MBB: Duke 82, Ga Tech 56 - Post Game-thread

MChambers said:
Let me apologize in advance for putting this thread back on topic. Here's a lengthy analysis from Brian Geisinger showing many of the sets and new variations Duke ran Saturday: https://briangeisinger.substack.com/p/under-motion-what-worked-for-duke
If you ever are concerned that Scheyer just rolls the ball out and let's them play, read this story. You'll learn about what Duke is running and how it has already evolved over the first 12 games of the season.

Warning: it's very detailed. It made me appreciate just how many options Duke has on every set, and there are quite a few sets.
Click to expand...
Look forward to reading this. I always watch Duke's first possession to see what's new from Scheyer. The first two possessions against GT it was clear we we were running some very different stuff.

This is now the third season that Jon has used the end of December to layer in some new looks on offense...
 
bluedevilwildcats said:
Yeah, his offense ineptitude is tough to overcome, but his defensive impact does it. Two of our best four lineups with 60+ possessions include Maliq. But our top lineup doesn't, which is a change from the last 2 games.

I'm guessing the link would be to a spreadsheet with incorrect formulas.
Click to expand...
Duke has only four lineups with 60+ possessions. The two with Maliq have net ratings of 11.8 and -3.3. The Ortgs are 100.5 and 99.6. His defense is great but doesn't always overcome his offensive passivity (I don't think Maliq is a bad offensive player, just highly reluctant to look for it).
 
azzefkram said:
Duke has only four lineups with 60+ possessions. The two with Maliq have net ratings of 11.8 and -3.3. The Ortgs are 100.5 and 99.6. His defense is great but doesn't always overcome his offensive passivity (I don't think Maliq is a bad offensive player, just highly reluctant to look for it).
Click to expand...
Scheyer has gently made this point about Maliq's reluctance at least twice, saying that he really wants Maliq to look for his own shot.
 
SkyBrickey said:
The site for this data is cbbanalytics.com. It has a bunch of advanced metrics like this including player shot chart data. My understanding is a lot of the teams use this. You can get a free account for Duke that includes three players.

Here's Kon's on/off metrics for the past 5 games:


View attachment 18918

But it gets way more granular than this. For example here is team shooting for the last 5 games with Kon on and off the court. Our paint FG% is 34.8% higher the past 5 games when Kon is in the game - data to back up the eye test.

View attachment 18919
Click to expand...
On/off is problematic for high minutes players. The off tends to be filled with non rotation players and small sample size issues. Maliq and Khaman are probably good candidates for on/off.

An example of on/off giving funky results was Jeremy last season. If you looked at the defensive on/off numbers last season, you would think Jeremy was an elite defender. Jeremy was good last season but far, far, far from elite.
 
azzefkram said:
On/off is problematic for high minutes players. The off tends to be filled with non rotation players and small sample size issues. Maliq and Khaman are probably good candidates for on/off.

An example of on/off giving funky results was Jeremy last season. If you looked at the defensive on/off numbers last season, you would think Jeremy was an elite defender. Jeremy was good last season but far, far, far from elite.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The on/off for Tyrese this season makes him seem like he's a terrible defender relative to Sion and Caleb. There may be a kernel of truth in there, but it's more likely it's being skewed in the way you are pointing out.

Khaman vs Maliq is the one comparison that should yield pretty good results.

Gillis has great on/off numbers too that I do think back up him bringing so much more value than just his shooting.
 
SkyBrickey said:
Agreed. The on/off for Tyrese this season makes him seem like he's a terrible defender relative to Sion and Caleb. There may be a kernel of truth in there, but it's more likely it's being skewed in the way you are pointing out.

Khaman vs Maliq is the one comparison that should yield pretty good results.

Gillis has great on/off numbers too that I do think back up him bringing so much more value than just his shooting.
Click to expand...
I tend to look at Duke's overall performance and then its performance when a specific player is on the court. If I want to get extra nerdy, I only look at lineups that exclude Pat, Darren, Cameron, Spencer, and Neal. It's imperfect, but you should avoid the garbage time/small sample issues.
 
ClemmonsDevil said:
This is what I am so enamored of about his game. His pacing, decision making, passing are all things that can't be taught. He is shockingly good at getting into the lane as well. Very strong with the ball. I loved seeing Evans with him against GT. Pairing Evans and Proctor with Kon is potentially Duke's best offensive lineup. I have left pretty much every game this year thinking, "Wow. I can't believe how well Kon played." And that was with him not shooting well.
Click to expand...
But what explains his inability to win the opening tip off?
 
kAzE said:
I think it’s tough to see this team reaching that level. The 1999 team shot 51.4% from the field and 39.6% from 3. They had by far the best player in the country (Brand), who stood 6’8” but was immensely strong and had a 7’6” wingspan, giving him plenty of effective size.

Trajan Langdon was a 2nd team AA who shot 44% from 3. Avery 50% and 41% from 3. Battier 54% and 41% from 3. What I’m getting at here is that team was not only the best defensive team, but probably the best offensive team as well. The team scored 91.8 points per game and held opponents to 67.2, winning by nearly 35 points per game.

It’s often hard compare players and teams across eras, but from start to finish, that was the best team I’ve ever seen at the college level. Maybe the 2024-25 team can become that dominant by February or March, and this defense is up there with the all time Duke teams, but they are quite a bit weaker offensively up to this point.
Click to expand...
From a post on Twitter:

This years Duke team has the 25th highest net rating in KenPom history (32.58)

They are ranked 1 spot below 2012 Kentucky and 1 spot ahead of 2015 Duke.

Each of Duke’s last 3 national championship teams are ranked in the top 30.
 
FastBreak said:
But what explains his inability to win the opening tip off?
Click to expand...
One of my favorite moments from playing was playing a conference rival and us winning the tip and going in and getting a layup. Their coach calls time out and starts berating them on the way off the court. He told them to get the opening tip and was irate that they didn't. Also we beat them by 40, so maybe he could have kept that time out in his pocket.
 
ClemmonsDevil said:
One of my favorite moments from playing was playing a conference rival and us winning the tip and going in and getting a layup. Their coach calls time out and starts berating them on the way off the court. He told them to get the opening tip and was irate that they didn't. Also we beat them by 40, so maybe he could have kept that time out in his pocket.
Click to expand...
That coach was no Roy Williams!! ;)
 
FastBreak said:
From a post on Twitter:

This years Duke team has the 25th highest net rating in KenPom history (32.58)

They are ranked 1 spot below 2012 Kentucky and 1 spot ahead of 2015 Duke.

Each of Duke’s last 3 national championship teams are ranked in the top 30.
Click to expand...
That's super cool. What's crazy is that Auburn is 4 points ahead of us on KenPom at +36.31. The nerd sites have them as the runaway best team in the country. But Johnni is still seeing Maliq every night in his sleep...
 
roywhite said:
Okay, I saw nearly every game (on TV) for the 1998-99 Duke team and loved their talent and experience.

Still, I'll say the 2024-25 Duke team can be very special, that's it's too early to say they're not "even close to that 1999 team".

Look at the size of the starters:
1998-99
Brand 6'8"
Battier 6'8"
Carrawell 6'6"
Langdon 6'3"
Avery 6'2"

2024-25
Maluach 7'2"
Flagg 6'9"
Knueppel 6'7"
Proctor 6'6"
Sion James 6'6"

Does that 98-99 team score easily vs the 24-25 team? Who rebounds better?
Both rosters have NBA talent, and the 24-25 roster may have more future NBA talent, but that's speculation at this point.

There's a long way to go, but this Duke team can be great even compared to some terrific teams from previous years. My opinion.
Click to expand...
Don't take the listed heights seriously. I would say the current team is taller than the 1998-99 team but I very much doubt if Kon is 6'7" (my guess is less than 6'6"} while both Proctor and James will measure out at around 6'5" at the NBA draft camp, if they are invited.
 
Great coaching by Jon. Adjustments to offense were great. Flagg getting to elbow more and starting the offense. That was the best game Duke played this year aside from Auburn game.
 
MChambers said:
I agree with your point, but am not wild about the double negative and the use of "think" twice in one sentence. I'm not an English major, however.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with the double negative, but would substitute 'imagine' for the second 'think.'
 
FastBreak said:
From a post on Twitter:

This years Duke team has the 25th highest net rating in KenPom history (32.58)

They are ranked 1 spot below 2012 Kentucky and 1 spot ahead of 2015 Duke.

Each of Duke’s last 3 national championship teams are ranked in the top 30.
Click to expand...

Seems about right, because we've clearly been one of the best teams in the country. This also helps put into perspective the dominance of the 99 team, which was an entirely different beast, and easily the best team I've ever watched (note #2 on this list, too):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777091606501642644

kAzE said:
I think it’s tough to see this team reaching that level. The 1999 team shot 51.4% from the field and 39.6% from 3. They had by far the best player in the country (Brand), who stood 6’8” but was immensely strong and had a 7’6” wingspan, giving him plenty of effective size.

Trajan Langdon was a 2nd team AA who shot 44% from 3. Avery 50% and 41% from 3. Battier 54% and 41% from 3. What I’m getting at here is that team was not only the best defensive team, but probably the best offensive team as well. The team scored 91.8 points per game and held opponents to 67.2, winning by nearly 35 points per game.

It’s often hard compare players and teams across eras, but from start to finish, that was the best team I’ve ever seen at the college level. Maybe the 2024-25 team can become that dominant by February or March, and this defense is up there with the all time Duke teams, but they are quite a bit weaker offensively up to this point.
Click to expand...

Spot on. The 99 team was not only loaded with talent, but that talent fit together perfectly - best player in the country in the low post, excellent 3 point shooting, and the best defensive frontcourt Coach K had. This year's team could continue to make significant strides and enter March as the favorites to win the title, and yet still won't be as good as 1999. That's fine though, because I'm more than happy with where we are now.
 
Dwight said:
Seems about right, because we've clearly been one of the best teams in the country. This also helps put into perspective the dominance of the 99 team, which was an entirely different beast, and easily the best team I've ever watched (note #2 on this list, too):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777091606501642644



Spot on. The 99 team was not only loaded with talent, but that talent fit together perfectly - best player in the country in the low post, excellent 3 point shooting, and the best defensive frontcourt Coach K had. This year's team could continue to make significant strides and enter March as the favorites to win the title, and yet still won't be as good as 1999. That's fine though, because I'm more than happy with where we are now.
Click to expand...
to add to that, nobody thought the 2015 team was all that special at this point in the season. Good, yes, but natty contenders? I didn't see it. Even midway thru the ACC schedule, the 2015 team dropped back to back games and didn't look particularly good doing so. Then they found another gear.
This year's team looks better than that team at this point in the season relative to the rest of MBB. And that's a good place to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top