MBB: Duke 74, FSU 66 - Post-Game Thread

As I mentioned, having spent some time on IC enjoying their misery of a couple of weeks ago, I am mindful of them as an example of how not to be.

I think you can complain about refs and specific calls. When you get to unraveling the chain of causation enough to claim that, but for call x we would have won, or but for cumulative effects of calls a though x double prime, we would have won, then you are well into being one of that which you despise.

However, my problem was with when the worst of the calls took place. It sure felt to me in real time that, when Duke got some separation and was plus or minus 10 points ahead, those were the points where the refs stepped in to manipulate the momentum of the game. It helps that James' continuation call was one of those that they replayed on SportsCenter. It should be required viewing for all aspiring referees as to what continuation isn't.

Sports illustrated has a nice write-up of the game that goes far beyond the live by the three, die by the three narrative that IC, Vitale, and the rest of the sports world was talking about. Basically, it talks about how the vast majority of Duke's threes came off of penetration by Austin or Seth followed by kickouts . . . i.e. high quality shots from the arc that were created by good ball movement/screens/dribble penetration. There was absolutely no similarity between Duke's use of the three point shot and . . . say Kentucky's use of the three point shot in 2010 in the tourney against WVU when they clanked a bajillion threes against Huggy's zone after standing around on the perimeter for 35 seconds. Last night, our guards and bigs did an excellent job creating high quality open shots for our three point shooters. The national media has gone to great lengths to talk about how important it is to get "easy" buckets. Well, open three's from Seth, Ryan, and Andre are some seriously valuable "easy" buckets. As long as our three pointers come from the type of execution we had last night, I'm totally fine with us taking 27 per game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

I think the rule is that if you are guarding the inbounder, it is a technical if you reach across and touch the inbounder. You also have to stay in-bounds. I recall the play you're describing (I think) and the guy who went out of bounds was chasing after someone else. Refs must not have thought it was an attempt to guard the inbounder.

Perhaps all of this is wrong, though -- someone will no doubt correct me if it is.

---

You don't have to touch the inbounder to breach the rule; there is an invisible plane that extends from the baseline upwards to infinity. The defender is not supposed to be allowed to cross that plane with any part of his body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superdave

I think the main issue with Andre is how focused he is at working hard to get open. Opponents know he can shoot and will not leave him open, so he has to use screens and work really hard to get free. Some games he does, some games he seems disinterested. Well, deferential is probably a better word than disinterested. But he does not work consistently hard each game, all game to get open. That's the issue in my opinion.

---

I think your change of wording is important, as I don't think we have seen a "disinterested" Andre for a long time--over the last several games he has looked continually engaged, trying to play effectively on both ends of the court (if not always totally succeeding), and talking to his teammates. But in some games he does seem to defer more to Austin, Seth or others on offense while in others he seems to work harder to get open. That being said, there have also been some times, as the poster you responded to suggested, when he has been wide open and even calling for the ball but his teammates don't pass to him. That may just fall under the heading of "stuff happens" but it is worth considering the possibility that Andre's "now you see him now you don't" offensive statistics may result partly from his teammates' play as well as his own.

While I'm on this subject, Austin Rivers said something after the game last night that I thought was interesting--Andre's value comes not only from his own shooting but from his ability to keep defenses honest (those weren't Austin's exact words, but that's pretty much what he meant). If they have to guard him, that makes more opportunities for Austin, and for Seth and others. In some games where we don't see Andre scoring a lot it, he seems pretty well covered most of the time. If he is fully occupying a defender, maybe that is the role he needs to play in that sequence no matter how hard he is trying to get open on that particular play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superdave

I think the main issue with Andre is how focused he is at working hard to get open. Opponents know he can shoot and will not leave him open, so he has to use screens and work really hard to get free. Some games he does, some games he seems disinterested. Well, deferential is probably a better word than disinterested. But he does not work consistently hard each game, all game to get open. That's the issue in my opinion.

---

[11th grade English vocabulary rant] Distinterested means unbiased. If you are a criminal you definitely want to get a disinterested judge. Uninterested means not interested. [/11th grade English vocabulary rant]

History has shown that one of the worst things a team can do is peak too soon. Has FSU peaked too soon and started a decline for the remainder of the year? I think so. They are talented and capable, but do they have time and the ability to regroup and be a factor in ACC tournament or NCAA tournament time? Unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COYS

Sports illustrated has a nice write-up of the game that goes far beyond the live by the three, die by the three narrative that IC, Vitale, and the rest of the sports world was talking about. Basically, it talks about how the vast majority of Duke's threes came off of penetration by Austin or Seth followed by kickouts . . . i.e. high quality shots from the arc that were created by good ball movement/screens/dribble penetration. There was absolutely no similarity between Duke's use of the three point shot and . . . say Kentucky's use of the three point shot in 2010 in the tourney against WVU when they clanked a bajillion threes against Huggy's zone after standing around on the perimeter for 35 seconds. Last night, our guards and bigs did an excellent job creating high quality open shots for our three point shooters. The national media has gone to great lengths to talk about how important it is to get "easy" buckets. Well, open three's from Seth, Ryan, and Andre are some seriously valuable "easy" buckets. As long as our three pointers come from the type of execution we had last night, I'm totally fine with us taking 27 per game.

---

Exactly. And look at the 3-point shooters year to date:

Seth Curry 52-132 .394
Ryan Kelly 35-85 .412
Austin Rivers 51-126 .405
Andre Dawkins 65-158 .422

With sometimes 3 or even 4 of them playing at the same time along with the above mentioned ball movement....very hard to defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COYS

. Basically, it talks about how the vast majority of Duke's threes came off of penetration by Austin or Seth followed by kickouts . . . i.e. high quality shots from the arc that were created by good ball movement/screens/dribble penetration. Last night, our guards and bigs did an excellent job creating high quality open shots for our three point shooters. The national media has gone to great lengths to talk about how important it is to get "easy" buckets. Well, open three's from Seth, Ryan, and Andre are some seriously valuable "easy" buckets. As long as our three pointers come from the type of execution we had last night, I'm totally fine with us taking 27 per game.

---

Credit for growth in his game to Austin here. A number of times, he drove the lane, and instead of forcing up shots in the face of tough defense, he passed out to perimeter for a better look. Almost more important then the fact that he passed was that he clearly knew where his teammates were going to be to receive the pass. He had a plan that he executed on the way to the basket that gave him multiple options. He wasn't as good at that at the beginning of the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsvman

You don't have to touch the inbounder to breach the rule; there is an invisible plane that extends from the baseline upwards to infinity. The defender is not supposed to be allowed to cross that plane with any part of his body.

---

Touching the player inbounding the ball is an intentional foul. Touching the ball is a technical. You also may not reach across the line to deflect the ball after it has left the player's hands. These are high school rules, but he NCAA ones probably are the same. Don't care to look them up.

I'm glad I am not the only one who knows the difference between disinterested and uninterested. Speaking of the misplacement of "only," that is a grammar rant for another day.

Loved the effort last night, great game for us.

As far as the refs, I was yelling at the TV most of the night, but hey I do that EVERY GAME.... Go Duke!!

I had the sound off, cannot bare Dickie V any longer... he is beyond bad, he is actually more distracting than helpful in letting you know what is going on at the game... talks about EVERYTHING, but the game at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cniedringhaus

History has shown that one of the worst things a team can do is peak too soon. Has FSU peaked too soon and started a decline for the remainder of the year? I think so. They are talented and capable, but do they have time and the ability to regroup and be a factor in ACC tournament or NCAA tournament time? Unlikely.

---

FSU has a lot of experience and is a tough lot. I don't see them fading. I also think the best part about getting a #1 seed in the ACC tourney is that #2 probably has to play FSU in the semi's.

This is a very good Seminole team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

FSU has a lot of experience and is a tough lot. I don't see them fading. I also think the best part about getting a #1 seed in the ACC tourney is that #2 probably has to play FSU in the semi's.

This is a very good Seminole team.

---

This is a very salient point. It would be so much better for us as far as wear and tear through the three days if we were on the opposite side of the bracket from fsu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

FSU has a lot of experience and is a tough lot. I don't see them fading. I also think the best part about getting a #1 seed in the ACC tourney is that #2 probably has to play FSU in the semi's.

This is a very good Seminole team.

---

Agree. Their length and athleticism on the defensive end alone is enough for them to contend with some of the best teams in the country. On the other hand, their offense is inconsistent enough that they can lose to some of the worst (like BC . . . note that I REFUSE to put Princeton in that category ;)). However, they've shown they can play really well in their biggest games. They lost last night, but there was no lack of effort on their part. If they are engaged defensively and are able to hit some three's, they'll collect enough offensive boards and get enough put-backs, dunks, and oops to upset higher seeds. With their experience, I think FSU is a darkhorse to make a surprising tourney run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WakeDevil

Touching the player inbounding the ball is an intentional foul. Touching the ball is a technical. You also may not reach across the line to deflect the ball after it has left the player's hands. These are high school rules, but he NCAA ones probably are the same. Don't care to look them up.

I'm glad I am not the only one who knows the difference between disinterested and uninterested. Speaking of the misplacement of "only," that is a grammar rant for another day.

---

As a college composition instructor, I can tell you that you are one of a dying breed, alas. The (very valuable) distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested" is going the way of the dinosaur, or of the equally valuable distinction between "reticent" and "reluctant." Now that these errors are common in published writing, it's probably not surprising that many people no longer realize the differences exist. And superdave, please accept my apologies if this feels like piling on; language changes, and there are always going to be a few of us diehards who try to hold on to the old ways....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldnavy

Loved the effort last night, great game for us.

As far as the refs, I was yelling at the TV most of the night, but hey I do that EVERY GAME.... Go Duke!!

I had the sound off, cannot bare Dickie V any longer... he is beyond bad, he is actually more distracting than helpful in letting you know what is going on at the game... talks about EVERYTHING, but the game at hand.

---

My "favorite" Dickie V. moment was when he announced that UNC would be cheering for Florida State. Eventually the other guy had to point out that, actually, it was in UNC's interest for Duke to win this game, odd though that might seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

As a college composition instructor, I can tell you that you are one of a dying breed, alas. The (very valuable) distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested" is going the way of the dinosaur, or of the equally valuable distinction between "reticent" and "reluctant." Now that these errors are common in published writing, it's probably not surprising that many people no longer realize the differences exist.

---

I submit "healthy" and "healthful" to this list. While it is important to eat healthy foods because eating fruits and vegetables that are in poor health would probably not be good for one's stomach, most people should really concentrate on eating healthful foods that will provide good nourishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

As a college composition instructor, I can tell you that you are one of a dying breed, alas. The (very valuable) distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested" is going the way of the dinosaur, or of the equally valuable distinction between "reticent" and "reluctant." Now that these errors are common in published writing, it's probably not surprising that many people no longer realize the differences exist.

---

Carry on, sir. One of my peeves is the incorrect usage of "fewer" and "less", but that too seems to be a lost cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

As a college composition instructor, I can tell you that you are one of a dying breed, alas. The (very valuable) distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested" is going the way of the dinosaur, or of the equally valuable distinction between "reticent" and "reluctant." Now that these errors are common in published writing, it's probably not surprising that many people no longer realize the differences exist.

---

Irregardless . . . .



(that one really bugs me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ffward

Even in tennis the chair umpire has over-ruled the “electronic eye” on numerous occasions.

---

A little off-topic, but I do not believe this is the case. An umpire overrules the linesmen, and/or may even deny a challenge request if it comes too late (see: controversy in Nalbandian-Isner match at 2012 Australian Open). But overruling Hawkeye? Haven't ever seen a case of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roywhite

Carry on, sir. One of my peeves is the incorrect usage of "fewer" and "less", but that too seems to be a lost cause.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

Irregardless . . . .



(that one really bugs me)

---

Fewer and less, irregardless--now you are just setting my teeth on edge. Don't get me started--lie and lay (how many times lately have I seen something like "he was laying on the ground"--laying what? an egg?), flaunt and flout, imply and infer, my head is spinning. A current favorite of my students that drives me nuts is "based off of" instead of "based on." If you think about that one, it doesn't actually make sense.