Cumulative Plus/Minus

[Jumbo]

Now complete through the 2007-08 season.

Individuals
Jon Scheyer +353 (2,036-1,683)
DeMarcus Nelson +345 (2,204-1,859)
Kyle Singler +342 (2,055-1,713)
Gerald Henderson +316 (1,839-1,523)
Greg Paulus +314 (1,954-1,640)
Taylor King +180 (721-541)
Nolan Smith +168 (1,041-873)
Lance Thomas +157 (1,164-1,007)
Brian Zoubek +101 (523-422)
Dave McClure +39 (491-452)
Martynas Pocius +19 (74-55)
Jordan Davidson +9 (46-37)

Per 40 Minutes
Martynas Pocius +23.8
Taylor King +21.8
Jordan Davidson +18.0
Brian Zoubek +15.4
Jon Scheyer +14.7
Gerald Henderson +14.2
Kyle Singler +14.1
Nolan Smith +13.4
Greg Paulus +13.3
DeMarcus Nelson +13.1
Lance Thomas +10.6
Dave McClure +5.8

Lineups (From most to least effective -- number of times used in parentheses.)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x79) 353-283 (+70)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x92) 438-376 (+62)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x32) 101-60 (+51)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Singler (x21) 76-52 (+24)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Singler (x9) 33-10 (+23)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x22) 86-66 (+20)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Singler (x18) 72-53 (+19)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Singler (x21) 57-41 (+16)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Zoubek (x10) 40-24 (+16)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x6) 26-10 (+16)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-King-Zoubek (x4) 35-19 (+16)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King (x2) 17-2 (+15)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Thomas (x9) 35-21 (+14)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler (x13) 46-33 (+13)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x5) 23-10 (+13)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek (x19) 74-62 (+12)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x13) 34-22 (+12)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Thomas (x11) 38-26 (+12)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x6) 23-12 (+11)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x43) 131-121 (+10)
Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-King-Thomas 13-4 (+9)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Zoubek (x10) 31-23 (+8)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-King (x5) 16-8 (+8)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-King-Thomas (x6) 20-13 (+7)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Zoubek (x2) 9-2 (+7)
Scheyer-Pocius-Nelson-King-Thomas 7-0 (+7)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Zoubek (x7) 18-12 (+6)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x6) 17-11 (+6)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas (x6) 16-10 (+6)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-King (x6) 13-7 (+6)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King (x7) 26-21 (+5)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-King (x6) 18-13 (+5)
Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King-Zoubek (x5) 16-11 (+5)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-King-Singler 9-4 (+5)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas (x23) 57-53 (+4)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Singler (x16) 50-46 (+4)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-King-Singler (x7) 21-17 (+4)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson (x4) 8-4 (+4)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x2) 7-3 (+4)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Nelson-King 6-2 (+4)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King-Singler (x4) 13-10 (+3)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek (x3) 7-4 (+3)
Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek 7-4 (+3)
Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-King-Singler 6-3 (+3)
Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-Henderson-Singler 3-0 (+3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Zoubek 3-0 (+3)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek (x14) 44-42 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Thomas (x9) 17-15 (+2)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x6) 19-17 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure (x5) 17-15 (+2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Zoubek (x3) 12-10 (+2)
Davidson-Smith-McClure-King-Zoubek (x3) 10-8 (+2)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x2) 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King-Thomas (x2) 2-0 (+2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-King-Singler (x2) 2-0 (+2)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King 6-4 (+2)
Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-King-Zoubek 5-3 (+2)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-King-Zoubek 4-2 (+2)
Paulus-Pocius-Henderson-McClure-King 2-0 (+2)
Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King 2-0 (+2)
Davidson-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler 2-0 (+2)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 2-0 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King (x8) 14-13 (+1)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x4) 10-9 (+1)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek (x3) 11-10 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Zoubek (x3) 5-4 (+1)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x3) 3-2 (+1)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-King-Zoubek 8-7 (+1)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Singler 4-3 (+1)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x31) 70-70 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek (x8) 12-12 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King (x5) 12-12 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-King (x4) 9-9 (0)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x3) 18-18 (0)
Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 9-9 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Zoubek (x2) 4-4 (0)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 4-4 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-McClure-Zoubek 3-3 (0)
Paulus-Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-King 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Nelson-King 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-King-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King-Singler 0-0 (0)
Smith-Nelson-McClure-King-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Davidson-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler 0-0 (0)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-McClure-King 0-0 (0)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-King 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Thomas 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 0-0 (0)
Davidson-Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Thomas (x8) 27-28 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x5) 5-6 (-1)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas (x2) 1-2 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek 3-4 (-1)
Smith-Pocius-Nelson-McClure-Singler 2-3 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-Pocius-Singler-Thomas 2-3 (-1)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-King-Zoubek 2-3 (-1)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-King-Zoubek 2-3 (-1)
Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King-Singler 0-1 (-1)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Thomas 0-1 (-1)
Paulus-Smith-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-1 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Singler (x7) 24-26 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek (x6) 13-15 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Zoubek (x4) 11-13 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas (x4) 3-5 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure (x3) 5-7 (-2)
Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-McClure-Thomas 1-3 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-King-Singler 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Pocius-Nelson-King-Singler 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Henderson-McClure-Thomas-Zoubek 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Thomas (x2) 0-2 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x24) 79-82 (-3)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x7) 10-13 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Thomas (x4) 3-6 (-3)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x3) 5-8 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Singler-Thomas (x2) 4-7 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure (x2) 0-3 (-3)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Thomas (x2) 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Scheyer-Pocius-Henderson-Thomas 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Pocius-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-Henderson 0-3 (-3)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler (x9) 21-25 (-4)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x4) 5-9 (-4)
Davidson-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-King (x4) 3-8 (-5)
Smith-Pocius-McClure-King-Zoubek 3-8 (-5)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 2-7 (-5)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King-Zoubek 0-5 (-5)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-King-Thomas (x4) 2-8 (-6)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas-Zoubek (x3) 2-8 (-6)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Thomas (x11) 25-32 (-7)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-King (x3) 5-13 (-8)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x15) 21-30 (-9)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-McClure-Singler (x5) 4-13 (-9)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler (x10) 16-34 (-18)

Net +/-

Name Net+/- +/-On +/-Off +/- +/- +/-
****** per 40 per 40 per 40 On Tot Off Tot Net Tot

King 10.65 21.82 11.17 180 289 -109
Pocius 10.25 23.75 13.50 19 450 -431
Davidson 4.32 18.00 13.68 9 460 -451
Scheyer 3.12 14.66 11.54 353 116 237
Zoubek 2.07 15.42 13.35 101 368 -267
Henderson 1.27 14.19 12.91 316 153 163
Singler 1.15 14.07 12.93 342 127 215
Smith -0.48 13.44 13.92 168 301 -133
Paulus -1.37 13.32 14.69 314 155 159
Nelson -2.67 13.13 15.80 345 124 221
Thomas -5.58 10.59 16.17 157 312 -155
McClure -9.86 5.82 15.68 39 430 -391

[DevilHorse]

Hey Jumbo,

I like the statistic, but it occurs to me that player efficiency might better be measured if you were to divide each of your resulting values by the number of minutes the player (or group of 5) plays.

Here's an example as to how the suggestion would remove time bias from your statistic. Assume that every combination on the floor outscores the opponent at the same rate. Based on this assumption, all players should be equally efficient regardless of minutes. That means that the net result will be the player with the most minutes has the highest number. Dividing by the number of minutes played would remove the bias.

The resulting numbers won't be nice integers, but you'd have a better relative measure of each player as a catalyst for efficient play in Net Points per Minute value.

Just a thought.

Larry
DevilHorse

[Jumbo]

Hey Jumbo,

I like the statistic, but it occurs to me that player efficiency might better be measured if you were to divide each of your resulting values by the number of minutes the player (or group of 5) plays.

Here's an example as to how the suggestion would remove time bias from your statistic. Assume that every combination on the floor outscores the opponent at the same rate. Based on this assumption, all players should be equally efficient regardless of minutes. That means that the net result will be the player with the most minutes has the highest number. Dividing by the number of minutes played would remove the bias.

The resulting numbers won't be nice integers, but you'd have a better relative measure of each player as a catalyst for efficient play in Net Points per Minute value.

Just a thought.

Larry
DevilHorse

For individuals, it's easy to do plus/minus on a per-minute basis. But I don't have the time or resources to track the amount of time a lineup spends on the floor together -- it's tough enough to track who is on the floor after subs have been made, let alone mark the exact time. If anyone else wants to track that, please do so. I'll do plus/minus per minute in a little while.

[throatybeard]

I don't understand these numbers, Jumbo. They seem to contradict numerous posters in the other thread who insist Coach K only ever uses 7 guys. I'm confused. :confused:

[SilkyJ]

dont get cocky throaty.

K really only used 8 guys the last 2 games, so its not much of a change. Technically he used 9, but King Taylor only played 3 minutes total so its really 8 players. And Z only played 5-6 minutes against marquette, and while I realize that was partially a product of the fact the size/style of the marquette frontcourt its still indicative of the fact that K still has this urge to stick with his smaller rotation...

[throatybeard]

Who is King Taylor?

[CDu]

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Jumbo. It'll be interesting to see how the +/- plays out. The five-game cumulative numbers look somewhat like what one would expect, with Singler, Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, and Nelson (arguably the five best Duke players) leading the way. King's and Zoubek's +/- look good, but they may be subject to a lot of volatility given their reduced minutes (comparatively). Still too early to tell, but as of now the numbers don't seem to support the idea that Smith should be playing ahead of Paulus.

Nice to see these in a cumulative format. I'm glad someone is taking the time to do it (I'm way too lazy), and I look forward to seeing how the numbers progress throughout the year.

[bdh21]

+/- per 40 minutes

Gerald Henderson +17.5
Kyle Singler +17.4
Taylor King +17.4
Greg Paulus +16.5
Jon Scheyer +15.3
Brian Zoubek +13.5
DeMarcus Nelson +11.4
Nolan Smith +5
Lance Thomas +4.6
Martynas Pocius -1.3

[DevilHorse]

+/- per 40 minutes

Gerald Henderson +17.5
Kyle Singler +17.4
Taylor King +17.4
Greg Paulus +16.5
Jon Scheyer +15.3
Brian Zoubek +13.5
DeMarcus Nelson +11.4
Nolan Smith +5
Lance Thomas +4.6
Martynas Pocius -1.3

Thanks bdh! It is interesting that Thomas graded lower than Zoubek.


Larry

[devildeac]

Outdated states deleted to shorten thread...

You are REALLY going to get yourself in trouble here, Jumbo. Folks are going to forget about PT for Marty and start advocating for 30+ minutes for JD and TK now that this round of stats has been posted. I don't think you know what mess you have entered into now:D .

[mgtr]

I think that the per minute analysis itself shows why it can be dangerous. Perhaps it should be based on a minimum number of minutes played. Of course, every such change just makes it more complicated to calculate and more complicated to explain.

[CDu]

I think that the per minute analysis itself shows why it can be dangerous. Perhaps it should be based on a minimum number of minutes played. Of course, every such change just makes it more complicated to calculate and more complicated to explain.

There isn't going to be a cure-all approach to presenting these numbers. Any approach is going to require some sophistication in analysis. I think the 40-minute approach is fine. Obviously we understand that Davidson's +/- is driven by a small sample of minutes against inferior competition. King's numbers are driven by a small sample and a really monster game.

Over the course of the season, we'll probably see those two drop back into the pack. However, it's very possible that King's numbers remain high. If Coach K uses him as a situational player and his minutes are based on his hothandedness, then he's probably always going to have a high +/-. If you only play a lot when you're on fire, your numbers will be biased upward.

But I think we're starting to see some more meaningful numbers as the players start to trend toward their true impact.

[pfrduke]

However, it's very possible that King's numbers remain high. If Coach K uses him as a situational player and his minutes are based on his hothandedness, then he's probably always going to have a high +/-. If you only play a lot when you're on fire, your numbers will be biased upward.

Remember that there's more to +/- than just an individual player's offensive production. Guys can be hot as can be from the field, but if their teammates are all putting up bricks and the other team is shooting similarly well, it's perfectly feasible for a player to have a huge scoring night and a small, or even negative, +/-. With King on Sunday, not only did he have 27, but his teammates had 28 during his floor time, and EKY put up just 17. All three needed to come together for a +38. But against Illinois, for example, Henderson was our leading scorer with 23 (and was decently efficient in getting there), but had one of the lower +/- on the team with a +5. King's having a high +/- was not a given, even with his stellar performance.

[CDu]

Remember that there's more to +/- than just an individual player's offensive production. Guys can be hot as can be from the field, but if their teammates are all putting up bricks and the other team is shooting similarly well, it's perfectly feasible for a player to have a huge scoring night and a small, or even negative, +/-. With King on Sunday, not only did he have 27, but his teammates had 28 during his floor time, and EKY put up just 17. All three needed to come together for a +38. But against Illinois, for example, Henderson was our leading scorer with 23 (and was decently efficient in getting there), but had one of the lower +/- on the team with a +5. King's having a high +/- was not a given, even with his stellar performance.

Yes, I understand how +/- works. My point was that the way King plays may lend itself to an "all-or-nothing" strategy with regard to his playing time. If he's hot and getting open, the team can keep him in the game and feed him for 3 after 3. If he's not hot, he can be left on the bench.

My hypothesis was because of this approach, his being hot may be more directly linked to offensive output than others, because by nature of his being hot he'll get more shots per minute. Thus, it's very possible that the team's +/- when he's on the floor (i.e., his +/-) will be biased upward because he is only in when he's red-hot and he scores in bunches (making the overall offensive output greater).

It could also work out that Coach K does not employ this strategy at all. It could also work out that teams adjust and prevent him from getting open shot after open shot when he's in the game. I was just presenting one possible outcome. It was just a loose hypothesis, not rigorously supported.

However, King's number currently IS buoyed by one tremendous outlier. The more likely occurrence is that this outlier will be somewhat muted as the sample gets larger, and his +/- per 40 will make more sense.

[loran16]

Its amazing....you tell me before i saw this that scheyer was one of our top stars this year, i'd say no Gerald or Singler is, but games like today and stats like these prove how valuable he is, and how his impact off the bench hasn't dropped at all.

[Dukiedevil]

Indviduals
Gerald Henderson +145
Jon Scheyer +138
Kyle Singler +125
Greg Paulus +125
Taylor King +113
DeMarcus Nelson +106


Very cool that there isn't much spread amongst our top 6 players. I think this makes us very difficult to gameplan against. It does show the importance of Scheyer and Henderson this year. I wonder if their numbers will level out some when we start playing more "athletic" teams? Henderson in particular relies heavily on his ability to out-jump the defense, but as of now, I'm not sure he won't be able to that against anyone he might be matched up against.



Indviduals
Lineups (From most effective to least effect -- number of times used in parentheses)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x32) 138-91 (+47)


Jumbo, I think the coaches might be reading your posts... For some reason, they are starting the 5 that have the highest +/- :)

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, I think the coaches might be reading your posts... For some reason, they are starting the 5 that have the highest +/- :)

Well, that lineup really has the highest plus/minus because that combination has been used more than any other. If you divide the +/- by number of times used, it's not our most effective lineup. The other interesting thing is that in many of the games, other than starting each half, that group hasn't played together much.

[mehmattski]

According to my calculations, Duke has so far used 76 of the possible 462 combinations possible with an 11 man lineup. Maybe Coach K will go for them all!

I'm looking forward to seeing how the Davidson-McClure-Pocius-Thomas-Zoubek lineup performs... or perhaps Henderson-Nelson-King-McClure-Singler.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through Michigan game...

[bd08]

We've got a lot of plus/minus numbers up, but frankly most of them don't really show which guys are the main catalysts for the team's success because they're either just aggregate (rather than per 40 minute) totals and none of them include performance when a guy is off the court. As such, here is the 82games.com version of what Net +/- for the (main 9 man rotation of the) team looks like (using Jumbo's aggregate numbers):

Net +/- On/40 Off/40 On Agg. Off Agg. Min
King 24.7 40.6 16.0 129 93 127
Henderson 11.8 29.7 17.9 153 69 206
Scheyer 3.5 25.8 22.3 158 64 245
Paulus 3.4 25.8 22.4 153 69 237
Singler -0.0 24.7 24.7 143 79 232
Smith -4.2 22.1 26.3 75 147 136
Zoubek -7.1 19.6 26.7 51 171 104
Thomas -12.1 18.8 30.9 87 135 185
Nelson -15.2 20.6 35.8 136 86 264

As you can see, regardless of which of the rotation players is on the court, we are pretty thoroughly dominating people. It just turns out that even within this group, some guys stand out for how well they've played, esp. taylor. As for DMarc's low +/- some of that can undoubtedly be attributed to the fact that he has played more in some of our closer games such as Illinois, Davidson and Marquette and therefore has not had the chance to have his numbers increase playing against easier teams. That said, our performance without him in the game is alarming and would seem to show that maybe we might benefit by scaling back some of his minutes and giving them to king.

[Jumbo]

Great stuff, BD08. Thanks. I've also stickied this thread just for the season so I don't have to go fishing after each game to update.

[mus074]

We've got a lot of plus/minus numbers up, but frankly most of them don't really show which guys are the main catalysts for the team's success because they're either just aggregate (rather than per 40 minute) totals and none of them include performance when a guy is off the court. As such, here is the 82games.com version of what Net +/- for the (main 9 man rotation of the) team looks like (using Jumbo's aggregate numbers):

Net +/- On/40 Off/40 On Agg. Off Agg. Min
King 24.7 40.6 16.0 129 93 127
Henderson 11.8 29.7 17.9 153 69 206
Scheyer 3.5 25.8 22.3 158 64 245
Paulus 3.4 25.8 22.4 153 69 237
Singler -0.0 24.7 24.7 143 79 232
Smith -4.2 22.1 26.3 75 147 136
Zoubek -7.1 19.6 26.7 51 171 104
Thomas -12.1 18.8 30.9 87 135 185
Nelson -15.2 20.6 35.8 136 86 264

As you can see, regardless of which of the rotation players is on the court, we are pretty thoroughly dominating people. It just turns out that even within this group, some guys stand out for how well they've played, esp. taylor. As for DMarc's low +/- some of that can undoubtedly be attributed to the fact that he has played more in some of our closer games such as Illinois, Davidson and Marquette and therefore has not had the chance to have his numbers increase playing against easier teams. That said, our performance without him in the game is alarming and would seem to show that maybe we might benefit by scaling back some of his minutes and giving them to king.

Nice stats breakdown of King's value, and Jacobs' piece also gives context. This is further seen in the tempo-free individual stats on kenpom.com:

http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Duke&y=2008

King is our second most efficient offensive player, behind Scheyer. (Both on the bench!) Scheyer's ORtg ranks 35th in the nation. Only players who are on the floor for at least 60% of minutes (i.e., ~ 24/game) are ranked for ORtg. King has only played 35.3% of minutes (~ 14/game), but his ORtg would rank in the top 60 in the country. This is driven by two factors: (1) he is shooting lights out with a 66.9% eFG (effective FG%age gives propotionally more weight to 3FGs); and (2) he turns the ball over very rarely. King's TO %age is an amazing 9.7%, best on the team by a country mile - Scheyer is second team with 15.0%. That 9.7% would also rank top 60 in the nation among players who play 40% of minutes (~ 16/game).

But here is the critical difference. King uses a ball-gobbling 26.3% of possessions while on the floor (2nd only to Henderson's 28.7%) and takes an even larger 35.2% of Duke's shots while on the floor. Again, if King were compared to players who played enough minutes to be ranked (40%), he would be top 20 or so in the country in shots taken. Scheyer uses only 16.2% of possessions and takes 16.1% of shots.

Usage %age tells an even clearer story. Henderson takes 31.6% of shots, uses 28.7% of possessions and turns it over a respectable but relatively worse 16.5% of the time. Henderson's Ortg is a decent but unranked 105.9 (8th on the team). King's combo of high eFG, low TO%age and high usage makes him an offensive behemoth.

If he played enough minutes to be ranked (40%), his ORtg of 128.5 would rank FIFTH in the nation for ORtg among high usage players (> 24% of possessions used). Among those players whose minutes do qualify for comparison are Vandy's Ogilivy (130.1, 3rd), Texas' D.J. Augustin (126.6, 5th), UNC's Green (126.7, 7th), Florida's Speights (124.3, 12th), UCLA's Love (123.7, 16th), UNC's Hansborough (122.9, 20th), IU's Gordon (121.8, 23rd), Gtown's Hibbert (121.2, 25th), Memphis' Douglas-Roberts (120.8, 28th) and Davidson's Curry (118.1, 44th), among many other notables.

Of course, those players do see enough minutes to qualify, but comparisons are not totally unreasonable since all use a high %age of possessions while on the floor, meaning we're not talking about comparing the shooting percentage of an 8th player in the rotation who takes an average of 1.5 shots per game to a starter's 10 shots per game. Indeed, King's usage of 26.3% of possessions paces him right with the above-listed stars. Plus, he is only just off the board at 35.3% of minutes, about 1.88 minutes/game short. At four more games at 20/min/game, he will reach that threshold. He has played at least 20 minutes three of the last four. I am not saying that making the rankings are important or something to fret about, but rather that he is actually quite close to the level of play of these nationally highlighted players.

And King is not just another hot shooting, low TO, frequent 3-point-shooter. ;) He is the team's fourth best offensive rebounder, fifth best defensive rebounder, second best shoot-blocker (second to Z and just ahead of Henderson is %age of shots blocked), and third best thief (behind Smith and Paulus). His defensive effort has really allowed him to contribute to this team's expectation-beating success.

[His only glaring weakness is his FT shooting at a head-scratching 6-14 (.429), compared to .579 from 2 and .469 from 3. Maybe he should move back another 4 foot 9.]

The purpose of all this statistical garbage is to predict he may continue to see more like 20 min/game than the reduced role he saw before the return from Hawaii. How's that for going out on a limb?

Taylor King is the kind of player who propels teams to championship-caliber basketball. I foresee very, very good things in Duke's future if he can continue his high effort and efficient care of the ball.

[jzp5079]

someone needs to plug our players into Hollinger's PER system. I might do it over the holidays after I get done with these exams.

[ACCBBallFan]

Now updated through the Michigan game...


Lineups (From most effective to least effective -- number of times used in parentheses)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas (x35) 147-101 (+46)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas (x9) 10-24 (-14)


Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek (x8) 41-27 (+14)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Zoubek (x3) 3-9 (-6)


What struck me is the disparity between the top couple of lineups not including Pocius and the bottom few.

Smith and Scheyer in for Paulus and Henderson, with Nelson, Singler and Zoubek in both cases was a +/- difference of 60.

Subbing Henderson in for Singler with Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Zoubek constant for both was a net difference of 20.

I am sure this takes hordes of time to compile. So thanks for doing that, Jumbo.

[mus074]

What struck me is the disparity between the top couple of lineups not including Pocius and the bottom few.

Smith and Scheyer in for Paulus and Henderson, with Nelson, Singler and Zoubek in both cases was a +/- difference of 60.

Subbing Henderson in for Singler with Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Zoubek constant for both was a net difference of 20.

I am sure this takes hordes of time to compile. So thanks for doing that, Jumbo.

Good points. But I think there may be a sampling margin of error applicable to the comparison. the number of times the lineups were used shows a sample size discrepancy but more importantly the number of possessions utilizing each lineup is not given. My guess is that there were much fewer possessions for the less successful lineups, given the much lower number of points involved. Lack of experience playing together in that lineup could also account for its reduced effectiveness.

While there is some validity in one lineup as superior to the other, its not exactly an apples-to-apples measurement.

[Jumbo]

Good points. But I think there may be a sampling margin of error applicable to the comparison. the number of times the lineups were used shows a sample size discrepancy but more importantly the number of possessions utilizing each lineup is not given. My guess is that there were much fewer possessions for the less successful lineups, given the much lower number of points involved. Lack of experience playing together in that lineup could also account for its reduced effectiveness.

While there is some validity in one lineup as superior to the other, its not exactly an apples-to-apples measurement.

Exactly what I was going to say. If anything, the starting lineup is not one of Duke's most effective lineup, since it is outscoring opponents by less than 2 ppg every time it's used.

[duketaylor]

Thanks, Jumbo!! GO DUKE!! GTHC, GTH!!!!

[Jumbo]

Updated through the Albany game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Pittsburgh game...

[Jumbo]

I'm adding on-court/off-court stats and Net Plus/Minus to the mix (the table isn't working at the moment). But in tabulating that, should I only include games in which a player appears? In other words, should Jordan Davidson's "off-court" plus/minus only apply in the five games in which he saw action? I don't think that makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. Thanks in advance for any help.

[ACCBBallFan]

I'm adding on-court/off-court stats and Net Plus/Minus to the mix (the table isn't working at the moment). But in tabulating that, should I only include games in which a player appears? In other words, should Jordan Davidson's "off-court" plus/minus only apply in the five games in which he saw action? I don't think that makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. Thanks in advance for any help.

I think it might be better to just cut off at McClure. Regardless of how you handle Jordan Davidson;s off-court minutes, only games he played in or all games, it will be heavily skewed. Since Marty is out for the season, eliminate him from display also.

[CDu]

I think it might be better to just cut off at McClure. Regardless of how you handle Jordan Davidson;s off-court minutes, only games he played in or all games, it will be heavily skewed. Since Marty is out for the season, eliminate him from display also.

Actually, I'd say it's Davidson's ON-court +/- that might be heavily skewed, not his off-court +/-. I'd expect Davidson's off-court +/- to very closely resemble the team's overall +/-, meaning it's very close to the mean. Because of that, I think you should include them. That gives you a nice barometer of the team's general level of play. Of course, I guess you could just as easily present the team's overall +/- based on the actual results rather than using Davidson's off-court +/- as a proxy.

[CDu]

Exactly what I was going to say. If anything, the starting lineup is not one of Duke's most effective lineup, since it is outscoring opponents by less than 2 ppg every time it's used.

I have a small quibble with this suggestion. What the +/- specifically doesn't adjust for is the quality of the opposition. Obviously a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against starters is much better than a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against a team of walk-ons. Thus, one might argue that part of the reason our starting lineup doesn't have a more prolific +/- is because they are playing against the other team's best unit (their starters) more (and for a greater percentage of minutes) than any of our other configurations of players. That's assuming that other teams generally start their best configuration. That's obviously not a definite, but it's probably not wildly off the mark, either.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Cornell game...

[Jumbo]

Actually, I'd say it's Davidson's ON-court +/- that might be heavily skewed, not his off-court +/-. I'd expect Davidson's off-court +/- to very closely resemble the team's overall +/-, meaning it's very close to the mean. Because of that, I think you should include them. That gives you a nice barometer of the team's general level of play. Of course, I guess you could just as easily present the team's overall +/- based on the actual results rather than using Davidson's off-court +/- as a proxy.

Yeah, I think I should leave them. Besides, everyone knows Pocius is hurt and Davidson only plays in mop-up situations.

[Jumbo]

I have a small quibble with this suggestion. What the +/- specifically doesn't adjust for is the quality of the opposition. Obviously a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against starters is much better than a +/- of 5 in 10 minutes against a team of walk-ons. Thus, one might argue that part of the reason our starting lineup doesn't have a more prolific +/- is because they are playing against the other team's best unit (their starters) more (and for a greater percentage of minutes) than any of our other configurations of players. That's assuming that other teams generally start their best configuration. That's obviously not a definite, but it's probably not wildly off the mark, either.

That's true, but some of that should even out as the season goes along. Plus, you've got to consider that Duke tends to substitute earlier than other teams. Scheyer is almost always in before the first TV timeout, and Smith (today it was Paulus) and a reserve forward usually are in soon after. Duke's most frequent lineups are still generally going against the opponents' starters most of the time.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Temple game...

[dukegirlinsc]

Its amazing....you tell me before i saw this that scheyer was one of our top stars this year, i'd say no Gerald or Singler is, but games like today and stats like these prove how valuable he is, and how his impact off the bench hasn't dropped at all.


You took the words right outta my mouth.:D

[bird]

Jumbo's stat strike me as being a "good teammate" stat, in that it measures how the team performs while the player is on the floor. If the player is an individual scoring star, however, he might have a great +/- due to his own scoring rather than making others around him better, good defense, and so on. In attempt to refine the picture a bit, I took the post-Temple stats, and subtracted the players' own scoring, to see how much of the scoring differential is attributable to points scored by others while the player was on the floor. The idea is to get a comparative measure of performance that is sterilized for a player's own scoring, leaving a measure for creativity, ball handling, defense, intangibles, etc. From that we might get a better picture of how a player is contributing to the +/- in a comparative sense. Here's what I came up with:

Paulus +189 (706-517) minus 118 pts equals 71 pts net
Scheyer +202 (788-586) minus 138 pts equals 64 pts net
Thomas +89 (413-324) minus 53 pts equals equals 36 pts net
Smith +108 (451-343) minus 77 pts equals 31 pts net
Zoubek +76 (291-215) minus 51pts equals equals 25 pts net
King +155 (432-277) minus 132 pts equals 23 pts net
Henderson +187 (669-482) minus 164 pts equals 23 pts net
Nelson +199 (810-611) minus 178 pts equals 21 pts net
Singler +186 (727-541) minus 169 pts equals 17 pts net
Davidson +12 (34-22) minus 2 pts equals equals 10 pts net
Pocius +19 (74-55) minus 16 pts equals equals 3 pts net
McClure +8 (155-147) minus 12 pts equals equals -4 net

These stats indicate Scheyer's and Paulus' main contributions are as "glue guys", while Henderson's, Nelson's and Singler's contributions are more as "scorers." Well, d'uh.

I will note, however, that Nelson is second only to Paulus in assists, so I would take it as a given that this measure is imperfect. Nelson scores, creates, and plays darn good defense.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Virginia game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Florida State game...

[Saratoga2]

Now updated through the Florida State game...

The numbers have become more meaningful as the number of games played have gone up. Individual play and performance during the season has been very interesting. Scheyer had a magnificent game last night. I belive the game before it was Nelson with his own magnificent game. We have also seen Singler, Henderson and Paulus have really excellent games and Taylor King has racked up points/minute like none of the others.

I wonder if the totals for the players really obscure the great game one night, so so game the next. JJ was a special player and more often than not, he had an excellent game without the variability we see on this team. Is the defense what is causing the variability of our individual performances, or is it some combination of defense, illness, crowd impact or other reasons?

[ArtVandelay]

Hey Jumbo, do you know if anyone tracks possessions per game stats and offensive/defensive efficiency on a per game basis? I know that KenPom tracks aggregate team stats (and has us averaging about 74 possessions per game, 22nd in the country), but it doesn't seem like he tracks this stuff from game to game. It would be interesting to see how our tempo varies based on opponent, and how our efficiency lines up with my subjective perceptions of how the team is playing. I know Paul over at Blue Devil Hoops offers HD boxes, but these seem only to track individual tempo-free stats, not team.

Also, ever heard of anyone tracking overall team data historically (I mean, aside from KenPom)? His stuff goes back to '04 - I'm guessing maybe nobody even thought to keep track and/or evaluate this stuff before that? It would be interesting to see tempo and efficiency stats for some of the kickass teams, i.e 1999, 2001, 2002, etc. Ah, the effect of sabremetrics on basketball...

Thanks.

[mus074]

you just gotta look for it:

http://kenpom.com/expsked.php?team=Duke&y=2008

As for historical info, let me know if you find it anywhere. This stuff is still a pretty new way of thinking about the game. How many times do we still here Steve Lavin talk about the best offense or defense based on points per game? Please. Someone give that guy a coaching job. For the love of the game. Get him out of the studio.

[ArtVandelay]

Ah, fabulous. I sort of thought it might be there. Thanks.

The fact that the historical data goes back only to 04 makes me think that it is just b/c it's a new way of thinking about the game. And yes, agreed on Lavin. Sort of like baseball commentators talking about things like wins, RBIs, and even batting average. Sadly, the people that are smartest about analyzing the games are too busy typing on message boards...:)

[mus074]

Ah, fabulous. I sort of thought it might be there. Thanks.

The fact that the historical data goes back only to 04 makes me think that it is just b/c it's a new way of thinking about the game. And yes, agreed on Lavin. Sort of like baseball commentators talking about things like wins, RBIs, and even batting average. Sadly, the people that are smartest about analyzing the games are too busy typing on message boards...:)

I have to agree. You know what I would like to see? Individual stats on likelihood of making a shot after a make, a miss, a made 3, a made FT, etc., just like OBP when facing a 2-1 pitch.

How's the import/export biz going?

[ArtVandelay]

Well, I've decided to quit and become an architect. Have you seen the new addition to the Guggenheim?

I'm assuming you mean essentially the offensive outcomes based on prior defensive possession? That would provide some interesting insights, particularly with regard to the whole "our offense feeds off our defense" meme, or "the patented Duke run." Sadly, I suspect that's way too detailed for anyone to have compiled. The only reason sabremetricians can do what they do is because people get paid to sit and watch baseball games, entering pitch-by-pitch data. That must be unbelievably boring, if you ask me. Although no more boring than my job, at times, I suppose.

[mus074]

Actually, I meant the same player's last offensive play, looking at the theory of streaky shooters and the notion of keep shooting to get out of the funk. We do have those stats in the play-by-play records of games at espn.com, although again it is quite new.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Clemson game...

[johnb]

Jumbo--this is great, and I imagine it must take more than a few minutes. thanks.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo--this is great, and I imagine it must take more than a few minutes. thanks.

No problem. The tracking is remarkably easy. It doesn't distract from the game at all -- it's purely a matter of logging each score and noting the lineup when Duke subs. So, a partial game log might look like this:

Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler
0-2
0-4
2-4
2-6
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Thomas
2-8
4-8
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Thomas
6-8
9-8
9-10
11-10
11-12
13-12

It takes a little while to add everything up after the game, but that's not a big deal either.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Virginia Tech game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Maryland game. Should I start doing ACC-only stats?

[cspan37421]

Is there a link to how +/- is calculated? Thanks.

[Jumbo]

Is there a link to how +/- is calculated? Thanks.

It's just a measure of how many points the team scores vs. how many it allows when a given player is in the game. So, all you have to do is keep a running score (super-easy), note when Duke's lineup changes (also super-easy) and at the end of the game, add up the total score for each player (still easy). Then, Voila! -- plus/minus.

[Bryan]

It's just a measure of how many points the team scores vs. how many it allows when a given player is in the game. So, all you have to do is keep a running score (super-easy), note when Duke's lineup changes (also super-easy) and at the end of the game, add up the total score for each player (still easy). Then, Voila! -- plus/minus.

So, if there is a sub after the first FT when shooting two, who gets the +1 (or -1) if the shooter makes the second FT, the player on the floor when the foul was committed or the player who subbed in?

Also, do you give players + and -'s for technicals?

[Jumbo]

So, if there is a sub after the first FT when shooting two, who gets the +1 (or -1) if the shooter makes the second FT, the player on the floor when the foul was committed or the player who subbed in?

Also, do you give players + and -'s for technicals?

During FTs, the points are assigned to the guys who were on the floor when the foul occurred. Technicals are part of the game, so if points are scored off a technical FT, they count.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the NC State game...

[Jumbo]

The stats are now updated through the Miami game. If you get a chance, take a look at the way the numbers are starting normalize. I'll try to post some ACC-only plus/minus stats if I get around to it.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the UNC game...

[mr. synellinden]

As we're past the midway point in the season with a statistical sample of 21 games, it's interesting to me that our core group of players are all bunched in between 18.3 and 19.7 in terms of plus/minus on a 40 minute basis. Of course, McClure is the exception.

But I think that's somewhat to be expected, yet also impressive and it shows how deep and interchangeable we are. I think that's why we keep admiring how from one game to the next somebody different steps up and makes the big plays, scores the most points, etc. You only have to look at the MOTM diversity to see it. How many games this season would someone other than Hansboins;ocza be UNC's HOTM (Hole of the Match)?

[CDu]

As we're past the midway point in the season with a statistical sample of 21 games, it's interesting to me that our core group of players are all bunched in between 18.3 and 19.7 in terms of plus/minus on a 40 minute basis. Of course, McClure is the exception.

But I think that's somewhat to be expected, yet also impressive and it shows how deep and interchangeable we are. I think that's why we keep admiring how from one game to the next somebody different steps up and makes the big plays, scores the most points, etc. You only have to look at the MOTM diversity to see it. How many games this season would someone other than Hansboins;ocza be UNC's HOTM (Hole of the Match)?

The team as a whole has an average margin of victory of 19.4 ppg. So what we're seeing is that the guys who play the most minutes are regressing to the mean team average margin of victory. It makes sense: over a large enough sample, if you're playing most of the game, it's reasonable to expect your plus/minus to be fairly close to the team's overall plus/minus (i.e., margin of victory).

The interesting part is that we're basically seeing that the team performs similarly well with all of the regular guys out there. King and McClure, on average, probably get right around +19 per 40 minutes between them. Sort of saying the same thing you're saying I guess: that we're very well balanced.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the B.C. game...

[ACCBBallFan]

Finally got a chance to rank-order by stat category and then sum as I had been doing a while back.

Ttl MP FG 3% FT RP AP BP SP PP Range Player
73 10 08 07 06 09 09 05 09 10 5-10 DeMarcus Nelson (2,-0))
69 09 07 06 07 10 05 09 07 09 5-10 Kyle Singler (1, -0))
63 08 03 8+ 10 07 08 04 08 07 3-10 Jon Scheyer (1,-0))
59 06 06 04 05 08 06 10 06 08 4-10 Gerald Henderson (1,-0)
58 07 02 10 09 03 10 01 10 06 1-10 Greg Paulus (3,-1)
40 04 05 05 08 01 07 2+ 04 04 1-08 Nolan Smith (0,-1)
39 05 09 02 03 05 01 6+ 05 03 1-09 Lance Thomas (0,-2)
38 03 01 8+ 04 04 3+ 6+ 03 05 1-8+ Taylor King (0,-1)
37 02 10 02 02 06 3+ 08 02 02 2-10 Brian Zoubek (1,-1)
16 01 04 02 01 02 02 2.5 01 01 1-04 David McClure (0,-5)

Very spread out as Paulus leads in 3 categories, Nelson in 2 and several others each have 1.

As far as least effective, that wold be McClure in 5 categories but his value may not show up in metrics alone. Among the rest, only Lance with 2 had more than 1 occurrence of worst on team.

Nelson and Singler were never rated lower than 5 out of 10 and only McClure with a personal high of 4 in FG%, never achieved at least an 8 out of 10 in some category. Gerald was never worse than 4 and Jon never worse than 3 of 10. Everybody else was loss leader in something.

Very close whether Gerald Henderson or Greg Paulus is fourth most effective after Demarcus Nelson, Kyle Singler and Jon Scheyer, and just as close among four guys for sixth most effective across Nolan Smith, Lance Thomas, Taylor King and Brian Zoubek.

Kind of a statistical representation of why it is hard to pick your poison when playing Duke.

Had to trim the column titles to get chart to align

Total MPG FG% 3FG% FT% RPG APG BPG SPG PPG Range Player

Total of All rankings across the 9 categories, so max score would be 90

MPG - Minutes per game
RPG - Rebounds per game
APG - Assists per gaem
BPG - Blocks per game
SPG - Steals per game
PPG - Points per game

Range - loswest to highest individual rank order across the 9 categories

[ACCBBallFan]

Jumbo, like others, I really appreciate the time you must spend doing those +/- and breakouts by combinations.

I tried to look at which players were part of any +20 or better combo and which were part of any -6 or worse combo.

From a cumulative perspective,

Singler was +6 -3 = +3
Lance was +3 - 1 = +2
Scheyer at +5 - 4 = +1
Paulus was +5 -5 = zero
Nelson was -4 - 4 = zero
Nolan was +1 - 1 = zero

So these would appear to be a combo to use when trying to hold a lead, even though it is not the best combo, still a very positive one.

Gerald was +4 -6 = -2 higher risk, higher reward than Scheyer
McClure @ zero - 2 = -2 18 games player vs 22
Zoubek @ zero - 1 = -1 only 13 games played, so less data
King was +2 - 3 = -1 Offensive specialist who can be high reward when hot

Another interesting note I forgot to mention in last post is 9 guys over 10 minutes per game and Dave McClure rounds to 10 at 9.7 MPG.

Five Duke guys average double figures with King now @ 7.5 since he has been cold lately but can score in bunches when he gets hot again, and he will.

Nolan @ 6.5. Lance has been more productive lately but too many games played to drastically change his 4.7 PPG.

Zoubek can probably raise his 3.7 PPG with more minutes.

http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2007-08

GP GS MPG FG% 3FG% FT% RPG APG BPG SPG PPG Player
22 22 31.3 0.513 0.403 0.632 5.9 3.2 0.4 1.6 15.5 DeMarcus Nelson (2,-0))
22 22 28.2 0.486 0.364 0.772 6.1 1.3 0.9 1.0 13.8 Kyle Singler (1, -0))
22 00 27.8 0.463 0.411 0.855 4.2 2.2 0.3 1.1 10.8 Jon Scheyer (1,-0))
22 22 25.8 0.482 0.278 0.616 4.9 1.6 1.0 0.9 13.2 Gerald Henderson (1,-0)
22 21 26.6 0.449 0.438 0.824 2.0 3.5 0.1 1.7 10.5 Greg Paulus (3,-1)
22 01 16.1 0.481 0.342 0.784 1.7 1.7 0.2 0.6 06.5 Nolan Smith (0,-1)
20 16 18.6 0.523 0.000 0.556 3.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 04.7 Lance Thomas (0,-2)
22 00 11.9 0.444 0.411 0.591 2.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 07.5 Taylor King (0,-1)
13 02 10.9 0.579 0.000 0.412 3.4 0.5 0.8 0.4 03.9 Brian Zoubek (1,-1)
18 04 09.7 0.471 0.000 0.286 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 01.0 David McClure (0,-5)

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second Maryland game...

[-jk]

Looking a little closer (and if my math is right) we've averaged +18.5 as a team for the season. That puts our top 6 rotation within half a point of our team average in per 40 minutes

Kyle Singler +19.0 (28.6 mpg)
Greg Paulus +18.6 (27.0 mpg)
Jon Scheyer +18.5 (27.7 mpg)
Lance Thomas +18.3 (18.8 mpg)
DeMarcus Nelson +18.3 (31.4 mpg)
Gerald Henderson +18.2 (25.9 mpg)

and

Nolan Smith +17.4 (15.7 mpg)

not far off, either. It's not terribly surprising that everyone is closing in on the team average; it's where the math takes us. Equally, a single game is too small a set for any meaningful analysis.

Jumbo, is your game by game data still in a form where it would be easy to do the math on, say, just the ACC games or just the last five, to see any recent trends?

-jk

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, is your game by game data still in a form where it would be easy to do the math on, say, just the ACC games or just the last five, to see any recent trends?

-jk

I've got all the info, just not in one place. Should be easy, though, and will post it in the next day or two.

[ACCBBallFan]

Not as scientific as what Jumbo does, just rank order players by metric and sum, updated.through Miami game.

Tot Mpg fg% 3% ft% rpg apg bpg spg ppg Player
76.0 10.0 08.0 09.0 05.0 10.0 09.0 05.0 10.0 10.0 DeMarcus Nelson
67.5 09.0 07.0 06.0 07.0 09.0 05.0 09.0 06.5 09.0 Kyle Singler
63.0 08.0 03.0 08.0 10.0 07.0 08.0 04.0 08.0 07.0 Jon Scheyer
60.5 06.0 05.0 04.0 06.0 08.0 07.0 10.0 06.5 08.0 Gerald Henderson
56.5 07.0 02.0 10.0 09.0 02.5 10.0 01.0 09.0 06.0 Greg Paulus
40.5 04.0 06.0 05.0 08.0 01.0 06.0 02.5 04.0 04.0 Nolan Smith
40.5 05.0 09.0 02.0 03.0 06.0 01.0 06.5 05.0 03.0 Lance Thomas
37.0 03.0 01.0 07.0 04.0 04.0 04.0 06.5 02.5 05.0 Taylor King
36.0 02.0 10.0 02.0 02.0 05.0 02.5 08.0 02.5 02.0 Brian Zoubek
17.5 01.0 04.0 02.0 01.0 02.5 02.5 02.5 01.0 01.0 David McClure
495.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0

[ACCBBallFan]

Tot Mpg fg% 3% ft% rpg apg bpg spg ppg Player
76.0 10.0 8.0 9.0 5.0 10.0 9.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 DeMarcus Nelson
67.5 9.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 5.0 9.0 6.5 9.0 Kyle Singler
63.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 10.0 7.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 7.0 Jon Scheyer
60.5 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 10.0 6.5 8.0 Gerald Henderson
56.5 7.0 2.0 10.0 9.0 2.5 10.0 1.0 9.0 6.0 Greg Paulus
40.5 4.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 1.0 6.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 Nolan Smith
40.5 5.0 9.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 1.0 6.5 5.0 3.0 Lance Thomas
37.0 3.0 1.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.5 2.5 5.0 Taylor King
36.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.5 8.0 2.5 2.0 Brian Zoubek
17.5 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 David McClure
495.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0

[Jumbo]

I'm going to update the cumulative numbers in the next couple of days. I'd prefer to keep this thread to plus/minus.

[Jumbo]

Finally added the Wake Forest and Miami games. All stats are current.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the St. John's game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Georgia Tech game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second NC State game...

[Neals384]

I was curious if there are players who complement each other particularly well in the Duke lineup. Using Jumbo’s data thru the second NC State game, I totaled the points for/against for each five-man lineup that includes a particular two-man combo. For example, Zoubek & Paulus appear together in 17 different five-player lineups, totaling 164 for, 122 against, +42. Because some two-man combos occur much less often than others, I used percent of total points scored, rather than a simple +/-.

The most effective two-man combos:

Pts Pts
For Ag +/- Pct
King – Smith 421, 299, +122, .585
King – Scheyer 573, 409, +164, .584
King – Singler 222, 161, +61, .580
King – Zoubek 142, 106, +36, .573
Paulus – Zoubek 164, 122, +42, .573
Singler – Zoubek 155, 116, +39, .572
Henderson – Zoubek 178, 134, +44, .571

And the least effective:

McClure – Zoubek 52, 63, -11, .452
McClure – King 87, 88, -1, .497
McClure – Smith 166, 166, 0, .500
McClure – Henderson 187, 184, +3, .504
Smith – Thomas 227, 220, +7, .508
McClure – Paulus 237, 228, +9, .510
Nelson – Zoubek 211, 198, +13, .516
McClure – Scheyer 269, 247, +22, .521

As expected, McClure is included in many of the worst two-man combos. But McClure – Nelson (291, 230, +61, .559) is above the team average of .553.

All of the best and worst two-man combos include at least one of the four role players. All combos of the starters plus Scheyer are very close to the team average. The best of these is Henderson – Singler (1170, 901, +269, .565).

Conclusions: If one assumes that the data are predictive (big if), then:

1) When Zoubek comes into the game, Nelson should sit.
2) When McClure comes into the game, Nelson should play.
3) When Smith comes into the game, Thomas should sit.

[mus074]

I may disagree with your conclusions as overly broad, but it does illuminate some trends and tendencies. Well done and thanks!

BTW, where did Paulus-Singler come in as compared to all other intra-combos of the top 6 rotation guys? Just curious, because they seem to compliment each other's game well when either is hitting 3s well.

[Jumbo]

I was curious if there are players who complement each other particularly well in the Duke lineup. Using Jumbo’s data thru the second NC State game, I totaled the points for/against for each five-man lineup that includes a particular two-man combo. For example, Zoubek & Paulus appear together in 17 different five-player lineups, totaling 164 for, 122 against, +42. Because some two-man combos occur much less often than others, I used percent of total points scored, rather than a simple +/-.

The most effective two-man combos:

Pts Pts
For Ag +/- Pct
King – Smith 421, 299, +122, .585
King – Scheyer 573, 409, +164, .584
King – Singler 222, 161, +61, .580
King – Zoubek 142, 106, +36, .573
Paulus – Zoubek 164, 122, +42, .573
Singler – Zoubek 155, 116, +39, .572
Henderson – Zoubek 178, 134, +44, .571

And the least effective:

McClure – Zoubek 52, 63, -11, .452
McClure – King 87, 88, -1, .497
McClure – Smith 166, 166, 0, .500
McClure – Henderson 187, 184, +3, .504
Smith – Thomas 227, 220, +7, .508
McClure – Paulus 237, 228, +9, .510
Nelson – Zoubek 211, 198, +13, .516
McClure – Scheyer 269, 247, +22, .521

As expected, McClure is included in many of the worst two-man combos. But McClure – Nelson (291, 230, +61, .559) is above the team average of .553.

All of the best and worst two-man combos include at least one of the four role players. All combos of the starters plus Scheyer are very close to the team average. The best of these is Henderson – Singler (1170, 901, +269, .565).

Conclusions: If one assumes that the data are predictive (big if), then:

1) When Zoubek comes into the game, Nelson should sit.
2) When McClure comes into the game, Nelson should play.
3) When Smith comes into the game, Thomas should sit.

Awesome! Very, very cool stats. I'll need some time to mull them over.

[Neals384]

BTW, where did Paulus-Singler come in as compared to all other intra-combos of the top 6 rotation guys? Just curious, because they seem to compliment each other's game well when either is hitting 3s well.

Paulus - Singler combo is 1277 points for, 997 points against, +280, .562
So, yes, the stats show that they do complement each other nicely.

[mus074]

Paulus - Singler combo is 1277 points for, 997 points against, +280, .562
So, yes, the stats show that they do complement each other nicely.

They also say nice things about each other's game. :)

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second Virginia game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the second UNC game (which finishes the regular season stats). This week, I'll try to post Duke's ACC-only stats.

[duketaylor]

Jumbo, I just re-read Steve Blake's little Johnny Rockets thingy for the first time in a long time. It's udderly hilarious (Eat more chickin'). My two 3rd-grade boys could likely do better, but it'd be close. No wonder Gary doesn't graduate anyone.
Side question, will you attend the ACC tourney of the Big East tourney?

[Jumbo]

I'd been meaning to do this for a while, and finally was able to compile some numbers (just in time for the ACC Tourney). I don't have time to go through all the lineups right now, but here are the individual plus/minus stats and the per-40 ones.

Individuals
Kyle Singler 1,081-925 (+156)
DeMarcus Nelson 1,119-984 (+135)
Greg Paulus 998-870 (+128)
Jon Scheyer 969-854 (+115)
Gerald Henderson 929-815 (+114)
Lance Thomas 592-505 (+87)
Nolan Smith 434-411 (+23)
David McClure 243-227 (+16)
Jordan Davidson 7-9 (-2)
Taylor King 217-224 (-7)
Brian Zoubek 109-126 (-17)

Per 40 Minutes
Kyle Singler +12.2
Lance Thomas +12
Greg Paulus +11.1
DeMarcus Nelson +10.5
Gerald Henderson +10.3
Jon Scheyer +10.1
David McClure +4.7
Nolan Smith +4.2
Taylor King -2.3
Brian Zoubek -11.5
Jordan Davidson -20

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Georgia Tech ACC Tournament game...

[Saratoga2]

Now updated through the Georgia Tech ACC Tournament game...


In the GT game, coach K substituted the blue team in as an entity, with John Scheyer at point. That means he was in with Zoubek, King, Smith and McClure at one time. That had to impact his numbers in the GT tourney game and coach K says he may do more of that.

[devildeac]

In the GT game, coach K substituted the blue team in as an entity, with John Scheyer at point. That means he was in with Zoubek, King, Smith and McClure at one time. That had to impact his numbers in the GT tourney game and coach K says he may do more of that.

I noted that line-up also. Was it used twice? Gotta wonder where any significant number of points are going to come from with that group on the floor(just wondering aloud and NOT criticizing).

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the ACC Tourney game against Clemson -- with quite a change...

[feldspar]

Put in Marty.

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the Belmont game...

[Jumbo]

Now updated through the West Virginia game and, thus, complete for the season. Congrats to Jon Scheyer, this year's plus/minus king.

[Jumbo]

Bumping this back up for one last look at last season before we have new numbers tonight!