Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:
2-point%: .367
3-point%: .424
%threes: 52.4%
eFG%: 50.8%
TO%: 20.2%
DR%: 82.5%
FTRate: 11.1%
oRating: 0.91
Everything good except letting them hit 42+% of their three-point shots.
From COYS’ Phase I post:
Excellent advice. Why don’t we do exactly that here.No matter what defense Duke employs, keep a close eye on opponent 2pt% and turnover rates as indicators for which direction this Duke team is trending. The Michigan State game will be an excellent early test of this young Duke team’s defense.
Duke defensive stats vs. Elon:
2-point%: .367
3-point%: .424
%threes: 52.4%
eFG%: 50.8%
TO%: 20.2%
DR%: 82.5%
FTRate: 11.1%
oRating: 0.91
Everything good except letting them hit 42+% of their three-point shots.
Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.
You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner
You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
As Troublemaker pointed out in the Elon post-game thread, Duke has allowed the opposing team to shoot a lot of threes relative to past Duke teams in all three of the exhibitions and now also the first real game. This is such a drastic departure from past Duke teams. If this trend continues, it’s possible my focus on opponent 2pt% and turnover rate could be a little misguided . . . Although if we’re allowing more threes then it is perhaps even more imperative that we limit opponents from taking and making two point shots.
I don't know that it's a matter of good or not good, but as COYS points out, it has always been a main goal of our defense to limit three-point attempts, since (as we all know) a made three is worth 1.5 of a made two. Here's 30 years worth of data:
Obviously we've only seen one game and two exhibitions so far, but our three opponents' aggregate info looks like this:Code:Year % 3s %2s 3 pt success 2 pt success 1.5*3 succ 2017 28.8% 71.2% 0.293 0.489 0.440 2016 24.1% 75.9% 0.307 0.503 0.461 2015 27.8% 72.2% 0.314 0.463 0.471 2014 24.1% 75.9% 0.307 0.503 0.461 2013 26.9% 73.1% 0.29 0.462 0.435 2012 24.1% 75.9% 0.317 0.470 0.476 2011 24.6% 75.4% 0.324 0.432 0.486 2010 25.4% 74.6% 0.282 0.441 0.423 2009 26.0% 74.0% 0.338 0.468 0.507 2008 25.0% 75.0% 0.329 0.470 0.494 2007 24.3% 75.7% 0.315 0.457 0.473 2006 21.3% 78.7% 0.304 0.464 0.456 2005 20.9% 79.1% 0.305 0.413 0.458 2004 25.2% 74.8% 0.324 0.435 0.486 2003 25.1% 74.9% 0.346 0.477 0.519 2002 26.3% 73.7% 0.303 0.464 0.455 2001 24.4% 75.6% 0.344 0.439 0.516 2000 24.6% 75.4% 0.358 0.437 0.537 1999 25.6% 74.4% 0.301 0.422 0.452 1998 25.0% 75.0% 0.305 0.447 0.458 1997 23.4% 76.6% 0.340 0.447 0.510 1996 27.0% 73.0% 0.335 0.475 0.503 1995 24.2% 75.8% 0.390 0.454 0.585 1994 23.1% 76.9% 0.297 0.450 0.446 1993 19.9% 80.1% 0.289 0.481 0.434 1992 20.4% 79.6% 0.377 0.490 0.566 1991 19.4% 80.6% 0.347 0.468 0.521 1990 15.4% 84.6% 0.337 0.472 0.506 1989 18.2% 81.8% 0.320 0.446 0.480 1988 16.3% 83.7% 0.351 0.471 0.527 1987 13.9% 86.1% 0.335 0.472 0.503
Since our previous team "record" for highest percentage of opponents' threes was 28.8% (set last season), the fact that almost half our opponents shots so far have been threes is a big change.Code:Year % 3s %2s 3 pt success 2 pt success 1.5*3 succ 2018 49.2% 50.8% 0.336 0.317 0.504
The imbalance between opponents' two-point efficiency vs. three-point efficiency should also be something to watch this season. In four of the past five seasons, two-pointers have been more efficient against us than three-pointers (the exception being 2015 when they were close to even). But before 2013, in only five of the 26 seasons since the three-point shot was adopted were two-point shots more efficient against us than three-point shots (though 2010 was one of the five). Perhaps our defensive strategy this season is trying to deal with the recent trend?
Presumably, the two efficiencies should be close to even (because if they're not then you have an exploitable flaw). In any event, we've never had anything close to a difference in efficiencies of .187 (.504 - .317). In only six of the 31 seasons since they adopted the three was our absolute difference larger than .055 (1988, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2001), and in only two seasons was the absolute difference larger than .080 (2000: .100 and 1995: .131).
Put another way, if our opponents' efficiency from two and three stay the same, then if we can lower the number of three-attempts they make our defense will get that much more effective. Even if attempting to limit opposing threes would increase opposing two-point efficiency, it would still seem to be a good strategy until the relative efficiencies were at least close to even.
Duke defensive stats vs. UVU:
2-point%: .452
3-point%: .240
%threes: 37.3%
eFG%: 41.8%
TO%: 24.5%
DR%: 62.8%
FTRate: 23.9%
dRating: 0.89
A/to: 1:1.46
Asst Rate: 52.0%
Block %: 10.4% (16.7% of twos)
Efficiency difference: -.092 (opposing two efficiency much better than opposing three efficiency)
So, overall good but defensive rebounding and allowing easy cuts for twos less good.
These are UK's corresponding defensive stats against UVU:
2-point: .474
3-point: .278
%threes: 32.1%
eFG%: 45.5%
TO%: 29.2%
DR%: 55.6%
So, we rebounded against Utah Valley better than Kentucky did and held UVU to a lower shooting percentage, but UK turned them over a lot more. And UVU attempted a higher percentage of threes against Duke than against UK. Our overall defensive efficiency (0.89) was a little better than Kentucky's (0.92).
Duke defensive stats vs. Michigan State:
2-point%: .611
3-point%: .360
%threes: 41.0%
eFG%: 58.2%
TO%: 22.5%
DR%: 65.6%
FT Rate: 29.5%
dRating: 1.07
A/to: 1.47:1
Asst Rate: 80.6%
Block %: 8.2% (13.9% of twos)
Efficiency difference: -.071 (opposing two efficiency much better than opposing three efficiency)
Considering that Marvin only played 10 minutes, this isn't bad against the #2 team in the country. But their 2-pt efficiency was really good (for them, bad for us). Lucky for us (or maybe it had little to do with luck), they took a lot of threes.
Getting back on D and preventing uncontested layups - or, "rim runs" as the kids today like to say - might help our defensive efficiency.
There was a moment in the first half where our 2-point defense was really, really good after we gave up those first three easy fast-break buckets. We didn't actually block any shots during this span, but our bigs altered a few and we forced some weird jumpers/floaters instead of letting MSU players get to the rim. Then Marvin got hurt and fouls started to mount for some of our guys, which seemed to limit their ability to contest shots. Also, because of Marvin's absence and foul trouble, we used a few less-than-idea lineups. Of course, in the second half, our bigs struggled with foul trouble for the entire half, so those same problems persisted.
I'm hoping that the high 2pt% is related to the combination of foul trouble and playing without Marvin. Getting Marvin back should improve both (we'll have an extra five fouls to give in the post and we won't have to play a lineup with JGold, Vrank, AND Alex on the court at the same time in the first half of a competitive game). We might not have been excellent at preventing a high percentage from two, but I bet it would have been at least a little bit better.
Who needs a moral victory when you can have a real one?
Duke defensive stats vs. Southern:
2-point%: .300
3-point%: .412
%threes: 25.4%
eFG%: 38.1%
TO%: 11.6%
DR%: 71.1%
FT Rate: 22.4%
dRating: 0.88
A/to: 1:1
Asst Rate: 36.4%
Block %: 14.9% (20.0% of twos)
Efficiency difference: 23.7 (opposing three efficiency WAAAAAY better than opposing two efficiency)
We stifled their inside game but they hit their threes. Good news is they didn't take so many threes, on a percentage basis. Also, we only forced 8 turnovers, which is pretty bad against a team like Southern.
Our two best turnover-producing games so far have been the two games we used zone -- Utah Valley and MSU. (Although for Utah Valley, we only used it for the last 60% of the game or so).
As I wrote elsewhere, I have a strong gut feeling this pattern will continue where zone produces more opponent turnovers than man.
Duke defensive stats vs. Furman:
2-point%: .457
3-point%: .310
%threes: 45.3%
eFG%: 46.1%
TO%: 19.4%
DR%: 66.7%
FT Rate: 9.4%
dRating: 0.94
A/to: 1.08:1
Asst Rate: 52.0%
Block %: 12.5% (22.9% of twos)
Efficiency difference: 0.8, basically a wash between twos and threes.
Considering how good our offense was tonight, the defense was more than adequate.