How Do We Fare When Our Big Men Hedge?

[tommy]

Tommy: I've found myself nodding like a bobble head doll for just about everything you've said in this post, mostly with gratitude and appreciation for the care with which you've put all of this together, and analyzed it to boot.

But I must join Newton and quibble at the same pick at which he knitted. (Does that make me a "re-quibbler"? I hope so. It sounds like something Seinfeld might say.)

First, I agree that Seth was generally irrelevant in the play. He was in proper deny defense as far as I could tell. I also agree that a huge caveat here is that the players may have simply been in the positions the coaches told them to be in, so the quibbling, re-quibbling, and over-quibbling we do from afar may be a moot point. (Or a "moo" point as they say in Chapel Hill--my understanding is that the letter "t" has been dropped from the alphabet there, as they've begun to counter our proclamations of Coach K as "the greatest of all time" by calling Roy-Will "the greatest of all." This should probably be met with rejoinders such as a recalibrated satire of "The Greatest Love of All" featuring Roy-Will and the fan from the Presbyterian game, but I digress. Again.)

So let's pull up the screenshots:

Attachment 2256Attachment 2257Attachment 2258

Looking at these, I'm compelled to disagree with you that Austin could not have had an effect on the outcome of the play had he been in better position. From where the ball was at the time the screen was about to be set, Austin presumably should have had at least one foot in the paint. His head, to be on a swivel, would have allowed me to see the screener darting for the basket. With a single sidestep, he could have placed himself directly between the cutting player and the basket.

If the screener then dished it out to Austin's man, Austin would not have been responsible for the three-point shooter in that instance; Seth Curry would be. And at some point after the ball had been dished out to Austin's (now Seth's) man, Mason would have needed to recover, and Austin would have needed to guard Seth's old man. Or something to that effect. I'm spitballing now. The point, though, is that the rotation would have been expected to continue.

So there's my re-quibble. Now, that isn't to say you should adjust your masterwork above. As I said before, it's superstar stuff. We're just being ungrateful readers by pushing you to make something perfect more perfect.

Ha! OK, I'm going to re-re-quibble. And then I'm gonna let it go -- not that I need to like, you know, get the last word in or anything . . . And I definitely respect and value your opinion on these things, big time.

What I see is that the screener received the pass at the elbow, right in the area where that red strip of paint is, between the narrow and wide lane boundaries. He's at the left elbow, basically. So to me that means that even had Austin had a foot in the lane from the right side, or on the right side red area, it wouldn't be a "single sidestep" he would have needed to take to be a factor in the play. He would've needed 3 or 4 sidesteps to get all the way across the lane to defend the man heading for the hoop. That's an awfully long way for him to go. Sure, his shading more might've potentially influenced the route of the man as he headed down the lane, possibly a little more towards Ryan, but maybe not, and that would be a real nuance that would be tough to assess.

I really think the primary help responsibilities in this case belong to Ryan, because he's the one who started on the ball side -- he's closer, needing less steps to get there. Yes, that would leave his man open for a dish, but that would be true for whoever left his man to help on the ball.

OK I definitely think this play has now broken the DBR record for most minutely analyzed single play in the history of the boards, with the possible exception of Hansborough's face taking out Gerald's elbow. But I'm not complaining -- I love the detailed analysis with you guys who are obviously sophisticated and knowledgeable students of the game.

[NSDukeFan]

Ha! OK, I'm going to re-re-quibble. And then I'm gonna let it go -- not that I need to like, you know, get the last word in or anything . . . And I definitely respect and value your opinion on these things, big time.

What I see is that the screener received the pass at the elbow, right in the area where that red strip of paint is, between the narrow and wide lane boundaries. He's at the left elbow, basically. So to me that means that even had Austin had a foot in the lane from the right side, or on the right side red area, it wouldn't be a "single sidestep" he would have needed to take to be a factor in the play. He would've needed 3 or 4 sidesteps to get all the way across the lane to defend the man heading for the hoop. That's an awfully long way for him to go. Sure, his shading more might've potentially influenced the route of the man as he headed down the lane, possibly a little more towards Ryan, but maybe not, and that would be a real nuance that would be tough to assess.

I really think the primary help responsibilities in this case belong to Ryan, because he's the one who started on the ball side -- he's closer, needing less steps to get there. Yes, that would leave his man open for a dish, but that would be true for whoever left his man to help on the ball.

OK I definitely think this play has now broken the DBR record for most minutely analyzed single play in the history of the boards, with the possible exception of Hansborough's face taking out Gerald's elbow. But I'm not complaining -- I love the detailed analysis with you guys who are obviously sophisticated and knowledgeable students of the game.

I believe there were some foul shots, a pick and long range shot that were analyzed much more than this in the past couple years.

[COYS]

I believe there were some foul shots, a pick and long range shot that were analyzed much more than this in the past couple years.

I also believe those where the most fun and enjoyable plays to nitpick in recent Duke history.

[tommy]

Not a lot to add to the hedging "study" from the Virginia game. Amazingly, UVA ran a high screen (or any screen really) that we had to hedge on only four times the entire game. Out of the 68 possessions I charted. For whatever reason, or no reason, Mason was the hedger on all four occasions. The good news is that on three of the four plays UVA did not get a shot off as part of the screen/roll or the immediate aftermath. The plays went nowhere. On the other, just before halftime, Dawkins and Kelly got mixed up on a screen as to who was going to stay with which guy, leaving a shooter in the corner, and he nailed a 3.

Not really even worth it to create a chart, but with such small numbers it's quick, so here are the two tables, the first for our guys covering the dribbler and screener, and the second for the "back 3."

• 	Total plays	Full recovery to man	Remained in switch	Stayed in double	Contested shot - screener or dribbler	Uncontested shot - screener or dribbler	No shot permitted at all	Allowed split at top	xtra big pushout by hedger	not big enough pushout	got hands on ball	fouled	helped force turnover	hoop allowed
  Curry	1		1											1
  Rivers	2	2					2
  Dawkins	0
  Cook	1	1					1
  Thornton	0
  Mason	4	3	1				3			1				1
  Miles	0
  Kelly	0
  Hairston
  Gbinije

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  OK here's the chart for when guys were part of the "back 3."
  
  
  

  	Total plays	Middle big steps to help (fails to)	Side man shades/helps (fails to)	Contested shot allowed	Uncontested shot allowed	No shot allowed	Not involved in play	Fouled	Good talk	Forced turnover	Hoop allowed
  Curry	2					2	2
  Rivers	1					1	1
  Dawkins	3			1		2	2				1
  Cook	0
  Thornton	2			1		1	2				1
  Mason	0
  Miles	1					1	1
  Kelly	3			1		2	2				1
  Hairston
  Gbinije

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

[Newton_14]

Not a lot to add to the hedging "study" from the Virginia game. Amazingly, UVA ran a high screen (or any screen really) that we had to hedge on only four times the entire game. Out of the 68 possessions I charted. For whatever reason, or no reason, Mason was the hedger on all four occasions. The good news is that on three of the four plays UVA did not get a shot off as part of the screen/roll or the immediate aftermath. The plays went nowhere. On the other, just before halftime, Dawkins and Kelly got mixed up on a screen as to who was going to stay with which guy, leaving a shooter in the corner, and he nailed a 3.

Not really even worth it to create a chart, but with such small numbers it's quick, so here are the two tables, the first for our guys covering the dribbler and screener, and the second for the "back 3."

• 	Total plays	Full recovery to man	Remained in switch	Stayed in double	Contested shot - screener or dribbler	Uncontested shot - screener or dribbler	No shot permitted at all	Allowed split at top	xtra big pushout by hedger	not big enough pushout	got hands on ball	fouled	helped force turnover	hoop allowed
  Curry	1		1											1
  Rivers	2	2					2
  Dawkins	0
  Cook	1	1					1
  Thornton	0
  Mason	4	3	1				3			1				1
  Miles	0
  Kelly	0
  Hairston
  Gbinije

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  OK here's the chart for when guys were part of the "back 3."
  
  
  

  	Total plays	Middle big steps to help (fails to)	Side man shades/helps (fails to)	Contested shot allowed	Uncontested shot allowed	No shot allowed	Not involved in play	Fouled	Good talk	Forced turnover	Hoop allowed
  Curry	2					2	2
  Rivers	1					1	1
  Dawkins	3			1		2	2				1
  Cook	0
  Thornton	2			1		1	2				1
  Mason	0
  Miles	1					1	1
  Kelly	3			1		2	2				1
  Hairston
  Gbinije

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Thanks Tommy. Yep, UVA does not employ the high ball screen as part of their offense. They instead use what I call a wing screen where the big sets a screen for the wing player to curl around on, with the ball-handler shaded to the side of the big & wing, with multiple reads/choices to make. They do this very effectively I might add, and it is not a "one screen and done" kind of thing. The ball handler will keep his dribble alive while the wing continually uses the big as a blocker going high then low off the big multiple times until something opens up, which it normally does. Very frustrating I'm sure for the poor soul trying to defend the UVA wing player.

It's just an old school offense that Bennett learned from his dad and brought with him to the ACC. It presents many options for the 3 offensive players in the deployment, and puts a great deal of pressure on both the big's defender and the wing's defender.

I would not dare ask you to try to chart ths success/failure of all those screens from that game as it would take forever.

[tommy]

Thanks Tommy. Yep, UVA does not employ the high ball screen as part of their offense. They instead use what I call a wing screen where the big sets a screen for the wing player to curl around on, with the ball-handler shaded to the side of the big & wing, with multiple reads/choices to make. They do this very effectively I might add, and it is not a "one screen and done" kind of thing. The ball handler will keep his dribble alive while the wing continually uses the big as a blocker going high then low off the big multiple times until something opens up, which it normally does. Very frustrating I'm sure for the poor soul trying to defend the UVA wing player.

It's just an old school offense that Bennett learned from his dad and brought with him to the ACC. It presents many options for the 3 offensive players in the deployment, and puts a great deal of pressure on both the big's defender and the wing's defender.

I would not dare ask you to try to chart ths success/failure of all those screens from that game as it would take forever.

Absolutely right. They used that "wing screen" a lot, and it was effective. We had some difficulty staying with the dribbler, he would get into the teeth of the defense, necessitating help and distorting the defense. They were well-schooled in running it, and it fits well with their personnel.

I have to say, the quality of coaching we have faced this year already seems to be much improved. Just the last three games alone, I thought Dunphy, Gregory, and Bennett all did excellent jobs preparing their teams for Duke and have really figured out ways to maximize the talent they have on their squads. Impressive.