MBB: Duke 77, Miami 74 Post-Game Thread

[Jumbo]

On to the ACC Tourney Championship Game! Go Duke!

[BigZ]

I was called in to work for an hour so I missed the last three minutes of the first half . What happened, when I left Duke has a seven point lead and then I see they were down by 3 at half. How in the world did Duke allow that to happen?

[Lulu]

I feel like I should have something constructive to say, but all I really want to do is harp about stall ball almost giving away another game. I really hate it when I hear the argument "look at our results" because, I'm sorry, but you cannot go back in time and replay the same game without stall ball and see how it would have ended. No one can know what would have happened, but what I see is that we lose our momentum at a point when we dominating the game and they were falling apart. It's hard not to think we were more likely to run up the score even further and remove any doubt of the outcome. (I know the intent of reducing the number of opportunities for the other team to quickly catch up.) We had the momentum. They didn't. They were on their 3rd game in 3 days and starting to fall off when we gave them a chance to calm down. With a little luck, they absolutely could have beaten us and I just feel that the game should have never been in that place.

And geez was it early still when we pulled it out for this game. We really, really had emotions on our side at that point.

[devildownunder]

I feel like I should have something constructive to say, but all I really want to do is harp about stall ball almost giving away another game. I really hate it when I hear the argument "look at our results" because, I'm sorry, but you cannot go back in time and replay the same game without stall ball and see how it would have ended. No one can know what would have happened, but what I see is that we lose our momentum at a point when we dominating the game and they were falling apart. It's hard not to think we were more likely to run up the score even further and remove any doubt of the outcome. (I know the intent of reducing the number of opportunities for the other team to quickly catch up.) We had the momentum. They didn't. They were on their 3rd game in 3 days and starting to fall off when we gave them a chance to calm down. With a little luck, they absolutely could have beaten us and I just feel that the game should have never been in that place.

And geez was it early still when we pulled it out for this game. We really, really had emotions on our side at that point.

We were up by about 7 with something 7 minutes to play (i'm sure someone will do the research). We survived, barely. Stall ball is disgusting.

[CDu]

Survive and advance. Survive and advance. Great first 15 minutes. Bad next 5 minutes. Strong second half.

Miami played hard, and they've got some talent to work with for the future. Scott and Johnson look really good, and Grant looks like he could be good with experience.

Tough game for Smith. Tough first half for Scheyer, though he fought through it. Great performance from Singler.

Also, it was an impressive effort from Mason today. He had 6 boards, 2 blocks and a steal in only 16 minutes. And he managed to make an impact without committing too many bad fouls. Hopefully he can build off of this game.

But the most important thing is to keep winning. We'll get somebody's best effort tomorrow, and we just have to meet that challenge too.

[Delaware]

We were up by about 7 with something 7 minutes to play (i'm sure someone will do the research). We survived, barely. Stall ball is disgusting.

It was 62-50 with about 7 minutes left when we pulled the ball back.

[devildownunder]

It was 62-50 with about 7 minutes left when we pulled the ball back.

Thanks for the detail. Up 12, won by 3. And only because we actually abandoned that foolishness and started looking to score again this time.

[Kedsy]

It was 62-50 with about 7 minutes left when we pulled the ball back.

And even after three consecutive shot clock violations we were still winning 76-69 with 18 seconds left. At which point we got lackadaisical on defense for a couple possessions (presumably because there was essentially no way we could lose at that point).

I don't think anybody's advocating repeating the three consecutive shot clock violations anytime soon, but the stall strategy worked just like it was supposed to today. Miami was never in any real danger of winning the game in the last few minutes. The final margin is deceptive due to a made three-pointer with 4 seconds left. Ultimately, who cares if we win by 3 or 13?

[should_be_working]

Stall ball works only when you can execute, and today we didn't execute well at all. We made that game way closer than it should have been. You need a quick guard to run stall ball successfully, one who can break down a defense and not only create a shot for himself but one for his teamates. I'm sorry but Jon is just not quite that guy - especially of late as he seems either out or gas or playing with an injury.

I was literally screaming at the TV to get the ball to Nolan, I think he is the guy who needs the ball in his hands when the clock is dwindling. Stall ball didn't work today, you can't possibly argue that it did. But we won and that's all that matters, on to the championship.

Oh and of course the refs were absolutely horrible in the first half.

[Kfanarmy]

We were up by about 7 with something 7 minutes to play (i'm sure someone will do the research). We survived, barely. Stall ball is disgusting.

Duke was up 13 with 7:30 left...steady drain downward from that point. I hope the purpose was to save energy for the championship game, though I'm not sure if the end-of-game anxiety created by stall ball cost more than was saved or not.

[DukeUsul]

Someone could correct my guess here... did Miami's zone defense have something to do with our ability to execute our offense in the slow-down game? Zones often do well in preventing dribblers from getting into the lanes. If we're starting the O with less than 10 seconds left, a lot of time the zone will close off the lane causing the ballhandler to change course and do something different. Do that a couple of times and you force a guy to a bad spot and a bad shot.

Is that what happened late? I need to go back to the tape. Was Miami still in their zone the last couple minutes? Were they cutting off the lanes and forcing into a second and third option of direction, causing us to run out of time?

I'm wondering if that was the big reason we had trouble executing down the stretch. Maybe I'll re-watch the tape later tonight.

[rsvman]

I feel like I should have something constructive to say, but all I really want to do is harp about stall ball almost giving away another game. I really hate it when I hear the argument "look at our results" because, I'm sorry, but you cannot go back in time and replay the same game without stall ball and see how it would have ended. No one can know what would have happened, but what I see is that we lose our momentum at a point when we dominating the game and they were falling apart. It's hard not to think we were more likely to run up the score even further and remove any doubt of the outcome. (I know the intent of reducing the number of opportunities for the other team to quickly catch up.) We had the momentum. They didn't. They were on their 3rd game in 3 days and starting to fall off when we gave them a chance to calm down. With a little luck, they absolutely could have beaten us and I just feel that the game should have never been in that place.

And geez was it early still when we pulled it out for this game. We really, really had emotions on our side at that point.

This is just wrong.

"Stall ball" works if it done correctly. We executed it poorly today, but we still got the win. I would counterargue that nobody knows what would have happened had we continued to play full on; perhaps we would have lost. You don't know, and neither do I.

A couple of seasons ago I kept a notebook detailing every possession from every game in which we executed "stall ball." We won every one of those games. Sure, the lead sunk in some of those games, but certainly not in all; in fact, if I recall correctly, the lead shrunk in about half of them, but stayed the same or even stretched out in others.

Successful stall ball depends on two things: 1) getting a reasonable shot near the end of the clock, and 2) getting defensive stops. We were not able to do the former, but we successfully did the latter for about 2:30 of game play, which was enough to ensure the win. The final three-point shot was meaningless; we were up six points with 4 seconds to play in the game. In other words, the lead was insurmountable. This despite the poorest execution of stall ball in a long time. So, what's the problem again?

[devildownunder]

This is just wrong.

"Stall ball" works if it done correctly. We executed it poorly today, but we still got the win. I would counterargue that nobody knows what would have happened had we continued to play full on; perhaps we would have lost. You don't know, and neither do I.

A couple of seasons ago I kept a notebook detailing every possession from every game in which we executed "stall ball." We won every one of those games. Sure, the lead sunk in some of those games, but certainly not in all; in fact, if I recall correctly, the lead shrunk in about half of them, but stayed the same or even stretched out in others.

Successful stall ball depends on two things: 1) getting a reasonable shot near the end of the clock, and 2) getting defensive stops. We were not able to do the former, but we successfully did the latter for about 2:30 of game play, which was enough to ensure the win. The final three-point shot was meaningless; we were up six points with 4 seconds to play in the game. In other words, the lead was insurmountable. This despite the poorest execution of stall ball in a long time. So, what's the problem again?

We won because we abandoned that foolishness and started looking to score again, thank goodness. ETA: and also because we got some stops in the last few minutes.

[CDu]

We won because we abandoned that foolishness and started looking to score again, thank goodness.

When did we "abandon that foolishness?"

From 64-50:

35-second violation
ran 29 seconds, made jumper
ran 21 seconds, missed jumper
2 seconds (Zoubek fouled on a defensive rebound)
35 seconds, violation
30 seconds, missed jumper
25 seconds, missed jumper
29 seconds, made jumper

then the fouling began.

So we went away from stalling on two possessions, and failed to score on both of them. Care to rethink your argument?

[devildownunder]

When did we "abandon that foolishness?"

From 64-50:

35-second violation
ran 29 seconds, made jumper
ran 21 seconds, missed jumper
2 seconds (Zoubek fouled on a defensive rebound)
35 seconds, violation
30 seconds, missed jumper
25 seconds, missed jumper
29 seconds, made jumper

then the fouling began.

So we went away from stalling on two possessions, and failed to score on both of them. Care to rethink your argument?

No, because the numbers in front of me say it was 29, 21, 2, 39 (not sure how that works, but anyway), then we called a timeout and we had 30 and then 9 and then the fouling began. So we did not exclusively take the air out of the ball.

Even so, I would say the biggest reason we won is because we actually got some stops. No matter what offense you play, you won't win if you can't get any stops.

[CDu]

No, because the numbers in front of me say it was 29, 21, 2, 39 (not sure how that works, but anyway), then we called a timeout and we had 30 and then 9 and then the fouling began. So we did not exclusively take the air out of the ball.

Even so, I would say the biggest reason we won is because we actually got some stops. No matter what offense you play, you won't win if you can't get any stops.

29 = stallball
21 = not stallball, and it was a missed shot
2 = no possession - they fouled under their own basket
39 = 35 (that was the shotclock violation) = stallball
30 = stallball
25 = not stallball, and it was a missed shot
29 = stallball

I'm sorry you can't accept reality. Stallball worked, and we most certainly didn't win because we "abandoned it and started looking to score again." When we abandoned it, we didn't score. How is that a good thing?

[devildownunder]

29 = stallball
21 = not stallball, and it was a missed shot
2 = no possession - they fouled under their own basket
39 = 35 (that was the shotclock violation) = stallball
30 = stallball
25 = not stallball, and it was a missed shot
29 = stallball

I'm sorry you can't accept reality. Stallball worked, and we most certainly didn't win because we "abandoned it and started looking to score again." When we abandoned it, we didn't score. How is that a good thing?

The reality is we had 3 shot-clock violations, so we didn't score then either. Like I said, our defense or Miami's failure to make shots -- however you care to look at -- is the reason we hung on and won, not some triumph of our offensive strategy. We were in very good rhythm offensively right before we started stalling. That's rare for this team. There was a lot of time left. It was WAY too early to suck the air out of the ball.

[CDu]

The reality is we had 3 shot-clock violations, so we didn't score then either. Like I said, our defense or Miami's failure to make shots -- however you care to look at -- is the reason we hung on and won, not some triumph of our offensive strategy. We were in very good rhythm offensively right before we started stalling. That's rare for this team. There was a lot of time left. It was WAY too early to suck the air out of the ball.

If you want to say it's our defense, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to that opinion. But it was absolutely not because we abandoned stallball, which was your previous argument (the one I asked if you wanted to reconsider). My biggest beef was your argument based on factual inaccuracies.

[devildownunder]

If you want to say it's our defense, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to that opinion. But it was absolutely not because we abandoned stallball, which was your previous argument (the one I asked if you wanted to reconsider). My biggest beef was your argument based on factual inaccuracies.

I have already amended my argument to say that defense was a factor. In fact, it was the biggest. But we did NOT play stall ball exclusively down the stretch and I believe that is also a big reason why we did not lose.

So, I was wrong to say it was only because we didn't use stall ball. I'll even say it was wrong to say we "abandoned" stall ball because it varied some. But we didn't stay with it exclusively -- and thank goodness for that!

[CDu]

I have already amended my argument to say that defense was a factor. In fact, it was the biggest. But we did NOT play stall ball exclusively down the stretch and I believe that is also a big reason why we did not lose.

So, I was wrong to say it was only because we didn't use stall ball. I'll even say it was wrong to say we "abandoned" stall ball because it varied some. But we didn't stay with it exclusively -- and thank goodness for that!

So you're happy that we didn't stall for two possessions and failed to score any points on those two possessions? Because I think that's silly. If we'd just gone ahead and used stallball there, we'd have at least shaved 10-15 more seconds off the game and gotten the same result.