Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Duke Basketball 2016-2017

Where will this rotation be in 5-10 years?

Allen - Anonymity and happiness in Europe.

Bolden - The Hakeem Olajuwon of Australia/New Zealand pro basketball.

Giles - Revered by advanced stats people on an NBA title contender, perhaps off the bench. Outstanding net on/off splits. Provides excellent off ball and on ball rim protection. Takes only 65% shots around the rim. Dominant rebounder.

Jackson - What JWill's career would have been, but smarter in terms of shot selection and even more explosive around the rim.

Jefferson - No idea. Maybe getting a Ph.D. in something that benefits society.

Jones - Coaching. Or winning multiple titles as a 45-50% clutch 3pt shooter with the Spurs.

Kennard - Might just be a typical white American no-defense flameout at guard (Jimmer, Stauskas), might improve his weaknesses and become a more versatile Redick. Probably has a place on any NBA playoff contender as a 40% 3pt shooter off the bench, if his shot translates.

Tatum - Can go in two different directions: (1) never develops reliable NBA 3pt range, absolute ceiling is young Grant Hill or Dwyane Wade, who are extremely rare exceptions to every modern rule, most likely comp in this scenario would be something like Jabari Parker with more defense and health; (2) develops NBA 3pt range and goes to a franchise/coach who hates midrange jumpers and stupidity in general (i.e., anywhere but the Kings), raises realistic ceiling to MVP version of Kawhi Leonard. (Spoiler: He will go the Kings.)
 
I'll cry if Amile goes the Jay Will role and sells out.



"That 2040 Duke squad that went 44-0 and won Coach Collins his 6th title was a great group indeed, but there hasn't been a dominant team since UNC 2009. Back to you Bobby (Frasor)"
 
Jack White - And1 mixtape star famous for his unexpected white boy dunks. Called, at various points in his career, by the monikers Hugh Dunkman, Crocodile Dunkdee, Kangaroo Jack, Union Jack, White Flight, Man at Work, Vegemite Slamwich, and The Thunder from Down Under.
 
Childress, going back to our debate last night (which i'm sure everyone else would love to continue to read us bicker :) ) this is why I wanted USC over Marquette.


For some reason, this season our offensive output and efficiency has depended very little on how efficient our opponent's defense is. As in, almost no correlation at all. Just look at this scatter of our opponent's AdjD that season vs our offensive efficiency in the game this season:

K6Upi9.jpg



Our opponent's defensive rating only ended up accounting for 10% of the variance in our offensive output this season. That's it. For some reason, Duke's offense is more like a roulette wheel, maybe because of three point shooting? I have no idea.


Meanwhile, how we did on defense against an opponent, was very, VERY dependent on how good our opponent's offense was overall on the season:

IYJSua.jpg



Our opponent's offensive rating accounted for 70% of the variance in or defensive efficiency. So when we are playing a potent scoring team we know they're probably going to make our defense look stupid, and conversely we know we don't have to fret too much about playing horrid offenses.


Eye test and some confirmation bias I think supports the case. We haven't lost to a team as bad offensively as this USC team since the fat Jabari team lost to WF over three years ago. And we never seem to get shut down by Virginia, meanwhile ND has regularly embarrassed us. And some of our losses this season were when our offense inexplicably went super cold against a just okay defense (see @Miami). I also feel the Matt Jones effect can actually be real against Thornwell, since he's not a speedy PG or a PF/C post guy.

Who knows how many points we'll score against SC. Then again who knows how many we would have scored against Marquette either. But at least I know that SC is likely not going to score a shit ton on us like MU probably would have.
 
I think that's a fair take and makes sense in a lot of ways. I'm guessing the key counterpoints are:

1. Marquette is so 3-reliant and Duke would spend the whole game running them off the 3-line
2. Game location
 
That is super interesting, Dson.

I wonder what the standard splits like that would be if you ran it for, say, the whole top 25. I assume that if you ran it for every time included in weighted efficiency calculations, the average split would be 50/50 for both sides of the ball, by definition?

Disclaimer: Like my soul mate Marques, I also have the flu, so my brain is not operating at full capacity right nor.
 
Didn't Kenpom post an article about how the offense is more in control of its own results than the defense anyway? I imagine the split is not as extreme as Duke is seeing though.
 
Kenpom studied this offense vs. defense thing.
http://kenpom.com/blog/offense-vs-defen ... ossession/

Consistently over the past decade, offense has shown more control over its own efficiency than the opposing defense. A good offense will tend to hold up against a good defense and a bad offense will tend to underperform against a bad defense. These tendencies are not as strong for previous traits examined here, but at 64% influence, offense is clearly in charge.
Click to expand...

I assume Pomeroy weighs his overall rankings accordingly, so there's no mental adjusting to do when we look at them (e.g., we don't need to consider every elite offensive team actually better than its ranking, and the opposite for defense).
 
rome8180 said:
Didn't Kenpom post an article about how the offense is more in control of its own results than the defense anyway? I imagine the split is not as extreme as Duke is seeing though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was a series about in on Pomeroy that showed it overall skewed towards offense in a 2/1 ratio overall, but that was just an average and certainly some would still fall onto either side of that ratio. It looks like in Duke's case we're on the extreme end in favor of our offense being independent of the opposing defense. I'm sure you can find some anti-Duke team out there that's the opposite. Maybe UVA? I might run the numbers on them later just to see. But yeah even without knowing exact stats I still preferred playing the SDSU/UVA/USCs of the world for this reason, instead of ND/MU/Wake or whatever.

Same reason no sane GM is going to prefer a Patrick Beverly over an Isaiah Thomas.


edit: SM has the Pomeroy blog link. Looks like it might have to do something with three point shooting after all. Anyways history suggests we're not going to make a horrid offense suddenly look unstoppable.

edit 2: FWIW there was zero correlation to an opponent's 3ptFGA/FGA ratio on the season and Duke's offensive efficiency. Of course obviously teams could be adjusting their strategy specifically for Duke, so that may change the numbers -- and i'll probably look specifically at a game-by-game basis later and compare -- but I doubt it will change much. I think Duke's offense may just be one of the most independent in the country.
 
Any team that takes lots of 3s will be more defense-proof than usual, since no defense can reliably decrease 3pt%. The best defense against Duke is to invite them to take layups and try to contest them at the rim - the Mike Brey philosophy against Duke. Fortunately, no one will copy Brey.
 
FWIW there was essentially no correlation this season in the percentage of threes out of our total attempts our opponent's let us take in a game, and our efficiency in that game:

YSe8Di.jpg



I'm too lazy to run other factors, but as of right now there doesn't seem to be any magic bullet or even something semi-reliable in stopping Duke's offense except just hoping they miss.
 
I'm glad this season is over, but would have been gladder if Arkansas didn't shit the bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Chat users

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Chat rooms

  • General chit-chat 0

Forum statistics

Threads
1,065
Messages
423,850
Members
624
Latest member
Bluegrass Blue Devil
Back
Top Bottom