Project Defensive Scoresheet: (Almost) Cumulative Stats
By Tommy D — While the defensive analysis for each individual game yields interesting, and sometimes surprising insights, it stands to reason that even more meaningful information can be obtained by looking at a larger sample size. I didn’t start charting our games until Western Michigan, so it’s not like I have the entire season to date. But I do have 12 games done, through the first UNC game (I missed Penn too, which came right after Western Mich) so let’s take a look at the cumulative chart, then I’ll break down each player’s defensive performance individually. If you’re unsure of what some of these abbreviations and/or terms mean, check out this post.
What’s it all about Alfie?
For starters, there has been much hand-wringing among the Duke faithful this year about our defense. And you know what? For good reason. Not only have we largely failed the eyeball test (save solid efforts against Virginia Tech and Maryland) but the overall numbers are not good. An average DRating is around 101. For these 12 games, Duke’s stands at 107.8. By definition, that’s below average, way below actually, and by Duke’s traditional standards, it’s a lot worse than that. No way around it.
As a team, the other number that jumps out at me is the 46% field goal shooting that we’re allowing. Aren’t we used to around 40% or so in a “normal” year? Also, of all possible offensive rebounds that our opponents could get, they’re grabbing 37% of them. That’s a lot.
I’m going to leave most of the analysis of individual players’ performance in their individual sections below. But at this point, it is worth noting that, perhaps surprisingly, the Blue Devil that grades out the best defensively this year so far is Mason Plumlee. Not Miles, but Mason. Miles has been terrific in a number of games, especially earlier in the ACC season but has trailed off lately. (Looking at my crystal ball here: he’s going to have a MONSTER game defensively at home against Maryland, right???) But Mason is a full 4 points below the team average, which given the way these metrics work, is very significant, and indicates he is playing much, much better defense than the team as a whole. A lot of this is due to his outstanding defensive rebounding, as he’s averaging about 6 1/2 per game over these 12 games, and 13.6 per 100 team defensive possessions that he’s on the floor for. Defensive rebounding is a key component to overall defensive performance, both individually and for the team, for what good does it do to force a missed shot if we give up an offensive rebound and the opponent gets another opportunity? Mason also leads the team in Stop%, which is the percentage of plays in which he’s involved on which the team gets a stop.
At the other end of the spectrum sits Andre Dawkins. Dawkins has struggled in a number of areas defensively, and nobody should be surprised that his DRating sits at 114 or that his stop% is a meager 32%. Giving up baskets, which he does way too frequently, is not offset by either defensive rebounding (1.5 per game, but then again he’s 6’4″ going up against small forwards primarily, but still) or forcing turnovers (about a half a TO per game) so his numbers suffer accordingly. To be discussed more in his individual section.
So let’s look at each ballplayer on a number of metrics:
Austin Rivers
This is a guy who came in as the #1 perimeter player in his high school class, and many had him as the #1 player overall. Because of the quality of his offensive game, primarily how good he is with the ball in his hands, and the flashiness of his game, coupled with the affluent background from which he comes, the assumption from just about everybody has been that Austin Rivers was going to be, and is, a poor defensive player, one who tolerates crossing onto the defensive end of the floor only as a means to try to hurry up and get the ball back into his own hands so he can show off some more.
For anyone who has actually watched Duke play this year, that has obviously proven to be pure gobbage. Austin moves his feet very well, so he is not often beaten into the lane off the dribble. He fights through screens with determination, and he has quick hands. He is also the best defensive rebounder of our perimeter guys, by far. I think this is a kid who knew that he would have a reputation, deserved or not, as an uninterested defender before he stepped onto Duke’s campus, and that meme would be driven home by the lemmings in the media, and he made a decision that he was going to learn how to play defense at Duke. He chose Duke because he wanted to get better — at least that’s my belief. And this is the area he knew he had to improve in the most, and he has.
Now, has he lost focus and concentration in off-ball situations more than anyone would prefer? Yes. But he has absolutely been a net asset on the defensive end, as evidenced by his 55% stop percentage — best of all the perimeter players on the team. Here are his numbers, keeping in mind that the lower one’s overall DRating, the better one’s performance has been:
Project Defensive Scoresheet: Duke vs Maryland
By Tommy D - Coach Mark Turgeon’s first year at Maryland has not had a lot of high points. The team has the ACC scoring leader in Terrell Stoglin, as well as veterans Sean Mosley, James Padgett, and Pe’Shon Howard and other talented players, but coming into the second meeting with Duke, the Terps stood at 14-9, 4-5 in the ACC. Not in the bottom echelon, but just above it, really. Seventh in a twelve team league. Maryland has a win over Colorado and one over Notre Dame out of conference, but in the league the best win they have is the two pointer over Clemson they posted just prior to this second matchup with the Blue Devils. Their other ACC wins have been over Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech, who have a combined ACC record of 7-24 as I write this. I feel confident in saying that none of them will be the topic of any bubble talk this year.
So Duke, coming off one of the most thrilling regular season wins in the program’s history, all things considered, figured to win this game. The Devils had handled them in College Park by 13 a few short weeks earlier, and now Duke was at home and the Terps were playing without Howard. But the question was whether the Blue Devils would be able to sustain the intensity they brought to the Smith Center three nights earlier, in particular at the defensive end. Nobody expected Duke to nail 14 3-pointers again, but if they played with focus and paid full attention on every possession, that would not only make a win against Maryland extremely likely, but hopefully continue the positive momentum into the stretch drive.
That they did. Though they weren’t able to pull away from the Terps until very late, Duke played solid basketball all day in a number of areas, including defensively. The defensive star of course was Miles Plumlee, who grabbed a career-high 22 rebounds and was all over the court – as a help defender, forcing turnovers (4 1/2 in 28 minutes), directing teammates with excellent communication — everything you want in a defensive performance.
The numbers in the chart below are both stunning and not surprising. To have a Defensive Rating of 66 like Miles did is amazing in itself, but particularly so in context of the overall team’s DRating sitting at 83.6. A differential of 17 points like that is very rare indeed. And of course the team having such a low rating is a very good indicator of how solid the defense was as well. Keep in mind, against UNC the overall number was 117. The team also got stops on an incredible 95% of the plays that Miles was involved in. If we could just clone him, we might have something there. Read more
Project Defensive Scoresheet: Duke 85 – UNC 84
By Tommy D — Did I say that the Virginia Tech game last week was a crossroads game for Duke? Was that me? No, no, no, that must have been someone else. Oh? It was me? Well, it couldn’t have been what I meant then. What I really meant was that the first meeting with UNC was the game that could or would decide what kind of season the Blue Devils were going to ultimately have. That is not often the case, and it feels strange to even say it, because of everything else that this game means year in and year out. Both teams are usually playing at such a high level that a poor performance, a bad loss, rarely has felt like it would or could be a season-changer.
But with the Devils coming off a very poor effort in losing at home to Miami, on the heels of the solid effort against Virginia Tech, which was preceded by the major second half letdown and escape against St. John’s, the apparent Jekyll and Hyde nature of this team was getting to be pretty disconcerting for all, especially as we arrived at the midpoint of the ACC season. Nowhere was the up-and-down nature of the team manifest more than at the defensive end of the floor. This has been true not only of individual players, but of the team as a whole. Individually speaking, Miles Plumlee was our rock defensively for most of the season, but he has slipped badly over the last few weeks. Tyler Thornton, thought to be a defensive stopper at the outset of the year, has not been that at all. He has had all sorts of trouble staying in front of his man, but his toughness has earned him PT anyway, and the team does perform better somehow with him on the floor. But not as much lately. Seth Curry and Austin Rivers, who everyone assumed would not be strong defensively, have had a number of good efforts, especially Rivers.
As a team though, as has been well documented, the effort, focus, and intensity has waxed and waned. The Miami game, hopefully, was the nadir, but who knew? All anyone knew was that anything less than a full 40 minutes of not only focus, but commitment, was going to be required to stay with a very talented UNC squad, playing on its home floor. Many Duke fans and other observers felt very uncertain as to which team was going to show up in Chapel Hill. Was it the squad that didn’t bring it at all a few days earlier against Miami, or the one that locked down for the full 40 against Virginia Tech and Maryland? If the former, it looked to mean the season was in a downward spiral, one that would certainly end in early defeat in the postseason. If the latter, maybe we could regain some momentum and make a run.
It was the latter. Although we did not execute well defensively at all in Chapel Hill, we played with intensity and focus and full attention for 40 minutes. It seemed to me that we played loose, as if we had nothing to lose. That is a rare luxury for Duke, and one that probably contributed to our ability to drain 14 three pointers and make many other clutch plays. Defensively, though we were outclassed through large stretches of this game, we never stopped playing hard, and in the end were rewarded. Tyler Zeller killed us in the paint, especially in the first half, scoring on numerous 1-on-1 post moves as well as second and third chance opportunities. He was just terrific. Our defensive rebounding, again primarily in the first half, was awful, as UNC got all kinds of extra opportunities, which inevitably lead to points. We did not do a good job stopping Kendall Marshall’s dribble penetration. But we’re used to that. Harry Barnes, when he felt like paying attention, scored inside and out, and on the break, as despite the best efforts of the outsized Thornton and Dawkins and Rivers, Barnes was just too big, athletic, and skilled for us to handle. Good thing he didn’t bring it for 40 minutes.
OK here is the defensive chart for this game: (For some background on these terms go here)
First of all, an overall Defensive Rating of 117 is terrible. We only got stops on 42% of UNC’s possessions, and gave up offensive rebounds on 39% of the opportunities. Though that last number was a slight improvement, if you can believe it, from the Miami game, it is still an extremely high number — unacceptably high from the perspective of the coaches, I’m sure — to surrender. Read more
Project Defensive Scoresheet: Miami 78 Duke 74
By Tommy D — The Blue Devils looked to build on their solid road victory over Virginia Tech earlier in the week as they faced middle-of-the-ACC pack Miami. The Tech game was particularly encouraging because of the way the Devils defended. They did so with intensity, focus, and smarts, and they did so for 40 minutes. That has not been seen around here as much as the faithful — or the coach — have become used to over the years.
Miami has often given Duke trouble, but had only been able to finish the job once, and had never won at Cameron. But the Canes are not without talent. Reggie Johnson is an absolute load inside, with a double-wide body and nice touch around the rim. He’s listed at 6’10″ and 284 lbs, but I think he’s a little shorter and a little heavier than that. He was averaging 12 and 7 coming in. Kenny Kadji is a talented big man too, but one who likes to step outside and hoist it. He does so effectively, scoring 12.6 ppg on 55% shooting, 48% from 3 point land. Durand Scott and Malcom Grant are veteran guards who have been through the ACC wars, and each averages 12-13 ppg. Neither — especially Grant — has shot well this year, however. The new kid on the block is freshman point Shane Larkin, son of Barry, who is a heady and talented table-setter.
The Canes have a new look on the sideline this year as well, as Frank Haith bugged out for Missouri after the NCAA began nosing around following revelations of improprieties involving UM booster Nevin Shapiro surfaced last year. Jim Larranaga was a surprise hire, but an excellent one. He clearly maximized his talent at George Mason, most notably leading the Patriots to a magical run to the Final Four in 2006, beating UNC, UConn, and Michigan State along the way.
This game figured to be a test for the Devils, but one they would pass. Miami, while talented on the perimeter and with a solid scorer on the blocks, didn’t appear to have the all-court ability to beat Duke, especially at Cameron.
Wrong again. The Canes embarrassed Duke in the first half, taking a 16 point lead by attacking the Blue Devils down low with Johnson, by effectively pick-and-popping with Kadji off of high screens that Duke had trouble hedging effectively against, by running backdoors, and by protecting the ball. Duke’s defensive intensity which had highlighted the win over Virginia Tech was nowhere to be found, even at home. Josh Hairston and Tyler Thornton started again, but had nowhere near the positive impact they had against the Hokies. Andre Dawkins had one basket all day. Mason Plumlee was no factor offensively, and the whole team just seemed disinterested. Somehow.
The Devils turned it around in the second half, turning up the defensive pressure and finding rhythm on offense. Seth Curry found his stroke and Austin Rivers was a star, hitting jumpshots, driving effectively, playing excellent denial defense, rebounding better than he has in a Duke uniform, and playing with fire. Coach K did a curious thing with the second half lineup. While he continued to rotate the bigs, from the 17 1/2 minute mark, he did not substitute in the backcourt. Curry, Rivers, and Quinn Cook played the rest of the way, and the overtime. Thornton and Dawkins: pine time the whole way. K later said not to take anything from that, but how could you not?
In any event, the Blue Devils caught Miami, even taking a one point lead, and sent it into OT. But in the OT, the Devils missed three straight sets of two free throws — 0 for 6 — from Curry, Rivers, and Cook, and when they had a chance to win it late, Quinn Cook threw up a wild shot in the lane, and the Devils were done.
Defensively, again it was a question of intensity and focus. Somewhat. The Devils, though, also just got overpowered by Reggie Johnson on the block. Just a load down there, and neither Plumlee could handle him. Johnson finished with 27 and 12, and tons of respect.
Below are the numbers for this game. For some explanation on what these stats mean, go here.
OK what does this tell us really that our eyeballs may not have? Read more
Project defensive scoresheet: Duke 61 UVA 58
Coming off an ACC-opening win that most Duke fans, and I suspect coaches and players as well, felt was much tighter than it should’ve been against expected bottom feeder Georgia Tech, the Devils faced a major step up in competition as Tony Bennett’s Virginia Cavaliers came to town. With the exception of the 2006-2007 team, this is a program that has been mediocre at best, making only one NCAA Tournament appearance in the last decade.
But things feel different since Bennett took the job. Now in his third year, he had the Cavaliers sitting at 14-1, riding a 12-game winning streak, and ranked in the top 25 after their one point win over Miami in their ACC opener. Their most impressive win thus far was a 12 point decision over a solid Michigan squad.
This is a team that clearly is defense-oriented, as they are giving up only 50 ppg, including a low of 35 (!) against Drexel. Nothing easy against these guys. But they are offensively challenged, averaging only 66 ppg, and having exceeded 70 points in only three of their 15 games.
But they have one extremely dangerous weapon: Mike Scott. The 6’8″ senior, averaging 16 points and 9 boards, is as versatile and tough a forward as the Devils have faced this year, along with Kansas’s Thomas Robinson. He is a shoo-in for all-ACC, and has an excellent chance to be the league’s MVP. Given some of Duke’s defensive challenges this year, Scott figured to be a load.
Bennett has done a good job in surrounding Scott with some effective perimeter players. Joe Harris averages about 12 and Sammy Zeglinski 9 or so, but both have the potential to get hot and make things very difficult for an opponent who has to, by necessity, focus its defense on Scott. Big man Assane Sene is a rebounder and shot blocker, but is not expected to contribute much offensively.
Duke struggled mightily in the first half, scoring only 28 points against UVA’s tough D. Mike Scott didn’t struggle. Not at all. He scored 16 in the half, in a variety of ways, and at the half the Wahoos led by 4. Nervous time in Cameron.
The Devils methodically built a 9 point advantage midway through the second half, but then went 3 1/2 minutes without scoring, and UVA was back in the game. Duke led by 6 at 61-55 with 2:16 to go, but did not score again, and had to be thankful for some missed UVA shots in those last two minutes, including two in the final seconds – one of which was a 3 point attempt that would have sent the game to OT. Again, the Devils survived, winning 61-58.
Coach K praised the defense in his post-game comments. Scott was tough, and we did contain him a lot better in the second half, as he finished with 23 and 9. Zeglinski and Jontel Evans took the double bagel, though, combining to shoot 0-14. The only real help Scott had was Joe Harris, who finished with 14.
OK so let’s take a look at the defensive chart for this game:
Project defensive scoresheet: Duke vs. Virginia Tech
This game had “crossroads” written all over it. The Blue Devils had trudged off the Cameron floor the previous Saturday after a lackluster final 12 minutes resulted in their having to escape with a 7 point win over a very young and thin St. John’s team, after having enjoyed a 22 point lead. After the game, Coach K did not mince words in his criticism of his team’s effort and intensity, in particular on the defensive end of the floor, making it clear that this performance did not meet Duke standards. Not by a long shot. Things would have to change, or else.
Virginia Tech came into the game with a very disappointing 12-9 record, 1-5 in the ACC. The Hokies’ only notable victories were two over Oklahoma State, along with a 2 point road win over upper division ACC squad Virginia. Most of the rest of their wins were against Sister Mary Applesauce, if you know what I mean. The best you can say about their ACC losses is that four of the five were within four points. That and $3.75 will get you a decaf nonfat latte with extra foam, but not much when folks like, oh, tournament committee members are looking at your performance.
The Devils, though, have had some very tough days and nights in Cassell over the years, including when we have brought in teams believed by most to be stronger than this one. But Virginia Tech was significantly better when they pulled those upsets too. This team is much more limited, with their best inside player, 6’8″ 245 lb. Victor Davila scoring only 7 ppg. 6’4″ junior Erick Green is the leading scorer at 16 ppg, and senior Dorenzo Hudson can cause problems on the perimeter as well, but he shoots only 41%. Overall, this is not one of the most talented teams Duke has faced, or will face, at the offensive end of the floor.
So with the defense, and the defensive effort the focus, one question coming into the game was: if we can’t lock even these guys down, after the tongue-lashing administered by K after St. John’s, then who CAN we lock down, and when do we plan on showing that ability?
For some, the season seemed to hang in the balance. Would the Devils step up to the coach’s challenge, made so publicly? Or would they continue to drift in and out, to have stretches of focused play followed by a series of mental lapses or failures to make full effort?
Coach K added one additional element into the mix. A lineup change. Into the first group came Josh Hairston. Never one considered by many to be a candidate to start for this team, K apparently felt that his energy, enthusiasm, toughness, and attitude was needed at this juncture. He, like teammate Tyler Thornton — who also got a start here — is not afraid of physical play. While Josh plays below the rim, and lacks great jumping ability, he plays hard at both ends. Perhaps that is what K felt was needed more than anything else.
The result was Duke’s best defensive effort in months, if not the whole year. They played with intensity, focus, and intelligence. After 14 minutes of back-and-forth, Duke took control in the later part of the first half, taking a 10 point lead into the locker room. The lead expanded after halftime, and despite a small lull (way overplayed by the announcers) that reduced the lead from 23 to the final margin of 15, the Devils kept up the pressure the entire way. We denied in the passing lanes and in the post, we helped, and we hustled. With a few exceptions, we stayed in front fairly well on drives. But the most important thing was the passion and the commitment that the Devils showed on the defensive end — that provides something to build on, and gives this team an opportunity to move from this crossroads in the right direction.
Below are the defensive numbers. For a primer on just what these columns mean, please refer to the first post in this series here.
What do these show? Read more
Project Defensive Scoresheet: Duke vs Georgia Tech
Coming off a difficult, though far from embarrassing loss in Philadelphia to Temple, Duke sought to get off on the right foot in conference in its ACC opener in Atlanta against Georgia Tech. The Blue Devils, many felt, had not been able to handle the physicality of the Owls, particularly in the backcourt. That did not figure to be a major concern against Georgia Tech, perhaps enabling Mike Krzyzewski to feel comfortable in giving freshman Quinn Cook his first start at the point and bringing Tyler Thornton off the bench.
The Ramblin’ Wreck’s best players have been 6’2″ Mfon Udofia and 6’5″ swingman Glen Rice, Jr., who are the only two averaging in double figures. The Jackets came into the game at 7-7, with a win at Georgia being their only victory over a major conference team. The losses included duds against Tulane, Mercer, Fordham, and a 25 point blowout at home against Alabama only four days prior to the Blue Devils’ arrival.
Hope is alive in Atlanta, though, thanks to the hiring of first year coach Brian Gregory. Gregory had been a big success at Dayton, where he led the Flyers to five 20 win campaigns in his eight seasons, including two NCAA berths and an NIT championship in 2010 where in the finals they bested, ahem, North Carolina. Gregory has reputations as an excellent recruiter, talent developer, and game coach. That’s two more than prior head man Paul Hewitt could plausibly claim.
The Blue Devils jumped out to a 27-11 lead at the ten minute mark of the first half, as Cook, Miles Plumlee, and Ryan Kelly all had their way early, while Tech struggled to get anything to fall. But Duke went scoreless for a 3 minute stretch later in the half, and a 10-0 run by Tech pulled them to within eight. By halftime, it was five, and Duke — much to the chagrin of its coach and its fans — had a ballgame on its hands.
The lead see-sawed for much of the second half, between three and nine points, but then Tech cut it to two at around the four minute mark. Duke pumped the lead back up again, only to see Tech cut it to two again in the final minute. The Wreck could never tie it up though, or take the lead, and Duke held on for the seven point win, thanks in no small part to Ryan Kelly’s going 14 for 14 from the line, including 8 of 8 in the final 35 seconds. Needless to say, there were many white knuckles amongst the Blue Devils’ faithful as this second-division ACC squad took the Devils down to the last minute in a game we once led by 18. Glen Rice, Jr. was brilliant, scoring 18 of his 28 points in the final nine minutes.
So how did we fare defensively? Here’s the chart. For an explanation of the column headers and the calculations it took to get these numbers, click here.
First of all it has to be noted that Georgia Tech hit a lot of tough shots in this game, most of them hand-in-the-face over the top of Rivers, Curry, or Cook. Against Temple, in addition to the trouble we had containing their physically mature and big guards, we also had a large number of live-ball turnovers and other quick shots that led to runouts, so the defensive “fault” was attributed to “team” rather than any one or two individuals. Not so much for the Georgia Tech game.
Read more
Project Defensive Scoresheet: Duke vs St. John’s
Editor’s note: Tommy D has been wonderful at getting these charts and interpretations over to me, but as you can tell, the work is very time-consuming. In an effort to bring you timely results on Duke’s defense, we’ve decided to post the most recent games as quickly as we can get them and post the previous games as they become more available. We will also be providing you with some cumulative stats as we get the data collected so all of us can start to get a better idea of how effective our individual players are on defense.
The Blue Devils, hoping to build on a solid all-around performance in a convincing road victory earlier in the week at Maryland, stepped out of conference for their annual tilt with the Red Storm of St. John’s. This series has been largely one-sided in recent years as St. John’s has struggled to recruit and to perform on the floor. But that all changed last year with the hiring of former UCLA coach Steve Lavin, who immediately injected energy and passion into the moribund program, and with his recruiting acumen, New York City hoops fans envision a return to prominence for the historic program. The high point of the Johnnies’ regular season last year was the 15 point thumping they administered to the Blue Devils in Madison Square Garden, where they essentially ran the Devils out of the building.
But this year has been a step back for St. John’s so far. For starters, Steve Lavin has missed much of the year, and may miss the rest of the season, with recurring problems related to his prostate cancer treatment. The entire rotation from last year’s team is gone. Lavin recruited an excellent nucleus to take its place, however, but still, they are freshmen. And two of them did not qualify academically, so the team is both young and thin.
The two top players on the squad are freshmen Moe Harkless and D’Angelo Harrison. Harkless is a 6’8″ slasher, and a major athlete, who can also step outside and shoot the 3. Kid has a pro looking game already. Harrison is a smooth 6’3″ perimeter player, thin, but very skilled. Both would cause problems for Duke’s defense all day.
The game did have one additional bit of intrigue. The Devils came in with a 93 game home winning streak against non-conference opponents, dating to 2000. The last non-conference foe to beat them? Why, it was St. John’s, in 2000, when Bootsy Thornton went for 22, including a number of shots that took the Cameron Crazies’ breath away late in an 83-82 thriller.
But that was then, this is now. So how did Duke perform defensively in this game? The numbers are below. For an explanation on what these terms mean, please reference the first post made on this subject here.
What does this tell us?
Well, there has been a lot of hand-wringing about Duke’s defense in general, and in particular about this game, especially in the second half. Duke’s defense after the first couple of possessions of the game and the last few of the first half, was actually pretty good for the first 20 minutes. Seth Curry, in particular, was excellent at cutting off penetration off the dribble, and Austin Rivers was effective in this regard as well. The bigs were helping pretty well when necessary. Duke enjoyed a comfortable lead. Read more
Project Defensive Score Sheet: Duke vs Temple
By Tommy D – Coming off consecutive post-holiday blowouts of Western Michigan and Penn, the Blue Devils headed to Philly for a test of an entirely different dimension: the Temple Owls. Though not officially a home game for Temple, due to its being played in the Wells Fargo Center, in all other respects it was home. It was Philly, and it was rocking. It was only the second hostile environment the Devils had faced up to this point in the season. The first, in Columbus, resulted in a 22 point drubbing at the hands of the Buckeyes.
Duke played hard, but played from behind almost the entire game, never able to get over the hump. Temple took the lead at the 13:49 mark of the first half, and never relinquished it. The size and physicality of the Owls posed a major problem, particularly in the backcourt, where Duke often is small, employing 6’2″ Seth Curry, 6’0″ Quinn Cook, and 6’1″ Tyler Thornton (if those listed heights are even accurate, which I doubt) for major minutes at the guard positions, and 6’4″ Andre Dawkins seeing significant minutes as a swing 3. Temple’s frontcourt is athletic and aggressive, backing down to nobody. Defensively, as is the tradition at Temple, the Owls play smart, and they play aggressively, and cleanly. Anybody who expected this to be an easy game was sadly mistaken, and was quickly disabused of that notion within minutes of tipoff.
With the raucous crowd behind them the whole way, Temple never let up, and the longer they maintained the lead, the more confident they became that they could do this. And they did. Their game plan was excellent as well, as Fran Dunphy recognized the physical advantages that his squad enjoyed, and maximized them.
Duke did not play its best game, but nor did it play its worst. On this day, Temple was the better team and deserved to win. Below is the defensive chart for the Temple game. For an explanation of the metrics used, refer to the first post on this study here.
So what does this show us about Duke’s defensive effort and performance? Of the bigs, Miles Plumlee was extremely effective, as we got stops on 81% of the plays in which he was involved. That’s extraordinary. Mason also graded out very highly in this metric. This is in large part due to the excellent help defense that both Plums provided all day long.
One of the mysteries coming out of the game was why Miles got so few minutes. Most observers were puzzled by this because of Miles’ success at the offensive end, as he scored a season-high 17 points on 8 of 11 shooting, but it was even more of a head scratcher considering how well he played defensively. He and Mason tied for the team lead in DRating, a full 9 points below the team’s total. The fact that Mason was involved in a higher percentage of plays when he was on the floor, and played a lot more minutes than Miles, could cause some to reasonably believe that Mason’s overall defensive performance was actually better than Miles’s. But they were both rocks. Read more
Project Defensive Score Sheet: Western Michigan
By Tommy D — There is a growing movement among college basketball analysts to try to tackle an issue which has traditionally been very difficult to quantify and synthesize: defense. Much as sabermetrics has influenced the way baseball is analyzed and changed the nature and types of statistics that many baseball observers believe are relevant, so too is the goal here in college basketball. The idea is to use actual data to evaluate defensive performance, rather than relying solely on the eyeball test.
Have defensive statistics been kept for decades? Of course. But the reality is that defense involves much more than an individual player’s steals and blocked shots. How often is a player beaten for a basket? How many shots does he defend well and force a miss? How many turnovers does he force, including taking charges? How many defensive rebounds does he grab? For what is the point of a good defensive play forcing a tough shot if someone on the defensive team doesn’t snare the rebound? What about the overall performance of the team defensively? How much impact does each player have on the team’s defensive performance? Don’t all those questions sound more interesting than simply, “how many steals did he get?”
So the idea is to really assess what is happening on each defensive possession, and to give “credit” and assess “blame” for each play — missed shots, made shots, turnovers forced, missed and made free throws. That takes time to review each game in detail, but the result is a much more complete and much more fulfilling understanding of a player, a team, and a basketball game. All of the data for each player, and for the team, is synthesized into a “Defensive Rating” for each game.
One of the pioneers in the field has been Dean Oliver, who wrote a book called Basketball on Paper, in which he devised a number of formulas that aid in coming up with various measures of defensive efficiency for both teams and individual players. Another has been a gentleman named David Hess, who writes a blog called The Audacity of Hoops: Thoughts on Recalculating an American Game and is a full-time contributor at TeamRankings.com
Others interested in the topic have begun to drill down into this area with emphasis on a particular team. We here thought it was time use these methods to look at the Blue Devils and see what we could learn, especially given the concerns that many Duke fans have expressed about the defense being played by this year’s squad.
So what does this “charting” look like? Check it out. A chart of the first game I analyzed, which was Duke vs. Western Michigan, is below. Then below the chart, I’m going to copy and paste David Hess’s explanation of the abbreviations used in the charting system that is becoming a standard in the field. Then I’ll analyze what the chart is showing. More Duke games to follow.
OK so here’s what a chart looks like:
