PDA

View Full Version : Hot Take: Duke's best offensive lineup is without Marvin Bagley



dragoneye776
02-13-2018, 11:05 AM
Before I get completely flamed: I don't necessarily think this is true, but it would be interesting to consider this point of view

Duke has reached amazing offensive efficiency in recent history due to a four guard + one big lineup (at times with significant defensive cost). This is the first year where they consistently play a two big lineup. The advantages are in post play, rebounding, and paint defense, but a significant disadvantage this year is in floor spacing for our guards to drive.

A big part of the reason this forum thinks Grayson is taking such a huge step back this year is because there are always two bigs in the paint and he is driving a lot less. Similarly, Duval's greatest strength is also his driving ability. Thus my hot take is that going back to a four guard + one big lineup (ex. Duval, Grayson, O'Connell, Trent, Carter) may elevate the offense of our guards more than we miss the post presence of Bagley. Four Duke quality guards who can shoot, drive, and create would be a nightmare offensively.

I've also noticed that decent defenses do a great job to preventing the entry pass to Bagley, and we often just waste over half the shot clock attempting to get the ball to him. And when he gets doubled, he’s not that good at passing out of it, so he just dribbles to the perimeter and our offense resets. During the time we are trying to make the entry pass, most of our other guards just stand around on the perimeter. Perhaps a more motion-oriented offense would better suit them?

Perhaps the best offensive lineup is with Bagley instead of Carter as the one big, but the point of the big in this case is to just set screens and create for the guards, which Carter is better than Bagley at. And Carter can perhaps try an occasional pick n pop too.

tl;dr: A four guard + one big lineup would be better offensively than the current three guard + two big lineup, and Carter would be a better choice at the big than Bagley

FerryFor50
02-13-2018, 11:09 AM
Before I get completely flamed: I don't necessarily think this is true, but it would be interesting to consider this point of view

Duke has reached amazing offensive efficiency in recent history due to a four guard + one big lineup (at times with significant defensive cost). This is the first year where they consistently play a two big lineup. The advantages are in post play, rebounding, and paint defense, but a significant disadvantage this year is in floor spacing for our guards to drive.

A big part of the reason this forum thinks Grayson is taking such a huge step back this year is because there are always two bigs in the paint and he is driving a lot less. Similarly, Duval's greatest strength is also his driving ability. Thus my hot take is that going back to a four guard + one big lineup (ex. Duval, Grayson, O'Connell, Trent, Carter) may elevate the offense of our guards more than we miss the post presence of Bagley. Four Duke quality guards who can shoot, drive, and create would be a nightmare offensively.

I've also noticed that decent defenses do a great job to preventing the entry pass to Bagley, and we often just waste over half the shot clock attempting to get the ball to him. And when he gets doubled, he’s not that good at passing out of it, so he just dribbles to the perimeter and our offense resets. During the time we are trying to make the entry pass, most of our other guards just stand around on the perimeter. Perhaps a more motion-oriented offense would better suit them?

Perhaps the best offensive lineup is with Bagley instead of Carter as the one big, but the point of the big in this case is to just set screens and create for the guards, which Carter is better than Bagley at. And Carter can perhaps try an occasional pick n pop too.

tl;dr: A four guard + one big lineup would be better offensively than the current three guard + two big lineup, and Carter would be a better choice at the big instead of Bagley

It's not a crazy theory, but a few things:

- Bagley is essentially able to play 3-5 on the court, which makes him invaluable
- Carter can step out and hit threes if necessary, as well as the mid range
- Duke's offensive rating is 127.2, good for #2 in KenPom. So they're already as good as they're going to get.
- Defense is this team's biggest issue, and Carter/Bagley are better defensive options than most, if not all of the guards

CDu
02-13-2018, 11:14 AM
The other problem with this theory is that we can't really play a 4-guard, 1-big lineup. At least not without a huge dropoff in ability. We only have 4 top-100 talents at guard on the roster.

The best backup for Bagley at the moment is Marques Bolden, who is decidedly less of a floor spacer than Bagley. After Bolden, it's O'Connell. But after O'Connell, it's a pair of PFs in DeLaurier and White.

If we had at least one more guard on the roster, I might be willing to discuss it. But as is, I think it's fair to say that this team is better offensively with Bagley than without.

flyingdutchdevil
02-13-2018, 11:22 AM
It's not a crazy theory, but a few things:

- Bagley is essentially able to play 3-5 on the court, which makes him invaluable
- Carter can step out and hit threes if necessary, as well as the mid range
- Duke's offensive rating is 127.2, good for #2 in KenPom. So they're already as good as they're going to get.
- Defense is this team's biggest issue, and Carter/Bagley are better defensive options than most, if not all of the guards

Agreed on your points except the last one. 4 guards + 1 big isn't the answer (because AOC and Duval aren't good defensively). 3 guards + 2 bigs is clearly better. But Carter/Bagley isn't a great defensive tandem. I really like the Carter/Bolden tandem. Bolden moves his feet better, is significantly longer, reads the O better, and an all-round smarter defender. Bagley is a significantly better D rebounder, but that's about all he does well on the defensive end.

The issue is on O, where Bolden can only play down low. That means Carter needs to hit more of those 3s that we're accustomed to him taking.

I would love to see Bolden play ~15-20 a game. I'm not saying his D will cure our D, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

dragoneye776
02-13-2018, 11:24 AM
Yeah I agree that defense is our problem but say that we are playing Virginia just down a few points and we need some injection of quick offense. What would theoretically be the best offensive lineup Duke could put out there to close a half or something?

And you don't think O'Connell is good enough to be the 4th guard in the 4 guard lineup?

UrinalCake
02-13-2018, 11:26 AM
Similar to the Okafor Theory article that came out in 2015. The problem is not Bagley, the problem is building our whole offense around trying to post him up. Our 2015 team got better when we shared the ball and ran a more diverse offense.

Earlier this season we were moving the ball well and assisting in a high percentage of our made shots. That’s has totally gone away lately, in favor of attempting to just dump it in the post (which also causes a ton of turnovers).

English
02-13-2018, 11:31 AM
Yeah I agree that defense is our problem but say that we are playing Virginia just down a few points and we need some injection of quick offense. What would theoretically be the best offensive lineup Duke could put out there to close a half or something?

And you don't think O'Connell is good enough to be the 4th guard in the 4 guard lineup?

The point isn't that AOC isn't good enough to be the fourth guard, it's that our entire roster only has four guards good enough to play rotation minutes, so if we roll Duval, Allen, AOC, and Trent out there...then what? This isn't a video game. These guys get tired, or pick up fouls, and there's nobody behind them to spell them.

kAzE
02-13-2018, 11:41 AM
Grayson's game is more suited for the 4 out 1 in lineup, but that doesn't mean he can't also be good with Bagley and another big man in the lineup. I just think Bagley needs to pass out of the post a bit more often. He's outrageously efficient in the paint, but sometimes, he still attempts some extremely difficult shots. I wish he would kick it back out or look for a cutter in those situations. He is the #1 option on offense, but it needs to be a team effort to get everyone involved, particularly Grayson. Guys need to look for him more and try to get him the ball where he's most effective. Bagley's actually better crashing the glass than as a post up player, where his over-reliance on his left hand has caused him to struggle against better defensive teams lately.

Truth&Justise
02-13-2018, 12:36 PM
Agreed on your points except the last one. 4 guards + 1 big isn't the answer (because AOC and Duval aren't good defensively). 3 guards + 2 bigs is clearly better. But Carter/Bagley isn't a great defensive tandem. I really like the Carter/Bolden tandem. Bolden moves his feet better, is significantly longer, reads the O better, and an all-round smarter defender. Bagley is a significantly better D rebounder, but that's about all he does well on the defensive end.

The issue is on O, where Bolden can only play down low. That means Carter needs to hit more of those 3s that we're accustomed to him taking.

I would love to see Bolden play ~15-20 a game. I'm not saying his D will cure our D, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

I'm also against moving to a primarily 4-guard lineup, but I disagree with you about the Carter-Bolden pairing. Most of the good teams we will face do not play two traditional bigs (ironic when considering how Duke was historically at the vanguard of this change). Bagley is more adept than Bolden or Carter at staying with a smaller player on the perimeter. This is also pronounced in the zone, where one of the bigs has to rotate to the corner. Yes, we've had some struggles on D when Bagley and Carter play, but errors like over-helping or bad rotations are things that continue slowly get better as the season goes on. And as you've noted, there are problems pairing Carter and Bolden on offense. So unless the other team plays with two traditional bigs, I'm not in favor of the Carter-Bolden pairing.

Wheat/"/"/"
02-13-2018, 12:47 PM
This "theory" is about the craziest thing I've ever read on this board.

Bagley is one of the top five offensive players in the country. If you can't find a way to improve the offense with a player of his talents, the problem lies in the coaching, not with the players.

jv001
02-13-2018, 12:53 PM
^ I agree taking Bagley out of the starting lineup or giving him few minutes is as Wander would say, "nuts". The ACC's leading scorer and rebounder. Like some have said, offense is not our biggest problem. Defense is where the team needs to continue to improve. GoDuke!

Truth&Justise
02-13-2018, 12:57 PM
This "theory" is about the craziest thing I've ever read on this board.

Bagley is one of the top five offensive players in the country. If you can't find a way to improve the offense with a player of his talents, the problem lies in the coaching, not with the players.

I think it's a perfectly logical outgrowth of the general trend in basketball towards smaller, better shooting teams. Dragoneye776 even acknowledges that this likely won't be true overall, but the basic premise seems to flow from the following: the most efficient offenses maximize skill, spacing, and three point shooting. Given that, would the best offense involve four skilled, good-shooting players and one big?

If you follow that premise to its logical conclusion, then you might believe that the best possible offense for Duke is four good shooters surrounding one big who rebounds, sets screens, and does traditional big-man things -- and that the best "traditional" big on the roster is Carter.

So it's a fun thought-exercise. Should Duke commit to that? No. Bagley is an incredible player, his contributions are immense, there's more to basketball than just offense, etc. But don't be surprised when this type of discussion, or something flowing from the same basic premise, comes up when it's time for the draft and NBA folks are wondering where exactly Bagley fits on a modern team.

Kedsy
02-13-2018, 01:17 PM
Duke has reached amazing offensive efficiency in recent history due to a four guard + one big lineup (at times with significant defensive cost). This is the first year where they consistently play a two big lineup. * * *

Thus my hot take is that going back to a four guard + one big lineup (ex. Duval, Grayson, O'Connell, Trent, Carter) may elevate the offense of our guards more than we miss the post presence of Bagley. Four Duke quality guards who can shoot, drive, and create would be a nightmare offensively.

DUKE ADJUSTED OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY IN KENPOM ERA
------------------------------------------------------
2002: 121.0
2003: 115.0
2004: 120.8
2005: 115.7
2006: 119.4
2007: 113.2
2008: 116.3
2009: 117.5
2010: 121.1
2011: 119.7
2012: 117.7
2013: 119.1
2014: 124.7
2015: 124.5
2016: 121.9
2017: 121.0
2018: 127.2

So I question the assumptions underlying your theory.


Earlier this season we were moving the ball well and assisting in a high percentage of our made shots. That’s has totally gone away lately, in favor of attempting to just dump it in the post (which also causes a ton of turnovers).

%assisted on made shots (Duke vs.
-----------------------------------
Elon: 51.2%
Utah Valley: 66.7%
Michigan State: 70.0%
Southern: 56.0%
Furman: 46.2%
Portland State: 59.4%
Texas: 70.0%
Florida: 69.0%
Indiana: 45.5%
South Dakota: 48.6%
St. Francis: 70.8%
BC: 40.6%
Evansville: 82.1%
FSU: 48.7%
NCSU: 32.2%
Pitt 1: 61.8%
Wake 1: 72.0%
Miami: 58.0%
Pitt 2: 55.2%
Wake 2: 50.0%
Virginia: 55.5%
Notre Dame: 46.9%
St. John's: 41.7%
UNC: 63.3%
Ga Tech: 61.5%

On the one hand, it may not be coincidence that our lowest %assisted totals were (in order): NC State, BC, and St. John's. It also may not be coincidence that our highest %assisted totals were (in order) Evansville, Wake 1, and St. Francis. And while it's true that four of our highest ten %assisted numbers came in November, it's also true that four of the highest ten came in the last month. So you may be right that a higher percentage of assisted baskets is a sign of a more efficient offense, but I think the pattern is more complex than an "earlier in the season"/"lately in the season" split.

Wander
02-13-2018, 01:28 PM
So I question the assumptions underlying your theory.


I don't think kenpom numbers are really directly comparable across different seasons like that.

That said, I agree with you that our offense is very good and doesn't really need an overhaul. Our defense on the other hand... would playing a smaller lineup allow us to play a different defense that would result in more forced turnovers? I think that is our biggest weakness.

Kedsy
02-13-2018, 01:49 PM
Our defense on the other hand... would playing a smaller lineup allow us to play a different defense that would result in more forced turnovers? I think that is our biggest weakness.

Interesting idea. But considering that the only small lineup we can reasonably play would insert Alex (1.1 steal%) -- who has the lowest steal percentage on the team among players with 100 or more minutes -- for Marvin (1.7 stl%) or Javin (3.1%), or even Marques (1.8%), it's hard to see more forced turnovers from the smaller lineup. I know that forcing turnovers is more than just getting steals, but at least to me Alex doesn't appear to be a defensive dynamo in other ways, either.

kAzE
02-13-2018, 01:51 PM
I don't think kenpom numbers are really directly comparable across different seasons like that.

That said, I agree with you that our offense is very good and doesn't really need an overhaul. Our defense on the other hand... would playing a smaller lineup allow us to play a different defense that would result in more forced turnovers? I think that is our biggest weakness.

I keep seeing different versions of this comment in various threads. While it's true that our offense is better than our defense, we might actually have more room to improve on offense than defense. We still commit a ton of unforced turnovers, Grayson still hasn't really been himself since Michigan State, Bagley still only goes left, and Duval still hasn't really found his place on the team yet. If Grayson had been his usual all-american self all year, or we make a couple fewer dumb turnovers, we could be 24-1 right now, even with the atrocious defense.

These guys are all offensive players. ALL of them are better on offense than D. There is no Matt Jones or Amile Jefferson on this team. My point is that we might actually be closer to our defensive ceiling than our offensive ceiling. So the "our offense is fine, we need to improve on D" comments don't make much sense to me. We need to improve on both ends. Just because we're better than almost everyone else at offense doesn't mean we can't still improve a lot on that end.

flyingdutchdevil
02-13-2018, 02:00 PM
I keep seeing different versions of this comment in various threads. While it's true that our offense is better than our defense, we might actually have more room to improve on offense than defense. We still commit a ton of unforced turnovers, Grayson still hasn't really been himself since Michigan State, Bagley still only goes left, and Duval still hasn't really found his place on the team yet. If Grayson had been his usual all-american self all year, or we make a couple fewer dumb turnovers, we could be 24-1 right now, even with the atrocious defense.

These guys are all offensive players. ALL of them are better on offense than D. There is no Matt Jones or Amile Jefferson on this team. My point is that we might actually be closer to our defensive ceiling than our offensive ceiling. So the "our offense is fine, we need to improve on D" comments don't make much sense to me. We need to improve on both ends. Just because we're better than almost everyone else at offense doesn't mean we can't still improve a lot on that end.

I sadly agree. I think this team can get so much better on offense. I unfortunately don't see how to fix some of the following issues: forcing turnovers (Allen has never been good at forcing TOs. Duval's reaction speed is shockingly slow for a PG. The bigs block shots but don't poke balls), preventing penetration (it's a modern Duke team. This ain't happenin'), on-court awareness (Duval and Bagley seem to be the biggest culprits of this), PnR defense (Carter is getting better but it's still not great), and communication (does this get fixed in a year? Probably not).

CDu
02-13-2018, 02:02 PM
I keep seeing different versions of this comment in various threads. While it's true that our offense is better than our defense, we might actually have more room to improve on offense than defense. We still commit a ton of unforced turnovers, Grayson still hasn't really been himself since Michigan State, Bagley still only goes left, and Duval still hasn't really found his place on the team yet. If Grayson had been his usual all-american self all year, or we make a couple fewer dumb turnovers, we could be 24-1 right now, even with the atrocious defense.

These guys are all offensive players. ALL of them are better on offense than D. There is no Matt Jones or Amile Jefferson on this team. My point is that we might actually be closer to our defensive ceiling than our offensive ceiling. So the "our offense is fine, we need to improve on D" comments don't make much sense to me. We need to improve on both ends. Just because we're better than almost everyone else at offense doesn't mean we can't still improve a lot on that end.

This is a fair point, for the most part. I think that there is defensive potential in Bagley and Duval at the very least. And Allen is physically capable of solid defense, in the same way that Cook became solid defensively in the second half of his senior year. But I agree that the offense does have room to improve.

I will note, though, that improvements in offense may not dramatically shift the offensive efficiency numbers. At least not terribly dramatically. Part of our insanely high offensive efficiency this season is driven by having the #1 offensive rebounding team in the country (though that status may change if things keep going as they are going; UNC has outrebounded us comfortably in conference, and is currently #3 overall). Those offensive rebounds generally result in opportunities for our bigs, who are our most efficient scorers. So if we get more efficient on our first shots, some of that will come at the cost of second-chance opportunities.

Obviously still better to be more efficient on first-chance opportunities of course.

FerryFor50
02-13-2018, 02:03 PM
Agreed on your points except the last one. 4 guards + 1 big isn't the answer (because AOC and Duval aren't good defensively). 3 guards + 2 bigs is clearly better. But Carter/Bagley isn't a great defensive tandem. I really like the Carter/Bolden tandem. Bolden moves his feet better, is significantly longer, reads the O better, and an all-round smarter defender. Bagley is a significantly better D rebounder, but that's about all he does well on the defensive end.

The issue is on O, where Bolden can only play down low. That means Carter needs to hit more of those 3s that we're accustomed to him taking.

I would love to see Bolden play ~15-20 a game. I'm not saying his D will cure our D, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

I didn't say that Carter/Bagley is a great defensive tandem. I'm saying I like Carter/Bagley on defense over a lineup of Allen-Trent-Duval-O'Connell-Bagley. Bagley is also a very good shot blocker. Doesn't move his feet great, but does a good job on one-on-one post defense and plays passing lanes decently. He also has the length to bother jump shooters on the perimeter.

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2018, 02:19 PM
And you don't think O'Connell is good enough to be the 4th guard in the 4 guard lineup?

I believe AOC is good enough to be the fourth guard, I just don't think he's good enough to justify playing only one of our bigs.....

Ian
02-13-2018, 02:23 PM
The solution is not to just play one big, the solution is to feature the post up less in our offense, and space the floor with AOC instead of Duval.

kAzE
02-13-2018, 02:23 PM
This is a fair point, for the most part. I think that there is defensive potential in Bagley and Duval at the very least. And Allen is physically capable of solid defense, in the same way that Cook became solid defensively in the second half of his senior year. But I agree that the offense does have room to improve.

I will note, though, that improvements in offense may not dramatically shift the offensive efficiency numbers. At least not terribly dramatically. Part of our insanely high offensive efficiency this season is driven by having the #1 offensive rebounding team in the country (though that status may change if things keep going as they are going; UNC has outrebounded us comfortably in conference, and is currently #3 overall). Those offensive rebounds generally result in opportunities for our bigs, who are our most efficient scorers. So if we get more efficient on our first shots, some of that will come at the cost of second-chance opportunities.

Obviously still better to be more efficient on first-chance opportunities of course.

This is true, but a lot of times, we don't even get our first shot. Looking at our last 4 losses, two things stand out: Our opponent always commits fewer turnovers than we do, and also attempts more shots (in some cases WAY more shots) than we do. This is actually even worse than it sounds, since we are the best offensive rebounding team in the nation. We should really be getting more shot attempts than anyone we play against. Part of this is also not rebounding on the defensive glass and giving up extra possessions. That's one area on defense I know we can improve on.

But still, as good as our offense has been, it could be much, much better. I think this team needs to outscore opponents to win, because like FDD said, a lot of this team's defensive flaws aren't easily fixed. In order to outscore teams, we've got to take better care of the ball and make sure we get something out of every possession.

Kedsy
02-13-2018, 02:28 PM
I keep seeing different versions of this comment in various threads. While it's true that our offense is better than our defense, we might actually have more room to improve on offense than defense. We still commit a ton of unforced turnovers, Grayson still hasn't really been himself since Michigan State, Bagley still only goes left, and Duval still hasn't really found his place on the team yet. If Grayson had been his usual all-american self all year, or we make a couple fewer dumb turnovers, we could be 24-1 right now, even with the atrocious defense.

These guys are all offensive players. ALL of them are better on offense than D. There is no Matt Jones or Amile Jefferson on this team. My point is that we might actually be closer to our defensive ceiling than our offensive ceiling. So the "our offense is fine, we need to improve on D" comments don't make much sense to me. We need to improve on both ends. Just because we're better than almost everyone else at offense doesn't mean we can't still improve a lot on that end.

We're tied for the 34th lowest turnover percentage in the country. One fewer turnover per game would put us tied for 12th lowest. So it's possible we fans are just obsessing on the turnovers we see; it may not be reasonable to think we should or could significantly lower our number of turnovers.

And sure, we could be 24-1. We could also be 16-9. We've trailed in the second half in 12 of our 25 games, but we've won more of those than we've lost.

I'm not saying we can't improve on offense. But KenPom says our adjusted points per possession is 1.272. The best performance in that metric since he's been keeping track is 1.299 (and that's Villanova this season; only one other team (2015 Wisconsin) has had a higher adjusted ppp than we have right now). So having the most points per possession ever (or really in the past 17 years) would be an improvement of .027 ppp.

On the other hand, our adjusted defensive points per possession is 1.002, while less than two weeks ago it was 0.975 (the same .027) and it certainly didn't look to me that we'd reached our ceiling then. So it seems to me there's a lot more room to move the numbers on the defensive side.

kAzE
02-13-2018, 02:33 PM
We're tied for the 34th lowest turnover percentage in the country. One fewer turnover per game would put us tied for 12th lowest. So it's possible we fans are just obsessing on the turnovers we see; it may not be reasonable to think we should or could significantly lower our number of turnovers.

But your stats don't differentiate between turnovers forced by the opponent and turnovers like throwing a post entry pass out of bounds or dribbling into traffic with no plan and coughing it up. These are turnovers that other good offensive teams don't make. And again, just because this is one of the best offensive teams ever on KenPom doesn't mean it can't be even better than it's been. Anybody who's watched our last 4 losses should agree with that.

However, I do think the 1 major thing we have to do better on D is rebounding. With our size, there's no excuse for not being better on the defensive glass.

Kedsy
02-13-2018, 02:38 PM
This is true, but a lot of times, we don't even get our first shot. Looking at our last 4 losses, two things stand out: Our opponent always commits fewer turnovers than we do, and also attempts more shots (in some cases WAY more shots) than we do. This is actually even worse than it sounds, since we are the best offensive rebounding team in the nation. We should really be getting more shot attempts than anyone we play against. Part of this is also not rebounding on the defensive glass and giving up extra possessions. That's one area on defense I know we can improve on.

Yeah, in our losses to State, UNC, and St. John's, our defensive rebounding was atrocious. That's clearly an area we can improve. And while it's true UNC committed more turnovers than us, we only had 8. Hard to reasonably expect fewer than that in our offense (I recognize we had too many TOs against St. John's and Virginia and State; but those were somewhat anomalous performances). On the other hand, we only forced two UNC turnovers. FDD may be right that we'll never be a great turnover-causing team, but we should have a much higher chance of forcing more than two (or the five we forced against UVa) than we do of cutting down on the 8 miscues we made in the UNC game.


But your stats don't differentiate between turnovers forced by the opponent and turnovers like throwing a post entry pass out of bounds or dribbling into traffic with no plan and coughing it up. These are turnovers that other good offensive teams don't make. And again, just because this is one of the best offensive teams ever on KenPom doesn't mean it can't be even better than it's been. Anybody who's watched our 4 losses should agree with that.

You appear to be looking for perfection, but I don't think that's reasonable. Overall, we don't make too many turnovers on offense. The fact that we did in a few games (including three of our five losses) doesn't change that, it just means we had a few bad games.


However, I do think the 1 major thing we have to do better is defensive rebounding. With our size, there's no excuse for not being better at that.

I agree with this, and this alone will help our defensive efficiency considerably.

FerryFor50
02-13-2018, 02:44 PM
But your stats don't differentiate between turnovers forced by the opponent and turnovers like throwing a post entry pass out of bounds or dribbling into traffic with no plan and coughing it up. These are turnovers that other good offensive teams don't make.

There's also the notion that it probably feels magnified because Duke isn't turning their opponents over as much as Duke is committing turnovers.

Duke's 84th in the country in total turnovers with 306 (12.24 per game). They are 297th in opponent turnovers (295; 11.8 per game). That makes the Duke turnovers feel much bigger.

By comparison, this is the turnover story the past few years...

2017: Duke turnovers, 421 (171st); Opponent turnovers 447 (138th)
2016: Duke turnovers, 354 (31st); Opponent turnovers 427 (143rd)
2015: Duke turnovers, 421 (227th); Opponent turnovers 481 (37th)

Fun fact: in 2015, Quinn Cook averaged 2.6apg, 1.2 turnovers. Tyus Jones averaged 5.6 apg, 1.9 turnovers. Combined, that's 8.2 apg, 3.1 turnovers.

This year, Grayson Allen averages 4.6 apg, 1.9 turnovers. Trevon Duval averages 5.7apg, 2.6 turnovers. Combined, that's 11.3 apg, 4.5 turnovers.

Acymetric
02-13-2018, 02:45 PM
We're tied for the 34th lowest turnover percentage in the country. One fewer turnover per game would put us tied for 12th lowest. So it's possible we fans are just obsessing on the turnovers we see; it may not be reasonable to think we should or could significantly lower our number of turnovers.

And sure, we could be 24-1. We could also be 16-9. We've trailed in the second half in 12 of our 25 games, but we've won more of those than we've lost.

I'm not saying we can't improve on offense. But KenPom says our adjusted points per possession is 1.272. The best performance in that metric since he's been keeping track is 1.299 (and that's Villanova this season; only one other team (2015 Wisconsin) has had a higher adjusted ppp than we have right now). So having the most points per possession ever (or really in the past 17 years) would be an improvement of .027 ppp.

On the other hand, our adjusted defensive points per possession is 1.002, while less than two weeks ago it was 0.975 (the same .027) and it certainly didn't look to me that we'd reached our ceiling then. So it seems to me there's a lot more room to move the numbers on the defensive side.

This was discussed specifically in a previous thread discussing turnovers as they relate to defense (and specifically fast break defense, which is a huge drag on our defensive ratings). TO% is a useful and meaningful stat, but here I think the type of turnover, broken down into perhaps live-ball/dead-ball would be more useful. TO% does not take into account the difference between throwing the ball into the stands (or traveling, etc.) and throwing the ball to another team's player for a fast break. I suspect more of our turnovers fall into the latter category, which does not drag down our offensive rating any more than a dead ball turnover would but does hurt our defensive ratings with fast break points (or semi-fast break points where we do manage to scramble back on defense but never get set properly for good D). This is also true for certain types of bad shots that are likely to lead to run-outs (but still only count as a missed shot against the o-rating).

So the improvements we need to make on offense would not necessarily drastically improve our offensive numbers, which as you point out are very high. But they would put us in better position to improve our defensive numbers by way of allowing fewer easy possessions to the other team.

godins
02-13-2018, 02:47 PM
But your stats don't differentiate between turnovers forced by the opponent and turnovers like throwing a post entry pass out of bounds or dribbling into traffic with no plan and coughing it up. These are turnovers that other good offensive teams don't make. And again, just because this is one of the best offensive teams ever on KenPom doesn't mean it can't be even better than it's been. Anybody who's watched our last 4 losses should agree with that.

However, I do think the 1 major thing we have to do better on D is rebounding. With our size, there's no excuse for not being better on the defensive glass.

No they don´t, although differentiating between a "freshman mistake" turnover and opponent-forced turnovers would give statkeepers a hell of a headache. Of the top 10 offensive teams in the country (per KenPom), only three teams beat us out in raw turnover score: Villanova, Purdue, and St. Mary´s. They all also happen to play a significantly lower pace than we do (3-8 adj possessions per game).

Matches
02-13-2018, 02:49 PM
However, I do think the 1 major thing we have to do better on D is rebounding. With our size, there's no excuse for not being better on the defensive glass.

We're in a Catch-22 situation there. The big reason our defensive rebounding has been subpar lately is that we do not block out reliably. We have size and hops but the fundamentals of defensive rebounding are lacking. Thing is, as the season has gone on we've played more zone, and that's exacerbating the problem. It's harder to block out in a zone.

But we're playing more zone because we're really bad in M2M.

But we'd be rebounding better in M2M.

Ideally we would improve our M2M defense, play it more, and rebound better. But it may be too late in the year to expect much improvement in that department.

kAzE
02-13-2018, 02:52 PM
We're in a Catch-22 situation there. The big reason our defensive rebounding has been subpar lately is that we do not block out reliably. We have size and hops but the fundamentals of defensive rebounding are lacking. Thing is, as the season has gone on we've played more zone, and that's exacerbating the problem. It's harder to block out in a zone.

But we're playing more zone because we're really bad in M2M.

But we'd be rebounding better in M2M.

Ideally we would improve our M2M defense, play it more, and rebound better. But it may be too late in the year to expect much improvement in that department.

I could be wrong about this, but aren't we actually better at rebounding in the zone? That was definitely the case earlier in the year, but I'm not sure if that trend has continued.

Kedsy
02-13-2018, 02:55 PM
This was discussed specifically in a previous thread discussing turnovers as they relate to defense (and specifically fast break defense, which is a huge drag on our defensive ratings). TO% is a useful and meaningful stat, but here I think the type of turnover, broken down into perhaps live-ball/dead-ball would be more useful. TO% does not take into account the difference between throwing the ball into the stands (or traveling, etc.) and throwing the ball to another team's player for a fast break. I suspect more of our turnovers fall into the latter category, which does not drag down our offensive rating any more than a dead ball turnover would but does hurt our defensive ratings with fast break points (or semi-fast break points where we do manage to scramble back on defense but never get set properly for good D). This is also true for certain types of bad shots that are likely to lead to run-outs (but still only count as a missed shot against the o-rating).

So the improvements we need to make on offense would not necessarily drastically improve our offensive numbers, which as you point out are very high. But they would put us in better position to improve our defensive numbers by way of allowing fewer easy possessions to the other team.

I agree with you in general that live ball turnovers hurt defensive efficiency in some ways more than they hurt offensive efficiency. That's a very good point. I've never seen stats for live-ball vs. dead-ball turnovers, but they do keep stats for steal percentage. And at least for steals, your theory that Duke has too many live ball turnovers does not appear to be the case. Our opponents' steal percentage of 7.4% is tied for 45th lowest in the country.

FWIW, our own steal percentage of 9.8% is not bad (tied for 95th highest). Where our D falls short, I guess, is in the dead ball turnover variety. Not sure why that would be, I guess we don't put enough pressure on the ball.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-13-2018, 03:18 PM
I see our best offense with the ball at the free throw line in the hands of Bagley or Carter with our shooters spaced on the three point line or 15 foot range. The big man can dribble/drive, then pass or pop, or can lob to the other big under the basket, or give and go, or take a jump shot.

When we have the ball in that situation, good things ought to happen.

dragoneye776
02-13-2018, 06:22 PM
The solution is not to just play one big, the solution is to feature the post up less in our offense, and space the floor with AOC instead of Duval.

Love this. I've watched a few games of the New Orleans Pelicans this year who played Demarcus Cousins and Anthony Davis in a two big lineup before Cousins got injured. While they do occasionally post up, they still run most of their offense through ball movement pick n roll and cutting principles.

And great discussion so far. Keep in mind my point was not at all that we should value improvement in offense over defense, I was just wondering if four guards would theoretically be a better offense than the two big offense.


Those offensive rebounds generally result in opportunities for our bigs, who are our most efficient scorers. So if we get more efficient on our first shots, some of that will come at the cost of second-chance opportunities.

Interesting if there is a relationship between how well our guards can finish vs. how will our bigs can rebound offensively. If we have four guards to space the floor and the last big may be rolling after setting a screen, I expect our guards to finish very well but no bigs around for the offensive rebound. On the other hand, if a guard tries to drive into a paint where Bagley and Carter are hanging out at the rim, that guard won't finish as well but we will have a very high rate of offensive rebounding. The problem is for example during the UNC game where we had two bigs in the paint but were still getting out rebounded.

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2018, 08:38 PM
I see our best offense with the ball at the free throw line in the hands of Bagley or Carter with our shooters spaced on the three point line or 15 foot range. The big man can dribble/drive, then pass or pop, or can lob to the other big under the basket, or give and go, or take a jump shot.

When we have the ball in that situation, good things ought to happen.

Kinda agree with all that...which of course is meaningless because I'm new to this particular forum...and I never learned anything from watching Duke for five decades before then....

godins
02-13-2018, 08:53 PM
Kinda agree with all that...which of course is meaningless because I'm new to this particular forum...and I never learned anything from watching Duke for five decades before then...

As a young guy and a fan since only the early 2000s, I'd love to hear your opinion on past iterations of Duke teams, a certain player Wendell Carter reminds you of, or your actual thoughts about a 4-out-1-in lineup. I don't have the benefit of comparing this team to the 1999 squad nor do I understand the pains my Dad went through as a Duke fan in the early 70s nor the joy of winning Duke's first national championship in 1991. A spoiled millennial, as it were.

I truly appreciate the "old geezers" on this forum who tell about those times, because it knocks a little of the entitlement stuffing out of me. It helps me appreciate the unprecedented program we're lucky to experience year in and year out. Please, channel those five decades of experience for something good. For my sake and yours. Because trying to pick fights on this board over a perceived slight isn't becoming.

Fish80
02-13-2018, 08:58 PM
For our offensive efficiency, the ceiling is not the roof. This team can blow the roof off of historical efficiency. 1.27? 1.29? I see 1.44!

ipatent
02-13-2018, 09:09 PM
Duke's offense is better when Grayson Allen takes and hits shots. Too small a sample size right now to prove he has more of those big games when Bagley is out.

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2018, 09:41 PM
As a young guy and a fan since only the early 2000s, I'd love to hear your opinion on past iterations of Duke teams, a certain player Wendell Carter reminds you of, or your actual thoughts about a 4-out-1-in lineup. I don't have the benefit of comparing this team to the 1999 squad nor do I understand the pains my Dad went through as a Duke fan in the early 70s nor the joy of winning Duke's first national championship in 1991. A spoiled millennial, as it were.

I truly appreciate the "old geezers" on this forum who tell about those times, because it knocks a little of the entitlement stuffing out of me. It helps me appreciate the unprecedented program we're lucky to experience year in and year out. Please, channel those five decades of experience for something good. For my sake and yours. Because trying to pick fights on this board over a perceived slight isn't becoming.

Well young feller, come sit on my knee...(just kidding).
As for the past Duke teams, very memorable ones were Bill Foster's team of 78 that lost to Kentucky in the title game, even though I think they were better than UK, but a guy named Goose Givens had a career night and went for 44, and UK won a close game.
Then K's teams of 84-86 were the beginning...the 86 team won 37 games and they were clearly the best team in the country. They played the second best team, Kansas, in a grueling semi finals. They were gassed against Louisville, and lost a very close game in the finals. Louisville benefitted from their own air ball in the closing seconds to get a big basket.

Through this time, Duke was not the hated Duke program we see today. That started when they went back to the Final Four in 88, and went every year thereafter through 92, and after 94, had been to 7 FF in 9 years. Of course that includes the 91-92 season when Duke really became Duke. They were defending champs, they were like rock stars, as the players stayed 4 years then and the entire country knew who they were. And of course, they had Christian Laettner, who was simultaneously a teen idol for girls and a hated SOB for guys across the country. Their place in history was sealed with the great 92 game v Kentucky - which also forever linked Duke and Kentucky.

They had a bit of a down spell in the 95-97 time frame, but by 98 and 99, Duke was great again. I think maybe the best team in the country in 98 and definitely the best team in 99, but they won neither title. Then there was 2001, where a late season injury to Carlos Boozer forced K to make changes, and then when Boozer came back in the NCAAs, Duke was a better team, and Boozer was a better player, having worked on his drop step footwork while he was hurt. Without the Boozer injury, I don't think Duke wins that title, and I don't think Booz has the great NBA career he had...but 01 was a great team with Jay Will, Battier and Dunleavy, in addition to Booz.

That kind of takes you to your era. As I tell my kids, who are 21, 25 and 30, Duke became Duke in 91-92, really. They became the dominant, hated team they are today then. Two videos will bring this home...the "I Hate Christian Laettner" and "The Laettner Game" videos.

Also, they won the title in 91 and 92 - Carolina won in 93 - and then Duke went back to the finals in 94 against Arkansas. Arkansas had a player named Scottie Thurman, who drained a three, barely getting it over Duke's Tony Lang, and Arkansas won. That game cost me millions. I had tee shirts and other stuff ready to go....91 DUKE 92 DUKE 93 FLUKE 94 DUKE. Alas, it was not to be. My nephew in Knoxville emailed me just the other day that he still shakes his head over the DUKE DUKE FLUKE DUKE tee shirt opportunity that Arkansas took from me!!!

Now if any of the other old geezers care to validate, or correct me, I'm all for it. This was off top of head.

MarkD83
02-13-2018, 09:47 PM
Well young feller, come sit on my knee...(just kidding).

Alas, it was not to be. My nephew in Knoxville emailed me just the other day that he still shakes his head over the DUKE DUKE CHEAT DUKE tee shirt opportunity that Arkansas took from me!!!



Your t-shirt was incorrect even before Duke lost to Arkansas.

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2018, 09:50 PM
Your t-shirt was incorrect even before Duke lost to Arkansas.

I get it now...but that wouldn't have sold like DUKE DUKE FLUKE DUKE...it's the rhyme that makes it. I think we'd still be selling that shirt today, the 2018 version of DUKE DUKE FLUKE DUKE gear....I have a cousin, big big Heel fan and alum - and even he admitted that would've been a killer....

dragoneye776
02-14-2018, 06:47 PM
Anyone think it's curious that Grayson Allen's 3 best games (including this one) are without Bagley? That said, I think top Bagley and mediocre Grayson is definitely better than top Grayson and no Bagley.

MarkD83
02-14-2018, 07:17 PM
Anyone think it's curious that Grayson Allen's 3 best games (including this one) are without Bagley? That said, I think top Bagley and mediocre Grayson is definitely better than top Grayson and no Bagley.

I'll take option #3 Top Grayson and Top Marvin

CDu
02-15-2018, 10:17 AM
I think a combination of last night's approach and our with-Bagley strategy is what we should pursue moving forward.

I really liked the way they used DeLaurier along the baseline. I can imagine the same working well with Bagley as well.

At the same time, I don't want to ignore working with Bagley on the post, and the high-low with Bagley/Carter. But I think having what we did last night with Bagley lurking off-ball could create a nice, versatile set of looks. Hopefully we can work in some more looks when Bagley returns.

uh_no
02-15-2018, 10:22 AM
I think a combination of last night's approach and our with-Bagley strategy is what we should pursue moving forward.

I really liked the way they used DeLaurier along the baseline. I can imagine the same working well with Bagley as well.

At the same time, I don't want to ignore working with Bagley on the post, and the high-low with Bagley/Carter. But I think having what we did last night with Bagley lurking off-ball could create a nice, versatile set of looks. Hopefully we can work in some more looks when Bagley returns.

That's exactly it. It's all about versatility. Just because you have megatron on your team doesn't mean you shouldn't also try to have a good running game and should just throw the ball to him every time. Having bagley allows us to do MORE things. Things that we can't do without bagley. As we agree, I'm sure, we need to have a bagley lineup where we can continue to do the things we also did well last night. There's no reason we can't....it's not like bagley can't function like bolden or javin if we need him to....it's just about finding that balance. When we're playing aggressive and shooting well like we did last night, teams should have a tough time defending us. If we do that while also having a top 3 pick? That's what everyone was hoping for this year.

UrinalCake
02-15-2018, 10:51 AM
As I said upthread, there are some definite similarities to Okafor in 2015. He sat out a game with a sprained ankle and we rolled against Clemson. Afterwards somebody published The Okafor Theory (https://okafortheory.wordpress.com/) which suggested that Duke is statistically a better team with Oak off the court. The main reasons for this were that a.) Okafor was a bad defender b.) Okafor was a terrible free throw shooter c.) two pointers are less efficient than three pointers, even when you make a high percentage. Now to be fair, the author's purpose was not to suggest that we should bench Okafor, but that we should reduce his usage rate.

Give the article a read if you have a minute, I think a lot of it applies to Bagley as well. Not quite to the same extent, because Bagley is not as ball-dominant as Okafor was. But my eye test tells me that when Bagley is in the game, most of our offense revolves around dumping the ball into him while others stand around. And honestly I don't think Bagley is best used as strictly a straight up post player, he has many other facets to his game and we should be using him in other ways. I do think that reducing Bagley's usage rate could pay dividends, not just because our offense would be more diverse and harder to defend, but also because other players would feel more involved and therefore be more mentally engaged on both sides of the ball.

kAzE
02-15-2018, 11:01 AM
As I said upthread, there are some definite similarities to Okafor in 2015. He sat out a game with a sprained ankle and we rolled against Clemson. Afterwards somebody published The Okafor Theory (https://okafortheory.wordpress.com/) which suggested that Duke is statistically a better team with Oak off the court. The main reasons for this were that a.) Okafor was a bad defender b.) Okafor was a terrible free throw shooter c.) two pointers are less efficient than three pointers, even when you make a high percentage. Now to be fair, the author's purpose was not to suggest that we should bench Okafor, but that we should reduce his usage rate.

Give the article a read if you have a minute, I think a lot of it applies to Bagley as well. Not quite to the same extent, because Bagley is not as ball-dominant as Okafor was. But my eye test tells me that when Bagley is in the game, most of our offense revolves around dumping the ball into him while others stand around. And honestly I don't think Bagley is best used as strictly a straight up post player, he has many other facets to his game and we should be using him in other ways. I do think that reducing Bagley's usage rate could pay dividends, not just because our offense would be more diverse and harder to defend, but also because other players would feel more involved and therefore be more mentally engaged on both sides of the ball.

I just think the offense didn't evolve enough and we became TOO reliant on Bagley going 1 on 1 in the post. It was great to start out the year, when nobody had film on us, but became increasingly more predictable and easier to defend because of our insistence on feeding Bagley in the post (and his insistence on going left).

We obviously will still want to get Bagley touches in the post, but he needs to be a more willing passer out of the post when help comes or his shot isn't there. He needs to look for Grayson and Gary more on the perimeter, especially since it's become harder for him to rebound his own misses now that everyone knows about his crazy second jump ability (thanks for making sure literally everyone knows, Jay Bilas).

Bagley should still touch the ball as much as possible, but he should probably give up a few shots to other guys. Grayson is a volume scorer, and he needs to get a few shots to get going. That's been the key to his success when Bagley has been out.

Defensively, Bagley is much better in the zone than in M2M, so our commitment to playing zone bodes well for Bagley playing his usual amount of minutes.

Dukiedevil
02-15-2018, 11:30 AM
Anyone think it's curious that Grayson Allen's 3 best games (including this one) are without Bagley? That said, I think top Bagley and mediocre Grayson is definitely better than top Grayson and no Bagley.

We are suffering from a recency bias if we think that Grayson and Bagley can't play well together. They both played great together through Florida State. The recent improvements have been a combination of Grayson breaking out of a mini-slump and him going back to being the primary ball-handler after a multi-game experiment having Duval as the lead guard. It looks to me that the coaches now think Duval may not develop into the lead guard that would have been helpful come tournament time and are now leaving it in Grayson's capable hands. I look forward to seeing an increase in the devastating Grayson-Bagley pick-n-roll from here on out.

jv001
02-15-2018, 11:43 AM
I just think the offense didn't evolve enough and we became TOO reliant on Bagley going 1 on 1 in the post. It was great to start out the year, when nobody had film on us, but became increasingly more predictable and easier to defend because of our insistence on feeding Bagley in the post (and his insistence on going left).

We obviously will still want to get Bagley touches in the post, but he needs to be a more willing passer out of the post when help comes or his shot isn't there. He needs to look for Grayson and Gary more on the perimeter, especially since it's become harder for him to rebound his own misses now that everyone knows about his crazy second jump ability (thanks for making sure literally everyone knows, Jay Bilas).

Bagley should still touch the ball as much as possible, but he should probably give up a few shots to other guys. Grayson is a volume scorer, and he needs to get a few shots to get going. That's been the key to his success when Bagley has been out.

Defensively, Bagley is much better in the zone than in M2M, so our commitment to playing zone bodes well for Bagley playing his usual amount of minutes.

Both you and UC make some very good points regarding MBIII. He is a great talent but he does have some room for improvement. As mentioned he hardly ever uses his right hand and mostly drives to his left. Can you imagine how good he can be once he learns to use his right hand. The failure to go right is one reason the offense slows down when he has the ball. Lot's of times we get caught forcing shots because the shot clock is running down. Duval dribbles the ball too much and the same thing happens, but that's for another thread. I'm sure Coach K has noticed the same thing and will make the necessary adjustments once MBIII returns to the lineup. It can't be too soon for this Duke fan because we're a better team when Bagley and Grayson are on the floor. GoDuke!

Reddevil
02-15-2018, 11:59 AM
I have been wondering about this after the past two games also. Duke has used the 1 in, 4 out approach with great success for quite a while. It makes a traditional big man have to cover a quicker guard and come out of the paint. Unc uses the multiple big man approach within a system that generally understands the mismatches on both ends and exploits them to their benefit, and it works for them more often than not. K uses a motion offense that works better without the lane being clogged. All that said, wouldn't it be useful to employ Bagley as a wing like Grant Hill, Winslow, Ingram, Tatum and many others? In other words, forget that he is 6'11''? He can still crash the boards and attack the rim, but would help spread the court. We get our motion offense back (no more hero watching), Bagley still gets his, Grayson and everyone else are more free to improvise, drive and shoot, and K is back to coaching the team in a way that has been very successful.

I am happy to hear that they are going to be primarily a zone team now. Playing a switching M2M with backside help was great before the OAD era because it takes more than a year to teach/learn the intricacies. This bunch strangely rebounds quite well while playing zone too, so they've got that going for them...which is nice.

CDu
02-15-2018, 12:01 PM
We are suffering from a recency bias if we think that Grayson and Bagley can't play well together. They both played great together through Florida State. The recent improvements have been a combination of Grayson breaking out of a mini-slump and him going back to being the primary ball-handler after a multi-game experiment having Duval as the lead guard. It looks to me that the coaches now think Duval may not develop into the lead guard that would have been helpful come tournament time and are now leaving it in Grayson's capable hands. I look forward to seeing an increase in the devastating Grayson-Bagley pick-n-roll from here on out.

In the three games that Bagley played 10 minutes or sat out, here are Allen's stats:
28.3 ppg, 49.0 FG%, 47.2 3pt%, 1.67 pps, 65.7 eFG%, 72.1 TS%

In the five games against major conference opponents through the FSU game that Bagley played substantial minutes (Texas, UF, Indiana, BC, FSU), here are Allen's stats:
16.4 ppg, 39.2 FG%, 35.1 3pt%, 1.11 pps, 48.0 eFG%, 50.9 TS%

Those second set of numbers are fine, though not great. And of course that excludes the 10 most recent games in which Allen had really struggled to score. And no, that's not due to a multi-game experiment with Duval as the lead guard; Duval had been the lead guard all season until VERY recently. So I think we can comfortably say that Allen has played MUCH better without Bagley than with Bagley.

Is it possible that it is just a fluke. But I think it is absolutely reasonable to consider that the presence of Bagley (and the team's focus on running the offense through Bagley) has had an effect on Allen's offense. I certainly don't think we are better off without Bagley (on either end of the floor). And the team's long-term success this year will rely heavily on being able to utilize both fairly effectively. To date, we haven't really been able to do that with any consistency.

jv001
02-15-2018, 12:21 PM
In the three games that Bagley played 10 minutes or sat out, here are Allen's stats:
28.3 ppg, 49.0 FG%, 47.2 3pt%, 1.67 pps, 65.7 eFG%, 72.1 TS%

In the five games against major conference opponents through the FSU game that Bagley played substantial minutes (Texas, UF, Indiana, BC, FSU), here are Allen's stats:
16.4 ppg, 39.2 FG%, 35.1 3pt%, 1.11 pps, 48.0 eFG%, 50.9 TS%

Those second set of numbers are fine, though not great. And of course that excludes the 10 most recent games in which Allen had really struggled to score. And no, that's not due to a multi-game experiment with Duval as the lead guard; Duval had been the lead guard all season until VERY recently. So I think we can comfortably say that Allen has played MUCH better without Bagley than with Bagley.

Is it possible that it is just a fluke. But I think it is absolutely reasonable to consider that the presence of Bagley (and the team's focus on running the offense through Bagley) has had an effect on Allen's offense. I certainly don't think we are better off without Bagley (on either end of the floor). And the team's long-term success this year will rely heavily on being able to utilize both fairly effectively. To date, we haven't really been able to do that with any consistency.

The stats you posted show that Grayson has performed better when MBIII is not on the court at the same time Grayson is. I know it's a small sample size but the numbers don't lie.

Since most of us know that to be the best team Duke can be in March, both need to be on the court. Your last paragraph in my opinion, puts it on the coaching staff to make sure they are used together effectively. Coach K has no problem making changes that helps the team get better. Witnessed in more zone the last few years. I don't see how running the offense strictly through Marvin can be the best way to utilize the teams strengths. I look for a few more wrinkles from our HOF Coach. GoDuke!

elvis14
02-15-2018, 01:00 PM
I just think the offense didn't evolve enough and we became TOO reliant on Bagley going 1 on 1 in the post. It was great to start out the year, when nobody had film on us, but became increasingly more predictable and easier to defend because of our insistence on feeding Bagley in the post (and his insistence on going left).

We obviously will still want to get Bagley touches in the post, but he needs to be a more willing passer out of the post when help comes or his shot isn't there. He needs to look for Grayson and Gary more on the perimeter, especially since it's become harder for him to rebound his own misses now that everyone knows about his crazy second jump ability (thanks for making sure literally everyone knows, Jay Bilas).

Bagley should still touch the ball as much as possible, but he should probably give up a few shots to other guys. Grayson is a volume scorer, and he needs to get a few shots to get going. That's been the key to his success when Bagley has been out.

Defensively, Bagley is much better in the zone than in M2M, so our commitment to playing zone bodes well for Bagley playing his usual amount of minutes.

I hate to say it so plainly but you guys do realize that Bagley is pretty much a black hole on offense, right? The ball goes to him and he tries to score whether he's on the block, at the FT line, at the 3point line, etc. He's so good that it hasn't mattered very much. Teams have learned how to slow him down (be physical and make him go right), however. I think our offense will really blossom if he's a little more selective with his shots. Our ball movement the last couple of games has been so good. Combine great ball movement WITH Marvin and our offense which is already fantastic just gets ridiculously good. Our defense is likely to be inconsistent enough to where there are going to be some games where we have to be ridiculously good on offense to win (which is fine by me as long as we win).

Kedsy
02-15-2018, 01:19 PM
All that said, wouldn't it be useful to employ Bagley as a wing like Grant Hill, Winslow, Ingram, Tatum and many others?

The problem is Marvin is soooooo much more efficient inside the paint than outside it. Sure, he can drive into the paint from outside, but if putting him on the wing means he takes more jumpers (and it probably does), then I'm not for it.

Having him lurk on the baseline occasionally (like Javin last night) would seem to be a more palatable alternative.

Acymetric
02-15-2018, 02:01 PM
The problem is Marvin is soooooo much more efficient inside the paint than outside it. Sure, he can drive into the paint from outside, but if putting him on the wing means he takes more jumpers (and it probably does), then I'm not for it.

Having him lurk on the baseline occasionally (like Javin last night) would seem to be a more palatable alternative.

Winslow wasn't exactly an offensive juggernaut from outside either. I think the increase in efficiency across the board would make up for the (slight) drop in efficiency from Bagley. I don't take it to mean play Bagley exclusively at the wing, but that he should spend some time there, and adds an additional facet to our offense that teams have to consider when setting up the defense (we are UNBELIEVABLY predictable on offense when Bagley is in, we're just so good offensively that we can overcome being predictable most of the time).

Kedsy
02-15-2018, 02:33 PM
Winslow wasn't exactly an offensive juggernaut from outside either. I think the increase in efficiency across the board would make up for the (slight) drop in efficiency from Bagley. I don't take it to mean play Bagley exclusively at the wing, but that he should spend some time there, and adds an additional facet to our offense that teams have to consider when setting up the defense (we are UNBELIEVABLY predictable on offense when Bagley is in, we're just so good offensively that we can overcome being predictable most of the time).

It wouldn't be a (slight) drop in efficiency. It would be a very large drop. Marvin takes 52.9% of his shots at the rim and makes 78% of them. He takes 14.7% of his shots from three and makes 35.4%. Justise took 58.8% of his shots from three and made 39.5% of them. He only took 21.2% of his shots at the rim (and made 66.7%).

UrinalCake
02-15-2018, 04:46 PM
If we’re just looking at raw numbers, it would make more sense to play Carter on the wing in a sort of “Kevin Love when paired with LeBron” role, as he makes half his threes. But obviously nobody would ever suggest doing that.

SkyBrickey
02-15-2018, 05:01 PM
Similar to the Okafor Theory article that came out in 2015. The problem is not Bagley, the problem is building our whole offense around trying to post him up. Our 2015 team got better when we shared the ball and ran a more diverse offense.

Earlier this season we were moving the ball well and assisting in a high percentage of our made shots. That’s has totally gone away lately, in favor of attempting to just dump it in the post (which also causes a ton of turnovers).

Couldn't agree more with this. The ball movement has been better the past 2 games without Bagley. Hopefully the coaching staff and Bagley recognize this and he looks to pass more actively. Carter does a great job of passing and setting up teammates, and not forcing shots.

Here's another way to think about it. Would you rather have an open 3 from Trent, Grayson or a driving guarded shot by Bagley? Both are good options but give me the open 3.

dragoneye776
02-15-2018, 06:17 PM
If we’re just looking at raw numbers, it would make more sense to play Carter on the wing in a sort of “Kevin Love when paired with LeBron” role, as he makes half his threes. But obviously nobody would ever suggest doing that.

I'd like to give that idea some thought, especially only on offense. A lot of people compare Wendell with Al Horford, and while Al mostly plays center for the Celtics, he occasionally shifts to a stretch 4 (letting Aaron Baynes play true Center). If Bagley can get better at setting screens, I don't see why not?