MBB: Duke 85, Penn 55 Post-Game Thread

[ncexnyc]

Hubert did make that point, although I thought he made too much of it.

Although I'd love to see Michael earn more minutes at the 3, last night's game didn't give me a lot of hope that it will happen this year. I thought our offense suffered when he was in. To be fair, he looked better the game before. Having said that, he didn't play much, if at all, until there were only about 10 minutes left, making me think that the coaches didn't think he had earned more time. (It's also possible they thought he didn't match up well with Penn's perimeter.)

Also, although we may have a matchup problem with big 3s, especially those that post up, having the other team's 3 guard Austin or Andre can be a matchup advantage for us.

I hope he earns the minutes this year, but he's got to improve quite a bit.

Your comments about match-ups going both ways is completely spot on. I guess that is something Coach K always weighs when making lineup decisions.

[Jderf]

I think it’s safe to say that the Curry experiment as our starting PG was about as successful as the Nolan Smith experiment was several years ago.

I hope you're only referring to the first "Nolan Smith experiment," because as I recall, the second time around it seemed to go pretty well.

[millerecu]

Was how easy Duke's conference schedule is when they were talking about Duke and Carowina fighting it out as the top dog. I am pretty sure he said it 3 or 4 times. While he did go into the fact he hates the fact the conferences are large and you cant play a round robin anymore...it was like he was setting himself up for the end of the year when he can say....well they are the champs because....

[Newton_14]

Your question is perfectly legit. I wrote several weeks ago that come March our starting line-up would be vastly different and some people were very skeptical about that. Well since then Andre has been moved into the 6th man role and we are witnessing a great competition between Tyler and Quinn for the PG job. I think it’s safe to say that the Curry experiment as our starting PG was about as successful as the Nolan Smith experiment was several years ago.

Actually that is not a good comparison. Nolan was a sophomore searching for his identity as a player. In the early going it worked out well, but once conference play started, the offense went awry. Plus Zoubek was a starter in the early going as well, and his play also declined when conference play started. Nolan brought the defense that K wanted at the point, but struggled with the offense.

Seth is a red-shirt junior with much more experience now than Nolan had as a Soph. In the 8 games that Seth started at the point, Duke went 7-1 against a brutal schedule, won the Maui tourney, and scored wins against a good Belmont team, Mich St, Tenn, Michigan, and Kansas. Seth played great in all games except for the OSU debacle where all but Austin and Mason stunk it up.

K decided to make change #1 at the point (inserting Tyler to defend the opposing PG, moving Andre to 6th Man), not because of offense, but because of defense. With a perimeter of Seth, Austin, and Andre, Duke was not getting the level of pressure defense on the opposing teams PG, that he wanted to see. So K made the change, in his words, "to improve the periment defense, specifically on the opposing PG"

Now that Quinn is getting healthy and in shape, and is starting to figure things out on defense, K made change #2 (Platooning Quinn and Tyler at the point), as K now feels Quinn can also apply the level of ball pressure he wants to see. With this move, however, there is the byproduct of an offensive element. Quinn brings natural PG abilities on the offensive side that allows Duke to play faster for one, and two, adds a 2nd penetrator that can dish or finish, along with seeing the floor better with the ability to get the ball to his teammates in positions where they can score more easily. Great stuff.

But, it does come with a price, as it makes us smaller on the perimeter when neither Andre nor Mike are in the game. I am interested to see what K does to deal with that when Duke is playing teams like UNC and OSU with bigger Small Forwards. Austin may surprise us and defend an HB well for example, or K will show us yet some new wrinkle. Andre will likely have to play heavier minutes in those type games, which could mean Seth and Austin sharing time at the 2. Mike G seems to be coming along nicely as well, especially his defense. Would be really nice if he develops enough this year to allow K to play him in a defensive specialist type role even if it is only spot minutes in tough games. Something to watch.


At any rate, concerning Seth, I think some have forgotten how well he played offensively in those first 7 games while playing the point. K did not make the change because of Seth's or the teams offense. He made the change for defense.

[Saratoga2]

But, it does come with a price, as it makes us smaller on the perimeter when neither Andre nor Mike are in the game. I am interested to see what K does to deal with that when Duke is playing teams like UNC and OSU with bigger Small Forwards. Austin may surprise us and defend an HB well for example, or K will show us yet some new wrinkle. Andre will likely have to play heavier minutes in those type games, which could mean Seth and Austin sharing time at the 2. Mike G seems to be coming along nicely as well, especially his defense. Would be really nice if he develops enough this year to allow K to play him in a defensive specialist type role even if it is only spot minutes in tough games. Something to watch.

That is the question going forward, how will we handle playing against teams with size at the shooting guard and small forward position, let along the PG? Clearly our options include Andre and Michael subbing in for either Seth or Austin. Since Austin has pretty good size it would more likely be Seth. We did see at least a hint of this in the Penn game, as coach K tried several variations of that lineup in the game later in the second half.

[Kedsy]

Can a 3 guard lineup work defensively against teams like UNC, KY and Syracuse with protypical small forwards that are 6'7-6'8. Hubert made an interesting point yesterday during the broadcast (and I know it has been brought up before on DBR) that Duke may have a problem matching up with HB of UNC because of size mismatches. Silent G could play a pivotal role as the team continues to develop in regards to matching up with those types of teams. If MG were to continue to develop and make shots, would the team ultimately be best starting MG and QC while bringing Seth, Andre and Tyler off the bench? I know it may sound crazy bringing Seth off the bench; but from a defensive matchup perspective, a starting 5 with MG and QC (again assuming MG consistently makes shots and QC improves defensively) along with Austin, Ryan and MP2 could matchup defensively with any team and still provide a punch offensively. In addition, the bench would be incredibly loaded with firepower bringing Andre and Seth off the bench to go with MP1, Tyler and Josh.

I doubt it would happen and I can't see Seth coming off the bench because he is one of our 5 best players; but I thought I put this out there to get your thoughts. Please don't roast me too badly for mentioning this.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I think we have to distinguish between things we want to see and things that have a realistic chance of happening. First of all, and I realize some people will say this doesn't matter, but I believe you have to go back to 1982-83 for the last time a Duke team regularly started three freshmen (as we would if Quinn and Michael joined Austin in the starting lineup). It's been very rare that we've regularly started even two freshmen. And there's a reason for that -- experience counts in college basketball.

Second, if Michael and Quinn were in the starting lineup, that either means we go nine deep or one of Seth, Andre, or Tyler will hardly play at all. Duke in the K era has almost never gone more than eight deep (in close or tough games once ACC play begins), and doesn't even go more than seven deep very often under Coach K. The reason for this appears to be that K likes to play his top few players 30 to 35 minutes in the big and/or close games, and there just aren't enough minutes to go around. In this light, it just seems so unlikely we'd go nine or ten deep this season. I expect Michael's and Josh's minutes to decline, starting next week. And if we don't go nine deep, and Michael and Quinn start, it means one of Seth, Andre, or Tyler would be relegated to spot minutes. Which seems even less likely than going nine deep, at least to me.

Finally, just because Michael made a couple three-pointers in a 40-point rout the other day doesn't mean he's ready on offense. He's clearly not. I'm sure he'll get there, hopefully as soon as next season, but right now both the eye test and the stats suggest he's by far our worst offensive player. And personally, while I see the length and athleticism and potential, I haven't seen anything to date that suggests he's a superior option on defense, either. Not yet, anyway.

Combining all of the above reasons, I'd be absolutely shocked if we regularly start all of Quinn, Michael, and Austin.

If some or all of these things happen I could easily see us going with a purely defensive stopper on the wing. Heck we won a National Championship with Lance Thomas as our 4 and he wasn’t what anyone would call a gifted offensive player.

Lance as a senior was a significantly better offensive player than Michael is right now. It's not even close. (Defensively, too, obviously.)

In fairness, did you also run the same numbers for the WMU game? I would be interested to see those. I was at that game and Seth played at a high level the entire game, irregardless of who his running mate was. Not discounting your overall point, but also not convinced yet, the two things are related.

I actually lean towards the thought the ankly injury Seth had, played more of a role in his mini-slump, than Tyler starting did. It will be interesting to watch this moving forward though.

I hadn't run the numbers from Western Michigan, but since you asked I just did. And you're right that Seth played well both with and without Tyler. His scoring rate was higher without Tyler (9 points in 7+ minutes w/o Tyler vs. 13 points in 16+ minutes with Tyler) but I can't in fairness disagree with your observation. I don't think it proves or disproves anything though; I'd be shocked if anything like this happened 100% of the time. I still think it's something to keep an eye on.

[Kfanarmy]

No question that whenever Hubert Davis says something we should all stop what we're doing and comment on it. He said a lot of other things I thought were silly, but I'm not commenting on those either.

Assist to turnover ratio is just one way of saying an offense isn't efficient. Except our offense this year is pretty efficient, so I'm not sure how much a/to matters. In 2006-07 (the year Hubert referenced), Pomeroy rated our offense as the 40th best in the country. This year, so far, he rates us as the 4th best in the country. Big difference. To me, that's more worthy of comment than either Hubert Davis's wisdom or your pessimism.

comment at all?

[ncexnyc]

Of course I realize Lance was a senior and Mike is only a freshman, but I see his potential, which is what I’m basing my comments on. Before we hear anymore outlandish claims about how superior Lance is to Mike, let’s look at some numbers, since these are what so many of you get all hot and bothered over.
Lance:
Minutes PG FG% 3PT% FT% RPG AST TO STL BLK PF PPG
19.7 53.2 0 60.9 3.7 .5 1.2 .6 .3 2.8 4.6
Mike:
9.3 57.1 42.9 100 1.1 .3 .7 .2 .1 1.3 2.7
Now I’m not a math whiz, so maybe someone who is could explain to me how Lance is significantly better than Mike based on the numbers above.
I’d also mention Lance got a lot of playing time his freshman year due to the composition of that team. The frontcourt players were McRoberts, Zoubek, Boykin(3 games), McClure, and Lance. I think that while we’re deeper in the frontcourt this year, we do have a need for a 3 and that is the opportunity Mike can seize upon to get more playing time if not the actual starting spot. Some of you were quick to dismiss Tyler and Quinn for the more seasoned player Seth and we saw how that’s turned out. I wouldn’t be so quick to dis Mike, he just might surprise you if given the chance. As I said before there are a lot of ifs involved, but I like Mike’s chances, especially in light of a serious need at that position.

[sagegrouse]

Of course I realize Lance was a senior and Mike is only a freshman, but I see his potential, which is what I’m basing my comments on. Before we hear anymore outlandish claims about how superior Lance is to Mike, let’s look at some numbers, since these are what so many of you get all hot and bothered over.

Lance: 
Minutes PG      FG%     3PT%      FT%     RPG      AST     TO  STL   BLK     PF     PPG
19.7             53.2   0          60.9   3.7     .5      1.2  .6      .3    2.8   4.6
Mike:
9.3              57.1   42.9      100    1.1      .3      .7   .2      .1    1.3   2.7

Now I’m not a math whiz, so maybe someone who is could explain to me how Lance is significantly better than Mike based on the numbers above.
I’d also mention Lance got a lot of playing time his freshman year due to the composition of that team. The frontcourt players were McRoberts, Zoubek, Boykin(3 games), McClure, and Lance. I think that while we’re deeper in the frontcourt this year, we do have a need for a 3 and that is the opportunity Mike can seize upon to get more playing time if not the actual starting spot. Some of you were quick to dismiss Tyler and Quinn for the more seasoned player Seth and we saw how that’s turned out. I wouldn’t be so quick to dis Mike, he just might surprise you if given the chance. As I said before there are a lot of ifs involved, but I like Mike’s chances, especially in light of a serious need at that position.

Are these for a comparable number of games, or is this Lance for the entire freshman year vs. Mike for 12 games? It looks like Lance is getting twice the minutes of Mike with comparably larger numbers. Not sure about the conclusion.

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

Before we hear anymore outlandish claims about how superior Lance is to Mike, let’s look at some numbers, since these are what so many of you get all hot and bothered over.
Lance:
Minutes PG FG% 3PT% FT% RPG AST TO STL BLK PF PPG
19.7 53.2 0 60.9 3.7 .5 1.2 .6 .3 2.8 4.6
Mike:
9.3 57.1 42.9 100 1.1 .3 .7 .2 .1 1.3 2.7
Now I’m not a math whiz, so maybe someone who is could explain to me how Lance is significantly better than Mike based on the numbers above.

These are Lance's career numbers, right? Are you suggesting that we can meaningfully compare a career including 101 starts to someone playing 9 minutes a game (in only 9 games; if you count DNPs as 0 minutes, Michael has only played 6.5 mpg), mostly in garbage time?

I wouldn’t be so quick to dis Mike, he just might surprise you if given the chance.

It isn't "dis"ing someone to suggest they're not ready to start or play big minutes at a top five program. Michael will get his chance, just probably not this year.

[dukeballboy88]

Moving Silent G into the starting lineup would make us better defensively over night. And wiith more minutes comes more touches and he could easily avg 10 ppg because he has a nice shot and he hangs around the basket cleaning up garbage. With the way Quinn is playing im on board with the youth movement right now. Start Quinn, Austin and Michael from here on out and bring some heavy fire power off the bench with Andre and Seth.

[Duvall]

Finally, just because Michael made a couple three-pointers in a 40-point rout the other day doesn't mean he's ready on offense. He's clearly not. I'm sure he'll get there, hopefully as soon as next season, but right now both the eye test and the stats suggest he's by far our worst offensive player.

Do they? Not that it matters much, but Gbinije has at least shown a willingness to limit himself to quality shots (layups, dunks and open 3s). At least he isn't wasting possessions with low-percentage attempts.

[jv001]

Moving Silent G into the starting lineup would make us better defensively over night. And wiith more minutes comes more touches and he could easily avg 10 ppg because he has a nice shot and he hangs around the basket cleaning up garbage. With the way Quinn is playing im on board with the youth movement right now. Start Quinn, Austin and Michael from here on out and bring some heavy fire power off the bench with Andre and Seth.

I respect your opinion, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I believe MG will be a very good player for Duke in the future. Maybe as a soon as next year, but he's not going to crack the starting rotation this close to the ACC play. I love this team because I too see a bright future for Alex, Michael, Quinn, Marshall and super star future for Austin. But Coach K is not going to drop minutes for Ryan, Mason, Miles, Andre, Seth, Austin, Tyler and Quinn. There are just so minutes that can be played in a ball game. I love your enthusiasm for the young guys, but Coach K will probably not start 3 freshman. GoDuke!

[feldspar]

Can I just say that it's lunacy, pure lunacy, to suggest bringing Seth Curry off the bench.

Just lunacy.

[Kedsy]

Do they? Not that it matters much, but Gbinije has at least shown a willingness to limit himself to quality shots (layups, dunks and open 3s). At least he isn't wasting possessions with low-percentage attempts.

Well, I suppose that's true. And it's a good sign, as far as it goes. But when I watch him on offense, he doesn't appear to know what to do yet. Also, I don't think we've seen enough to know whether an open three is a quality shot for Michael. He hit two threes in a two minute span against Western Michigan and other than those two shots he's shooting 1 for 7 from 3-land. Without seeing more of him, it's hard to know if the two he hit in quick succession were flukes or not.

[hustleplays]

From earlier post: "But, it does come with a price, as it makes us smaller on the perimeter when neither Andre nor Mike are in the game. I am interested to see what K does to deal with that when Duke is playing teams like UNC and OSU with bigger Small Forwards. Austin may surprise us and defend an HB well for example, or K will show us yet some new wrinkle."

My belief [and certainly hope] is that Austin's defense will continue to improve -- a lot. I believe that he will become proficient, while not being our total answer, in defending against strong, tall, athletic forwards. While he gives away some height, Austin has advantages over many opposing SFs: elite, complete athleticism and fierce competitiveness. His development so far has been outstanding -- remember his first several games? On offense he has matured and expanded his game into a very proficient scorer and team player. While it's more difficult for me to see his defensive improvement, we can be confident that the coaching staff has been working intensively on D with him. Austin is gifted and wants to play, and star, in the NBA. He knows that he must become an excellent defensive player to do that. He's in the perfect D-league for him, and we are going to reap the benefits as this season progresses, IMNSHO.

Love both Quinn and Tyler. Offense flowing better. I marvel at how Coach is using these guys. I'm one of those who wanted to see more of Quinn at point, but the staff made it clear more recently that his post-injury physical well-being and conditioning -- along with readiness -- limited his playing time. I also love Tyler's floor leadership, intensity, D and just all around peskiness. It elevates the team.

btw, it's cool to keep in mind that Tyler helped recruit Kyrie, while knowing that Kyrie would cetainly take away many minutes of PT. Tyler said that it was right for Duke and for Kyrie. Nice to see for Tyler how this has worked out.

[ncexnyc]

I respect your opinion, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I believe MG will be a very good player for Duke in the future. Maybe as a soon as next year, but he's not going to crack the starting rotation this close to the ACC play. I love this team because I too see a bright future for Alex, Michael, Quinn, Marshall and super star future for Austin. But Coach K is not going to drop minutes for Ryan, Mason, Miles, Andre, Seth, Austin, Tyler and Quinn. There are just so minutes that can be played in a ball game. I love your enthusiasm for the young guys, but Coach K will probably not start 3 freshman. GoDuke!

What is the mantra concerning playing time on this board? Playing time is earned in practice and you have to be able to play defense.

Did anyone on this board foresee Paulus being relegated to the bench his senior year? I doubt it very much, but it happened.

What's one of Coach K's best traits, which we love to talk about, especially when putting Ol' Roy down? K's willingness to shape his team into a style that matches his player's abilities.

I believe myself and others still see a need for a large capable wing player on this team and we see that in Mike. Yes, there's a question on whether he can get there this year, but we see the potential. I like what I've seen so far in regards to Mike's physical tools and his basketball skillset as well. Again it comes down to what each player brings to the table and how that all fits together to make a cohesive team, only time will tell.

[jimsumner]

Moving Silent G into the starting lineup would make us better defensively over night. And wiith more minutes comes more touches and he could easily avg 10 ppg because he has a nice shot and he hangs around the basket cleaning up garbage. With the way Quinn is playing im on board with the youth movement right now. Start Quinn, Austin and Michael from here on out and bring some heavy fire power off the bench with Andre and Seth.

I think MG can and will be useful this season in situations where Duke needs a big wing on D.

And I see some Chris Carrawell in him. Gonna be a good one. Down the line.

But. If we assume that Thornton and Cook will receive all or most of the minutes at the point from here on in, then staring MG, means two of Rivers, Curry and Dawkins aren't starting.

That simply is not a rational allocation of resources. Rivers and Curry have to be on the floor for a combined 55-65 mpg against better teams. And those minutes have to come from MG.

I do find it fascinating that, going into conference play, we're devoting this much time on whether a 12-1 team is properly using its 10th man.

[superdave]

Of course I realize Lance was a senior and Mike is only a freshman, but I see his potential, which is what I’m basing my comments on. Before we hear anymore outlandish claims about how superior Lance is to Mike, let’s look at some numbers, since these are what so many of you get all hot and bothered over.
Lance:
Minutes PG FG% 3PT% FT% RPG AST TO STL BLK PF PPG
19.7 53.2 0 60.9 3.7 .5 1.2 .6 .3 2.8 4.6
Mike:
9.3 57.1 42.9 100 1.1 .3 .7 .2 .1 1.3 2.7
Now I’m not a math whiz, so maybe someone who is could explain to me how Lance is significantly better than Mike based on the numbers above.
I’d also mention Lance got a lot of playing time his freshman year due to the composition of that team. The frontcourt players were McRoberts, Zoubek, Boykin(3 games), McClure, and Lance. I think that while we’re deeper in the frontcourt this year, we do have a need for a 3 and that is the opportunity Mike can seize upon to get more playing time if not the actual starting spot. Some of you were quick to dismiss Tyler and Quinn for the more seasoned player Seth and we saw how that’s turned out. I wouldn’t be so quick to dis Mike, he just might surprise you if given the chance. As I said before there are a lot of ifs involved, but I like Mike’s chances, especially in light of a serious need at that position.

Lance's freshman year, our front court rotation consisted of McRoberts, Zoubek and McClure. McClure was a glue guy/defensive stopper, McRoberts played pretty well (13 and 8) and Zoubek only averaged 7 minutes a game and was not ready for the speed of the game.

We needed Lance to play the 4 and 5 that year, and that was a 22-11 team that lost to State in round 1 of the ACC tourney and to VCU in the first round of the NCAAs. That team had two 4-game losing streaks and there was a meltdown on the DBR boards that year.

That being said, we could certainly use MG in certain situations this year. But I think we'll be better in March if other guys get the minutes Mike would be getting right now under this argument. MG's growth this year is more a luxury than a necessity.

Now I do think the more we run and push the pace, the more often we'll sub guys in and out which could mean more opportunity for minutes for Mike. I could see Mike and Josh getting in for a 2-3 minute burst in the first half of most games with the bench shortening in the second half. But I would conclude by saying you should only rely on a freshman if they are playing great (Austin, Quinn) or out of necessity (Lance).

[OldPhiKap]

I do find it fascinating that, going into conference play, we're devoting this much time on whether a 12-1 team is properly using its 10th man.

Well, we have a coach who dwells on where everyone sits on the bench. So at least our attention to detail matches the boss.

;>)


(but I am in agreement with Jim. We will have plenty of opportunities over the years to enjoy silent {g} and the others as they mature through the program).