Duke vs. Auburn (Wed 12/4, 9:15pm ET, ESPN) Pregame and In-Game Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
On that point, KenPom shows Auburn as one of the "luckier" teams so far - the second luckiest in the top-30, while Duke has been the third least lucky in that group. I'm not sure how he measures luck (perhaps it has to do with the fact that Auburn is shooting an unsustainable 56% on "long twos"), but in theory, it should even out over time. Hopefully it starts tonight.
KenPom on "luck":

The easiest one to understand is Luck, which is the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method. The luck factor has nothing to do with the rating calculation, but a team that is very lucky (positive numbers) will tend to be rated lower by my system than their record would suggest.​

 
  • Like
Reactions: CDu
On that point, KenPom shows Auburn as one of the "luckier" teams so far - the second luckiest in the top-30, while Duke has been the third least lucky in that group. I'm not sure how he measures luck (perhaps it has to do with the fact that Auburn is shooting an unsustainable 56% on "long twos"), but in theory, it should even out over time. Hopefully it starts tonight.
"Luck" in the metrics world is simply how much better their record is than it "should" be given their metrics rating relative to their opponents. Auburn had two games that were effectively toss-ups (Houston, Iowa State), and they won both. Duke conversely had two games that were effectively toss-ups, and they lost both. That's what leads to the two different ends of the spectrum.

The metrics sites don't care how you get your points (or your stops on defense). They just care about how many points you score per possession and how many you allow per possession, weighted by quality of opponent and location of game. So while the 56% on long 2s is likely not sustainable, it doesn't directly contribute to the luck calc.
 
I love Broome and think maybe Duke plays him straight up with no double. Let him get his. […] My thinking is Duke lets Broome play against single coverage to try to limit 3s from Auburn.
This was our approach with Kansas and Dickinson, I believe. I contend that it was working until he got ejected (and that actually may have worked against us).

Agree. I've been thinking we should start Sion and Maliq against a very physical Auburn.
I agree that Sion should start. I’m also good with Maliq starting if ManMan doesn’t (playing them both means having at least two “non-shooters” on the floor, which could clog up our offense if those two aren’t very, very effective at setting screens and being lob threats, and I don’t think Maliq is a lob threat).
 
Auburn has to go up against the KenPom #1 defense on that team's home court. I'm not saying we should be favorites, but Auburn has their challenges in this game too.

Pettiford, their 6-1 freshman guard, had big games against Houston and Iowa State off the bench. He shines against tough defenses. Our guards need to be ready for him.

I think it's a coin flip game. It does have pretty big implications for tourney seeding which makes it a fun early season matchup.
Very good points. And I’ll have to admit until I read this I assumed the game was at a neutral site because of the size and following of both programs and it being early in the season. The home court and the Crazies change everything. “Coin flip” is app. I hope the Crazies along with the team bring their A game. Kon will shoot much better at home. Might have to place a bet! Go Duke!
 
The #1 thing that concerns me is that this game is some kids vs a bunch of grown men. But kids can grow up fast, and hopefully this game could be the game where we see that.

Duke should be hungry and desperate in this game. We don’t really have a signature win yet. Beating Arizona at their house was cool, but they’ve shown that they aren’t really a top 10 team since then. Even though it's only a regular season game, we should be playing like we have our backs against the wall.

Auburn should be fat and happy after winning the Maui and beating 4 top 25 teams. They also did not beat a single good team last year on the road. This is their first true road game this season.

This how I am talking myself into picking Duke tonight.
 
Last edited:
The full expression is "Good offense beats good defense and vice versa." I don't know why people always leave off the second part.

I've never heard it the other way around. Good offense definitely beats good defense. You can contest a shot perfectly but the shooter can always still make it.
 
I've never heard it the other way around. Good offense definitely beats good defense. You can contest a shot perfectly but the shooter can always still make it.
Depends which sport. I think in football defense wins. Until they changed the rules to favor offense
 
Meeeeee! Famously. Or infamously.
Lots of folks here disagree.
LOL, I know, many people LIKE Jay as a broadcaster and analyst; I don't doubt he has a substantial reservoir of knowledge about college basketball but I find him (at least somewhat) insufferable; I get the impression that he is one of those people who has to try to prove that he is smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone else and his stories about his lack of basketball skills seem like the epitome of false modesty run amok.
I have a friend/acquaintance like this - he thinks he is the world's leading expert on EVERYTHING - food, wine, cigars, cars, airplanes, houses - you name it. He is one of those people you can take only in small doses.
 
LOL, I know, many people LIKE Jay as a broadcaster and analyst; I don't doubt he has a substantial reservoir of knowledge about college basketball but I find him (at least somewhat) insufferable; I get the impression that he is one of those people who has to try to prove that he is smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone else and his stories about his lack of basketball skills seem like the epitome of false modesty run amok.
I have a friend/acquaintance like this - he thinks he is the world's leading expert on EVERYTHING - food, wine, cigars, cars, airplanes, houses - you name it. He is one of those people you can take only in small doses.
Yeah. Look, there are people here who are anti-Bilas because they think he goes out of his way to appear unbiased when he talks about Duke. That bit is not all that interesting to me.

My problem with Jay is moreso that he is not all that fun to listen to in-game. For example, he actively sucks the fun out of a game when he harps on and tries to adjudicate the officiating. It is downright boring when he inserts those self-deprecating jokes while commentating on actual basketball being played. Has nothing to do (imho) with his stance toward Duke. It’s more a temperament thing.

It’s not all bad though. He is more enjoyable when on a panel. He is outstanding in more casual settings like on the Brotherhood pod.
 
One "hope" I haven't seen expressed much is the hope that the coaching staff calls a great game. When talent is roughly similar, coaching is what will win games. I hope the staff feels they have something to prove and adapt before and during the game itself. Who starts may provide the first evidence...
 
LOL, I know, many people LIKE Jay as a broadcaster and analyst; I don't doubt he has a substantial reservoir of knowledge about college basketball but I find him (at least somewhat) insufferable; I get the impression that he is one of those people who has to try to prove that he is smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone else and his stories about his lack of basketball skills seem like the epitome of false modesty run amok.
I have a friend/acquaintance like this - he thinks he is the world's leading expert on EVERYTHING - food, wine, cigars, cars, airplanes, houses - you name it. He is one of those people you can take only in small doses.
after muting Jay for the past decade or so, I listened to him for one game this year and found, to my delight, he wasn't punctuating every sentence with "that's a foul!"
 
Yeah. Look, there are people here who are anti-Bilas because they think he goes out of his way to appear unbiased when he talks about Duke. That bit is not all that interesting to me.

My problem with Jay is moreso that he is not all that fun to listen to in-game. For example, he actively sucks the fun out of a game when he harps on and tries to adjudicate the officiating. It is downright boring when he inserts those self-deprecating jokes while commentating on actual basketball being played. Has nothing to do (imho) with his stance toward Duke. It’s more a temperament thing.

It’s not all bad though. He is more enjoyable when on a panel. He is outstanding in more casual settings like on the Brotherhood pod.
Totally agree here, DT. I don't actually mind that he SEEMS to root against Duke at times. I'm sure he feels some pressure to appear to be unbiased, with his broadcasting peers and ESPN viewers. And I agree he IS better when not doing in-game analysis - the talk he gave pre-season to the Duke team was outstanding, IMO.
 
So far this season, when we have high profile match-ups, there is a clear emergence of a Big 3, in terms of minutes:


PlayerMPG OverallMPG vs UK/KU/AZ
Coop3136
Kon3136
Rese2935

With Auburn's depth, I wonder if this trend will continue tonight?
 
So far this season, when we have high profile match-ups, there is a clear emergence of a Big 3, in terms of minutes:

Player MPG overall MPG avg vs UK/KU/AZ
Coop 31 36
Kon 31 36
Rese 29 35

With Auburn's depth, I wonder if this trend will continue tonight?
Interesting, but I don't see how Auburn's roster affects how many minutes are in a regulation game of basketball.
 
One "hope" I haven't seen expressed much is the hope that the coaching staff calls a great game. When talent is roughly similar, coaching is what will win games. I hope the staff feels they have something to prove and adapt before and during the game itself. Who starts may provide the first evidence...
How will you measure “coaching”?

-jk
 
"Luck" in the metrics world is simply how much better their record is than it "should" be given their metrics rating relative to their opponents. Auburn had two games that were effectively toss-ups (Houston, Iowa State), and they won both. Duke conversely had two games that were effectively toss-ups, and they lost both. That's what leads to the two different ends of the spectrum.

The metrics sites don't care how you get your points (or your stops on defense). They just care about how many points you score per possession and how many you allow per possession, weighted by quality of opponent and location of game. So while the 56% on long 2s is likely not sustainable, it doesn't directly contribute to the luck calc.
Alas I am fairly certain, without looking at the data because I'm lazy, that there isn't typically a lot of "regression to the mean" either. More specifically, there are teams who stay "lucky" or "unlucky" all year long. Kenpom's luck is perhaps best viewed as capturing what metrics cannot. As such, it may be a very useful hedge when selecting tournament winners, etc. An hypothesis begging to be tested with the right weighting of metrics and luck factored in. Pardon the musings.

As for how to measure "coaching," I do believe the DBR method of loudest opinion seems most prudent!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top