if there are less opportunities, I would think the players would have less of an expectation or even practice rebounding in games. I think this is particularly true with rebounding 3 pt shots. I don't have the numbers to back me up, but just based on my experience playing and watching games, I feel like a higher percentage of missed 3pt shots are rebounded by the offense, since there seems to be a little more unpredictability with where the ball will go...and particularly bad shots will often rebound far out into the court.

Again - this is all anecdotal - but I wonder if you cross referenced 3pt shooting percentages with offensive rebounding percentages, do you think there would be a correlation?

OK, I added two columns to the grid -- 3pt shooting % and number of threes as a percentage of total shots:



Year OR% Rank Finish 3pt% %threes
---- ----- ---- ------ ----- -------
1999 44.3% 3 2 39.6% 30.5%
1990 40.9% ? 2 38.9% 16.8%
2010 40.6% 6 1 38.5% 32.9%
1988 40.5% ? 4 37.3% 20.7%
1998 39.7% 39 8 36.9% 32.4%
1992 39.5% ? 1 43.4% 19.0%
2004 39.2% 16 4 36.4% 33.4%
1996 38.3% ? 64 37.6% 33.0%
1994 38.0% ? 2 36.5% 24.1%
1991 38.0% ? 1 38.3% 19.1%
2015 37.9% 34 38.5% 35.5%
1987 37.9% ? 16 40.2% 18.9%
2009 37.4% 40 16 34.9% 35.0%
2000 37.4% 69 16 38.3% 34.2%
2005 37.3% 49 16 38.0% 39.8%
2003 37.0% 65 16 36.3% 33.9%
2001 37.0% 62 1 38.5% 41.8%
1995 36.9% ? n/a 38.1% 31.7%
1993 36.7% ? 32 39.7% 23.7%
2007 36.4% 76 64 38.1% 29.6%
1997 36.3% 129 32 38.9% 36.8%
1989 36.3% ? 4 36.5% 18.3%
2014 35.2% 54 64 39.5% 39.7%
2011 35.1% 87 16 37.4% 35.3%
2012 34.7% 88 64 37.1% 38.6%
2002 34.5% 150 16 36.3% 37.6%
2008 34.0% 135 32 37.7% 39.2%
2006 30.9% 275 16 38.8% 35.2%
2013 28.8% 273 8 39.9% 33.3%


I'm no statistician, but I can't see any obvious correlation between offensive rebounding and either of the three-point shot metrics.

[peterjswift]

OK, I added two columns to the grid -- 3pt shooting % and number of threes as a percentage of total shots:


I'm no statistician, but I can't see any obvious correlation between offensive rebounding and either of the three-point shot metrics.

Well, there goes my theory. Thanks for adding those columns, you've satisfied my curiosity.

[Billy Dat]

HOW WILL OUR TEAM PERSONALITY EVOLVE?

Every team has its own personality. Last season, we seemed to wilt and/or panic down the stretch. In other years we've seemed to get our gym shoes on our opponents' necks and never let up. This year's team's personality seems different from any Duke team I can remember. We seem steady but unspectacular, building leads but not too large, but whenever it gets a little uncomfortable, stepping up and pushing it back into the comfort zone. In the end we've won every game by double-digits, but haven't had any wow! games like the beatdown Kentucky put on Kansas.

In short, I think the team reflects the personality of our point guard, Tyus Jones. He's steady and very talented, but not generally flashy or spectacular. He's satisfied with running the team and sharing the ball, until the situation calls for someone to step up and then he does. It's kind of uncanny, actually.

But Tyus is a freshman. Will he keep his cool all season? Will the team? If things go poorly for the team or for Tyus, how will he and the team react?

I have no idea. Hopefully, if any of that happens, upperclass captains Quinn Cook and Amile Jefferson can take over and keep the team on course. We may get some preliminary answers here during the relative adversity of the ACC season.


In a phase post full of interesting observations and questions, I found this one to be very intriguing. Over the course of the season, we have trailed for less than cumulative 10 minutes out of 520, and I don't think we've ever trailed by more than 4-6 points. How will we respond to being down 10+? When will we find ourselves in that scenario?

I love the linking of the personalities of the team and Tyus. There's that oft used phrase - "solid but unspectacular". Maybe this team, and Tyus, are Unspectacularly Spectacular.

[Kedsy]

Over the course of the season, we have trailed for less than cumulative 10 minutes out of 520, and I don't think we've ever trailed by more than 4-6 points.

All right, of course I had to check this. So far this season, Duke has trailed for less than a cumulative 6 minutes, the exact total being 5:53. The Wisconsin game accounted for 4:06 of that, meaning in our other 12 games we've trailed for a total of 1 minute and 47 seconds.

We've trailed in the second half for a total of 10 seconds, by 1 point to Wisconsin from 15:09 to 14:59 left in the game. We've never trailed by more than 4 points. In fact, we've only trailed by more than one basket for a total of 28 seconds, 6-2 to Wisconsin with around 15 minutes to play in the first half.

That's pretty cool stuff, though I don't really expect it to continue.

[Billy Dat]

As I took my morning constitutional, I had another thought about this phase.

-What is Jahlil Okafor's Ceiling?

Big Jah arrived with more hype than any player in recent memory and has done nothing but live up to it. Granted, his recent run of gaudy play has come against weaker teams (although BC had plenty of size), but he seems to keep getting better. He doesn't force, his passing is fantastic, he attacks single coverage and expertly reads double and triple teams, his free throw shooting seems to be improving, he's been avoiding foul trouble, his defense is solid but not elite (which is better than we've had in the pivot in a while), and on and on. Does he still have additional gears? With this tough stretch of games, will he continue to rise as defenses continue to key in on him? Will he emerge as a "ride his back to the promised land" force in the mode of Carmelo Anthony, Danny Manning, et al? Is having the best player on the court enough if the best player is twice as good as anyone else on the court - if he can prove to be even better than he is now?

The kid is so freaking good.

[flyingdutchdevil]

As I took my morning constitutional, I had another thought about this phase.

-What is Jahlil Okafor's Ceiling?

Big Jah arrived with more hype than any player in recent memory and has done nothing but live up to it. Granted, his recent run of gaudy play has come against weaker teams (although BC had plenty of size), but he seems to keep getting better. He doesn't force, his passing is fantastic, he attacks single coverage and expertly reads double and triple teams, his free throw shooting seems to be improving, he's been avoiding foul trouble, his defense is solid but not elite (which is better than we've had in the pivot in a while), and on and on. Does he still have additional gears? With this tough stretch of games, will he continue to rise as defenses continue to key in on him? Will he emerge as a "ride his back to the promised land" force in the mode of Carmelo Anthony, Danny Manning, et al? Is having the best player on the court enough if the best player is twice as good as anyone else on the court - if he can prove to be even better than he is now?

The kid is so freaking good.

Fantastic questions. Thanks Billy.

I don't think Okafor can get any better as a post up scorer. He's already the best post-up scorer in... I have no idea how many years. As much as we all want our players to get better at FTs and short jumpers, I think Okafor won't improve that much (he already has a fantastic short jumper and his FT% is what it is. I expect he will have plenty of good FT nights and plenty of bad FT nights).

I am absolutely nitpicking right now (as Okafor is the most complete college player right now), but I think Okafor can get better in the following areas:

-Passing out of the double team: He has already showed insane potential in this field, but I feel that he a) his timing can be better and b) he can get better at passing out when he faces a serious double team from a serious opponent. I would love to see a quick feed to Okafor followed by an even quicker pass-back to the open shooter. Some serious potential there.

-Help Defense: Personally, I don't see Okafor getting better at one-on-one D. He's good, but he isn't Willie Cauly-Stein (spelling?) or Anthony Davis. He's good enough, especially with his huge frame. But I think Okafor can improve on help defense. In the last 5 games, we've already seen a huge improvement from him on help D, and I expect him to get marginally better at this.

-Turnovers: Okafor is only averaging 2.3 TOV, which isn't much for a big man with such a high usage rate. I don't really expect this number to go down (if anything, it will probably go up), but he does lead the team in turnovers so I hope he can decrease it.

Again, it's not a long list, and even if he doesn't improve in these areas he will still be the best college player by quite a margin.

[superdave]

Fantastic questions. Thanks Billy.

I don't think Okafor can get any better as a post up scorer. He's already the best post-up scorer in... I have no idea how many years. As much as we all want our players to get better at FTs and short jumpers, I think Okafor won't improve that much (he already has a fantastic short jumper and his FT% is what it is. I expect he will have plenty of good FT nights and plenty of bad FT nights).

I am absolutely nitpicking right now (as Okafor is the most complete college player right now), but I think Okafor can get better in the following areas:

-Passing out of the double team: He has already showed insane potential in this field, but I feel that he a) his timing can be better and b) he can get better at passing out when he faces a serious double team from a serious opponent. I would love to see a quick feed to Okafor followed by an even quicker pass-back to the open shooter. Some serious potential there.

-Help Defense: Personally, I don't see Okafor getting better at one-on-one D. He's good, but he isn't Willie Cauly-Stein (spelling?) or Anthony Davis. He's good enough, especially with his huge frame. But I think Okafor can improve on help defense. In the last 5 games, we've already seen a huge improvement from him on help D, and I expect him to get marginally better at this.

-Turnovers: Okafor is only averaging 2.3 TOV, which isn't much for a big man with such a high usage rate. I don't really expect this number to go down (if anything, it will probably go up), but he does lead the team in turnovers so I hope he can decrease it.

Again, it's not a long list, and even if he doesn't improve in these areas he will still be the best college player by quite a margin.

Great points, Dutch. A few comments to add to your thoughts -

Jah is already really good at passing out of a double team, as you point out. He does not seem to hold on to the ball too long and knows how to create space for himself to make the pass. I think the biggest area for improvement here is with his teammates. Coach K has pointed out that he does not want the other four guys on the floor standing and watching Jah play offense. To get a good perimeter shot, you point out that a quick return pass to the passer could work. The passer can also relocate, especially if his man doubles down on Okafor. Okafor is also good at looking opposite and at making hockey assists. The third wrinkle for a perimeter shot would be for guys on the opposite side to screen for each other, creating enough space for a shooter to relocate to the 3-point line for a shot. With enough movement and creativity, we can get a lot of open, spot-up jumpers with Jah initiating things.

The other wrinkle we can use out of a double team is for Jah to hit a guy slashing to the basket. Winslow is the most likely player for this but Jefferson should be able to lose a big guy pretty easily and can finish around the rim as well. If Winslow of Jefferson's defender is the 2nd player doubling Jah, then the slash needs to come quickly, before the defense rotates to cover its backside. It is easy for college big guys to lose their focus on defense and looking for this play would take advantage of that.

I look forward to Jah playing better help defense as well. He is averaging 28.8 minutes per game at this point, which is about what you would expect from a rookie center. This is likely to creep up to 30 minutes as conference play goes on. It will be interesting to see if Okafor loses focus on defense as his minutes go up. Another issue to watch for is when opposing centers move to the perimeter to pull Jah away from the basket. Will he pursue or sag back? We wont face many bigs with a solid 3-point shot, so is sagging back a better strategy? Does it undermine our strategy to ice screens? His defense is good already, so hopefully we will see marginal help side improvement and the ability to adjust quickly when he gets pulled outside.

[Billy Dat]

As I took my morning constitutional, I had another thought about this phase.

-What is Jahlil Okafor's Ceiling?

Big Jah arrived with more hype than any player in recent memory and has done nothing but live up to it. Granted, his recent run of gaudy play has come against weaker teams (although BC had plenty of size), but he seems to keep getting better. He doesn't force, his passing is fantastic, he attacks single coverage and expertly reads double and triple teams, his free throw shooting seems to be improving, he's been avoiding foul trouble, his defense is solid but not elite (which is better than we've had in the pivot in a while), and on and on. Does he still have additional gears? With this tough stretch of games, will he continue to rise as defenses continue to key in on him? Will he emerge as a "ride his back to the promised land" force in the mode of Carmelo Anthony, Danny Manning, et al? Is having the best player on the court enough if the best player is twice as good as anyone else on the court - if he can prove to be even better than he is now?

The kid is so freaking good.

Man, this post turned into a jinx. My apologies. As of the Wake game, the ceiling is still based on past performances.

[DukieInBrasil]

Man, this post turned into a jinx. My apologies. As of the Wake game, the ceiling is still based on past performances.

The kid still ended up with a 2xDouble. He shot well from the floor (just not very much), mediocre from FT, and rebounded well. The only thing he didn't do well was passing/ball control, leading to 5 turns. Still, we learned that this team can win even when a concerted defensive effort really smothers Jahlil.

[jv001]

Man, this post turned into a jinx. My apologies. As of the Wake game, the ceiling is still based on past performances.

Is it too late to move it to it's proper thread? GoDuke!

[Henderson]

As of the Wake game, the ceiling is still based on past performances.

Not a challenge, but can you decipher?

[Billy Dat]

Not a challenge, but can you decipher?

My addition to the phase post was musing whether or not Jahlil was so good that he still had another gear, a potentially higher ceiling, that would keep revealing itself as the games got tougher. Like, is he, maybe, one of the greatest college players of recent vintage? We won't know until the season is over, but maybe he will be, the potential is there.

My post-Wake game note suggested that I jinxed him as his performance against Wake was subpar and, as a result, whatever high water mark (aka 'ceiling') he had established to date was from a game that had already been played, not the Wake game. My idea that he might reveal more gears was promptly met with one of his lesser performances. I agree that my phrasing was unclear.

[superdave]

My addition to the phase post was musing whether or not Jahlil was so good that he still had another gear, a potentially higher ceiling, that would keep revealing itself as the games got tougher. Like, is he, maybe, one of the greatest college players of recent vintage? We won't know until the season is over, but maybe he will be, the potential is there.

My post-Wake game note suggested that I jinxed him as his performance against Wake was subpar and, as a result, whatever high water mark (aka 'ceiling') he had established to date was from a game that had already been played, not the Wake game. My idea that he might reveal more gears was promptly met with one of his lesser performances. I agree that my phrasing was unclear.

The thing that keeps popping into my mind about the State game is that Okafor would be a lot better if he was limited to 30 minutes a game. There are some plays where he doesnt go hard, some plays where he seems resigned to playing the role of decoy and some where he makes an error because he seems to be cutting a corner (one-handed cross-court passes). I'd rather have him sit a more and be more energetic and assertive when he is in there.

I also think this would help Marshall, to play several 2-3 minute stetches a game, rather than some chopped up 30-40 second stretches. I would also use Marshall to trap when he's in there, maybe above the 3-point line. Steer that energy.

[COYS]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I just discovered the site www.hoop-math.com and am now addicted to the extra info. I was looking over the profile of our team this year (http://hoop-math.com/Duke2015.php) and noticed that this is the first year since the site has data (the site doesn't go back farther than 2011-2012, so admittedly it's not that far back) that Duke has allowed the largest share of opponents shots (37.7% of opponents shots through the State game) to come at the rim compared to any other season. Granted, we're blocking 13.6% of them, which is significantly higher than any of the previous four seasons (although not particularly impressive in a larger context).

I was further curious to see if perhaps this was because we're giving up more transition buckets than in previous seasons, however, if I'm reading the data correctly, we are actually allowing FEWER transition opportunities this season than in any of the past four. This means that our opponents' shots at the rim are coming at a high rate against our SET defense. These are season long totals, of course, and I don't think I can break it down to look at, say, UCONN through State only. So it is completely possible that we've given up WAY too many transition buckets over the past few games which have skewed our overall numbers. Still, I would be surprised if the data show that the share of opponents' shots at the rim isn't a problem even if the past few games have been outliers.

Ultimately, I think this stat bears serious watching as this phase and the rest of the season develops. Are we generally playing good defense but suffering a few breakdowns because we rely on three freshman? If that's true, then maybe there's lots of room for improvement as the freshman gain more experience. There's no doubt that Tyus still struggles with knowing when to ice, when to go under, when to fight through, and when to switch on a screens. Jahlil is slow on his rotations. And Justise, while versatile, get's caught playing centerfield from time to time. Even if the overall skill of our defenders doesn't improve, we could potentially stop a lot of layups just by improving on the mental side.

On the other hand, I feel as if we've changed our defensive scheme a number of times this year. In my eyes, the key to a Coach K defense is how we handle screens. Do we hedge and recover? Ice? Switch? Fight through? The 2010 team were masters of the hedge and recover. 2011 wasn't too shabby either, pre-Arizona. Since then, that scheme has looked relatively weak save for the period before Ryan got hurt in 2013. We've also done a lot of switching, which didn't work last year, but then again, NOTHING worked on defense last season. This year, we came out icing on almost every screen. Against Wisconsin, we switched almost every screen. Since then, I haven't really noticed anything consistent, although that could be an error of analysis on my part. It does seem as if we almost never hedge and recover, anymore. At any rate we still don't seem comfortable with ball screens. And the stats seem to indicate that our lack of skill defending ball screens has led to a lot of shots at the rim for our opponents.