PDA

View Full Version : 3-Point Shooting, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the eFG%



DavidBenAkiva
01-27-2019, 12:05 PM
There are many ways to win a National Championship. Some preach senior leadership. Others are steadfast in their belief that a team must be a superior rebounding team. Still others are of the belief that you have to be the best shooting team. In truth, there is no single way to the National Championship. If there were only one model, everyone would be doing the same thing.

Right now, Duke is pretty terrible at shooting the ball. At a scant 30.2% on the season, the team ranks as the 322nd best NCAA team from beyond the arc. One might have hope if the team were good from the free throw line. Alas, Duke is less than good from the charity stripe, making just 68.3% of its shots from the line. That's 241st in the nation. After a dominant run by the Villanova Wildcats last season and the current emphasis on 3-point shooting in the NBA, one wonders if the shooting situation is the fatal flaw of this Duke team.

We Duke fans have developed PTSD when Jack White gets open for a corner 3 during ACC play. The shot is not falling. And teams are packing it in against Duke, forcing up jump shots. Duke has been able to maintain a top 10 offense by efficiency in spite of this Achilles Heel. In part, elite offensive rebounding, where Duke is 4th in the nation, helps out a ton. By rebounding 37.0% of missed shots (4th in the nation), those missed 3's are still generating good looks at the basket.

Several teams have ridden this strategy to the Final Four in recent years. Michigan, for example, was just a so-so 3-point shooting team last year, 156th in the nation. UNC in 2017 was hitting 35.5% of its 3's, 149th in the nation. The year before, they were even worse, hitting just 32.7% of their 3's, good for 258th in the nation. Those UNC teams loved to get out in transition and led the nation in offensive rebounding.

I have more good news. First, Duke is really good at shooting inside the arc. A large chunk of that is generating fast break opportunities. And this Duke team is elite at both blocking shots and generating steals. Duke is #1 in the nation per play in both categories. What I find particularly interesting about those back-to-back Final Four UNC teams from recent years as a comp for this Duke team is the lack of blocked shots and steals. UNC was better on the offensive glass by a small margin than this current Duke team. But this Duke team is worlds better at altering shots. Kennedy Meeks, Isaiah Hicks, Brice Johnson, Tony Bradley, et al were not that great at blocking shots. In both Final Four years, UNC had a block rate of 7.4% and 5.8%, far below the 2018-19 Duke block rate of 12.0%. And neither team would generate steals at anything close to the rate this Duke team does (also, 12.0%).

It's kind of insane to think of this way, but on about 1 in every 4 defensive possession on the season, Duke is either stealing the ball or blocking a shot. It's probably closer to 1 in 5 possessions as you can have both a block and then a steal on a defensive possession. That's still an insane rate. And further, unlike those UNC teams, Duke is elite at defending the 3'point shot. So when a team misses a 3, Duke can grab and go, leading to more fast break opportunities. It's no surprise that Duke is 3rd in the nation at 2-point percentage at 58.8%. UNC was not nearly as efficient inside the arc, in case you were wondering, like me. In 2017, they shot 51.0% (#102 in the nation) and in 2016 shot 53.9% (#21). Do you know what team was in the top 3 in the nation in 2-point percentage each of the past 3 years? Villanova. All this talk about 3-point shooting has distracted us from the fact that Duke is an efficient shooting team when factoring in all forms of field goals.

Imagine how good this Duke team would be if they could shoot the ball?

Rich
01-27-2019, 12:25 PM
There are many ways to win a National Championship. Some preach senior leadership. Others are steadfast in their belief that a team must be a superior rebounding team. Still others are of the belief that you have to be the best shooting team. In truth, there is no single way to the National Championship. If there were only one model, everyone would be doing the same thing.

Right now, Duke is pretty terrible at shooting the ball. At a scant 30.2% on the season, the team ranks as the 322nd best NCAA team from beyond the arc. One might have hope if the team were good from the free throw line. Alas, Duke is less than good from the charity stripe, making just 68.3% of its shots from the line. That's 241st in the nation. After a dominant run by the Villanova Wildcats last season and the current emphasis on 3-point shooting in the NBA, one wonders if the shooting situation is the fatal flaw of this Duke team.

We Duke fans have developed PTSD when Jack White gets open for a corner 3 during ACC play. The shot is not falling. And teams are packing it in against Duke, forcing up jump shots. Duke has been able to maintain a top 10 offense by efficiency in spite of this Achilles Heel. In part, elite offensive rebounding, where Duke is 4th in the nation, helps out a ton. By rebounding 37.0% of missed shots (4th in the nation), those missed 3's are still generating good looks at the basket.

Several teams have ridden this strategy to the Final Four in recent years. Michigan, for example, was just a so-so 3-point shooting team last year, 156th in the nation. UNC in 2017 was hitting 35.5% of its 3's, 149th in the nation. The year before, they were even worse, hitting just 32.7% of their 3's, good for 258th in the nation. Those UNC teams loved to get out in transition and led the nation in offensive rebounding.

I have more good news. First, Duke is really good at shooting inside the arc. A large chunk of that is generating fast break opportunities. And this Duke team is elite at both blocking shots and generating steals. Duke is #1 in the nation per play in both categories. What I find particularly interesting about those back-to-back Final Four UNC teams from recent years as a comp for this Duke team is the lack of blocked shots and steals. UNC was better on the offensive glass by a small margin than this current Duke team. But this Duke team is worlds better at altering shots. Kennedy Meeks, Isaiah Hicks, Brice Johnson, Tony Bradley, et al were not that great at blocking shots. In both Final Four years, UNC had a block rate of 7.4% and 5.8%, far below the 2018-19 Duke block rate of 12.0%. And neither team would generate steals at anything close to the rate this Duke team does (also, 12.0%).

It's kind of insane to think of this way, but on about 1 in every 4 defensive possession on the season, Duke is either stealing the ball or blocking a shot. It's probably closer to 1 in 5 possessions as you can have both a block and then a steal on a defensive possession. That's still an insane rate. And further, unlike those UNC teams, Duke is elite at defending the 3'point shot. So when a team misses a 3, Duke can grab and go, leading to more fast break opportunities. It's no surprise that Duke is 3rd in the nation at 2-point percentage at 58.8%. UNC was not nearly as efficient inside the arc, in case you were wondering, like me. In 2017, they shot 51.0% (#102 in the nation) and in 2016 shot 53.9% (#21). Do you know what team was in the top 3 in the nation in 2-point percentage each of the past 3 years? Villanova. All this talk about 3-point shooting has distracted us from the fact that Duke is an efficient shooting team when factoring in all forms of field goals.

Imagine how good this Duke team would be if they could shoot the ball?

Count me among those who thinks we can win a National Championship with this lineup, but man would it be nice to have one or two 40%+ shooters who can soften the defense for RJ and Zion to drive. Given the choice, I'll take our defense over a few three point specialists, but understandably those things are not mutually exclusive.

Saratoga2
01-27-2019, 12:31 PM
There are many ways to win a National Championship. Some preach senior leadership. Others are steadfast in their belief that a team must be a superior rebounding team. Still others are of the belief that you have to be the best shooting team. In truth, there is no single way to the National Championship. If there were only one model, everyone would be doing the same thing.

Right now, Duke is pretty terrible at shooting the ball. At a scant 30.2% on the season, the team ranks as the 322nd best NCAA team from beyond the arc. One might have hope if the team were good from the free throw line. Alas, Duke is less than good from the charity stripe, making just 68.3% of its shots from the line. That's 241st in the nation. After a dominant run by the Villanova Wildcats last season and the current emphasis on 3-point shooting in the NBA, one wonders if the shooting situation is the fatal flaw of this Duke team.

We Duke fans have developed PTSD when Jack White gets open for a corner 3 during ACC play. The shot is not falling. And teams are packing it in against Duke, forcing up jump shots. Duke has been able to maintain a top 10 offense by efficiency in spite of this Achilles Heel. In part, elite offensive rebounding, where Duke is 4th in the nation, helps out a ton. By rebounding 37.0% of missed shots (4th in the nation), those missed 3's are still generating good looks at the basket.

Several teams have ridden this strategy to the Final Four in recent years. Michigan, for example, was just a so-so 3-point shooting team last year, 156th in the nation. UNC in 2017 was hitting 35.5% of its 3's, 149th in the nation. The year before, they were even worse, hitting just 32.7% of their 3's, good for 258th in the nation. Those UNC teams loved to get out in transition and led the nation in offensive rebounding.

I have more good news. First, Duke is really good at shooting inside the arc. A large chunk of that is generating fast break opportunities. And this Duke team is elite at both blocking shots and generating steals. Duke is #1 in the nation per play in both categories. What I find particularly interesting about those back-to-back Final Four UNC teams from recent years as a comp for this Duke team is the lack of blocked shots and steals. UNC was better on the offensive glass by a small margin than this current Duke team. But this Duke team is worlds better at altering shots. Kennedy Meeks, Isaiah Hicks, Brice Johnson, Tony Bradley, et al were not that great at blocking shots. In both Final Four years, UNC had a block rate of 7.4% and 5.8%, far below the 2018-19 Duke block rate of 12.0%. And neither team would generate steals at anything close to the rate this Duke team does (also, 12.0%).

It's kind of insane to think of this way, but on about 1 in every 4 defensive possession on the season, Duke is either stealing the ball or blocking a shot. It's probably closer to 1 in 5 possessions as you can have both a block and then a steal on a defensive possession. That's still an insane rate. And further, unlike those UNC teams, Duke is elite at defending the 3'point shot. So when a team misses a 3, Duke can grab and go, leading to more fast break opportunities. It's no surprise that Duke is 3rd in the nation at 2-point percentage at 58.8%. UNC was not nearly as efficient inside the arc, in case you were wondering, like me. In 2017, they shot 51.0% (#102 in the nation) and in 2016 shot 53.9% (#21). Do you know what team was in the top 3 in the nation in 2-point percentage each of the past 3 years? Villanova. All this talk about 3-point shooting has distracted us from the fact that Duke is an efficient shooting team when factoring in all forms of field goals.

Imagine how good this Duke team would be if they could shoot the ball?

This is a nice balanced view of the Duke team, which is clearly very strong in many areas. I guess we will see if we are strong enough to overcome our weakness shooting the 3. Syracuse, not the strongest team we will face beat us when we were down on players. They did it hitting the 3 against us when we were stone cold. In the game today we may find not having 3 point shooting at a reasonable efficiency will do us in. It will be fun to watch the kids regardless.

For those who expect our 3 point shooting to improve a lot going forward, remember that it is not just the Duke career that is involved, these kids have had years to practice shooting behind them and what you see is probably what your going to get. Maybe it will average out to a little higher, I certainly hope so.

Devilwin
01-27-2019, 12:33 PM
Maybe we can improve. There are teams out there nearly as talented as we are that can shoot threes very well. So some improvement would help.

MrPoon
01-27-2019, 12:41 PM
Thanks for this post, it probably does deserve a stand alone thread because this comes up in several spots.
You are spot on that this team is especially unique with its amazing ability to drive and score. Add to that a very strong defense with shot blocking that creates easy buckets and it makes it hard to know what to do with it as a fan hoping for the best.

I still think the FT shooting will improve, especially RJ, and it appears to be.

The issue I take, is the volume of 3s. If you are hitting the shots at a rate below 25% maybe even lower, the efficiency of the modern game with its focus on 3s over 2s goes out the door. Those missed threes are effectively a turnover and too many lead to long rebounds and fast breaks for the opposition. That is the most confounding part to me. The 3s are not just hurting the offense, but they are hurting the defense as well.

This team’s defense has been a huge surprise to me. No OAD team has ever done it this well. Inside they block shots and they pressure the 3 pt line so well leaving really bad, long 2s.
If this team’s strength is efficient 2s and getting to the FT line, great, do that and cut the threes down by at least a third or set up better looks (drive and kick, screen the base line opening up the far corner three). I also think that would help Cam. He is a better player than just a stand still 3pt shooter and I think he’s confused on when and where his shots will come from. Perhaps that is for a different post.

OZZIE4DUKE
01-27-2019, 12:45 PM
Right now, Duke is pretty terrible at shooting the ball. At a scant 30.2% on the season, the team ranks as the 322nd best NCAA team from beyond the arc.

We Duke fans have developed PTSD when Jack White gets open for a corner 3 during ACC play. The shot is not falling.
I have a favorite saying when it comes to facing a hot shooting team, and I'll apply it to our suddenly, shall I say ... challenged team.

The average is the average because it is the average.

What's that mean? A hot shooting team in one half, or one game, will return to near it's season average later, hopefully in the same game where their killing us making 3's, but certainly in following games (which wouldn't help us in our game against them). But if they're a 32% shooting team from 3, they won't maintain a 50% rate for long. The average is a result of all the cumulative results, not a single blip.

Same applies to our Duke team. We are NOT a 9% (or 12%) shooting team for 3's. Yes, we have been for two games now, but it will return to about the 30% rate, sooner rather than later. Now if you think we'll shoot 50% for the season, see the second larger sentence! :cool:http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/devil9f.gif

-jk
01-27-2019, 02:05 PM
Has anyone done the eFG% for champions?

-jk

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 02:22 PM
I have a favorite saying when it comes to facing a hot shooting team, and I'll apply it to our suddenly, shall I say ... challenged team.

The average is the average because it is the average.

What's that mean? A hot shooting team in one half, or one game, will return to near it's season average later, hopefully in the same game where their killing us making 3's, but certainly in following games (which wouldn't help us in our game against them). But if they're a 32% shooting team from 3, they won't maintain a 50% rate for long. The average is a result of all the cumulative results, not a single blip.

Same applies to our Duke team. We are NOT a 9% (or 12%) shooting team for 3's. Yes, we have been for two games now, but it will return to about the 30% rate, sooner rather than later. Now if you think we'll shoot 50% for the season, see the second larger sentence! :cool:http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/devil9f.gif

Hopefully we can get out of this 10 percent stuff....wow, terrible. Can we get to 35% going forward? Perhaps, and that's plenty enough for this team to win the Natty. Can they do it at 30%? I don't know. That's tough.

nmduke2001
01-27-2019, 02:33 PM
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/25858281/duke-blue-devils-win-13-show-how-beaten


It's a liability that rarely translates into a Final Four appearance, even for otherwise good teams -- the worst 3-point shooting Final Four team of the past 10 years was the 2011-12 Louisville squad, which shot 31.8 percent from 3 (although their postseason appearances this season were later vacated).

Per ESPN's Stats & Information, Duke has now played five games against teams that heavily utilized a zone defense. It's shooting just 17 percent from 3 in those games.

Kedsy
01-27-2019, 02:39 PM
Has anyone done the eFG% for champions?

-jk

https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?43060-MBB-Duke-79-Pittsburgh-64-Post-Game-Thread&p=1120206#post1120206

Duke’s current eFG% is 53.8%. That would be 12th out of the last 26 champions, or a little bit better than the median champion eFG%.



Mods: I’m on my phone on a train. If someone could convert the above to a link, I’d appreciate it. Thx.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 02:43 PM
Baker in AAU shot 40% from three, and he also shot 40% as a soph in high school (cannot find jr and sr stats for some reason)
He also shot 93% FT in AAU.
Just sayin...

MChambers
01-27-2019, 02:49 PM
Baker in AAU shot 40% from three, and he also shot 40% as a soph in high school (cannot find jr and sr stats for some reason)
He also shot 93% FT in AAU.
Just sayin...

So what? Given how young and thin he is, he’s not likely to be ready play quality defense. Did you see him play in Canada? He looked pretty lost, as I recall.

And if he could help, why wouldn’t K play him?

MChambers
01-27-2019, 02:50 PM
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/25858281/duke-blue-devils-win-13-show-how-beaten


It's a liability that rarely translates into a Final Four appearance, even for otherwise good teams -- the worst 3-point shooting Final Four team of the past 10 years was the 2011-12 Louisville squad, which shot 31.8 percent from 3 (although their postseason appearances this season were later vacated).

Per ESPN's Stats & Information, Duke has now played five games against teams that heavily utilized a zone defense. It's shooting just 17 percent from 3 in those games.

One of those games Duke was missing two starters, so that stat isn’t particularly edifying. Put another way, Duke is undefeated playing against zone teams when all five starters are healthy.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 02:52 PM
So what? Given how young and thin he is, he’s not likely to be ready play quality defense. Did you see him play in Canada? He looked pretty lost, as I recall.

And if he could help, why wouldn’t K play him?

Ease off that high horse....I said "to stir it up..." - that means let's have a little fun with this - this was not a pronouncement on my part that K was making a mistake. I guess it stirred you up indeed. To unpack your reasoning, however, it is not the oddest concept in the world for a team with incredible defense and incredibly poor shooting deciding to play a guy who can help their shooting at the expense of some of the defense. It's happened before.

MChambers
01-27-2019, 03:05 PM
Ease off that high horse...I said "to stir it up..." - that means let's have a little fun with this - this was not a pronouncement on my part that K was making a mistake. I guess it stirred you up indeed. To unpack your reasoning, however, it is not the oddest concept in the world for a team with incredible defense and incredibly poor shooting deciding to play a guy who can help their shooting at the expense of some of the defense. It's happened before.

Let me ask more directly, why “stir it up”? Do you believe Baker should be playing? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Rich
01-27-2019, 03:05 PM
Ease off that high horse...I said "to stir it up..." - that means let's have a little fun with this - this was not a pronouncement on my part that K was making a mistake. I guess it stirred you up indeed. To unpack your reasoning, however, it is not the oddest concept in the world for a team with incredible defense and incredibly poor shooting deciding to play a guy who can help their shooting at the expense of some of the defense. It's happened before.

Isn’t that what Alex supposedly brings to the table?

Devilwin
01-27-2019, 04:09 PM
Someone once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

SoCalDukeFan
01-27-2019, 04:35 PM
I think the team is good enough to win a national championship.

I also think that the 3 point shooting is bad enough to cost them a national championship.

We were behind at halftime to Georgia Tech at HOME for crying out loud.

We will have some games where the shooting is better than average, and some worse. Matchups and officiating "philosophy" can affect the outcome. In the tournament if we run into a perfect storm of an off night shooting, a team that can pack it inside and take away many inside baskets and a crew more disposed to call charging over blocks then we can certainly be beat.

On the other hand, with good defense we should be in every game and have a real chance to win every game.

SoCal

Kedsy
01-27-2019, 05:01 PM
The issue I take, is the volume of 3s. If you are hitting the shots at a rate below 25% maybe even lower, the efficiency of the modern game with its focus on 3s over 2s goes out the door.

Here are the percentage of threes taken (out of overall shots) for Duke since 1997 (approximately when K started heavily utilizing the three):



Year %three NCAA
2001 41.78% 1
2005 39.84% 16
2016 39.84% 16
2014 39.65% 64
2008 39.16% 32
2012 38.59% 64
2017 38.34% 32
2002 37.57% 16
2019 37.00%
1997 36.84% 32
2018 36.32% 8
2011 35.27% 16
2006 35.16% 16
2009 35.04% 16
2000 34.16% 16
2003 33.92% 16
2004 33.41% 4
2015 33.41% 1
2013 33.25% 8
2010 32.93% 1
1998 32.44% 8
1999 30.51% 2
2007 29.65% 64


I'd probably be happier if we were in the 32% to 33% range, rather than 37%, which would be taking about three less threes per game (and three more twos). As far as the efficiencies, I agree. We currently make 30.2% of our threes (0.91 points per three-point shot) and 58.8% of our two-point shots (1.18 points per two-point shot). You still have to shoot some threes, since if you don't the two-point shots are harder to get, but shooting three or so fewer threes and the same number of more twos might be a good idea.


This team’s defense has been a huge surprise to me. No OAD team has ever done it this well.

Well, how many OAD teams have there really been? Not a very robust sample size.

Duke is currently ranked 5th in adjusted dRating (87.8 points allowed per possession). Last season, with a lot of OADs, we were ranked 9th. In 2015, again with a bunch of OADs, we were ranked 11th. Not that far off from 5th.

And if you're not just counting Duke, your statement is not correct: Kentucky's 2015 team ranked 1st in the country (84.4 pts allowed per poss). They also ranked 6th in 2010, 7th in 2012, and 7th in 2017.

Indoor66
01-27-2019, 05:25 PM
I do not understand the relevance of that ranking. Each year is a different team and has a different dynamic.

BandAlum83
01-27-2019, 05:33 PM
Has anyone done the eFG% for champions?

-jk

The answer to that question is yes. Someone (I can’t remember who) posted it on another thread (I can’t remember which one) after I asked the question. Sorry I can’t be much help. It if you can find it, maybe you could repost it here!

simplyluvin
01-27-2019, 05:35 PM
One other area of concern is defensive rebounding %. Right now, we are very middle-of-the-pack (189th). Limiting opponent’s second chance opportunities seems to be something we can more easily remedy than 3pt shooting, although I’d love to see an upswing in both as the season goes on (and competition gets harder). Agree with a lot of posters that our defense is the key to our championship run, and that will be much more in our control than shooting.

We have an elite D (with Tre back), and that’s the great thing about this team. Last year statistically we had a good D but heavy zone seemed to cover up a lot of issues. This year we have a traditional Coach K M2M. I’d wager that’s the reason Coach loves this team.

BandAlum83
01-27-2019, 05:39 PM
The answer to that question is yes. Someone (I can’t remember who) posted it on another thread (I can’t remember which one) after I asked the question. Sorry I can’t be much help. It if you can find it, maybe you could repost it here!

Kedsy in the Pitt post game thread.



sports-reference only goes back to 1993:

1993 North Carolina - 54.1%
1994 Arkansas - 55.2%
1995 UCLA - 54.1%
1996 Kentucky - 54.1%
1997 Arizona - 50.2%
1998 Kentucky - 53.4%
1999 Connecticut - 50.8%
2000 Michigan State - 53.3%
2001 Duke - 56.1%
2002 Maryland - 53.0%
2003 Syracuse - 51.9%
2004 Connecticut - 53.2%
2005 North Carolina - 56.0%
2006 Florida - 56.9%
2007 Florida - 59.6%
2008 Kansas - 56.7%
2009 North Carolina - 53.3%
2010 Duke - 50.5%
2011 Connecticut - 48.2%
2012 Kentucky - 53.8%
2013 Louisville - 50.6%
2014 Connecticut - 51.5%
2015 Duke - 56.6%
2016 Villanova - 56.1%
2017 North Carolina - 51.9%
2018 Villanova - 59.5%

Duke's current eFG% is 54.3%. That would be 10th among the 26 champions listed here. Again, ably shooting the three might be desirable; it's not necessary.

Kedsy
01-27-2019, 05:44 PM
It's a liability that rarely translates into a Final Four appearance, even for otherwise good teams -- the worst 3-point shooting Final Four team of the past 10 years was the 2011-12 Louisville squad, which shot 31.8 percent from 3 (although their postseason appearances this season were later vacated).

I know you didn't write this, but it's really shoddy journalism. In the last 10 season span they're talking about, you know how many teams have shot under 32% from three and been awarded a top four seed? Four. You know how those four teams did? One Final Four (2012 Louisville, #4 seed); two Elite Eights (2013 Marquette, #3-seed and 2015 Louisville, #4 seed); and one Sweet 16 (2010 Purdue, #4 seed, lost to #1-seed Duke). So if you shoot this badly and get a top seed, if the research indicates anything (and it might not with only four qualifying teams), it shows that such teams actually do pretty well.

The fact is, shooting 30% from three (like Duke is currently doing) is "a liability that rarely translates into an NCAA bid. Is anyone worried about that?

Kedsy
01-27-2019, 05:46 PM
One other area of concern is defensive rebounding %. Right now, we are very middle-of-the-pack (189th).

We've discussed this multiple times in multiple threads. Duke is almost always bad to middle-of-the-pack in defensive rebounding %.


I do not understand the relevance of that ranking. Each year is a different team and has a different dynamic.

I don't understand what you don't understand. If "each year is a different team and has a different dynamic" is a reason not to look at past teams' statistics how can you evaluate anything?

DavidBenAkiva
01-27-2019, 07:11 PM
One other area of concern is defensive rebounding %. Right now, we are very middle-of-the-pack (189th). Limiting opponent’s second chance opportunities seems to be something we can more easily remedy than 3pt shooting, although I’d love to see an upswing in both as the season goes on (and competition gets harder). Agree with a lot of posters that our defense is the key to our championship run, and that will be much more in our control than shooting.

We have an elite D (with Tre back), and that’s the great thing about this team. Last year statistically we had a good D but heavy zone seemed to cover up a lot of issues. This year we have a traditional Coach K M2M. I’d wager that’s the reason Coach loves this team.

I am not that concerned about the defensive rebounding, to be honest. As others have noticed, Duke's effective field goal defense is near the tops in the nation. Teams are having trouble getting the ball into the hoop. Even if they get the ball back, it's not a given that they will convert that into a score. Second, that stat is a result of a specific strategy. When you go to block the ball, you are often out of position to rebound it. It's rare for a team to be both so effective at protecting the rim AND be in position to grab the shots that rim out or go off of the defenders hands. You live with the result. Duke gives up a few more offensive boards to the opposing team. But the tradeoff is huge because on 1 of every 8 shot attempts, you get a block. The more blocks, the more transition opportunities. The opponent isn't going to score as often off an offensive rebound as Duke will score in transition.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 07:15 PM
The fact is, shooting 30% from three (like Duke is currently doing) is "a liability that rarely translates into an NCAA bid. Is anyone worried about that?

They are not currently shooting that actually. I know what you mean, but "currently" they are shooting about a third of that over the last what, four games? Take out AOC's 4-8 versus Cuse and it's close to single digits. They have pulled down their average several points over that span.

richmclean
01-27-2019, 08:17 PM
Wow Kedsys stats would say 3pt shooting is not correlated well with Final Fours or Nattys. Live by the jump shot ....?

Matches
01-28-2019, 08:39 AM
There are actually two, and exactly two, paths to a NCAAT.

One is to replicate exactly what the most recent champion did. So currently - shoot lots of 3s, rely primarily on upperclassmen, and it doesn’t hurt to have a campus in or near Philadelphia.

The other is to replicate exactly what a previous Duke championship team did. So someone must play the role of Zoubek, there has to be a late-season lineup change prompted by an injury, or a Jones brother must play PG.

Because as we all know, the results of past games were pre-ordained.

We’re a crappy three-point shooting team. We’re really good at just about everything else. We beat one of the best teams in the country, without our starting PG, on a night we were two-for-the-game from distance. We’re also not going to keep shooting 4% or whatever it’s been lately - that number will improve. Could a poor shooting night do us in? Sure - but then again that’s also been true of our more proficient 3p shooting teams. If anything, we’re less likely this year to “live by the 3, die by the 3” because we have so many other ways to score.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 09:14 AM
] We’re a crappy three-point shooting team. We’re really good at just about everything else. We beat one of the best teams in the country, without our starting PG, on a night we were two-for-the-game from distance. We’re also not going to keep shooting 4% or whatever it’s been lately - that number will improve. Could a poor shooting night do us in? Sure - but then again that’s also been true of our more proficient 3p shooting teams. If anything, we’re less likely this year to “live by the 3, die by the 3” because we have so many other ways to score.

I agree with most of that, but live by the three - die by the three is a false choice. Even a team like Duke who doesn't "live by the three" - can still die by the three. It is a very legit concern for this team, which is in some ways magnificent. Ironic that Duke can do what few teams have ever been able to do.....but struggles with two areas most teams are pretty good at.......

DavidBenAkiva
01-28-2019, 10:36 AM
One thing I was noticing about the recent stretch of games is that Duke has shot particularly poorly at home.

During ACC play, Duke has made 20 of 101 (19.8%) of its 3's. On the road, the team has been shooting 25 of 70 (35.7%). It's a small sample size, including just 3 road games.

For the season, the team is hitting on 79 of 288 (27.4%) at home and 37 of 109 (33.9%) during its five games at neutral sites.

For whatever reason, Duke has shot the ball particularly poorly at home. Is the team more like a 33% 3-point shooting team or closer to the 27% 3/point shooting team it's been at home? That's a big question. If it is the 33% team, then it's going to make almost 1 point per shot attempt compared to just 0.81 as a 27% shooting team. Over the course of a game, that's worth about 4 points per 20 shot attempts. That margin could be all the difference in a single game.

robed deity
01-28-2019, 10:54 AM
I feel like there have been various factors contributing to Duke's 3 point struggles the last 3 home games. Syracuse (rough place in schedule, tough zone as primary d, Tre injury), Virginia (the nation's best defense, and not coincidentally, leading nation in 3 pt fg pctg), and Georgia Tech (tough zone as primary d, reincorporating Tre). Duke is not a great shooting team to begin with, and I guess this is sort of making excuses, but I'm chalking up a lot of the horrid numbers to circumstances.

flyingdutchdevil
01-28-2019, 11:01 AM
One thing I was noticing about the recent stretch of games is that Duke has shot particularly poorly at home.

During ACC play, Duke has made 20 of 101 (19.8%) of its 3's. On the road, the team has been shooting 25 of 70 (35.7%). It's a small sample size, including just 3 road games.

For the season, the team is hitting on 79 of 288 (27.4%) at home and 37 of 109 (33.9%) during its five games at neutral sites.

For whatever reason, Duke has shot the ball particularly poorly at home. Is the team more like a 33% 3-point shooting team or closer to the 27% 3/point shooting team it's been at home? That's a big question. If it is the 33% team, then it's going to make almost 1 point per shot attempt compared to just 0.81 as a 27% shooting team. Over the course of a game, that's worth about 4 points per 20 shot attempts. That margin could be all the difference in a single game.

I thought we've made 26.3% of our 3s during conference play? That's what Sport Reference is showing...

Anywho, regardless, it's really, really bad. We've digressed from a "not good" 3pt shooting team to an atrocious one. We are, right now, probably the worst Power 6 conference team at 3s.

The thing that strikes me as strange is Coach K allowing this team to shoot that many 3s. This could be a) this team is sooooo much better than our 3pt % record and this is a massive team slump right now, b) Coach K needs to keep defenses "honest" and even 25-30% shooting from 3pt land will be that, or c) Coach K has lost his marbles.

It's not c) and I don't think it's b). b) would mean that we aren't utilizing our efficiency right, which makes no sense. I understand keeping defenses honest, but what's the point of guarding Tre Jones (26%), Goldwire (I didn't want to look it up, but I'm pretty sure it's 0%. He may hit the rim 50% of the time), Zion (27%), Bolden (0%) from 3 and just continuing to pack the lane?

I think this team is muuuuuuch better from 3pt land. And by much, I mean Jones, Cam, Zion, and White. I do think RJ at ~31% makes sense and Goldwire as a terrible shooter also makes sense.

DavidBenAkiva
01-28-2019, 11:09 AM
I feel like there have been various factors contributing to Duke's 3 point struggles the last 3 home games. Syracuse (rough place in schedule, tough zone as primary d, Tre injury), Virginia (the nation's best defense, and not coincidentally, leading nation in 3 pt fg pctg), and Georgia Tech (tough zone as primary d, reincorporating Tre). Duke is not a great shooting team to begin with, and I guess this is sort of making excuses, but I'm chalking up a lot of the horrid numbers to circumstances.

The opponents are definitely factoring into the tough shooting. I took a look at the 7 worst 3-point shooting games from Duke and the overall defensive efficiency rating and 3-point defense of those teams. Here's what I found:

- Eastern Michigan: Duke shot 5-24 from 3. EMU is ranked 175th in defensive efficiency overall (using T-Rank) and 221st in 3P% defense.
- Hartford: Duke shot 5-26 from 3. Hartford is 253rd in defensive efficiency and 172nd in 3P% defense.
- Yale: Duke shot 5-21 from 3. Yale is 83rd in defensive efficiency and 47th in 3P% defense.
- Texas Tech: Duke shot 3-20 from 3. TTU is 2nd in defensive efficiency and 3rd in 3P% defense.
- Syracuse: Duke shot 9-43 from 3. Syracuse is 18th in defensive efficiency and 41st in 3P% defense.
- Virginia: Duke shot 2-14 from 3. UVA is 1st in defensive efficiency and 1st in 3P% defense.
- Georgia Tech: Duke shot 2-21 from 3. GA Tech is 15th overall in defensive efficiency and 4th overall in 3P% defense.

Some of these games, especially early on, Duke was just cold. But Duke has also faced 3 of the 4 toughest 3-point defensive units in the nation. Pitt is no slouch, either, checking in at 17th in the nation. Gonzaga is 24th, which means Duke has faced 5 of the best 3-point defensive units in the nation so far on the season. Duke is 14th, by the way. You could make a strong argument that Duke is hurt in part by its schedule. The team is not great at shooting, and going against the best defenders is only further hurting them.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 11:34 AM
I thought we've made 26.3% of our 3s during conference play? That's what Sport Reference is showing...

Yeah, 26.3% is correct. The 20 for 101 is just the last four games.


We've digressed from a "not good" 3pt shooting team to an atrocious one.

I assume you mean "regressed," and assuming I'm correct I disagree. Four games of poor shooting is not a regression (either in its technical meaning or it's commonly used meaning of going backwards). It's a slump. As bad as we are, we're not a 9% three-point shooting team, or even a 20% three-point shooting team, or even a 26.3% three-point shooting team. Those numbers will regress to the mean. I mean, the game before our four-game slump, we shot 45.8% from three.


We are, right now, probably the worst Power 6 conference team at 3s.

Texas A&M is worse. But we're currently #329th in the nation at 3-point pct, so there aren't many teams of any kind that are shooting worse than we are.

In the end, I think (as others have said) it's the percentage of threes we take, not the percentage we make. For a 30% to 33% three-point shooting team, using 37% of your shot attempts for three-pointers is inefficient. We lost to Syracuse in large part because we took 53.8% of our shots from three and only made 20.9% of them. We won against Virginia in part because despite shooting 14.3% from three we only used 27.5% of our shots on three-pointers. If we can drop our % of threes taken to low 30s (from 37%) then I'm not concerned (frankly, I'm not really concerned either way, so long as we continue to keep our eFG% in the mid-50s).

BoiseDevil
01-28-2019, 11:35 AM
It feels like this thread is the age-old “Achilles heel” of this team thread.

We’ll lose in the tourney due to 3-point shooting or free-throw shooting or quick guards will shred our D. List enough reasons from enough posters and someone is bound to be Nostradamus.

When I look at this team, I see solid evidence that they have “many ways to win”. We’ve seen Cam hit a dagger at FSU, Jack White glue some winning plays together early season, RJ/Zion outscore entire teams, team D and inside scoring take down UVA. Very few Duke teams outside our championship years could win in such a variety of ways. I think our key to #6 is building off the variety of ways to win.

If we can add 1 or 2 more methods (and I’d suggest the following) we can avoid Mercer or Derek Williams or LSU or West Virginia:

- elevation of another elite defender in addition to Tre Jones (my guess is Javin or RJ or Jack, Cam is already close) can prevent someone from “going off” on us a la Derek Williams/McCollum
- someone emerges as a volume 40% 3-point shooter (Cam, Jack, AOC)
- someone drops 20+ points when either RJ or Zion have an off day (Tre, Cam or AOC), the reliable, efficient 3rd scorer
- K adds a lineup wrinkle to bust up zone teams (plays Javin, Z, Cam, RJ, Tre, AOC) run after every make/rebound and put Cam/RJ up top of a 2-1-2 zone with Zion in the middle, even with tiny AOC and Tre on the bottom of the zone, good luck trying to get the ball over the top with Zion in the middle, if a ball does make it over the top Tre is uncanny when it comes to pokes/strips/steals

Likely the rantings of a lunatic, but If given the choice I’d rather pontificate on why we win #6 versus why we won’t.

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 11:42 AM
The opponents are definitely factoring into the tough shooting. I took a look at the 7 worst 3-point shooting games from Duke and the overall defensive efficiency rating and 3-point defense of those teams. Here's what I found:

- Eastern Michigan: Duke shot 5-24 from 3. EMU is ranked 175th in defensive efficiency overall (using T-Rank) and 221st in 3P% defense.
- Hartford: Duke shot 5-26 from 3. Hartford is 253rd in defensive efficiency and 172nd in 3P% defense.
- Yale: Duke shot 5-21 from 3. Yale is 83rd in defensive efficiency and 47th in 3P% defense.
- Texas Tech: Duke shot 3-20 from 3. TTU is 2nd in defensive efficiency and 3rd in 3P% defense.
- Syracuse: Duke shot 9-43 from 3. Syracuse is 18th in defensive efficiency and 41st in 3P% defense.
- Virginia: Duke shot 2-14 from 3. UVA is 1st in defensive efficiency and 1st in 3P% defense.
- Georgia Tech: Duke shot 2-21 from 3. GA Tech is 15th overall in defensive efficiency and 4th overall in 3P% defense.

Some of these games, especially early on, Duke was just cold. But Duke has also faced 3 of the 4 toughest 3-point defensive units in the nation. Pitt is no slouch, either, checking in at 17th in the nation. Gonzaga is 24th, which means Duke has faced 5 of the best 3-point defensive units in the nation so far on the season. Duke is 14th, by the way. You could make a strong argument that Duke is hurt in part by its schedule. The team is not great at shooting, and going against the best defenders is only further hurting them.

I wonder what those #s look like if our games our excluded. Or put another way, based on their 3p% defense how much worse were we than would have been expected?

UrinalCake
01-28-2019, 11:53 AM
It feels like this thread is the age-old “Achilles heel” of this team thread. We’ll lose in the tourney due to 3-point shooting or free-throw shooting or quick guards will shred our D. List enough reasons from enough posters and someone is bound to be Nostradamus.


What's funny is that for many, many years the thing we worried about most was OVER-reliance on the three. We shot the three so well throughout the season that we always worried we would have a cold game in the tournament and have no other way to score. I remember some threads a while back in which many smart folks posted statistical evidence that three point shooting has a higher degree of variance than two point shooting and therefore makes us more susceptible to an upset due to randomness. Before Villanova last year, people presented all kinds of evidence that no team that relies so heavily on the three had ever won the tournament. And the other thing we constantly worried about was defense. Again, the past several years we would always go into the tournament with people posting stats that said no team with a defense ranked XXX has ever won the title.

So it's kind of ironic to me that we now have a team that doesn't rely on the three ball and that defends at an elite level, and the response of so many fans is to worry about how we're ever going to win the tournament WITHOUT shooting threes.

DavidBenAkiva
01-28-2019, 12:25 PM
What's funny is that for many, many years the thing we worried about most was OVER-reliance on the three. We shot the three so well throughout the season that we always worried we would have a cold game in the tournament and have no other way to score. I remember some threads a while back in which many smart folks posted statistical evidence that three point shooting has a higher degree of variance than two point shooting and therefore makes us more susceptible to an upset due to randomness. Before Villanova last year, people presented all kinds of evidence that no team that relies so heavily on the three had ever won the tournament. And the other thing we constantly worried about was defense. Again, the past several years we would always go into the tournament with people posting stats that said no team with a defense ranked XXX has ever won the title.

So it's kind of ironic to me that we now have a team that doesn't rely on the three ball and that defends at an elite level, and the response of so many fans is to worry about how we're ever going to win the tournament WITHOUT shooting threes.

What, you expected the DBR forumers were just going to blissfully gloss over something? We are destined to fret!

The point of my original post was that Duke's offense is efficient enough to not be so concerned about the 3-point shooting. In my mind, it is a concern, but a minor one. Because the team is so efficient inside the arc, because the team generates so many easy looks at the basket through steals and blocks and the force of nature that is Zion Williamson, because the team has so many scoring weapons, the poor shooting from distance is an obstacle the team can and has overcome. It would be nice if the team shoots better from distance and there is some hope that the shooting will improve.

But we are worry worts. I should have known!

sagegrouse
01-28-2019, 12:44 PM
One thing I was noticing about the recent stretch of games is that Duke has shot particularly poorly at home.

.
Interesting quote from K at the post-game presser on Saturday:


I’ve been doing this for a number of years, and sometimes in these 12 o’clock games, the home team isn’t as ready. I remember going to Louisville when we won in 2015, they weren’t in it. But also, their crowd was just a crowd. Our fans were our sixth man today. That combination of things produced a win. Thank goodness.

flyingdutchdevil
01-28-2019, 12:50 PM
Yeah, 26.3% is correct. The 20 for 101 is just the last four games.



I assume you mean "regressed," and assuming I'm correct I disagree. Four games of poor shooting is not a regression (either in its technical meaning or it's commonly used meaning of going backwards). It's a slump. As bad as we are, we're not a 9% three-point shooting team, or even a 20% three-point shooting team, or even a 26.3% three-point shooting team. Those numbers will regress to the mean. I mean, the game before our four-game slump, we shot 45.8% from three.

I was referring to non-conference vs conference. We clearly have regressed (not digressed, thanks ;)) in ACC play are 3pt effectiveness. 7 games isn't a lot, but it's telling.


Texas A&M is worse. But we're currently #329th in the nation at 3-point pct, so there aren't many teams of any kind that are shooting worse than we are.

In the end, I think (as others have said) it's the percentage of threes we take, not the percentage we make. For a 30% to 33% three-point shooting team, using 37% of your shot attempts for three-pointers is inefficient. We lost to Syracuse in large part because we took 53.8% of our shots from three and only made 20.9% of them. We won against Virginia in part because despite shooting 14.3% from three we only used 27.5% of our shots on three-pointers. If we can drop our % of threes taken to low 30s (from 37%) then I'm not concerned (frankly, I'm not really concerned either way, so long as we continue to keep our eFG% in the mid-50s).

Surprised there is a team worse than us in conference play!

I'm not really sure what you're points are; I believe we are saying very similar things.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 01:03 PM
What, you expected the DBR forumers were just going to blissfully gloss over something? We are destined to fret!

The point of my original post was that Duke's offense is efficient enough to not be so concerned about the 3-point shooting. In my mind, it is a concern, but a minor one. Because the team is so efficient inside the arc, because the team generates so many easy looks at the basket through steals and blocks and the force of nature that is Zion Williamson, because the team has so many scoring weapons, the poor shooting from distance is an obstacle the team can and has overcome. It would be nice if the team shoots better from distance and there is some hope that the shooting will improve.

But we are worry worts. I should have known!

Yeah, if people really want a short term trend to worry about, the fact that our fast break game completely broke down against Georgia Tech, Pitt, and Syracuse -- and has been way down throughout ACC play--16.5% of our points via fast break in conference games vs. 28.6% of our points via fast-break in non-conference games -- is probably a more pressing issue (so to speak). Our three fewest fast break point performances have come in our last four games; six of our eight fewest have come in our last seven games (and one of the other two was Gonzaga).

Hopefully once Tre gets fully back up to speed we'll go back to getting those easy fast break points, because that's at least as important (if not more) for our eFG% as our three-point shooting.



Game FB pts %pts
Kentucky 26 22.0%
Army 15 16.0%
Eastern Mich 29 34.5%
San Diego St 25 27.8%
Auburn 31 39.7%
Gonzaga 14 16.1%
Indiana 20 22.2%
Stetson 34 30.1%
Hartford 36 42.9%
Yale 31 34.1%
Princeton 24 23.8%
Texas Tech 29 42.0%
Clemson 17 19.5%
Wake Forest 14 16.1%
Florida St 21 26.3%
Syracuse 11 12.1%
Virginia 15 20.8%
Pitt 8 10.1%
Georgia Tech 7 10.6%

CDu
01-28-2019, 01:06 PM
Yeah, if people really want a short term trend to worry about, the fact that our fast break game completely broke down against Georgia Tech, Pitt, and Syracuse -- and has been way down throughout ACC play--16.5% of our points via fast break in conference games vs. 28.6% of our points via fast-break in non-conference games -- is probably a more pressing issue (so to speak). Our three fewest fast break point performances have come in our last four games; six of our eight fewest have come in our last seven games (and one of the other two was Gonzaga).

Hopefully once Tre gets fully back up to speed we'll go back to getting those easy fast break points, because that's at least as important (if not more) for our eFG% as our three-point shooting.



Game FB pts %pts
Kentucky 26 22.0%
Army 15 16.0%
Eastern Mich 29 34.5%
San Diego St 25 27.8%
Auburn 31 39.7%
Gonzaga 14 16.1%
Indiana 20 22.2%
Stetson 34 30.1%
Hartford 36 42.9%
Yale 31 34.1%
Princeton 24 23.8%
Texas Tech 29 42.0%
Clemson 17 19.5%
Wake Forest 14 16.1%
Florida St 21 26.3%
Syracuse 11 12.1%
Virginia 15 20.8%
Pitt 8 10.1%
Georgia Tech 7 10.6%


Well, the two are intertwined. If we were a good shooting team, not getting fast breaks would be fine. When we are a good fast break team, not being a good shooting team is fine. We can probably survive either one by itself; we just can’t fall off in both categories.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 01:10 PM
Well, the two are intertwined. If we were a good shooting team, not getting fast breaks would be fine. When we are a good fast break team, not being a good shooting team is fine. We can probably survive either one by itself; we just can’t fall off in both categories.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. That's why I brought it up in this thread.

Steven43
01-28-2019, 01:11 PM
So it's kind of ironic to me that we now have a team that doesn't rely on the three ball and the response of so many fans is to worry about how we're ever going to win the tournament WITHOUT shooting threes.
I’m not sure your analysis of the concern of many DBR posters is accurate. If I have understood correctly it seems the concern is not that Duke can’t win without shooting threes. No, the concern is that Duke shoots a lot of threes and is very bad at it, so stop shooting so many threes because those misses are wasted possessions and too many wasted possessions could end up causing Duke to lose a game in the Tournament that they otherwise would not have lost.

The world’s worst run-on sentence, yes, but I think you get the gist of it.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 01:11 PM
Well, the two are intertwined. If we were a good shooting team, not getting fast breaks would be fine. When we are a good fast break team, not being a good shooting team is fine. We can probably survive either one by itself; we just can’t fall off in both categories.

One thing appears to be happening.....teams are fouling early on what would be fast break chances. I'm not sure if it's happening enough to greatly impact these figures....but it's happening enough to notice.

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 01:18 PM
Yeah, if people really want a short term trend to worry about, the fact that our fast break game completely broke down against Georgia Tech, Pitt, and Syracuse -- and has been way down throughout ACC play--16.5% of our points via fast break in conference games vs. 28.6% of our points via fast-break in non-conference games -- is probably a more pressing issue (so to speak). Our three fewest fast break point performances have come in our last four games; six of our eight fewest have come in our last seven games (and one of the other two was Gonzaga).

Hopefully once Tre gets fully back up to speed we'll go back to getting those easy fast break points, because that's at least as important (if not more) for our eFG% as our three-point shooting.



Game FB pts %pts
Kentucky 26 22.0%
Army 15 16.0%
Eastern Mich 29 34.5%
San Diego St 25 27.8%
Auburn 31 39.7%
Gonzaga 14 16.1%
Indiana 20 22.2%
Stetson 34 30.1%
Hartford 36 42.9%
Yale 31 34.1%
Princeton 24 23.8%
Texas Tech 29 42.0%
Clemson 17 19.5%
Wake Forest 14 16.1%
Florida St 21 26.3%
Syracuse 11 12.1%
Virginia 15 20.8%
Pitt 8 10.1%
Georgia Tech 7 10.6%


Something that I feel like I've noticed the last few games is that we aren't making as many good decisions on the break in terms of when to give up the ball. Nothing I've seen ventures into "selfish" play, so let's not go there, but the kind of thing where we miss that extra pass that goes from a 75% play to a 90% play (made up numbers). I feel like we were making those passes earlier in the season. Of course, we also see somegreat passes on the break so it isn't always an issue, but I have noticed some guys forcing the issue all the way to the basket when they probably could have passed to someone else for a much easier transition bucket.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 01:22 PM
One thing appears to be happening...teams are fouling early on what would be fast break chances. I'm not sure if it's happening enough to greatly impact these figures...but it's happening enough to notice.

I don't know. Our free throw rate hasn't gone up (except in the UVa game because they intentionally fouled us for awhile at the end of the game). In fact, our free throw rate during conference games (33.3%) is a bit lower than our FTR during non-conference games (36.0%).



Game FB pts %pts FTR
Kentucky 26 22.0% 36.7%
Army 15 16.0% 18.1%
Eastern Mich 29 34.5% 20.8%
San Diego St 25 27.8% 59.6%
Auburn 31 39.7% 63.0%
Gonzaga 14 16.1% 36.1%
Indiana 20 22.2% 46.0%
Stetson 34 30.1% 23.1%
Hartford 36 42.9% 18.8%
Yale 31 34.1% 46.3%
Princeton 24 23.8% 37.3%
Texas Tech 29 42.0% 41.7%
Clemson 17 19.5% 31.3%
Wake Forest 14 16.1% 25.8%
Florida St 21 26.3% 23.1%
Syracuse 11 12.1% 33.8%
Virginia 15 20.8% 60.9%
Pitt 8 10.1% 30.8%
Georgia Tech 7 10.6% 32.8%

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 01:23 PM
Something that I feel like I've noticed the last few games is that we aren't making as many good decisions on the break in terms of when to give up the ball. Nothing I've seen ventures into "selfish" play, so let's not go there, but the kind of thing where we miss that extra pass that goes from a 75% play to a 90% play (made up numbers). I feel like we were making those passes earlier in the season. Of course, we also see somegreat passes on the break so it isn't always an issue, but I have noticed some guys forcing the issue all the way to the basket when they probably could have passed to someone else for a much easier transition bucket.

Does your observation coincide with Tre Jones sitting out?

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 01:40 PM
Does your observation coincide with Tre Jones sitting out?

I honestly can't remember when I first started noticing it, probably (if it was before that it was only one or two games). Regardless, it tends to be Cam/Zion/RJ who are guilty of this, all of whom (correctly) believe they can get to the basket but sometimes miss easier plays. The easiest way to explain it is that we'll sort of do a give-and-go, except we just do the "give" part, and the guy who made the pass now has a wide open path to the goal but never gets the ball back. We still score on some of these possessions, and like I said it isn't some kind of blatant ballhogging, but we have a tendency to miss the one extra pass on the break that would make things so much easier.

camion
01-28-2019, 02:04 PM
I work for a PhD statistician and have discussed statistics with her at length. (This means I generally sit and listen.)

One thing I have learned is that with small sample sizes you may draw conclusions with confidence as long as you are careful of one thing...


Don't take any more measurements. :)

Nugget
01-28-2019, 02:06 PM
Yeah, if people really want a short term trend to worry about, the fact that our fast break game completely broke down against Georgia Tech, Pitt, and Syracuse -- and has been way down throughout ACC play--16.5% of our points via fast break in conference games vs. 28.6% of our points via fast-break in non-conference games -- is probably a more pressing issue (so to speak). Our three fewest fast break point performances have come in our last four games; six of our eight fewest have come in our last seven games (and one of the other two was Gonzaga).

Hopefully once Tre gets fully back up to speed we'll go back to getting those easy fast break points, because that's at least as important (if not more) for our eFG% as our three-point shooting.

Yes, I think one clear factor is that without Tre while we may have continued to force TOs at a high rate, they weren't coming in as many live ball situations, so we haven't been getting as many easily-finishable runouts.

Also, Coach K made a point about this in his post-Ga Tech press conference that other teams are changing their defensive approach to our ball-handlers on the break and our guys haven't adjusted. Anecdotally, that has felt true to me watching the last few games -- that we've had slightly more instances of not cashing in on fast break opportunities due to a little bit less passing on the break making the finishes more contested. Obviously, when Zion goes beast-mode on 4 guys like he did against Virginia, that's fine. But, I think K is looking for guys to do a little less 1 on 2 on the break and a little more passing.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 02:09 PM
I don't know. Our free throw rate hasn't gone up (except in the UVa game because they intentionally fouled us for awhile at the end of the game). In fact, our free throw rate during conference games (33.3%) is a bit lower than our FTR during non-conference games (36.0%).



Game FB pts %pts FTR
Kentucky 26 22.0% 36.7%
Army 15 16.0% 18.1%
Eastern Mich 29 34.5% 20.8%
San Diego St 25 27.8% 59.6%
Auburn 31 39.7% 63.0%
Gonzaga 14 16.1% 36.1%
Indiana 20 22.2% 46.0%
Stetson 34 30.1% 23.1%
Hartford 36 42.9% 18.8%
Yale 31 34.1% 46.3%
Princeton 24 23.8% 37.3%
Texas Tech 29 42.0% 41.7%
Clemson 17 19.5% 31.3%
Wake Forest 14 16.1% 25.8%
Florida St 21 26.3% 23.1%
Syracuse 11 12.1% 33.8%
Virginia 15 20.8% 60.9%
Pitt 8 10.1% 30.8%
Georgia Tech 7 10.6% 32.8%


Total FT rate is of course dependent on many values. I am sticking by my assertion that teams are fouling us early on potential breakouts......and there's not been the need to foul us much in the half court, especially for zone teams.

Nugget
01-28-2019, 02:10 PM
Something that I feel like I've noticed the last few games is that we aren't making as many good decisions on the break in terms of when to give up the ball. Nothing I've seen ventures into "selfish" play, so let's not go there, but the kind of thing where we miss that extra pass that goes from a 75% play to a 90% play (made up numbers). I feel like we were making those passes earlier in the season. Of course, we also see somegreat passes on the break so it isn't always an issue, but I have noticed some guys forcing the issue all the way to the basket when they probably could have passed to someone else for a much easier transition bucket.

I can't quantify it, but I share that anecdotal observation.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 04:17 PM
Total FT rate is of course dependent on many values. I am sticking by my assertion that teams are fouling us early on potential breakouts...and there's not been the need to foul us much in the half court, especially for zone teams.

Maybe. It's a difficult claim to prove or disprove directly (though frankly my eye test hasn't noticed it as much as you seem to have, either). But we're scoring 13 fewer fast break points per game in league play than we did in non-con play. If opponents were fouling us enough to stop 6 or 7 baskets per game, you'd think our FT rate would go up (or at least I'd think it).

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 04:24 PM
Maybe. It's a difficult claim to prove or disprove directly (though frankly my eye test hasn't noticed it as much as you seem to have, either). But we're scoring 13 fewer fast break points per game in league play than we did in non-con play. If opponents were fouling us enough to stop 6 or 7 baskets per game, you'd think our FT rate would go up (or at least I'd think it).

Could be that we are getting fouled less in other areas of the game (and given that several recent games have included a lot of 3s that wouldn't be entirely surprising), so we are shooting more foul shots in transition but less in half-court play, roughly balancing out. Given that we aren't a very good free throw shooting team, shooting foul shots on the break rather than getting a clean look probably would lower our fast break scoring (though it might not explain the full 13, but you could explain some of the decrease with improved opponents and some with random variance and maybe get there). This is just speculation, I haven't looked to see if any stats would back this up.

InSpades
01-28-2019, 04:47 PM
It's difficult to compare 2pt efficiency to 3pt efficiency... there are many extenuating circumstances. Part of the reason we are a great 2pt shooting team is we get a lot of transition baskets. Those are high percentage shots. We'd love to have more of them but that's not really something you can turn on with a switch. If we took less 3s and more 2s we wouldn't really get more of these fast break dunks... On the other side of the coin we probably get more rebounds on our 2s than on our 3s. How many times has Zion or RJ gotten his own miss inside and put it right back in? A lot. We also get fouled a lot more on our 2pt shots. Let's ignore these extenuating circumstances for a minute...

We score something like 1.18 points per shot on 2s. We score about .91 points per shot on 3s. In order to equal our 2pt efficiency we'd need to make close to 40% of our 3s. We are nowhere near a 40% team from 3. Alex is shooting about 35%, Cam at 33%, RJ and Jack at 31% and Zion at 27%. J-Rob is 4 of 9 for 44% but until he starts getting significant minutes we can safely say that none of our 3pt shooters are more efficient than our 2pt offense.

This isn't to say we shouldn't be shooting 3s. It does seem to say we shouldn't be shooting 3s early in the shot clock. We would be much better off working for a 2pt shot and then maybe settling for a 3.

What if the other team dares us to shoot from 3? I think this is the issue. If we are incapable of shooting from outside then it makes it harder for us to drive. So there is a mix of settling for 3s and forcing the drive when there's 5 guys in the lane waiting for you.

They say the long 2pt shot is the worst shot in basketball but maybe not for this team? Would we be a better shooting team from say... 15 feet than 21 feet? We would only need to shoot 45% from 15 feet to end up w/ the same amount of points as 30% from 2. Is 15 feet enough to spread the court? RJ in particular seems a lot more confident shooting from a bit in front of the 3pt line. Alex seems to have good touch from there as well. I'm not sure I've seen Jack shoot a long 2 ever... he takes 80% of his shots from 3 and there's a few dunks/layups in there as well.

I think we mostly all agree... more 2s, less 3s = more wins. For now it would be nice if we could break out of our 3pt slump as we've obviously regressed a bit from early in the year.

I'm sure the team will figure it out. Great defense + really good offense = lots of wins.

uh_no
01-28-2019, 04:53 PM
Maybe. It's a difficult claim to prove or disprove directly (though frankly my eye test hasn't noticed it as much as you seem to have, either). But we're scoring 13 fewer fast break points per game in league play than we did in non-con play. If opponents were fouling us enough to stop 6 or 7 baskets per game, you'd think our FT rate would go up (or at least I'd think it).

There were maybe once or twice in the past couple games I saw fouls....not eonugh to noticeably affect the numbers.

I DO think that teams are being far less lazy with their passes around the perimeter, and in general, you'd expect ACC teams to be able to adjust and limit turnovers better than the december scrubs.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 05:06 PM
Maybe. It's a difficult claim to prove or disprove directly (though frankly my eye test hasn't noticed it as much as you seem to have, either). But we're scoring 13 fewer fast break points per game in league play than we did in non-con play. If opponents were fouling us enough to stop 6 or 7 baskets per game, you'd think our FT rate would go up (or at least I'd think it).

Again, not necessarily....I think the fouling early has caused a disruption in the transition tempo, and I don't think Duke is running the transition as well either. Then the games are slowing down anyway, and I think it's those three factors leading to the sharp reduction in FB points.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 05:24 PM
...and in general, you'd expect ACC teams to be able to adjust and limit turnovers better than the december scrubs.

Sure, but we scored 42% of our points on fast breaks against Texas Tech and 40% against Auburn. Plus 20+% against Kentucky and Indiana. It wasn't all December scrubs.


Could be that we are getting fouled less in other areas of the game (and given that several recent games have included a lot of 3s that wouldn't be entirely surprising), so we are shooting more foul shots in transition but less in half-court play, roughly balancing out. Given that we aren't a very good free throw shooting team, shooting foul shots on the break rather than getting a clean look probably would lower our fast break scoring (though it might not explain the full 13, but you could explain some of the decrease with improved opponents and some with random variance and maybe get there). This is just speculation, I haven't looked to see if any stats would back this up.

For the season, 37% of our shots have been threes. We've been at or below that average in every ACC game except Syracuse (in which we took 54% of our shots from three). So, except for against Syracuse, we haven't been shooting a lot of threes in recent games.

The fouls HBCK was hypothesizing about would have been before the fast break started, on the floor, and would have either been followed by an inbound play, a one-and-one free throw, or (after 10 fouls) two free throws. And likely those free throws, if made, wouldn't have been counted as fast break points, which I believe is HBCK's main point. But they would count in free throw rate, which is why I noted that FTR hasn't increased. There's no readily available way to prove or disprove the idea that teams are fouling on six more would-be fast-break baskets per game and six less somewhere else (so as not to increase overall free throws), but it seems kind of far-fetched to me.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 05:27 PM
The fouls HBCK was hypothesizing about would have been before the fast break started, on the floor, and would have either been followed by an inbound play, a one-and-one free throw, or (after 10 fouls) two free throws. And likely those free throws, if made, wouldn't have been counted as fast break points, which I believe is HBCK's main point. But they would count in free throw rate, which is why I noted that FTR hasn't increased. There's no readily available way to prove or disprove the idea that teams are fouling on six more would-be fast-break baskets per game and six less somewhere else (so as not to increase overall free throws), but it seems kind of far-fetched to me.

To clarify: I don't think they are fouling early on six per game...I think maybe two a game...I think we're losing another 2-3 fast breaks on a reduced conversion rate from the blistering pace we had early....and I think we're losing another couple a game because of the other team being conservative on offense and slowing the pace down. I think there are several contributory reasons for the reduced fast break points, and I think fouling early is but one of them. I also think fouling early keeps us from getting momentum.

Kedsy
01-28-2019, 06:05 PM
To clarify: I don't think they are fouling early on six per game...I think maybe two a game...I think we're losing another 2-3 fast breaks on a reduced conversion rate from the blistering pace we had early...and I think we're losing another couple a game because of the other team being conservative on offense and slowing the pace down. I think there are several contributory reasons for the reduced fast break points, and I think fouling early is but one of them. I also think fouling early keeps us from getting momentum.

Based on the number of possessions in our recent slow games vs. the number of possessions in previous games, reduced pace would only explain approximately one lost fast break basket per game, and only in the past three games (before that our pace was up even while our percentage of fast break points was down). To your second point, according to Hoop-Math, our FG% at the rim on transition opportunities is about 71.5% for the season. Also according to Hoop-Math, about one-third of our transition takes were threes (and we've made 37% of those threes!), but I assume the "reduced conversion rate" you're talking about is on two-point attempts. Using the H-M numbers, we take on average about 15 transition two attempts per game and covert 10 or 11 of them. To lose two to three of those made baskets would drop our FG% on such shots to 8 of 15, or 53%, and sorry but I can't imagine we've dropped that much. Again, maybe one per game (though probably not even that much, IMO). So even under your definition of where we're losing fast break baskets, the non-foul factors can only explain two of six fewer baskets. And if fouling were taking away four fewer baskets (which would take more than four fouls because we only take 66.5% of our transition opportunities at the rim and we only hit 71.5% of those at-the-rim opportunities), that much extra fouling would almost have to show up in the free throw rate.

I think the true answer must lie in the fact that teams are simply getting better at keeping us from fast-break opportunities, and the loss of Tre Jones for three games (and perhaps not fully up to speed in his first game back) has hampered our ability to get out and run. Hopefully we figure it out because I do agree with CDu that if we continue to both shoot poorly from three and have reduced fast break opportunities, our offense will probably suffer.

DavidBenAkiva
01-28-2019, 08:55 PM
One thing I was noticing about the recent stretch of games is that Duke has shot particularly poorly at home.

During ACC play, Duke has made 20 of 101 (19.8%) of its 3's. On the road, the team has been shooting 25 of 70 (35.7%). It's a small sample size, including just 3 road games.

For the season, the team is hitting on 79 of 288 (27.4%) at home and 37 of 109 (33.9%) during its five games at neutral sites.

For whatever reason, Duke has shot the ball particularly poorly at home. Is the team more like a 33% 3-point shooting team or closer to the 27% 3/point shooting team it's been at home? That's a big question. If it is the 33% team, then it's going to make almost 1 point per shot attempt compared to just 0.81 as a 27% shooting team. Over the course of a game, that's worth about 4 points per 20 shot attempts. That margin could be all the difference in a single game.

OK, so I don't want to say "I told you so!" but I couldn't help notice the team shot 10-19 from 3 against Notre Dame tonight ON THE ROAD.

Small sample, yada yada

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 08:57 PM
I think the true answer must lie in the fact that teams are simply getting better at keeping us from fast-break opportunities, and the loss of Tre Jones for three games (and perhaps not fully up to speed in his first game back) has hampered our ability to get out and run. Hopefully we figure it out because I do agree with CDu that if we continue to both shoot poorly from three and have reduced fast break opportunities, our offense will probably suffer.

yes, I agree.......especially with this paragraph

BandAlum83
01-28-2019, 09:01 PM
Maybe. It's a difficult claim to prove or disprove directly (though frankly my eye test hasn't noticed it as much as you seem to have, either). But we're scoring 13 fewer fast break points per game in league play than we did in non-con play. If opponents were fouling us enough to stop 6 or 7 baskets per game, you'd think our FT rate would go up (or at least I'd think it).

Noticed one very early foul in the backcourt against RJ on live ball turnover. He was early in a run out.

UrinalCake
01-28-2019, 09:15 PM
DBR starts a thread claiming Cam should be benched... Cam has his best game and hits a game-winning three.

DBR starts a thread conceding that we are not a good three point shooting team... team shoots 10-19 from deep.

Time to start a thread declaring that we have NO chance at winning the title!

uh_no
01-28-2019, 09:35 PM
Noticed one very early foul in the backcourt against RJ on live ball turnover. He was early in a run out.

i explicitly recall at least 1 today, but thought there were 2.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 09:36 PM
DBR starts a thread claiming Cam should be benched... Cam has his best game and hits a game-winning three.

DBR starts a thread conceding that we are not a good three point shooting team... team shoots 10-19 from deep.

Time to start a thread declaring that we have NO chance at winning the title!

We can warm up to that one with a thread about how Jack White is too scared to shoot threes....

devildeac
01-28-2019, 10:34 PM
OK, so I don't want to say "I told you so!" but I couldn't help notice the team shot 10-19 from 3 against Notre Dame tonight ON THE ROAD.

Small sample, yada yada

Now, if we could only shoot FT...


(:rolleyes:)

Steven43
01-29-2019, 12:37 AM
Now, if we could only shoot FT...


(:rolleyes:)

Now you’re talking! I’m ready to make this the next obsession.

Kedsy
01-29-2019, 12:54 AM
Now you’re talking! I’m ready to make this the next obsession.

I really think the next obsession should be our sudden inability to get fast break points (worst fast break performance of the season tonight), but y'all go with whatever you want.

Steven43
01-29-2019, 01:16 AM
I really think the next obsession should be our sudden inability to get fast break points (worst fast break performance of the season tonight), but y'all go with whatever you want.
You know what? I think you’re right.

DavidBenAkiva
01-29-2019, 08:57 AM
I really think the next obsession should be our sudden inability to get fast break points (worst fast break performance of the season tonight), but y'all go with whatever you want.

Not to sound like I have any deep insight into these things, but I glean a lot from looking at the "Four Factors" and how teams stack up nationally. The four factors, if you haven't heard, are 1) effective field goal percentage, 2) turnover percentage, 3) offensive rebounding percentage, and 4) free throw rate. Notre Dame is 5th in the nation in turnover rate on offense. They do not cough up the ball. Coincidentally, they are 305th in the nation in defensive turnover rate, so they don't force many turnovers, either. It was no surprise, then, that Virginia only turned the ball over twice on Saturday and that Duke only forced a handful against Notre Dame.

Also a coincidence, St. John's is 4th in the nation in offensive turnover percentage, just ahead of Notre Dame. So don't expect to see many steals and charges drawn on Saturday.

UrinalCake
01-29-2019, 10:06 AM
I really think the next obsession should be our sudden inability to get fast break points (worst fast break performance of the season tonight), but y'all go with whatever you want.

I would chalk this up to 1.) Tre being out, and still not playing with his full level of aggression since returning 2.) a run where we happened to face a bunch of really slow, defensive-minded teams as you’ve pointed out in your postgame advanced stats 3.) opponents learning that slowing our transition game is absolutely essential and therefore conceding some rebounds on the offensive end in order to get back and prevent our transition breaks (although ND still managed to rebound well offensively yesterday).

Rich
01-29-2019, 10:10 AM
Now, if we could only shoot FT...


(:rolleyes:)


Now you’re talking! I’m ready to make this the next obsession.


I really think the next obsession should be our sudden inability to get fast break points (worst fast break performance of the season tonight), but y'all go with whatever you want.

Nope, it's that we're peaking too soon. Poll time!

Matches
01-29-2019, 10:12 AM
Nope, it's that we're peaking too soon. Poll time!

See, I worry that our 3p%age last night will not be repeated in every game and that we will now have a false sense of security. I hate it when we win games! :)

Steven43
01-29-2019, 11:28 AM
See, I worry that our 3p%age last night will not be repeated in every game and that we will now have a false sense of security. I hate it when we win games! :)

Well said with great sarcasm. Keep it up and you just might get that elusive 11th spork.

Kedsy
01-29-2019, 12:26 PM
Not to sound like I have any deep insight into these things, but I glean a lot from looking at the "Four Factors" and how teams stack up nationally. The four factors, if you haven't heard, are 1) effective field goal percentage, 2) turnover percentage, 3) offensive rebounding percentage, and 4) free throw rate. Notre Dame is 5th in the nation in turnover rate on offense. They do not cough up the ball. Coincidentally, they are 305th in the nation in defensive turnover rate, so they don't force many turnovers, either. It was no surprise, then, that Virginia only turned the ball over twice on Saturday and that Duke only forced a handful against Notre Dame.

Also a coincidence, St. John's is 4th in the nation in offensive turnover percentage, just ahead of Notre Dame. So don't expect to see many steals and charges drawn on Saturday.

I assume most people participating in threads like this have heard of the four factors. The factor we've been talking about in this thread is eFG%. What fuels a high eFG% are "easy points." Shooting threes at a high percentage is one way, getting lots of layups and dunks is one way, and getting lots of fast breaks points is another. Yesterday our offense was fantastic despite a lack of fast break points because we shot very well from three and still had a good number of layups/dunks.

We were also strong on the offensive boards last night. But in a future big game if we're only OK at getting to the line (Duke is 156th in the country at free throw rate, despite having both Zion and RJ slashing to the rim), have an off-night offensive rebounding (in fully half our ACC games we've collected less than 31.5% of available offensive rebounds), and shoot our normal three-percentage, while an opponent packs in the paint (presumably hindering our ability to get easy layups and dunks) and also stops our fast break ability, our offense becomes less effective without any method of collecting easy points. Sure, that's a lot of things that have to go wrong at once, but isn't that what DBR is all about?

The good news is our defense is good enough to keep it a tight game even if all those offensive things go wrong. But if we're trying to find something to worry about (and I'm not, to be entirely honest, I'm just talking out loud here), since poor three-point shooting and an opposing team's ability to effectively pack the paint (thus hindering our ability to both score easily inside and offensively rebound) are somewhat related, the distinguishing, unrelated factor is our ability to get easy fast break points. That's why I brought it up.

wsb3
01-29-2019, 12:29 PM
Notre Dame is 5th in the nation in turnover rate on offense.

Trying to remember exactly what Bilas said last night about the sign in the ND Locker room..

Don't skip class and don't turn the ball over and we will get along just fine.

I do not care for ND in football. My least favorite team after UNC but because of Brey I pull for them in basketball. He just comes off as such a likable guy & while I am not a big non fiction reader I am putting on the list to read his book that was mentioned last night.

Rich
01-29-2019, 12:54 PM
I assume most people participating in threads like this have heard of the four factors. The factor we've been talking about in this thread is eFG%. What fuels a high eFG% are "easy points." Shooting threes at a high percentage is one way, getting lots of layups and dunks is one way, and getting lots of fast breaks points is another. Yesterday our offense was fantastic despite a lack of fast break points because we shot very well from three and still had a good number of layups/dunks.

We were also strong on the offensive boards last night. But in a future big game if we're only OK at getting to the line (Duke is 156th in the country at free throw rate, despite having both Zion and RJ slashing to the rim), have an off-night offensive rebounding (in fully half our ACC games we've collected less than 31.5% of available offensive rebounds), and shoot our normal three-percentage, while an opponent packs in the paint (presumably hindering our ability to get easy layups and dunks) and also stops our fast break ability, our offense becomes less effective without any method of collecting easy points. Sure, that's a lot of things that have to go wrong at once, but isn't that what DBR is all about?

The good news is our defense is good enough to keep it a tight game even if all those offensive things go wrong. But if we're trying to find something to worry about (and I'm not, to be entirely honest, I'm just talking out loud here), since poor three-point shooting and an opposing team's ability to effectively pack the paint (thus hindering our ability to both score easily inside and offensively rebound) are somewhat related, the distinguishing, unrelated factor is our ability to get easy fast break points. That's why I brought it up.

This seems to me to be a great incongruity and clear evidence that there is a double standard, particularly with Zion who is so much bigger and stronger and so easily able to play through contact that fouls aren't called as much as they should be.

jimsumner
01-29-2019, 12:58 PM
Trying to remember exactly what Bilas said last night about the sign in the ND Locker room..

Don't skip class and don't turn the ball over and we will get along just fine.

I do not care for ND in football. My least favorite team after UNC but because of Brey I pull for them in basketball. He just comes off as such a likable guy & while I am not a big non fiction reader I am putting on the list to read his book that was mentioned last night.

Brey is indeed very likeable. Approachable, without even a tiny hint of entitlement.

BandAlum83
01-29-2019, 01:14 PM
This seems to me to be a great incongruity and clear evidence that there is a double standard, particularly with Zion who is so much bigger and stronger and so easily able to play through contact that fouls aren't called as much as they should be.

^This^

HereBeforeCoachK
01-29-2019, 08:29 PM
Brey is indeed very likeable. Approachable, without even a tiny hint of entitlement.

Brey is great. I didn't think he'd turn out to be the amazing coach he has turned out to be, but I am happy for him. He's built one helluva career for himself at one of the nation's great universities, and made a lot of money doing it. Good for him. (and I still love the interview about the 2.1 seconds he did for ESPN's "The Laettner Game" documentary.....)