First a few notes on the stats I use. I use a model developed by Dean Oliver based on a difficulty theory of individual credit. The idea is that an individual gets credit for points produced as a function of how difficult his job is in contributing to the points on the board. Especially at the college level, it's fairly rare for baskets to be entirely the doing of one person, and this model attempts to distribute credit more evenly to people involved (those who dish out assists, those who grab offensive rebounds, etc). Offensive ratings are, thus, an approximation: but a fair one. You will find that offensive ratings as estimated correlate fairly well with actual offensive ratings and they correlate well with our subjective perceptions of offensive prowess (in most cases). Defensive ratings are, unfortunately, a bit more approximated, but still correlate well with our subjective assessments and correlate well with actual defensive ratings (determined with more robust defensive stats). Percentage of team possessions refers to how many possessions a player ends while he is on the floor. This includes turnovers, shots or free throws. Floor percentage estimates how often a player scores when he attempts to score. Finally, Stop % estimates how often a player stops his man from scoring.
Now, a word on the values of the various stats. Floor %, obviously, favors big men. You will find, especially in this post, that floor percentages are quite high. That being said, Shaq's highest floor % was 61 throughout his career, and you will find several of Duke's big men with much higher values than that. This is not shocking because the difference between the best college players and the worst (or even average) is much greater than the same gulf in the NBA. Nevertheless, it is a pretty good indicator of a big man's ability to score. Offensive rating tends to favor 3-point specialists (for instance, Steve Kerr had a 141 in the 1996 72-10 Bulls season), but big guys can generate very efficient offense as well (as you will see). Finally, defensive ratings tend to favor big men as well, since they are predicated on an estimation of stops produced. Since big men tend to play the last line of defense role in a team's defense (especially Duke's pressure-man scheme), they have many more opportunities to cause stops than guards. In the NBA, players like Olajuwon and Mutumbo had very good defensive ratings (between 91-95 usually), but you will find lower values here, because (again) the best are much better than the worst. Nevertheless, again, a defensive rating in the 80s still represents a *very* excellent defender (as you will see) at the college level.
Finally, it would be intellectually dishonest not to mention that a player's offensive or defensive ratings are affected by just as they affect the team's offensive and defensive ratings. It's hard to have an amazing season (like Elton Brand's 1998-99 season) when your team is 18-13. On the other hand, Brand's amazing season was a great contributer to the 37-2 season and the massive 33.3 efficiency margin and other overwhelming stats for that team.
My purpose in this post is to show: (1) Duke's big men are utilized as an essential part of the offense; (2) Duke's big men produce a great deal offensively and defensively; and (3) Duke's big men develop well while in school. I'll work backward in time and go as far as the 86-87 season since stats before that time (sufficient in detail for this analysis) are unavailable. You will note that in almost every case, the player improves over the course of his career. He plays more minutes, his offensive contribution increases, his offensive efficiency increases (although this varies in some cases - often with the efficiency of the team as a whole), his burden on offense increases and his defensive contribution and efficiency increases. Furthermore, you will note that in the case of the stars (Williams, Boozer, Brand, Laettner, Parks, Ferry, etc) that they were an integral and substantial part of their respective offenses.
I would also like to personally point out that for all the criticism of McRoberts as a "flop," the kid still improved and was becoming a very good player. Had he stayed 4 years, you'd probably have seen an excellent senior McRoberts. His efficiency and floor % went down, but his defensive stats significantly improved, as did his production and the offensive burden placed on him (so you should generally expect O-Rating and Floor % to take a slight dip).
You will also note that injuries are obviously seen in these stats. Randolph, Horvath and Domzalski are very good examples of this. Boozer's outlying Sophomore season (broken foot) and Brand's (slightly) outlying freshman season (broken foot) are a result of injuries.
Finally, note that Battier may very well be the most efficient player offensively to wear the Duke jersey. He played both the role of the role-player and the centerpiece, and was the model of offensive efficiency in both.
Be prepared: a LOT of numbers are following.
| Player | % of Minutes | PtsProdPerG | Floor % | O-Rating | % of Poss. | Stop % | D-Rating |
| Josh McRoberts | |||||||
| 2005-2006 | 61.11% | 8.78 | 60.51% | 117.65 | 17.36% | 64.95% | 91.71 |
| 2006-2007 | 83.30% | 13.88 | 55.25% | 108.03 | 21.95% | 69.95% | 86.22 |
| Shelden Williams | |||||||
| 2002-2003 | 47.59% | 8.20 | 54.51% | 101.75 | 23.61% | 71.75% | 88.97 |
| 2003-2004 | 64.63% | 12.21 | 59.45% | 112.98 | 24.33% | 81.43% | 83.27 |
| 2004-2005 | 77.11% | 14.96 | 59.34% | 113.01 | 22.91% | 83.04% | 82.48 |
| 2005-2006 | 82.91% | 17.72 | 61.27% | 117.68 | 25.83% | 85.99% | 83.19 |
| Shavlik Randolph | |||||||
| 2002-2003 | 26.39% | 6.94 | 61.79% | 119.62 | 24.14% | 71.49% | 89.08 |
| 2003-2004 | 47.58% | 6.93 | 58.92% | 112.51 | 18.82% | 61.85% | 91.30 |
| 2004-2005 | 38.32% | 5.18 | 49.65% | 96.20 | 16.57% | 65.25% | 89.69 |
| Luol Deng | |||||||
| 2003-2004 | 77.11% | 14.20 | 53.50% | 110.68 | 24.19% | 67.46% | 89.00 |
| Nick Horvath | |||||||
| 1999-2000 | 19.42% | 2.88 | 51.85% | 119.69 | 15.59% | 69.35% | 89.08 |
| 2001-2002 | 17.58% | 1.78 | 39.74% | 73.94 | 15.95% | 67.93% | 85.70 |
| 2002-2003 | 30.45% | 4.06 | 56.34% | 116.51 | 14.50% | 56.23% | 95.19 |
| 2003-2004 | 14.63% | 2.02 | 61.54% | 115.84 | 15.92% | 58.25% | 92.77 |
| Casey Sanders | |||||||
| 1999-2000 | 10.40% | 1.90 | 59.21% | 106.85 | 16.79% | 49.01% | 97.56 |
| 2000-2001 | 23.95% | 2.72 | 52.87% | 96.19 | 14.06% | 39.00% | 99.98 |
| 2001-2002 | 17.22% | 1.82 | 50.50% | 94.64 | 12.99% | 51.67% | 92.32 |
| 2002-2003 | 44.29% | 5.17 | 55.05% | 102.59 | 15.86% | 66.65% | 91.02 |
| Carlos Boozer | |||||||
| 1999-2000 | 58.27% | 12.07 | 63.97% | 123.47 | 22.44% | 67.41% | 89.89 |
| 2000-2001 | 52.66% | 12.05 | 65.37% | 126.08 | 19.74% | 67.26% | 88.30 |
| 2001-2002 | 70.68% | 16.66 | 67.82% | 130.52 | 23.71% | 67.99% | 85.67 |
| Elton Brand | |||||||
| 1997-1998 | 34.24% | 12.75 | 63.52% | 117.56 | 25.66% | 76.47% | 80.76 |
| 1998-1999 | 72.91% | 16.47 | 67.91% | 129.41 | 23.57% | 79.73% | 80.82 |
| Shane Battier | |||||||
| 1997-1998 | 61.60% | 8.14 | 66.62% | 130.05 | 14.11% | 74.17% | 81.69 |
| 1998-1999 | 56.29% | 9.36 | 65.61% | 139.44 | 15.27% | 61.26% | 88.38 |
| 1999-2000 | 87.08% | 15.94 | 60.45% | 133.35 | 18.36% | 56.64% | 94.38 |
| 2000-2001 | 87.53% | 17.91 | 57.13% | 129.33 | 20.97% | 64.89% | 89.27 |
| Chris Burgess | |||||||
| 1997-1998 | 31.46% | 4.49 | 52.74% | 99.03 | 20.03% | 66.63% | 84.75 |
| 1998-1999 | 38.85% | 5.44 | 60.79% | 116.75 | 16.20% | 66.87% | 86.08 |
| Roshown McCleod | |||||||
| 1996-1997 | 59.92% | 11.04 | 54.04% | 112.50 | 23.76% | 64.08% | 91.47 |
| 1997-1998 | 59.17% | 13.80 | 56.12% | 115.67 | 28.01% | 72.47% | 82.38 |
| Taymon Domzalski | |||||||
| 1995-1996 | 50.80% | 6.49 | 55.81% | 109.12 | 17.27% | 63.50% | 97.30 |
| 1996-1997 | 8.42% | 1.96 | 54.45% | 103.87 | 12.84% | 51.68% | 96.50 |
| 1997-1998 | 17.92% | 2.99 | 58.65% | 112.58 | 14.88% | 70.25% | 83.28 |
| 1998-1999 | 18.91% | 3.90 | 57.88% | 109.77 | 19.51% | 75.77% | 82.44 |
| Greg Newton | |||||||
| 1993-1994 | 8.46% | 1.31 | 39.57% | 73.74 | 18.74% | 79.68% | 86.23 |
| 1994-1995 | 22.62% | 3.63 | 57.92% | 108.83 | 17.12% | 75.94% | 94.84 |
| 1995-1996 | 73.44% | 11.43 | 59.40% | 112.38 | 20.43% | 71.29% | 94.11 |
| 1996-1997 | 51.73% | 9.59 | 61.68% | 116.30 | 21.04% | 77.42% | 86.05 |
| Erik Meek | |||||||
| 1991-1992 | 9.81% | 2.39 | 62.39% | 111.74 | 19.97% | 58.10% | 97.07 |
| 1992-1993 | 28.76% | 3.49 | 59.45% | 108.26 | 15.17% | 63.66% | 91.69 |
| 1993-1994 | 34.85% | 4.16 | 62.39% | 114.18 | 15.13% | 64.44% | 92.47 |
| 1994-1995 | 70.56% | 10.34 | 62.12% | 116.47 | 18.11% | 68.06% | 98.11 |
| Cherokee Parks | |||||||
| 1991-1992 | 30.04% | 4.68 | 59.23% | 112.18 | 18.03% | 50.88% | 100.03 |
| 1992-1993 | 69.69% | 10.73 | 61.68% | 119.02 | 17.50% | 66.75% | 90.45 |
| 1993-1994 | 76.32% | 13.45 | 60.26% | 117.30 | 21.72% | 72.38% | 89.22 |
| 1994-1995 | 86.67% | 17.00 | 56.75% | 116.14 | 24.31% | 74.53% | 95.42 |
| Grant Hill | |||||||
| 1990-1991 | 56.50% | 11.19 | 55.11% | 105.10 | 22.28% | 63.67% | 89.89 |
| 1991-1992 | 69.13% | 14.29 | 61.71% | 120.45 | 21.63% | 61.62% | 95.63 |
| 1992-1993 | 63.72% | 16.68 | 60.12% | 117.87 | 24.39% | 74.51% | 87.31 |
| 1993-1994 | 89.19% | 17.89 | 53.52% | 109.81 | 26.43% | 70.26% | 90.09 |
| Antonio Lang | |||||||
| 1990-1991 | 27.13% | 4.19 | 60.06% | 109.74 | 16.64% | 52.02% | 94.59 |
| 1991-1992 | 52.76% | 6.81 | 59.97% | 112.66 | 14.89% | 45.83% | 102.10 |
| 1992-1993 | 62.64% | 7.34 | 53.53% | 101.80 | 15.08% | 54.20% | 95.51 |
| 1993-1994 | 75.22% | 11.68 | 59.41% | 113.08 | 19.86% | 46.20% | 99.94 |
| Christian Laettner | |||||||
| 1988-1989 | 42.23% | 8.32 | 63.83% | 121.66 | 20.86% | 77.00% | 81.05 |
| 1989-1990 | 73.70% | 16.27 | 60.05% | 117.47 | 23.79% | 78.05% | 86.31 |
| 1990-1991 | 75.03% | 18.30 | 59.75% | 117.89 | 26.50% | 79.50% | 83.50 |
| 1991-1992 | 77.97% | 19.06 | 58.89% | 121.50 | 26.89% | 76.56% | 89.50 |
| Brian Davis | |||||||
| 1988-1989 | 16.95% | 2.70 | 44.61% | 79.46 | 20.79% | 49.35% | 92.08 |
| 1989-1990 | 34.48% | 5.02 | 55.74% | 103.11 | 17.41% | 48.25% | 98.21 |
| 1990-1991 | 57.45% | 8.12 | 54.59% | 104.74 | 17.28% | 53.48% | 94.00 |
| 1991-1992 | 76.73% | 11.18 | 59.10% | 115.10 | 17.40% | 50.12% | 100.34 |
| Alaa Abdelnaby | |||||||
| 1986-1987 | 25.02% | 3.69 | 46.64% | 102.01 | 19.65% | 65.32% | 88.68 |
| 1987-1988 | 28.05% | 4.21 | 56.44% | 106.25 | 19.47% | 72.33% | 85.20 |
| 1988-1989 | 36.88% | 7.48 | 59.85% | 115.12 | 20.79% | 61.00% | 87.43 |
| 1989-1990 | 61.49% | 13.09 | 65.77% | 126.59 | 21.29% | 63.83% | 91.98 |
| Danny Ferry | |||||||
| 1986-1987 | 79.76% | 18.74 | 55.56% | 114.92 | 27.81% | 67.53% | 87.80 |
| 1987-1988 | 81.75% | 14.99 | 50.09% | 103.93 | 24.34% | 66.83% | 87.37 |
| 1988-1989 | 80.71% | 21.84 | 56.54% | 115.42 | 29.36% | 68.70% | 84.36 |
No comments:
Post a Comment