Starting Line Up 2009-10

[Duke #33]

I'm looking forward to watching Singler in his final year though.

Hey, maybe he comes back for his senior year because he sees potential for a deep tourny run with that class/year.
A little optimistic, but I am a glass half full type of person.

[Kedsy]

I disagree. The ONLY argument for "All 3 guards start" is that you want all your best players starting. The arguments for the other side are NUMEROUS and fairly convincing. My perception is that the "All 3 guards start" crowd is a distinct minority on this board and they break down in to two groups:

1) All 3 guards start, but we end up playing Singler and/or Kelly at the SF position more than the guards.

- This position is not really distinguishable from the "Start 2 and bring 1 off the bench" group. There is certainly a meeting of the minds with the two groups on how minutes are distributed here. The only difference is how this first faction sees K starting the game off (those first 5 minutes).

2) All 3 guards will start and be on the court together as much as humanly possible... ~35+ minutes/game.

- This faction of "All 3 guards start" believers have it in their head that 4 of our players (Jon, Nolan, E-will, and Kyle) will play ~70% of this team's minutes. They believe that the other 30% will go to the remaining 6 PFs/Centers on the team. My belief is that this second faction is pretty small and will be shouted down before the season starts.

You can shout all you want, but the fact is Coach K routinely plays his top 4 guys 30 to 33 mpg and a 5th guy in the 23 to 30 range. (I didn't look up every year, but the first seven years I checked, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2006 all followed this pattern; I'm sure there are many others.) Next year, the top 4 will be Kyle, Jon, Nolan, and Elliot, and the 5th guy will probably be Lance although maybe Mason.

In this scenario, the top 5 guys play between 70% and 80% of the available minutes. Once you've established this, it really doesn't matter who starts, but it's more likely than not that the top 5 guys will be the ones who start the game. If for no other reason than they're going to be playing the lion's share of the minutes so it's more likely than not that they'll be playing in any particular minute you choose, including the first one.

If your argument is that 35 mpg for the 4 top guys is unrealistic but you'll believe 33 mpg (as happened in 2000 and 2006 and undoubtedly a few other years) then it's just semantics. If you're saying that any of Kyle, Jon, Elliot, and Nolan will play fewer than 30 mpg then I think you're the one who's in the minority. You claim the arguments on the other side are "numerous and fairly convincing" (and you apparently think they're so "numerous" it justifies all caps) but once you agree that the guards and Kyle will play 30+ minutes, I can't think of a single reason that's convincing at all.

Oh, and by the way, what does "shouted down before the season starts" even mean? How will you disprove a reasonable and rational theory before games start being played and we see how K deploys his roster? If you shout them down will it make it less likely that K decides to go that route?

So go ahead and shout me down. I can take it.

[COYS]

Frankly, I think this will be a fun year, and there is much upside, though balanced against a thin margin for error.

I think this is a very fair assessment for our team. We need a lot of things to go right to make a deep run next year (Williams and Smith will have to step up, Scheyer and Singler will have to improve on their already great play, the freshman will have to make an impact or at least Lance and Zoubs have to have a much greater impact). If any of these things don't pan out, we probably will be just short of championship caliber. However, if Singler gives us the ACC POY we know he has in him, if Smith rebounds and improves, if Williams develops his outside shot, and if Mason or Kelly can make an impact (or if one of our other veteran forwards suddenly breaks out), we'll be in very good shape.

[FireOgilvie]

If you look at minute distributions in past seasons, it becomes obvious that the top 3 or 4 guys will be playing right around 30 or more minutes each (depending on depth and team makeup). Scheyer played 32.8 min/gm last year. Singler was 32.2 min/gm. Henderson was 29.7 min/gm. Nolan was splitting time with Paulus, and he played 21.6 min/gm. Thomas was 18.6 min/gm (splitting time with Zoubek and McClure). Elliot played in the high 20's after earning starting minutes near the end of the season (keep in mind Nolan was out for part of this). Here is my prediction of minute distributions among our top 4 guys next year (keeping in mind we only have 3 guards):

Scheyer - 35 min/gm
Singler - 33 min/gm
Nolan - 30 min/gm
Elliot - 30 min/gm

Total - 128 min/gm = 64% of total minutes

I think these will be accurate season averages (+/- 2) barring injuries. Players tend to average more minutes as the season goes on and the bench shortens.

An interesting and very important note:

If you are one of the people that thinks we should be playing all 3 guards at the same time as much as possible (but no fewer than 2 at any time), there are mathematical limitations. First, assume Scheyer at 35 min/gm, Nolan at 30 min/gm, and Elliot at 30 min/gm. Second, assume we're going to have 2 of the 3 guards on the floor at all times. If these things happen, all 3 guards will play simultaneously for only 15 min/gm. That's less than one half. So mathematically, we're going to have to use Singler/Kelly/Olek for 25 minutes/gm at the 3 spot. Just something to think about.

The rest of the players' minutes breakdown:

Looking at the numbers above, 64% of the total minutes are taken by the top 4 players. This leaves 72 minutes/game for other players. These minutes will be have to be divided between Lance, Zoubek, Mason, Miles, Kelly, and Olek. Divided equally, that's 12 minutes for each person per game (not bad).

- Thomas averaged just over 18 min/gm the past two years. We'll give him the same amount this year - 19 min/gm (53 min left).

- I think Mason should come in and get solid minutes. I'm guessing 17 min/gm at center on the year (36 min left).

- Zoubek will probably average 1 or 2 more than last year, IMO. He had almost 12 min/gm last year. We'll give him 14 min/gm. (22 min left)

- I'm guessing Kelly will get the most minutes of the remaining 3. We'll say 11 min/gm. Miles could get 7. That leaves 4 for Olek.

Recap:

Scheyer - 35 min/gm
Singler - 33 min/gm
Smith - 30 min/gm
Williams - 30 min/gm
Thomas - 19 min/gm
Plumlee II - 17 min/gm
Zoubek - 14 min/gm
Kelly - 11 min/gm
Plumlee I - 7 min/gm
Olek - 4 min/gm

This is one potential breakdown. My preference would be completely different than this, but this is a possible scenario.

[MrBisonDevil]

Logging Most Starts :
G Nolan Smith
G Jon Scheyer
G Elliot Williams
F Kyle Singler
F Thomas 65% /Zoubek 35% (depends on matchup)

6th F/C Plumlee (not sure which one - depends on Mile's summer - he will be the high energy sub @ 18mpg)
7th F/C Plumlee (the other one)
8th F Ryan Kelly (tall ranged bomber)
9th F/C Zoubek 65% /Thomas 35%

All of the above nine should average above 10mpg.

[whereinthehellami]

Logging Most Starts :
G Nolan Smith
G Jon Scheyer
G Elliot Williams
F Kyle Singler
F Thomas 65% /Zoubek 35% (depends on matchup)

6th F/C Plumlee (not sure which one - depends on Mile's summer - he will be the high energy sub @ 18mpg)
7th F/C Plumlee (the other one)
8th F Ryan Kelly (tall ranged bomber)
9th F/C Zoubek 65% /Thomas 35%

All of the above nine should average above 10mpg.

I don't see Kelly getting 10 MPG this year unless he loads up on minutes in out of conference games. I think that with his lack of speed and strength he is at least a year away from being able to defend any frontcourt player in the ACC. Plus Duke is pretty deep in the froncourt and competition will be fierce. It is asking alot of a freshman big guy to come in and figure it all out.

[roywhite]

I understand the concern about how the 09/10 team will shake out, but how many programs in the country will have a roster with 7 McDonald's All-Americans?

Only 3 guards, but Scheyer, EWill, and Nolan were all Burger Boys. Up front, there's Lance Thomas, Singler, and the two big frosh, Mason P. and Ryan Kelly, continuing the tradition of multiple Mickey Dees.

The usual disclaimers about their HS credentials being no guarantee of future stardom, etc... but, that's a lot of talent to work with.

And our Hall of Fame Coach returns.

[ArnieMc]

I don't see Kelly getting 10 MPG this year unless he loads up on minutes in out of conference games. I think that with his lack of speed and strength he is at least a year away from being able to defend any frontcourt player in the ACC. Plus Duke is pretty deep in the froncourt and competition will be fierce. It is asking alot of a freshman big guy to come in and figure it all out.

I don't know. He is highly ranked for a reason. As shown in the all-star games, he already has offensive moves. One of the commentators mentioned that he had shown 3 different moves, and no one else had shown any. He will be a nightmare match up with his 3-point shot and post moves. I do agree, however, that his playing time will depend on his ability to defend.

[roywhite]

I don't know. He is highly ranked for a reason. As shown in the all-star games, he already has offensive moves. One of the commentators mentioned that he had shown 3 different moves, and no one else had shown any. He will be a nightmare match up with his 3-point shot and post moves. I do agree, however, that his playing time will depend on his ability to defend.

One of the things I've noticed watching the NBA playoffs is the value of a big guy who can shoot from outside. Creates matchup problems, stretches the opposing defense, provides a good offensive option during crunch time, etc.

I could see Kelly leading the team in scoring at some point and being one of the highest scorers in the conference; will that happen in 2009/10?...probably not, but he is definitely a weapon.

[mo.st.dukie]

I think Ryan will have a long adjustment period to the college game, longer than Mason. Once he acclimates to the physicality of the game and puts on weight (probably not until year 2 or 3) he could be an All-ACC caliber player. Mason, however, probably is ready to contribute right away although probably won't dominate. I could also see Lance getting a good portion of the minutes at C if Coach K decides to go small and quick. Zoubs will be used against big, slow centers much like the Texas game where he was effective against Pittman.

[InSpades]

An interesting and very important note:

If you are one of the people that thinks we should be playing all 3 guards at the same time as much as possible (but no fewer than 2 at any time), there are mathematical limitations. First, assume Scheyer at 35 min/gm, Nolan at 30 min/gm, and Elliot at 30 min/gm. Second, assume we're going to have 2 of the 3 guards on the floor at all times. If these things happen, all 3 guards will play simultaneously for only 15 min/gm. That's less than one half. So mathematically, we're going to have to use Singler/Kelly/Olek for 25 minutes/gm at the 3 spot. Just something to think about.

I was going to make this point yesterday but never got around to it. I think 35/30/30 for Jon/Nolan/Elliot is reasonable for the 2nd half of the season. In the 1st half it will likely be slightly less than that. If you take it down to 33/28/28 then you have the 3-guard lineup in for about 10 minutes. Do you really want 5 of those minutes to be starting the game?

[CDu]

In this scenario, the top 5 guys play between 70% and 80% of the available minutes. Once you've established this, it really doesn't matter who starts, but it's more likely than not that the top 5 guys will be the ones who start the game. If for no other reason than they're going to be playing the lion's share of the minutes so it's more likely than not that they'll be playing in any particular minute you choose, including the first one.

This is not quite accurate. Take the situation with the guards for example. Let's assume that Scheyer plays 35 minutes per game, and Smith and Williams each play 30 minutes per game. I'd assume these to be reasonable estimates, given the propensity for Smith and Williams to commit fouls with their aggressive defense. In that scenario, the guards will be playing 79.1% of the possible minutes.

Now note that we will never have fewer than two guards on the floor at a time. So this means that for the 10 minutes in which Williams is out, Smith and Scheyer must be on the floor. That means that Smith has only 20 minutes in which both Scheyer and Williams could be on the floor. But Scheyer will be on the bench for 5 of those minutes.

So despite the fact that those three guards are playing basically 80% of the game, they're only on the floor together for 15 minutes per game. Thus, we'll be playing a two-guard lineup for the majority of the game. So it is more likely that in any minute you choose, we'll be playing just two guards. So by your own logic, the first minute should be more likely to be played by only two guards.

[CDu]

I understand the concern about how the 09/10 team will shake out, but how many programs in the country will have a roster with 7 McDonald's All-Americans?

Only 3 guards, but Scheyer, EWill, and Nolan were all Burger Boys. Up front, there's Lance Thomas, Singler, and the two big frosh, Mason P. and Ryan Kelly, continuing the tradition of multiple Mickey Dees.

The usual disclaimers about their HS credentials being no guarantee of future stardom, etc... but, that's a lot of talent to work with.

And our Hall of Fame Coach returns.

I realize that you caveat your argument with the next to last paragraph, but...

You do realize that we had seven All-Americans last year, too, right? In fact, we haven't had fewer than six All-Americans on the roster in any year in the last decade. In 2002-2003, we had 8 All-Americans, and yet we were a 3-seed in the tournament.

In and of itself, the number of All-Americans on the roster is not a really good argument for why we'll be great.

[roywhite]

I realize that you caveat your argument with the next to last paragraph, but...

You do realize that we had seven All-Americans last year, too, right? In fact, we haven't had fewer than six All-Americans on the roster in any year in the last decade. In 2002-2003, we had 8 All-Americans, and yet we were a 3-seed in the tournament.

In and of itself, the number of All-Americans on the roster is not a really good argument for why we'll be great.

Yeah, gotcha... Just a "cup is half-full" point to get out there.

Okay, by logic and breakdown of minutes as expressed by you and other posters, makes sense to start two guards.

So, which two guards? I'll guess Scheyer and Nolan, with EWill coming off the bench to spell minutes at either 2 or 3.

Who else starts? With perhaps some trial and error, I think Kyle, Lance Thomas, and Mason Plumlee are the other starters.

EWill as first guy off bench overall, and Zoubs as first big off bench.

Biggest wild cards (can play themselves in or out of lineup)---Miles P. and Ryan Kelly. Comfort level, experience, ability to pick up defense are the variables there.

Just my .02. Do we really have to wait 6 months to find out?

[BlueintheFace]

You can shout all you want, but the fact is Coach K routinely plays his top 4 guys 30 to 33 mpg and a 5th guy in the 23 to 30 range. (I didn't look up every year, but the first seven years I checked, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2006 all followed this pattern; I'm sure there are many others.) Next year, the top 4 will be Kyle, Jon, Nolan, and Elliot, and the 5th guy will probably be Lance although maybe Mason.

Okay? This breakdown looks more like the "start 2 guards" group or the first faction of the "start three guards group. I have no problem here except that, if we assume the three guards all average 33mpg, Kyle/ Kelly/??? will be playing more minutes at the SF position than the guards. Why not just start him there? Shouldn't we start our players where they will spend most of their minutes if possible? Doesn't that make sense most of the time sense it would be affirming our team identity? This is not a very big deal though, and like I said. I believe reasonable arguments could be made here both ways.

In this scenario, the top 5 guys play between 70% and 80% of the available minutes. Once you've established this, it really doesn't matter who starts, but it's more likely than not that the top 5 guys will be the ones who start the game. If for no other reason than they're going to be playing the lion's share of the minutes so it's more likely than not that they'll be playing in any particular minute you choose, including the first one.

See- Jon Scheyer (2007-2008)

Sometimes it DOES NOT make more sense to start the 5 guys who will receive the most minutes.

If your argument is that 35 mpg for the 4 top guys is unrealistic but you'll believe 33 mpg (as happened in 2000 and 2006 and undoubtedly a few other years) then it's just semantics. If you're saying that any of Kyle, Jon, Elliot, and Nolan will play fewer than 30 mpg then I think you're the one who's in the minority. You claim the arguments on the other side are "numerous and fairly convincing" (and you apparently think they're so "numerous" it justifies all caps) but once you agree that the guards and Kyle will play 30+ minutes, I can't think of a single reason that's convincing at all.

How did you turn this in to a debate solely on minutes? I believe this is ultimately a debate on rotations. I think all of our guards will receive at least 28mpg and maybe even 30mpg. I believe Jon and Kyle will play 33-35 mpg in ACC play and beyond. Ultimately, I think our 3 guards and Kyle will take on 64-67% of the minutes. This does not at all mean that I believe all three will start. It's not about minutes, it's about rotations. More often then not (in both of our proposed minutes) Duke will be running a rotation with Singler at SF (or Kelly, if you are the kind of person always optimistic about freshman). No matter how you work the numbers, Duke will be a team that plays bigger next year than it did this year. Duke will spend more time running two guard rotations than three guard rotations. It's just math. So, as I have said, I think it is reasonable to believe that all 3 guards start if you recognize that "all 3 guards" will not be playing together more often than not. The problem with the second faction of "start all 3 guards" is their rejection of this mathematical probabilities.


NUMEROUS:
1) Foul Trouble
2) Injury Exposure
3) PRACTICE!!!!
4) Fitness
5) Matchups

Oh, and by the way, what does "shouted down before the season starts" even mean? How will you disprove a reasonable and rational theory before games start being played and we see how K deploys his roster?

Math

If you shout them down will it make it less likely that K decides to go that route?

No, and I hate it when people do this. K obviously doesn't care what we think about rotations. Claiming that somebody is wrong in some way because it won't affect K's decisions stinks of desperation. It's like saying, "Nu-uh, you're wrong and nobody even cares about that anyways."

[CDu]

Yeah, gotcha... Just a "cup is half-full" point to get out there.

Okay, by logic and breakdown of minutes as expressed by you and other posters, makes sense to start two guards.

So, which two guards? I'll guess Scheyer and Nolan, with EWill coming off the bench to spell minutes at either 2 or 3.

Who else starts? With perhaps some trial and error, I think Kyle, Lance Thomas, and Mason Plumlee are the other starters.

EWill as first guy off bench overall, and Zoubs as first big off bench.

Biggest wild cards (can play themselves in or out of lineup)---Miles P. and Ryan Kelly. Comfort level, experience, ability to pick up defense are the variables there.

Just my .02. Do we really have to wait 6 months to find out?

If I had to guess, I'd say that Smith and Scheyer will start in the backcourt with Singler, Thomas, and one of the Plumlees in the frontcourt. The fifth spot is the one at which I see the most room for variation, though. I could see either of the Plumlees or Zoubek getting the starts, and they may rotate depending upon the opponent.

Of course, you never know. Coach K could decide to start the game small and quick, and then bring in the big lineup at the 15 minute mark, and rotate between big and small as the game dictates (either via matchups or foul trouble in the backcourt).

Either way, it's going to require a LOT of development from a lot of guys for this to work. Singler and one of Kelly, Czyz, and Thomas is going to have to show that they can handle playing as a wing, because we're going to see 25-30 minutes per game with a two-guard lineup. And two of Smith, Scheyer, and Williams are going to have to show that they can be consistent playmakers (either in the point guard role or as more of a lead guard) to offset both the loss of Henderson and the lack of a point guard. And at least two of Zoubek, Thomas, and the Plumlees are going to need to show they can be regular contributors in the post.

[Kedsy]

See- Jon Scheyer (2007-2008)

Sometimes it DOES NOT make more sense to start the 5 guys who will receive the most minutes.

I agree sometimes it does not make sense. I also believe, however, that kids' egos are sensitive things and you should only ask them to sublimate themselves if you have a good reason. And I'm not sure I buy the reasons people are proffering.

The problem with the second faction of "start all 3 guards" is their rejection of this mathematical probabilities.

I agree with this. As previous posters have shown the 3 guards will probably only play together for 15 minutes, give or take. However, it would not be unreasonable for these to be the first few and last few minutes of each half.

NUMEROUS:
1) Foul Trouble
2) Injury Exposure
3) PRACTICE!!!!
4) Fitness
5) Matchups

Out of these, the only one I buy is matchups. Clearly we will and should have different starting lineups depending on matchups. But how will starting vs. coming into the game 5 minutes later change a player's exposure to fouls or injuries? That one doesn't make sense to me. And if you assume the total minutes played by each player are going to be the same, how does fitness play into this at all?

The practice argument is not persuasive, either, at least to me. If K believes a certain starting lineup gives him the best chance to win, is it more likely he abandons it because it makes it harder for the teams in practice scrimmages to be divvied up the way he usually does it, or is it more likely he changes the way he chooses the practice teams? To me, that one's a no-brainer.

Math

Math tells you that the three guards can only play together for 15 minutes. It does not have any bearing on when those minutes can or should occur.

No, and I hate it when people do this. K obviously doesn't care what we think about rotations. Claiming that somebody is wrong in some way because it won't affect K's decisions stinks of desperation. It's like saying, "Nu-uh, you're wrong and nobody even cares about that anyways."

Well, I apologize if that's the way you took my post. What bothered me was when you seemed to dismiss reasonable arguments and suggest they be shouted down.

[BlueintheFace]

I agree sometimes it does not make sense. I also believe, however, that kids' egos are sensitive things and you should only ask them to sublimate themselves if you have a good reason. And I'm not sure I buy the reasons people are proffering.



I agree with this. As previous posters have shown the 3 guards will probably only play together for 15 minutes, give or take. However, it would not be unreasonable for these to be the first few and last few minutes of each half.



Out of these, the only one I buy is matchups. Clearly we will and should have different starting lineups depending on matchups. But how will starting vs. coming into the game 5 minutes later change a player's exposure to fouls or injuries? That one doesn't make sense to me. And if you assume the total minutes played by each player are going to be the same, how does fitness play into this at all?

The practice argument is not persuasive, either, at least to me. If K believes a certain starting lineup gives him the best chance to win, is it more likely he abandons it because it makes it harder for the teams in practice scrimmages to be divvied up the way he usually does it, or is it more likely he changes the way he chooses the practice teams? To me, that one's a no-brainer.



Math tells you that the three guards can only play together for 15 minutes. It does not have any bearing on when those minutes can or should occur.



Well, I apologize if that's the way you took my post. What bothered me was when you seemed to dismiss reasonable arguments and suggest they be shouted down.

Kedsy, It appears to me that you DO NOT fall in the second faction that I said would be "shouted down." I think our only disagreement is about the first five minutes of the game. As I have said, reasonable points can be made on both sides of this issue.

[Kedsy]

So by your own logic, the first minute should be more likely to be played by only two guards.

Well, you may be right. I guess I should have phrased it in terms of what particular lineup is the most likely to be out on the floor during any random minute. If the three guards will be out there together for 15 minutes -- presumably with Kyle as well, although obviously that's not necessarily true -- will any other configuration be out there more? Saying a two guard lineup will be out there for 25 minutes doesn't necessarily answer the question because, for example, Nolan, Jon, and Ryan is a very different dynamic than Nolan, Elliot, and Lance.

So it's possible that no other particular lineup will be on the floor more than the three guard plus Kyle lineup, in which case I think my argument still holds true. But I really have no idea if that will be the case, so I suppose I'll have to concede that point.

[Kedsy]

Kedsy, It appears to me that you DO NOT fall in the second faction that I said would be "shouted down." I think our only disagreement is about the first five minutes of the game. As I have said, reasonable points can be made on both sides of this issue.

OK, sorry if I appeared argumentative.