Early against Alabama in the Elite Eight, Duke faced a massive problem. Forward Aiden Sherrell, not a particularly adept 3-point shooter, had knocked down two triples in the span of 29 seconds. Sherrell was left particularly open thanks to the Blue Devils’ drop coverage tactic, which saw center Khaman Maluach opting to contain the ball-handler as opposed to Sherrell.
“When we realized they had a pick-and-pop big, we had to adjust to them,” Maluach said after the game. “Coach [Scheyer] was like, ‘we gotta go switching.’ I was like, ‘No problem. I’ll do switching and try to do my best.”
Sherrell went scoreless the rest of the way, playing just nine minutes in total. Maluach, who played heavily on the perimeter during the game, bolstered a defense that forced Alabama into an 8-of-32 clip from 3-point range.
That adaptability from Maluach represents his progress during his freshman year at Duke. The Rumbek, South Sudan, native has saved his best basketball for the postseason; in seven games spanning the ACC and NCAA Tournaments, he has averaged 11.6 points, 7.6 rebounds and 2.3 blocks per game while shooting 81.8% from the field. How has his game grown from the early season, and how has his elevated production impacted Duke as a whole?
From efficient to hyper-efficient
Maluach has boasted elite scoring efficiency since the beginning of the season thanks to his acumen as a lob threat and tendency to shoot around the rim. In 31 regular-season games, he scored extremely well within 4.5 feet of the rim, making 80.6% of these shots according to CBBAnalytics.com. However, on shots in the paint that are not dunks or layups — called non-rim shots by CBBAnalytics — he only converted on 10-of-24 attempts.
That has significantly changed in the postseason. Figure 1 displays his efficiency growth from the regular season to the postseason. The first pair of columns refer to Maluach’s rim and paint attempts as a percentage of his total field-goal attempts. The second pair of columns refer to his field-goal percentage on these rim and paint shots. The third pair of columns display his effective field-goal percentage on all shots; this is a statistic that accounts for the fact that 3-pointers are worth more than 2-pointers.
Figure 1
As shown above, Maluach has significantly elevated his efficiency despite taking a similar rate of rim and paint shots. In particular, his effective field-goal percentage has increased by 15.1 points, a gargantuan leap. Figure 2, created by CBBAnalytics.com, displays Maluach’s efficiency by region of the court on a heat map, where darker red corresponds to a higher field goal percentage relative to the Division I average in that region.
Figure 2 (Courtesy of CBB Analytics)
One interesting trend involves Maluach’s non-rim paint shots and 3-point shots; he has only attempted nine of these combined in seven postseason games but has converted on 8-of-9 attempts, including memorable 3-pointers against North Carolina and Mount St. Mary’s and one-on-one moves in the post showcasing his offensive development.
A possible explanation for Maluach’s heightened efficiency is a higher emphasis on pick-and-roll plays by Duke that lead to alley-oops. In the Blue Devils’ 31 regular-season games, Maluach attempted 0.94 alley-oop field goals per game; in seven postseason contests, Maluach has attempted two alley-oop field goals per game, a significant increase.
Rebounding: positives and negatives
Maluach has been, and continues to be, one of the best offensive rebounders in college basketball. His offensive rebound percentage, which estimates the number of available offensive rebounds he secured while on the floor, is 17.0% for both the complete season and the postseason. Even when he isn’t collecting the offensive rebounds himself, his size and low-post presence allow his teammates to collect them at a high rate when he is on the court. Figure 3 displays Duke’s offensive rebound percentage with Maluach on and off the court, separated by the regular season and playoffs.
Figure 3
During the regular season, Maluach raised Duke’s team offensive rebounding numbers slightly, but in the postseason, he has been essential for the Blue Devils collecting boards off the glass. This has provided Duke with several second chances throughout their run to the Final Four.
What about his rebounding on the defensive end? Figure 4 is the same as Figure 3, except for defensive rebounding percentage.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Figure 4
As shown above, Duke is over three points better on team defensive rebounds when Maluach sits compared to when he is on the court. This may not sound like a significant increase, but the Blue Devils’ 72.5% defensive rebound percentage with Maluach off ranks in the 78th percentile of Division I teams, while their 69.3% mark with Maluach on plummets to the 38th percentile. While not all the blame should be ascribed to Maluach, his acumen on defensive possessions occasionally lapses to allow for opposing offensive rebounds, resulting in this drop.
Team impact
Putting it all together, how does Maluach’s postseason rise translate into team impact? During the regular season, Duke’s offensive rating, which measures points scored per 100 possessions, was 125.5 when he sat compared to 131.3 when he was on the court. In other words, the Blue Devils scored 5.8 points per 100 possessions more when Maluach played, a significant increase.
In the postseason, Maluach’s offensive impact has been somewhat muted. Duke’s offensive rating is actually 0.6 points better with him off the court, although it should be noted that the Blue Devils’ 128.5 postseason offensive rating with him on the court still ranks in the 99th percentile of Division I. The lack of rise in this statistic can be partially explained by the growth of freshman center Patrick Ngongba II, who has emerged as a critical big man in Duke’s rotation with defensive stalwart Maliq Brown injured. When Maluach sits, Ngongba has generally come into the lineup, and that has helped keep the Blue Devils very strong on the offensive end.
As for defensive impact, the story is actually the opposite. In the regular season, Duke’s defensive rating, which measures points allowed per 100 possessions, did not change significantly from when Maluach was on the floor (94.6) to when he sat (94.3). A lower defensive rating is better, but these two numbers are very close. This speaks to the entire rotation’s ability to defend 1 through 5, as well as the value in having a defensive anchor like Brown.
However, in seven postseason games with Brown either limited or out, Maluach has seemingly been critical to the Blue Devils’ defense as a whole. Duke is 4.2 points better per 100 possessions on that end of the court when he plays compared to when he sits. One statistic that helps explain this is effective field-goal percentage allowed, which goes from 50.0% when he sits (62nd percentile) to 42.7% when he plays (100th percentile). Maluach has disrupted plenty of shots in March — he averages 2.3 blocks in the postseason — but when looking at the Blue Devils’ tactics against Sherrell, this can also be explained by his adaptability in defensive schemes and contesting ability.
Maluach has been a near-unstoppable force in the ACC and NCAA Tournaments, especially when it comes to his efficiency and offensive rebounding. In the Final Four, where every point, offensive rebound and defensive switch matters, Maluach will need to continue these trends to give Duke an edge.