IU Preview (slightly more in depth)

IU has a relatively old team in the world of college basketball these days. All 5 of their starters are juniors and seniors, and no freshman or sophomore is currently getting 20 minutes/game. However, the Hoosiers aren't the most experienced of teams, and lost a healthy amount of talent last year (in Killingsworth, Vaden, and Strickland they lost over 43 points per game, as well as a lot of leadership). The starting lineup features AJ Ratliff, Earl Calloway, Rodrick Wilmont, Lance Stemler, and DJ White. White is a defensive threat down low - he blocks lots of shots and rebounds well (7.5/game in only 24.5 minutes/game), but he also gets in a lot of foul trouble. Ben Allen, a 6'11" sophomore, is his backup, but the talent difference between Allen and White is significant. Getting DJ into foul trouble should be a point of emphasis - look for Duke to go inside early, not just in post entry passes, but also sending Henderson and Nelson slashing to the basket to try to draw contact from White as he comes over to block shots. The other four starters are all essentially perimeter players - Stemler, ostensibly the other forward, has taken 24 of his 33 FGAs from beyond the arc (that's 73%, for those scoring at home). Of course, he shoots 50% from 3, joining Wilmont (46% from 3 on 26 attempts) as serious outside threats. Closing out on these two will be important. Look especially for Stemler to stay outside when Duke has both McRoberts and Zoubek in the game together. The other two guards are not outside threats - Ratliff is only a 27% shooter, and Calloway has only 1 3pt attempt on the year. Calloway, however, is remarkable at converting his twos - he's been 18 of 25 on the year for a .720 field goal percentage. The lesson here is that when Ratliff and Calloway have the ball, Duke's guards should play off a little bit and force them to take outside shots. The same goes when backup point guard Armon Bassett is in the game - he's a fine distributor (leading the team in assists despite playing only 18 minutes/game) but a lousy shooter - 30% overall and 0 for 9 from 3. The keys to containing IU will be to neutralize the outside shooting of Stemler and Wilmont.

When Duke is on offense, the Devils should have a distinct size advantage, regardless of the front court lineup - IU's starting backcourt is all around 6'3", Stemler is 6'8" (and he plays smaller), and even White is only 6'9" (though he plays bigger). With DJ White as really the only viable interior defender, look for Duke to try to hammer it inside early, both to draw fouls on White and to prompt the rest of the Hoosiers to collapse for help, resulting in some open outside looks. Wilmont and Calloway are both superb perimeter defenders (over 4 steals a game between them), and will put a lot of pressure on Paulus and Scheyer when they handle the ball. Sticking both Paulus and Scheyer in the backcourt with Nelson on the floor at the same time will either create a mismatch with Ratliff covering Nelson, or force Calloway onto Nelson, giving whichever guard Wilmont isn't covering a little more room to operate. IU has made a lot of its offense on the result of forcing turnovers on the defensive end, and we all know Duke hasn't been great at holding on to the ball. Keeping turnovers down (and accordingly keeping IU from getting easy transition buckets) will be a big key tonight. This looks like a game Duke should win by 7-10 points, but if the TO rate is up over 25%, it could stay very close all the way to the end.

ACC-Big Ten

First, stats - after tonight, stats will be updated through Indiana (although possibly without the Air Force game included - I'm hoping to watch it tonight after the IU game to track the substitutions).

Second, Indiana game preview. Indiana has really struggled on offense so far this season, though their struggles have been the result of two primary problems - lots of turnovers, and poor ball movement. Indiana turns the ball over on well over a quarter of their possessions, and they don't record a lot of assists (only 40% of made baskets). Duke has done a fine job this year forcing turnovers, so look for that to be a key in the game. Of course, on the other shoe, Duke has been dreadful turning the ball over on offense, and IU has also done well forcing turnovers - this could be a TO filled affair. One other stat of note - Indiana's opponents have a 42.2 free throw rate (meaning they shoot 42 free throws for every 100 field goal attempts), and Duke has been good at getting to the stripe. A high conversion rate from the line could be another key to victory.

Third, ACC/BigTeleven in general. Here, in no particular order, and with no particular explanation, are picks: NC State (ok, that doesn't really count), Duke, Georgia Tech (by a lot), Maryland, Miami, Purdue, UNC, Wisconsin, Michigan St, Virginia Tech, Clemson, for a grand total of 8-3 ACC.

Brief update/recap

So I ran into the first hitch with the game tracking, since GoDuke doesn't have substitutions listed on the play-by-play from last night, and I think they won't for tonight's game, either. All that means is that I have to go back over the game tape to track subs, which probably won't get done until the weekend (complicated a little by the fact that I'm going out of town for the holiday). So new stats update is put off until after the Davidson game.

As for the brief recap, last night was a perfect illustrations of why tempo-free is essential for hoops understanding. Ordinarily, 71-56 wouldn't look like a model of offensive efficiency. However, in a game that was almost glacially slow, Duke's 71 points represented an ORating of 124.6, which is exceptional (even Air Force's 56 points came in just 57 possessions - at slightly under 100, their ORating was only slightly below average for the night, though obviously well below their previous averages). There were two primary reasons for this - first half shooting (a ridiculous .826 EFG%) and rebounding (52.9% of all Duke misses came back to the Devils for second chance opportunities). This was probably the best overall rebounding game Duke has had in years - they got 75% of all misses, including the aforementioned 52.9% offensive and an unreal 91.3% defensive. Duke played a very disciplined game against a very disciplined team, and executed well enough to win.

Tonight's game could look a lot different. Marquette has some very athletic guards who will want to push the pace a little. Watch to see if Duke tries to run with them - it would be a great sign if, on back-to-back nights, the Devils could play two opponents who play two different styles of basketball and win each game by adapting to the opponent's style. Those are the things that teams need to do to win championships.

Air Force Preview

Just a note to start, all the Duke tempo-free stats (team stats, team stats by player, and player stats) are updated through the UNCG game. Next update will follow Tuesday's game.

Air Force has been very, very good so far this year, with the exception of a 1 point squeaker over Long Beach St. Their shooting has been lights out - 62% on 2s, 44% on 3s, for a 64.5% efg. One sign that this may not continue - the FT% is only 69.4. They're a perimeter-oriented team that shares the ball very well - nearly 45% of all shots are 3s, and 66% of all made baskets are assisted. Air Force holds onto the ball well (under 20% turnover rate), but doesn't crash the offensive glass (28%). Their close game against Long Beach St. was the result of poorer shooting (only 8 of 23 on 3s) and high turnovers (19 in a 73 possession game).

Duke's hallmarks so far in this young season have been field goal defense and forcing turnovers. Teams are shooting 27% on 3s and a remarkably low 31% on 2s. Duke is also blocking nearly 1 in every 5 opponent shots, and forcing turnovers on almost 30% of opponent possessions. It's safe to say that Duke is likely more athletic on the perimeter than any team Air Force has played so far. Air Force runs the updated Princeton offense, a system Duke has struggled against in recent years (games with NC St. are always close, Georgetown loss last year). It should be a good test for Duke's perimeter defense - they have to stay disciplined and stay active, trying to force turnovers and really get in the face of Air Force's shooters. Don't be surprised if Nelson, Henderson, McClure, and Thomas are all on the floor at the same time quite a bit.

A Tale of Two Box Scores

On a busy day in college basketball that saw Ken Tutt, Caleb Green, and the Oral Roberts Golden Eagles upset much-hyped KU, and Torrell Martin turn in a Jekyll and Hyde like performance between the first half and second half of a near Winthrop miss against much-hyped UNC, my gaze is still stuck on two games between two mediocre (at best) D-I programs against non-DI opponents on opposite coasts. The games I'm referring to are VMI vs. Virginia Intermont, and Cal-State Northridge vs. Redlands. Why my interest in these games? Because both were played at a pace so fast that frenetic doesn't do it justice. VMI won 156-95 (not a misprint). They took 118 shots, and 61 threes. They forced 47! Intermont turnovers, while only giving up 8 themselves (which would translate to slightly under 5 in an average game). All in all, there were 228 total possessions in the game, meaning that, on average, each team had the ball for approximately 10.5 seconds every possession - that's nearly six possessions per minute, every minute, for 40 minutes! Keep an eye on VMI - they've posted over 100 in 4 of their 6 games (counting exhibitions) and look determined to play a very up-tempo style.

Over on the left coast of the country, Northridge was forced into a frenetic game by Redlands (which is famous, along with Grinnell in Iowa, for playing this style of game). Northridge won 159-97 (not a misprint). They took 87 shots from the field, making an astonishing 62 (or 72%). Redlands played the chuckers in this matchup, shooting 62 threes (making only 16) out of 82 shots. The game featured 65 assists, 63 turnovers, and 88 rebounds. This game was played even faster than VMI-Intermont, with 239 total possessions. My favorite stat, though, reflects why some coaches like to play this style - 32 players recorded minutes in the game, with 24 of those players getting double figures, and no one playing more than 19 minutes. These frenetic styles may be wacky, and may not appeal to the idea of traditional basketball, but they're as egalitarian as it gets, and for that, they should be lauded.

CBE Classic - Durham Regional

Not surprisingly, Duke's advance out of the first two rounds of the CBE Classic was relatively easy. There's a lot to like about the team's performance, particularly on the defensive end. Any time you hold two opponents under 50 points and win by margins of 24 and 43, you've done well. Our defensive rating for the games was in the neighborhood of 65, which is ridiculous, even if it is what you'd expect against inferior foes. And Brian Zoubek's rebounding is still unreal - he's grabbing, by himself, 30% of all misses while he's on the court, and has 11 rebounds in around 25 minutes of PT. Also nice to see was his conversion from the FT line against Columbia - 10 out of 13 from a center is always a plus. However, there were still some evident concerns from the games (caveat - I was not able to watch either due to United Airlines - they cancelled a flight on Sunday which left me unable to watch Sunday's game and unable to set the TIVO for Monday's, as my Monday flight took me straight from the airport to work - boo, United Airlines! - so these observations are gleaned from the numbers only).

Offensive execution struggled a lot against G. Southern. Duke's efficiency was less than a point per possession, and they turned the ball over an astonishing 20 times in 77 possessions. Also, to trot out an old concern with the Devils, the rebounding is still problematic. Against smaller opponents, they were still giving up around 35% offensive rebounds to the other team - a number that isn't bad in and of itself, but doesn't bode well for games against bigger, tougher opponents. Also, I'll voice two early concerns about freshmen - Gerald Henderson is not scoring very efficiently, taking the lion's share of shots while he's on the court but not having that reflected in the scoring column, and Lance Thomas is still a turnover machine, losing the ball on 6-8% of Duke's offensive possessions (average is in the neighborhood of 3-3.5%). Hopefully, those things will all improve as the season goes along (and it's definitely small potatoes when the team is winning by 30+ points a game).

New Stats Preview - Exhibition Games

So after a long week of creating spreadsheets after work, I managed to get everything set up for easy data entry. Here, shortly after the conclusion of Duke/Columbia, are the stats (see links in the handy bar to the right and series of posts below). There are 3 categories - team stats as a whole, team stats by player (i.e., the stats posted by the team while that particular player is on the court), and player stats. All player stats that are percentages are measured only by what happens while that player is on the floor, and ignores the stats posted while he's on the bench.

A couple thoughts about the exhibition numbers (warning, warning, small sample size alert!):

Brian Zoubek is a monster offensive rebounder - he pulled in better than 3 out of every 10 Duke misses all by himself. The team rebounded over half its misses in the 76 possessions he played.
Lance Thomas, turnover machine - Thomas was both exceptional forcing turnovers (9 steals per 100 opponent possessions) and guilty of giving the ball away a lot (7.5 per 100 possessions). His defensive contribution was valuable, but the team posted its lowest O Rating (among the regulars) while he was on the floor.
We have efficient scorers - Zoubek (1.36), Pocius (1.38), McRoberts (1.39), and Scheyer (an unreal 1.62). The wings struggled a little bit, particularly Henderson and McClure.
Marty Pocius, distributor - he assisted a full 1/4 of Duke's made baskets while he was on the court, and posted a nice 8-1 assist-turnover ratio.

Again, not only is this a small sample size, but it's against overmatched opponents. It'll be interesting to see how these numbers change, develop, continue, etc. as the season wears on. I'll post the first regular season update to these after the UNCG game.

Glossary

Here's an explanation of the statistics featured on this site. A brief note about player stats - all reflect only how a player does while he's on the floor. So, for example, say Duke has 20 offensive rebounds, 10 of which it gets while Brian Zoubek is on the floor. The opponent has 20 defensive rebounds, also 10 of which it gets while Brian Zoubek is on the floor. If Zoubek gets 5 offensive rebounds, his ORB% is 25% (5/20), not 12.5% (5/40), because he got 5 of the 20 rebounds actually available to him. This is also why the scoring % and % shots taken add up to more than 100%. If you multiply those percentages by the percentage of possessions played by each player, then added them up, it would equal 100% (give or take a tenth or so due to rounding).

O Rating/D Rating:
This number indicates the number of points the team would score per every 100 possessions (the average game has around 70-75 possessions). O Rating is the amount the offense would score, and D Rating is the amount the opposition would score. For offense, anything over 105 is pretty good, and for defense, anything in the 90s is pretty good. 2005-06's best offense scored a 119, and the best defense had an 88.

Efficiency Margin:
The difference between a team's O Rating and D Rating. In a 100 possession game, if the team played to its Ratings, this would be the margin of victory.

PPWS (points per weighted shot):
A point per shot measure that also accounts for free throws (measured as .475 shots per free throw attempt). 1.00 is about average, anything over 1.15 for guards and 1.25 for bigs is excellent. This measures a scorer's efficiency (the fewer shots required for the same number of points, the more efficient the player).

Effective Field Goal % (EFG%):
Based on the Rick Pitino adage that a 40% 3pt shooter is as valuable as a 60% 2pt shooter. Since made 3s are worth 1.5 times made 2s, this field goal% reflects that. This doesn't measure efficiency as much as equalized shooting percentage - it helps make an accurate comparison for the actual shooting percentage value of, say, a JJ Redick (whose traditional fg% would be lower) against a Shelden Williams (whose traditional fg% is "inflated" on account of a lack of 3pt attempts).

A/B% (Assisted Basket percentage):
Indicates the percentage of made field goals that are the result of assists. As a player stat, it shows the percentage of made field goals that are the result of assists by that individual player.

ORB% (Offensive rebound percentage):
The rate at which a team gathers its own misses. The rate is derived by taking the number of team offensive rebounds and dividing by the sum of team offensive rebound and opponent defensive rebounds. As a player stat, it shows the rate at which an individual gathers misses by his own team.

DRB% (Defensive rebound percentage):
The rate at which a team gathers its opponent's misses. The rate is derived by taking the number of team defensive rebounds and dividing by the sum of team defensive rebound and opponent offensive rebounds. As a player stat, it shows the rate at which an individual gathers misses by the other team.

Block %:
The rate at which a team's field goal attempts are blocked. Measured as total blocks divided by opponent field goal attempts. As a player stat, it's the rate at which an individual blocks all opponent field goal attempts.

Steal %:
The rate at which an opponent's possessions end in a steal. Measured as total steals divided by opponent possessions. As a player stat, it's the rate per 100 opponent possessions that an individual makes a steal.

Turnover%:
The rate at which a team's possessions end in a turnover. Measured as turnovers divided by possessions. As a player stat, it's the rate per 100 possessions that an individual turns the ball over.

Assist/Turnover Ratio:
Exactly what it says - assists divided by turnovers.

Scoring %:
Individual stat only - measures an individual's total points as a percentage of the points scored by the team as a whole.

% Shots Taken:
Individual stat only - measures the number of shots taken by a player as a percentage of the total shots taken by the team (note, I haven't figured out how to factor in FTAs for this yet, so it just looks at FGAs).

FT Rate:
Individual stat only - measures the player's ability to get to the line. The stat is free throw attempts divided by total field goal attempts (times 100).

Duke Player Stats

'07-'08 Tempo-free Player Stats (through Michigan):

Scoring %
King	30.70
Henderson	26.35
Singler	24.16
Pocius	21.62
Nelson	19.41
Smith	18.24
Scheyer	18.01
Paulus	16.10
Zoubek	15.25
Thomas	12.83
Davidson	7.41
McClure	4.65
% Shots Taken
King	32.23
Henderson	30.56
Pocius	24.53
Nelson	21.16
Singler	19.78
Smith	19.21
Scheyer	16.57
Paulus	16.48
Davidson	15.38
Zoubek	14.63
Thomas	10.45
McClure	3.33
PPWS
Singler	1.37
Scheyer	1.33
King	1.30
Paulus	1.27
Thomas	1.23
Zoubek	1.22
Smith	1.17
Pocius	1.07
Nelson	1.06
Henderson	1.06
McClure	1.03
Davidson	0.81
EFG%
McClure	1.000
King	0.669
Singler	0.639
Zoubek	0.625
Paulus	0.621
Scheyer	0.600
Thomas	0.571
Smith	0.538
Nelson	0.512
Davidson	0.500
Henderson	0.500
Pocius	0.462
A/B%
Paulus	25.00
Pocius	21.05
Henderson	16.96
Nelson	16.56
Scheyer	14.56
Davidson	10.00
King	9.59
Zoubek	9.23
Singler	6.90
McClure	6.25
Thomas	2.65
Smith	0.13
ORB%
Pocius	16.13
Zoubek	15.96
Singler	12.24
Thomas	8.81
King	7.56
McClure	6.25
Nelson	6.22
Henderson	4.30
Scheyer	3.96
Paulus	1.97
Smith	0.93
Davidson	0.00
DRB%
McClure	22.22
Henderson	18.88
Pocius	17.39
Singler	17.31
Nelson	17.30
King	15.08
Zoubek	14.55
Scheyer	13.92
Paulus	7.11
Thomas	5.68
Smith	5.11
Davidson	0.00
Block%
Zoubek	4.43
King	3.76
Henderson	3.68
Singler	2.41
Nelson	1.32
Scheyer	0.83
Thomas	0.73
Smith	0.49
McClure	0.00
Pocius	0.00
Davidson	0.00
Paulus	0.00
A/T Ratio
Paulus	2.12
Scheyer	2.09
Nelson	1.56
Pocius	1.33
King	1.17
Henderson	1.06
Smith	0.88
Zoubek	0.60
Singler	0.48
Thomas	0.30
McClure	#DIV/0!
Davidson	#DIV/0!
Steal Rate
Paulus	3.86
Pocius	3.28
Smith	2.75
King	2.49
Nelson	2.34
McClure	2.33
Zoubek	2.04
Thomas	1.78
Scheyer	1.57
Singler	1.17
Henderson	0.76
Davidson	0.00
Turnover Rate
Davidson	0.00
McClure	0.00
Scheyer	2.48
King	2.49
Thomas	2.94
Nelson	3.37
Paulus	4.04
Henderson	4.48
Singler	4.86
Pocius	5.00
Zoubek	5.18
Smith	6.40

Team Stats by Player

These stats indicate the performance by Duke while the particular player is on the court. Through Michigan:

Off. Poss.			Def. Poss.
Nelson	475.00		Nelson	471.00
Scheyer	444.00		Scheyer	445.00
Singler	432.00		Singler	428.00
Paulus	421.00		Paulus	415.00
Henderson	402.00		Henderson	394.00
Thomas	340.00		Thomas	338.00
Smith	250.00		Smith	255.00
King	241.00		King	241.00
Zoubek	193.00		Zoubek	196.00
Pocius	60.00		Pocius	61.00
McClure	38.00		McClure	43.00
Davidson	16.00		Davidson	19.00
O Rating			D Rating
Davidson	168.75		King	77.18
King	131.12		Henderson	77.41
Pocius	123.33		Paulus	82.41
Scheyer	122.52		Zoubek	82.65
Smith	118.40		Singler	84.11
Paulus	118.05		Thomas	85.50
Singler	116.90		Nelson	86.84
Zoubek	115.54		Scheyer	87.64
Henderson	115.17		Smith	87.84
Nelson	113.89		Pocius	90.16
McClure	113.16		Davidson	94.74
Thomas	110.00		McClure	116.28
PPWS			Opp. PPWS
Davidson	1.61		Davidson	0.81
King	1.26		Zoubek	0.88
Scheyer	1.25		King	0.89
Smith	1.24		Henderson	0.91
Singler	1.21		Paulus	0.93
Henderson	1.19		Thomas	0.95
Pocius	1.19		Scheyer	0.95
Paulus	1.19		Smith	0.96
McClure	1.19		Singler	0.97
Nelson	1.17		Nelson	0.97
Thomas	1.17		Pocius	1.18
Zoubek	1.16		McClure	1.24
EFG%			Opp. EFG%
Davidson	0.923		Davidson	0.342
King	0.616		Zoubek	0.389
Scheyer	0.606		King	0.419
Smith	0.606		Henderson	0.428
McClure	0.600		Paulus	0.437
Singler	0.580		Smith	0.451
Pocius	0.566		Scheyer	0.453
Paulus	0.563		Thomas	0.460
Zoubek	0.558		Singler	0.461
Henderson	0.557		Nelson	0.462
Nelson	0.554		Pocius	0.561
Thomas	0.552		McClure	0.571
A/B%			Opp. A/B%
Davidson	70.00		McClure	41.18
Pocius	66.67		Pocius	42.11
King	60.75		Zoubek	43.64
Scheyer	57.22		Smith	47.50
Smith	56.07		Nelson	49.06
Henderson	54.43		Singler	49.28
Paulus	53.80		Davidson	50.00
Nelson	53.68		Scheyer	50.68
Zoubek	52.50		Paulus	53.38
Thomas	51.94		King	56.34
Singler	50.54		Thomas	56.76
McClure	47.06		Henderson	57.39
ORB%			Opp. ORB%
Pocius	51.61		Pocius	21.74
Zoubek	43.62		Singler	25.96
King	39.50		Paulus	27.01
Smith	38.32		Henderson	27.04
Nelson	37.78		Thomas	28.98
Singler	36.73		King	29.37
Scheyer	36.14		Nelson	30.38
Paulus	35.96		Scheyer	31.22
Henderson	34.41		Smith	32.85
Thomas	32.70		Zoubek	33.64
Davidson	28.57		McClure	50.00
McClure	25.00		Davidson	53.85
DRB%			Opp. DRB%
Pocius	78.26		Pocius	48.39
Singler	74.04		Zoubek	56.38
Paulus	72.99		King	60.50
Henderson	72.96		Smith	61.68
Thomas	71.02		Nelson	62.22
King	70.63		Singler	63.27
Nelson	69.62		Scheyer	63.86
Scheyer	68.78		Paulus	64.04
Smith	67.15		Henderson	65.59
Zoubek	66.36		Thomas	67.30
McClure	50.00		Davidson	71.43
Davidson	46.15		McClure	75.00
Block%			Opp. Block%
King	10.22		Davidson	0.00
Henderson	10.03		Paulus	5.11
Pocius	9.76		Singler	5.22
Zoubek	9.49		Thomas	5.22
Scheyer	9.14		Henderson	5.56
Thomas	8.39		Pocius	5.66
Smith	8.33		Nelson	5.79
Paulus	7.81		King	6.16
Singler	7.53		Scheyer	6.35
Nelson	6.58		Smith	6.90
McClure	5.71		Zoubek	7.32
Davidson	5.26		McClure	10.00
A/T Ratio			Opp. A/T Ratio
Davidson	3.50		Pocius	0.40
King	1.76		Zoubek	0.50
McClure	1.33		Smith	0.58
Scheyer	1.30		McClure	0.58
Pocius	1.23		Henderson	0.58
Paulus	1.21		King	0.59
Smith	1.11		Singler	0.61
Singler	1.09		Nelson	0.64
Henderson	1.08		Scheyer	0.69
Nelson	1.06		Paulus	0.69
Zoubek	0.98		Thomas	0.73
Thomas	0.94		Davidson	1.00
Turnover %			Turnover %
Davidson	12.50		Pocius	32.79
King	15.35		Henderson	28.68
McClure	15.79		King	28.22
Paulus	18.05		McClure	27.91
Scheyer	18.47		Singler	26.17
Henderson	19.90		Smith	25.88
Singler	19.91		Nelson	25.69
Nelson	20.21		Thomas	25.44
Thomas	20.88		Paulus	24.82
Smith	21.60		Zoubek	24.49
Pocius	21.67		Scheyer	24.27
Zoubek	22.28		Davidson	15.79
Eff. Margin
Davidson	74.01
King	53.94
Henderson	37.76
Paulus	35.64
Scheyer	34.88
Pocius	33.17
Zoubek	32.89
Singler	32.79
Smith	30.56
Nelson	27.06
Thomas	24.50
McClure	-3.12