Devilsforlife
Legend
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2017
- Messages
- 11,322
If Jack White has a thread, Buckmire and Robinson deserve their own threads too. They made more memorable plays tonight than Jack White has during his career.
DurhamSon
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 24,439
physicsfactor
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,662
Duke is almost dead last in the county at forcing turnovers.
TS9
All American
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 2,509
I want to say we did more of that back in the golden days of this season, when we played zone. But the Michigan State game might be weighing too heavily in my memory, and Michigan State turns it over against everyone.
Captain Checkdown
Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2017
- Messages
- 3
The evidence that aggressively overplaying passes to the wing 28+ feet from the basket elicits mass panic in opposing offenses keeps piling up!
best4heisman
All American
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,787
I'm curious about how our lack of ability to force turnovers impacts our tempo. We play very fast (31st shortest average possession length) but our opponents' possession length is 258th in the nation, which is the longest we've allowed since KenPom started tracking this stuff.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 41,197
Our transition vs. non-transition eFG% split is enormous this season, so it would make sense to try to push tempo offensively, which seems to be what this team is doing, given that our opponents' possession length is so long but our overall tempo is still very fast.
From hoop-math.com:
Transition eFG% = 70% ("transition" means the shot was taken in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock)
Transition rate = 28% (out of total possessions)
Non-Transition eFG% = 51% (my eyeball estimate, can easily be calculated if someone wants to do it)
Non-Transition rate = 72%
Compare with last season, a more typical Duke team:
Transition eFG% = 61%
Transition rate = 20%
Non-Transition eFG% = 54%
Non-Transition rate = 80%
This is a concern for March, when good, well-coached opponents will be able to control the pace and slow Duke down. In the halfcourt, we are much, much, much worse than in transition (51% vs. 70% eFG%), whereas in a usual season, the disparity is not nearly as great. The reason for this should be largely common sense, as this year's team lacks the usual Duke spacing.
The offense may be a dominant #1 right now, but the flaws need to be addressed or else someone who can dictate tempo and shot selection (e.g., Virginia) is going to make the offense look extremely bad. Exacerbating this problem is the fact that Duke is terrible at generating turnovers, so Duke is not a threat to increase the pace of a game via defense.
For an example of how a good team can control pace in the NCAA Tournament, look at 2010 Duke. Their 3 slowest games all season came in the NCAA Tournament. 2010 Duke would murder the current version of 2018 Duke, though there is obviously a lot of time for 2018 Duke to actually become 2018 Duke.
Villanova, who is currently #2 offensively, is around 58% eFG% in non-transition possessions, compared with Duke's 51%. Villanova is also a good FT shooting team, which eFG% does not account for. It's highly likely that Villanova will outperform Duke offensively in the NCAA Tournament unless Duke can improve its halfcourt offense, which has not been all that great to date. Of course, Villanova also has a top 5 defense currently, and Duke is not close.
From hoop-math.com:
Transition eFG% = 70% ("transition" means the shot was taken in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock)
Transition rate = 28% (out of total possessions)
Non-Transition eFG% = 51% (my eyeball estimate, can easily be calculated if someone wants to do it)
Non-Transition rate = 72%
Compare with last season, a more typical Duke team:
Transition eFG% = 61%
Transition rate = 20%
Non-Transition eFG% = 54%
Non-Transition rate = 80%
This is a concern for March, when good, well-coached opponents will be able to control the pace and slow Duke down. In the halfcourt, we are much, much, much worse than in transition (51% vs. 70% eFG%), whereas in a usual season, the disparity is not nearly as great. The reason for this should be largely common sense, as this year's team lacks the usual Duke spacing.
The offense may be a dominant #1 right now, but the flaws need to be addressed or else someone who can dictate tempo and shot selection (e.g., Virginia) is going to make the offense look extremely bad. Exacerbating this problem is the fact that Duke is terrible at generating turnovers, so Duke is not a threat to increase the pace of a game via defense.
For an example of how a good team can control pace in the NCAA Tournament, look at 2010 Duke. Their 3 slowest games all season came in the NCAA Tournament. 2010 Duke would murder the current version of 2018 Duke, though there is obviously a lot of time for 2018 Duke to actually become 2018 Duke.
Villanova, who is currently #2 offensively, is around 58% eFG% in non-transition possessions, compared with Duke's 51%. Villanova is also a good FT shooting team, which eFG% does not account for. It's highly likely that Villanova will outperform Duke offensively in the NCAA Tournament unless Duke can improve its halfcourt offense, which has not been all that great to date. Of course, Villanova also has a top 5 defense currently, and Duke is not close.
Last edited:
best4heisman
All American
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,787
Great stuff as usual. Thanks, man.
I'd have to think that our rebounding mitigates a lot of the concerns about our halfcourt offense, though. So many of our bad shots create easy dunks for Bagley and Carter and I doubt that even good teams will be able to keep us off the glass consistently.
I'd have to think that our rebounding mitigates a lot of the concerns about our halfcourt offense, though. So many of our bad shots create easy dunks for Bagley and Carter and I doubt that even good teams will be able to keep us off the glass consistently.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 41,197
That’s right, and a bad oversight in my post. Offensive rebounding isn’t accounted for in eFG either. I’d like to see points per possession instead of eFG for transition vs. non-transition, but that isn’t available anywhere for free. I wonder how much the relatively bad FT% negates the relatively great OReb in going from eFG to ppp. Turnover rate is a wash - this team is close to Duke’s usual turnover rate.
Last edited:
DurhamSon
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 24,439
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,260
Transition: 1.277 ppp - 95% - 65.6 FG%
Halfcourt: 0.978 ppp - 90% - 47.5 FG%
LastHearth
All American
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,429
What's the context, is that difference about average or is it uncommonly high?
TS9
All American
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 2,509
The tweet said it's pointless to try to double team Duke's bigs this season because this will happen, and it was accompanied by a clip from the other night of a kickout and some fancy passing resulting in a Trent 3. It's hard to accurately recreate the tone from memory, but it had a strong "eat it, suckers," vibe, which I suspect was the real problem leading to deletion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,260
Well...about that
Bagley is 73rd percentile in post ups but Duke scores in the 51st percentile on his kick outs. In double teams, Bagley is 5-12 from the field and Duke is 3-6 on his passes out of a double team.
Carter is 33rd percentile in post ups and Duke is just 36th percentile on his kick outs. In double teams, Carter is 3-10 from the field and Duke is 3-8 on his passes out of the double.
Bagley is 73rd percentile in post ups but Duke scores in the 51st percentile on his kick outs. In double teams, Bagley is 5-12 from the field and Duke is 3-6 on his passes out of a double team.
Carter is 33rd percentile in post ups and Duke is just 36th percentile on his kick outs. In double teams, Carter is 3-10 from the field and Duke is 3-8 on his passes out of the double.