I have three thoughts on minutes affecting players. 1. As young as these guys are, I don't think 30-34 mins per game have an affect on their play at the end of the year. 2. For some reason the last two years we looked tired at the end of the year. 3. I think we were mentally tired and the shots just didn't fall. Last year Rice(BC) avg 38mpg, Vasquez(md) avg 37 mpg, Douglas(Fl St) avg 35 mins, Rich(Fl St), hammonds (Clem), Vassallo(VT) all avg 34mpg. I never heard that their play was adversely affected by 30+mpg. I think that playing for Duke University carries alot of weight on these young guys and some to that weight comes from the Duke fans expectancy. I would just like to see this team play, have fun and enjoy the season. Come prepared every game and take nothing for granted. Defense will win us championships this year. Go Duke!
Thanks all for the stats websites. I knew about the GoDuke one, but not the Charlie one. I want to check it out and see if I can find some of the all-time minutes guys.
Anyone wanna take any guesses at who the top 3 (by minutes played over a career) at Duke would be?
Okay, I might be stupid, but is there a way to find top minutes played at Duke? I couldn't find it at GoDuke or Charlie, unless you go through each career individually... anyone know of a place of the top, or should I really look?
Oh lordy, never saw that before. Thanks!
Okay, here we go... hey, I'll make it another thread, maybe people will enjoy guessing (if they don't already know.)
I know this may be oversimplifying it quite a bit, but those three guys are far and away Duke's best players, and for Duke to be good they have to be on the floor. When any one of those guys is sitting Duke drops a notch. These guys are Duke's best scorers, and it becomes increasingly hard to sit them when Duke struggles a bit offensively, as they have lately. I think this becomes more of a moot point if some of the other guys, namely Nolan and Zoubek, can pick up their level of play as conference games continue. Both of those guys have played at a high level multiple other times this season, and they could find that groove again any game.
The other consequence of the starters playing a lot of minutes (which has also been discussed on these boards) is that the bench players aren't getting those minutes. No one really knows for sure what would the impact be if they did. Let's say it's the middle of the ACC season and player X, a starter, sits on the bench for a few minutes so that player Y can get into the game. Maybe player Y gains some valuable experience that comes in handy later in the year. But then again, what if player Y commits a couple turnovers and we end up losing the game? Was that a worthwhile tradeoff? Because of the loss, the confidence of the team as a whole goes down (which, I would argue, causes a mental "tiredness" that is worse than the physical fatigue of playing). It may impact our seeding in the tournament, which has a huge effect on our post-season success. And player Y isn't necessarily any more ready to contribute at the end of the year as a result of this.
Obviously this is a theoretical situation, and one thing does not directly lead to another... but I guess my point is that before saying that a certain player should play more or fewer minutes, you need to consider the alternatives.
I think people are mixing two subjects. Sure, kids can get tired, for a variety of reasons. I don't think anybody's disputing that, nor (I assume) does anyone doubt that several Duke players have worn down in recent years, because the coaches and kids themselves have said so. What some people (including me) are taking issue with is the idea that the wearing down has anything to do with how many minutes the kids play in the games. As someone who played ice hockey then and who plays pickup basketball now, the idea that five extra minutes of game time, twice a week in January, can be responsible for fatigue in March seems ludicrous.
What I think is we, as fans, don't see the practices; we don't see the kids in the locker room or (for the most part) on the campus. We can't say or measure why some of them have appeared to wear down in recent years so we latch onto one of the few (perhaps only) things we can objectively measure, which is minutes played per game. But just because we can measure it doesn't mean it's the cause of the problem.
I've never understood the whole idea of players wearing out during a college season... the game is only 40 minutes long... halftime...timesouts...tv timeouts....
Soccer is more physical and the halves are 45 minutes long. Maybe playing on a hard surface is far worse on the knees and ankles - but pro's seem to deal with it o.k. with older slower healing bodies and they play longer games and 5009380847190 more during the season.
These are just my thoughts, but I'm def not a bball expert. If there is any prolonged fatigue its probably just the mental stress you deal with when you decide to play at a program like Duke - especially if your a freshmen/soph and expected to help carry the team.
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”
Where is the assumption on his part? With all due respect, your post--which does not address any of quickgtp's substance--looks like it was done simply to point out that you were a D-1 athlete (what substance is there in your response other than that?). So, in the words of a great poster here, "it's great that you were a D1 athlete". Perhaps you can drawn on that experience and provide a substantive response.
quickgtp's perspective as a former athlete is valuable. I did not intend to diminish that.
The words he chose to begin his post after quoting me, though, "People need to realize" and "I know from personal experience", suggested to me that he was asserting that his perspective (that of a college athlete) was, so far, unique in this thread and so worthy of a certain authority. The point of my response was to note that other former athletes post here, as well.
I don't see my response as particularly different than if I had bolted "I was an athlete in college, and based on my personal experience I have trouble with..." on to the beginning of my original post.
If my response was too abrupt for your taste, well, I'm sorry about that. Again, I don't mean to diminish the value of quickgtp's experience, just to point out that a singular personal experience, while valuable, isn't authoritative simply because it comes from an athlete.
Perhaps I was just overly sensitive to the wording of his first sentence "People need to realize" after he quoted me.
Oh yeah, don't forget school, girls, dogs, bills, shopping, community service, interviews, autograph sessions, pick-up ball, meet and greet with recruits, weightlifting, bruises, and I think you get the picture.
As a person who has burnt out from JUST life, I'm sure life as an elite athlete is quite a grind. As a pro - you get paid to sit in the training room. In college - you have to study in the training room. Huge difference.