Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 166
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    I still maintain that mental lapses account for 6-10 of opponent's points each night and maybe even more. Cleaning up all of these errors is probably impossible, but cleaning up most of them means that we're giving up 4-6 fewer points per game, which makes a huge difference in both efficiency rankings and our own prospects on the court.
    Well, you're absolutely right that 4 to 6 points a game would make a huge difference in our efficiency rankings. Assuming we'd improve at least as much as the raw efficiency numbers, it would place us between 9th and 19th in the country. Since we've played the 3rd best offensive schedule in the country, I suspect it would make us a lot better than that, certainly a top 10 defense, even with 4 points better. It might not have changed our win/loss record very much (it probably would have made a win vs. Florida State, but probably not Temple or Ohio State), but if we had a top ten defense in Pomeroy, it at least would make us fans feel more comfortable...

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    That was my original thought, too. But this morning, I wonder if our guards are tall enough to pull it off. Looking at the numbers, the 2010 team was only average (for a Duke team) at stopping the two, and if we played the same sort of D that team did, perhaps we can move our numbers stopping the two from awful to average. But that team stopped the three at by far the best rate of any Duke team in the past twelve years. We also featured a starting perimeter of 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. Our tallest perimeter now is 6'2, 6'5, 6'5. When Quinn or Tyler play, we're usually 6'0, 6'2, 6'5. And frankly I don't think Seth or Quinn are as tall as they're listed. If we're laying off the shooters and then running at them if they look like they're going to shoot, 6'0, 6'2, 6'5 is a LOT less likely to bother the shot than 6'2, 6'5, 6'8. So, I'm not sure the 2010 style would work for us this year.
    agree completely. I think we can run sabermetric style numbers all we want, but at the end of the day, we are simply below average in terms of both size and quickness on the perimeter.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    A quick brainstorm on the possible changes Coach K could implement to make our D better:

    1. Pack it in more. Have the guards sag back to cut off driving lanes, forcing opponents to shoot more jump shots. Use our interior size to control the defensive boards.
    Perhaps we sag only as to the PG (or only those opposing players with quick, dribble-penetration styles) and play tight D on the wings (or against jump shooters). Go under screens when the ballhandler is a driver and through/over screens when he is a shooter. Seems to me that most college players are proficient at either a dribble penetration style or a jump shooting style, but rarely both. If we're going to give up something, perhaps we play the percentages and give the drivers a few open jump shots and dare the jump shooter to drive.

    In other words, stay as close as possible to a guy like JJ Redick and live with his occasional drives to the basket. And thank God you weren't playing against Jason Williams.

    Seems simplistic, but I'm not so sure even such a small step wouldn't help at this point.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Quote Originally Posted by fgb View Post
    agree completely. I think we can run sabermetric style numbers all we want, but at the end of the day, we are simply below average in terms of both size and quickness on the perimeter.
    I disagree that the team is below average in terms of size and quickness on the perimeter. When Seth-Austin-Andre are out there, I would say the team is probably above average in both size and quickness, though is smaller than some teams at the wing positions, and not as quick as some of the quickest teams. With Quinn or Tyler in the lineup, I would say the Duke perimeter would be quicker than most, but doesn't have a super quick defender that is fantastic at stopping penetration.

    My impression is that normally, Duke likes to pressure on the perimeter to try to generate steals and make it harder for the offense to pass the ball inside, with the side effect of allowing more penetration (making our perimeter defenders appear slower as they get beat more often.) When the team is playing well and has the defense down pat, these extra times of our perimeter defense getting beat are worth it, as our help defense is ready to prevent easy baskets and the other team still has to make several more good moves and/or passes to get a good shot most of the time. I don't think the team is there yet, but I am like COYS in that I hope the team will get there and be able to pressure on the perimeter, but improve a bit in preventing penetration and improve a lot at reducing the damage from penetration, by greatly improving help side defense and communication.
    “Those two kids, they’re champions,” Krzyzewski said of his senior leaders. “They’re trying to teach the other kids how to become that, and it’s a long road to become that.”

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    I don't know where else to put this, but after having read the Shane Ryan piece which is linked on the front page, some of which discusses Duke's defense, I had the same reaction I have every time I read something he writes: What a jerk. A Duke fan who clearly hates the Duke players, doesn't know much about basketball, and is way more interested in showing off how clever he is than writing a fair piece. I guess that makes him the perfect Duke writer for Grantland, but I get angry every time I read the guy. OK, sorry. [/rant]

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC

    100% agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I don't know where else to put this, but after having read the Shane Ryan piece which is linked on the front page, some of which discusses Duke's defense, I had the same reaction I have every time I read something he writes: What a jerk. A Duke fan who clearly hates the Duke players, doesn't know much about basketball, and is way more interested in showing off how clever he is than writing a fair piece. I guess that makes him the perfect Duke writer for Grantland, but I get angry every time I read the guy. OK, sorry. [/rant]
    I agree with you. That article was say out of line. I commented on another thread a couple of mins ago. GoDuke!

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I don't know where else to put this, but after having read the Shane Ryan piece which is linked on the front page, some of which discusses Duke's defense, I had the same reaction I have every time I read something he writes: What a jerk. A Duke fan who clearly hates the Duke players, doesn't know much about basketball, and is way more interested in showing off how clever he is than writing a fair piece. I guess that makes him the perfect Duke writer for Grantland, but I get angry every time I read the guy. OK, sorry. [/rant]
    the immature name-concoctions near the beginning were stupid and totally unnecessary, but the author was able to muster up the ability to complement MP IIs game vs MD and the growth of his game overall. I think both of those things deserve some kudos, b/c it would also be easy to say "well, the kid is supposed to be great so what he's doing now is no big deal". As K likes to say, each player runs their own race, and MP II is starting to hit his stride now. Somebody gave props to Mason for doing so, what's wrong with that? I guess my starting point is that most sports writers at popular sites are idiots and their stories probably not worth reading, so to get anything positive out of a story is good?

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieInBrasil View Post
    the immature name-concoctions near the beginning were stupid and totally unnecessary, but the author was able to muster up the ability to complement MP IIs game vs MD and the growth of his game overall. I think both of those things deserve some kudos, b/c it would also be easy to say "well, the kid is supposed to be great so what he's doing now is no big deal". As K likes to say, each player runs their own race, and MP II is starting to hit his stride now. Somebody gave props to Mason for doing so, what's wrong with that? I guess my starting point is that most sports writers at popular sites are idiots and their stories probably not worth reading, so to get anything positive out of a story is good?
    I agree with you that it's nice that someone is giving Mason props, which he truly deserves. Shane Ryan, however, has to go on with the "Mason Clumslee" stuff and talking about the "hated Miles." Plus, after having unfairly criticized Mason for some time, in order to come all the way around, Mr. Ryan now seems to believe Mason is the only decent player on the team and the rest of our players stink.

    Then he goes off on Andre and makes a "defensive mistake mix tape," and the first thing he shows is Andre getting tripped. As if that's his fault. Mr. Ryan doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between someone scoring and a defensive mistake. He showed a whole lot of plays, but I only counted two true mistakes plus maybe another two arguable mistakes. Big deal.

    So I have nothing against his praising Mason, but in general I just can't stand what he says or the way he says it.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I don't know where else to put this, but after having read the Shane Ryan piece which is linked on the front page, some of which discusses Duke's defense, I had the same reaction I have every time I read something he writes: What a jerk. A Duke fan who clearly hates the Duke players, doesn't know much about basketball, and is way more interested in showing off how clever he is than writing a fair piece. I guess that makes him the perfect Duke writer for Grantland, but I get angry every time I read the guy. OK, sorry. [/rant]
    It's kind of remarkable how much Grantland has come to reflect the kind of publication that Bill Simmons would want to read. Simmons cares about the NFL, NBA and MLB, so he gets quality writers for those sports. He has always treated college basketball as an afterthought, and Grantland has hired writers for the sport accordingly.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Then he goes off on Andre and makes a "defensive mistake mix tape," and the first thing he shows is Andre getting tripped. As if that's his fault. Mr. Ryan doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between someone scoring and a defensive mistake. He showed a whole lot of plays, but I only counted two true mistakes plus maybe another two arguable mistakes. Big deal.
    Agreed here. I watched that expecting to see a bunch of mistakes and didn't see many. I saw a gamble and a non-boxout as mistakes, 1-2 poor efforts on a ball screen and getting blown by, and the rest were solid defensive plays. You can play solid defense, not make a mistake, and still get beat or give up a shot. At the highest levels, good offense tends to beat good defense in 1v1 scenarios.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I don't know where else to put this, but after having read the Shane Ryan piece which is linked on the front page, some of which discusses Duke's defense, I had the same reaction I have every time I read something he writes: What a jerk. A Duke fan who clearly hates the Duke players, doesn't know much about basketball, and is way more interested in showing off how clever he is than writing a fair piece. I guess that makes him the perfect Duke writer for Grantland, but I get angry every time I read the guy. OK, sorry. [/rant]
    I thought the article was well-written and quite accurate. Yes it was a little bit over the top, but all-in-all a pretty accurate and cleverly written assessment of the game. I believe the majority of Duke fans would agree with the article as well. You know, the truth is not always pretty, but if we as Duke fans can take off the blue-tinted glasses, it's definitely there.

    To summarize the article: I've been hard on Mason the last 2 years, but he's finally put it together this year and carried the team against Maryland. Our defense is absolutely atrocious (which it is), and Andre had a particularly bad game on defense, which is why he didn't play much in the 2nd half.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by SilkyJ View Post
    Agreed here. I watched that expecting to see a bunch of mistakes and didn't see many. I saw a gamble and a non-boxout as mistakes, 1-2 poor efforts on a ball screen and getting blown by, and the rest were solid defensive plays. You can play solid defense, not make a mistake, and still get beat or give up a shot. At the highest levels, good offense tends to beat good defense in 1v1 scenarios.
    So that is at LEAST 5, and the video covered not even the entire 1st half? And I thought there were 7 defensive mishaps out of those 10.

    Not to single only Andre out since none of Seth/Tyler/Austin were lockdown defenders that night, but Andre clearly had a bad game on both sides of the ball, which is why he sat the 2nd half. Kid needs to FOCUS.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by duke09hms View Post
    I thought the article was well-written and quite accurate.
    Well, I disagree on both counts, but that's not really the point. Reading a Shane Ryan article is like reading the worst of the worst DBR in-game threads.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    I don't think it was a bad loss though. In fact if the last second shot didn't fall and Duke pulled it out instead we wouldn't be doing all this hand-wringing anyway.
    The voice of sanity manifests itself.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    For what it's worth, the Tommy Amaker-led Harvard Crimson (17-2) have the #10 adjusted defense and the Johnny Dawkins-led Stanford Cardinal (15-5) have the #43 adjusted defense.

    Our defensive weaknesses can be almost entirely attributed to mental lapses. Harvard plays guards of 6-1, 6-3, and 6-5, and Stanford's PG is 5-10, and I find it hard to argue they have more talented players than us. However, they play much smarter defense than us as do many other teams.

    Moe Harkless of St. Johns just dropped 30 pts on us in CIS. Giving up 76 points to the #188 adjusted offense today does not seem to signal improvement in our defense. 10 games left in the regular season. Come on Duke, focus and lock it up.
    Last edited by duke09hms; 01-28-2012 at 02:14 PM.

  16. #96
    Following the second half against St. John's, Duke may be 18-3, but has a 31-11 record if you score the games by halves. It's clearly a focus/consistency issue. We're much better playing to win than playing not to lose.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by toooskies View Post
    Following the second half against St. John's, Duke may be 18-3, but has a 31-11 record if you score the games by halves.
    But why would you score that way? Of course I'd prefer if we kept our foot on the pedal and increased our lead until the last second, but the object of the game is to win, not to win by as many points as possible.

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    But why would you score that way? Of course I'd prefer if we kept our foot on the pedal and increased our lead until the last second, but the object of the game is to win, not to win by as many points as possible.
    It be be some people are concerned that this appears to be a nasty habit this team has acquired and that at the worst possible moment (UNC game or tourny game) it will come back to bite us.

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    It be be some people are concerned that this appears to be a nasty habit this team has acquired and that at the worst possible moment (UNC game or tourny game) it will come back to bite us.
    Yeah, I understand that, but keeping our record by halves? So if we have a 20 point lead at halftime and win by 18, it's a "loss." Seems silly to me.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Yeah, I understand that, but keeping our record by halves? So if we have a 20 point lead at halftime and win by 18, it's a "loss." Seems silly to me.
    Kinda the way I see trying to reduce all things basketball to numbers. Seems silly to me. IMO, there is no sample size large enough on any one team to make a statistical evaluation meaningful, but then I am not a statistician. It seems to me that looking at such numbers is like being a hammer - everything looks like a nail.

    There is such a thing as heart, player compatibility and complement, leadership and intangibles involved in the game.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 03:17 PM
  2. What's wrong with this picture?
    By Deladev in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 11:17 AM
  3. Is something wrong with Miles??? NO!!
    By redick4pres in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 01-22-2011, 06:14 AM
  4. We're in the wrong division
    By Olympic Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 01:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •