MBB: Duke vs. UCLA Pre-game and In-game Thread

[gofurman]

The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

[OldPhiKap]

The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

This should be a very good game and a good measure of where our young team is. Fascinating year ahead, for sure.

[kAzE]

Jabari might be matched up against Kyle Anderson, that should be fun to watch. Both of them are great offensive players, so I'm looking forward to the fireworks.

[tommy]

Jabari might be matched up against Kyle Anderson, that should be fun to watch. Both of them are great offensive players, so I'm looking forward to the fireworks.

Jabari probably won't play Anderson much. Anderson, though he's 6'9" is essentially a point guard, though sometimes he plays more of a point forward thing for the Bruins. Jabari usually guards opposing bigs, which means for UCLA the Wear twins and Tony Parker.

Anderson is a terrific player, the key to UCLA's team IMO, but he's not an electric scorer who will provide those kinds of "fireworks" that you mentioned. He is a really unique player. He is slow afoot and he can't jump -- his nickname even is "Slo-Mo" -- but he sees the game very well, seemingly a step or two ahead of everybody else. So he's always in the right place at the right time, makes the right pass, plays the angles very well, knows where the rebound is going and gets there first, that kind of thing. Very smart and instinctive as well. And with his height and natural passing ability, as well as his handle, he's a very difficult guy to prepare for and to play against on the perimeter, and becomes more so when he goes inside if the opponent tries to guard him with a smaller guy who brings quickness. Some have even likened Anderson to a poor man's Magic Johnson, and while he doesn't have that kind of personality at all -- Anderson is much more laid back -- he is a very big point guard (at heart) and a stat sheet stuffer, as he's averaging 13.8 ppg, along with 8.7 boards and 6.7 assists, all in 31 minutes per night. I think Rodney Hood would be an excellent guy to put on Anderson.

[brevity]

The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

Surprised to see them sticking with college. I imagined it would go quite differently in Chapel Hill...

"I think we've outgrown a full-time education."
"Yeah, I've been feeling that way myself."
"Time to test our talents in the real world, d'you reckon?"
"Definitely."

[Edouble]

The UNC Wear twins are still at UCLA - kind of fun to try and beat them at two different teams !

I believe they are on the team.

[Troublemaker]

Anderson is a terrific player, the key to UCLA's team IMO, but he's not an electric scorer who will provide those kinds of "fireworks" that you mentioned. He is a really unique player. He is slow afoot and he can't jump -- his nickname even is "Slo-Mo" -- but he sees the game very well, seemingly a step or two ahead of everybody else. So he's always in the right place at the right time, makes the right pass, plays the angles very well, knows where the rebound is going and gets there first, that kind of thing. Very smart and instinctive as well. And with his height and natural passing ability, as well as his handle, he's a very difficult guy to prepare for and to play against on the perimeter, and becomes more so when he goes inside if the opponent tries to guard him with a smaller guy who brings quickness. Some have even likened Anderson to a poor man's Magic Johnson, and while he doesn't have that kind of personality at all -- Anderson is much more laid back -- he is a very big point guard (at heart) and a stat sheet stuffer, as he's averaging 13.8 ppg, along with 8.7 boards and 6.7 assists, all in 31 minutes per night.

Excellent description of Anderson. He was one of my faves in high school; Howland might possibly still be employed at UCLA had he used Anderson as the PG last year instead of Drew.

Anderson is definitely a matchup conundrum for opposing teams as a 6'9" 235-lb point guard. I think, despite the size difference, Duke will use Quinn to guard him. Hopefully Quinn's ball pressure will get Anderson to turn his back at times.

[JasonEvans]

Will Tony Parker's news conference be done in time for him to play?

UCLA's backup PG/SG is Bryce Alford. Just a freshman but he plays a lot and is lethal from three. His daddy is his coach. Like nearly everyone on their team, he plays around 20 minutes a game. This club makes great use of its bench.

UCLA is a good matchup for us, the kind of team we are likely to face in the second round of the NCAA tourney if we get a bad break in the seedings. The top ten streak will most definitely be on the line in this game.

-Jason "we've done pretty well against UCLA under K... hope it continues" Evans

[HCheek37]

Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

[jv001]

Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

Hopefully we win against UCLA and then make up the difference with some good away game wins during the ACC season. GoDuke!

[nocilla]

Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

Don't forget Michigan. They aren't a top level team but about the same as UCLA.

[Goduke2010]

Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Huge game for Duke to come out and get a key win. Lets hope the familiarity of playing at the Garden from a few weeks ago helps out the guys and they are ready from the tip.

Hey, I'm always happy to have someone else sound the alarm. :-)

After reading your post, I went to Kenpom for the last 8 years and looked at Off-Eff minus Def-Eff. I then compared that to actual tourney seed as well as the seed Duke "should" have been based on that differential difference (in other words, trying to adjust for seeding bias, which in Duke's case, is usually (except for 2007) upwards.

Right now our differential is 118 - 100 = 18. Based on the past 8 years, that's somewhere between a 3 and a 5 seed. If we climb to the 22 - 24 range in terms of differential, we're looking at a 2 or 3 seed. The two years where we were a 1 seed (2010 and 2011), our differential was 31 and 24, respectively.

The only year where our O-Eff was higher than 118 was in 2010, a 120. Overall, our current 118 is really, really good. Which means, we might expect a bit of regression during ACC play. Which also means, we have to lower of D-Eff by at least 5 points if we want a good shot at a 3 seed.

I'm really confused why our D has been so average this year. Sure we don't have size under the basket, but does that explain how some really good athletes (Jabari and Hood especially) are so mediocre? Going into the season, K had said Jabari could guard 2 - 5 and Hood could guard 1 - 4. So far that seems preposterous.

I noticed we played some zone yesterday. Is there data which shows D-Eff based on defense being played? I'm curious if that was better or worse than our usual D.

[sagegrouse]

Hey, I'm always happy to have someone else sound the alarm. :-)

After reading your post, I went to Kenpom for the last 8 years and looked at Off-Eff minus Def-Eff. I then compared that to actual tourney seed as well as the seed Duke "should" have been based on that differential difference (in other words, trying to adjust for seeding bias, which in Duke's case, is usually (except for 2007) upwards.

Right now our differential is 118 - 100 = 18. Based on the past 8 years, that's somewhere between a 3 and a 5 seed. If we climb to the 22 - 24 range in terms of differential, we're looking at a 2 or 3 seed. The two years where we were a 1 seed (2010 and 2011), our differential was 31 and 24, respectively.

The only year where our O-Eff was higher than 118 was in 2010, a 120. Overall, our current 118 is really, really good. Which means, we might expect a bit of regression during ACC play. Which also means, we have to lower of D-Eff by at least 5 points if we want a good shot at a 3 seed.

I'm really confused why our D has been so average this year. Sure we don't have size under the basket, but does that explain how some really good athletes (Jabari and Hood especially) are so mediocre? Going into the season, K had said Jabari could guard 2 - 5 and Hood could guard 1 - 4. So far that seems preposterous.

I noticed we played some zone yesterday. Is there data which shows D-Eff based on defense being played? I'm curious if that was better or worse than our usual D.

Puh-leese. Number 1: you have only eight data points, and you are stretching these to make really finely graded predictions, such as the ordinal ranking of a team in NCAA tournament seeds. Most stat guys want 30 degrees of freedom (more than 30 observations) or more.

Number 2: although I have a quantitative background, I really am fond of wins and losses in predicting NCAA tournament seed. Now, you may believe that offense minus defense efficiency ratings predict wins and losses, but you didn't say that.

Number 3 is the first part of Sage Grouse's Lament: (a) Many teams are much better (or much different) in February and March than in November and December, and this Duke team, with all the turnover, is early in the development process, esp. on defense.

sage
'The other two parts of the Lament are: (b) The only games that occur after early January are conference games. (c) The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee, because of (a) and (b), has no logical way to rank teams between conferences; thererfore, the process of making seedings is a fool's errand. But, that is a topic for another day.'

[Goduke2010]

Puh-leese. Number 1: you have only eight data points, and you are stretching these to make really finely graded predictions, such as the ordinal ranking of a team in NCAA tournament seeds. Most stat guys want 30 degrees of freedom (more than 30 observations) or more.

Number 2: although I have a quantitative background, I really am fond of wins and losses in predicting NCAA tournament seed. Now, you may believe that offense minus defense efficiency ratings predict wins and losses, but you didn't say that.

Number 3 is the first part of Sage Grouse's Lament: (a) Many teams are much better (or much different) in February and March than in November and December, and this Duke team, with all the turnover, is early in the development process, esp. on defense.

sage
'The other two parts of the Lament are: (b) The only games that occur after early January are conference games. (c) The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee, because of (a) and (b), has no logical way to rank teams between conferences; thererfore, the process of making seedings is a fool's errand. But, that is a topic for another day.'

8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

[UrinalCake]

Don't forget Michigan. They aren't a top level team but about the same as UCLA.

OP was only talking about neutral court games. Michigan was at home, which doesn't carry as much weight with the RPI/Selection Committee.

I think we're a long ways from needing to worry about a 1 seed. Let's focus on improving our defense and getting our bench guys some minutes.

[flyingdutchdevil]

8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

For someone with 3 years at a top consulting firm, you're not great at getting your points across. You may want to provide more analysis and then come to a conclusion - rather than the other way around - in order to get taken seriously around here.

[BD80]

For someone with 3 years at a top consulting firm, you're not great at getting your points across. You may want to provide more analysis and then come to a conclusion - rather than the other way around - in order to get taken seriously around here.

"I will graciously overlook the fact that she is an arrogant sub-par scientist, who actually believes loop quantum gravity better unites quantum mechanics with general relativity than does string theory."

Sheldon: BBT

Gotta love nerd smacktalk.

[sagegrouse]

8 data points are, in this case, comprised of a huge number of more discrete data points. I suspect my analytical background (3 years at McKinsey) is at least as substantial as yours, so believing that 8 years of summary data can't be significantly predictive belies a misunderstanding of statistics.

Does anyone not think that differential and wins-losses aren't directly related? That seems to be a comment just to be needlessly argumentative.

With #3, I think this data shows we need to improve our D-Eff by 5% - 10% over the next couple of months. While that seems doable, I don't have the data to suggest how often that type of improvement occurs. I would say that our D-Eff actually getting worse after last night's game is a concern, given how mediocre the opponent was, and our D appeared to be improving the previous couple of games.

I guess this is the Rand Corporation against McKinsey; but never mind. Eight data points are still eight data points, as you would find if you did a stat test, such as regressing NCAA seeding against your preferred variable and looking at the t-statistics on the resulting coefficient. It doesn't really matter how aggregated the data are.

Of course, what's important is that you made more at McKinsey than I did at Rand in the 1970's. Heck, when I left Rand to go into government, I got a pay raise!

Kindly, Sage

[Troublemaker]

Not to sound any alarms here but if we head into ACC play without a marquee neutral court win after playing Arizona, Kansas and UCLA that limits our seeding unless we have a vastly superior ACC season. Losses to all 3 of those teams followed up by decent conference records would put us in a hole to possibly achieve a 1 or a 2 seed.

Yes, agreed. This is a huge game. If Duke emerges victorious, which I think we will, you'll hear the term "program win" used by our coaches and players in the postgame.

Besides the seeding implications of avoiding the 0-3 in major neutral site games, it's important to just get a win against the type of team UCLA is. Duke is a team trying to fix our defense, especially our 2-pt defense and defense against penetration. Right now, Pomeroy has UCLA ranked as the best offense we've played all season (although it's essentially a tie between them and Kansas and Arizona), and they are shooting 59.3% from 2-pt range (3rd best in the country). UCLA likes to spread the court and drive to the basket using the athleticism of Adams, Powell, and Lavine and the craftiness of Anderson. On defense, UCLA plays mostly zone, which has bothered us at times. They have size inside with the Wear twins and Tony Parker. Altogether, the Bruins represent a test of a lot of our early-season problems.

Our players just finished their academic final exams. UCLA as an opponent is a nice basketball final exam for the non-conference slate.

[Troublemaker]

Other considerations from a Duke fan's perspective. (I don't think the coaches or players care a bit about these things).

• Don't want to go 0-3 in major non-conf games while Carolina goes 3-0
• Don't want to lose to Tony Parker
• Don't want to have a losing record in MSG. C'mon, that's like our 2nd or 3rd home.
• Don't want to go 0-2 against Pac-10 teams Arizona & UCLA who, like Duke, are also recruiting Chase Jeter and Tyler Dorsey in the class of 2015

I really want this win.