MBB: Duke 78, FSU 79 (OT)

[kshepinthehouse]

Wish we could have gotten the ball to Paolo on that last drive, but I’m sure ‘moles were looking for that. First ten minutes of second half kind of gave seminoles a cushion. Proud of Duke for hanging in and fighting like they did. Showed a lot of heart. Also, I hope Keels is not too badly hurt, we’ll need him. This team just needs to learn to close out game in final seconds. They’ll get there! Next play!

Don’t care if they were looking for it. Still would rather him take the last shot than Moore driving.

[Wander]

To me, Paolo feels more like a Tatum than Zion.

I think Jabari Parker, if you absolutely had to pick one former Duke player.

[kshepinthehouse]

coleman would i think have been a much better option than john this season to back up the 5, with the added benefit of having 2 more years to play. if the reason he left was that john was coming in, then we k likely made a crucial mistake. (on the other hand, it's possible john was brought in to replace coleman.)

sadly, i think both coleman and brakefield would have been ideal players to round off an 8-9 man rotation on this particular team.

I doubt he wanted to sit behind Banchero.

[tking]

To me, Paolo feels more like a Tatum than Zion.

Tatum's stats:

Attachment 14018

Paolo stats:

Attachment 14019

Zion stats:

Attachment 14020

I mean, Zion had by far the single best box score +/- for all players (not just freshman) since they've tracked that stat.

Paolo's playing really well. Are there things he can do better? For sure. Can the coaching staff also do a better job of optimizing him and getting him the ball in better spots/situations? Most likely.

[FerryFor50]

I think Jabari Parker, if you absolutely had to pick one former Duke player.

In some ways, yes. Similar efficiency and defensive rating. But Tatum and Banchero had similar rebounding % while Jabari was better overall (13.6 for Paolo, 12.7 for Tatum, 17.1 for Jabari). And Jabari didn't have the same handles IMO. Tatum and Banchero can create off the dribble or play post. I don't recall Jabari taking as many mid-range jumpers either, but I could be wrong.

So maybe a hybrid of both?

[FerryFor50]

I mean, Zion had by far the single best box score +/- for all players (not just freshman) since they've tracked that stat.

Paolo's playing really well. Are there things he can do better? For sure. Can the coaching staff also do a better job of optimizing him and getting him the ball in better spots/situations? Most likely.

No doubt. We were absolutely spoiled with Zion, and even moreso with also having RJ Barrett and Cam Reddish. Still baffled how no title came out of that and moreso how he didn't touch the ball on the final possession of the season.

As for my Banchero comp to Tatum, it was more along the lines of the staff has had players like Banchero before. They never had a player like Zion - and really, no one had. They should absolutely be able to figure it out.

[rsvman]

Too bad it's not legal to give a monetary payout to the top rebounder after each game, and maybe a big payout for the most rebounds on the season. Might be enough to kick rebounding into another gear.

Hardly comparable, but when I was young and played rec league, I thought mostly about shooting and scoring. But as I stuck around and played in rec leagues well into my 30s, I started to focus on defense and rebounding; when I did that, I was able to get rebound totals in the teens in most games, and in the high teens in some games. I never even sniffed those types of number when I was younger, more athletic, and more capable of rebounding. Thus, I conclude, for MYSELF at least, the factor that mattered most in whether I rebounded well was whether I WANTED to rebound well. When I made it an internal point of emphasis and a personal point of pride, I was an excellent rebounder; when I didn't, I wasn't. For me it was a simple as that.

[Acymetric]

Tatum got notably better in the rest of the year, so hopefully Banchero sees a similar improvement in the second half.

Tatum's improvement seemed primarily driven by finally getting healthy and properly conditioned.

[flyingdutchdevil]

In some ways, yes. Similar efficiency and defensive rating. But Tatum and Banchero had similar rebounding % while Jabari was better overall (13.6 for Paolo, 12.7 for Tatum, 17.1 for Jabari). And Jabari didn't have the same handles IMO. Tatum and Banchero can create off the dribble or play post. I don't recall Jabari taking as many mid-range jumpers either, but I could be wrong.

So maybe a hybrid of both?

Parker was awful at D. He had a 99.3 defensive rating (and a 1.0 defensive box plus/minus). Paolo, on the other hand, has a 90.8 defensive rating (and a 2.9 defensive box plus/minus).

Parker was a big part of the reason that '14 team was terrible defensively (and also the main reason they were elite offensively).

[FerryFor50]

Parker was awful at D. He had a 99.3 defensive rating (and a 1.0 defensive box plus/minus). Paolo, on the other hand, has a 90.8 defensive rating (and a 2.9 defensive box plus/minus).

Parker was a big part of the reason that '14 team was terrible defensively (and also the main reason they were elite offensively).

Ah, good catch. I misread 90.8 as 99.8. :-D

[FUBARDoorBuster]

T When I made it an internal point of emphasis and a personal point of pride, I was an excellent rebounder; when I didn't, I wasn't. For me it was a simple as that.

So it seems that as the shot goes off, the goals are: pick 2 of three
1. Defend the three point shot
2. Rebound the miss
3. Drop guards for the quick transition/fast break
If we should pick 2 of three, We are upset when picking 1 and 3 gives up offensive rebounds
If we emphasize 1 and 2, less transition game.
In my judgement, we need a non-ball side wing to crash boards and get ball control.
We can't run if we don't have the ball

[Kedsy]

This is probably worth an entire dissertation as a topic, but it just hasn't been an essential part of OUR teams' success over the years. We've won it pretty darn mediocre defensive rebounding teams: 158th in 2010, 124th in 2015. And we were within a whisker of the Final Four in 2018 and 2019 with awful defensive rebounding teams, and were it not for Irving getting hurt might well have won it all in 2011 with an awful rebounding team. So I'm not sure how critical it is.

Yeah, I agree. So far this season (all games), our opponents have on average offensive rebounded 28.8% of their misses. In conference games (which may, as you've pointed out, be skewed by our terrible performances in the past two games), our opponents have on average offensive rebounded 32.5% of their misses. As a one-game example of really bad defensive rebounding, FSU rebounded 38.8% of its misses.

We've had 11 Final Four teams since they started keeping track of offensive rebounds (in 1987). Here are those teams' average opposing offensive rebound rate:

1990: 39.7%
1994: 38.6%
1992: 37.2%
2004: 37.1%
1991: 36.3%
2001: 36.2%
1988: 35.2%
1999: 34.9%
2010: 32.1%
1989: 31.2%
2015: 30.9%

We've had six Top 5 teams since 1987 that didn't make the Final Four:

2006 (#1): 37.7%
2000 (#1): 37.7%
1998 (#3): 35.4%
2002 (#1): 34.5%
2011 (#3): 33.2%
2019 (#1): 29.2%

Finally, we've had two teams that accomplished neither of the above but were KenPom Top 10 defenses:

2005 (#2 defense): 36.8%
2018 (#9 defense): 29.6%

So, of the 19 very successful teams listed above, every single one of them gave up more offensive rebounds (by pct) than this year's team. All but five of them gave up more offensive rebounds (by pct) than this year's team has done in conference play. So while I think we can all agree this year's team's inability to defensively rebound is an issue, and I hope we can all agree that Duke has never been good at it, at least I agree with you that it's probably not that critical.

[CDu]

Yeah, I agree. So far this season (all games), our opponents have on average offensive rebounded 28.8% of their misses. In conference games (which may, as you've pointed out, be skewed by our terrible performances in the past two games), our opponents have on average offensive rebounded 32.5% of their misses. As a one-game example of really bad defensive rebounding, FSU rebounded 38.8% of its misses.

We've had 11 Final Four teams since they started keeping track of offensive rebounds (in 1987). Here are those teams' average opposing offensive rebound rate:

1990: 39.7%
1994: 38.6%
1992: 37.2%
2004: 37.1%
1991: 36.3%
2001: 36.2%
1988: 35.2%
1999: 34.9%
2010: 32.1%
1989: 31.2%
2015: 30.9%

We've had six Top 5 teams since 1987 that didn't make the Final Four:

2006 (#1): 37.7%
2000 (#1): 37.7%
1998 (#3): 35.4%
2002 (#1): 34.5%
2011 (#3): 33.2%
2019 (#1): 29.2%

Finally, we've had two teams that accomplished neither of the above but were KenPom Top 10 defenses:

2005 (#2 defense): 36.8%
2018 (#9 defense): 29.6%

So, of the 19 very successful teams listed above, every single one of them gave up more offensive rebounds (by pct) than this year's team. All but five of them gave up more offensive rebounds (by pct) than this year's team has done in conference play. So while I think we can all agree this year's team's inability to defensively rebound is an issue, and I hope we can all agree that Duke has never been good at it, at least I agree with you that it's probably not that critical.

While I of course agree with the main point here, I would urge caution in presenting raw offensive rebound rates from 20-30 years ago as a point of comparison. The game has changed dramatically over the years. I suspect that one of those changes is that teams are more cognizant of preventing fast breaks now, which means they are less aggressive on the offensive glass. So I would suggest sticking to our national ranking in defensive rebound rate rather than raw percentages.

For example, we were actually top half of the country (~125) in 2015 despite a numerically higher rebound rate allowed. And in 2010, we were around #150 or 160 with a higher rate allowed. We are currently outside the top-200 this year.

Having said that, our DReb% has consistent been mediocre to bad relative to other teams since 2008 (as far back as Torvik has data), and that hasn’t prevented us from winning 2 titles and making 2 other elite-8s (juuuuuuuuuuust missing the final four) with top-10 defenses (2018 and 2019). And the 2018 and 2019 teams were top-10 defenses with the same poor national ranking in rebound rate.

We were probably similarly bad nationally (i.e., generally in the 150-225 range) prior to 2008 too, but I just don’t have that information. Pomeroy might have it back to about 2001 though. But even though the raw rebound rates were worse back then, I don’t think that is evidence that we were a relatively worse rebounding team. Rather, it is just an artifact of the fact that teams valued defensive possessions somewhat less back then.

[lotusland]

Paolo likes to set up on the low post looking for feeds. FSU did a good job cutting that off in the early second half. I think Paolo should mix it up and run some cuts along the baseline or around the perimeter to keep the defense honest. Duke's whole offense was too stagnant for long stretches.

Paolo is going to be a problem for Cuse if he sets up at the foul line with Williams on the baseline and AJ at the opposite corner. He’s 76% from 15 feet if they don’t double him . If they do double him, someone is open for a dunk or an open
3. He’s got really good shooting, passing and ball handling skills for his size. He was born to be a zone buster.

[jv001]

Paolo is going to be a problem for Cuse if he sets up at the foul line with Williams on the baseline and AJ at the opposite corner. He’s 76% from 15 feet if they don’t double him . If they do double him, someone is open for a dunk or an open
3. He’s got really good shooting, passing and ball handling skills for his size. He was born to be a zone buster.

We just have to make sure we get the ball to him, especially end of game situations.

GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

We were probably similarly bad nationally (i.e., generally in the 150-225 range) prior to 2008 too, but I just don’t have that information. Pomeroy might have it back to about 2001 though. But even though the raw rebound rates were worse back then, I don’t think that is evidence that we were a relatively worse rebounding team. Rather, it is just an artifact of the fact that teams valued defensive possessions somewhat less back then.

Yeah, I know. Over the years, defensive rebounding has generally increased and offensive rebounding has generally decreased. If I had national rankings I would have used them. But while a national ranking would be much better information, it wouldn't change the fact that a whole bunch of our Final Four teams gave up a similar percentage of offensive rebounds on average as we gave up to Florida State the other night. And they were still really good teams with really good defenses.

I mean, if most teams in the country were giving up more offensive rebounds that would mean there was more scoring overall, right? That's why relative ranking for OR% and defense in general would be more informative. But most of those pre-Pomeroy Duke defenses had great absolute dRatings despite giving up tons of offensive rebounds. For example, Duke's 2002, 1999, and 1998 teams had season-long defensive points per possession of 0.89, 0.89, and 0.87 (unadjusted, but they played in the ACC, so schedule strength was strong) with opposing OR% of 34.5%, 34.9%, and 35.4%. They gave up tons of offensive rebounds but hardly any points. That 2002 team, for example, was KenPom's #1 defense with an adjusted dRating of 86.8, despite being a very bad defensive rebounding team.

Which to me confirms the fact that defensive rebounding is not essential for good defense or for team success.

[CDu]

Yeah, I know. Over the years, defensive rebounding has generally increased and offensive rebounding has generally decreased. If I had national rankings I would have used them. But while a national ranking would be much better information, it wouldn't change the fact that a whole bunch of our Final Four teams gave up a similar percentage of offensive rebounds on average as we gave up to Florida State the other night. And they were still really good teams with really good defenses.

But the reason that showing those raw rebound rates isn't informative is that if all teams are giving up more offensive rebounds, then it wouldn't matter as much if we were giving up more rebounds. Because we'd be getting more of them back on the other end.

I mean, if most teams in the country were giving up more offensive rebounds that would mean there was more scoring overall, right?

Only if the other factors were roughly the same as today. But I don't think they were. I suspect that turnover rates were also much higher in previous decades. And I suspect that effective FG% has generally improved. This is certainly true relative to the 50s and 60s and 70s, when teams chucked up tons of shots and missed tons of them. I just don't know whether the shooting improvement really happened, or if it was gradual.

But quite simply, in general teams didn't value possessions nearly as much. They turned it over more, rebounded less well defensively (and perhaps more aggressively offensively), and probably took less high-quality shots. Today, teams are taking better care of the ball, generally working to get better quality shots, AND taking better care to rebound.

That's why relative ranking for OR% and defense in general would be more informative. But most of those pre-Pomeroy Duke defenses had great absolute dRatings despite giving up tons of offensive rebounds. For example, Duke's 2002, 1999, and 1998 teams had season-long defensive points per possession of 0.89, 0.89, and 0.87 (unadjusted, but they played in the ACC, so schedule strength was strong) with opposing OR% of 34.5%, 34.9%, and 35.4%. They gave up tons of offensive rebounds but hardly any points. That 2002 team, for example, was KenPom's #1 defense with an adjusted dRating of 86.8, despite being a very bad defensive rebounding team.

Which to me confirms the fact that defensive rebounding is not essential for good defense or for team success.

Yeah, it's certainly not essential. Like I said, I absolutely agree with the main point. I just don't know that presenting the raw percentages from 20-30 years ago is informative in telling that story, because the entire landscape of basketball has changed so much since then. But the 2018 and 2019 Duke teams very clearly DO tell that story: great defensive teams despite poor defensive rebounding numbers. In 2019, it was because we didn't foul and we were elite at defending both 2s and 3s.
So even if teams got more looks, they weren't scoring. Same story with 2018, albeit we achieved that in a very different way. Outside of Duke, Syracuse of the 2010s is another prime example. They always suck at defensive rebounding. But their good defensive teams typically force turnovers, generate low FG% against, and don't foul.

Basically, you have to be good at something to be a good defense: making people miss, forcing turnovers, rebounding well, and/or not fouling. But you don't have to be good at everything.

[azzefkram]

Basically, you have to be good at something to be a good defense: making people miss, forcing turnovers, rebounding well, and/or not fouling. But you don't have to be good at everything.

Unfortunately for Duke, they were fairly dreadful at forcing TOs and rebounding against FSU.

While I kinda sorta agree with what you and Kedsy are writing, I do wonder if being bad at DR makes the other aspects of defending harder. ORs tend to be closer to the basket which means easier shots which impacts the ability to make teams miss. Also shots closer to the basket tend to be challenged which can lead to more fouls. Defense seems to be more effort intensive so adding extra defensive possessions for a team the plays a short bench seems less than ideal.

I don't think that Duke needs to be a great DR team, but striving for ok/meh (125-175 range) should be a goal.