MBB: Dork Polls 2019-20 Edition

[Kedsy]

Duke is #6 in the nation in fewest opposing threes (as a percentage of total shots). Our opponents are only shooting threes on 27.33% of their shots. Here's the historical table of Duke teams since 1996:

DEFENSE

Year	%three	NCAA
2005	20.94%	16
2006	21.26%	16
1997	23.41%	32
2014	24.14%	64
2012	24.15%	64
2007	24.34%	64
2001	24.36%	1
2011	24.55%	16
2000	24.61%	16
2008	25.04%	32
1998	25.05%	8
2003	25.09%	16
2004	25.17%	4
2010	25.36%	1
1999	25.56%	2
2009	25.98%	16
2002	26.25%	16
2013	26.89%	8
1996	27.00%	64
2020	27.33%	
2015	27.75%	1
2017	28.81%	32
2016	29.63%	16
2019	34.94%	8
2018	36.84%	8

We're also not taking so many threes on offense. Our % of threes taken is only 30.79%, the 309th most in the country. Here's the table for that since 1996:

OFFENSE

Year	%three	NCAA
2001	41.78%	1
2005	39.84%	16
2016	39.84%	16
2014	39.65%	64
2008	39.16%	32
2012	38.59%	64
2017	38.34%	32
2002	37.57%	16
2019	37.34%	8
1997	36.84%	32
2018	36.32%	8
2011	35.27%	16
2006	35.16%	16
2009	35.04%	16
2000	34.16%	16
2003	33.92%	16
2004	33.41%	4
2015	33.41%	1
2013	33.25%	8
1996	32.96%	64
2010	32.93%	1
1998	32.44%	8
2020	30.79%	
1999	30.51%	2
2007	29.65%	64

Note that (with a couple exceptions), being low in the above table generally helps in the NCAA tournament.

Our three point shooting success percentage is #94 in the nation, at 35.25%. Our opponents are only shooting 29.14%, good for a tie for 39th lowest (best) in the country. Here are the historical tables, but it's worth noting that this year's teams are shooting from a further distance:

OFFENSE

Year	3pt%	NCAA
1992	43.40%	1
1987	40.22%	16
2013	39.94%	8
1993	39.74%	32
1999	39.65%	2
2014	39.45%	64
1997	38.94%	32
1990	38.90%	2
2006	38.76%	16
2015	38.66%	1
2016	38.54%	16
2001	38.51%	1
2010	38.49%	1
1991	38.34%	1
2000	38.27%	16
1995	38.14%	n/a
2007	38.08%	64
2005	38.01%	16
2017	37.83%	32
2008	37.75%	32
1996	37.56%	64
2011	37.40%	16
1988	37.25%	4
2018	37.18%	8
2012	37.08%	64
1998	36.94%	8
1989	36.52%	4
1994	36.52%	2
2004	36.43%	4
2003	36.31%	16
2002	36.27%	16
2020	35.25%	
2009	34.86%	16
2019	30.79%	8

DEFENSE

Year	3pt%	NCAA
2010	28.26%	1
1993	28.85%	32
2013	29.04%	8
2020	29.14%	
2017	29.26%	32
1994	29.65%	2
2019	30.00%	8
1999	30.08%	2
2002	30.27%	16
2006	30.36%	16
1998	30.47%	8
2005	30.48%	16
2014	30.73%	64
2015	31.44%	1
2007	31.52%	64
2012	31.74%	64
1989	31.97%	4
2018	32.03%	8
2011	32.41%	16
2004	32.41%	4
2008	32.94%	32
1987	33.47%	16
1996	33.54%	64
1990	33.68%	2
2009	33.76%	16
2016	33.98%	16
1997	34.02%	32
2001	34.39%	1
2003	34.60%	16
1991	34.67%	1
1988	35.08%	4
2000	35.75%	16
1992	37.69%	1
1995	38.96%	n/a

[Kedsy]

Duke is #6 in the nation in fewest opposing threes (as a percentage of total shots). Our opponents are only shooting threes on 27.33% of their shots. Here's the historical table of Duke teams since 1996:

DEFENSE

Year	%three	NCAA
2005	20.94%	16
2006	21.26%	16
1997	23.41%	32
2014	24.14%	64
2012	24.15%	64
2007	24.34%	64
2001	24.36%	1
2011	24.55%	16
2000	24.61%	16
2008	25.04%	32
1998	25.05%	8
2003	25.09%	16
2004	25.17%	4
2010	25.36%	1
1999	25.56%	2
2009	25.98%	16
2002	26.25%	16
2013	26.89%	8
1996	27.00%	64
2020	27.33%	
2015	27.75%	1
2017	28.81%	32
2016	29.63%	16
2019	34.94%	8
2018	36.84%	8

We're also not taking so many threes on offense. Our % of threes taken is only 30.79%, the 309th most in the country. Here's the table for that since 1996:

OFFENSE

Year	%three	NCAA
2001	41.78%	1
2005	39.84%	16
2016	39.84%	16
2014	39.65%	64
2008	39.16%	32
2012	38.59%	64
2017	38.34%	32
2002	37.57%	16
2019	37.34%	8
1997	36.84%	32
2018	36.32%	8
2011	35.27%	16
2006	35.16%	16
2009	35.04%	16
2000	34.16%	16
2003	33.92%	16
2004	33.41%	4
2015	33.41%	1
2013	33.25%	8
1996	32.96%	64
2010	32.93%	1
1998	32.44%	8
2020	30.79%	
1999	30.51%	2
2007	29.65%	64

Note that (with a couple exceptions), being low in the above table generally helps in the NCAA tournament.

Our three point shooting success percentage is #94 in the nation, at 35.25%. Our opponents are only shooting 29.14%, good for a tie for 39th lowest (best) in the country. Here are the historical tables, but it's worth noting that this year's teams are shooting from a further distance:

OFFENSE

Year	3pt%	NCAA
1992	43.40%	1
1987	40.22%	16
2013	39.94%	8
1993	39.74%	32
1999	39.65%	2
2014	39.45%	64
1997	38.94%	32
1990	38.90%	2
2006	38.76%	16
2015	38.66%	1
2016	38.54%	16
2001	38.51%	1
2010	38.49%	1
1991	38.34%	1
2000	38.27%	16
1995	38.14%	n/a
2007	38.08%	64
2005	38.01%	16
2017	37.83%	32
2008	37.75%	32
1996	37.56%	64
2011	37.40%	16
1988	37.25%	4
2018	37.18%	8
2012	37.08%	64
1998	36.94%	8
1989	36.52%	4
1994	36.52%	2
2004	36.43%	4
2003	36.31%	16
2002	36.27%	16
2020	35.25%	
2009	34.86%	16
2019	30.79%	8

DEFENSE

Year	3pt%	NCAA
2010	28.26%	1
1993	28.85%	32
2013	29.04%	8
2020	29.14%	
2017	29.26%	32
1994	29.65%	2
2019	30.00%	8
1999	30.08%	2
2002	30.27%	16
2006	30.36%	16
1998	30.47%	8
2005	30.48%	16
2014	30.73%	64
2015	31.44%	1
2007	31.52%	64
2012	31.74%	64
1989	31.97%	4
2018	32.03%	8
2011	32.41%	16
2004	32.41%	4
2008	32.94%	32
1987	33.47%	16
1996	33.54%	64
1990	33.68%	2
2009	33.76%	16
2016	33.98%	16
1997	34.02%	32
2001	34.39%	1
2003	34.60%	16
1991	34.67%	1
1988	35.08%	4
2000	35.75%	16
1992	37.69%	1
1995	38.96%	n/a

It may be interesting to combine the above concepts. In other words, look to see if the percentage of threes taken affects the 3pt success percentage. So far this season, on offense Duke has taken fewer than 30% of its shots from three in seven (half) of our games. In those games, we've shot 40.8% from three (42 for 103). We've taken 30% or more of our shots from three also in seven games. In those games, we've shot 32.0% from three (56 for 175). Is it enough to draw an actual conclusion? Who knows. But I think it's interesting.

Our opponents have a reverse effect, and not nearly so big a spread. In the nine games they've taken fewer than 30% of their shots from three, they've shot 28.0% on their 3pt shots (33 for 118). In the five games they've taken 30% or more of their shots from three, they've shot 30.5% on those 3pt shots (32 for 105).

[Kedsy]

Just to be thorough, here's how our two-point success percentages stack up historically:

OFFENSE

Year	2pt%	NCAA
2019	58.01%	8
1989	57.55%	4
2002	57.43%	16
1999	56.51%	2
2018	56.01%	8
1992	55.94%	1
2015	55.93%	1
2001	54.99%	1
2020	54.24%	
1993	54.14%	32
1991	54.12%	1
2006	54.06%	16
2017	53.56%	32
2000	53.22%	16
1998	52.50%	8
1994	52.50%	2
2004	52.47%	4
2011	52.45%	16
1988	52.08%	4
1995	51.88%	n/a
2008	51.74%	32
2012	51.02%	64
2016	50.97%	16
1990	50.93%	2
2013	50.85%	8
2007	50.57%	64
1997	50.41%	32
2014	50.29%	64
1987	50.22%	16
2003	49.89%	16
2009	49.58%	16
2005	48.87%	16
1996	47.88%	64
2010	46.96%	1

DEFENSE

Year	2pt%	NCAA
2005	41.30%	16
1999	42.24%	2
2011	43.14%	16
2004	43.49%	4
2000	43.66%	16
2001	43.93%	1
2010	44.13%	1
1989	44.60%	4
1997	44.66%	32
1998	44.71%	8
2019	45.00%	8
1994	45.02%	2
1995	45.41%	n/a
2018	45.41%	8
2020	45.53%	
2007	45.66%	64
2013	46.19%	8
2015	46.30%	1
2006	46.39%	16
2002	46.44%	16
2009	46.76%	16
1991	46.83%	1
2012	46.96%	64
2008	46.97%	32
1988	47.15%	4
1990	47.20%	2
1987	47.23%	16
1996	47.46%	64
2003	47.70%	16
1993	48.12%	32
2017	48.89%	32
2016	48.89%	16
1992	48.98%	1
2014	50.32%	64

Being good in both of the above tables looks good when the tournament rolls around, especially on offense.

[Hingeknocker]

Kedsy, incredible stats, and thank you for providing the historical context.

One thing that immediately jumped out was the 3-point shooting frequency and prowess of the 2001 team. I realize eras of basketball change over time, but if you want my ideal basketball team that causes my eyes to glaze over with hearts like in an old cartoon, 2001 is the team.

[jv001]

The defensive and offensive 2 point rankings look very good for the championship teams and don't look bad for the great teams that did not win it all.

GoDuke!

[Troublemaker]

Much has been made of the fact that teams this year are much weaker than in past years. I have mentioned on the podcast a couple times that the top Kenpom team in 2019-20 would barely be a top 10 team in most other years. In each of the past 14 years, there has been at least 1 team that managed to have a Kenpom efficiency margin of +30 or greater. For a very long time it looked like no team would achieve that this year.

And then along came the post-SFA Duke team.

For this type of comparison, you have to compare college basketball on the same dates. For example, on Jan 6th 2019, there was only 1 team above 30 in adjEM as well: https://kenpom.com/archive.php?d=2019-01-06 (subscriber $$$ link)

As more and more teams round into form and play at or near their ceilings as the season progresses, there will be more teams that top the 30 mark in adjEM towards the end of the season. That's been the tendency with kenpom; teams have higher ratings as the season progresses.

So check back in March.

It probably helps that MSU is BPI's #2 team and Duke won easily on the road against them.

the fact that the computers tend to like them just shows how mediocre the country is on the whole this year.

Are you referring to MSU? Because I like them a lot. I think they're starting to round into form now (Izzo/MSU are notorious for starting slowly) and will be as good as anyone by March.

I'm hoping MSU will win the Big 10 regular season and tourney and earn a 1 seed in the Midwest. I do not want them as Duke's 2 seed if we get a 1 seed.

[Billy Dat]

KenPom himself writes about whether or not Duke can run the table in the ACC regular season ($)
https://theathletic.com/1514043/2020...rce=dailyemail

He concludes that they probably won't, but right now Duke is the second most likely team in his projections to do it.

Liberty 18.3%
Duke 8.4
Vermont 7
San Diego State 6.4
Gonzaga 5
New Mexico State 4.2
Dayton 3.8

[JasonEvans]

KenPom himself writes about whether or not Duke can run the table in the ACC regular season ($)
https://theathletic.com/1514043/2020...rce=dailyemail

He concludes that they probably won't, but right now Duke is the second most likely team in his projections to do it.

Liberty 18.3%
Duke 8.4
Vermont 7
San Diego State 6.4
Gonzaga 5
New Mexico State 4.2
Dayton 3.8

This is a great testament to the overall weakness of the ACC this year... sigh.

-Jason "it is also a testament to Duke getting Lou, FSU, and NCSt at home... our only road game against a likely NCAA tournament team from the ACC is @UVA" Evans

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

KenPom himself writes about whether or not Duke can run the table in the ACC regular season ($)
https://theathletic.com/1514043/2020...rce=dailyemail

He concludes that they probably won't, but right now Duke is the second most likely team in his projections to do it.

Liberty 18.3%
Duke 8.4
Vermont 7
San Diego State 6.4
Gonzaga 5
New Mexico State 4.2
Dayton 3.8

I would give Liberty much less than an 18% chance to tun the table in the ACC.

/Yes, I know.

[SkyBrickey]

The SFA game was a great lesson for this team. Maybe we won’t need another one. Having Vernon Carey really raises the floor for this team and mitigates a poor shooting night from 3.

[JasonEvans]

So, the BPI, which is one of the predictive advanced rankings that the committee takes into the room as it decides on seedings, has Duke #1. It has been that way for a little while. But I think it is worth noting how wide Duke's margin is in this poll.

Duke has the #2 (to Gonzaga) offense in the BPI and the #2 (to Virginia) defense. BPI measures how many points above average a team is and it puts Duke at 18.6. Second place is Kansas at 15.4. So, the difference between us at #1 and the #2 team is 3.2 points. If you compare Kansas to a team 3.2 BPI points worse, you have to go all the way down to the #15 team in the BPI, Purdue. The difference between Duke and the second best team is like the gap between the second best team and a club that would just barely be expected to make the Sweet 16.

Put another way... this Duke team is really, really good.

[jv001]

Looks like Baylor is getting lots of love. K-Pom has them at #3 and they do have some good wins on their resume. GoDuke!

[DavidBenAkiva]

So, the BPI, which is one of the predictive advanced rankings that the committee takes into the room as it decides on seedings, has Duke #1. It has been that way for a little while. But I think it is worth noting how wide Duke's margin is in this poll.

Duke has the #2 (to Gonzaga) offense in the BPI and the #2 (to Virginia) defense. BPI measures how many points above average a team is and it puts Duke at 18.6. Second place is Kansas at 15.4. So, the difference between us at #1 and the #2 team is 3.2 points. If you compare Kansas to a team 3.2 BPI points worse, you have to go all the way down to the #15 team in the BPI, Purdue. The difference between Duke and the second best team is like the gap between the second best team and a club that would just barely be expected to make the Sweet 16.

Put another way... this Duke team is really, really good.

Another interesting nugget of this is that Duke's offense (9.6) is rated higher in BPI than its defense (9.1). I noticed that, over the weekend.

I also noticed that Duke's offensive adjusted efficiency ranking on KenPom (2) is now higher than the defensive adjusted efficiency ranking (4). Previously, Duke was a better defensive than offensive team. This switch happened on T-Rank recently, too.

The defense is still elite but the offense has caught up in a big way.

[MChambers]

So, the BPI, which is one of the predictive advanced rankings that the committee takes into the room as it decides on seedings, has Duke #1. It has been that way for a little while. But I think it is worth noting how wide Duke's margin is in this poll.

Duke has the #2 (to Gonzaga) offense in the BPI and the #2 (to Virginia) defense. BPI measures how many points above average a team is and it puts Duke at 18.6. Second place is Kansas at 15.4. So, the difference between us at #1 and the #2 team is 3.2 points. If you compare Kansas to a team 3.2 BPI points worse, you have to go all the way down to the #15 team in the BPI, Purdue. The difference between Duke and the second best team is like the gap between the second best team and a club that would just barely be expected to make the Sweet 16.

Put another way... this Duke team is really, really good.

Put yet another way, the BPI is my favorite dork poll for this week.

[Billy Dat]

Looks like Baylor is getting lots of love. K-Pom has them at #3 and they do have some good wins on their resume. GoDuke!

Yeah, I think they have the best resume in the country, especially coming off consecutive road wins against ranked conference teams.

I hope that our amazingly weak conference slate doesn't dull our edge, or give us a false sense of how good we really are. Hopefully we take care of business on the road on Tuesday and come home and win convincingly against Louisville.

I am tempted to say that we've fattened up on cupcakes, but no conference road win is ever easy. Still, the rest of the year features a lot of cupcakes, at least as of this juncture. Hopefully we take advantage and post a really gaudy regular season record.

[robed deity]

Another interesting nugget of this is that Duke's offense (9.6) is rated higher in BPI than its defense (9.1). I noticed that, over the weekend.

I also noticed that Duke's offensive adjusted efficiency ranking on KenPom (2) is now higher than the defensive adjusted efficiency ranking (4). Previously, Duke was a better defensive than offensive team. This switch happened on T-Rank recently, too.

The defense is still elite but the offense has caught up in a big way.

Kenpom also really likes Duke a lot, but there's a smaller gap above Kansas.

However, the gap between Duke and #3 Baylor is the same as Baylor and....no. 21 Michigan.

[sagegrouse]

Looks like Baylor is getting lots of love. K-Pom has them at #3 and they do have some good wins on their resume. GoDuke!

Was Baylor expected to be a strong team this year? Look it up, Sage! Oh, I see -- Baylor was preseason AP #16 and Coaches #18.

[COYS]

Another interesting nugget of this is that Duke's offense (9.6) is rated higher in BPI than its defense (9.1). I noticed that, over the weekend.

I also noticed that Duke's offensive adjusted efficiency ranking on KenPom (2) is now higher than the defensive adjusted efficiency ranking (4). Previously, Duke was a better defensive than offensive team. This switch happened on T-Rank recently, too.

The defense is still elite but the offense has caught up in a big way.

I think this is a good sign. Early in the season, it looked possible that Duke might not have a top 20 offense (which, outside of the 2007 season, is unheard of for Coach K). But we've really come alive on that end, even with Tre and Cassius missing a few games. We know we're capable of playing stifling D. But now we've shown we can match that with our O. Now that Duke's offense has emerged as elite, the "no dominant teams" narrative is looking more and more wrong.

[arnie]

Was Baylor expected to be a strong team this year? Look it up, Sage! Oh, I see -- Baylor was preseason AP #16 and Coaches #18.

Seth Davis on the BB bandwagon - wonder if others will join and slide us to #3 in the don’t matter polls?

[uh_no]

msu totally and understandably tanked. Duke offense up to number two.