Yeah, but he should have started!Quote:
Originally Posted by DukieInBrasil
Printable View
Yeah, but he should have started!Quote:
Originally Posted by DukieInBrasil
Well, maybe. There's some selection bias in play here. The reason Dawkins' stat line looks so nice when he takes a bunch of shots is that he only takes a bunch of shots when he's "on." The concern is that when Dawkins' shot isn't falling but he's taking a lot of shots, the team struggles. See the Lehigh game, Va Tech tourney game, Belmont game, and Ga Tech as examples were he shot at least 5 times and had a <30% fg% and we struggled to win. Only the Maryland game stands as an example against a reasonably good team where he shot poorly and fairly frequently and we cruised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
I agree that if Dawkins gets 10+ shots per game he'll likely score at least 13-15+ ppg. But that is a LOT of attempts. That'd make him our leading shot-taker. Do we really want a streaky 3pt shooter (who doesn't do much else) taking the most shots on the team? Especially when our second leading shot taker is also going to take over half his shots from 3pt range?
That's not meant to be argumentative. It's a legitimate question. I think our best offensive players next year are likely to be Kelly, Curry, Sulaimon, Mason (if he returns), Dawkins, and perhaps Murphy, and Cook. Dawkins' best attribute is one that is also possessed by 3 other key players, each of whom brings more to the table in other areas. Murphy and Cook are not likely to be as capable offensively as Dawkins, but they each bring something that Dawkins doesn't bring. Does it really make sense to put Dawkins out there over those other guys?
Yup. Step 1 in effective defense is knowing what you're supposed to do in different situations. That can be learned on paper. I'd assume that Dawkins has mastered that by this point. Otherwise, there's not much hope. Step 2 is being able to recognize the situations as they happen. That can (to some degree) be learned through experience. Again, Dawkins has been on the floor long enough that if this is a problem, there's not much hope. Step 3 is maintaining concentration so that you can utilize your learning from Steps 1 and 2. Clearly this is an area of concern for him. But it's something he can fix. The question is whether he also needs to fix Step 2. If Step 2 is still a problem (and I just don't know if it is or isn't), I'm afraid he may continue to be a liability defensively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
Yeah, Curry's FG% is not out of whack for a guy who primarily shoots 3s. He's our most proven ballhandler among returning players (could be surpassed by a healthy, more experienced Cook in this regard) and our most proven scorer. I don't see any way he doesn't start. There may be question as to whether he starts at PG (if Sulaimon is further along than Cook and Thornton) or SG (otherwise), but I'd be shocked if Curry isn't starting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
I think it would be great if Andre shoots ten times a game and is the team's leader in shot attempts, if he can take 3s where he has a good look every time. I always love when Ande is shooting open 3s and feel that is one of the best shots for the team,even if he was a bit cold the last couple games. The issue is that Andre is going to have to move better without the ball, have a dribble move when he is crowded, defend well enough to stay on the floor and have teammates that can get him the ball when he is open. I don't know if all that will happen, but in that case I would be very happy if Andre took the most shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
If he can continually get open 3s, I have no problem with him shooting a lot. If he's hitting 40+% from 3, he's scoring at a 1.2 points per shot rate. That's terrific. The question will be what happens when the defenses focus on him more. Does he work off the ball to try to get open? Does attack the glass? Do the other players create with more space? Is his defense more of a problem than his offense?Quote:
Originally Posted by NSDukeFan
For a team that is going to shoot a lot of 3s already, do we want our primary shot taker to be a guy who takes 70+% of his attempts from 3pt range?
No...Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
Well, that's a good point about both Andre and Seth taking half or more of their shots from 3-point range. But as far as him being able to get 10 shots a game, here's my thinking. Below is the shots per game from our rotation players this past season:Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
Austin: 12.2 (4.7 threes per game)
Seth: 9.9
Ryan: 7.8
Mason: 7.4
Andre: 6.8
Miles: 4.3
Quinn: 3.5
Tyler: 3.0
If we play at a similar pace, we have to divvy up Austin's shots somehow. Between him and Miles there are 16.5 shots that other people will be taking. If Andre, Mason, and Ryan each moved up to 9 shots a game, we'd still have around 5 each for Alex (or Michael), Rasheed and Quinn. And that's only giving Andre an additional two shots per game. If we start that way and Andre plays well, he could probably find another shot per game somewhere. His offensive efficiency has always been very high (117.2, 124.7, and 114.5) in his three years at Duke.
Of course, it could also happen that Rasheed and Alex take 8 shots a game and Andre gets relegated to 3 or 4 shots in 10 to 12 mpg. We obviously won't know until it happens. But I don't think Andre taking 9 or 10 shots a game next year is out of the realm of reasonable possibility. Nor do I think it would be a bad thing.
The thing that bothers me about all that is those 9, 10 shots or whatever would all be 3's, if he was getting to the rack, or even had a decent pull up game then it would be more understandable but he doesn't at this point...defenses would begin to key in on it. Dre hasn't shown much versatility in the way he gets his shots...Im sorry but I don't want Dre taking 9, 10 treys a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
Why not, if he makes four of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by dcar1985
JJ Redick didn't even average 10 three point shots a game. That should probably be argument enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
I don't know if that number stays at 40% doubling his attempts on the season...I have my doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
I honestly just think it would benefit Dre and the team if he could've added some versatility to his game instead of force feeding him 3's
When he takes less than 5 threes: 11-43 (26%)
When he takes 5, 6, 7, or 8 threes: 21-55 (38%)
When he takes more than 8 threes: 34-68 (50%) <--- (!!)
--- Minutes per game in respective categories: 20.8, 22.9, and 30.6
Is Andre just a hot-or-cold, on-or-off, all-or-nothing shooter?
Well, the numbers certainly seem to add fuel to the speculation that the coaches would ride Andre when he was hot and sit him when he was cold. But I don't know if the stats completely settle the debate or not, because you could still argue that if Andre were given additional shots on his supposedly "cold" nights, he probably would have reverted back to the mean. Statistically, at least, that argument should hold water.
Personally, I have no horse in the race. Andre remains a total mystery to me.
*Shrugs*
I think it would depend on whether the extra shots were good shots or forced shots. If they're forced shots then I agree with you. If they're good, open shots in rhythm, I see no reason why Andre shouldn't continue the 40% success rate he's had his entire Duke career.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcar1985
It's a question of efficiency. If he scores 1.2 points per shot shooting threes and 0.9 points per shot shooting twos, I'd rather he shoot threes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcar1985
Good point, JJ only shot 9 threes per game. But if Andre took 10 shots, based on his season and career numbers, only 7 of them would be threes. And assuming he kept up his shooting percentage, I'd be fine with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wander
Definitely, my thinking is..if Dre is taking 9 3's a game, defenses will make him a focal point and key in on it...at that point I don't think he has enough versatility in his game to continue to get good shotsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
To me thats kind of like saying well 3's or worth 3 points and 2's only 2 so we should just shoot all 3's...Quote:
It's a question of efficiency. If he scores 1.2 points per shot shooting threes and 0.9 points per shot shooting twos, I'd rather he shoot threes.
You're forgetting about either Hairston or Marshall, one of whom is going to be the backup big man. That's probably 2-3 shots per game as well. I'd also expect Curry's shots to go up and Sulaimon to shoot more than 5 per game. But that remains to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
We'll see how it plays out. I'm not sure yet, and I think it depends on what we see out of Curry, Cook, Sulaimon, and Murphy. But I'm concerned that going with Dawkins so heavily might make our offense even more one-dimensional than it was this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
If he makes 4 of 9, that would be slightly better than senior-year Redick. I think you'll find that this is unlikely. At that volume of attempts, I'm guessing his success rate will go down rather than go up, as he'll likely be taking more bad 3pt attempts. Dawkins has never averaged more than 5 3s per game for a season. He's mostly taken good decision attempts. Doubling his 3pt attempt rate would, in my opinion, be a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
Now, if he were to expand his game to be able to take 3-5 2pt attempts (and hit over 50% of those without tons of turnovers) to go along with 5-6 3pt attempts, then I'm on board. That will add some more dynamics to the offense, and may help his 3pt shooting too. But that seems unlikely. He's been primarily a spot-up 3pt shooter for his entire career.
I'd have to say....yes. Look at the @FSU, @VT (before the tech), Wake (1st half), and MSU games (mostly 1st half). In those games you could visibly see that he was HUNGRY to find his shot. I remember distincly one shot in the MSU game where the ball was in his hand for about half a second before he launched it, Bilas even remarked something along the lines of "he set his feet in fire". Also there was one shot I believe right before the T in the @VT game where he was working harder than I've ever seen him to get open for his shot, and of course he drained it when he got it. Don't forget that when the Belmont game was on the line he hit a huge 3, and another one late in the Kansas game that was overshadowed by Tyler's back-to-back 3's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jderf
Go way back to his freshman year and he drained I think 4 threes in a row in the Wisconsin game, played huge in the ACC final game against Ga Tech and the regional semifinal against Baylor (2 big threes in the 1st half), only to completely dissapear in so many other games.
My point is he has the ability focus and place himself in the mental state to hit really big shots (or hit a lot of them) in big games, but it seems he struggles with either getting to that state of mind, or staying in that state of mind (see Wake 2nd half). The result...he is (at least up to this point in his college career) and on-off type of player.
I would love to see him come in next season with an off the dribble shot (either around a screen from 3 a-la Curry, or fake 3 drive + pull up for a mid-range a-la Henderson). It may help him stay in the attack frame of mind.
I didn't really forget them. Last year Josh and Michael combined for 2.6 shots per game (I didn't put them in my table), so I figured the 9th & 10th guys would do about the same next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
You could be right. To me, it really depends on Andre's energy level. If he moves around hunting his shot like he did against Michigan State and FSU (1st two games), and Wake, then he makes our offense near unstoppable. If he's just doing his "hang in the corner" thing and we still give him that many shots, then I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
Again, it depends on the quality of his shots. If he takes open, in rhythm shots, I think he's a better pure shooter than JJ, and wouldn't be surprised at 42%, if not 44%. If he takes rushed, forced shots, or even shots at JJ's level of difficulty, then again, I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
Right, but you forgot that some big guy is going to replace Miles's shots. There's going to be a third big guy playing more than Hairston did this past year. As such, I'd expect that guy to take some shots. There will also be about 2-3 shots per game from the 9th and 10th men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
I don't think he's a better pure shooter than Redick. That's obviously a qualitative analysis. But I feel that Redick was the better shooter in virtually every area of the floor (except dunking). And that's why Redick was allowed to shoot so much. Well, that and the guys around him weren't nearly as good as him his junior and senior years. That won't be the case next year and hasn't been the case in Dawkins' career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kedsy
Well, the "Hot Hand" controversy rears up ... again. Most statistical analyses suggest it is mostly or all myth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jderf
I would like to suggest the reason Andre's numbers look good when he takes a lot of shots is because *if* he hits a lot of his early 3s he is left in the game to shoot a lot. In other words, the made shots cause many shots to be taken (and since the early part of the 'many shots' have an unusually good number of makes, the total is liable to show the same, all though lesser, trend), instead of the other way around. K would not be alone in being a classic basketball guy who believes in the hot hand. A quick (and a little dirty) test would be to see if Andre's shooting percentage after (say) shot number 6 is great or about his season avg (which the idea I am presenting would suggest).
I can think of two alternatives to both the "hot hand" theory and your theory:Quote:
Originally Posted by Listen to Quants
1. there is a systematic difference in the style of play in the game that is resulting in differences in success (not likely)
2. there is a systematic difference in Dawkins' confidence and overall level of play when he hits shots early and often as compared to when he misses early and often (more plausible)
The second seems like a very reasonable (though thoroughly difficult to prove) possibility: when Dawkins thinks he's feeling it, he shoots more and plays harder/more focused. When he thinks he's off, he shells up. I guess that sort of falls under the "hot hand" theory, but in a very indirect way.
Okay, the second possibility, which you like a little better and (correctly I believe) identify as falling within the "hot hand" theory, *could* be true *if* Dawkins were a rare bird in this. Obviously the statistical evidence of the failure of the hot hand idea is from massive data, including tons of players. A few for whom it actually was true, would not greatly upset the general statistical trend. Plausible, as Dawkins does seem to travel to the beat of a different drum.Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu