Big Man Perception

[uh_no]

Figure it needs to be pointed out that henson+zeller combined for 5-18 and got outrebounded and outscored by mike moser...

elite big man school indeed!

[g-money]

I just watched the highlights again and I can't stop smiling. I have been screaming "use the hook" at the tv for the last two seasons. As a 6'8" post player with limited jumping ability I survived with the baby hook. So I knew what it would do for a 6'10" freak athlete like Mason. I think now that he's discovered it, there is no turning back!! It will keep improving and he will start dominating. Or it will demand the double team which is a death sentence for opposing teams considering we have multiple snipers lurking on the perimeter. He has pretty good passing ability as well so finding the open shooters shouldn't be a problem.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the free throws. He will start drawing a lot more fouls now, its imperative that he makes his free throws to keep the hack-a-mason D in check.

Just want to give this post a +1. At 6'10", with decently long arms and a high jumper's vertical leap, there aren't a whole lot of D-1 players that can stop Mason from hitting a jump/sky hook (released from a fully vertical position) without fouling.

Big thing to watch for on Tuesday: Can Mason stay out of foul trouble against Sullinger? If he can, I would not be surprised to see a very even matchup.

[77devil]

I'm not trolling, never have.

Perhaps not but rarely failing to bait.

Just offering my observations, and some of you don't want to discuss play, you just want to call me out.

There are plenty of well reasoned responses with support in the thread in contrast to your unsubstantiated opinion.



By the way, what are your observations about UNC's big men play last night? I did not see the game.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Perhaps not but rarely failing to bait.



There are plenty of well reasoned responses with support in the thread in contrast to your unsubstantiated opinion.



Since the board software prevents this, you must be having the same effect on various people. Perhaps you should take some of the criticism expressed openly in this thread into account. If you can't take the heat, well, you know how it goes.

By the way, what are your observations about UNC's big men play last night? I did not see the game.

My observations are in the UNC/UNLV game thread.

I can take criticism just fine. In fact, I'm the kind of guy that likes a strong, sprited debate. Bring it, I say I don't take things personal on a basketball fan forum. I just say what I think, try to do it respectfully, and let the chips fall where they may.

Unsubstantiated opinion, huh? I noticed that when I pointed out that Kelly only had 1 play in the Kansas game that, (I think), could be considered an offensive post move, I was roundly criticised, but no-one offered to point out a 2nd one that I missed, much less a 3rd. Kelly can be a better post scorer is what I am saying. You guys are hearing that I think he's not a good player. Listen closely. He's a good player.


Same with Mason. He's a good player. I think he can be much better inside.


One other thing..I'll try to be at the OSU in-game thread...real time..and we will count the times Duke makes an entry pass and Mason, Miles, Kelly or anyone else makes an offensive move to score down low in a half court set. Only point I am trying to make is that if Duke can do more of that, and the players can be better at it, they will be a better team.

[Bob Green]

By the way, what are your observations about UNC's big men play last night? I did not see the game.

Wheat/"/"/" posted his thoughts in the Nevada-Las Vegas 90, UNC-CH 80 thread. Here is his balanced analysis of Carolina's performance:

Here's my quick thoughts on the game...

UNLV played very well. I don't care where they are ranked, That was a tough team out there last night.

UNC simply did not take care of the ball inside, got outquicked after rebounds, and shot poorly...from the inside, which is generally UNC's strength.

Plus they pretty much all sucked at the FT line in this game.

They never got into an offensive rhythm and missed some shots they would normally make...and that was because UNLV played very well defensively on the bigs by blocking out, playing physical, and reaching in and disrupting their post moves. It was a game that UNLV took from UNC by strong inside defense.

Zeller and Henson had poor games handling the ball after the catch inside. And it all had to do with the aggressiveness of UNLV, They were not the unforced kind of mistakes, they were forced by UNLV.

Barnes had a poor game with decisions, too. He tried to force it off the dribble too often when it wasn't there, or he just couldn't beat a quicker defender. He contributed to the lack of offensive rhythm, with those decisions.

I thought guard play was OK, offensively. PJ can shoot it, Reggie can shoot it, and Marshall makes things happen. Strickland is playing well and staying within his game. It was the poor post play that lost this one.

They have to move better without the ball in the 1/2 court and make stronger cuts because, other than Marshall and Strickland, (who are not "scorers") Barnes, PJ, and Reggie are not going to break people down off the dribble.

Defensively, they have to play with more urgency. This team is a very good defensive team, but they didn't show it last night. It was almost like they were thinking "I'll challenge this shot, pretty good, but I'll leave some space so I can be ready for offense...they can't keep making these shots forever...right?"

Wrong.

UNLV made some big shots, and kept coming. That was a confident, well coached team on the floor.

UNLV's Big Men outplayed Carolina's Big Men, while nobody on Carolina played defense.

[Mike Corey]

My observations are in the UNC/UNLV game thread.

I can take criticism just fine. In fact, I'm the kind of guy that likes a strong, sprited debate. Bring it, I say I don't take things personal on a basketball fan forum. I just say what I think, try to do it respectfully, and let the chips fall where they may.

...

The above aside, if I have time today I will review tape of the Duke-Kansas game and track the number of touches and post moves made by Duke's interior players; I appreciate your willingness to build upon your observations and to track the number of touches and post moves by Duke's players in the OSU game.

[CDu]

UNLV's Big Men outplayed Carolina's Big Men, while nobody on Carolina played defense.

Which is a bit surprising, because I'd say that the things that UNC did best last year were post play and defense.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

The above aside, if I have time today I will review tape of the Duke-Kansas game and track the number of touches and post moves made by Duke's interior players; I appreciate your willingness to build upon your observations and to track the number of touches and post moves by Duke's players in the OSU game.

Thanks Mike...what I'm particularly interested in is the number of catch and turn scoring attempts inside from the three bigs.

[COYS]

Thanks Mike...what I'm particularly interested in is the number of catch and turn scoring attempts inside from the three bigs.

Wheat, I'll give you some props even though I disagree with some of your posts. I always like reading your posts and appreciate your continued willingness to post here. I do think, however, that too much emphasis is put on just these types of catch and turn scoring attempts when it comes to the development of our bigs at Duke. You're right that Kelly might be able to score more on post up opportunities, but thus far he has been invaluable and efficients operating from the free throw line and the three point line. He draws defenders out of the post and is a big reason that Mason has had room to operate underneath the hoop. Against Kansas, he really started to use the dribble to create offense for himself and others. While Mason is far from refined, he has shown immense improvement in post up situations. Scoring on 5 post ups plus free throws is more than sufficient for Duke's offense. If he can do that every game, Duke and Mason will be in good shape. I think the extra attention Duke gets as a program puts undue emphasis on what Duke players lack rather than what they are good at. Why try to put a round peg into a square hole? The occasional post up for Kelly makes sense, especially if the opposing defender is undersized. Otherwise, he's not an interior offensive player. Why make him one? Mason does many things very well. He's a great passer, a strong finisher on garbage buckets around the hoop, and an excellent rebounder. He's not a refined post scorer although he is getting better. Why not let him come along at his own pace? He's definitely improving. I think overemphasizing scoring on catch and turn moves in the post causes people to overlook the many other things Duke's bigs do well. In the case of Kelly, I think it would be a mistake to force feed him post ups as his greatest strength is taking his defender out of the paint and going to work from the high post or from the wing.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat, I'll give you some props even though I disagree with some of your posts. I always like reading your posts and appreciate your continued willingness to post here. I do think, however, that too much emphasis is put on just these types of catch and turn scoring attempts when it comes to the development of our bigs at Duke. You're right that Kelly might be able to score more on post up opportunities, but thus far he has been invaluable and efficients operating from the free throw line and the three point line. He draws defenders out of the post and is a big reason that Mason has had room to operate underneath the hoop. Against Kansas, he really started to use the dribble to create offense for himself and others. While Mason is far from refined, he has shown immense improvement in post up situations. Scoring on 5 post ups plus free throws is more than sufficient for Duke's offense. If he can do that every game, Duke and Mason will be in good shape. I think the extra attention Duke gets as a program puts undue emphasis on what Duke players lack rather than what they are good at. Why try to put a round peg into a square hole? The occasional post up for Kelly makes sense, especially if the opposing defender is undersized. Otherwise, he's not an interior offensive player. Why make him one? Mason does many things very well. He's a great passer, a strong finisher on garbage buckets around the hoop, and an excellent rebounder. He's not a refined post scorer although he is getting better. Why not let him come along at his own pace? He's definitely improving. I think overemphasizing scoring on catch and turn moves in the post causes people to overlook the many other things Duke's bigs do well. In the case of Kelly, I think it would be a mistake to force feed him post ups as his greatest strength is taking his defender out of the paint and going to work from the high post or from the wing.

...Keep in mind that I also said this in my original post that got the dust going in the thread.

"
I can only surmise that traditional post play from a big is just not how coach K wants to play. And the winningest coach of all time can play his players any way he wants to. "


You're right that Kelly is a better face up player. And I don't think he should change his game to a Zeller type post big either. But I do think there are more times that he should be used in that sort of role and that he can be successful at it, which could make Duke a better team. It's just my opinion, I'm not meaning to second guess coach K.

And no doubt Mason has improved. I think he can be even better with making him a little more of the offensive focus than Duke has to this point. Pound it inside, and pound on him to shoot it quickly off the catch and turn with that little jump hook that is slowly coming along. He can get that shot anytime he wants.

*Note: His poor foul shooting might have an effect on why that's not happening more.

Again, coach K is "gonna do what he do", and I respect that. He's winning his way. but thats what I think.

[uh_no]

...Keep in mind that I also said this in my original post that got the dust going in the thread.

"
I can only surmise that traditional post play from a big is just not how coach K wants to play. And the winningest coach of all time can play his players any way he wants to. "

I think that's the key right there. Unfortunately, what that means is that the players who have the type of skills that we're talking about here may choose to go elsewhere. If I were a big man, I wouldn't necessarily want to come to duke and set screens all the time when i could go elsewhere and simply pound it in the post. That's not an attack on playing that way, just what I'd consider from the player's perspective. In the same vein, why would a star wide receiver go to a college where the football team runs on 80% of the downs? This doesn't mean the big men can't be wildly successful and phenomenal at what they do (as we are seeing from ryan and mason so far this year...and Z 2 years ago) just that their purpose on the floor is to make the offense more prolific, and coach K thinks that happens by not necessarily having them post up 100% of the time.

[moonpie23]

i think the perception of a "dominant big man" and how he plays is skewed a bit from folks that decry today's game. They see certain positions being "not pure to the game" when played differently.

personally, i think Brian Zoubek emerged as a "dominant big man"....

[uh_no]

i think the perception of a "dominant big man" and how he plays is skewed a bit from folks that decry today's game. They see certain positions being "not pure to the game" when played differently.

personally, i think Brian Zoubek emerged as a "dominant big man"....

Maybe. i don't think he was a dominant "scorer," but certainly rebounding, defending, and just about every other facet of the game. I think in order to classify someone as truly dominant, they must be at worst very very good at all parts of the game. Just like you wouldn't call a guard dominant if he wasn't good at one of shooting, driving, and passing....

it all comes down to what one uses as "dominant" criteria...and its largely an arbitrary and meaningless monicker. In the end, we know exactly what brian was capable of and what he meant to that team, and that's good enough for me whether I or anyone else can call him "dominant" or not.

[NSDukeFan]

Well every big man UNC brings in seems to end up being a huge asset (hansbrough, now zeller). Uconn has a record of developing big men (you don't lead the country 8(?) straight years in blocks by accident). Georgetown tends to do well developing big men.

I think the development of big men (or any players) probably gets overstated. Are we talking development of big men at a school or recruitment?

Here are the RSCI recruing rankings for UNC's big men lately, UConn's, Ohio State's and Georgetown's:
May #9, Hansbrough #4, Wright #3, Davis #9, Zeller #18, Henson #5, McAdoo #6
Drummond (was #1 or 2 in his class before reclassification), Oriakhi #16, Robinson #18, Villanueva #18, Okafor #99
Sullinger #2, Mullens #8, Oden #1, Koufos #12
Hibbert unranked? , Monroe #6 , Macklin #16

So is that great coaching at UNC to turn all of these top 10 recruits into good players inside? Were Okafor and Hibbert great development by the coaches or were they under-ranked? I don't know and manybe the programs can take credit for them (or Derrick Williams at Arizona), but to take top 10 recruits and turn them into good college players that play pro doesn't seem like it is as much outstanding coaching as recruiting. I'm not saying Duke is that different that way as the most highly rated recruits tend to be the better players, but sometimes I think this "development" of bigs at "big man U" gets overstated when it is more a function of good recruiting at those positions.

[uh_no]

I think the development of big men (or any players) probably gets overstated. Are we talking development of big men at a school or recruitment?

In the end, I don't think it matters. What matters is that the school ends up with a big man that makes HSers say "I want to be like x, so I want to play at y school"

We can call it the calipari effect. HS PGs see other top pgs go to memphis/UK, stay a year, and then get picked high in the draft. Therefore the way to get to the NBA for a HS PG is to go to calipari. Now obviously calipari isn't doing a thing to develop these guys into NBA players. He simply gives them a stage to perform on.

So I understand why a guy like zeller would choose UNC over Duke...(i don't even know if he was considering duke...but its just an example)...he could point to tyler hansbrough and say "I want to be the next him"....who was the guy at duke that he could point to and say "I want to be him?" As valuable as zoubek was to our team, i don't think there were many HSers looking up and saying "i want to be the next zoubek"...and whether that is media driven or based in some sort of reality is irrelevent, because that's what the HSers ends up thinking

Now, will ryan or mason change that? I hope so....ryan is already getting hailed as the top "euro style" big in the college game, and with the success of gasol and dirk lately in the NBA, that could be a very important media/recruiting tool. If mason becomes a beast down low like he has been for several games already this year, then suddenly what you have on sports center is "duke big men kelly/mason are an unguardable duo" and then HS kids say "i want to be that"

[Andy7207]

In the end, I don't think it matters. What matters is that the school ends up with a big man that makes HSers say "I want to be like x, so I want to play at y school"

Yes. I would say the tag "elite big man school" has more to do with recruitment and amount of showcasing than development. For example, I think big men like Anthony Davis are becoming more likely to choose Kentucky based off of their draft success with Demarcus Cousins and Enes Kanter.

[jimsumner]

I think that's the key right there. Unfortunately, what that means is that the players who have the type of skills that we're talking about here may choose to go elsewhere. If I were a big man, I wouldn't necessarily want to come to duke and set screens all the time when i could go elsewhere and simply pound it in the post. That's not an attack on playing that way, just what I'd consider from the player's perspective. In the same vein, why would a star wide receiver go to a college where the football team runs on 80% of the downs?

I'm pretty sure Danny Ferry, Alaa Abdelnaby, Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams and Josh McRoberts didn't set screens all day. It wasn't that long ago that a 6-9, 250-pound, back-to-the-basket, low-post player averaged almost 19 points per game en route to being a consensus first-team All-American.

If you've got that skill set, I darn well guarantee you that Duke will find a way to utilize it to everyone's mutual benefit.

As for the wide receiver analogy, Georgia Tech always seems to have an elite wide receiver or two. Because when they do throw you the ball, the defense is keying on the run and you have lots of room to operate. I suspect that's what Paul Johnson told Stephen Hill. When Hill is starting in the NFL, it will seem like pretty good advice.

[uh_no]

I'm pretty sure Danny Ferry, Alaa Abdelnaby, Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams and Josh McRoberts didn't set screens all day. It wasn't that long ago that a 6-9, 250-pound, back-to-the-basket, low-post player averaged almost 19 points per game en route to being a consensus first-team All-American.

If you've got that skill set, I darn well guarantee you that Duke will find a way to utilize it to everyone's mutual benefit.

As for the wide receiver analogy, Georgia Tech always seems to have an elite wide receiver or two. Because when they do throw you the ball, the defense is keying on the run and you have lots of room to operate. I suspect that's what Paul Johnson told Stephen Hill. When Hill is starting in the NFL, it will seem like pretty good advice.

georgia tech was just a random school that came to mind...replace with any school as you see fit


I think my overall point is that is not how are current bigs have been used in the past 5 whatever years, and in the consciousness of present day high schoolers, what they see from today's high schoolers is by far more important than what happend 20 or even 10 years ago...and I wouldn't be surprised if guys recruiting big men against K would say stuff like "don't go to duke, you'll set screens all day"

whether it is actually true or not isn't exactly relevant since all that matters is they can look at the most recent duke teams and say "wow they don't have high scoring bigs, and they don't get the ball down low, maybe I should go elsewhere"

[jimsumner]

georgia tech was just a random school that came to mind...replace with any school as you see fit


I think my overall point is that is not how are current bigs have been used in the past 5 whatever years, and in the consciousness of present day high schoolers, what they see from today's high schoolers is by far more important than what happend 20 or even 10 years ago...and I wouldn't be surprised if guys recruiting big men against K would say stuff like "don't go to duke, you'll set screens all day"

whether it is actually true or not isn't exactly relevant since all that matters is they can look at the most recent duke teams and say "wow they don't have high scoring bigs, and they don't get the ball down low, maybe I should go elsewhere"

Shelden Williams finished up six years ago. Not 20, not even 10. And the NBA, the desired designation of all these guys, features more than a few former Duke bigs pulling down a sizeable chunk of change. Now. Not 20 years ago.

I'm reasonably certain the Duke coaching staff has ways of conveying this information to prospective student-athletes.

[uh_no]

Shelden Williams finished up six years ago. Not 20, not even 10. And the NBA, the desired designation of all these guys, features more than a few former Duke bigs pulling down a sizeable chunk of change. Now. Not 20 years ago.

I'm reasonably certain the Duke coaching staff has ways of conveying this information to prospective student-athletes.

I'm not arguing a) that duke has not had great big men as recent as 6 years ago or b) that the duke coaching staff is unable to effectively recruit big men.

Students being recruited now are 16-18 meaning they were 10-12 when shelden finished up. It's a lot easier for roy williams to say "look tyler hansbrough" than it is for K to bring up a big man who had his college heyday when the recruit was in elementary school. It's "what have you done for me lately"...think about kyrie's recruitment: people were telling him not to go to duke because coach K stifles point guards...well...after he flashed it up for a few games, and nolan had a phenomenal year from the point, you don't hear that anymore...public consciousness of these things is a few years at best. Obviously, informed people know better...but I think the public perception of these programs affects recruits decisions, and in the public eye, duke big guys are "soft" and can't score. It's a lot easier for an opposing coach to reinforce the public perception in the recruits eyes than it is for our staff to attempt to demonstrate why the public perception is wrong.