Beware of geeks bearing GIFs (Thread for Play Analysis, Highlights, Fun, etc)

[Troublemaker]

Use this thread to post GIFs from our games. You can analyze plays or just post highlights or fun plays that occurred.

The warning in the thread title is about the browsing performance of this thread. Everyone posting GIFs should try to only post low-resolution GIFs and link high-resolution ones, but even still, the performance of this thread could drag, especially on mobile devices.

To help with that, when replying to the thread, try not to quote someone else's GIF unless necessary. So, for example, if a post of mine has three GIFs in it and you just want to comment on one of them, excise the other two GIFs from your reply.

I wrote a guide on how to make GIFs here. Hopefully many of us will be using this thread to make GIFs, but from previous experience, this thread might become my personal playground.

[Troublemaker]

I finally have some time these next couple of days to post some GIFs.

I'm going to try to make a series of posts. We'll see where it goes but the rough outline I have in my head right now is to tackle the 3 major weaknesses of Duke's defense in the halfcourt this season, as I see it:

(1) Allowing opposing guards to reject ball screens, i.e. no direction control on ball screens.

(2) Positioning the big man high on ball screens to protect against pull-up threes, which opens up drives and (sadly) catch-and-shoot threes, which are easier to hit than pull-up threes.

(3) Overhelping off of shooters. A new one for this season.

[Troublemaker]

The problem with opposing guards rejecting ball screens was apparent from the first exhibition game (and the problem with giving up three-point attempts even earlier):

• Just like with CTC, Duke's defense gave up a ton of 3-pt attempts again. We'll need to continue to collect more data to see if this change is real, but so far Duke does seem to be leaving shooters to help inside much more liberally than we've done in past years, where we've always ranked near the top of the country in limiting 3-pt attempts.
• The defense was good but not perfect by any means. As the game proceeded, NWMoSt's guards started to "reject the ball screen" more often (i.e. fake dribbling in the direction of the screen, and then go the other way), and this tactic fooled Trevon and JGold a few times. They'll need to do a better job of not falling for that trick.

Unfortunately, it's still not solved.

Let's first show a few examples of what I mean when a guard "rejects" the ball screen, and then we'll expand the analysis in follow-up posts. Essentially, the opposing guard doesn't use the screen but beats the Duke defender off the dribble going away from the screen.


Against FSU. Higher-resolution version.




Against Texas. Higher-res version.




Against BC. Higher-res version.

[Neals384]

Good stuff!

[CDu]

Those just look like flat-footed defense rather than getting fooled by a player rejecting a screen.

Also, as a defender, especially if you have the right positional matchup (e.g., small on small), you actually prefer the ballhandler NOT to use the screen, because our defense tends to switch on screens, and our bigs stink at defending guards.

The problem in those examples appears to be that the defender is just slow to move his feet and allows the driver to get a step on him. In the last example, it is Bagley on a wing, so the result isn’t too surprising. But Goldwire and Allen should do better.

[Troublemaker]

FSU in particular picked on us with ball screen rejection, contributing to our foul trouble.

Higher-res version.




Higher-res version.




Higher-res version.




I'm not exactly sure how this keeps happening. It's common for coaches to teach their players to position themselves in a way that forces the ball-handler to use the screen instead of rejecting it. But screen rejection happens to us often enough (and imo was clearly part of FSU's gameplan) that I'm not sure Duke has taught our guys to shade the ball-handler towards the screen. Which would be fine if screen rejection weren't hurting us, but it is!

Example: Coaching clinic video by Travis Ford teaching the defender to force the ball-handler to use the ball screen (youtube)

[CDu]

FSU in particular picked on us with ball screen rejection, contributing to our foul trouble.

Higher-res version.




Higher-res version.




Higher-res version.




I'm not exactly sure how this keeps happening. It's common for coaches to teach their players to position themselves in a way that forces the ball-handler to use the screen instead of rejecting it. But screen rejection happens to us often enough (and imo was clearly part of FSU's gameplan) that I'm not sure Duke has taught our guys shade the ball-handler towards the screen. Which would be fine if screen rejection weren't hurting us, but it is!

Example: Coaching clinic video by Travis Ford teaching the defender to force the ball-handler to use the ball screen (youtube)

Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen. Heck, the entire idea of “icing” is to overplay against a screen happening.

But in all of these examples, the defender actually does a pretty good job staying between his man and the basket. The guys just make freshman mistakes mid-drive in all three cases. Bagley gets lazy with his footworks, Duval stands up, so does O’Connell.

But I would expect that, in general, keeping the ballhandler from getting to use the screen is a feature, rather than a mistake.

[Troublemaker]

Those just look like flat-footed defense rather than getting fooled by a player rejecting a screen.

Also, as a defender, especially if you have the right positional matchup (e.g., small on small), you actually prefer the ballhandler NOT to use the screen, because our defense tends to switch on screens, and our bigs stink at defending guards.

The problem in those examples appears to be that the defender is just slow to move his feet and allows the driver to get a step on him. In the last example, it is Bagley on a wing, so the result isn’t too surprising. But Goldwire and Allen should do better.

I disagree because of how far out we bring our bigs on ball screens. When the ball-handler rejects the ball screen, there's often nobody home to rim protect as in the first three examples.

Ever since the NCAA followed the NBA in eliminating the handcheck, it became very hard for defenders to guard ball-handlers, as you know. Right now it's doubly hard for our defenders because they have no idea whether the ball-handler will use the screen or not.

We need to start enforcing a standard of either (A) always shading the defender towards the screen or (B) always shading the defender away from the screen, i.e. icing it. (B) is my preference but (A) is still better than the status quo where we have implemented zero direction control on ball screens.

[Troublemaker]

Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen. Heck, the entire idea of “icing” is to overplay against a screen happening.

But in all of these examples, the defender actually does a pretty good job staying between his man and the basket. The guys just make freshman mistakes mid-drive in all three cases. Bagley gets lazy with his footworks, Duval stands up, so does O’Connell.

But I would expect that, in general, keeping the ballhandler from getting to use the screen is a feature, rather than a mistake.

It isn't though because opponents are using the ball screen more often than they're not.

Duke isn't icing this season (except for like a handful of possessions over the course of the season). We've seen how Duke (and every other team) ices, particularly in 2015. The defender's body gets parallel to the sideline and aggressively keeps the ball-handler away from the screen. That's not what is happening in these videos.

Right now Duke isn't enforcing any direction control. Opponents are either using the screen or rejecting the screen at will, and it's hurting us. We need to start dictating to them where to go, either into the screen or away from it and not letting them choose.

[CDu]

It isn't though because opponents are using the ball screen more often than they're not.

If a team really wants to set a screen, then a screen will be set. It doesn’t change the fact that a screen is to the advantage of the offense.

Duke isn't icing this season (except for like a handful of possessions over the course of the season). We've seen how Duke (and every other team) ices, particularly in 2015. The defender's body gets parallel to the sideline and aggressively keeps the ball-handler away from the screen. That's not what is happening in these videos.

I didn’t say we are icing this year. Just that defenses typically try to find ways to avoid screens. Offenses set screens to create an advantage. As such, defenses try to find ways to counter that advantage. Icing is one way, though not the only way.

Right now Duke isn't enforcing any direction control. Opponents are either using the screen or rejecting the screen at will, and it's hurting us. We need to start dictating to them where to go, either into the screen or away from it and not letting them choose.

Or we can do a better job of defending the ball. You don’t have to overplay either into the screen or away from the screen to have effective defense. You can play that way (icing is one approach; trapping is another). But it isn’t a necessary strategy. You can also play straight up assignment basketball. All of the examples you have shown are just players doing a bad job of staying in good guarding position. Slide your feet and stay between your man and the basket. It is your teammate’s job then to tell you if a screen happens and what to in that case. If the ball goes away from the screen, you just continue to defend your assignment.

All of those breakdowns could have been prevented by the on-ball defender staying committed to moving their feet better and staying down in their stances rather than letting up.

So I don’t think these are breakdowns because of a lack of directional control. Just a breakdown in focus/effort by young players.

[CDu]

I disagree because of how far out we bring our bigs on ball screens. When the ball-handler rejects the ball screen, there's often nobody home to rim protect as in the first three examples.

But the big whose man is setting the screen wouldn’t be the player “at home” either way. That would be the job of the other big, whose man is away from the ball.

Ever since the NCAA followed the NBA in eliminating the handcheck, it became very hard for defenders to guard ball-handlers, as you know. Right now it's doubly hard for our defenders because they have no idea whether the ball-handler will use the screen or not.

Hard, but not impossible. Again - overplaying directionally is just one way to resolve the problem. Not all good defenses overplay directionally. I would venture most don’t. But I would have to do a LOT more research to find out.

We need to start enforcing a standard of either (A) always shading the defender towards the screen or (B) always shading the defender away from the screen, i.e. icing it. (B) is my preference but (A) is still better than the status quo where we have implemented zero direction control on ball screens.

I don’t think A, B, or C (neither) is necessarily better or worse. All of those examples were just lack of focus/effort. Those problems would exist even if we directed every play to or away from screens. It isn’t the system that is causing the breakdowns. It is the players.

Spoiler alert: This is one of those teams where zone may be our best. Lineup, because we have so few good on-ball defenders.

[Troublemaker]

Or we can do a better job of defending the ball. You don’t have to overplay either into the screen or away from the screen to have effective defense. You can play that way (icing is one approach; trapping is another). But it isn’t a necessary strategy. You can also play straight up assignment basketball. All of the examples you have shown are just players doing a bad job of staying in good guarding position. Slide your feet and stay between your man and the basket. It is your teammate’s job then to tell you if a screen happens and what to in that case. If the ball goes away from the screen, you just continue to defend your assignment.

All of those breakdowns could have been prevented by the on-ball defender staying committed to moving their feet better and staying down in their stances rather than letting up.

So I don’t think these are breakdowns because of a lack of directional control. Just a breakdown in focus/effort by young players.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. It's really hard without the handcheck available to play lockdown 1-on-1 defense. As you probably know, the reason icing became popular is because NBA defenses knew they couldn't consistently just slide their feet and stay between their man and the basket. They knew drives were going to occur, but at least they could exert control over which direction the drives went.

Furthermore, when I watch these Duke games, I see a lot of hesitancy. The defenders guarding the ball-handlers don't know whether the screen will be used, the bigs guarding the screener don't know whether the screen will be used, and the three support defenders behind them don't know either. I believe not knowing is causing them to be a split second slow in their reactions (which could contribute to your bad 1-on-1 defense). I believe it would help our defense if everyone could more predictably know whether the ball-handler will be using the screen or rejecting it. In 2015 we had this predictability that we don't currently have now.

Yes, I want our defenders to slide their feet better, but I want to help them out tactically as well.

[CDu]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. It's really hard without the handcheck available to play lockdown 1-on-1 defense. As you probably know, the reason icing became popular is because NBA defenses knew they couldn't consistently just slide their feet and stay between their man and the basket. They knew drives were going to occur, but at least they could exert control over which direction the drives went.

Furthermore, when I watch these Duke games, I see a lot of hesitancy. The defenders guarding the ball-handlers don't know whether the screen will be used, the bigs guarding the screener don't know whether the screen will be used, and the three support defenders behind them don't know either. I believe not knowing is causing them to be a split second slow in their reactions (which could contribute to your bad 1-on-1 defense). I believe it would help our defense if everyone could more predictably know whether the ball-handler will be using the screen or rejecting it. In 2015 we had this predictability that we don't currently have now.

Yes, I want our defenders to slide their feet better, but I want to help them out tactically as well.

Actually, icing wasn’t designed because of fear of drives. It was designed to prevent pick and rolls, which are extremely difficult to defend with the talented PGs and with bigs getting more skilled and more sthletic. It also is designed to reduce the risk of switching a big onto a guard. And it is designed to address one specific type of pick, by using the baseline as an extra defender. But again, the focus is to prevent the screen, which puts the defense on tilt.

As a general rule though, I would argue against a strategy of funneling the ball into a screen. That is just asking for headache.

PS - watching the FSU game, and neither team is funneling the ball to or away from the screen.

[Troublemaker]

But the big whose man is setting the screen wouldn’t be the player “at home” either way. That would be the job of the other big, whose man is away from the ball.


Hard, but not impossible. Again - overplaying directionally is just one way to resolve the problem. Not all good defenses overplay directionally. I would venture most don’t. But I would have to do a LOT more research to find out.

It looks like you're willing to agree that exerting directional control could help. And since I obviously agree we should continue to try to improve our sliding and our staying in a stance, this might be a good place to stop our exchange, at least for this section. I have two more planks to get to. And yes I do think most good defenses are teaching their players to predictably send the ball-handler either into or away from the screen.

I don’t think A, B, or C (neither) is necessarily better or worse. All of those examples were just lack of focus/effort. Those problems would exist even if we directed every play to or away from screens. It isn’t the system that is causing the breakdowns. It is the players.

I disagree. A lot of our problems are scheme-related, imo. If Calipari had this roster, we'd have a top-25 defense, as much as it pains me to say that.

Spoiler alert: This is one of those teams where zone may be our best. Lineup, because we have so few good on-ball defenders.

I agree that zone would be better, given some of the weaknesses in our m2m scheme.

[Troublemaker]

Actually, icing wasn’t designed because of fear of drives. It was designed to prevent pick and rolls, which are extremely difficult to defend with the talented PGs and with bigs getting more skilled and more sthletic. It also is designed to reduce the risk of switching a big onto a guard. And it is designed to address one specific type of pick, by using the baseline as an extra defender. But again, the focus is to prevent the screen, which puts the defense on tilt.

As a general rule though, I would argue against a strategy of funneling the ball into a screen. That is just asking for headache.

PS - watching the FSU game, and neither team is funneling the ball to or away from the screen.

Yes, drives out of pick-n-roll. Icing was designed to prevent middle drives out of pick-n-roll by funneling the direction of the drives towards the sideline/baseline. You have to know that I know that. C'mon now.

[CDu]

It looks like you're willing to agree that exerting directional control could help. And since I obviously agree we should continue to try to improve our sliding and our staying in a stance, this might be a good place to stop our exchange, at least for this section. I have two more planks to get to. And yes I do think most good defenses are teaching their players to predictably send the ball-handler either into or away from the screen.

I disagree. A lot of our problems are scheme-related, imo. If Calipari had this roster, we'd have a top-25 defense, as much as it pains me to say that.

I agree that zone would be better, given some of the weaknesses in our m2m scheme.

Directional defense could help, could hurt. But funneling to a screen will likely hurt more than not.

And I don’t think most teams are directionally defending. It isn’t happening at all in the FSU/UNC game.

And if teams ARE defending directionally, it would be AWAY from a screener, not TO him. Which gets back to my primary point: rejection of the ball screen is a facet, not a defect, for our defense.

[CDu]

Yes, drives out of pick-n-roll. Icing was designed to prevent middle drives out of pick-n-roll by funneling the direction of the drives towards the sideline/baseline. You have to know that I know that. C'mon now.

My point was that is wasn’t developed to stop on-ball drives. It was designed to address the screen. Which, again, gets back to my original point: leading into screens is generally a bad defensive strategy.

[Troublemaker]

Directional defense could help, could hurt. But funneling to a screen will likely hurt more than not.

And I don’t think most teams are directionally defending. It isn’t happening at all in the FSU/UNC game.

And if teams ARE defending directionally, it would be AWAY from a screener, not TO him. Which gets back to my primary point: rejection of the ball screen is a facet, not a defect, for our defense.

Rejection of the ball screen, on the opponent's terms, is a defect. (But we can agree to disagree here).

And coaches do teach directional control. At a later time, I can give you a bevy of links; I've already supplied one by Travis Ford, keep in mind.

For example, a very typical scheme would be to ice sideline pick-and-rolls and to have the guard go over the screen on middle pick-and-rolls while the big man drops. On those middle PNRs, the guard absolutely is responsible for forcing the ball-handler into the screen. Thus he is almost always exerting directional control. Away from the screen on side PNRs and into the screen on middle PNRs.

Regardless, I do appreciate the conversation, CDu. Getting pushback on my GIF posts is a good thing. It offers a different perspective and it allows me to flesh out my thoughts better.

[CDu]

Rejection of the ball screen, on the opponent's terms, is a defect. (But we can agree to disagree here).

And coaches do teach directional control. At a later time, I can give you a bevy of links; I've already supplied one by Travis Ford, keep in mind.

For example, a very typical scheme would be to ice sideline pick-and-rolls and to have the guard go over the screen on middle pick-and-rolls while the big man drops. On those middle PNRs, the guard absolutely is responsible for forcing the ball-handler into the screen. Thus he is almost always exerting directional control. Away from the screen on side PNRs and into the screen on middle PNRs.

Regardless, I do appreciate the conversation, CDu. Getting pushback on my GIF posts is a good thing. It offers a different perspective and it allows me to flesh out my thoughts better.

I have no doubt that teams use directional defense. Whether it be funnel baseline or funnel middle, I fully believe that happens. But I seriously doubt that teams actively employ a strategy of funneling ballhandlers INTO screens. Screens are the single biggest strategic advantage offenses have, so it makes no sense to try to create more such opportunities.

Which, again, is my primary point. It isn’t the rejecting of screens that was the problem in those clips, and funneling players into the screens wouldn’t be a good strategy.

[Kedsy]

Those three examples all look like good defense to me. Again, I don’t think we actually want the ballhandler to get to the screen.

I think I agree with CDu on this one. And I'll add another wrinkle. Many of the gif examples are showing weakness in rotation. If the ballhandler rejects the screen and gets past his man, we need (a) the wing defender on that side to help; and (b) the screener's defender to watch the passing lane on that side for a kickout. That's not happening in any of your gifs. Our guys are sticking with their assignments, even if the man they're defending has a low probability of receiving a pass. To me, that's partly a defensive instinct issue and mostly a communication issue.