Welcome to SHOO-SHOO, RAH-RAH! The Duquesne Dukes Basketball Fan Message Board!
One of America's Great Message Boards - Any Inappropriate Posts Will Be Deleted!
There was a recent thread asking about the identity (or lack thereof) of this team. I like looking at the conference stats after the season to answer that question. Last edited by Duques102 (3/07/2016 11:15 am) Forgot to add one more stat Last edited by Duques102 (3/07/2016 11:19 am) Forgot to add one more stat if our home attendance was an actual count of butts in seats, and not some fudging of the numbers,counting employees, band, tickets given away etc. then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I'm more one for effective FG percentage rather than regular FG% (ie counting a three as 50% more than a two). I'm more one for effective FG percentage rather than regular FG% (ie counting a three as 50% more than a two). I think those stats tell a very similar story: very good offense and solid overall defense with the huge 3 pt fg % defense definciency, a little dropoff from how rebounding looks for the stats I pulled. The real key which both sets of stats point out is way too many turnovers offensively and not nearly enough forced defensively. That's a big stat in terms of determining the outcome in close games. I'm guessing our stats in the last 5 minutes of games would be pretty ugly. I'm guessing our stats in the last 5 minutes of games would be pretty ugly. Good point. They have something like that for NBA teams and players called "clutch" stats or something like that. When you look at how the Dukes play defense, with our guards over helping inside leaving wide open three point shots the statistics, make sense. I'm guessing our stats in the last 5 minutes of games would be pretty ugly. Rick player fatigue by Colter & Mason in my opinion has cost us at least three wins. It was the same movie as opponents beat us down court for easy transition buckets, or tired legs lead to critical fouls, turnovers, or easy baskets for opponents. I seriously have to wonder what this year would have looked like if Castro was as good as the preseason hype, or even good enough just to give 10 to 15 minutes of competent relief minutes at the point. Got to wonder what his future is with this team as he hardly got off the bench all season. Last edited by CLK (3/07/2016 2:02 pm) I'm guessing our stats in the last 5 minutes of games would be pretty ugly. Rick player fatigue by Colter & Mason in my opinion has cost us at least three wins. It was the same movie as opponents beat us down court for easy transition buckets, or tired legs lead to critical fouls, turnovers, or easy baskets for opponents. I seriously have to wonder what this year would have looked like if Castro was as good as the preseason hype, or even good enough just to give 10 to 15 minutes of competent relief minutes at the point. Got to wonder what his future is with this team as he hardly got off the bench all season. Agree with you 100 %. I saw Castro 4 or 5 times at Greentree and am very surprised at how he's played. (Montour) Last edited by WashPaRick (3/07/2016 3:32 pm) Saw him at Montour not Greentree. No slight to 102 but rog I do like your numbers since they take into consideration that the Dukes shot the ball quicker, I believe by several seconds, than anyone else in the conference. The turnover problem was atrocious and sometimes raw numbers are more striking 257 to 203 for our opponents. Our opponents also shared the ball better recording 306 assists to 267 for the Dukes. Last edited by The Dome (3/07/2016 4:05 pm) No slight to 102 but rog I do like your numbers since they take into consideration that the Dukes shot the ball quicker, I believe by several seconds, than anyone else in the conference. The turnover problem was atrocious and sometimes raw numbers are more striking 257 to 203 for our opponents. Our opponents also shared the ball better recording 306 assists to 267 for the Dukes. Dome, you're right. The Dukes average length of possession was 15.2 seconds, #13 shortest in the country and #1 in the conference. I struggled to guess who the slowest paced offensive team was in the A-10; it was Rhode Island at 19.3 seconds, #341 in the country. Hurley really slowed down the pace with the loss of Matthews and other players to keep his team in games. Last edited by PhoenixRising2 (3/07/2016 5:27 pm)
Offline
Digging Into the Stats
Defensively: We talk all year about the lack of good defense played by this team and overall, this is a true statement especially when looking at a stat like overall scoring defense where we rank 13/14 allowing 77.3 pts/game. However, you may be surprised when you look at specific defensive statistics. The Dukes rank high in a number of crucial defensive categories, including 3/14 in FG % defense, allowing opponents to shoot just 41.2% per game. The Dukes are also 2/14 in another major category, rebounding, averaging 39.5 per game. More specifically we were 6/14 in offensive rebounds with 10.3 per game and even more impressive 1st in the conference in defensive rebounding at 29.2 per game. We were also 5/14 in blocked shots averaging 3.8 per game. Being a top half and often top 4 ranked team in these categories suggests we were a dominant rebounding and interior defensive team which causes confusion when looking at the first stat right? Well, the ugly truth is that the Dukes also ranked dead last in 3 Point FG % defense allowing opponents to shoot 39.7% on average beyond the arc, the worst % percentage allowed by a large margin. The Dukes also ranked 13/14 in steals with only 4.8 per game. So basically that would tell you despite all the good defensive statistics we posess, we were still getting absolutely murdered from behind the three point line and we don't do a good job of forcing turnovers to get easy transition baskets.
Offensively: As many expect this team has a number of positive statistical rankings. We were 2/14 in scoring offense averaging 78.7 points/game. We ranked 3rd in the league in assists with 15.8 per game. We ranked 3/14 in the conference in overall FG %, shooting 45.9% from the field. We also ranked 4/14 in 3 point FG %, shooting 36.3% from behind the arc. We were middle of the road ranking 9/14 in FT % shooting 68.4% from the line (5th ranked team shot 70%). The assist to turnover ratio is a modest 8/14 with a 1.1 ratio. The killer offensive state we saw come out late in games was the turnover margin, where we ranked 13/14 with a -2.13 margin which is just awful.
My Analysis: I think this team is better than it performed all year, and this shows up when you look at these stats. We rank very high in a number of important categories, FG % defense, rebounding (offensive, Defensive), and blocks, but we get killed from behind the line by every team and can't generate turnovers from steals to get easy buckets. Offensively, we were one of the best overall teams as we were top half in almost every important category, but had the second worst turnover margin in the league. I think that's why we saw this team be close in a number of games, and whether it be a big 3 from the opponent or a bad turnover at the end of the game we constantly saw results go the other team's way. This team did very well in a number of facets of the game but were also so bad in other aspects that they commonly shot themselves in the foot. Perhaps that's why the season has been so frustrating, there are a number of things this team was able to do very well but when it came to crunch time we more often found a way to lose the game rather than win.
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
Home Attendance: 1,909 Average Dead Last •
Thread Starter
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
Duques102 wrote:
Home Attendance: 1,909 Average Dead Last
Even the Davidson near sell-out, and the Consol center games do not equal out those usual less than 750 people in the place.
Vicimus Atlanticum decem
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
Offense - 41st - 2nd in the A10
Defense - 121st - 6th in the A10
As for rebounding I'm one more for rebounding percentage (that way pace can't be a factor) -
Rebounding Percentage - 123rd - 7th in A10
Turnovers per possession to me is also more important than total turnover margin (once again, ignores pace)
Offense - 232nd - 12th of 14
Defense (forced) - 312th - 13 of 14
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
rogabee wrote:
Offense - 41st - 2nd in the A10
Defense - 121st - 6th in the A10
As for rebounding I'm one more for rebounding percentage (that way pace can't be a factor) -
Rebounding Percentage - 123rd - 7th in A10
Turnovers per possession to me is also more important than total turnover margin (once again, ignores pace)
Offense - 232nd - 12th of 14
Defense (forced) - 312th - 13 of 14 •
Thread Starter
Online!
Re: Digging Into the Stats
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
WashPaRick wrote: •
Thread Starter
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
WashPaRick wrote:
Online!
Re: Digging Into the Stats
CLK wrote:WashPaRick wrote:
Online!
Re: Digging Into the Stats
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
We gave up 30 more offensive rebounds and finally this really surprised me as quickly as we played and fired up shots our opponents took 83 more shots.
All of these are league only stats.
Offline
Re: Digging Into the Stats
The Dome wrote:
We gave up 30 more offensive rebounds and finally this really surprised me as quickly as we played and fired up shots our opponents took 83 more shots.
All of these are league only stats.
Also, with 54 more turnovers (no shot on that possession) and a 30 offensive rebound differential (extra shot), that pretty much determined how how opponents got 83 more shots.
1 of 1