Tyler Thornton's offense

[Wander]

That was exactly what that team needed, but Williams was a train wreck on the offensive end that season (and frankly, he didn't get much better in his one year at Memphis).

Elliot Williams was Memphis' leading scorer. Even at Duke, he always had more potential as an offensive player than Thornton does due to his fantastic athleticism (though this never came to fruition at Duke). You're confusing shooting with scoring.

[MulletMan]

Elliot Williams was Memphis' leading scorer. Even at Duke, he always had more potential as an offensive player than Thornton does due to his fantastic athleticism (though this never came to fruition at Duke). You're confusing shooting with scoring.

No, you're confusing offensive ability with scoring (and granted we are splitting hairs). Elliot Williams led Memphis in scoring, but they ran the Dribble-Drive-Motion offense that Cal left behind in Pastner's first season. The majority of Williams' points in that season at Memphis were in the lane. He was the primary ball handler on that team after it was decimated by Cal leaving and taking all of his recruits to UK. That team was mediocre at best, lost to every ranked team they played and flamed out in the second round of the NIT. Williams averaged 17 points a game, but he also led the team in minutes played, shots taken, FTs attempted and turnovers... racking up an even 100 TOs for the year.

Regardless of any of that... he was offensively inept in his time at Duke. He didn't move without the ball and didn't know how to play without the ball in his hands. He started 12 games at Duke. In his first 5 he averaged double digits in points, but once teams got a look at how we were using him, and started preventing him from getting into the lane, his point lines were the following: 8, 2, 2, 0, 11, 2, 5. The 11 was the first round NCAA tourney game against Binghamton. In a total of 12 games that he started he had 12 assists and 11 TOs. In the games he started he shot 82% on 2pt FGs and 19% on 3pt FGs. I don't have a shot chart to tell you where those two point baskets were from, but I'll bet they were in the lane or pretty close to it. He was not a good offensive player at Duke, and to my original point, he was on the floor because K was willing to give up some offense for his incredible defense.

[CDu]

No, you're confusing offensive ability with scoring (and granted we are splitting hairs). Elliot Williams led Memphis in scoring, but they ran the Dribble-Drive-Motion offense that Cal left behind in Pastner's first season. The majority of Williams' points in that season at Memphis were in the lane. He was the primary ball handler on that team after it was decimated by Cal leaving and taking all of his recruits to UK. That team was mediocre at best, lost to every ranked team they played and flamed out in the second round of the NIT. Williams averaged 17 points a game, but he also led the team in minutes played, shots taken, FTs attempted and turnovers... racking up an even 100 TOs for the year.

He also shot 46% from the field and 36.6% from 3pt range. And he drew a lot of fouls. He averaged 1.57 points per FGA. That's pretty efficient. I don't see any reasonable argument that he wasn't a terrific offensive player in his one year at Memphis. He wasn't perfect, and he wasn't a terrific shooter, but he was very good offensively.

Regardless of any of that... he was offensively inept in his time at Duke. He didn't move without the ball and didn't know how to play without the ball in his hands. He started 12 games at Duke. In his first 5 he averaged double digits in points, but once teams got a look at how we were using him, and started preventing him from getting into the lane, his point lines were the following: 8, 2, 2, 0, 11, 2, 5. The 11 was the first round NCAA tourney game against Binghamton. In a total of 12 games that he started he had 12 assists and 11 TOs. In the games he started he shot 82% on 2pt FGs and 19% on 3pt FGs. I don't have a shot chart to tell you where those two point baskets were from, but I'll bet they were in the lane or pretty close to it. He was not a good offensive player at Duke, and to my original point, he was on the floor because K was willing to give up some offense for his incredible defense.

I agree on this part. Although I'm not sure why you keep point out where he scored his points. I don't think it matters where he got his points. There are other ways to be productive offensively than just 3pt shooting, as you said. But I agree that he wasn't a ready player early as a freshman.

But my beef wasn't (necessarily) with Thornton being on the floor. Just with the earlier poster's assertion that he's providing much of anything offensively.

[-jk]

He also shot 46% from the field and 36.6% from 3pt range. And he drew a lot of fouls. He averaged 1.57 points per FGA. That's pretty efficient. I don't see any reasonable argument that he wasn't a terrific offensive player in his one year at Memphis. He wasn't perfect, and he wasn't a terrific shooter, but he was very good offensively.



I agree on this part. Although I'm not sure why you keep point out where he scored his points. I don't think it matters where he got his points. There are other ways to be productive offensively than just 3pt shooting, as you said. But I agree that he wasn't a ready player early as a freshman.

But my beef wasn't (necessarily) with Thornton being on the floor. Just with the earlier poster's assertion that he's providing much of anything offensively.

Paging Pete and Press Maravich.

Ok, guity of attempting reductio ad absurdum.

EWill had a good year on a weak team. Granted.

Basketball is a team sport, though. A single player can put up incredible numbers for himself without truly helping the team accomplish its goals.

-jk

[CDu]

Paging Pete and Press Maravich.

Ok, guity of attempting reductio ad absurdum.

EWill had a good year on a weak team. Granted.

Basketball is a team sport, though. A single player can put up incredible numbers for himself without truly helping the team accomplish its goals.

-jk

It's not Williams' fault that his teammates weren't that good. In fact, the fact that he was able to be so efficient with a bad team is further evidence that he was, in fact, a good offensive player that year.

I'm not sure the point in disparaging Williams here. The previous poster made a comment that he wasn't very good with Memphis. I disagree, and I think the evidence supports my viewpoint on this. It doesn't mean Coach K was wrong for limiting his minutes early in the ACC season as a freshman. I just think he was a vastly improved player as a sophomore, and in a system better suited for his offensive skillset. That happens sometimes.

[Wander]

EWill had a good year on a weak team. Granted.

Basketball is a team sport, though. A single player can put up incredible numbers for himself without truly helping the team accomplish its goals.

EWill had a good year, period. There's no need or evidence for your other implications.

The majority of Williams' points in that season at Memphis were in the lane.

So what?

I'm not sure the point in disparaging Williams here.

Right. The only thing I can think of is that they think we're implying that Elliot was misused at Duke. Which isn't the case - I just think he was much better in his sophomore year (like many players are).

[Scorp4me]

I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

[ncexnyc]

I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

While this thread is aimed at Tyler based on the comments spread throughout a number of different threads I'd say all of our guards have supporters and detractors, each with varying levels of rabidness. Probably the only kid who hasn't had any serious negativity directed towards him is Austin and that's probably because he's our best player. As long as our line-up continues to change like the weather, I'm fairly certain this will continue.

[JNort]

I think he should be an 8th man for THIS team. I envision him as a guy who comes in for 6 to 8 mins a game just to harass either the PG or SG for the other team who is shooting the best at the moment. Maybe foul said PG/SG a few times to throw him out of rhythm and bring a dash of leadership and motivation for short spurts while resting Austin, Quinn, Curry or Dre.

FYI I know K doesn't typically go 8 deep let alone 9 but I see the same thing for Josh. High energy, harass a guy or two, motivate the guys then head back to the bench after no more than 5 to 7 mins total gameplay.

Now two years from this point I would love to see these two with larger roles on a championship team and scoring left and right and defending like mad dogs.




Just my .02

[Double DD]

Regardless of any of that... he was offensively inept in his time at Duke. He didn't move without the ball and didn't know how to play without the ball in his hands. He started 12 games at Duke. In his first 5 he averaged double digits in points, but once teams got a look at how we were using him, and started preventing him from getting into the lane, his point lines were the following: 8, 2, 2, 0, 11, 2, 5. The 11 was the first round NCAA tourney game against Binghamton. In a total of 12 games that he started he had 12 assists and 11 TOs. In the games he started he shot 82% on 2pt FGs and 19% on 3pt FGs. I don't have a shot chart to tell you where those two point baskets were from, but I'll bet they were in the lane or pretty close to it. He was not a good offensive player at Duke, and to my original point, he was on the floor because K was willing to give up some offense for his incredible defense.

I know that was the media narrative but the numbers don't really back it up. After the insertion of Williams into the starting lineup, Duke's offensive efficiency actually improved from the 1st to the 2nd half of the ACC schedule and their defensive efficiency worsened significantly.

[Channing]

I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

I dont think anyone wants to see TT fail. Personally, I would love to see him succeed beyond everyone's expectations. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. However, I don't understand why everyone keeps saying he brings great "intangibles" to the game. What does that mean? Several folks have documented that Seth is markedly less productive when playing next to TT, and while he may be a good (or even great) off ball defender, he gets burnt off the dribble just as much as our other guards. In my mind, Shelden brought great intangibles to the game because other teams were hesitant to drive the lane when he was in, meaning our guards could be more aggressive on the perimeter (same with Zoubek).

Great intangibles for a PG would be the ability to get in the lane, requiring other defenders to sag down off their men, leading to more open looks, or playing such good on ball defense that the other team can't get into their offense where or when they want to. The mere fact that someone doesn't put up good statistics doesn't, per se, mean they have good intangibles. Although they don't appear in the scorebook, we should be able to observe the impact of intangibles. I watch every Duke game, and rewatch most Duke games - and I just don't see the intangibles that TT brings.

I know Coach K has forgotten more basketball than I will ever know, so I am interested to see the long term plan for TT.

[CDu]

I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

Actually, there are lots of others ways to put it. And most of them would be much more accurate than saying people want to see Thornton fail. I very much want Thornton (and every Duke player) to do well. But that doesn't mean I think he's the best option to start or (more importantly) play 25+mpg.

Also, I love the "he has the intangibles down", when by definition you can't quantify intangibles. And there are no alternative measures that currently suggest the team plays better with him on the floor, which is usually the basis for citing the "intangibles" comment.

[Wildcat]

that some of us (posters) have never played the game of basketball in your lives! What does intangibles mean? Wow, if you have to spell out everything, roll out statistics ad nauseum, analyze time-played with player a or player b; its great that you are talented analytically; but cmon this is the game of basketball people. There's a vernacular of spech that says: "game knows game." This aphorism may not contain much merit in the halls of academia; but in some cicles, its a socratic truth. Seth has more of an upside offensively than Tyler; but again, when are you going to ralize that there is more to the game than a three point shot.?.

We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

[CDu]

Seth has more of an upside offensively than Tyler; but again, when are you going to ralize that there is more to the game than a three point shot.?.

So because you can't illustrate how Thornton is so clearly improving the team by playing more (in spite of a lack of evidence in the team's actual performance) we're the ones who don't understand basketball? Got it. I just love the "it's obvious you've never played basketball" argument whenever someone disagrees with you. What a tired and usually inaccurate comment.

We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

If you think that Coach K just recognized that the game is more than a 3 point shooting contest and that it helps to have offensive diversity, then I think it's you who is not getting it. Coach K has changed his offensive approach nearly every year, depending upon the team's strengths. In fact, he has been known to change the approach midseason when necessary as well. This season is no different. I'd expect the lineup to continue to change as well.

What I don't see is anything to suggest that Thornton's uptick in playing time has actually made us any better on the court. His supporters talk about the intangibles he brings. And that's great. But if those intangibles aren't changing the on-court performance, then maybe those particular intangibles aren't all that valuable.

[sagegrouse]

We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

It's OK to criticize K on this Board, but it isn't OK to be demeaning or spout nonsense. Are you implying that one of the greatest basketball coaches of all-time believed the only way to win was the three point shot?

And it's OK to criticize other posters, but it is not all right to be demeaning through junk like

It[']s obvious that some us [posters] have never played the game of basketball in their lives.

In addition to being grammatically unfathomable, it implies that the only sensible commentators are former basketball players -- most of whom make no sense whatsoever.

sagegrouse

[Wildcat]

i cannot illustrate how the team is better with Tyler on the floor. To be perfectly honest, i could care less who plays where, when or how many minutes. My commentary is based upon what i've seen from Tyler, Seth and Dre; neither of which are point guards. I have no problem conceeding to your viewpoint. I want us to win too. I just get tired of seeing us win big early in the season; only to lose in the latter season because our three's are not falling. It's a pattern. We are a finesse program. It's good when you can show a different look sometimes.

[DukieInBrasil]

that some of us (posters) have never played the game of basketball in your lives! What does intangibles mean? Wow, if you have to spell out everything, roll out statistics ad nauseum, analyze time-played with player a or player b; its great that you are talented analytically; but cmon this is the game of basketball people. There's a vernacular of spech that says: "game knows game." This aphorism may not contain much merit in the halls of academia; but in some cicles, its a socratic truth. Seth has more of an upside offensively than Tyler; but again, when are you going to ralize that there is more to the game than a three point shot.?.
We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

I'll mostly defer to CDu and Sagegrouse on this, but in what way does TT bring anything offensively that is better than what Seth does? Seth has a great 3pt shot, true, but he is also getting some good shots inside and is able to put pressure on opposing D in ways that TT simply cannot. Aside from being a better shooter from pretty much every spot on the floor, he is also a much better FT shooter. As others have pointed out and analyzed with statistics, TT's passing is not all that excellent and does not put additional stress on the D. So, if TT is not a better 3pt shooter, then he better bring something else on offense to change our "perimeter laden" characterization. I don't think he does. So all signs point to TT bringing some defensive prowess that improves the team in ways that K thinks valuable, which is in no way whatsoever a "transition in his philosophy".

[MChambers]

I think there really are intangible aspects that Coach K see in Tyler's game that he thinks are important. Mind you, I've always been a stat guy, so I'm skeptical about intangibles. In some sports, particularly baseball, I really don't believe in intangibles. In basketball, however, there clearly are aspects of the game that aren't captured by statistics. Duke's own Shane Battier is the best example of a great player whose qualities aren't captured by statistics.

I agree that Tyler isn't good at dribble penetration, that his passes, at least in the halfcourt offense, rarely lead directly to good scoring opportunities, and that he's only good, not great, at pressuring the other team's point guard.

Nevertheless, he apparently keeps the team calm and organized and is the on-court representation of the coaches, and Coach K think that, among other things, justifies his minutes. While some here may not agree, I think you need to acknowledge that there are aspects of the game not captured by stats or the eye test.

[CDu]

While some here may not agree, I think you need to acknowledge that there are aspects of the game not captured by stats or the eye test.

I am quite certain there are things that can't be measured by stats or the eye test (at least not the ones we have access to today). My point is simply that those intangibles for Thornton don't seem to be resulting in any general improvement in team performance (at least not to this point).

And I think people are, in general, too quick to say "this guy brings intangibles" when sometimes the guy just isn't great (I'm not saying that's the case here).

[ncexnyc]

Can somebody help me out, I'm so confused. Coach K. has turned the team over to Tyler, yet we've still got people calling for Seth to be the PG.

Where are all the posts telling these people to stop seconding guessing a coach with over 900 wins? Where are the posts telling these people to stop throwing one player under the bus to build-up another player?

So I posted this comment earlier in the thread. Of course not a soul stepped up and explained why certain posters get to remind people how many wins Coach K has whenever they want to brush aside someones thoughts on any particular topic, but others get chastized for doing it.

So now we've got a move made by our coach, a move which has put Andre on the bench and into a role that he is really excelling in and people want to know exactly why Tyler continues to get so much playing time. What's so hard to figure out? Rivers, Curry, and Dawkins just aren't firery, talkative guys and the team chemistry was terrible. Tyler is better at communicating and provides leadership to the team when he's on the floor. Yet some of you insist on quantifying the move with numbers and if it can't be done, then the move must be a mistake. Instead of trying to crunch the numbers why don't you take the time to think about why Coach K made the move and why he's sticking to it. Maybe then you'll get your answers and maybe then you'll understand what intagibles are.

Everyone on this board save for the most optimistic members was aware that something was off with this team. They just weren't playing cohesively as a team, but putting our finger on anyone specific reason wasn't easy to do and a number of people threw their hands up in the air and said it wasn't just one reason, but several reasons. Do you know why they did this? The answer is simple. It's because they couldn't crunch the numbers or cherry pick stats to prove one particular point. Somethings you just can't assign a numerical value too. So I'm going to place my faith in a man who has built a HOF career on putting teams together and trust that there is a method to what some of you obviously believe to be madness.

Now should you ask me if Tyler will be our PG for the rest of the year, my answer will be yes, or until Coach K feels that by inserting someone or some combination of players into various roles improves the team as a whole.