Welcome!

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

SignUp Now!

Duke Coaching


Ultimately, the combination of NBA rules and talent dictates that the offensive benefit gained by going small generally outweighs the defensive cost. However, it is important to keep in mind that this is just a tendency in a single year and is largely dependent on team personnel. For now, however, the apparent effectiveness of small ball indicates that this trend will likely accelerate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
deepdarkblue said:
In 10 years, all elite basketball players will be Nate Robinsons.
Click to expand...
And then everything will reverse. Some skilled 7 footer will dominate to a degree not seen since Wilt and everyone will try to mimic it by building giant lineups. Then we'll get sweet articles about the rise and effectiveness of giant-ball
 
I don't agree with the conclusion of that article, which seems to simply ignore the contrary data from the playoffs because of the smaller sample size, but more data for more seasons would probably settle it. In the regular season, the teams that have the ability to use enough smaller, skilled players to put out a good smallball lineup are going against a lot of terrible rosters that can't even put out a decent smallball lineup. The Sixers with their big lineups are an obvious example, though they weren't totally terrible last season. Another example is the Nets, who would need to play Brook Lopez as much as possible to be competitive, since I assume he was their best overall player, which likely constrained them to play two-big lineups more often.

In the playoffs, there are none of those truly terrible teams with inflexible lineups. If you're going against a two-big lineup, it's something like Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph most of the time, rather than something with Jahlil Okafor or Timofey Mozgov in it. And apparently those two-big lineups in the playoffs last season outplayed the smallball lineups.

I'm pretty sure the eventual conclusion will be that if you have two really good bigs on your team, you should use them together, but most teams don't have two bigs that are better overall players than their four best guards or wings. Duke 2018 will likely be an example of this, assuming Trent isn't good and O'Connell is bad. Then again, Duke's talent level versus just about anyone else in college basketball, even the top teams besides Kentucky, is more similar to Warriors versus Nets than Warriors versus Cavs, so the regular season data is likely more translatable to Duke's situation. We just need more data.
 
SeanMayTriedToEatMe said:
I don't agree with the conclusion of that article, which seems to simply ignore the contrary data from the playoffs because of the smaller sample size, but more data for more seasons would probably settle it. In the regular season, the teams that have the ability to use enough smaller, skilled players to put out a good smallball lineup are going against a lot of terrible rosters that can't even put out a decent smallball lineup. The Sixers with their big lineups are an obvious example, though they weren't totally terrible last season. Another example is the Nets, who would need to play Brook Lopez as much as possible to be competitive, since I assume he was their best overall player, which likely constrained them to play two-big lineups more often.

In the playoffs, there are none of those truly terrible teams with inflexible lineups. If you're going against a two-big lineup, it's something like Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph most of the time, rather than something with Jahlil Okafor or Timofey Mozgov in it. And apparently those two-big lineups in the playoffs last season outplayed the smallball lineups.

I'm pretty sure the eventual conclusion will be that if you have two really good bigs on your team, you should use them together, but most teams don't have two bigs that are better overall players than their four best guards or wings. Duke 2018 will likely be an example of this, assuming Trent isn't good and O'Connell is bad. Then again, Duke's talent level versus just about anyone else in college basketball, even the top teams besides Kentucky, is more similar to Warriors versus Nets than Warriors versus Cavs, so the regular season data is likely more translatable to Duke's situation. We just need more data.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with you, but without any data to back this up I think when you look at the "top" players in the NBA these days, relative to a a replacement player, elite guards can have a more sizeable impact on the game given recent rule changes that favor offense over defense. Thus in the regular season you see teams that can go small successfully having greater success than teams that are more big-focused. There are exceptions (Memphis is a great one, the Thunder, even the Spurs now would be one), but that's the trend.

Now a lot of this also comes from the fact that elite wings can make up for having elite big men *now* (think Draymond/Iguodala/Hayward/Durant/Lebron effectively guarding big men like Blake Griffin), but when more versatile big men like Embiid/Porzingus/Towns/Davis mature, their ability to do what wings do as well as be elite big men do could change the balance of power back to teams with those types of players.

In the playoffs, the successful teams have do have those versatile wings/guards start to match and cancel one another out (outside the absurd talent of GS), so having a style of play that is different (big men who can get buckets, slow things down) can be an edge to exploit until you face the music that is playing the Warriors.

What does this have to do with Duke/college? I think the skill developed by guards that has set them apart in the NBA is still not quite there for most college teams/players (outside of your Kyrie's, Kemba's), but the size advantage for big men does exist and there is something still there to be exploited. That being said, the way the game has changed and the usage rates of guards makes me believe this is diminishing in the regular season but then once every team clears the talent threshold required to go deep in the tourney, it's about being able to check someone else's strength while having a matchup to exploit, and greater talent + experience will win out more times than not.

Basically a long post to say I agree, but there are nuances across the 2 levels in one massive word vomit.
 
ZnJINEU.png


Found it interesting that this is coming up with Thibodeau now, when K's defensive ineffectiveness is becoming more mainstream knowledge as well. Of course, Thibodeau was on K's staff for the Olympic runs and was expected to help K learn how to coach rim protection.

Here's a blog about icing PnR:
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2015/09/30/the-value-of-ice/
 
Good short video on Brad Stevens’ 1-3-1 zone, the best performing zone in the NBA last season per possession. I think Duke could excel at this and greatly benefit from the occasional change up from m2m, with a coach who knows how to teach it or who Googles videos of it to show the players. Bagley in the middle. DeLaurier/Trent running the baseline. Carter and Allen on the wings. Duval at top.

 
Both Blue and White squads showed zone in the scrimmage. I did not watch the exhibition, did Duke play any zone?
 
Northwestern defeated Loyola (MD) 77-75 and allowed 51 second half points.

Marquette defeated Mt. St Mary's 80-59

UCF defeated Mercer 88-79

Harvard defeated MIT 73-64
 
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
1,063
Messages
423,465
Members
624
Latest member
Bluegrass Blue Devil
Back
Top Bottom