Dre's stats in Dukes losses

[GoDukeDevils]

at Ohio State: 0 points
at Temple: 0 points
v. FSU: 14 points
v. Miami: 3 points
v. UNC: 0 points

Since the big win (and big game for Dre) at FSU: 7 shots attempted (all from 3pt range)
v. VT: 0 points
at WFU: 3 points
v. UNC: 0 points

Lets hope the staff figures out a way between now and the ACCT about how to get Dre going again.

[superdave]

at Ohio State: 0 points
at Temple: 0 points
v. FSU: 14 points
v. Miami: 3 points
v. UNC: 0 points

Since the big win (and big game for Dre) at FSU: 7 shots attempted (all from 3pt range)
v. VT: 0 points
at WFU: 3 points
v. UNC: 0 points

Lets hope the staff figures out a way between now and the ACCT about how to get Dre going again.

Here's what I posted on Andre back in the Phase III thread. His stats in our losses go back to his freshman and sophomore years as well:


Andre

A lot of this thread seems to be focusing on Dr. Dawkins. If he plays well enough to earn more minutes, that means he is most likely scoring the ball incredibly efficiently and that is good for Duke. Here's a look at Andre's stats over his first two years:

2010 season - .379 on 3s, averaged 1 2-point shot per game. 4.4 points in 12.6 minutes. 2 DNPs.
We know the personal issues he had about mid-season with his sister. His minutes and scoring really tailed off in January. He only scored 51 points in the final 26 games and had no double digit scoring games during that span.

2011 season- .427 on 3s, averaged 1.5 2-point shots per game. 8.1 points in 21 minutes.
Andre scored in double digits in 10 of the first 17 games last year. Then he only scored 101 points in the final 20 games and had two double digit scoring games over that span. Over that stretch he shot 22-67 from 3, less than the break-even .333 rate. He also had three games in that stretch in single-digit minutes.

Here's a quick look at all his games where he's played 30+ minutes. I know this is a chicken-egg argument. If he's hot early, he's going to play big minutes:

2010 season - No games with 30+ minutes.

2011 season
Butler - 32 minutes - 3-5 fgs, 2-4 3s, 10 points. Win.
Bradley - 31 min - 10-17 fgs, 8-14 3s, 28 points. Win.
Elon - 32 min - 5-9 fgs, 3-6 3s, 17 points. Win.
UAB - 32 min - 3-4 fgs, 2-3 3s, 8 points. Win.
Maryland - 30 min - 3-6 fgs, 2-5 3s, 8 points. Win.
UVa - 32 min - 5-11 fgs, 3-8 3s, 14 points. Win.

2012 season
MSU - 38 minutes - 8-15 fgs, 6-10 3s, 26 points. Win
TN - 32 minutes - 4-7 fgs, 2-4 3s, 10 points. Win.
Michigan - 35 minutes - 5-12 fgs, 4-9 3s, 14 points. Win.
Kansas - 34 minutes - 2-5 fgs, 2-4 3s, 6 points. Win.
Washington - 32 minutes - 5-13 fgs, 2-9 3s, 17 points. Win.

So Duke is 11-0 in games where Andre averages 30+. Some of those games he scores big, some of those games he's right around his average.

Here's a quick look at Andre's stat lines in Duke's losses the past 3 seasons:

2010 season
Wisco - 22 min - 4-4 fgs, 4-4 3s, 12 points.
GT - 12 min - 1-3, 0-2, 2 points.
State - 9 min - 0-0, 0-0.
Gtown - 13 min - 1-4, 1-4, 5 points.
Maryland - 9 minutes - 2-3, 2-3, 6 points.

2011 season
FSU - 29 min - 2-9, 1-8, 8 points.
St Johns - 27 min - 3-8, 1-6, 7 points.
VT - 18 min - 2-4, 2-4, 6 points.
Unc - 12 min - 0-1, 0-1.
Zona - 22 min - 3-5, 1-2, 9 points.

2012 season
OSU - 19 min - 0-1, 0-0.
Temple - 14 min - 0-3, 0-2.
Scoreless in both our losses this year.

I am not entirely sure what all this means. If I were the coach ( a big stretch, thanks) I'd run a few plays for him early and get him 2-3 goods looks and decide from there if it's going to be a 15 minute night or a 30 minute night. This of course assumes he's busting his tail on defense. I would also make sure he knows he must channel Rip Hamilton coming off screens to get open. No loafing. But if he's playing well and earning big minutes, we're going to win. That's awfully enticing.

[-jk]

I'm curious what difference being "hot" or "cold" makes, then. If the historic "next shot" has no statistical meaning for hot and cold, and hot and cold have no meaning that can be measured, I think y'all are talking past each other.

-jk

[Kedsy]

I'm curious what difference being "hot" or "cold" makes, then. If the historic "next shot" has no statistical meaning for hot and cold, and hot and cold have no meaning that can be measured, I think y'all are talking past each other.

-jk

It's possible. Gus and I have talked past each other on this subject in the past. I have stepped back from saying the next shot has no meaning, though (see my most recent post, right after yours). I was wrong when I said that.

What I've been trying to say for some time (with varying amounts of clarity) is that he has not defined "hot" and "cold" properly and thus his study doesn't show whether hot Andre is more likely to hit his next shot because he has jumbled data from hot periods together with periods where Andre wasn't necessarily hot. There is a study (from Cornell, I think) that people have cited in the past that does the same thing. In that study they take an old season of the 76ers and analyze whether players who make a shot (or two or three) are more likely to hit or miss their next shot than those who missed their previous one (or two or three) shots. The problem I have with the study is they didn't take into account any factors other than whether the previous shot was made. For example, if a guy made a dunk, it was grouped together with a guy who made a 20 foot shot. How can a dunk be evidence of "hot shooting"? If a guy threw up a prayer at the first quarter buzzer, it went right into the data along with every other shot. If the opponent switched defenders or defended a player more closely it was not considered in the analysis of the data.

Also, even if gus is right that there's no such thing as hot shooting (and I reiterate that I don't believe he is right), there are certainly ramifications if players believe their teammate is hot. As I said in an earlier post, players are more likely to pass to a "hot hand," or set screens to get him open. The player himself will probably be prone to try harder to get open because he thinks he'll get the ball, and thus that player is more likely to get more shots. With more shots, he'll score more, and since he'll have more confidence he'll probably shoot at a higher percentage, thus justifying the belief that he was hot in the first place. We've seen this phenomenon with Andre several times this season.

[UrinalCake]

DHG hit the nail on the head. Now, I will say that I do see him putting forth the effort on D at times, and I've seen him make some big defensive plays in isolated moments. He just doesn't show it all the time, and I have no idea why. He knows he's not going to see the floor if he doesn't work hard on D. So either he just doesn't care (unlikely) or he has some sort of recurring mental lapse that no one has been able to cure.

[Scorp4me]

And just what is Kelly's value if he isn't scoring or tyler's who is not a scorer...when they aren't hitting three's why not going with someone else who has shown he can get hot and get points in bunches...no one plays good fundamental defense...I saw Tyler let barnes blow by him numerous times Saturday...he doesn't box out you are right but no one else does on our team...I would say the plumlees are the worst offenders..they stand straight up and get pushed in the back until the refs call it...I'd rather at least give him a decent chance in the carolina game to get hot in the first half when no one else is hitting instead of 11 stinking minutes the whole game.

So I admit Tyler isn't a scorer, but I'd be a bit concerned if one can't see his value on the floor by now. As for Dre I'm not near as convinced his leash is unfairly short. But I definitely think Quinn is ourweakest defender. I've gotten to where I cringe when I see him guarding. Nothng terminal, just typical freshman.

[UrinalCake]

So I admit Tyler isn't a scorer, but I'd be a bit concerned if one can't see his value on the floor by now.

Yeah, if you need visual evidence of why Tyler starts and plays in crunch time, here you go. This play won't show up in the box score but potentially saved the game for us.

[AsiaMinor]

How can Andre perform when he's not put into the game except for a few seconds.
The last three games he's in then out with one mistake.
No chance to get into the rhythm.
Additionally, I have no respect for posters who "call out" individual players'
as tho their performance alone is the cause of a loss (or win).
The last time I looked, basketball was a TEAM sport.

[DukeHoopsGuru]

It's not about calling out individual players. I think what I posted is a proper read or assessment of Dre, and his lack of playing time. I have no inside information, but everyone can tell from watching the game. I think it's pretty easy to see that K has made it clear. If you play defense in a respectable fashion you'll get more play. He came in Saturday night, and immediately gave up baseline. He then missed a few shots on the other end, and that was it. His playing time boils down to this: 1) If you're on offensively you'll play; 2) If you're off offensively you're not going to get the time to work it out because you don't play defense. It's not an attack. Does anyone really think what I'm saying is inaccurate? The games with his most minutes are when he's shooting well. In the words of Michael Corleone, "It's not personal. It's strictly business."

[gus]

It's not about calling out individual players. I think what I posted is a proper read or assessment of Dre, and his lack of playing time. I have no inside information, but everyone can tell from watching the game. I think it's pretty easy to see that K has made it clear. If you play defense in a respectable fashion you'll get more play. He came in Saturday night, and immediately gave up baseline. He then missed a few shots on the other end, and that was it. His playing time boils down to this: 1) If you're on offensively you'll play; 2) If you're off offensively you're not going to get the time to work it out because you don't play defense. It's not an attack. Does anyone really think what I'm saying is inaccurate? The games with his most minutes are when he's shooting well. In the words of Michael Corleone, "It's not personal. It's strictly business."

As I've already noted, he is equally likely to make a shot after a miss or string of misses as he is after a make or a string of makes. I imagine you have the causation backwards: the more minutes he pleays, the more baskets he makes. Coach K has shown consistently that players who are good shooters are given the green light, regardless of what has proceeded it. If he's missed 3 in a row, but passes on an open shot... he'll get pulled. What's likely driving his minutes is not his "streakiness" (which is illusory), but his defense. And this has always been the case with Coach K as long as I've been watching his teams (over 20 years now... ugh).

[DukeHoopsGuru]

As I've already noted, he is equally likely to make a shot after a miss or string of misses as he is after a make or a string of makes. I imagine you have the causation backwards: the more minutes he pleays, the more baskets he makes. Coach K has shown consistently that players who are good shooters are given the green light, regardless of what has proceeded it. If he's missed 3 in a row, but passes on an open shot... he'll get pulled. What's likely driving his minutes is not his "streakiness" (which is illusory), but his defense. And this has always been the case with Coach K as long as I've been watching his teams (over 20 years now... ugh).

I think we're saying the same thing for the most part. However, this year his streakiness plays more of a role than almost every other Duke team. In the past Duke was good enough defensively to take a little more liberty to see if Dre would start hitting. However, they are so bad defensively this season that the luxury to do that does not exist. It puts more pressure on Dre because if he's not hitting (as we've seen) he's coming to bench very soon unless he is playing solid defense. The defense or lack thereof is and always will be the determining factor. However, there's a tangential issue with whether or not he's hitting.

PS - I am still befuddled at his lack of development on the offensive end 3 years into the system.

[jv001]

As I've already noted, he is equally likely to make a shot after a miss or string of misses as he is after a make or a string of makes. I imagine you have the causation backwards: the more minutes he pleays, the more baskets he makes. Coach K has shown consistently that players who are good shooters are given the green light, regardless of what has proceeded it. If he's missed 3 in a row, but passes on an open shot... he'll get pulled. What's likely driving his minutes is not his "streakiness" (which is illusory), but his defense. And this has always been the case with Coach K as long as I've been watching his teams (over 20 years now... ugh).

I think your post sums it up pretty well with Andre and Coach K. Andre's best attribute is his outstanding shooting. Coach K's emphasis is playing good defense. Andre's least attribute is playing defense. Not only on the ball defense, but help defense as well. As I've said in previous posts it's more mental(focus) than physical. Some have brought up other players in the equation, but those players bring other things to the table/game. Not that they are great at them but they do bring them. With the physical ability that Andre is blessed with, I don't know why he can't dribble better and can't defend better. Like I said, it must be his mental make up. I love this kid and want to see him improve. I wonder if letting him play through some of his mistakes would help. We sure need him on his game for this team to be elite. GoDuke!

[dyedwab]

What's likely driving his minutes is not his "streakiness" (which is illusory), but his defense. And this has always been the case with Coach K as long as I've been watching his teams (over 20 years now... ugh).

I agree with both posters here, in that its both Andre's streakiness AND his defense that cost him minutes, because Andre embodies something about this team that Coach K basically stated during the post-game press conference for Carolina, which is that when we miss our shots, our whole game suffers. We play worse defense, we're not as good rebounding, etc.

To a degree that I can not remember in any Duke team that I have followed, this team's offense affects its defense, not the other way around. And I think the player who personifies this most is Andre.

[Wildcat]

I can't believe we are still talking about the glaring problems with our team. K himself even said: this is who we are. This is boring. Practically everyone else in college basketball, whose not a true-blue fan says the same thing about us. 101

[RockyMtDevil]

I can't believe we are still talking about the glaring problems with our team. K himself even said: this is who we are. This is boring. Practically everyone else in college basketball, whose not a true-blue fan says the same thing about us. 101

This is true. Really, unless you are UNC, Kentucky or Syracuse, everyone has glaring problems, that's why it's college basketball and why every year is and can be a crap shoot based on the whims of a group of kids. I'm glad my job isn't dependent on the moods, decisions and attitudes of 18-22 year olds, I'd blow my brains out!! So, we have a great chance of making a run and we should be glad that just about every year at this time of year, we actually all believe that. It's remarkable how sustainable K has made Duke. March is awesome because we are always in the mix, imagine being a myriad of other programs who have one shot every 4-5 years or so of making a deep run, and when over, they know it ain't coming around again anytime soon. Heck, if we lose in the second round, we all know that next year we'll be back with hopefully an even deeper and more talented squad. Let's enjoy and stop the nitpicking, I for one am tired of doing it myself...

[Kedsy]

Ryan is more of a liablity on Defense than Andre is due to the constant flopping, which almost always leads to an easy offensive put back or dump off for a dunk, while he is laying on the floor underneath the basket.

You and others have said this often, but my observation is Ryan draws a lot of offensive fouls. I don't have any numbers, but my eyes tell me his attempts to draw charges do not "almost always" lead to bad results. I also don't know that there's a right or wrong answer to this question. More likely is you happen to take more notice of the bad results and I happen to take more notice of the good results.

whether he has made his previous shots has no predictive value whatsoever on whether he'll make his next one.

We've had this argument before, but I think you are mischaracterizing what makes up "hot shooting." Shooting mechanics are not always consistent. Some days a shooter has his motion locked better than others and/or he has more confidence in his shot. Teammates notice this and pass to him more often, so they can "feed the hot hand." The player then tries harder to get open and it becomes an upward spiral. Watching the games, it is quite obvious when this phenomenon occurs with Andre.

Whether he made his previous shot (or shots) may not have predictive value on whether he makes his next one, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no such thing as a hot shooter.

[RockyMtDevil]

I think the fact that we are even discussing both respective player's defensive abilities or lack thereof says something about their level of play. It's a none issue if the consensus is that both actually play good, solid D and nobody can say that with much confidance at this stage in the game. Ryan actually plays fairly decent help defense, coming up with several blocks off his man, I just wish he would resist the urge to flop. We tend to get those calls against inferior opponents and at home, but not against solid teams and certainly not on the road or on neutral courts, which is all we have left.

[gus]

Whether he made his previous shot (or shots) may not have predictive value on whether he makes his next one, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no such thing as a hot shooter.

Huh? That makes no sense.

If having a "hot hand" or "cold hand" have no predictive value on the next shot, what's the point? If you're acknowleding that "hot" and "cold" are meaningless in predicting a shooter's next shot, well... then what's the debate about?

[Kedsy]

If having a "hot hand" or "cold hand" have no predictive value on the next shot, what's the point? If you're acknowleding that "hot" and "cold" are meaningless in predicting a shooter's next shot, well... then what's the debate about?

I'm not admitting that. I'm saying one shot is not what "hot" and "cold" are about. You are oversimplifying the issue and defining "hot" and "cold" to fit your conclusion.

Hot shooters sometimes miss, or lose their focus. They sometimes get overconfident and take a bad shot that is less likely to go in. Cold shooters sometimes get lucky, or they fix the mechanical and/or psychological problems that led them to be cold and thus break out of the slump. I also agree there are random elements at play. But there are a lot of other factors as well. If a guy goes 9 for 12 one day and 0 for 5 the next there's often something going on there besides random chance.

Not only that, there aren't just two states here. Sometimes shooters feel "hotter" than usual. Sometimes they feel "colder." But most of the time they're neither. So most of the time the previous shot has nothing to do with "hot" or "cold," and that has to skew your analysis. You also don't take into account the myriad additional factors that may affect the next shot, other than whether the last shot went in. How much time elapsed between shots? What's the game situation? Is it the same or a different defender? Is the shooter closely guarded or wide open after a screen? Etc., etc.

But putting all that aside, if a 50% shooter hurts his wrist, and shoots 2 for 12, you wouldn't have a problem explaining at least some of the subpar performance to the injury, would you? You wouldn't break it down shot by shot and try to credit the entire difference to random chance, would you? So why can't you accept that people's psychological state can affect their shooting in a similar manner to a physical injury?

For the most part, that's what I think "hot" and "cold" are, a combination of psychological state and temporarily better (or worse) mechanics. You may disagree with that, but simply predicting whether the shooter will make his next shot is inconsistent with my definition.

[Kedsy]

For the most part, that's what I think "hot" and "cold" are, a combination of psychological state and temporarily better (or worse) mechanics. You may disagree with that, but simply predicting whether the shooter will make his next shot is inconsistent with my definition.

I've been thinking about this some more, and I suppose I have to admit that a hot shooter should hit a higher percentage of his next shots than a cold shooter (or a neither hot nor cold shooter). I was wrong when I said predicting the next shot is inconsistent with my definition.

However, I still think the problem is the definition of "hot" and "cold" in this context. Your study of Andre's shots combined all his shooting, when he was hot, cold, or neither. Our differences therefore lie not in whether determining the next shot is important, but in whether you have properly identified whether a hot or cold (or neither) shooter took that shot. In my opinion, making (or missing) one (or two or even three) shots doesn't necessarily show "hotness" or "coldness," and this is what renders your results inconclusive in my mind.

The rest of the reasoning in my previous post explains why I don't accept your definition of hot and cold, and I still stand by that explanation.