PDA

View Full Version : Beware of geeks bearing GIFs (Thread for Play Analysis, Highlights, Fun, etc)



Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 04:35 PM
Use this thread to post GIFs from our games. You can analyze plays or just post highlights or fun plays that occurred.

The warning in the thread title is about the browsing performance of this thread. Everyone posting GIFs should try to only post low-resolution GIFs and link high-resolution ones, but even still, the performance of this thread could drag, especially on mobile devices.

To help with that, when replying to the thread, try not to quote someone else's GIF unless necessary. So, for example, if a post of mine has three GIFs in it and you just want to comment on one of them, excise the other two GIFs from your reply.

I wrote a guide on how to make GIFs here (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?39108-How-to-Make-GIFs&p=935277#post935277). Hopefully many of us will be using this thread to make GIFs, but from previous experience, this thread might become my personal playground.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 04:48 PM
I finally have some time these next couple of days to post some GIFs.

I'm going to try to make a series of posts. We'll see where it goes but the rough outline I have in my head right now is to tackle the 3 major weaknesses of Duke's defense in the halfcourt this season, as I see it:

(1) Allowing opposing guards to reject ball screens, i.e. no direction control on ball screens.

(2) Positioning the big man high on ball screens to protect against pull-up threes, which opens up drives and (sadly) catch-and-shoot threes, which are easier to hit than pull-up threes.

(3) Overhelping off of shooters. A new one for this season.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 05:52 PM
The problem with opposing guards rejecting ball screens was apparent from the first exhibition game (and the problem with giving up three-point attempts even earlier):





Just like with CTC, Duke's defense gave up a ton of 3-pt attempts again. We'll need to continue to collect more data to see if this change is real, but so far Duke does seem to be leaving shooters to help inside much more liberally than we've done in past years, where we've always ranked near the top of the country in limiting 3-pt attempts.
The defense was good but not perfect by any means. As the game proceeded, NWMoSt's guards started to "reject the ball screen" more often (i.e. fake dribbling in the direction of the screen, and then go the other way), and this tactic fooled Trevon and JGold a few times. They'll need to do a better job of not falling for that trick.



Unfortunately, it's still not solved.

Let's first show a few examples of what I mean when a guard "rejects" the ball screen, and then we'll expand the analysis in follow-up posts. Essentially, the opposing guard doesn't use the screen but beats the Duke defender off the dribble going away from the screen.


Against FSU. Higher-resolution version. (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/UnlinedMetallicGoldenretriever)

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnlinedMetallicGoldenretriever-size_restricted.gif


Against Texas. Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/CelebratedTenderHog).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CelebratedTenderHog-size_restricted.gif


Against BC. Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/EasygoingAmusedAbyssiniancat).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EasygoingAmusedAbyssiniancat-size_restricted.gif

Neals384
01-03-2018, 06:05 PM
Good stuff!

CDu
01-03-2018, 06:56 PM
Those just look like flat-footed defense rather than getting fooled by a player rejecting a screen.

Also, as a defender, especially if you have the right positional matchup (e.g., small on small), you actually prefer the ballhandler NOT to use the screen, because our defense tends to switch on screens, and our bigs stink at defending guards.

The problem in those examples appears to be that the defender is just slow to move his feet and allows the driver to get a step on him. In the last example, it is Bagley on a wing, so the result isn’t too surprising. But Goldwire and Allen should do better.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 06:59 PM
FSU in particular picked on us with ball screen rejection, contributing to our foul trouble.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/IgnorantDistortedFritillarybutterfly).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IgnorantDistortedFritillarybutterfly-size_restricted.gif


Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/WholePointedAllosaurus).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WholePointedAllosaurus-size_restricted.gif


Higher-res version. (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/PerkySoupyAlpinegoat)

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PerkySoupyAlpinegoat-size_restricted.gif


I'm not exactly sure how this keeps happening. It's common for coaches to teach their players to position themselves in a way that forces the ball-handler to use the screen instead of rejecting it. But screen rejection happens to us often enough (and imo was clearly part of FSU's gameplan) that I'm not sure Duke has taught our guys to shade the ball-handler towards the screen. Which would be fine if screen rejection weren't hurting us, but it is!

Example: Coaching clinic video by Travis Ford teaching the defender to force the ball-handler to use the ball screen (youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXFb6EKNpJ0&feature=youtu.be&t=36s)

CDu
01-03-2018, 07:06 PM
FSU in particular picked on us with ball screen rejection, contributing to our foul trouble.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/IgnorantDistortedFritillarybutterfly).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IgnorantDistortedFritillarybutterfly-size_restricted.gif


Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/WholePointedAllosaurus).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WholePointedAllosaurus-size_restricted.gif


Higher-res version. (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/PerkySoupyAlpinegoat)

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PerkySoupyAlpinegoat-size_restricted.gif


I'm not exactly sure how this keeps happening. It's common for coaches to teach their players to position themselves in a way that forces the ball-handler to use the screen instead of rejecting it. But screen rejection happens to us often enough (and imo was clearly part of FSU's gameplan) that I'm not sure Duke has taught our guys shade the ball-handler towards the screen. Which would be fine if screen rejection weren't hurting us, but it is!

Example: Coaching clinic video by Travis Ford teaching the defender to force the ball-handler to use the ball screen (youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXFb6EKNpJ0&feature=youtu.be&t=36s)

Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen. Heck, the entire idea of “icing” is to overplay against a screen happening.

But in all of these examples, the defender actually does a pretty good job staying between his man and the basket. The guys just make freshman mistakes mid-drive in all three cases. Bagley gets lazy with his footworks, Duval stands up, so does O’Connell.

But I would expect that, in general, keeping the ballhandler from getting to use the screen is a feature, rather than a mistake.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 07:16 PM
Those just look like flat-footed defense rather than getting fooled by a player rejecting a screen.

Also, as a defender, especially if you have the right positional matchup (e.g., small on small), you actually prefer the ballhandler NOT to use the screen, because our defense tends to switch on screens, and our bigs stink at defending guards.

The problem in those examples appears to be that the defender is just slow to move his feet and allows the driver to get a step on him. In the last example, it is Bagley on a wing, so the result isn’t too surprising. But Goldwire and Allen should do better.

I disagree because of how far out we bring our bigs on ball screens. When the ball-handler rejects the ball screen, there's often nobody home to rim protect as in the first three examples.

Ever since the NCAA followed the NBA in eliminating the handcheck, it became very hard for defenders to guard ball-handlers, as you know. Right now it's doubly hard for our defenders because they have no idea whether the ball-handler will use the screen or not.

We need to start enforcing a standard of either (A) always shading the defender towards the screen or (B) always shading the defender away from the screen, i.e. icing it. (B) is my preference but (A) is still better than the status quo where we have implemented zero direction control on ball screens.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 07:27 PM
Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen. Heck, the entire idea of “icing” is to overplay against a screen happening.

But in all of these examples, the defender actually does a pretty good job staying between his man and the basket. The guys just make freshman mistakes mid-drive in all three cases. Bagley gets lazy with his footworks, Duval stands up, so does O’Connell.

But I would expect that, in general, keeping the ballhandler from getting to use the screen is a feature, rather than a mistake.

It isn't though because opponents are using the ball screen more often than they're not.

Duke isn't icing this season (except for like a handful of possessions over the course of the season). We've seen how Duke (and every other team) ices, particularly in 2015. The defender's body gets parallel to the sideline and aggressively keeps the ball-handler away from the screen. That's not what is happening in these videos.

Right now Duke isn't enforcing any direction control. Opponents are either using the screen or rejecting the screen at will, and it's hurting us. We need to start dictating to them where to go, either into the screen or away from it and not letting them choose.

CDu
01-03-2018, 07:50 PM
It isn't though because opponents are using the ball screen more often than they're not.

If a team really wants to set a screen, then a screen will be set. It doesn’t change the fact that a screen is to the advantage of the offense.


Duke isn't icing this season (except for like a handful of possessions over the course of the season). We've seen how Duke (and every other team) ices, particularly in 2015. The defender's body gets parallel to the sideline and aggressively keeps the ball-handler away from the screen. That's not what is happening in these videos.

I didn’t say we are icing this year. Just that defenses typically try to find ways to avoid screens. Offenses set screens to create an advantage. As such, defenses try to find ways to counter that advantage. Icing is one way, though not the only way.


Right now Duke isn't enforcing any direction control. Opponents are either using the screen or rejecting the screen at will, and it's hurting us. We need to start dictating to them where to go, either into the screen or away from it and not letting them choose.

Or we can do a better job of defending the ball. You don’t have to overplay either into the screen or away from the screen to have effective defense. You can play that way (icing is one approach; trapping is another). But it isn’t a necessary strategy. You can also play straight up assignment basketball. All of the examples you have shown are just players doing a bad job of staying in good guarding position. Slide your feet and stay between your man and the basket. It is your teammate’s job then to tell you if a screen happens and what to in that case. If the ball goes away from the screen, you just continue to defend your assignment.

All of those breakdowns could have been prevented by the on-ball defender staying committed to moving their feet better and staying down in their stances rather than letting up.

So I don’t think these are breakdowns because of a lack of directional control. Just a breakdown in focus/effort by young players.

CDu
01-03-2018, 07:59 PM
I disagree because of how far out we bring our bigs on ball screens. When the ball-handler rejects the ball screen, there's often nobody home to rim protect as in the first three examples.

But the big whose man is setting the screen wouldn’t be the player “at home” either way. That would be the job of the other big, whose man is away from the ball.


Ever since the NCAA followed the NBA in eliminating the handcheck, it became very hard for defenders to guard ball-handlers, as you know. Right now it's doubly hard for our defenders because they have no idea whether the ball-handler will use the screen or not.

Hard, but not impossible. Again - overplaying directionally is just one way to resolve the problem. Not all good defenses overplay directionally. I would venture most don’t. But I would have to do a LOT more research to find out.


We need to start enforcing a standard of either (A) always shading the defender towards the screen or (B) always shading the defender away from the screen, i.e. icing it. (B) is my preference but (A) is still better than the status quo where we have implemented zero direction control on ball screens.

I don’t think A, B, or C (neither) is necessarily better or worse. All of those examples were just lack of focus/effort. Those problems would exist even if we directed every play to or away from screens. It isn’t the system that is causing the breakdowns. It is the players.

Spoiler alert: This is one of those teams where zone may be our best. Lineup, because we have so few good on-ball defenders.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 08:22 PM
Or we can do a better job of defending the ball. You don’t have to overplay either into the screen or away from the screen to have effective defense. You can play that way (icing is one approach; trapping is another). But it isn’t a necessary strategy. You can also play straight up assignment basketball. All of the examples you have shown are just players doing a bad job of staying in good guarding position. Slide your feet and stay between your man and the basket. It is your teammate’s job then to tell you if a screen happens and what to in that case. If the ball goes away from the screen, you just continue to defend your assignment.

All of those breakdowns could have been prevented by the on-ball defender staying committed to moving their feet better and staying down in their stances rather than letting up.

So I don’t think these are breakdowns because of a lack of directional control. Just a breakdown in focus/effort by young players.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. It's really hard without the handcheck available to play lockdown 1-on-1 defense. As you probably know, the reason icing became popular is because NBA defenses knew they couldn't consistently just slide their feet and stay between their man and the basket. They knew drives were going to occur, but at least they could exert control over which direction the drives went.

Furthermore, when I watch these Duke games, I see a lot of hesitancy. The defenders guarding the ball-handlers don't know whether the screen will be used, the bigs guarding the screener don't know whether the screen will be used, and the three support defenders behind them don't know either. I believe not knowing is causing them to be a split second slow in their reactions (which could contribute to your bad 1-on-1 defense). I believe it would help our defense if everyone could more predictably know whether the ball-handler will be using the screen or rejecting it. In 2015 we had this predictability that we don't currently have now.

Yes, I want our defenders to slide their feet better, but I want to help them out tactically as well.

CDu
01-03-2018, 08:39 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree then. It's really hard without the handcheck available to play lockdown 1-on-1 defense. As you probably know, the reason icing became popular is because NBA defenses knew they couldn't consistently just slide their feet and stay between their man and the basket. They knew drives were going to occur, but at least they could exert control over which direction the drives went.

Furthermore, when I watch these Duke games, I see a lot of hesitancy. The defenders guarding the ball-handlers don't know whether the screen will be used, the bigs guarding the screener don't know whether the screen will be used, and the three support defenders behind them don't know either. I believe not knowing is causing them to be a split second slow in their reactions (which could contribute to your bad 1-on-1 defense). I believe it would help our defense if everyone could more predictably know whether the ball-handler will be using the screen or rejecting it. In 2015 we had this predictability that we don't currently have now.

Yes, I want our defenders to slide their feet better, but I want to help them out tactically as well.

Actually, icing wasn’t designed because of fear of drives. It was designed to prevent pick and rolls, which are extremely difficult to defend with the talented PGs and with bigs getting more skilled and more sthletic. It also is designed to reduce the risk of switching a big onto a guard. And it is designed to address one specific type of pick, by using the baseline as an extra defender. But again, the focus is to prevent the screen, which puts the defense on tilt.

As a general rule though, I would argue against a strategy of funneling the ball into a screen. That is just asking for headache.

PS - watching the FSU game, and neither team is funneling the ball to or away from the screen.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 08:42 PM
But the big whose man is setting the screen wouldn’t be the player “at home” either way. That would be the job of the other big, whose man is away from the ball.


Hard, but not impossible. Again - overplaying directionally is just one way to resolve the problem. Not all good defenses overplay directionally. I would venture most don’t. But I would have to do a LOT more research to find out.

It looks like you're willing to agree that exerting directional control could help. And since I obviously agree we should continue to try to improve our sliding and our staying in a stance, this might be a good place to stop our exchange, at least for this section. I have two more planks to get to. And yes I do think most good defenses are teaching their players to predictably send the ball-handler either into or away from the screen.



I don’t think A, B, or C (neither) is necessarily better or worse. All of those examples were just lack of focus/effort. Those problems would exist even if we directed every play to or away from screens. It isn’t the system that is causing the breakdowns. It is the players.

I disagree. A lot of our problems are scheme-related, imo. If Calipari had this roster, we'd have a top-25 defense, as much as it pains me to say that.



Spoiler alert: This is one of those teams where zone may be our best. Lineup, because we have so few good on-ball defenders.

I agree that zone would be better, given some of the weaknesses in our m2m scheme.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 08:47 PM
Actually, icing wasn’t designed because of fear of drives. It was designed to prevent pick and rolls, which are extremely difficult to defend with the talented PGs and with bigs getting more skilled and more sthletic. It also is designed to reduce the risk of switching a big onto a guard. And it is designed to address one specific type of pick, by using the baseline as an extra defender. But again, the focus is to prevent the screen, which puts the defense on tilt.

As a general rule though, I would argue against a strategy of funneling the ball into a screen. That is just asking for headache.

PS - watching the FSU game, and neither team is funneling the ball to or away from the screen.

Yes, drives out of pick-n-roll. Icing was designed to prevent middle drives out of pick-n-roll by funneling the direction of the drives towards the sideline/baseline. You have to know that I know that. C'mon now.

CDu
01-03-2018, 08:49 PM
It looks like you're willing to agree that exerting directional control could help. And since I obviously agree we should continue to try to improve our sliding and our staying in a stance, this might be a good place to stop our exchange, at least for this section. I have two more planks to get to. And yes I do think most good defenses are teaching their players to predictably send the ball-handler either into or away from the screen.

I disagree. A lot of our problems are scheme-related, imo. If Calipari had this roster, we'd have a top-25 defense, as much as it pains me to say that.

I agree that zone would be better, given some of the weaknesses in our m2m scheme.

Directional defense could help, could hurt. But funneling to a screen will likely hurt more than not.

And I don’t think most teams are directionally defending. It isn’t happening at all in the FSU/UNC game.

And if teams ARE defending directionally, it would be AWAY from a screener, not TO him. Which gets back to my primary point: rejection of the ball screen is a facet, not a defect, for our defense.

CDu
01-03-2018, 08:55 PM
Yes, drives out of pick-n-roll. Icing was designed to prevent middle drives out of pick-n-roll by funneling the direction of the drives towards the sideline/baseline. You have to know that I know that. C'mon now.

My point was that is wasn’t developed to stop on-ball drives. It was designed to address the screen. Which, again, gets back to my original point: leading into screens is generally a bad defensive strategy.

Troublemaker
01-03-2018, 09:11 PM
Directional defense could help, could hurt. But funneling to a screen will likely hurt more than not.

And I don’t think most teams are directionally defending. It isn’t happening at all in the FSU/UNC game.

And if teams ARE defending directionally, it would be AWAY from a screener, not TO him. Which gets back to my primary point: rejection of the ball screen is a facet, not a defect, for our defense.

Rejection of the ball screen, on the opponent's terms, is a defect. (But we can agree to disagree here).

And coaches do teach directional control. At a later time, I can give you a bevy of links; I've already supplied one by Travis Ford, keep in mind.

For example, a very typical scheme would be to ice sideline pick-and-rolls and to have the guard go over the screen on middle pick-and-rolls while the big man drops. On those middle PNRs, the guard absolutely is responsible for forcing the ball-handler into the screen. Thus he is almost always exerting directional control. Away from the screen on side PNRs and into the screen on middle PNRs.

Regardless, I do appreciate the conversation, CDu. Getting pushback on my GIF posts is a good thing. It offers a different perspective and it allows me to flesh out my thoughts better.

CDu
01-03-2018, 09:48 PM
Rejection of the ball screen, on the opponent's terms, is a defect. (But we can agree to disagree here).

And coaches do teach directional control. At a later time, I can give you a bevy of links; I've already supplied one by Travis Ford, keep in mind.

For example, a very typical scheme would be to ice sideline pick-and-rolls and to have the guard go over the screen on middle pick-and-rolls while the big man drops. On those middle PNRs, the guard absolutely is responsible for forcing the ball-handler into the screen. Thus he is almost always exerting directional control. Away from the screen on side PNRs and into the screen on middle PNRs.

Regardless, I do appreciate the conversation, CDu. Getting pushback on my GIF posts is a good thing. It offers a different perspective and it allows me to flesh out my thoughts better.

I have no doubt that teams use directional defense. Whether it be funnel baseline or funnel middle, I fully believe that happens. But I seriously doubt that teams actively employ a strategy of funneling ballhandlers INTO screens. Screens are the single biggest strategic advantage offenses have, so it makes no sense to try to create more such opportunities.

Which, again, is my primary point. It isn’t the rejecting of screens that was the problem in those clips, and funneling players into the screens wouldn’t be a good strategy.

Kedsy
01-03-2018, 11:13 PM
Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen.

I think I agree with CDu on this one. And I'll add another wrinkle. Many of the gif examples are showing weakness in rotation. If the ballhandler rejects the screen and gets past his man, we need (a) the wing defender on that side to help; and (b) the screener's defender to watch the passing lane on that side for a kickout. That's not happening in any of your gifs. Our guys are sticking with their assignments, even if the man they're defending has a low probability of receiving a pass. To me, that's partly a defensive instinct issue and mostly a communication issue.

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 12:22 AM
I have no doubt that teams use directional defense. Whether it be funnel baseline or funnel middle, I fully believe that happens. But I seriously doubt that teams actively employ a strategy of funneling ballhandlers INTO screens. Screens are the single biggest strategic advantage offenses have, so it makes no sense to try to create more such opportunities.

Which, again, is my primary point. It isn’t the rejecting of screens that was the problem in those clips, and funneling players into the screens wouldn’t be a good strategy.

Except I have a link to a college coach saying the exact opposite. And as mentioned, I can supply more. It's pretty standard in certain ball screen coverages to expect the defender guarding the ball to force the ball-handler into the screen.

You're also thinking about this too abstractly, imo. All things being equal, I agree that forcing the ball away from the screen is better. I've already said I would prefer that we ice ball screens much more than we have so far this season, and I'd also like us to drop our bigs back in pick-and-roll. BUT, that is not that path Coach K has chosen this season (yet). Whether I agree with it or not, Coach K is lifting our centers up high to hedge (in Marques' case) or to lateral contain (in Wendell's case), and these guys are waiting on the other side of the ball screen to do their thing. If the ball-handler then rejects the screen, our center will be way out of position; the ball-handler will then have a lot of space to either beat our guard outright for a layup or to get into his body for a blocking foul, as my GIFs have shown. Grudgingly, it's better to force the ball-handler to use the screen.

I wouldn't be posting about directional control if I didn't see a recurring problem that started in the exhibitions, continued through PK80, and then into the recent ACC games. This isn't an abstract situation.

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 12:53 AM
Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen.

I think I agree with CDu on this one. And I'll add another wrinkle. Many of the gif examples are showing weakness in rotation. If the ballhandler rejects the screen and gets past his man, we need (a) the wing defender on that side to help; and (b) the screener's defender to watch the passing lane on that side for a kickout. That's not happening in any of your gifs. Our guys are sticking with their assignments, even if the man they're defending has a low probability of receiving a pass. To me, that's partly a defensive instinct issue and mostly a communication issue.

I actually somewhat agree with CDu as well that on the second set of GIFs (three FSU), the Duke player on the ball did a decent job defending. But all three plays resulted in fouls anyway, with two of them blocking fouls on the ball defender. Why? Because of all the open space the FSU guard created by rejecting the ball screen; Duke's center (Wendell in all three cases) was on the wrong side of the ball screen, and only in the first GIF did he come close to impacting the play. You give an opposing ACC guard that much space to attack off the dribble combined with "freedom of movement" officiating, and he will very often score or draw a foul, short of Duke developing 5 or 6 Tony Allen type perimeter defenders.

Imagine, though, if Duke had exerted directional control by purposefully icing the ball screen. Wendell would be on the same side of the screen as Duke's ball defender (therefore, much less space for the ball-handler) instead of waiting on the other side of it, and Wendell could've met the ball-handler after one dribble.

FSU and other teams are purposefully lifting our bigs up high by appearing to set a ball screen and then driving into the vacated space left behind via screen rejection. It's been happening since the preseason. Adapt or die.

RepoMan
01-04-2018, 07:12 AM
Thanks for this thread, as well as all comments. I really don't follow the nuances of the games this closely, and it add a dimension to think about.

Spanarkel
01-04-2018, 07:37 AM
Is ball screen rejection a legitimate DSM-5 condition? Can one develop PTSD from frequent ball screen rejection? And which of the three players involved would be more likely to develop issues from frequent ball screen rejection: the dribbler who rejects the ball screen, the rejected screener, or the burned defender? Is there effective therapy available for this condition?

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 07:47 AM
Except I have a link to a college coach saying the exact opposite. And as mentioned, I can supply more.

Here's San Antonio Spurs assistant (and legendary Italian coach) Ettore Messina giving a coaching clinic on how the Spurs defend middle PNR.

I've primed the video to the part where Messina explains that the Spurs will direct the ball-handler one way or the other and never play it flat (and allowing the ball-handler to choose): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qssGROBbe68&feature=youtu.be&t=8m2s

So the Spurs agree with me. If you let the video run, he'll go on to explain that he wants the big man to be where the ball defender is directing the ball. It would be anathema to him to see what's happening to Duke in my GIFs in which the big man is always on the wrong side of the screen as the opposing guard drives the other way.

CDu
01-04-2018, 08:14 AM
Except I have a link to a college coach saying the exact opposite. And as mentioned, I can supply more. It's pretty standard in certain ball screen coverages to expect the defender guarding the ball to force the ball-handler into the screen.

You're also thinking about this too abstractly, imo. All things being equal, I agree that forcing the ball away from the screen is better. I've already said I would prefer that we ice ball screens much more than we have so far this season, and I'd also like us to drop our bigs back in pick-and-roll. BUT, that is not that path Coach K has chosen this season (yet). Whether I agree with it or not, Coach K is lifting our centers up high to hedge (in Marques' case) or to lateral contain (in Wendell's case), and these guys are waiting on the other side of the ball screen to do their thing. If the ball-handler then rejects the screen, our center will be way out of position; the ball-handler will then have a lot of space to either beat our guard outright for a layup or to get into his body for a blocking foul, as my GIFs have shown. Grudgingly, it's better to force the ball-handler to use the screen.

I wouldn't be posting about directional control if I didn't see a recurring problem that started in the exhibitions, continued through PK80, and then into the recent ACC games. This isn't an abstract situation.

Except that in none of the examples you have posted are the bigs actually waiting on the other side of the screener. In all of them, the bigs are well off the screener in the paint. This suggests pretty strongly to me that they are not overplay on the screen action. Carter is a good 10 feet off the big in most of those examples, with plenty of time to get to wherever the driver goes. He just is glacially slow to rotate in all but the last example.

Which brings me back to one of my points: I think it is not the scheme, it is the players. Since Carter is decidedly not getting way out on defense of high ball screens, he is in position to help either way. He just doesn’t move at all quickly enough in those examples. As is also true of the guys defending on the perimeter.

If we were employing a “direct them into the screen” strategy, I would expect Carter to be much higher up than he is. But consistently in these videos, that is not the case. So either the coaches are not coaching that strategy, or the players aren’t following it and the coaches are letting it slide. But moreover, if they are coaching to funnel to the screen, our bigs aren’t in the right spot to defend it anyway. So funneling the ball into the screen would just play to the offense’s advantage.

So, again, while Travis Ford appears to coach funneling into the screen, it does not appear that Duke is employing this approach - neither the perimeter defender nor the big are indicating that’s the strategy. So, again, I don’t think the rejection of the screen is the problem here.

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 09:29 AM
Except I have a link to a college coach saying the exact opposite. And as mentioned, I can supply more.

Here's Golden St Warriors assistant and renowned defensive guru Ron Adams (https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+adams+defensive+guru) in another coaching clinic on pick and roll defense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K_1w7XwMoo&feature=youtu.be&t=32m53s

I've primed the video to the point where Adams states that the ball defender, when he hears that a screen is coming, should reposition himself to force the ball-handler into the screen.

I hate appealing to authority like this but when disagreeing with CDu and Kedsy, I feel like I have to bring the goods. And no offense to Travis Ford but I'm happy that I now also have the Warriors and Spurs with me.

Directional control on ball screens is important.

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 09:52 AM
Except that in none of the examples you have posted are the bigs actually waiting on the other side of the screener. In all of them, the bigs are well off the screener in the paint. This suggests pretty strongly to me that they are not overplay on the screen action. Carter is a good 10 feet off the big in most of those examples, with plenty of time to get to wherever the driver goes. He just is glacially slow to rotate in all but the last example.

Which brings me back to one of my points: I think it is not the scheme, it is the players. Since Carter is decidedly not getting way out on defense of high ball screens, he is in position to help either way. He just doesn’t move at all quickly enough in those examples. As is also true of the guys defending on the perimeter.

Yeah, disagree, especially on the first 3 GIFs. You don't see that our centers are primed and ready to help out on the other side of the screen? Marques was licking his chops ready to hedge in the third GIF. In the second set of GIFs, I do agree that Wendell was increasingly wary of screen rejection as I did post the FSU GIFs in chronological order. Still, he'd be better positioned to make a play if he were on the side that the ball-handler was going to.



If we were employing a “direct them into the screen” strategy, I would expect Carter to be much higher up than he is. But consistently in these videos, that is not the case. So either the coaches are not coaching that strategy, or the players aren’t following it and the coaches are letting it slide. But moreover, if they are coaching to funnel to the screen, our bigs aren’t in the right spot to defend it anyway. So funneling the ball into the screen would just play to the offense’s advantage.

So, again, while Travis Ford appears to coach funneling into the screen, it does not appear that Duke is employing this approach - neither the perimeter defender nor the big are indicating that’s the strategy. So, again, I don’t think the rejection of the screen is the problem here.

We are not directing them but my argument has been that we should be. Directional control is important, as Ettore Messina and Ron Adams would tell you.

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 10:02 AM
So that completes my series of posts regarding the ball defender in pick-and-roll and why he should be directing the ball-handler instead of allowing the ball-handler to either use the screen or reject the screen at will. Reasonable minds can disagree and have.

Next, I will do a series of posts about the big man in pick-and-roll defense.

CDu
01-04-2018, 10:40 AM
Yeah, disagree, especially on the first 3 GIFs. You don't see that our centers are primed and ready to help out on the other side of the screen? Marques was licking his chops ready to hedge in the third GIF. In the second set of GIFs, I do agree that Wendell was increasingly wary of screen rejection as I did post the FSU GIFs in chronological order. Still, he'd be better positioned to make a play if he were on the side that the ball-handler was going to.

Yeah, I really don't see that. With Bolden, yes. None of the other clips though. In the first 3 clips, it looks like the defenders are staying relatively near their man, but still lag a good 5 feet behind.

But I would argue that the first GIF looks a lot closer to an "ice" than it does to a focus on using the screen. And Carter is farther away from the screener than Bolden (who is the only example in all 6 GIFs that looks like he's wanting to hedge; in the Texas game, it looks like Carter just doesn't know what he wants to do. But he certainly doesn't look primed to hedge.

I'd also note that there is a time difference here. The four FSU GIFs all look more like we are NOT looking to hedge. The BC GIF is the only hedge example. The Texas example just looks like a tentative defender in Carter, neither looking to hedge nor looking to defend.

So if anything, I'd say that the FSU game (which represents our first tough game after an extended break allowing us to practice) suggests we've employed a strategy of NOT looking to have our bigs hedge out on screens. Like I said, those GIFs of the FSU game seem to show the opposite of what was being suggested as a good strategy. If our perimeter defenders funneled the ball to the screen, our bigs weren't in position to defend it. That would suggest to me that funneling into the screen is NOT what our perimeter guys should be trying to do.


We are not directing them but my argument has been that we should be. Directional control is important, as Ettore Messina and Ron Adams would tell you.

Technically, your argument was that we should be directing the into the screen. It's the italicized part that is my biggest beef. As I've said above, I don't have a problem with using a directional approach. My issue has been, and continues to be, with the original proposition that our problem is that we are failing to prevent rejection of the ball screen. I'm just not a huge proponent of directing them into the ball screens, especially with our current defensive personnel. The Warriors like to switch everything, and they have the personnel to do it. So directing into a ball screen works for them.
They don't mind at all if Draymond Green or Kevin Durant get switched onto littles, because those guys are great defenders. To put it nicely, we don't have the defensive personnel of the Warriors. I don't want Carter being involved in ball screens at all if I can avoid it. He's slow of foot and way too tentative out there. So in my view, rejecting the ball screen with Carter on the floor is a plus, not a minus.

In the FSU GIFs, our defense looked much better than in the other GIFs. I think it is because in those GIFs we didn't send our bigs out to hedge on screens. Thus, it would appear that funneling to the screen would be a less effective strategy. We didn't fail in those situations because of the screen rejection. We failed in those situations because our perimeter defenders let up at bad times. They were in good-to-excellent position defensively in each of the four cases, but made freshman mistakes in each case. And our big (in each case it was Carter) had plenty of time to rotate down. He was slow in 3 of the 4 cases, but in the first GIF he was actually in good help position had Duval not bailed out on the play. So, again, I don't think our problem was the rejection of the ball screen.

My major beef in this thread is just the idea that those plays were a breakdown because the defender allowed the ball to reject the screen, when I don't think that was the problem at all. With this team, I want as few ball screens as possible, because our bigs don't handle them well and really struggle on littles. If that means using directional defense to funnel AWAY from screens, fine. But that's not what the thread was suggesting, and that's what I was responding to. If you change the point to be that we just need to pick a direction, I have much less problem with the discussion. I just don't think that direction should be INTO the screen.

thedukelamere
01-04-2018, 11:09 AM
Not to interrupt CDu and Troublemaker's important discussion on our on-ball defense (FWIW, I've always been a fan of funneling into the screen as long as there is a solid hedge and the D can rotate to account for a solid pass to the screener), but kudos to Troublemaker's easy to follow instructions on how to make GIFs... I have a feeling I'm going to waste a good amount of time playing around with this.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IlliterateAggravatingFishingcat-small.gif

CDu
01-04-2018, 11:23 AM
Not to interrupt CDu and Troublemaker's important discussion on our on-ball defense (FWIW, I've always been a fan of funneling into the screen as long as there is a solid hedge and the D can rotate to account for a solid pass to the screener), but kudos to Troublemaker's easy to follow instructions on how to make GIFs... I have a feeling I'm going to waste a good amount of time playing around with this.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IlliterateAggravatingFishingcat-small.gif

Agreed. That's much appreciated. I'm probably not going to use it myself but it is cool to know how.

And I also want to point out that, while I obviously don't agree with Troublemaker that we should be funneling guys into screens, I don't want to sound dismissive of the work or the discussion. I have appreciated the discussion and the insights Troublemaker has provided, especially those from the NBA guys. Those are great watches, thanks Troublemaker!

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 12:10 PM
Yeah, I really don't see that. With Bolden, yes. None of the other clips though. In the first 3 clips, it looks like the defenders are staying relatively near their man, but still lag a good 5 feet behind.

But I would argue that the first GIF looks a lot closer to an "ice" than it does to a focus on using the screen. And Carter is farther away from the screener than Bolden (who is the only example in all 6 GIFs that looks like he's wanting to hedge; in the Texas game, it looks like Carter just doesn't know what he wants to do. But he certainly doesn't look primed to hedge.

I'd also note that there is a time difference here. The four FSU GIFs all look more like we are NOT looking to hedge. The BC GIF is the only hedge example. The Texas example just looks like a tentative defender in Carter, neither looking to hedge nor looking to defend.

So if anything, I'd say that the FSU game (which represents our first tough game after an extended break allowing us to practice) suggests we've employed a strategy of NOT looking to have our bigs hedge out on screens. Like I said, those GIFs of the FSU game seem to show the opposite of what was being suggested as a good strategy. If our perimeter defenders funneled the ball to the screen, our bigs weren't in position to defend it. That would suggest to me that funneling into the screen is NOT what our perimeter guys should be trying to do.

A few things:
(1) We haven't hedged much at all with Carter this season. We task him to do a lateral contain, which I'll get to in future GIFs (although it's possible you may be counting the lateral contain as a hedge, as people often have slight differences in how they use basketball terminology). Bolden is our designated hedger, but since Carter plays many more minutes, Duke essentially hasn't been a hedging team this season.
(2) I think if FSU had followed through and used the screen in those GIFs instead of rejecting it, you would see that our centers were ready to perform their respective task -- a hedge for Bolden, a lateral contain for Carter.
(3) And IF they weren't ready to perform their task, part of the reason would be the fact that they didn't know whether the screen will be used. If they had more certainty that the screen would be used (i.e. if Duke began to consistently force the ball-handler into the screen), the bigs would be quicker to react instead of needing to worry about the possibility that the screen could be rejected and perhaps lean the wrong way.


Technically, your argument was that we should be directing the into the screen. It's the italicized part that is my biggest beef. As I've said above, I don't have a problem with using a directional approach. My issue has been, and continues to be, with the original proposition that our problem is that we are failing to prevent rejection of the ball screen. I'm just not a huge proponent of directing them into the ball screens, especially with our current defensive personnel. The Warriors like to switch everything, and they have the personnel to do it. So directing into a ball screen works for them.
They don't mind at all if Draymond Green or Kevin Durant get switched onto littles, because those guys are great defenders. To put it nicely, we don't have the defensive personnel of the Warriors. I don't want Carter being involved in ball screens at all if I can avoid it. He's slow of foot and way too tentative out there. So in my view, rejecting the ball screen with Carter on the floor is a plus, not a minus.

Ron Adams is teaching a coaching clinic and he knows that the coaches in attendance don't have his personnel. Forcing the ball-handler into the screen is just a much more standard practice than you believe(believed?).



My major beef in this thread is just the idea that those plays were a breakdown because the defender allowed the ball to reject the screen, when I don't think that was the problem at all. With this team, I want as few ball screens as possible, because our bigs don't handle them well and really struggle on littles. If that means using directional defense to funnel AWAY from screens, fine. But that's not what the thread was suggesting, and that's what I was responding to. If you change the point to be that we just need to pick a direction, I have much less problem with the discussion. I just don't think that direction should be INTO the screen.

In general, I think you're underestimating the capability of our bigs to play defense. I think Carter is actually pretty mobile for his size, not "glacially slow," for example. It's just that our coaches haven't helped them out (yet) with their tactics. Unlike you, I think the system is more the problem than the players right now, although both play a role, of course.

Troublemaker
01-04-2018, 07:14 PM
First, let me say the reason we focus so much on pick-and-roll defense (i.e. ball screen defense [although sometimes opponents pick-and-pop]) is because that's the way teams attack us. I'd estimate that 90% of halfcourt defensive possessions in the BC and FSU games involved the opponent putting us in pick-and-roll. We either get better at defending ball screens or we (a) don't win the ACC and (b) suffer an early exit in the NCAAs.

Now, onto the bane of our defensive existence, which is the way we lift our centers high to take away the pull-up 3. Wendell plays most of our minutes at center and his task out high is to do a lateral contain of the ball-handler.

Let's first take a look at a possession in which he's successful at that and see what that looks like. These are discouragingly rare possessions.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/MeekSecretAustraliancattledog)

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MeekSecretAustraliancattledog-size_restricted.gif


Wendell is able to cut off BC's guard before he can really penetrate while Grayson navigates around the screen and recovers to this ball-handler. Because Wendell is so high, the BC guard doesn't even think about taking a pull-up three off the dribble.

Note that because Wendell is so high, the rotation behind the ball screen is exactly the same as it would be if Wendell had hedged. The weakside defenders (Marvin and Trevon) help on the roller and then recover to their men outside the 3-pt line. That help on the roller allows Wendell to recover to his man inside the paint.

This is close to perfect execution, but unfortunately it rarely works out this way. Tomorrow I'll start pumping in the GIFs of when things go wrong in this coverage and explain why I would prefer that Duke drops its centers back instead of lifting them up high like this.

TampaDuke
01-04-2018, 09:52 PM
Thanks for this thread, as well as all comments. I really don't follow the nuances of the games this closely, and it add a dimension to think about.

I'd like to echo Repoman's sentiment and thank Troublemaker and Cdu for this discussion. Very informative and makes me wonder why you hear very little of these strategic points from the game commentators or talking heads, with limited exceptions like a Zach Lowe.

uh_no
01-04-2018, 10:01 PM
I'd like to echo Repoman's sentiment and thank Troublemaker and Cdu for this discussion. Very informative and makes me wonder why you hear very little of these strategic points from the game commentators or talking heads, with limited exceptions like a Zach Lowe.

because most of them don't recognize it.

MChambers
01-05-2018, 09:31 AM
I'd like to echo Repoman's sentiment and thank Troublemaker and Cdu for this discussion. Very informative and makes me wonder why you hear very little of these strategic points from the game commentators or talking heads, with limited exceptions like a Zach Lowe.

Me too. It's discussions like these that make DBR such a great place. That and the puns.

Troublemaker
01-07-2018, 08:28 PM
So what is drop coverage in pick-n-roll?

(Note: I would support become a zone-first team, but since I don't think Coach K agrees, I'm trying to explore what possible adjustment he might make in m2m.)

See the video below for a short explanation of drop coverage. While the commentator focuses a lot on the ball defender (and the "rearview mirror" contest in drop coverage), I'm more interested in where the big man is positioned in drop coverage. Pay particular attention to guys like Rudy Gobert, DeAndre Jordan, and Roy Hibbert in this video who START out in the paint and then drop back from there. See how drop coverage neutralizes the roller and helps with defensive rebounding. As the commentator explains, in drop coverage, it's up to the guard defender to prevent an open pull-up three, not the big man defender (like how Duke does it).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQOkT4bSYE

Coach K has NEVER positioned his big men this way. During the many recent years of defensive struggles, Coach K has tried zone (2-3 zone, some 1-3-1 in past seasons, a spot of 3-2 here and there), he's tried hedging, he's tried icing, he's tried lateral contain, but one thing he has NEVER tried is just purposefully keeping his big men closer to the basket in m2m. (There ARE a handful of a possessions a season when Duke accidentally gets into drop coverage, and I'll discuss those in the next post).

I really think he should give it a try.

Let's take a look at a college team, last season's national runner-ups Gonzaga (who owned the #1 kenpom defense [UVA was #2]), employing drop coverage.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/EuphoricFragrantLeonberger).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EuphoricFragrantLeonberger-size_restricted.gif

I probably would like to see Przemek Karnowski, a slow big, start out a step closer to the basket and more in a guarding stance. But still, because he has a head start positionally and isn't out high like a Duke center would be, he's able to jump in front of the roller and disrupt the PNR.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/WildWellgroomedChimpanzee)

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WildWellgroomedChimpanzee-size_restricted.gif

Likewise, the head start Karnowski has in drop coverage allows Karnowski to cut off penetration that he would have no chance of cutting off if he were higher out.

There's nothing inherently wrong with lifting your bigs out high, as long as it works! (UVA's bigs hedge everything, for example). For Duke, though, lifting our bigs out high in PNR has opened up drives by guards and dunks by rollers for many years now. NCSU obviously took advantage of that in Raleigh yesterday. It would be nice to see Coach K try drop coverage to keep our bigs in the paint. I'll discuss the drawbacks of drop coverage in a future post, but I heavily suspect Duke's defense would improve if we employed it.

MChambers
01-08-2018, 09:51 AM
I can’t spark you, but this is great stuff. I agree that drop coverage might improve Duke’s defense, but Coach K likes an aggressive approach to the game, on both offense and defense. I guess that’s why he’s never used the drop.

Rich
01-08-2018, 10:35 AM
I can’t spark you, but this is great stuff. I agree that drop coverage might improve Duke’s defense, but Coach K likes an aggressive approach to the game, on both offense and defense. I guess that’s why he’s never used the drop.

Well, at some point he never used zone either, but at least we know he's an old dog who's willing to try new tricks. He's a mastermind so I have no doubt he's considering every option to maximize our defense given the personnel we have this year.

DarkstarWahoo
01-08-2018, 12:15 PM
Hey Dukies!

I have nothing substantive to add here, but I just wanted to say that this thread title is an all-timer. Well done.

rsvman
01-08-2018, 12:47 PM
Looks to me like the "drop coverage" allows for quite a few mid-range to long-range open shots. I suppose an open mid-range shot beats either: a) an open 3-point shot, or b) an uncontested layup, and so I suppose that's the point of it.

But I feel like the video showed multiple situations where the defense appeared to work mainly because the offensive player missed a pretty good look. I'm not saying that Duke shouldn't try this, I'm just saying that I feel like it would lead to a lot of open-ish 15-19 foot jumpers (which I admit is infinitely preferable to the many layups/slams we gave up against State. I just think that somebody could easily put together a compilation video in which the offense scores quite easily simply by making a jumper. Perhaps this defensive idea would be better against some teams than others. For example, if a team had a point guard like Duval running the pick and roll, this would be ideal, because it would keep him from getting layups or passing to the screener for a dunk, and if he is taking lots of 18-foot jumpers, that would likely work out OK for the opposing team. But this scheme could fail pretty hard against a team that has Steph Curry at the point, for example.

Rich
01-08-2018, 01:20 PM
Looks to me like the "drop coverage" allows for quite a few mid-range to long-range open shots. I suppose an open mid-range shot beats either: a) an open 3-point shot, or b) an uncontested layup, and so I suppose that's the point of it.

But I feel like the video showed multiple situations where the defense appeared to work mainly because the offensive player missed a pretty good look. I'm not saying that Duke shouldn't try this, I'm just saying that I feel like it would lead to a lot of open-ish 15-19 foot jumpers (which I admit is infinitely preferable to the many layups/slams we gave up against State. I just think that somebody could easily put together a compilation video in which the offense scores quite easily simply by making a jumper. Perhaps this defensive idea would be better against some teams than others. For example, if a team had a point guard like Duval running the pick and roll, this would be ideal, because it would keep him from getting layups or passing to the screener for a dunk, and if he is taking lots of 18-foot jumpers, that would likely work out OK for the opposing team. But this scheme could fail pretty hard against a team that has Steph Curry at the point, for example.

Shhhh, don't give them any ideas!

BD80
01-08-2018, 01:24 PM
Hey Dukies!

I have nothing substantive to add here, but I just wanted to say that this thread title is an all-timer. Well done.

But it begs the question: is it pronounced like "gift" sans "t" or like the peanut butter?

Kedsy
01-08-2018, 01:39 PM
But this scheme could fail pretty hard against a team that has Steph Curry at the point, for example.

Which probably doesn't distinguish it from pretty much every other defensive scheme.

thedukelamere
01-08-2018, 02:03 PM
But it begs the question: is it pronounced like "gift" sans "t" or like the peanut butter?

Choosy posters choose GIF

brlftz
01-08-2018, 02:12 PM
The big question this thread brings up for me is whether you want to persist in going for high-potential defense even if you're having trouble learning and executing it, or do you want to accept limitations and implement something that has less potential but is likelier to be executed competently. I may be putting words in mouths here so I apologize if so, but what I was hearing from the contenders on the first topic - screen rejection - illustrates this well.

Troublemaker starts off by providing examples where our defenders get beat by someone rejecting the screen, and suggests that a directional control scheme directing the ball handler into the screen would at least prevent that. As the respondents pointed out, however, screens are an advantage to the offense, and encouraging their use should be the last thing we want to do. A better fix would be to have our 1x1 defenders simply play better against the drive and therefore not need help from a system that accepts trade offs. I think Troublemaker understands that, but is suggesting that we might be at a point where we accept that we aren't good enough to have a scheme that contests everything and the best we can do is choose our poison, which is what most teams do.

So that's the dilemma in my opinion - our defense currently depends on our historic philosophy of "your man can't beat my man" rather than "my scheme is something you can't engineer your way around", but in fact their guys CAN beat our guys right now. K's philosophy has always been that it's harder to beat a cohesive unit that adapts than it is to beat a rigid system that you can scout. It's PARTICULARLY powerful when you have talent and experience. His philosophy is an incredible multiplier for groups like that. But boy, when you use the K philosophy without actually being a cohesive adaptable unit with leadership and tenacity, it gets ugly.

I'm sympathetic to both sides. It's frustrating to watch us lose games because we insist on playing a style of defense that is apparently too difficult for our guys right now, but I think we're up against K's core conviction about the key to success. He doesn't want a scheme that is predictable and depends on a team not being prepared to play you. He wants to build a team that can counter anything you do with communication, trust, smarts, and toughness. He is the living embodiment of setting a high bar and then expecting his team to live up to that standard. Obviously his philosophy works over the long run and has made him the GOAT, but that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work every time. 2015 I think may be a good example of him sticking to his guns paying off. The last couple of years not so much. But I doubt K has regrets. It's what's made Duke what it is and you can't sort of halfway commit to being that way.

It's going to be interesting to see what he does. K's gonna K, and his post game comments make me think he's not throwing in the towel on this group just yet. I'm with him, even if it means we lose some more games. I want to see if he can get this team there. If he does we'll be so much harder to beat later. I'm ok with losing to BC and NCSU if that's what it takes.

thedukelamere
01-08-2018, 02:33 PM
It's going to be interesting to see what he does. K's gonna K, and his post game comments make me think he's not throwing in the towel on this group just yet. I'm with him, even if it means we lose some more games. I want to see if he can get this team there. If he does we'll be so much harder to beat later. I'm ok with losing to BC and NCSU if that's what it takes.

Until K pulls a Sean Miller during a press conference, I'm not going to panic. We've been through how many seasons of looking like the best team in the country at this time of year, only to have teams peak higher than us in March when they figure it all out? I trust that the GOAT has this entire season mapped out, with dates and games marked on the calendar for "if they can't figure X out by now, we do Y." We have the highest ceiling this year, all we can do is hope that our floor keeps creeping up to the roof. :cool:

DarkstarWahoo
01-08-2018, 02:36 PM
But it begs the question: is it pronounced like "gift" sans "t" or like the peanut butter?

I would never parachute in and weigh in on such a controversial topic.

(But for real, it's like the first syllable of Frank and Kathie Lee's last name, and anyone who says otherwise can get in line for fisticuffs.)

brlftz
01-08-2018, 02:52 PM
Until K pulls a Sean Miller during a press conference, I'm not going to panic. We've been through how many seasons of looking like the best team in the country at this time of year, only to have teams peak higher than us in March when they figure it all out? I trust that the GOAT has this entire season mapped out, with dates and games marked on the calendar for "if they can't figure X out by now, we do Y." We have the highest ceiling this year, all we can do is hope that our floor keeps creeping up to the roof. :cool:

Tried to spork, apparently I have some spreading around to do first. Well said.

grad_devil
01-08-2018, 03:17 PM
I would never parachute in and weigh in on such a controversial topic.

(But for real, it's like the first syllable of Frank and Kathie Lee's last name, and anyone who says otherwise can get in line for fisticuffs.)

Steve Wilhite says it's a soft G, as in "Jiff". I'm in no mood for fisticuffs, so I'll hop in line behind Mr. Wilhite.

Ian
01-08-2018, 03:49 PM
So what is drop coverage in pick-n-roll?

(Note: I would support become a zone-first team, but since I don't think Coach K agrees, I'm trying to explore what possible adjustment he might make in m2m.)

See the video below for a short explanation of drop coverage. While the commentator focuses a lot on the ball defender (and the "rearview mirror" contest in drop coverage), I'm more interested in where the big man is positioned in drop coverage. Pay particular attention to guys like Rudy Gobert, DeAndre Jordan, and Roy Hibbert in this video who START out in the paint and then drop back from there. See how drop coverage neutralizes the roller and helps with defensive rebounding. As the commentator explains, in drop coverage, it's up to the guard defender to prevent an open pull-up three, not the big man defender (like how Duke does it).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQOkT4bSYE

Coach K has NEVER positioned his big men this way. During the many recent years of defensive struggles, Coach K has tried zone (2-3 zone, some 1-3-1 in past seasons, a spot of 3-2 here and there), he's tried hedging, he's tried icing, he's tried lateral contain, but one thing he has NEVER tried is just purposefully keeping his big men closer to the basket in m2m. (There ARE a handful of a possessions a season when Duke accidentally gets into drop coverage, and I'll discuss those in the next post).

I really think he should give it a try.

Let's take a look at a college team, last season's national runner-ups Gonzaga (who owned the #1 kenpom defense [UVA was #2]), employing drop coverage.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/EuphoricFragrantLeonberger).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EuphoricFragrantLeonberger-size_restricted.gif

I probably would like to see Przemek Karnowski, a slow big, start out a step closer to the basket and more in a guarding stance. But still, because he has a head start positionally and isn't out high like a Duke center would be, he's able to jump in front of the roller and disrupt the PNR.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/WildWellgroomedChimpanzee)

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WildWellgroomedChimpanzee-size_restricted.gif

Likewise, the head start Karnowski has in drop coverage allows Karnowski to cut off penetration that he would have no chance of cutting off if he were higher out.

There's nothing inherently wrong with lifting your bigs out high, as long as it works! (UVA's bigs hedge everything, for example). For Duke, though, lifting our bigs out high in PNR has opened up drives by guards and dunks by rollers for many years now. NCSU obviously took advantage of that in Raleigh yesterday. It would be nice to see Coach K try drop coverage to keep our bigs in the paint. I'll discuss the drawbacks of drop coverage in a future post, but I heavily suspect Duke's defense would improve if we employed it.

This would be ok against teams without a strech 4 that can hit 3s, against one that can do that this yields a wide open 3 for the screen setter every time.

Troublemaker
01-08-2018, 05:21 PM
The weakness of drop coverage is that with the guard defender solely responsible for preventing an open pull-up three, opposing offenses WILL get an open pull-up three some of the time. No defender can get over every single ball screen, and the screener WILL square him up some of the time.

Tyus' big three against Wisconsin that took the lead for Duke for good came with Frank Kaminsky in drop coverage:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0onr1g-y9jc

However, and this is the crucial point, lifting your center in PNR will cause you to give up more catch-and-shoot threes because of the resulting help on the roller, help on drives when guards blow past your big man, and sometimes mistakes when you help. Catch-and-shoot threes are easier to make than pull-up threes.

Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/RipeCommonAuklet).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RipeCommonAuklet-size_restricted.gif

Here, Wendell isn't able to contain the drive out top, and the resulting help (overhelp?) from Alex gives up a wide open corner three. (Interesting sidenote: on Alex's game-winning three during CTC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nndb6PsCS4&feature=youtu.be&t=25s), it was Jack who made this same rotation, creeping all the way over to the strongside and leaving Alex wide open in the corner on the play Coach Scheyer drew up.)


Higher-res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/ShadowyLoneDegu).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ShadowyLoneDegu-size_restricted.gif

This is a typical way to get an open three in PNR. Javin helps on the roller while the man he's guarding repositions away from Javin, and Javin can't quite recover in time. Yes, this is a somewhat deep three, and yes Javin probably could've played it better by not getting caught up in the traffic in the middle, but this simple play WILL get an open catch-and-shoot three a decent amount of the time. (Imagine if Marvin, playing center here, weren't tasked with covering the pull-up three, started the play a couple of steps closer to the basket, and only dropped back in his movement. Javin wouldn't need to help on the roller...)


Higher res version (https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/AdventurousImperturbableAngelfish).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AdventurousImperturbableAngelfish-size_restricted.gif

This one falls into the overhelp bucket as well. Responsibility for help on the roller goes to weakside defenders, which Grayson performs here (while Wendell lateral contains up top before recovering to the roller in the paint). Strongside (i.e. the side the ball-handler is going to, in this context) defenders are NOT responsible for help on the roller and should not be creeping off corner shooters to do so. So, this is reckless and incorrect help by Marvin. The reason why basketball coaches want weakside help on the roller (instead of strongside help) is because the ball-handler would have to throw back across his body (as in the play above this one) to hit the open shooter, and the ball defender is sometimes in the passing lane. In this case, though, it's just a simple pass, catch, and shoot.

Troublemaker
01-08-2018, 05:37 PM
But it begs the question: is it pronounced like "gift" sans "t" or like the peanut butter?

It's like the peanut butter, which I knew. Trolling pronunciation Nazis was part of the fun of the thread title. (At least in my perhaps twisted head).

Troublemaker
01-08-2018, 05:47 PM
Looks to me like the "drop coverage" allows for quite a few mid-range to long-range open shots. I suppose an open mid-range shot beats either: a) an open 3-point shot, or b) an uncontested layup, and so I suppose that's the point of it.

But I feel like the video showed multiple situations where the defense appeared to work mainly because the offensive player missed a pretty good look. I'm not saying that Duke shouldn't try this, I'm just saying that I feel like it would lead to a lot of open-ish 15-19 foot jumpers (which I admit is infinitely preferable to the many layups/slams we gave up against State. I just think that somebody could easily put together a compilation video in which the offense scores quite easily simply by making a jumper. Perhaps this defensive idea would be better against some teams than others. For example, if a team had a point guard like Duval running the pick and roll, this would be ideal, because it would keep him from getting layups or passing to the screener for a dunk, and if he is taking lots of 18-foot jumpers, that would likely work out OK for the opposing team. But this scheme could fail pretty hard against a team that has Steph Curry at the point, for example.

I wouldn't get concerned over that. If we could somehow play a defense that only gives up wide-open long 2s and takes away everything else, our defense would be better than UVA's. Even elite shooters in that shooting range like Chris Paul are only around 45% on those shots.


This would be ok against teams without a strech 4 that can hit 3s, against one that can do that this yields a wide open 3 for the screen setter every time.

Why would we be dropping back against stretch 4s? Obviously the drop would be for our centers mostly, and rarely do we encounter a stretch 5.

Troublemaker
01-08-2018, 06:02 PM
I think Troublemaker understands that, but is suggesting that we might be at a point where we accept that we aren't good enough to have a scheme that contests everything and the best we can do is choose our poison, which is what most teams do.

Yep, you've read me correctly, brlftz. And if I had to narrow it down to one poison, I would say we need to concede the pull-up three on ball screens for (at least theoretical) improvements in defense on the roller, defense on penetrators in PNR, and fewer catch-and-shoot threes out of PNR.

MChambers
01-08-2018, 07:41 PM
Yep, you've read me correctly, brlftz. And if I had to narrow it down to one poison, I would say we need to concede the pull-up three on ball screens for (at least theoretical) improvements in defense on the roller, defense on penetrators in PNR, and fewer catch-and-shoot threes out of PNR.

Exactly. I’d love to see less penetration and fewer corner threes out of PNR.

brlftz
01-08-2018, 10:34 PM
Yep, you've read me correctly, brlftz. And if I had to narrow it down to one poison, I would say we need to concede the pull-up three on ball screens for (at least theoretical) improvements in defense on the roller, defense on penetrators in PNR, and fewer catch-and-shoot threes out of PNR.

Cool. Given our results on that side of the ball I don’t really think there’s a way to argue you’re wrong in the short run. The ONLY counter I can see is that we are still investing in the end game.

brlftz
01-09-2018, 02:10 AM
One other thing this thread is doing is making me realize that Troublemaker is providing a primer on the value of analytics. If you can get consistent execution and a lot of data points, this is a matter of number crunching. If we think screen rejection is killing us, well, how often, and if we take that away, how often will teams score on the likely alternatives? Is icing working better than hedging? etc. It would be amazing to have access to all of that. I almost wonder if sometimes we switch things up just to get some numbers.

heartofgold
01-09-2018, 09:04 AM
I've been following these boards for a long time - finally had to add my 2 cents to the conversation.

First off, the analytical breakdown on this thread is terrific.

I've noticed something odd in the player interviews the last several games which all boil down to some version of "we don't know exactly why our defense isn't better." Aside from some platitudes about working harder, the team seems to lack a true diagnosis of why the defense is so poor. It worries me that nobody seems to have clear marching orders on what it is they have to work on. Just like on the court, they seem overwhelmed at times. Stepping back in the big picture here, it is startling that with such elite athletes, our defense is now below the top 100. We never have the luxury of knowing what goes on in practice or how the team chemistry really is; we always have to guess at it. Is it worth at least considering that we have a team chemistry problem? Are there any lessons from the 2015 team on how a team puts it together? I recall back in 2015 we looked lost as well after a couple bad losses, but our defense never disappointed to this extent.

I apologize for posting a non-analytical comment on a purely analytical thread, but I think getting to the bottom of the non X and O aspect of the team may have answers...

thedukelamere
01-09-2018, 11:25 AM
I apologize for posting a non-analytical comment on a purely analytical thread, but I think getting to the bottom of the non X and O aspect of the team may have answers...

Woah woah woah, non-analytical comments are definitely allowed, otherwise Troublemaker would have shown me the door already. I come here for the amazing analytics backed by peanut-buttery GIF goodness, but I personally operate at end of the thread title, somewhere between the "Fun" and the "etc."

Case in point; how fun is this?

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BeautifulNaturalArachnid-small.gif

CDu
01-09-2018, 11:57 AM
I would have to re-watch the State game (something I am loathe to do), but I got the sense that we more actively funneled players away from ball screens in that one. I think that's the right thought, as our bigs have not shown the ability to handle guards on high ball hedges or switches. The problem in the State game appeared to be that the big didn't seem to play along. Well, this was true at least in several instances when said big was Wendell Carter.

My sense is that a lot of this stems from Carter not knowing what he is doing defensively. When he's near the basket, he's fairly effective at rebounding and blocking shots. But he just doesn't seem at all facile when it comes to high ball screens. And that's understandable for a frosh. My guess is that this is because he wasn't really asked to defend too far from the rim in high school. That, and he was so dominant on the other end that it didn't matter if he occasionally gave up open looks to less talented players on the perimeter. But now that the quality of competition is much higher on both ends of the floor, not to mention that teams are much better at scouting and identifying opponents' weaknesses, his lack of awareness is getting exploited.

I get the sense that having Carter drop down will help him and at least mitigate the damage. It will allow him to play where he is most comfortable (near the basket). It's not ideal (for the reasons Troublemaker has laid out), but I think it's better than seeing our defense get spread out more.

And I don't mean to single out Carter, as he's not alone. Our rotations aside from the big involved in the screen have also not been great. Seems like guys are often too eager to help or don't help at all. That just compounds the problem of struggling with the ball screen. At least dropping down on the screen will allow others to stay home more often. I like the idea of pull-up jumpers a lot more than I like giving up layups or uncontested corner 3s.

Kedsy
01-09-2018, 12:28 PM
Are there any lessons from the 2015 team on how a team puts it together? I recall back in 2015 we looked lost as well after a couple bad losses, but our defense never disappointed to this extent.

Well, I'm not sure I have lessons for the team, but possibly I can supply some lessons for us fans. Here are some quotes from the post-game thread after we lost our second ACC game in 2015:


Why does it feel like this happens every January? We play some tough teams in the non conference schedule but the wheels come off in conference play. What is the reason for this seemingly annual trend?


Many areas to work on but at this point, it's gotta start with Heart and a sense of pride for the letters on the uni. Tonight was just...putrid :mad:


K, maybe it's time to back off on defense, not really working.


This D just doesn't work against good guards. On the other hand, having folks standing four feet away from a three point shooter, daring them to hit the three, doesn't work either.


This has been an issue for several years, but I cannot understand why it is so difficult for us to defend a high screen... We weren't able to do anything to make offense difficult for Miami.


Don't we have someone playing in the paint who should be able to stop the guard penetration? I thought that was the knock on last year's team. So what's the excuse for this team?


You can't hope to score more than the opponent when giving up 90!!!!!! We still can't stop good fast guards. Hey coach k - better figure this SAME FREAKIN PROBLEM out. Same thing every year for last few years... Fine until we hit two speedy guards then game over. Eastern Kentucky beat the crap out of Miami!!!!!!


we started the month with the "easy" part of the schedule. we lost 2 game in that stratch also. When was our last under .500 month? Cause we are.500 right now and don't really have a gimme game left (maybe Pitt?)



The potential for a lot worse to come is staring this team in the face.


[C]olor me disappointed, stunned, and seriously recalibrating my expectations for our team this year.


I have reset expectations.

I am rooting to make the dance. I honestly think that may not happen if we don't change something in the approach.

Definition of insanity, or, in this case, crashing seasons is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

This is going on four years now of that form of insanity.


If these guys dont change how the defend, its going to be a really long 2nd have to the year and short tourney...

#benchthewholeteamdressmanagers


They shouldn't be ranked.


The team that played the last 2 games shouldn't make the tourney.

Kedsy
01-09-2018, 12:30 PM
Are there any lessons from the 2015 team on how a team puts it together?

Just for kicks, here's some more from that same post-game thread. Funny how at that time, Tyus wasn't the gold standard people make him out to be these days when offering scalding testimony about Trevon.


Four years of this on defense. We all know with the talent we have at the guard position we can't play this way. No changes have been made.


That was really, really, really, bad. Tyus and Justise may need to start Saturday's game on the bench to get a little perspective.


Tyus was lost trying to get around the high ball screen, and people were left open all over the place...


I really don't see how this years edition is much different than last year: A superior interior talent ( Okafor=Parker), and right now I'd take Hood over Winslow... Jones is not playing like a super frosh, just a good frosh. Cook and Suliamon are...Cook and Suliamon. The Defensive vulnerablities are similar.


Tyus Jones - sorry, but he definitely hasn't looked like a #1 rated high school PG lately. In four ACC games, he has shot 6-27 averaging 5.2 ppg/3.2 apg. That just isn't going to get it done in conference play.


My beef with Tyus is that I just don't see him as a PG in attack mode - he's just kinda out there. I don't know if that's a skill problem or just a confidence thing that doesn't allow him to play his game.


If we can't stop other teams on defense, we might as well throw out our best offensive firepower. Perhaps that means playing Rasheed/Quinn 33+ minutes and bringing Tyus off the bench for ~20 minutes.


The two point guard system just isn't working. We've talked a lot about changing our defensive scheme, but I don't know of any scheme that will let you defend with two small, slow guards.


Tyus is no better than Quinn on defense and has not performed well on offense either.


...let the freshman know that the lethargy and disinterest is unacceptable, particularly Jah and Tyus.


This isn't just about defense. It's about Tyus being poor at everything these days.


My biggest problem is Tyus's play, he has been very sloppy with the basketball, hesitant in transition, and just not playing good on the ball defense.


...our offense was pretty weak with Justise, Matt and Tyus not doing much.


Referring to my statement that the three starting freshmen were playing for NBA scouts, not for Coach K. My only support is the lack of enthusiasm and lack of emotion by these three players. I am not claiming that they haven't unpacked their bags, but rather that their major purpose for being at Duke is to get to the NBA. I guess they are "balling for dollars" (if you are old enough to get the reference), not balling for championships.

mkirsh
01-09-2018, 12:36 PM
Just for kicks, here's some more from that same post-game thread. Funny how at that time, Tyus wasn't the gold standard people make him out to be these days when offering scalding testimony about Trevon.

Can't spork you but thanks for the perspective - very interesting

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-09-2018, 05:24 PM
Just for kicks, here's some more from that same post-game thread. Funny how at that time, Tyus wasn't the gold standard people make him out to be these days when offering scalding testimony about Trevon.

I think I have to wait for one more loss before I start my vaunted 2015 optimism thread that somehow ended up gaining a LOT of momentum.

brlftz
01-09-2018, 06:25 PM
Lol kedsy got us all nervously wondering what we posted back then :D

heartofgold
01-10-2018, 05:54 PM
Perhaps we all are too down on the team as the consensus around here had gotten in 2015, but here's one quote I don't think we've ever seen:

"We're playing just horrible defense," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said. "We understand that and we're working on that."

And this...

"When you're playing teams and you're consistently giving up 80 and 90 points, you want to try to limit that," Duke guard Grayson Allen said. "That comes to our defense. We've got to get stops."

I hate these self evident statements. Reminds me of Bill Guthrie, who was asked at half time what is strategy for the second half was: score more points than the other team. The Duke player/coach comments right now don't evoke much confidence that there is a specific thing being worked on or a specific diagnosis. There is a real danger tonight, if we win, that we get overconfident by walking over a bad team. Our defense looked great against Evansville, giving up only 40 but next game at home to Florida State we gave up 93 points. The real test of whether we've made progress on defense unfortunately won't come until Notre Dame. Between now and then we've got Pitt, Wake Forest and Virginia. Given the NC State game, we should also not take for granted our offense. Virginia won't be a test of defense but certainly our offense.

-jk
01-10-2018, 06:14 PM
Perhaps we all are too down on the team as the consensus around here had gotten in 2015, but here's one quote I don't think we've ever seen:

"We're playing just horrible defense," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said. "We understand that and we're working on that."

And this...

"When you're playing teams and you're consistently giving up 80 and 90 points, you want to try to limit that," Duke guard Grayson Allen said. "That comes to our defense. We've got to get stops."

I hate these self evident statements. Reminds me of Bill Guthrie, who was asked at half time what is strategy for the second half was: score more points than the other team. The Duke player/coach comments right now don't evoke much confidence that there is a specific thing being worked on or a specific diagnosis. There is a real danger tonight, if we win, that we get overconfident by walking over a bad team. Our defense looked great against Evansville, giving up only 40 but next game at home to Florida State we gave up 93 points. The real test of whether we've made progress on defense unfortunately won't come until Notre Dame. Between now and then we've got Pitt, Wake Forest and Virginia. Given the NC State game, we should also not take for granted our offense. Virginia won't be a test of defense but certainly our offense.

Think of it as a corollary to K's Cone of Silence. They never give anything away...

-jk

dragoneye776
01-10-2018, 09:06 PM
Well we did it. Duke defended the pick and rolls with the drop coverage today against Pitt

COYS
01-11-2018, 11:30 AM
Well we did it. Duke defended the pick and rolls with the drop coverage today against Pitt

Good catch. I noticed that we used drop coverage when Wendell was defending the pick and roll and most of the time when Marvin was defending it. We usually switched when our other forwards, Jack or Justin, were in the game . . . which makes sense because they are smaller, quicker, and are 3/4's rather than 4/5's like Marvin and Wendell. A lot of people pointed out that we allowed a lot of looks from three, but it also wasn't appreciably higher than in past games when we've pulled Wendell and Marvin higher. I'm with Troublemaker in thinking that, given how poor our defense has been, I'd much rather us give up pull-up threes to a guard off of a pick and roll than continue to have Marvin and (especially) Wendell get caught out on the perimeter behind the play. I would need to watch the game, but I thought we gave up a decent percentage of three point shots off of Pitts offensive rebounds. Given that our second best rebounder in Wendell only played 16 minutes (in which he picked up 7 boards), I'm not too concerned about this. This isn't to say that I think the D is fixed. Far from it. But if opponent three point shots come off the dribble around screens and from offensive rebounds (which would presumably happen a little less frequently when Wendell, Javin, and Marques are playing their usual minutes) rather than kick-outs to open shooters, I think we'll be better off.

I thought drop coverage would actually help Wendell with his foul issues, too. However, he still picked up fouls at a high rate last night, including one in which the guard drove on him while he was in drop coverage. I thought he had good position on that play, but he was a little over-eager and reached in for the foul. Seems like foul issues for Wendell are going to be a consistent occurrence.

thedukelamere
01-11-2018, 11:45 AM
Pretty small sample size but, as discussed further up thread, pull up 3's against drop coverage tend to have lower percentages than catch and shoot corner 3's... Granted, it was a Pittiful night shooting for a team that isn't the greatest at it to begin with, but if we continue to utilize the drop I'm very interested to see how it affects our opponents' %s.

Also, if a change to drop coverage somehow becomes a cornerstone of our improved defense moving forward, I nominate this thread as the turning point. Thanks for surfing DBR, Coach!

House G
01-14-2018, 09:55 AM
Agree with others that this is a fabulous thread. I found a site that explains a lot of the terminology when discussing various offenses and defenses. I apolgize if it’s been linked before. You can go to the defense section and learn more about drop coverage. I believe this site is about the NBA but I’m sure a lot of it applies to the college game.
https://medium.com/the-basketball-dictionary

rsvman
01-14-2018, 10:19 AM
I noticed the drop coverage again in the game against Wake. I think it is definitely an improvement over what we had been doing.

House G
01-14-2018, 11:54 AM
I noticed the drop coverage again in the game against Wake. I think it is definitely an improvement over what we had been doing.

I’m guessing this is not an example of what you’re referring to:

https://gfycat.com/ColossalUntriedBrahmancow

thedukelamere
01-16-2018, 09:31 AM
Mood today:

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MeanRecklessAmurratsnake-small.gif

House G
01-18-2018, 07:28 AM
After watching the Miami game, I was interested in what is involved in feeding the post. With two great big men, this becomes an important part of our offense. Like many things in basketball, there is a lot more to it than I appreciated. As you might expect, a more experienced player like Allen is better at it than some of the freshmen. There are nuances that I never considered such as the angle of the pass, whether the passer is right- handed or can pass equally well with each hand, and so on. The position of the low post man is also important. In general, I don’t think you want to feed them too far from the basket. Is it better to position Bagley on the right since he is left-handed—or does it matter? Our low post game seems much more effective with two bigs down low because they have trouble double-teaming one of them. Here is an article and a video discussing some of this (and I apologize in advance for the quality of my videos :()
https://otterbasketball.com/how-to-feed-the-post/
Here are some ill-advised post passes from the game:
https://gfycat.com/DopeyFlamboyantFunnelweaverspider
https://gfycat.com/PerfectOldLeech
https://gfycat.com/SmoggyIncompatibleBrant
And here’s how it’s done:
https://gfycat.com/AccomplishedIncomparableHypsilophodon
(Of course it’s easier when the guy guarding you is 5’5” lol).

NYBri
01-18-2018, 08:08 AM
Well, I'm not sure I have lessons for the team, but possibly I can supply some lessons for us fans. Here are some quotes from the post-game thread after we lost our second ACC game in 2015:

I don’t know who was posting under my name in that thread, but they should be ashamed of themselves to be so negative. :cool:

gus
01-18-2018, 08:46 AM
After watching the Miami game, I was interested in what is involved in feeding the post. With two great big men, this becomes an important part of our offense. Like many things in basketball, there is a lot more to it than I appreciated. As you might expect, a more experienced player like Allen is better at it than some of the freshmen. There are nuances that I never considered such as the angle of the pass, whether the passer is right- handed or can pass equally well with each hand, and so on. The position of the low post man is also important. In general, I don’t think you want to feed them too far from the basket. Is it better to position Bagley on the right since he is left-handed—or does it matter? Our low post game seems much more effective with two bigs down low because they have trouble double-teaming one of them. Here is an article and a video discussing some of this (and I apologize in advance for the quality of my videos :()
https://otterbasketball.com/how-to-feed-the-post/
Here are some ill-advised post passes from the game:
https://gfycat.com/DopeyFlamboyantFunnelweaverspider
https://gfycat.com/PerfectOldLeech
https://gfycat.com/SmoggyIncompatibleBrant
And here’s how it’s done:
https://gfycat.com/AccomplishedIncomparableHypsilophodon
(Of course it’s easier when the guy guarding you is 5’5” lol).

"Dopey flamboyant funnel weaver spider" seems like a play with some potential, but by the time they finish calling it, the defense will have repositioned properly to prevent the lob.

Truth&Justise
01-18-2018, 10:38 AM
After watching the Miami game, I was interested in what is involved in feeding the post. With two great big men, this becomes an important part of our offense. Like many things in basketball, there is a lot more to it than I appreciated. As you might expect, a more experienced player like Allen is better at it than some of the freshmen. There are nuances that I never considered such as the angle of the pass, whether the passer is right- handed or can pass equally well with each hand, and so on. The position of the low post man is also important. In general, I don’t think you want to feed them too far from the basket. Is it better to position Bagley on the right since he is left-handed—or does it matter? Our low post game seems much more effective with two bigs down low because they have trouble double-teaming one of them. Here is an article and a video discussing some of this (and I apologize in advance for the quality of my videos :()
https://otterbasketball.com/how-to-feed-the-post/
Here are some ill-advised post passes from the game:
https://gfycat.com/DopeyFlamboyantFunnelweaverspider
https://gfycat.com/PerfectOldLeech
https://gfycat.com/SmoggyIncompatibleBrant
And here’s how it’s done:
https://gfycat.com/AccomplishedIncomparableHypsilophodon
(Of course it’s easier when the guy guarding you is 5’5” lol).

That second one -- the wonderfully named "Perfect Old Leech" -- was particularly frustrating because Wendell had such FANTASTIC positioning, with his man sealed under the basket. But coaches have long talked about how hard it is to feed the post from the wing. The easier play would have been to swing the ball to the corner, where Gary would have had a great angle to get it into the post.

Neals384
01-18-2018, 04:59 PM
After watching the Miami game, I was interested in what is involved in feeding the post. With two great big men, this becomes an important part of our offense. Like many things in basketball, there is a lot more to it than I appreciated. As you might expect, a more experienced player like Allen is better at it than some of the freshmen. There are nuances that I never considered such as the angle of the pass, whether the passer is right- handed or can pass equally well with each hand, and so on. The position of the low post man is also important. In general, I don’t think you want to feed them too far from the basket. Is it better to position Bagley on the right since he is left-handed—or does it matter? Our low post game seems much more effective with two bigs down low because they have trouble double-teaming one of them. Here is an article and a video discussing some of this (and I apologize in advance for the quality of my videos :()
https://otterbasketball.com/how-to-feed-the-post/
Here are some ill-advised post passes from the game:
https://gfycat.com/DopeyFlamboyantFunnelweaverspider
https://gfycat.com/PerfectOldLeech
https://gfycat.com/SmoggyIncompatibleBrant
And here’s how it’s done:
https://gfycat.com/AccomplishedIncomparableHypsilophodon
(Of course it’s easier when the guy guarding you is 5’5” lol).

Great stuff, HouseG!

House G
01-21-2018, 03:47 PM
In 6 days, we play the #2 team in the country at CIS. That would be the Virginia Cavaliers. Here are some of their results that might interest Duke fans:
Rhode Island. (W) 70-55
@West Va. (L) 68-61
Boston College (W) 59-58
@Virginia Tech. (W) 78-52
UNC. (W) 61-49
Syracuse. (W) 68-61
NC State. (W) 68-51

Duke has won seven of the last nine games, including the last three years. Typically, both teams score in the 60’s which can largely be attributed to Virginia’s defense under Tony Bennett. Most of us have heard of their Pack Line defense. I thought it might be helpful ahead of the game for the casual fan to learn a little bit about how they will try to defend Duke.
Here are a couple of videos explaining the Pack Line:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqCWWdir30
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9xicOzvbB6A
The Pack Line is designed to cut down on dribble penetration and scoring in the paint. It makes passing into the low post difficult because they don’t allow you to drive the baseline ( I believe Duke does the opposite). They try to force play away from the baseline into the middle of the court. They usually double team (“choke”) the low post. They try to force outside shots and will likely not guard our bigs beyond the arc (in contrast, our bigs often vacate the paint to guard their man outside).
It will be interesting to see how our offense fares. Allen has not shot well against this team in the past. I suspect Duval will be limited. I believe Trent and Allen need to shoot well from 3 and we need to exploit our talent/size advantage down low, which may be more difficult than usual. Tatum and Ingram both had big games against Virginia. I like the way Carter is trending and believe he may be a key.

House G
02-11-2018, 11:22 AM
Much has been said about our defense this year. I will not get into the man-to-man vs. zone debate. I will echo what other posters have said about our man-to-man. We seem to end up with a lot of mismatches with our big men guarding guards and our guards guarding big men. We don’t drop our big men and we are highly vulnerable to dribble penetration when our bigs stray away from the paint. I will defer to Troublemaker on how to remedy these issues.
One of my pet peeves is a seeming lack of fundamentals when it comes rebounding. To be sure, this is one of our tallest teams ever. And we frequently dominate the glass. But time and time again, our opponents get second chances because we are out of position and don’t box out. Watch Virginia play defense—when a shot goes up, everyone gets a body on an opposing player and it’s extremely difficult to get an offensive rebound. Our guys have a tendency to stand around when a shot goes up. They don’t seek an opposing player to put a body on. We frequently get away with this because we are so tall. My guess is that 6’11” big men don’t have to box out much in high school. But surely this is something they are taught early on in college. And it’s not just our bigs—guys like Trent and Duval don’t appear to grasp the concept. I did notice Jack White knew what to do.
So here are a few videos from the NC game. Pay attention to the positioning of our players and how they react when a shot goes up. Invariably, they turn and face the basket without seeking an opposing player to box out.
https://gfycat.com/CheapImpoliteAfricanbushviper
https://gfycat.com/AdorableThoseHorseshoebat
https://gfycat.com/FaroffFaroffFrog

Ian
02-11-2018, 11:35 AM
Much has been said about our defense this year. I will not get into the man-to-man vs. zone debate. I will echo what other posters have said about our man-to-man. We seem to end up with a lot of mismatches with our big men guarding guards and our guards guarding big men. We don’t drop our big men and we are highly vulnerable to dribble penetration when our bigs stray away from the paint. I will defer to Troublemaker on how to remedy these issues.
One of my pet peeves is a seeming lack of fundamentals when it comes rebounding. To be sure, this is one of our tallest teams ever. And we frequently dominate the glass. But time and time again, our opponents get second chances because we are out of position and don’t box out. Watch Virginia play defense—when a shot goes up, everyone gets a body on an opposing player and it’s extremely difficult to get an offensive rebound. Our guys have a tendency to stand around when a shot goes up. They don’t seek an opposing player to put a body on. We frequently get away with this because we are so tall. My guess is that 6’11” big men don’t have to box out much in high school. But surely this is something they are taught early on in college. And it’s not just our bigs—guys like Trent and Duval don’t appear to grasp the concept. I did notice Jack White knew what to do.
So here are a few videos from the NC game. Pay attention to the positioning of our players and how they react when a shot goes up. Invariably, they turn and face the basket without seeking an opposing player to box out.
https://gfycat.com/CheapImpoliteAfricanbushviper
https://gfycat.com/AdorableThoseHorseshoebat
https://gfycat.com/FaroffFaroffFrog

And in Duval's case in the third one, he's actually backing away from the basketball despite being just 5 feet away just expecting his teammates to rebound without any interest in helping out.

arnie
02-11-2018, 12:57 PM
And in Duval's case in the third one, he's actually backing away from the basketball despite being just 5 feet away just expecting his teammates to rebound without any interest in helping out.

That one is painful to watch. He’s thinking of cherry picking, but never really starts down court. Just lacks focus.

CDu
02-11-2018, 01:23 PM
Boxing out has long been a weakness of our program. Apparently with practice-team limits, the staff has prioritized other aspects of the game. It has just never been something we have been good at. Which partly explains why we have always been a poor defensive rebounding team (along with our focus on overplaying the 3pt line).

But on a team that doesn’t force turnovers, we need to be a better defensive rebounding team. And that means paying more attention to finishing the play after a shot goes up. Boxing out is a big part of that.

Neals384
02-15-2018, 06:27 PM
Now that Duke has officially committed to be a zone defense team, I thought we ought to have some gifs showing how the zone works...or doesn't. As a non-expert at understanding the Xs and Os of basketball, I'm probably the last one who should be posting these, but here goes anyway.

Here's Tech's first possession.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PitifulCooperativeCanvasback-size_restricted.gif

Looks like they want to get Lammers started fast from the high post. Alvarado passes to Alston, who has a chance to make a bounce pass to Lammers, but a split second hesitation allows Duke to deny the entry pass. Trent closes in on Lammers, while O'Connell and Carter use their arms to further narrow the passing lane. Frustrated, Alston passes back to Alvarado, then gets it right back. Now Lammers sets a pick, but Alston throws up an airball.

This looked like nice D to me, and the team continued to deny Lammers at the high post.

Now here's a sequence from Tech's 2nd half run. (This is right after Jackson's save of a ball headed out of bounds).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DaringSardonicAnglerfish-size_restricted.gif

With the ball up high, Okogie directs traffic, waving both Wright and Cole through the baseline to lurk on the left side. Bolden appears to call out the movement by Wright, and Carter adjusts his position. O'Connell sees Cole go through the lane, but if he called it out, no one seems to notice. Okogie now passes the rock to the right to Jackson, who makes a brief effort to drive before passing it backto Okogie. Cole calls for the ball in the corner - he would have an open 3, but Okogie takes the shot himself, missing. Instead of blocking out, Carter moved under the basket for a rebound, but Wright had a clear lane to the front of the rim for a put-back slam. Even if Carter had tried to block out,
there were two potential rebounders.

Was there supposed to be an adjustment when both Wright and Cole came to the left side of the set? Seems like a pretty basic offense - overload one side of the zone while creating a diversion on the other side.
Someone more knowledgeable than me might be able to explain how this could have been defended better.

CDu
02-15-2018, 07:17 PM
In that second clip, there was only one player on the weak side. O’Connell should have pushed up from his weakside forward spot, and the guards would then have slid over. So Allen would have had the wing and Duval defend the ball, with Carter defending the strongside corner and Bolden eyeing the big.

It is O’Connell’s job (as the forward) there to recognize that his side has cleared out, and it is Carter and Bolden’s job to note the overload. Some combination didn’t happen (or possibly none happened) meaning that Duval and Allen played straight up up top. So when the shot came, OConnell was doing nothing, and nobody was in position to box out the strongside wing. And as a result, of course the ball went to him.

Neals384
02-16-2018, 08:58 AM
In that second clip, there was only one player on the weak side. O’Connell should have pushed up from his weakside forward spot, and the guards would then have slid over. So Allen would have had the wing and Duval defend the ball, with Carter defending the strongside corner and Bolden eyeing the big.

It is O’Connell’s job (as the forward) there to recognize that his side has cleared out, and it is Carter and Bolden’s job to note the overload. Some combination didn’t happen (or possibly none happened) meaning that Duval and Allen played straight up up top. So when the shot came, OConnell was doing nothing, and nobody was in position to box out the strongside wing. And as a result, of course the ball went to him.

Thanks for the assist :o

Troublemaker
02-16-2018, 09:07 AM
I don't want to make the GIFs myself, but if you guys want to see examples of extreme overloads against Duke's zone defense, check out what St. John's did to score on Duke's zone. It really would make for some fantastic GIF'ing and be very interesting for readers to look at.

CDu
02-16-2018, 09:24 AM
I don't want to make the GIFs myself, but if you guys want to see examples of extreme overloads against Duke's zone defense, check out what St. John's did to score on Duke's zone. It really would make for some fantastic GIF'ing and be very interesting for readers to look at.

Yeah, the challenge in the zone is that you have to be aware of the opponent's positioning, and shift the zone accordingly. A really good zone can almost look like a man-to-man (and to some degree vice versa) because guys are shifting around to protect danger areas based on the opponent's strategy.

That GIF of the Ga Tech putback dunk is an example of the dangers of playing a passive (or perhaps unaware) zone. It can lead to easy putbacks with even the slightest bit of offensive rotations because defenders may wind up without an assignment when the shot goes up. If they had communicated appropriately throughout the position, Allen would have been standing in front of the wing who crashed, and in position (if he put in the effort) to curb that rebound. But since the back line didn't talk to the front line (it is the back line's responsibility because they can see more of the court), Duval was guarding the weakside wing and Allen the ball, with nobody on the strongside wing.

It should be noted that even in the Ga Tech example, things were still salvageable after the shot went up, even though they had blown the rotation. Since O'Connell didn't take the weakside wing, it should have been him boxing out Lammers, with Bolden seeking out the crasher (or going for the rebound if nobody crashed). No guarantee that Bolden stops the crasher (it is sort of like a running back picking up the blitz and blocking appropriately), but at least we'd have a chance.

The Va Tech game was instead a nice example of an active zone, at least in the second half. We were moving and repositioning, and in some cases swapping places in the zone (I wouldn't say those are good things, the idea is to minimize that to minimize confusion). The zone shifted actively according to Va Tech's offensive alignment and rotations.

Ultimately, a really well orchestrated and well-timed offense should be able to beat a zone. Length, communication, and effort can make it harder and harder to do so, but by not guarding a particular man there is always a chance to beat a zone. It just takes a really good game plan and good timing and execution on the part of the players. And you probably need several different actions at your disposal, otherwise a good zone will adapt if you run the same thing repeatedly.

thedukelamere
02-16-2018, 09:30 AM
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WelloffBogusBird-small.gif

This was my favorite defensive possession of the entire game. Great communication, everyone rotating and being in great position. One may argue that VT was already out of it and that they had accepted their fate, to which I would counter that this is traditionally when we lose focus and let our opponent go on a little run.

CDu
02-16-2018, 09:43 AM
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WelloffBogusBird-small.gif

This was my favorite defensive possession of the entire game. Great communication, everyone rotating and being in great position. One may argue that VT was already out of it and that they had accepted their fate, to which I would counter that this is traditionally when we lose focus and let our opponent go on a little run.

It's not bad play, although I'll note that White was a bit out of position on the play as the ball got to Gibbs(?) around the free throw line area. Notice that Blackshear(?) cuts underneath and to weakside post on the baseline, while the weakside corner moves up to the weakside wing (Robinson?). At that point, White should have followed the player up on the wing. Instead, he stays down low, perhaps thinking the baseline guy is his responsibility. But at that point, he was the only guy to defend the wing. As a result, he was caught chasing when the ball swung to the weakside wing. The result was a driving opportunity against the zone.

Thankfully, Robinson didn't make a good decision on the drive. He drew two defenders (also not good in a zone, especially when a third is now not defending anyone). Robinson should have either dumped the ball back to the unguarded Gibbs at the free throw line once both Allen and Bolden committed to him, or Blackshear should have drifted to the other block ready to receive a wide open layup opportunity. If either of those actions happen and the pass is made, it's an easy layup for Va Tech.

So while there was a good amount of activity and communication, you can see even in this play how one small breakdown can really hurt a zone.

dragoneye776
02-25-2018, 01:57 PM
Carter had tons of great assists that show up on the box score, but here's an assist he helped with that didn't show up.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DifficultFoolhardyGraysquirrel-size_restricted.gif

Notice while Trent is driving, he sees Carter. But Carter sees the help coming (and maybe his defender shading over to him) and points for Trent to instead pass to Bagley. Great decision making by Trent, but definitely helped by Carter.

thedukelamere
02-26-2018, 09:24 AM
Carter had tons of great assists that show up on the box score, but here's an assist he helped with that didn't show up.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DifficultFoolhardyGraysquirrel-size_restricted.gif

Notice while Trent is driving, he sees Carter. But Carter sees the help coming (and maybe his defender shading over to him) and points for Trent to instead pass to Bagley. Great decision making by Trent, but definitely helped by Carter.

Not to imply that the other guys on the team are less intelligent, but I have been really impressed by Wendell's cognitivity... He always seems to be thinking a half second ahead of everyone else, whether it's positioning for a rebound, pointing to an open teammate, or looking off/pump faking a defender to get an open shot for someone else.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/EnragedSlushyAmbushbug-max-14mb.gif

Rich
02-26-2018, 12:27 PM
Not to imply that the other guys on the team are less intelligent, but I have been really impressed by Wendell's cognitivity... He always seems to be thinking a half second ahead of everyone else, whether it's positioning for a rebound, pointing to an open teammate, or looking off/pump faking a defender to get an open shot for someone else.

As far as I know he's the only one on the team who seriously considered going to Haaahvaaad so I'm sure the other guys wouldn't be offended.

bedeviled
03-01-2018, 10:43 PM
Here's an analysis of scraped data (https://cdn.rawgit.com/comma3/Timeout-Analyzer/34758568/Timeout_Analysis_v1.html) to explore the question "Do timeouts stop scoring runs?" Just found it on Reddit and passing it along promptly in case any here want to join the Reddit conversation (https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/8195tw/do_timeouts_stop_scoring_runs_more_thrilling/) while it's still active. So, I haven't read it, can't vouch for it, and should note that it was compiled by a UNC fan FWIW [insert Roy Williams joke here]. That being said, at the very least, it should be of interest to some here for its use of computer coding to scrape and analyze data.

Here's the author's abstract:

This work explores the expected values of timeouts in college basketball to show that calling a timeout when the opposing team is on a run does not have a better outcome than not calling a timeout. The results even suggest that timeouts of any kind result in more points for the team on the scoring run.

ETA: in response to a reply, the author, Chu_BOT (https://www.reddit.com/user/Chu_BOT), offers up use of his code for parties interested in doing their own scrapes and analyses

my GitHub is comma3. I think the project is cbbto. Might be timeout analyzer or something like that. There should be a separate folder for the scraping code. I've not looked at that code in a long so if it's bad or broken let me know and I'll take a look.