An In Depth Look at Depth

[pfrduke]

Now that the men's team has officially finished its season, and we're starting to look toward 2009, I thought we might revisit one of the more talked about and contentious issues of the past few years - depth. It seems that regardless of how many players play, and how many minutes said players play, posters here love to criticize Coach K for not adequately using the bench. So I thought I'd open up a kind of meta-discussion of depth. Feel free to discuss this in the context of individual players, but I'm more curious as to people's broad perspectives on what depth is and what purpose it serves. With that in mind, I pose the following questions:

1) What does it mean to be a "deep" team? Is a team that rotates 7 players relatively equally (everyone between 25-32 min/game) with no other meaningful bench use deep? Is a team that relies heavily on three players (33-38 min/g) with the remaining minutes spread among 7 guys (10-20 min/g) deep? Is a team that gives 8 guys double digit minutes, with 10 guys who play in essentially every game deep? etc.

2) what is the goal of depth? rest for the best players so they're fresh (and can play a greater share of minutes) in the second half? experience for young players, so they can get meaningful minutes against all types of competition? flexibility, so the coach can use many diverse lineups against different types of opponents, as matchups dictate? allowing the coach to use a quick trigger to pull a player who just doesn't have it that day? something else?

3) do all minutes count the same? does depth mean the same thing in preseason, conference, and postseason play? should the goal of having the deep team be playing the same rotation in every game? or should it be used in a way to maximize the ability of the best players to play the most minutes against the toughest competition?

4) is there a team, in your mind, that is a model for using depth (please, if you identify a team for this question, provide sufficient data/information to back up your assertion as to why that team is a model for using depth)?

5) (and I guess this is player specific) Duke will have 12 ACC-caliber players next year - Paulus, Smith, Scheyer, Williams, Pocius, Henderson, McClure, King, Thomas, Singler, Czyz, Zoubek. What do you think is the ideal rotation for that group? And, if the answers are different, what is the ideal rotation against a weaker pre-season opponent? against Georgetown (at Georgetown)? against UNC?

[rjbatzler]

IMHO, depth is only one factor in our fatigue problems. Lots of people may blame deapth or Coach K for not making more substitutions but I think a major factor is the team's fitness. In the West Virginia game, both teams had 8 players with 5 or more minutes. However, we looked tired and they looked energized. Our defense slowed down and we got lazy and started throwing up threes. I think over the off-season we need to work on our fitness level so we don't fade off at the end of the season.
Depth is important for this team in terms of foul trouble. In the Wake loss, we got into foul trouble and the bench wasn't able to step up and take the game. Also, I think the problem with our depth is that we don't have enough variety of players. We need more deapth in the post, because even if Coach K plays everyone on the bench, it won't help much if they are mostly small fowards and guards. We need depth inside and an increase in fitness IMO.

[pfrduke]

I'll start.

I'm very much of the "5 best" mindset. I believe basketball more often than not boils down to throwing your 5 best against their 5 best and seeing who comes out on top. Depth, to me, should do two things: 1) help put your 5 best in the best position to win; and 2) increase the possibility of your 5 best not necessarily being the same in every game.

To that effect, I like a rotation that is looser and more experimental in the first half, and tighter in the second. The loose rotation in the first half gets your 5 best more rest, and helps them stay fresher for the second half. This should mean they have more legs and more energy than their 5 best down the stretch. It also allows the coach the opportunity to see who might actually be the 5 best that game. Were I coaching, I would go into the game with a list of what I thought my end of game lineup would be - that is, who I thought would be my 5 best for that game. If I see something in the first half that says one of my other players is a) playing better and b) better for the team, I can adjust on the fly and treat that player as one of my 5 best for the second half.

Similarly, I like a rotation that is looser in the first part of the season than toward the end. The early season games help give a better picture of who my 5 best for the season will be. It may be that I'm lucky enough to have matchup flexibility, so my 5 best can come from any of 7 or 8 people in a given game. Or it may not. But the goal is that by the end of the season, the odds should increase that my list of my 5 best going into a game probably will be accurate as the game plays out. This is not to say my rotation is set in stone. But I'll probably be more hesitant to pull one of my 5 best who is underperforming toward the end of the season than I would have been early on in the year, because I'll be more confident that a) the player will come around before the game is over and b) it's better for the team to have that player on the court.

Really, I only need an 8 man rotation to do this. With 8 guys, I can guarantee my 5 best adequate rest in the first half (and early part of the second) and I have flexibility in that one of my three other guys may step up and be one of the 5 best in any given game. Possibly, an 8-man rotation will give me flexibility to have different groups of 5 bests depending on the matchups.

Next year, of course, we have 12. Balancing a rotation of 12 guys will be very, very difficult. If even three guys get 30 minutes in a game, that leaves just 110 minutes to be spread among the other nine. I think that the 5 best players next year will be (in order) Henderson, Singler, Scheyer, Paulus, and Smith. That, of course, is a small lineup, and may not be adequate for actual game scenario. We have the flexibility, as matchups dictate, to use Thomas, Zoubek, King (people are forgetting his rep as a high school rebounder and interior player - he'll be a useful "big man"), Czyz, and McClure in lieu of Paulus or Smith (or Scheyer or Henderson), as the situation dictates. Hopefully one steps up to hold a consistent spot in the 5 best, but I think the person from among that group that gets the most minutes will vary on a game-by-game basis, especially early.

[jws]

1) What does it mean to be a "deep" team? Is a team that rotates 7 players relatively equally (everyone between 25-32 min/game) with no other meaningful bench use deep? Is a team that relies heavily on three players (33-38 min/g) with the remaining minutes spread among 7 guys (10-20 min/g) deep? Is a team that gives 8 guys double digit minutes, with 10 guys who play in essentially every game deep? etc.
Interesting question.

IMO, what it means to a given team depends a lot on the philosophy and style of play of the coach, and the type and calibre of players he is able to get.

As a general rule, I'd say that "quality depth" for a given team means having enough quality players to sustain play at or near the coach's preferred style, intensity level, speed of play and improvement rate, game in and game out, for an entire season; even if one or two players are lost to the team for significant lengths of time due to injury.

For a team that plays at, for instance, North Carolina's or Kansas' style and tempo, "quality depth" requires 9 or 10 quality players; whiles slower pace teams like UCLA or probably requires only 7 or 8.

I think K's current style and tempo is pretty unique, and thus, I think the parameters for "quality depth" are a bit different for his team. I think that the tremendous sustained defensive intensity, dearth of low-post strength on both ends, and the unique requirements his style places on all of his players, but especially on his big men, all call not only for a 9 or 10 man rotation, but also for fairly strict limiting of minutes for all players to under 30/game, due to the extremely high cumulative fatigue factor that style of play engenders.

[Bob Green]

A deep team has a 10 man rotation with eight players averaging double-digit minutes per game and only one averaging more than 30 mpg. This year's Duke team was deep.

Depth is utilized to create balanced scoring and versatility. Duke achieved the balanced scoring with five players averaging double-digit points per game, but we were not as versatile as we could have been. A key ingredient to depth is having options when a specific player is having an off night.

This brings us to substitution patterns. Depth allows the Coach flexibility with substitutions. Coach K utilized Jon Scheyer as the 6th man this season and Jon played the third most minutes on the team. Another substitution pattern that I truly am a fan of, and that Duke utilized in the ACC tournament, is substituting five players all at once. I hope to see more of that strategy next season.

Duke will be deep in 2008-2009 with 12 scholarship players on the roster. I do not expect to see more than 10 players in the regular rotation. The last two scholarship players will be limited to spot minutes. Of course, this opinion is dependent upon team health.

[hq2]

I'm not ready to write us off just yet. The current era reminds me more of the mid 90s slump than anything else, when we had some down years after a long and great run. We had a lot of decent, not great players then, without any real superstars, while Carolina was dominating with Rasheed and Stackhouse. Next year, we should be able to start gettting near the top again. With Singler and Thomas getting a little bulkier and Zoubeck working on his footwork, I'd say our inside presence will be respectable (not great) next year, at least enough to add some balance. Don't write our obituary until after next season.

[buddy]

needs to be re-examined. I don't think the players were tired because of a lax conditioning program. I think they may have been tired because of a too rigorous conditioning program.

I too like the five man substitutions. The way we run and play pressure defense, I think it is essential to use eight or nine players regularly. Ideally, no one plays more than 30 minutes per game, although there are likely to be a few contests where the bench gets significantly shortened.

I think if you look at our bench this year, it was long in the first half of games, and short in the second half. After January, King rarely saw second half time, and Smith's second half time significantly dwindled. Zoubek's injury makes observations about his time difficult. I think that the more game time the non-starters get, the better they will react if they are needed. (Does anyone doubt that Marty could have helped us Saturday if he was healthy? Does anyone doubt that he would have gotten about zero second half minutes, based on past experience?) We played essentially five guys in the second half of most late season games (Paulus, Henderson, Scheyer, Singler, Nelson), with cameo appearances by Smith (to give Paulus a blow) others if necessitated by foul trouble. I think second half rotations are as important as first half rotations, although end of game situations (final eight minutes) generally require your five best (however defined).

[IStillHateJimBain]

Depth counts for a lot at practice time too. If you have a high-quality second unit to go against for a couple of hours every day in practice, it makes everybody better. How much does it help Tyler Hansbrough that he can go up against a Deon Thompson or Alex Stephenson every day? How much does it help Wayne Ellington find an open shot after working against Danny Green for months? You have to figure that Duke practices have been an eye-opener for Taylor King and Nolan Smith. Teams obviously improve by recruiting better athletes. Duke once hand-picked who it wanted. Now Carolina does it. But you can get better and develop a team in practice and in the offseason by going against good people every day. That's the forgotten aspect of having a deep bench.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

The current era reminds me more of the mid 90s slump than anything else, when we had some down years after a long and great run. We had a lot of decent, not great players then, without any real superstars, while Carolina was dominating with Rasheed and Stackhouse. Next year, we should be able to start gettting near the top again.

I guess I'd argue that we "came out of our mid-90's slump" almost entirely as a result of the Killer B's class. We added one of the best true post players (Brand) in our history, a cat-quick penetrating PG (Avery), an eventual NPOY defensive superstar (Battier) as well as a highly-rated stiff. Those guys gave us unparalleled talent and added a new dimension of tough, cocky, attitude. I hope we have/will sign guys like that, but don't take for granted or assume as given the great recruiting that the staff did to build what we became.

[_Gary]

I guess I'd argue that we "came out of our mid-90's slump" almost entirely as a result of the Killer B's class. We added one of the best true post players (Brand) in our history, a cat-quick penetrating PG (Avery), an eventual NPOY defensive superstar (Battier) as well as a highly-rated stiff. Those guys gave us unparalleled talent and added a new dimension of tough, cocky, attitude. I hope we have/will sign guys like that, but don't take for granted or assume as given the great recruiting that the staff did to build what we became.

Absolutely. We came out of the mid-90's slump exclusively because we signed what I'd still say is one of the best classes ever for Duke. You can't overestimate the importance of Brand as a power player unlike any we've ever had, IMHO. And the importance of Battier as not only a great defender, but a guy who could score when necessary and was one of the best on and off court leaders Duke has ever seen. And then Avery, who is often overlooked, was a phenomenal point for us who's quickness really is something we could have used this year. In fact, I was as comfortable with Avery bringing the ball up the court in a close game in closing seconds as I ever was with any pg in Duke history. I'm not saying he was the best we had. He's not. But he could get the ball up the court and get off some circus shots that always had a chance to go in. Other than Jason and Johnny, I'm not sure I'd want any other guard in Duke history to bring the ball up with 5 seconds to go and Duke down by one. And yes, I love Bobby and he was lightening quick, but I still loved Will's ability to get the ball up quickly and hit a runner or pull up jumper at the buzzer. He was great in those situations, IMHO.


Gary

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Absolutely. We came out of the mid-90's slump exclusively because we signed what I'd still say is one of the best classes ever for Duke. You can't overestimate the importance of Brand as a power player unlike any we've ever had, IMHO. And the importance of Battier as not only a great defender, but a guy who could score when necessary and was one of the best on and off court leaders Duke has ever seen. And then Avery, who is often overlooked, was a phenomenal point for us who's quickness really is something we could have used this year. In fact, I was as comfortable with Avery bringing the ball up the court in a close game in closing seconds as I ever was with any pg in Duke history. I'm not saying he was the best we had. He's not. But he could get the ball up the court and get off some circus shots that always had a chance to go in. Other than Jason and Johnny, I'm not sure I'd want any other guard in Duke history to bring the ball up with 5 seconds to go and Duke down by one. And yes, I love Bobby and he was lightening quick, but I still loved Will's ability to get the ball up quickly and hit a runner or pull up jumper at the buzzer. He was great in those situations, IMHO.


Gary

Not sure I'd use the world "exclusively" but otherwise we're definitely on the same page for this one. The Killer B's were crucial for bringing in tip-tier talent (in the college game Brand and Battier can play with any player that UNC has EVER suited up, imo.)

For my money, however, that class was even more important in terms of changing (for a while) the perception about who and what Duke was. For so long we had been seen as a pretty, preppy team with Ferry, Laettner, Grant and Wojo as the "face" of the team. Guys like Brand and Avery (and Nate and C-Well) made it clear that Duke could be as tough, gritty and blue collar as anyone. This new identity gave us a new badI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/99/0222/) aura and made a lot of recruits, imo, more comfortable coming here.

Today Duke is once again being caricatured as, excuse the phrase, "a bunch of scrappy white boys." I hear whispers that some recruits aren't comfortable with Duke for exactly this reason. I think a big, tough blue collar stud or two would help with our image and recruiting as much as with the talent we send out in the short term. Adding C-Well and Nate is a great step in that direction and I hope it portends great things.

[Classof06]

I'm not ready to write us off just yet. The current era reminds me more of the mid 90s slump than anything else, when we had some down years after a long and great run. We had a lot of decent, not great players then, without any real superstars, while Carolina was dominating with Rasheed and Stackhouse. Next year, we should be able to start gettting near the top again. With Singler and Thomas getting a little bulkier and Zoubeck working on his footwork, I'd say our inside presence will be respectable (not great) next year, at least enough to add some balance. Don't write our obituary until after next season.

I'm not going to write any obituaries and I think Duke will do well next year but IMO, 2009 is the earliest year I believe Duke will be able to make a legitimate run at a national title. At that point Henderson, Scheyer, Thomas and Zoubek will all be seniors. Nolan, Kyle and Taylor will be juniors, EW and Czyz will have a year under their belts and the addition of Plumlee (however he's utilized) will finally give us the size we've been looking for. This statement is inherently unfair but based on what I've heard about Plumlee, he looks like he might be the piece to put this team over the top; if nothing else, his size becomes a huge boost. And I'm guessing he won't be the only recruit in the class.

[_Gary]

Not sure I'd use the world "exclusively" but otherwise we're definitely on the same page for this one. The Killer B's were crucial for bringing in tip-tier talent (in the college game Brand and Battier can play with any player that UNC has EVER suited up, imo.)

For my money, however, that class was even more important in terms of changing (for a while) the perception about who and what Duke was. For so long we had been seen as a pretty, preppy team with Ferry, Laettner, Grant and Wojo as the "face" of the team. Guys like Brand and Avery (and Nate and C-Well) made it clear that Duke could be as tough, gritty and blue collar as anyone. This new identity gave us a new badI'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/99/0222/) aura and made a lot of recruits, imo, more comfortable coming here.

Today Duke is once again being caricatured as, excuse the phrase, "a bunch of scrappy white boys." I hear whispers that some recruits aren't comfortable with Duke for exactly this reason. I think a big, tough blue collar stud or two would help with our image and recruiting as much as with the talent we send out in the short term. Adding C-Well and Nate is a great step in that direction and I hope it portends great things.

Excellent points. I tend to use hyperbole when trying to make a point, so my "exclusively" was a bit over the top. Let's just say I believe that class was a good 95% of the reason we made the rise back after the lean years. It was that important as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, yes, yes to your point about that class changing the basic "identity" of the Blue Devil teams before Brand & Co. We know it's not entirely true, but I think there was something to that group opening a few more doors. And while I haven't wanted to believe it, I've had the nagging suspicion that we are unfortunately getting that "preppy, white boy" label again. Very unfair to us, but I think it is a perception that's growing a little. A solid class with the same kind of tough, "nasty" players like you mentioned would be very welcome as far as I'm concerned.


Gary

[ArtVandelay]

To bring this discussion back to depth and away from yet another discussion of recruiting, I'll throw in a few things.

First, I will say that I don't know the answers to some your questions (particularly 2 and 3, as I understand them), as I have never coached a D1 basketball program. I hear people around these parts saying that it's the practices, and not the games, that really tire players out. If that is indeed true, then it strikes me that the "point" of having depth is not really to keep your team fresh come tournament time. I'm similarly unsure whether you need to be playing 10 guys in games to know who your best 5 are. It strikes me that this is something you can establish in practice to a certain extent, unless there really is a difference between practice and game performance in some players.

My broader opinion, which goes to questions 1 and 4, is that I think depth is highly overrated. I agree with Paul on this one - the quality of your "best 5" is really the most important thing. I think you answered your own question on #1 - there are any number of ways a team can be "deep," but I'm not sure it really matters, as long as your team is well-balanced. I don't have numbers to back this up, but the anecdotal evidence seems to indicate to me that a number of the best teams of late didn't play more than 7-8 guys. Playing 10 players, in my view, is NOT the only definition of depth. Frankly I don't think playing ten players just for the sake of it is a formula for success unless you're trying to play some sort of up-tempo variant of the 40 minutes of hell. And teams that play that style are usually just compensating for a lack of high-level talent in their top 5 anyway.

This brings me to the last question, which I guess bleeds into the "discussion of next year's rotation," but whatever. There is no way that K can find sufficient PT for 12 guys next year. In fact, it's the sort of situation that makes me worry about the transfer bug. In terms of the benefits of that depth, however, I still don't foresee us running any sort of 40 minutes of hell, shuffling all 12 guys in and out of the game, for several reasons. First, I still don't think those 12 guys are really fast enough or good enough defensive players across the board for it to be effective. Second, there will be a significant talent drop-off after our best few guys. G, Singler, and Scheyer are going to be all-ACC caliber players next year, but I think you can lump TK, McClure, Marty, Zoubek, Lance, etc. into the same "serviceable, but not stars unless they improve a lot over the off-season" category.

At the end of the day, I suspect we'll play a similar rotation to what we did this year - a core group of everyday players, with a supporting cast that will get more or less minutes depending on matchups. However, I must add the caveat that there are a lot of unknowns right now. Perhaps too many to even bother predicting how the minutes will get distributed. Most notably, I see Zoubek and King as guys who have the potential to become very different players, but it's also possible both could be roughly the same as this year. And we obviously won't know much about the freshmen for a while. If history is any indicator, someone will inevitably get injured, which will shift the balance. I do think a couple guys will ultimately get lost in the shuffle and not see much PT. My best guess right now is that Marty and Olek are the most likely candidates for this, but I could be wrong.

[jws]

I think that quality depth is actually underrated; not only because of the cumulative effects of the physical play allowed nowadays and the high-pressure, full court style of play being employed by so many teams; but also because of the devastating effect injury to one or two players can have on a team that lacks quality depth.

[Jumbo]

Minutes played in the NCAA title game:

Kansas
Rush 42
Chalmers 40
Arthur 35
Collins 34
Jackson 29
Kaun 21
Robinson 20
Aldrich 4

Memphis
Rose 45
Douglas-Roberts 42
Anderson 42
Dozier 39
Dorsey 26
Taggart 24
Kemp 4
Mack 2
Niles 1

Take from it what you will...

[Duvall]

Aldrich 4

You can't do this to a high school All-American. A transfer is surely imminent...

[dw0827]

Jumbo, I noticed that in the box scores as well. KU is very deep . . . yet only played 7 guys in the championship game.

I generally like prdduke's take on this although I'm not so much a "5 best guys" person. I think match-ups are very important. So maybe I'm a "5 best guys as long as the match-ups aren't too weird" kind of guy.

Either way, "depth" . . . or having a lot of guys who can do various things well . . . gives the coaching staff the ability to adjust, adapt, and modify their lineups in a manner that maximizes the likelihood of winning. Depth gives us flexibility. Doesn't mean that we have to play all the guys, just that we have a lot of flexibility.

Remember the goal is to win . . . not to play the greatest number of guys.

Also, on depth and conditioning, I think that we got "tired" for mental reasons, not physical reasons. I'm not sure that talking about more conditioning is the answer. I think we hit ( and Singler hit) a mental, emotional wall this year. I did a post about this a while back that expanded on this thought. Didn't get much response so I guess my take on this doesn't resonate. But search for it if you're interested. I'll spare you and not repeat it here.

Depth? We've got it. Doesn't require that we play it in every circumstance. It gives us flexibility, options . . . to win.

[budwom]

I've whined about depth in past years, but I don't think it was a problem this year. A lot of guys got a lot of minutes.

I do think fatigue was a factor. Some of that, I believe, was due to having a guy like Singler, talented as he is, banging all year down in the post against bigger, stronger, older guys. Had to take SOME toll on him.
Our frenetic (and effective) style of defense also had to take a toll.

I also think that perhaps our conditioning peaks a bit too early. I'm no expert on this stuff, but it seems that we run teams out of the gym November thru Jan/Feb, but lose energy late in the season. It's tough to stay at peak condition for four or five months, so I wonder if there might be a way to adjust our training so that we're a bit fresher in March.

As Jumbo noted above, Kansas didn't play a ton of guys, but they played with some serious energy.

Of course, we have a good returning group of players who will presumably be bigger and stronger next year, so perhaps that will fix part of the problem.

[eddiehaskell]

Very deep 1-3...

Nolan and Paulus are both good point guards.

Hendo, Scheyer, Elliot Williams and Pocius can all play the 2 and 3 positions. Singler can also step in at the 3 spot.

[devildeac]

Minutes played in the NCAA title game:

Kansas
Rush 42
Chalmers 40
Arthur 35
Collins 34
Jackson 29
Kaun 21
Robinson 20
Aldrich 4

Memphis
Rose 45
Douglas-Roberts 42
Anderson 42
Dozier 39
Dorsey 26
Taggart 24
Kemp 4
Mack 2
Niles 1

Take from it what you will...

KU won because their bench was much, much deeper having played 7 guys 20 minutes or more each and Memphis did not utilize their bench, therefore they were tired and lost. (please excuse me as I remove my tongue from my cheek)...I would bet that Jumbo's point is here that just about every coach 'shortens their bench' late in the year and this is pretty typical of year end games.

[whereinthehellami]

Part of it is knowing when to rest during a game. When to take a play off? Rose in particular was very effecient with using his energy. There wasn't much wasted energy, pretty remarkable for a freshman. I always think of Laettner during the 91 and 92 seasons walking down the court on offense. That must have drove teams nuts. Its amazing how simple this game is to some players.

[CDu]

Depth is, and always has been, a red herring. You win by being able to have the better team on the court for more of the game. Depth matters in making sure you can keep your best players fresh and not drop off too much when they're not in, and it matters in providing a safety net for when your best players don't have it and/or your best players are in foul trouble.

Kansas didn't have to play really deep to be great. They had seven guys who were all really good (yes, even Kaun). They could rotate those seven and keep everyone fresh while playing at an elite level. And if they ever got into foul trouble at all, they could send Aldrich, Reed, Case, or Stewart (before his injury) in to fill time, and the team would still function.

Memphis won because they had two of the best five players in the country (in my opinion) and surrounded them with long, athletic players at every position who bought into the system. They were actually pretty deep throughout the season (nine guys averaged 13+ minutes), but their depth took a hit when they lost their only backup at point guard (Allen) to suspension.

Unlike in previous years, we had pretty good depth this year. We didn't lose games this year because of lack of depth. In the Redick/Williams years, we lost some games due to lack of talent depth (i.e., not having enough top-tier players to support Redick and Williams), but not because Coach K didn't play more players.

[greybeard]

It is extremely difficult, almost impossible, to be a really good team without depth. Even if the starting 7 are set, good competition in practice seems irreplaceable.

Shortening the bench down the stretch seems to me to be an unfortunate practice. It might be an effective strategy (who knows, right), but at what cost. Coaches who shorten the bench are being hypocritical, although nobody in the profession would say it because everyone does it, even our heroes. Some heroes!

Coaching is a cool thing to have in college sports. Coaches micromanaging every part of the game is not cool, in my opinion. Coaches coming onto the court while play is going on is way uncool in my opinion. The idea that there could be a legal strategy that could deprive a team an opportunity for a game tying shot by a deliberate foul is beyond issues of cool, as is the legality of the tactic of icing the shooter; both should be legislated out of the game.

Sorry for the rant.

[ncexnyc]

I've always been critical of Coach K for what I've felt was his failure to develop his bench players. It seems to me that we've run out of gas a number of times in the NCAA's and during these games there were talented players on the bench, but they were never utilized because they hadn't gained the crunchtime seasoning that was necessary to throw them into a one and done situation.

I was firmly under the impression that 2008 was going to be different, as we were going quite deep into our bench and for some extended minutes as well. Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter. I realize the injury to Zoubek was part of this, however it seemed that McClure, King , and Smith all saw reduced playing time as the season progressed.

My point is, isn't the ultimate goal for the Duke Basketball Program a National Championship? Shouldn't we give the younger players more end game experience during the regular season, even if it means several more regular season loses? You can't be ready for March, if you've never experienced the pressure of having to play when the game is on the line.

[Jumbo]

I've always been critical of Coach K for what I've felt was his failure to develop his bench players. It seems to me that we've run out of gas a number of times in the NCAA's and during these games there were talented players on the bench, but they were never utilized because they hadn't gained the crunchtime seasoning that was necessary to throw them into a one and done situation.

I was firmly under the impression that 2008 was going to be different, as we were going quite deep into our bench and for some extended minutes as well. Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter. I realize the injury to Zoubek was part of this, however it seemed that McClure, King , and Smith all saw reduced playing time as the season progressed.

My point is, isn't the ultimate goal for the Duke Basketball Program a National Championship? Shouldn't we give the younger players more end game experience during the regular season, even if it means several more regular season loses? You can't be ready for March, if you've never experienced the pressure of having to play when the game is on the line.

I'm curious how you can rectify this statement ("Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter") with the following facts:
-Only one duke player averaged more than 30 mpg overall, and only two did in ACC games.
-The ACC Tourney would certainly count as the end of the season. Yet against Georgia Tech, 10 guys played at least six minutes, eight guys played at least 12 minutes and the bench combined to play 66 minutes. The next game, a tight loss against Clemson, one player played exactly 30 minutes (Nelson), 10 players played at least six minutes and nine players played at least 14 minutes. That's an absurd amount of depth.
-The only guy whose minutes declined consistently during the latter part of the season was Taylor King. Everyone else played pretty much the same amount of time. Nolan Smith's playing time fluctuated, but that was more performance based than linear. Note that he averaged 14.7 mpg on the season, yet went 19 minutes against Clemson and 12 against West Virginia. That's not exactly evidence of a shortened bench.

I've always said depth wasn't the number of guys you play, but the number of guys you can play. I've also always said that for people who worry strictly about guys playing too many minutes, you can distrubute starters' minutes just as conservatively with a seven-man rotation as a 10-man rotation. It's all about where a cut-off in talent occurs. For Duke this year, I saw three cut-offs in talent. Group 1: Nelson, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer (with Paulus probably thrown in there, too, I guess). Group 2: Thomas, Smith and Zoubek. Group 3: McClure and King. The first two groups, when healthy, generally played major minutes, with the exception of Zoubek on a couple of occasions where matchups dictated otherwise (i.e. WVU going really small, which made it tough to play Zoubek). And when that happened, McClure's minutes went up.

K used his reserves a lot this year because a) he actually had 10 scholarship players for a change (even after Marty got hurt) and b) there was a certain amount of parity among the players in terms of ability. Depth wasn't the problem this season, IMHO.

[greybeard]

K used his reserves a lot this year.

I agree. I think that he gave everyone of his scholarship players an appropriate opportunity to perform at meaningful times. I applaud K for this. I do not think doing so helped or hurt Duke's chances to win either individual games or throughout the season. I think it was a way cool goal that K achieved. I applaud him for it.

Somethings besides Championships are priceless.

.

[greybeard]

It might be the case that K's perspectives on the use of players, like other aspects of his approach to the game this season, were impacted by his experiences over the summer.

[bhd28]

I've always said depth wasn't the number of guys you play, but the number of guys you can play. I've also always said that for people who worry strictly about guys playing too many minutes, you can distrubute starters' minutes just as conservatively with a seven-man rotation as a 10-man rotation. It's all about where a cut-off in talent occurs. For Duke this year, I saw three cut-offs in talent. Group 1: Nelson, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer (with Paulus probably thrown in there, too, I guess). Group 2: Thomas, Smith and Zoubek. Group 3: McClure and King. The first two groups, when healthy, generally played major minutes, with the exception of Zoubek on a couple of occasions where matchups dictated otherwise (i.e. WVU going really small, which made it tough to play Zoubek). And when that happened, McClure's minutes went up.

K used his reserves a lot this year because a) he actually had 10 scholarship players for a change (even after Marty got hurt) and b) there was a certain amount of parity among the players in terms of ability. Depth wasn't the problem this season, IMHO.

Good assessment by Jumbo here. What is unfortunate is that, almost all our "big guys" (with the exception of Singler... who I feel kind of wore down at the end of the season ... around 7pppg and 4rpg the last 5 games... though he did play well vs. Virginia) are in Group 2 and Group 3. Depth isn't all about how many players play how many minutes (or even can play how many minutes), but WHERE those minutes come from and the quality of the players to whom they go. (i.e. Kansas and UNC had quality depth in their frontcourt and backcourt, where we had quality backcourt depth, but not much frontcourt depth... despite minutes played in some games). I mean Idaho State had 10 guys average double figure minutes... so they are one of the deeper teams in the country. Doesn't mean much when they go 12-19 in the Big Sky.

[Bluedawg]

IMHO, depth is only one factor in our fatigue problems.

I've wondered about this as well. I know he rotated more players than he normally does but yet they still looked fatigued. I couldn't figure that out.


We need more deapth in the post, because even if Coach K plays everyone on the bench, it won't help much if they are mostly small fowards and guards. We need depth inside and an increase in fitness IMO.

Agreed, and this has been a mantra of mine since WV. It appeared to me that their defense pushed out shooters a step or two beyond their comfort range because they didn't have to worry about an inside threat.

[MChambers]

I've wondered about this as well. I know he rotated more players than he normally does but yet they still looked fatigued. I couldn't figure that out.

Maybe, just maybe, the respiratory virus had something to do with that? Forget a big man coach, we need a new hospital. Let's get rid of the Duke Hospital and bring in the Mayo Clinic.

[greybeard]

Maybe, just maybe, the respiratory virus had something to do with that? Forget a big man coach, we need a new hospital. Let's get rid of the Duke Hospital and bring in the Mayo Clinic.

After the ACC tournament, didn't K say publicly that Singler was worn out, that he hoped the brief rest until the first round and maybe past it would allow him to recover? It didn't happen. Lance's inability to finish inside when he had the chances was somewhat disappointing; we now know that there was a contributing cause--his right hand needed surgery. The other inside player had a broken foot, and the best pull up jump shooter had a torn ligament in his wrist.

Teams overplayed the exterior players, and used their bigs, even if they were relatively small aka Belmont, to guard the basket against outside-to-the-rim penetration. With that option cut off and the bigs sub par, how could the outside game not look sluggish?

Then there is the flu, which hampered, in my opinion, the normal easy baskets that Markie and Scheyer normally would create off of steals. That put even more pressure on players like Markie to try to make something happen at the rim, against the odds.

[6th Man]

I think fatigue set in for Singler. The kid was asked to do a lot. He was almost always guarding a bigger, stronger player. He's 18, across the U.S from home, scrutinized on national TV everynight. I can't even imagine what an adjustment that had to be for him. I think Duke looked more tired as a whole even though they had some depth this year because they lacked big guys. Everyone had to take on a more physical role and you have to play intense man-to-man defense all night. If you have a couple of bangers down low that can be physical, it might lessen the load up on everyone else. As it was this season, everyone including guards had to play very physical to compete with bigger, stronger teams. Overall, that had to drain these kids physically.

[devildeac]

It might be the case that K's perspectives on the use of players, like other aspects of his approach to the game this season, were impacted by his experiences over the summer.

Hey GB,

Did you notice that you are Christian Laettner at 1149? Do you know who he is without Indoor66 looking him up or linking him for you:D ?(just kidding a little)

[Indoor66]

Hey GB,

Did you notice that you are Christian Laettner at 1149? Do you know who he is without Indoor66 looking him up or linking him for you:D ?(just kidding a little)

lol Greybeard and I are both getting older. We occasionally need a little help.... :)

[devildeac]

lol Greybeard and I are both getting older. We occasionally need a little help.... :)

Glad you took the gentle jab with the humor with which it was intended. Actually, I had forgotten the link to the stats page of GoDuke.com so when you remind me/us of that site/page, I find it quite useful to visit and learn a bit about the players who were a bit before my time. All in fun and in a days' postings;) .

[greybeard]

Hey GB,

Did you notice that you are Christian Laettner at 1149? Do you know who he is without Indoor66 looking him up or linking him for you:D ?(just kidding a little)

Do I have to answer that? I'm kinda liking having Indoor look out for me without using the usual rifle sight. :)

[ncexnyc]

I'm curious how you can rectify this statement ("Unfortunately, as the season wore on, our bench seemed to get shorter and shorter") with the following facts:
-Only one duke player averaged more than 30 mpg overall, and only two did in ACC games.
-The ACC Tourney would certainly count as the end of the season. Yet against Georgia Tech, 10 guys played at least six minutes, eight guys played at least 12 minutes and the bench combined to play 66 minutes. The next game, a tight loss against Clemson, one player played exactly 30 minutes (Nelson), 10 players played at least six minutes and nine players played at least 14 minutes. That's an absurd amount of depth.
-The only guy whose minutes declined consistently during the latter part of the season was Taylor King. Everyone else played pretty much the same amount of time. Nolan Smith's playing time fluctuated, but that was more performance based than linear. Note that he averaged 14.7 mpg on the season, yet went 19 minutes against Clemson and 12 against West Virginia. That's not exactly evidence of a shortened bench.

I've always said depth wasn't the number of guys you play, but the number of guys you can play. I've also always said that for people who worry strictly about guys playing too many minutes, you can distrubute starters' minutes just as conservatively with a seven-man rotation as a 10-man rotation. It's all about where a cut-off in talent occurs. For Duke this year, I saw three cut-offs in talent. Group 1: Nelson, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer (with Paulus probably thrown in there, too, I guess). Group 2: Thomas, Smith and Zoubek. Group 3: McClure and King. The first two groups, when healthy, generally played major minutes, with the exception of Zoubek on a couple of occasions where matchups dictated otherwise (i.e. WVU going really small, which made it tough to play Zoubek). And when that happened, McClure's minutes went up.

K used his reserves a lot this year because a) he actually had 10 scholarship players for a change (even after Marty got hurt) and b) there was a certain amount of parity among the players in terms of ability. Depth wasn't the problem this season, IMHO.

I pulled the info from ESPN's website, so feel free to verify it if you'd like.

Nolan Smith: In the first 22 games of the season he was in double digits for minutes in all of them, except for the Davidson game and he was a minute shy of being perfect. His average minutes per game during that 22 game span was a solid 16.
In the remaining 12 games, Nolan hit double digits in minutes played in 8 of the 12 games, but his average dropped down to 12.
Since you want to talk about Nolan's playing time during Tournament play let's include all four games, not just his best two. Against Tech, he logged only 7 minutes and against Belmont 10. As I've previously stated I feel talented players don't get a chance to shine during Tournament time as they aren't given the chance. Let's look at the minutes Smith played in the NCAA's vs those of Nelson. Smith gave us 10 minutes and 3 points against Belmont and 12 minutes and 5 points against WV. Nelson played 29 minutes against Belmont and gave us a whopping 2 points. Against WV he played 28 minutes and was good for six points. If I am not mistaken those came near the very end of the game. My question is why was Nelson given so much playing time if he wasn't producing and a quality replacement was on the bench?

David McClure: During that same 22 game span David had 4 DNP, 8 games of double digit minutes played and the Davidson game where he didn't get any minutes. His average was 10 minutes per game.
For the remaining 12 games, David had 4 double digit games and his average dropped to 8 minutes a game.

Taylor King: During the 22 game span, King had 14 double digit games, with an average of 12 minutes per game. His final 12 games as a Blue Devil saw him only breaking into double digits 3 times and his average was cut in half to 6 minutes per game.

Brian Zoubek: During the first 22 games of the season, Brian logged 9 DNP, and 8 double digit games. His average was 11 minutes per game. For the final 12 games, he logged 5 double digit games, but his average held fairly steady at 10 minutes per game.
Brian did exceptionally well in the final Clemson game, logging 20 minutes. but I'll never understand why he sat out the final 9 minutes of that game. Booker and Mays were using Thomas and Singler for human pinballs and whenever Brian was in that game, postive things seemed to happen for Duke. I was especially impressed with the way he worked with Scheyer. They seemed to have a good inside outside game going together. I agree that the Belmont and WV match-ups probably weren't good for us, but then you have to ask the question, "Isn't a match-up problem a two way street?" As I recall much was made of UNC's superior size the first time around, but many people didn't take into account that Hasbro would have to chase Singler on the perimeter and that would take away some of their rebounding advantage.

In closing, all 4 bench players did indeed see reduced minutes at the end of the season, the numbers don't lie.

[devildeac]

Do I have to answer that? I'm kinda liking having Indoor look out for me without using the usual rifle sight. :)

Nah, no answer necessary. That's why I added the emoticon and the parenthetical comment. I have been a huge fan for over 35 years and still have to look up some of the players from the 60's and all the players before that (except Mr. Groat, of course;) ).