Welcome!

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

SignUp Now!

Pomeroy

And Michigan at 15. I didn't hear about them after losing all those early games.
 


With that in mind, it’s worthwhile to attempt to quantify the amount of control that the defense has over not just three-point percentage, but all box score stats. The results can help us understand the game a lot better. For instance, armed with this information we can infer what actually qualifies as good basketball.

I’ll work my way through each stat based on how much control the offense has. It doesn’t take an investigation of the numbers to realize that offense has the most control over free throw percentage, but I’ll start with that in the next post because it will provide a good opportunity to explain the methodology.

This series of posts is the replacement for Olympics and World Cup this summer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was interesting that he said that the defense has some control over FT percentage. I assume that control is minuscule, though, and has to do with who you foul.
 
statsheet.com is dead for good.

I think basketball-reference.com (and sports-reference.com) is now the only good option for individual player stats besides Pomeroy. However, statsheet.com was the only place I knew of to get usage and offensive rating (and I'm sure some other important stats) for old Duke players.
 
This is really ill-timed with the arrival of another offensively limited Thornton at Duke. I had TT's Statsheet page bookmarked for its utility in arguing with TDD posters.
 
Pomeroy on whether offense or defense has more control over points per possession (basically whether having a good offense or having a good defense is more important):
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog ... possession

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.

One thing that is more questionable is the idea from defensive-minded coaches that defense is more consistent than offense. The theory is that defense is about effort and we all have control over our effort, while offense is subject to the vagaries of a bouncing ball going through the rim. But given that defense is slightly more at the mercy of the offense than vice versa, it stands to reason that offensive performance will be more consistent over time.

For funsies, here are the ten coaches with the best average adjusted offensive efficiency since 2002 (minimum 10 seasons)

1 Mike Krzyzewski 116.7
2 Roy Williams 115.1
3 Mike Brey 114.3
4 Mark Few 114.2
5 Billy Donovan 114.0
6 Jamie Dixon 113.5
7 Bo Ryan 113.3
8 Bill Self 113.3
9 John Calipari 113.1
10 Thad Matta 112.8

The list of defensive coaches with the best numbers is below.

1 Bill Self 90.4
2 Rick Pitino 91.1
3 John Calipari 91.8
4 Jim Calhoun 92.3
5 Mike Krzyzewski 92.4
6 Thad Matta 92.6
7 Roy Williams 92.6
8 Bo Ryan 92.9
9 Gary Williams 93.5
10 Tom Izzo 93.5
 
Wow. Coach K is a good defensive coach after all.

I don't even want to see Pitino's disgusting offensive numbers.
 
Odd to see Jamie Dixon #6 on offense. Would have thought Izzo would be better on defense. Wonder what K would have been on defense prior to 2012 when he forgot how to coach it.

Last year's Duke team certainly can be used to argue that consistency of effort on defense is certainly no greater than variations in a bouncing ball. What kind of ridiculous series of bounces would produce offensive variability similar to VT game defense vs. Title game defense.
 
deeyoukayeee said:
Odd to see Jamie Dixon #6 on offense. Would have thought Izzo would be better on defense. Wonder what K would have been on defense prior to 2012 when he forgot how to coach it.

Last year's Duke team certainly can be used to argue that consistency of effort on defense is certainly no greater than variations in a bouncing ball. What kind of ridiculous series of bounces would produce offensive variability similar to VT game defense vs. Title game defense.


What NC state did to us this year
 
Duke would have been #2 at 90.9 efficiency if we remove 2012-15. Of course, that's comparing Duke's 10-season sample to other coach's 14-year sample. I don't have the patience to do the numbers for all those other coaches over the same period ending in 2011.

The true slide happened starting in 2006, though. Between 2002-05, we had an adjusted efficiency below 90 three out of four times. After 2006, we hit that mark just once (2010).
 
DurhamSon said:
deeyoukayeee said:
Odd to see Jamie Dixon #6 on offense. Would have thought Izzo would be better on defense. Wonder what K would have been on defense prior to 2012 when he forgot how to coach it.

Last year's Duke team certainly can be used to argue that consistency of effort on defense is certainly no greater than variations in a bouncing ball. What kind of ridiculous series of bounces would produce offensive variability similar to VT game defense vs. Title game defense.


What NC state did to us this year

I specifically said bounces. What Lacey and Turner threw up hit nothing but net, though I guess Washington's bank three counts.
 
rome8180 said:
Looking at how good the 2002 team's numbers were makes me want to vomit.
Arguing about that team on TDD makes me want to vomit. That team was fucking great but gets crapped on all the time because of one 2nd half lapse.
 
Arguably our biggest tournament choke ever, though.

But I agree. In general, I think we judge the quality of teams too much by their postseason results.
 

Chat users

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Chat rooms

  • General chit-chat 0

Forum statistics

Threads
1,065
Messages
424,269
Members
624
Latest member
Bluegrass Blue Devil
Back
Top Bottom