PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Half Defensive Deficiency



utahdevil
03-23-2017, 12:54 PM
At halftime of the South Carolina game was anyone else having flashbacks to our Syracuse game? At halftime of the Syracuse game, I had a sinking feeling that we were in big trouble. Syracuse only shot 37.5% in the first half and we were only up 8. You knew they wouldn't continue to shoot that poorly. Well, the Orange shot 70.8% in the second half and scored 53 points in the second half.

It seems we were particularly bad all year at 2nd half field goal % defense as well as points given us. I realize some games are skewed b/c Duke was winning and would give up easy 2-pt baskets or foul shots down the stretch, but my cursory review of the stats from games this year shows we had some serious issues defending teams in the last half of our games. A sampling:

@VA Tech: I excluded this one b/c we basically stunk the entire game;
Ga Tech: I excluded this one b/c Ga Tech basically stunk the entire game;
Boston College: BC shot 55.9% in the second half while scoring 48-pts (I imagine this is due in large measure to Amile's absence in the 2nd half, but still...);
@FSU: 45.9% in the second half while scoring 47 points;
@Louisville: 58.6% in the second half while scoring 44 points;
Miami: 34.8% and 22 points;
NC State: 55.2% and 46 points.
@Wake: 44% and 41 points;
@Notre Dame: 56.7% and 49 points;
Pitt: 51.9% and 36 points;
UNC: 48.3% and 39 points;
Clemson: 56.7% and 44 points;
@UVA: 41.4% and 30 points;
Wake: 47.2% and 47 points;
@Miami: 41.4% and 33 points;
FSU: 45.9% and 47 points;

I haven't done enough research to know whether teams generally shoot much better and score more in the second half or whether the above numbers indicate some defensive failing specific to Duke. However, as I stated above, I had a bad feeling at halftime of our USC game that a repeat of our Syracuse game was on deck. And it was pretty much a carbon copy with USC shooting 71.4% while scoring 65 points.

Do you guys have any thoughts/insight into whether the above numbers are generally the same for most teams or whether this was unique to Duke? And if so, why?

Go Duke!

uh_no
03-23-2017, 02:11 PM
I haven't done enough research to know whether teams generally shoot much better and score more in the second half or whether the above numbers indicate some defensive failing specific to Duke.

I think this is a big problem, at least with total points. intentional fouls will have a large increase in total point output, and garbage time may have an impact. That said, it shouldn't affect the shooting % all too much.

Rich
03-23-2017, 02:58 PM
I haven't done enough research to know whether teams generally shoot much better and score more in the second half or whether the above numbers indicate some defensive failing specific to Duke. However, as I stated above, I had a bad feeling at halftime of our USC game that a repeat of our Syracuse game was on deck. And it was pretty much a carbon copy with USC shooting 71.4% while scoring 65 points.

Not a scientific or statistical answer by any means, but I'll take a shot. With our tendency to play a bench that seems to be shorter than most, any sort of foul trouble creates matador D type situations and, as a result, high percentage layups. That doesn't usually happen until a player has 3 or 4 fouls, which generally occurs in the second half. K opts to keep guys in "to play smart" (i.e., not foul) rather than go deeper in the bench to give more fouls.

Spanarkel
03-23-2017, 03:18 PM
I think that the 6.5(+) man rotation used by Duke MAY cause some players to try to rest a bit on defense. For instance, even though it's pretty uncommon(1-2 times per game at most would be my guess)to see a foul called on a three point attempt, some of the Duke players do not seem to challenge three point shots on occasions when there seems to be ample opportunity to defend the shot. Simply taking a step or two towards the shooter or putting up your hand in the direction of the shooter's face is not going to affect the shot of most D-1 players. In the South Carolina game, one particular Duke defender had 5 three pointers made over his defensive "efforts." I wonder if it was in the South Carolina scouting report that this particular defender wouldn't really challenge the shot. It was suggested by another poster that Duke wasn't closing out on the three point shooters in that game due to foul trouble, but again it seems fairly uncommon to have a foul called on three point defense. Just my 0.02 worth.

CDu
03-23-2017, 03:41 PM
I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

peteandpete
03-23-2017, 03:57 PM
As I said in the post game thread, this wasn't about the crowd or the officiating. I believe this was the most points given up in a half by a K coached team....more than that UVa ACC tournament game that the staff swore to never forget. There have been only 3 worse performances in Blue Devil history. Illness may have been a factor, but even a bad second half defensively 50-55 allows us to have a chance. The old saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results comes to mind here. I remember a win in Chapel Hill years ago when they said how glad they were to be defending the last shot (Brickey blocked it) instead of being on offense. We have come a long way. Injuries, the point guard situation, four in four last weekend were all challenges for this team....but none of those situations should have impacted such a woeful defensive performance.

MCFinARL
03-23-2017, 05:33 PM
I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

I agree that fatigue could be a factor here. And while you may be right that physical fatigue over the course of a whole season shouldn't really come into play, doing the four games in four days away from home and then traveling again to play 5 and 7 days later could have some cumulative effect--especially on Luke, who played monster minutes all season and did look a bit less than his usual self in Greenville.

UrinalCake
03-24-2017, 04:40 AM
Fatigue and foul trouble are definitely huge factors. Also I think we just had offensive minded players on this team who didn't really care so much about D, they just wanted to outscore their opponent. I think that manifests itself more in the second half.

HaveFunExpectToWin
03-24-2017, 07:25 AM
I believe this was the most points given up in a half by a K coached team...more than that UVa ACC tournament game that the staff swore to never forget.

Even 1990 UNLV only scored 56 in the 2nd during that terrible game.

UrinalCake
03-24-2017, 03:23 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how a team gives up 65 points in a half. Over three points per minute. If each team used the full 30 seconds of the shot clock, USC would have had to hit a three on every single possession just to score 60 points. It boggles the mind.

sagegrouse
03-24-2017, 03:37 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how a team gives up 65 points in a half. Over three points per minute. If each team used the full 30 seconds of the shot clock, USC would have had to hit a three on every single possession just to score 60 points. It boggles the mind.

Well, U.C., 21 points were with the clocked stopped. South Carolina was 21-23 from the foul line in the second half (91 percent). It would have helped our cause if USC had shot its season average of 70 percent.

CDu
03-24-2017, 03:38 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how a team gives up 65 points in a half. Over three points per minute. If each team used the full 30 seconds of the shot clock, USC would have had to hit a three on every single possession just to score 60 points. It boggles the mind.

Well, they scored 10 points in the final 1:09 of the game as we were fouling. So it was "only" 55 points in 19 minutes. Still awful. They scored on almost every possession in the second half: 32 of 41 possessions resulted in points. And only 2 of their possessions in the final 5 minutes didn't result in scores. And three of their failed possessions were on missed layups.

Newton_14
03-24-2017, 03:47 PM
I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

Tried to spork you but couldn't but I agree with this 1000%. Every word.

I will put up a much longer post later but I basically disagree that we had to play the way we did rotation wise this year. And before everyone jumps on me for that statement, their are other successful basketball teams each season that win 25+ games and championships that don't play 6.5 man rotations in every single non-cupcake game.

rsvman
03-24-2017, 03:59 PM
If they had shot their season average from the free-throw line, we would've won the game despite all that bad D.

CDu
03-24-2017, 05:25 PM
If they had shot their season average from the free-throw line, we would've won the game despite all that bad D.

Not quite. They shot 27-32 from the line, or 84.4%. On the season, they shot 69.6%. That would have equated to 22-32. We would still have been fouling at the end in that scenario and hoping for good luck in the end-game.

DukieInBrasil
03-24-2017, 05:42 PM
I'd have to go back and do a game-by-game rewatch, which seems exhausting. But certainly something worthy of the offseason. But two pretty clear arguments could be made here, both related to the shortening of the rotations:

1. Foul trouble. When players get fouls #3 and #4, they tend to play more conservatively defensively. This was certainly a factor in the USC game and the Syracuse game this year.
2. Fatigue. Yeah, I said the "F" word. I don't buy that physical fatigue manifests itself over the course of a season. Maybe mental/emotional fatigue. But not physical. However, in a single game, I am absolutely convinced that fatigue happens. If it didn't, that would suggest to me that the guys weren't playing hard enough. Coach K tightens the rotations in the second half, which means some guys (usually Kennard and Tatum) play basically the entire second half. That can wear you down defensively. And the shorter rotation can also increase the likelihood that you get that 3rd and 4th foul.

Again, I'd have to go back game by game and see the substitution patterns, the foul situations, and the actual efficiencies of each game. But those seem to be two totally reasonable arguments for why our defense might suffer in the second half.

This seems to be an excellent argument to lengthen the d**n bench. Especially when you've got inexperienced players trying to play thru fatigue, which is what happens now that Duke has fully embraced the OAD recruiting model. We just don't have enough experienced players who know A) how to play defense or B) how to play good defense while tired.
Hopefully this embarrassing exit will cause K to re-evaluate his methods in a similar way that the mega-embarrassing loss in 2014 caused him to finally abandon his cherished defensive tactics b/c Fr. just can't play that defensive scheme well.
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

COYS
03-24-2017, 06:20 PM
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

I don't completely disagree with you. Duke has not played up to the extremely high bar K set on the defensive end from '01-'10 (and from even before then). That being said, the amateur admirer of statistics in me thinks that when evaluating Duke's defense, it is problematic to point to three games and say that this is a pattern, especially since pointing at those three games also ignores the excellent defense played in the '13 (for the most part) and '15 tournaments.

I think it's more accurate to say that Duke's defense has been generally mediocre by Duke standards for much of the regular season during this time frame, which increases the chance that the team will get torched in the tournament. The first weekend losses are a symptom of our our defense being far more vulnerable over recent seasons rather than they are a pattern on their own. In other words, it's probably not entirely a coincidence that three first weekend losses have occurred during a span in which our defense has not been as good as we would have liked. We could have advanced to the Sweet 16 in all three of these seasons and our defense would still have been poorer than usual. It would just mean that we got lucky enough to advance. That makes it more likely that a hot team can beat us in the first weekend, especially if said team has the best player on either side (McCollum in '12) or is playing a virtual home game (SC this year). Yes, giving up 65 points in a half is truly awful, but it's worth noting that our '16 team was worse defensively than our '17 team, even accounting for that awful defensive performance against the Gamecocks.

Anyway, I do agree, though, that K hasn't quite found the magic when it comes to figuring out our defensive schemes. I would have preferred Duke to switch up the defense, ever so slightly. The biggest advantage of pressure man to man (not that we played extreme pressure this year, but we still played a little farther out than I might have liked) is that it can generate turnovers. It's just that Duke hasn't been generating enough turnovers in recent seasons to compensate for the vulnerabilities of extending a man-to-man defense (pick n' rolls, back door cuts, blow-byes on the perimeter). I wonder what a sagging man to man coupled with our soft zone press would have looked like. We had a size advantage against most teams on the perimeter, but not a quickness advantage. The zone press kept teams from punishing us in transition, but our moderately extended pressure left a lot of space between our perimeter defenders and the basket . . . putting a lot of pressure on Amile, Jayson, Harry and Marques to rotate correctly. I can't help but wonder if coming out of that soft zone press into a sagging man to man would have limited dribble penetration while simultaneously forcing the offense to work the ball around against our set defense after already wasting precious seconds bringing it up against the press. That type of D doesn't generate many live ball turnovers. But we weren't generating those, anyway.

On the other hand, K is the GOAT (or as close as anyone can get to beating out Wooden for that title) so I could be wrong.

devildeac
03-24-2017, 06:28 PM
This seems to be an excellent argument to lengthen the d**n bench. Especially when you've got inexperienced players trying to play thru fatigue, which is what happens now that Duke has fully embraced the OAD recruiting model. We just don't have enough experienced players who know A) how to play defense or B) how to play good defense while tired.
Hopefully this embarrassing exit will cause K to re-evaluate his methods in a similar way that the mega-embarrassing loss in 2014 caused him to finally abandon his cherished defensive tactics b/c Fr. just can't play that defensive scheme well.
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.


From twitter/Blue Devil Digest:

"This is...interesting.

Since 2011:

Arizona - 55 points in the 2nd half scored against Duke.
Lehigh - 47
Louisville - 50
Mercer - 44
Oregon - 46
South Carolina - 65"

So, 3 losses first round and 3 in regionals. Of course, 2010 and 2015 were fabulous results;) .

Saratoga2
03-25-2017, 07:03 AM
From twitter/Blue Devil Digest:

"This is...interesting.

Since 2011:

Arizona - 55 points in the 2nd half scored against Duke.
Lehigh - 47
Louisville - 50
Mercer - 44
Oregon - 46
South Carolina - 65"

So, 3 losses first round and 3 in regionals. Of course, 2010 and 2015 were fabulous results;) .

I am one of those that believe the short bench has contributed to our issues on second half defense. Coach K continue to use the very short bench but has mentioned the need to adjust his approach into next year. Of course it requires fairly capable backup players and injuries have been a factor, but we had some unused depth on the bench that might have developed enough to give our regulars a breather and cut down on the foul trouble. DeLaurier, Vrankovic and White should be back next year along with two or more of our other rotation players from this year ( Bolden was not really a rotation player this year but I count him as coming back). We should be able to go 9 deep and develop those players.

DukieInBrasil
03-25-2017, 05:28 PM
I am one of those that believe the short bench has contributed to our issues on second half defense. Coach K continue to use the very short bench but has mentioned the need to adjust his approach into next year. Of course it requires fairly capable backup players and injuries have been a factor, but we had some unused depth on the bench that might have developed enough to give our regulars a breather and cut down on the foul trouble. DeLaurier, Vrankovic and White should be back next year along with two or more of our other rotation players from this year ( Bolden was not really a rotation player this year but I count him as coming back). We should be able to go 9 deep and develop those players.

I was pleased with what i saw of them in their very limited minutes. Javin may have in fact given us the best play of the season in the 1st round victory over Troy.
However, not one of the three learned anything about playing tired this year. Of them, only Vrank played any against an opponent's rotation players. Vrank seems the most capable of the first 3 to make a meaningful impact next year.
If Bolden stays, and stays healthy, he could be a starter or in the rotation at C/PF. I was intrigued by what i saw him do, but his offense was pretty anemic. He had some flashes on defense, but couldn't not foul enough to play much.
If they make up the entirety of our non-Fr. next year, well be in big trouble, regardless of who comes. If Jackson returns along with those 4 (+Justin Robinson), we'll still struggle. We need at least one of Kennard or Allen to return, and of those 2, only Allen plays adequate (or better) defense.
Even with 2 Sr. defensive studs, a Jr. and a So. in the rotation this year, our defense was routinely porous. I don't expect that to improve next year no matter how many non-Sr. returnees we have.

sagegrouse
03-26-2017, 09:48 AM
This seems to be an excellent argument to lengthen the d**n bench. Especially when you've got inexperienced players trying to play thru fatigue, which is what happens now that Duke has fully embraced the OAD recruiting model. We just don't have enough experienced players who know A) how to play defense or B) how to play good defense while tired.
Hopefully this embarrassing exit will cause K to re-evaluate his methods in a similar way that the mega-embarrassing loss in 2014 caused him to finally abandon his cherished defensive tactics b/c Fr. just can't play that defensive scheme well.
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

How long do you want the bench to be? We already have 12 or so McDonald's All-Americans on the roster.

Actually, we only have eight on the roster, and two didn't make the rotation, even by my somewhat relaxed definition. I guess, DiB, that this was your point. The only non-McD A-A in the rotation is the exception that proves the rule -- Harry Giles, the once #1 player in the class of 2016, who was injured his senior year.

As it turns out, in the last five years, 13 McD A-A's have come to Duke. In addition to the eight on the roster, five were one-and-done.

The only recruited players on the roster aside from Giles plus the eight McD's are Vrankovich, DeLaurier, and Jack White -- the Australian who wasn't eligible for McD but a fabulous junior player in his homeland (POY in the state of Victoria). Vrank was a late bloomer but DeLaurier earned some laurels as a prep player in Virginia and an AAU star.

CDu
03-26-2017, 10:05 AM
How long do you want the bench to be? We already have 12 or so McDonald's All-Americans on the roster.

Actually, we only have eight on the roster, and two didn't make the rotation, even by my somewhat relaxed definition. I guess, DiB, that this was your point. The only non-McD A-A in the rotation is the exception that proves the rule -- Harry Giles, the once #1 player in the class of 2016, who was injured his senior year.

As it turns out, in the last five years, 13 McD A-A's have come to Duke. In addition to the eight on the roster, five were one-and-done.

The only recruited players on the roster aside from Giles plus the eight McD's are Vrankovich, DeLaurier, and Jack White -- the Australian who wasn't eligible for McD but a fabulous junior player in his homeland (POY in the state of Victoria). Vrank was a late bloomer but DeLaurier earned some laurels as a prep player in Virginia and an AAU star.

I hate to put words in his/her mouth, but I am pretty sure the point was not the number of people on the bench but rather the number one people on said bench who play. Whether or not playing a deeper rotation would have helped is unclear. But I think that was the argument being made.

Utley
03-26-2017, 12:28 PM
This seems to be an excellent argument to lengthen the d**n bench. Especially when you've got inexperienced players trying to play thru fatigue, which is what happens now that Duke has fully embraced the OAD recruiting model. We just don't have enough experienced players who know A) how to play defense or B) how to play good defense while tired.
Hopefully this embarrassing exit will cause K to re-evaluate his methods in a similar way that the mega-embarrassing loss in 2014 caused him to finally abandon his cherished defensive tactics b/c Fr. just can't play that defensive scheme well.
This is 3 times since 2012 (Lehigh, Mercer, USC) that Duke has lost in the 1st weekend due to the complete inability to play defense for a whole game. It's not an aberration, it's a pattern.

A real thought provoking comment. What to make of a defensive scheme that you play at an elite level in the tourney in '10 and '15 but comes up short the years you referenced. Pure conjecture on my part but that makes it sound less a question of whether it can be played well and more a question of the how well the parts fit together that year and how hard the guys are playing. SC has a great scheme but I think we are seeing a team also just playing defense harder than anyone else

Indoor66
03-26-2017, 12:43 PM
Pure conjecture on my part but that makes it sound less a question of whether it can be played well and more a question of the how well the parts fit together that year and how hard the guys are playing.

I think that this point is the key to whether you have a team that can win at a high level or just be competitive but not go very far. Successful teams usually are better as a whole than the mere sum of the individual parts.

ncexnyc
03-26-2017, 01:13 PM
Successful teams usually are better as a whole than the mere sum of the individual parts.

Amen to this! During the past season I often saw posters write, "Duke has the most talent on the court." While having talent is a good thing, I believe it's more important that a team has all the necessary parts.

Take a look at our last two championship teams. Each of those teams had players who clearly fit defined roles that you normally associate with a basketball team.

sagegrouse
03-26-2017, 02:01 PM
I hate to put words in his/her mouth, but I am pretty sure the point was not the number of people on the bench but rather the number one people on said bench who play. Whether or not playing a deeper rotation would have helped is unclear. But I think that was the argument being made.

Yes, see the second sentence of the second paragraph in my response -- "I guess, DiB, that this was your point." My point was that the roster is unusually rich in talent; therefore, the problem must be in player usage.

Indoor66
03-26-2017, 02:41 PM
Yes, see the second sentence of the second paragraph in my response -- "I guess, DiB, that this was your point." My point was that the roster is unusually rich in talent; therefore, the problem must be in player usage.

...or in the manner in which the talent complements the whole.

Kfanarmy
03-26-2017, 03:22 PM
Amen to this! During the past season I often saw posters write, "Duke has the most talent on the court." While having talent is a good thing, I believe it's more important that a team has all the necessary parts.

Take a look at our last two championship teams. Each of those teams had players who clearly fit defined roles that you normally associate with a basketball team.

I agree. I think Duke needs / needs to develop a point guard...especially if all the OADs want this free wheeling, no set play offense. (Personally I think the team is better off with Coach K having as much control as possible. Young players tend to lose focus)

Second I think the talent was a bit misused this year. Duke has a couple of potential stoppers at the Center position, but didn't seem to value their potential over thin forwards. I don't think that panned out. HG got floor time that I suspect only his ranking as a recruit earned. One of the few times that indicated a player was on the court who hadn't earned it.

I think Duke has to have that big guy in the middle who can't be pushed around either on O or D...fortunately, there are a couple on the bench with potential if given any opportunity, especially when GA and LK are having so much trouble staying in front of ppl.

COYS
03-26-2017, 04:47 PM
I agree. I think Duke needs / needs to develop a point guard...especially if all the OADs want this free wheeling, no set play offense. (Personally I think the team is better off with Coach K having as much control as possible. Young players tend to lose focus)

Second I think the talent was a bit misused this year. Duke has a couple of potential stoppers at the Center position, but didn't seem to value their potential over thin forwards. I don't think that panned out. HG got floor time that I suspect only his ranking as a recruit earned. One of the few times that indicated a player was on the court who hadn't earned it.

I think Duke has to have that big guy in the middle who can't be pushed around either on O or D...fortunately, there are a couple on the bench with potential if given any opportunity, especially when GA and LK are having so much trouble staying in front of ppl.

Duke scored 81 points against the team that is playing the absolute best defense in the country right now. I actually think the freedom K gives his players on offense is a little overstated. He doesn't often run too many plays but gives our guys sets that then allow our talented offensive players to go to work. When the offense is given freedom, it usually means the freedom to execute in a given set (and K is still free to call out a set from the sideline without calling out a specific play). They're (almost) never just running around without sets or basic principles of floor spacing (something else K is excellent at teaching on the offensive end).

K went for maximizing our talent this year, and getting Harry up to speed maximized our potential talent. Unfortunately, he never fully got up to speed. It's certainly possible that Vrank or Marques could've been better. It's also possible that Marques had some chances but was also hit or miss. His excellent defensive game against Miami was followed up by inconsistent play. I don't actually disagree that we might have been better giving Marques or even Vrank 8-10 min per game instead of Harry, but I also have a hard time denying that Harry getting as many chances as possible to play more like the number one frosh in the country was a gamble worth taking.

Jefferson absolutely was the big guy in the middle who couldn't be pushed around. His stat line from the game against the Gamecocks was absolutely that of a dominant center. Our perimeter defense's inability to guard the perimeter and the inability of Vrank or Harry to provide enough quality as a backup was just too much for Jefferson to overcome.

Finally, our rotation had enough in the tank to beat two top 10 teams that have quality depth on back to back nights before knocking off another top 25 team that had an extra day of rest to win the ACCT just the week before. I would also prefer a slightly deeper bench, but it's also hard to argue that our rotation isn't capable of playing at a high level even when you'd think fatigue would be a big factor.

As it turns out, SC just put 77 on the scoreboard against a supposedly better Florida defense to punch their ticket to the Final Four. Maybe we just played a team that got really, ridiculously hot at the right time.

gotoguy
03-26-2017, 05:01 PM
It is often argued on this board thatsome of our McD AA's on the bench dont get playing time because of their poor grasp of Coach K's defensive schemes. Given that we surrendered 65 points to USC in the second half of our loss it would appear that the first seven had little mastery of said schemes.

richmclean
03-26-2017, 05:21 PM
When Duke struggles we can't seem to stop PG penetration. In 2015 we had Quinn and Tyus but still struggled. In 2010 we had Nolan Smith who was money. In 2000 Duhon. The champs before that had Hurley and Amaker was DPOY.

Thornton was a big loss of his ability to stop PGs.

PG penetration results in high percentage shots and open threes. Pick and roll is unguardable if the PG can defeat his defender. Dennis Smith was maximally effective and most other teams defeated our PG defense and have for years.

Furniture
03-26-2017, 06:23 PM
When did K say he might change his approach next year and have a larger rotation?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-26-2017, 06:28 PM
When did K say he might change his approach next year and have a larger rotation?

People here did, so bank on it.

TruBlu
03-26-2017, 06:44 PM
When did K say he might change his approach next year and have a larger rotation?

It was in an interview (not sure which one) soon after SC beat us. He actually said that we needed to change . . . we need to go "deeper".

Atlanta Duke
03-26-2017, 06:57 PM
It was in an interview (not sure which one) soon after SC beat us. He actually said that we needed to change . . . we need to go "deeper".

"And more physical"

Link to video interview

https://duke.247sports.com/Bolt/WATCH-Coach-K-Says-Duke-Has-To-Get-Deeper-Going-Forward--51877904

Saratoga2
03-26-2017, 07:55 PM
People here did, so bank on it.

Your sarcasm is noted. just read the post below and listen to coach K. People on the site said so because they listened to what he said.

Kfanarmy
03-26-2017, 08:31 PM
Duke scored 81 points against the team that is playing the absolute best defense in the country right now. I actually think the freedom K gives his players on offense is a little overstated. He doesn't often run too many plays but gives our guys sets that then allow our talented offensive players to go to work. When the offense is given freedom, it usually means the freedom to execute in a given set (and K is still free to call out a set from the sideline without calling out a specific play). They're (almost) never just running around without sets or basic principles of floor spacing (something else K is excellent at teaching on the offensive end).

K went for maximizing our talent this year, and getting Harry up to speed maximized our potential talent. Unfortunately, he never fully got up to speed. It's certainly possible that Vrank or Marques could've been better. It's also possible that Marques had some chances but was also hit or miss. His excellent defensive game against Miami was followed up by inconsistent play. I don't actually disagree that we might have been better giving Marques or even Vrank 8-10 min per game instead of Harry, but I also have a hard time denying that Harry getting as many chances as possible to play more like the number one frosh in the country was a gamble worth taking.

Jefferson absolutely was the big guy in the middle who couldn't be pushed around. His stat line from the game against the Gamecocks was absolutely that of a dominant center. Our perimeter defense's inability to guard the perimeter and the inability of Vrank or Harry to provide enough quality as a backup was just too much for Jefferson to overcome.

Finally, our rotation had enough in the tank to beat two top 10 teams that have quality depth on back to back nights before knocking off another top 25 team that had an extra day of rest to win the ACCT just the week before. I would also prefer a slightly deeper bench, but it's also hard to argue that our rotation isn't capable of playing at a high level even when you'd think fatigue would be a big factor.

As it turns out, SC just put 77 on the scoreboard against a supposedly better Florida defense to punch their ticket to the Final Four. Maybe we just played a team that got really, ridiculously hot at the right time.

I agree with most of this, but do not believe HG was ever the best option to maximize a college team, that had so much trouble on D. Yes Duke beat some very good teams, but also lost to some bad ones...The games were almost always close, and that shouldn't have been the case.

Jefferson had some great blocks and rebounds against SC, but he doesn't have the weight and strength to move strong forwards and centers out of the paint.

I simply think Duke needs a real big at the C position more than another scorer that is a defensive liability.
Based on the performance in several of the games HG played in, I think anyone else would have had a much harder time getting in. Had he been the 11th option during the tourney, it wouldn't have been a surprise.

COYS
03-26-2017, 09:40 PM
Jefferson had some great blocks and rebounds against SC, but he doesn't have the weight and strength to move strong forwards and centers out of the paint.

.

Jefferson grabbed 15 rebounds and had 6(!) blocks against SC. That is elite level play from a center and it doesn't happen if he is getting pushed around on the blocks. Jefferson bested teams with beefy centers all season, including UNC. We weren't beaten because our center couldn't push people around on the blocks. Jefferson was plenty strong. We lost because our perimeter defense was poor, SC's wings and guards shot really well from the field, and our offense wasn't quite good enough to compensate. If any players seemed weak against SC, it was our wing players. Luke and Grayson were unable to fight through the Gamecock's physical defense to get good looks. They were also constantly outmuscled/hustled for rebounds. Even Jayson, usually a solid rebounder, only grabbed three boards. Our center was probably the only player on the team that didn't get pushed around in that game.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-27-2017, 01:14 AM
Your sarcasm is noted. just read the post below and listen to coach K. People on the site said so because they listened to what he said.

Calm down, esteemed fellow poster. I know what he said too. But it also could be read many different ways beyond "K will go 8 or 9 deep next year." In fact, discussion here on the board noted as such. It was unclear if K was suggesting he would leave his decades old approach to his delegation of playing time, or if he wad lamenting the number of guys on his bench that were unable or incapabale.

My point is that this board has had this discussion probably hundreds of times, and that his perhaps throwaway line after an emotional loss will be fodder for yet another off-season of minutes discussions and questions about how deep K will go down the bench.

Having seen this same pattern of "this is the year we go ten deep" repeat itself over and over, I would call my comment more "cynical" than "sarcastic," but I will acknowledge elements of both. Please, feel free to ignore my clearly uninformed comments on the subject and carry about your business.

DukieInBrasil
03-27-2017, 03:39 PM
I hate to put words in his/her mouth, but I am pretty sure the point was not the number of people on the bench but rather the number of people on said bench who play. Whether or not playing a deeper rotation would have helped is unclear. But I think that was the argument being made.
correct.

I'm not sure if it's an appropriate parallel, but...Luke Maye. Does UNC make the Final Four without Luke Maye? Does Luke Maye gain the skills, timing, trust to be the best player on the court in the E8 game if he was buried on the bench all season, like say, Vrank? They are not analogous players, but they are both So. that didn't play much as Fr. When Duke needed a big man to help Amile in the post vs USC, we had Giles who got vaporized and Bolden who didn't even get off the bench (perhaps for health reasons), and we had Vrank and Javin, neither of whom were anywhere close to ready to deal with that situation.
Would we have won a couple more games this year by playing our bench more, therefore maybe moving to a #1 seed? Maybe.
Would we have lost a couple more games this year doing the same, and get a lower seed? Maybe.
In the long run though, i think it pays off to have players who have faced more game situations. Players get better in practice yadda yadda blah blah, but they also get better in games. Teams also get better in games, and they learn to trust each other and learn what each other's in-game skills are.

English
03-27-2017, 04:25 PM
correct.

I'm not sure if it's an appropriate parallel, but...Luke Maye. Does UNC make the Final Four without Luke Maye? Does Luke Maye gain the skills, timing, trust to be the best player on the court in the E8 game if he was buried on the bench all season, like say, Vrank? They are not analogous players, but they are both So. that didn't play much as Fr. When Duke needed a big man to help Amile in the post vs USC, we had Giles who got vaporized and Bolden who didn't even get off the bench (perhaps for health reasons), and we had Vrank and Javin, neither of whom were anywhere close to ready to deal with that situation.
Would we have won a couple more games this year by playing our bench more, therefore maybe moving to a #1 seed? Maybe.
Would we have lost a couple more games this year doing the same, and get a lower seed? Maybe.
In the long run though, i think it pays off to have players who have faced more game situations. Players get better in practice yadda yadda blah blah, but they also get better in games. Teams also get better in games, and they learn to trust each other and learn what each other's in-game skills are.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying here, but a pretty obvious counterpoint is: Is the second half of that Luke Maye coming out party even in question if Roy didn't trot out Stilman White and Nate Britt to run the show for appreciable portions of the first half while Malik Monk and De'Aaron Fox were wasting away on the UK bench with early foul trouble? I know all the unc friends I can tolerate were all livid that Roy was scraping the bottom of the bench in that situation, and no one can argue that those two acquitted themselves well in the heat of the moment because they'd been fire tested in-season.

Kfanarmy
03-27-2017, 07:06 PM
Jefferson grabbed 15 rebounds and had 6(!) blocks against SC. That is elite level play from a center and it doesn't happen if he is getting pushed around on the blocks. Jefferson bested teams with beefy centers all season, including UNC. We weren't beaten because our center couldn't push people around on the blocks. Jefferson was plenty strong. We lost because our perimeter defense was poor, SC's wings and guards shot really well from the field, and our offense wasn't quite good enough to compensate. If any players seemed weak against SC, it was our wing players. Luke and Grayson were unable to fight through the Gamecock's physical defense to get good looks. They were also constantly outmuscled/hustled for rebounds. Even Jayson, usually a solid rebounder, only grabbed three boards. Our center was probably the only player on the team that didn't get pushed around in that game.
I hate to tell you this, but Duke lost this game in the paint, unless you believe the 5 three pointers SC shot in the second half were the key. Yes Amile played a gritty tough game, but he is a F not a Center. Duke needed a Center and a PF, not two Forwards in the paint.

CDu
03-27-2017, 07:27 PM
I hate to tell you this, but Duke lost this game in the paint, unless you believe the 5 three pointers SC shot in the second half were the key. Yes Amile played a gritty tough game, but he is a F not a Center. Duke needed a Center and a PF, not two Forwards in the paint.

When a player gets 14 points, 15 rebounds, and 6 blocks in a game while playing center, I think it is absolutely ridiculous to say he is not a center.

We lost this game due to foul trouble (which forced us to play zone) and failure to stop transition baskets. Not the lack of a center. Our center was dominant. Jefferson and Gile ls got a combined 18 rebounds and 7 blocks at center. It was everywhere BUT center where we struggled defensively.

Kfanarmy
04-05-2017, 01:58 PM
When a player gets 14 points, 15 rebounds, and 6 blocks in a game while playing center, I think it is absolutely ridiculous to say he is not a center.

We lost this game due to foul trouble (which forced us to play zone) and failure to stop transition baskets. Not the lack of a center. Our center was dominant. Jefferson and Gile ls got a combined 18 rebounds and 7 blocks at center. It was everywhere BUT center where we struggled defensively.


A Forward playing the in the paint doesn't make them a Center. If Amile had played with Bolden or Vrank all season long, I believe you would have seen an incredible interior D that forced opposing teams into jump shots rather than one guy having amazing defensive stats while the opposing team had amazing offensive stats inside the paint. It is a team game and Amile alone is not enough to protect the paint. He can't wear down the heavier Centers, nor can he keep up with three or four from an opposing team.

CDu
04-05-2017, 04:47 PM
A Forward playing the in the paint doesn't make them a Center. If Amile had played with Bolden or Vrank all season long, I believe you would have seen an incredible interior D that forced opposing teams into jump shots rather than one guy having amazing defensive stats while the opposing team had amazing offensive stats inside the paint. It is a team game and Amile alone is not enough to protect the paint. He can't wear down the heavier Centers, nor can he keep up with three or four from an opposing team.

Yeah, no. What did Jefferson do in three games against Kennedy Meeks?

In the two regular season games in which Jefferson averaged 33 mpg, Meeks averaged 8.5 points on 50% shooting and 6.5 rebounds. That was VERY effective work against one of the biggest men in college bball.

In the ACC tournament, in the third game in three days, Jefferson fouled out. And Meeks took advantage, going for 19 and 12 on 9-14 from the field.

Jefferson was a college center. He may not be your image of a college C, but he was a college C.

And again, we didn't lose because we lacked a starting C. Heck, our lineup was bigger than than South Carolina's. We lost because of transition defense and foul trouble, which forced us to play a weak zone that they exploited.

azzefkram
04-05-2017, 07:22 PM
Yeah, no. What did Jefferson do in three games against Kennedy Meeks?

In the two regular season games in which Jefferson averaged 33 mpg, Meeks averaged 8.5 points on 50% shooting and 6.5 rebounds. That was VERY effective work against one of the biggest men in college bball.

In the ACC tournament, in the third game in three days, Jefferson fouled out. And Meeks took advantage, going for 19 and 12 on 9-14 from the field.

Jefferson was a college center. He may not be your image of a college C, but he was a college C.

And again, we didn't lose because we lacked a starting C. Heck, our lineup was bigger than than South Carolina's. We lost because of transition defense and foul trouble, which forced us to play a weak zone that they exploited.

Agree for the most part. I thought Amile did a great job in the regular season games in denying Meeks the ball. That is an area I thought Amile excelled at throughout the year. Once Meeks got the ball Amile was less effective which is not surprising given the size disparity and the fact that Meeks is a fairly good basketball player. In the ACCT Amile was not as successful in denying Meeks the ball. Probably a function of the 3 games in 3 days.

WRT South Carolina, they were 7-12 at the rim in the half court which is okay to maybe good. In transition they were 7-9 which is fairly awesome or horrendously bad depending on your perspective.

We had a really good year with a lot of bad luck. We had our issues. I think fewer than many seem to think. Amile playing the C or otherwise was not one of them.