MBB: Duke 68, Kansas 66 Post-Game Thread

[HereBeforeCoachK]

How about this: it is generally agreed that there are four factors that determine how good your defense is: turnover rate, free throw rate, eFG%, and defensive rebound%.

So, counting all the turnover possessions, this is how our defensive performance against Kansas would have ranked among our defensive performances last season, in each of the four factors:


Turnover%: would have been our best performance last season;

eFG%: would have been a bottom 10 performance last season;

DR%: would have been a bottom 10 performance last season;

FTR: would have been our worst performance last season.


Does that analysis have meaning? I think it does, and we have a lot of room for defensive improvement.

It has meaning, but you don't seem to account for the fact that turnovers are by far the most important category...as those are totally lost possessions to the other team.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Yes, of course. And that is what I did.

Which is why I think the criticism by Indoor66 and Mtn.Devil is a little off base.

What good is PPP if you take OUT the turnover possessions?
HINT: not a lot.

[kAzE]

Kaze... I don't understand how you can blame Vernon for those backdoors either. Jordan cleaned up his ball-you-man (or something) and the backdoors stopped. Are you saying Vernon wasn't communicating from the post? I agree that Hurt was in position for weak side help.

I mean, maybe someone like Zion, Bagley, or Brand would have slid over and blocked Agbaji, but it's hard for me to give the majority of the blame to Vernon.

You're right, the first back door cut was not his responsibility. Here are the plays I'm talking about:

https://youtu.be/jLrg593hzJ8

3:53 - Garrett gets a hand off at the top of the key, and loses his man, Cassius, who gets stuck on a screen. Vernon is in perfect position to get in front, but doesn't move his feet at all. Wide open layup.

4:02 - Vernon guarding Azubuike who gets the ball in the high post. Jordan is playing way too high up, gets caught ball watching, his man cuts back door, and Azubuike delivers a great pass. Vernon again doesn't move his feet and allows an easy dunk. Yes, Jordan gets most of the blame, but a little more effort from Vernon could have prevented the dunk.

4:29 - Kansas gets a defensive rebound, Vernon is right next to Azubuike in the paint when the change of possession occurs. Instead of chasing down his man, he decides to pick up Garrett at half court. Azubuike jogs all the way to the paint and gets the feed for an easy slam.

6:09 - Garrett blows by Alex on a crossover and gets in to the paint. This time, Vernon does move well enough to get in position to help, but decides to let Garrett go up uncontested. Gotta at least put his hands up straight in that spot.

6:45 - Dotson blows right by Tre in transition. Vernon is the help defender, but Dotson is just way too quick. I don't blame Vernon for this one, he's just not equipped to defend that. This is an example of his physical limitations. Javin maybe could have bothered that shot.

7:23 - Dotson blows by Tre again, Vernon actually does get a pretty decent contest on this one, but Dotson makes the tough lay in.

I want to be clear this is nitpicking. He obviously deserves a pass because he's a freshman playing in his very first game. But I'm pointing these things out as areas for improvement. He's no Zion or Wendell Carter from a physical standpoint, and he will never be as good a defender as those guys, but there were a few times that game where a little more foot movement could have prevented a Kansas score, that's all I'm saying.

[Kedsy]

It has meaning, but you don't seem to account for the fact that turnovers are by far the most important category...as those are totally lost possessions to the other team.

I have never seen anyone who has thoughtfully analyzed this kind of thing suggesting that turnovers are "by far the most important category." One can certainly make an argument that shooting is more important, for example.

That said, who cares? My point is that when we didn't turn them over, our defense was poor.

What good is PPP if you take OUT the turnover possessions?
HINT: not a lot.

As usual, you make grand pronouncements without a great deal of basis. The point was that if you look at non-turnover possessions in this game vs. non-turnover possessions in every game last season, this would have been one of our worst game performances in those type of possessions. In other words, even in games when we forced a lot of turnovers last season, we performed much better in the defensive possessions in which we didn't turn over our opponents. You may think that's useless information, but I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I have never seen anyone who has thoughtfully analyzed this kind of thing suggesting that turnovers are "by far the most important category." One can certainly make an argument that shooting is more important, for example.

That said, who cares? My point is that when we didn't turn them over, our defense was poor.

As usual, you make grand pronouncements without a great deal of basis. The point was that if you look at non-turnover possessions in this game vs. non-turnover possessions in every game last season, this would have been one of our worst game performances in those type of possessions. In other words, even in games when we forced a lot of turnovers last season, we performed much better in the defensive possessions in which we didn't turn over our opponents. You may think that's useless information, but I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

I stand by both my arguments. With every defense in every sport in the history of mankind, a turnover aggressive defense is by definition a risky defense, and be it football, hockey, hoops, tiddly winks or what have you, OF COURSE the times the risk reward aggressiveness didn't pan out the results are more damaging. Again, taking the turnovers out of either offensive or defensive analysis is meaningless. Interesting, but meaningless.

And the difference between shooting 33% versus 50% is the difference of one sixth of one possession. A turnover is WORTH 100% OF A POSSESSION. Case closed.

[COYS]

I stand by both my arguments. With every defense in every sport in the history of mankind, a turnover aggressive defense is by definition a risky defense, and be it football, hockey, hoops, tiddly winks or what have you, OF COURSE the times the risk reward aggressiveness didn't pan out the results are more damaging. Again, taking the turnovers out of either offensive or defensive analysis is meaningless. Interesting, but meaningless.

And the difference between shooting 33% versus 50% is the difference of one sixth of one possession. A turnover is WORTH 100% OF A POSSESSION. Case closed.

Sure, in a vacuum forcing a turnover is the single best outcome. But designing a defense based off of forcing turnovers is absolutely not a fool-proof scheme. Virginia is perennially at the top of the defensive ratings without ever forcing that many turnovers. Forcing turnovers usually involves gambling for steals or employing high-risk high-reward schemes like full-court presses.

[JayZee]

Sure, in a vacuum forcing a turnover is the single best outcome. But designing a defense based off of forcing turnovers is absolutely not a fool-proof scheme. Virginia is perennially at the top of the defensive ratings without ever forcing that many turnovers. Forcing turnovers usually involves gambling for steals or employing high-risk high-reward schemes like full-court presses.

There were all sorts of turnovers the other night including miscues from pressure, miscues from forcing players outside of their comfort zone, and turnovers on shot clock violations. I agree with your sentiment that designing a game plan around just steals and full court pressure is high risk/high reward. While Kansas clearly contributed, we maintained pressure, good shape and good rotations. that can be sustainable, IMO.

[kAzE]

I think the high risk/high reward style defensive scheme aiming for turnovers is exactly the style this team needs to play. Our half court offense is not good right now. We don't have guys like RJ or Zion who can just go get a bucket. This team is equipped to pressure the ball and force turnovers, and we can create easy scores in transition. IMO, we're not good enough (at least for now) scoring against set half court defenses. Our coaches are doing it right.

[Kfanarmy]

Sure, in a vacuum forcing a turnover is the single best outcome. But designing a defense based off of forcing turnovers is absolutely not a fool-proof scheme. Virginia is perennially at the top of the defensive ratings without ever forcing that many turnovers. Forcing turnovers usually involves gambling for steals or employing high-risk high-reward schemes like full-court presses.

IDK, I think escape to air may be the single best outcome in a vacuum.

[DukieInBrasil]

How about this: it is generally agreed that there are four factors that determine how good your defense is: turnover rate, free throw rate, eFG%, and defensive rebound%.

So, counting all the turnover possessions, this is how our defensive performance against Kansas would have ranked among our defensive performances last season, in each of the four factors:
Turnover%: would have been our best performance last season;
eFG%: would have been a bottom 10 performance last season;
DR%: would have been a bottom 10 performance last season;
FTR: would have been our worst performance last season.
Does that analysis have meaning? I think it does, and we have a lot of room for defensive improvement.

thanks for your analyses, pretty fascinating stuff and great for putting things in perspective. The one question i have for you is: what about 3FG% and rate? I assume that part of the eFG% and FTR success that Kansas had was due in part to having 3 seriously beefy dudes, even if none of them really destroyed us, and which required lots of attention, which may have opened up space for 3FGs and/or driving. I see that Kansas shot 4-9 (44.4%), which is a great % but not a lot of shots. So where does KU's 3FG% and rate impact your analysis?

[DukieInBrasil]

I stand by both my arguments. With every defense in every sport in the history of mankind, a turnover aggressive defense is by definition a risky defense, and be it football, hockey, hoops, tiddly winks or what have you, OF COURSE the times the risk reward aggressiveness didn't pan out the results are more damaging. Again, taking the turnovers out of either offensive or defensive analysis is meaningless. Interesting, but meaningless.
And the difference between shooting 33% versus 50% is the difference of one sixth of one possession. A turnover is WORTH 100% OF A POSSESSION. Case closed.

I think you missed the entire point of Kedsy's argument, that he was analyzing the exact same possession outcomes from last season to this one game, and that this game would have stood as one of our worst in those possessions. While the turnover rate would have been the best, the weakness of the rest of the defensive metrics pointed to meant that the overall defensive performance Tues night was good but not particularly great. It was good enough to get the win, and that's what i care about.
Kedsy's point though was that the likelihood that the turnover rate being an outlier that might not be approached again is pretty high, and that the rather poor performance of the other defensive metrics leaves room to believe that there remains a good deal of work to be done on the defense. I for one think that K and staff are all over this and will in fact work hard to get the team to buy in to defensive strengths so that the relative weaknesses that Kedsy pointed out will improve.

[UrinalCake]

IDK, I think escape to air may be the single best outcome in a vacuum.

Depends if it’s bagless, canister, or one of those fancy Dyson things.

[Wahoo2000]

I think you missed the entire point of Kedsy's argument, that he was analyzing the exact same possession outcomes from last season to this one game, and that this game would have stood as one of our worst in those possessions. While the turnover rate would have been the best, the weakness of the rest of the defensive metrics pointed to meant that the overall defensive performance Tues night was good but not particularly great. It was good enough to get the win, and that's what i care about.
Kedsy's point though was that the likelihood that the turnover rate being an outlier that might not be approached again is pretty high, and that the rather poor performance of the other defensive metrics leaves room to believe that there remains a good deal of work to be done on the defense. I for one think that K and staff are all over this and will in fact work hard to get the team to buy in to defensive strengths so that the relative weaknesses that Kedsy pointed out will improve.

I think this hits the nail on the head. FWIW - you guys just might also be over-analyzing one game (but that's what message boards are for, right? so not saying you're dumb to discuss/debate or anything). For instance, while I doubt that Duke will force that kind of turnover rate with any regularity, I also think that their other defensive metrics will be better than they were in this specific outing (will prob have a better defensive eFG%, FTR, and RB% MOST of the time). When it's a one game sample size, vs an outlier caliber opponent (like a top 5 or a bottom 100ish team), hard to draw many conclusions that are meaningful predictors of future performance, except those supported by past player performance (for instance, based on all of last year PLUS last night, I'm more likely to think Jones hasn't significantly improved his 3pt shooting, and that DeLaurier will still be a foul accumulating machine).

Ultimately I'd guess (like most of you), Duke will be driven by pressure man 2 man defense, and that their strengths offensively will be a big, talented, and deep frontcourt, with a sophomore leader at PG that is a crazy peaky defender and excellent playmaker even if an average/poor jumpshooter. Also have a very athletic freshman 2 guard who looks like the best candidate to provide a balance of offensive and defensive punch.


P.S. - Just typing that last bit out made me realize how similar the Duke and UVA teams are constructed this year-
Jones -- Clark (jones a much better driver of the ball, but rather similar style players otherwise)
Stanley -- Morsell
Carey/Hurt/Delaurier/White -- Diakite/Huff/Key
Then both teams have some misc other guys on the wing they hope will step up. Both are going to be very dependent on their heart and soul PGs to be playmakers on O & D, and lean heavily on the frontcourt. Based on pure talent, I'd certainly say Duke is better off, but we do have a little more experience overall among the top rotation players, which has been proven a very valuable commodity in our system. Sorry for the tangent - just occurred to me as I was wrapping up the original intent of my post. ;-)

[MChambers]

Depends if it’s bagless, canister, or one of those fancy Dyson things.

Or a Roomba. No one thinks about that.

[COYS]

There were all sorts of turnovers the other night including miscues from pressure, miscues from forcing players outside of their comfort zone, and turnovers on shot clock violations. I agree with your sentiment that designing a game plan around just steals and full court pressure is high risk/high reward. While Kansas clearly contributed, we maintained pressure, good shape and good rotations. that can be sustainable, IMO.

I don't doubt that turnovers aren't awesome. I even said upthread that I think that we have the personnel to force a lot of turnovers this year, so on that, we definitely agree. But the context of this particular response was the claim that another poster had made about turnovers being the single most important part of a good defense. I don't think that is true. And while I want this year's team to force turnovers, I hope that other defensive markers improve, as well.

[ncexnyc]

Nice to see the forum back to its usual self.

[azzefkram]

Kedsy can get caught in the stat weeds just about better than anyone but it doesn't take a stathead to see that Duke's defense needs work or that turning over an opponent 35% of the time is not sustainable. Could some of the poor performance in the other defensive areas be attributed to Duke hunting for turnovers? Sure, but a bunch of it was young dudes not really being expected to play defense before. The good news is that Vernon, Cassius and Alex are a lot better on the defensive end than I expected. Matt seemed to get pushed around a bunch but I'm not sure how much of that was Matt as opposed to Kansas' beefy front line. For the first game against a top 10 opponent I was a bit heartened by the defense, warts and all.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I have never seen anyone who has thoughtfully analyzed this kind of thing suggesting that turnovers are "by far the most important category." One can certainly make an argument that shooting is more important, for example.

That said, who cares? My point is that when we didn't turn them over, our defense was poor.

As usual, you make grand pronouncements without a great deal of basis. The point was that if you look at non-turnover possessions in this game vs. non-turnover possessions in every game last season, this would have been one of our worst game performances in those type of possessions. In other words, even in games when we forced a lot of turnovers last season, we performed much better in the defensive possessions in which we didn't turn over our opponents. You may think that's useless information, but I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

I think you missed the entire point of Kedsy's argument, that he was analyzing the exact same possession outcomes from last season to this one game, and that this game would have stood as one of our worst in those possessions. While the turnover rate would have been the best, the weakness of the rest of the defensive metrics pointed to meant that the overall defensive performance Tues night was good but not particularly great. It was good enough to get the win, and that's what i care about.
Kedsy's point though was that the likelihood that the turnover rate being an outlier that might not be approached again is pretty high, and that the rather poor performance of the other defensive metrics leaves room to believe that there remains a good deal of work to be done on the defense. I for one think that K and staff are all over this and will in fact work hard to get the team to buy in to defensive strengths so that the relative weaknesses that Kedsy pointed out will improve.

I did not miss the point. I know what he was comparing, and my point is that it is not relevant to the game of basketball as it plays out on the hardwood. It's just another way to carve numbers up. It's interesting, but not meaningful.

A defense that is high risk, playing in the passing lanes, double teaming, pressing, etc, is going to create more turnovers and also give up a higher percentage of possessions where that risk does not pay off. That's a given, born out by every sport on the planet - but to take out the turnovers and think you have something meaningful on a PPP basis is to create a fallacy. This is like removing sack plays from a defense and seeing how well they did when they blitzed but did NOT get to the QB. It's interesting, but it's not how the game is played. I'm sure Kedsy' stats are correct, but the game is not scored on PPP outside of turnovers. It's scored on all possessions. FG defense, blocked shots, defensive rebounds, fouls committed all are important - but again, the only thing that wipes out 100% of a possession is a turnover.

And another thing that is key: a turnover wipes out 1.0 possessions. Shooting percentage dips only wipe out a fraction of a possession. The only stat that wipes out an entire possession (the only exception being if a team shoots, misses, gets their rebound, and then has a TO - which is a very small percentage of plays) is turnovers. Thus for offense and defense, it's very likely the most important stat. This is very basic math.

[sagegrouse]

Kedsy can get caught in the stat weeds just about better than anyone but it doesn't take a stathead to see that Duke's defense needs work or that turning over an opponent 35% of the time is not sustainable. Could some of the poor performance in the other defensive areas be attributed to Duke hunting for turnovers? Sure, but a bunch of it was young dudes not really being expected to play defense before. The good news is that Vernon, Cassius and Alex are a lot better on the defensive end than I expected. Matt seemed to get pushed around a bunch but I'm not sure how much of that was Matt as opposed to Kansas' beefy front line. For the first game against a top 10 opponent I was a bit heartened by the defense, warts and all.

Because Kansas always played two big lugs with power and little finesse, we decided to double-team them whenever they got the ball. I would argue it was effective -- we turned them over a bunch and won when we were an underdog. I doubt we see a team like this or ever play this kind of defense the rest of the season.

[DukieInBrasil]

I did not miss the point. I know what he was comparing, and my point is that it is not relevant to the game of basketball as it plays out on the hardwood. It's just another way to carve numbers up. It's interesting, but not meaningful.

A defense that is high risk, playing in the passing lanes, double teaming, pressing, etc, is going to create more turnovers and also give up a higher percentage of possessions where that risk does not pay off. That's a given, born out by every sport on the planet - but to take out the turnovers and think you have something meaningful on a PPP basis is to create a fallacy. This is like removing sack plays from a defense and seeing how well they did when they blitzed but did NOT get to the QB. It's interesting, but it's not how the game is played. I'm sure Kedsy' stats are correct, but the game is not scored on PPP outside of turnovers. It's scored on all possessions. FG defense, blocked shots, defensive rebounds, fouls committed all are important - but again, the only thing that wipes out 100% of a possession is a turnover.

And another thing that is key: a turnover wipes out 1.0 possessions. Shooting percentage dips only wipe out a fraction of a possession. The only stat that wipes out an entire possession (the only exception being if a team shoots, misses, gets their rebound, and then has a TO - which is a very small percentage of plays) is turnovers. Thus for offense and defense, it's very likely the most important stat. This is very basic math.

thanks for proving the point.