Looking Ahead To 2012-2013

[CDu]

But he didn't look like he made the leap. Sorry, but I flat-out disagree. At the beginning of that season, he didn't show anything we hadn't seen from him before. It was only towards the end of the year that he finally developed the hook shot that has made him successful on offense since then. So at the beginning, in my opinion most people were watching tentatively, wondering what we we're going to see out of Mason that year. He did have that big game at Marquette, but otherwise none of his performances were off the charts. When things didn't seem to be panning out for Mason statistically, people retroactively decided it was because the loss of Kyrie, if only because "The Toe" was the single most salient event to occur that entire season. It became the explanation for everything. In time and with repetition, the disparity kept getting magnified (just like how the buck keeps growing everytime your hunting buddy tells "that" story).

Sure, there was a slight, slight drop in performance, statistically speaking. But it was nowhere near the drop that would allow you to definitively say, "Yeah, the loss of Kyrie is the primary and sole cause of this."

Agreed. Mason had a monster game (against an undersized Marquette team) in which he backed defenders down and scored on a variety of plays. Aside from that, it was the typical Mason game: an alleyoop here and there, a putback here and there, awkward hooks and leaners that didn't go in, and the occasional ill-advised jumper from 15+ feet. What the loss of Irving did was eliminate a lot of the easy uncontested buckets and alley-oops that Mason received, which was the entirety of his offensive game with the exception of the Marquette game. He still had a lot of the same limitations that he had the year before.

[azzefkram]

But he didn't look like he made the leap. Sorry, but I flat-out disagree. At the beginning of that season, he didn't show anything we hadn't seen from him before. It was only towards the end of the year that he finally developed the hook shot that has made him successful on offense since then. So at the beginning, in my opinion most people were watching tentatively, wondering what we we're going to see out of Mason that year. He did have that big game at Marquette, but otherwise none of his performances were off the charts. When things didn't seem to be panning out for Mason statistically, people retroactively decided it was because the loss of Kyrie, if only because "The Toe" was the single most salient event to occur that entire season. It became the explanation for everything. In time and with repetition, the disparity kept getting magnified (just like how the buck keeps growing everytime your hunting buddy tells "that" story).

Sure, there was a slight, slight drop in performance, statistically speaking. But it was nowhere near the drop that would allow you to definitively say, "Yeah, the loss of Kyrie is the primary and sole cause of this."

If you look at the game logs you would see that there was a significant drop in his stats and usage. With Kyrie he averaged 6 shots per game and made nearly 55% of his attempts with games against #4 KSU, #6 MSU and Butler. I intentionally excluded his stats from that Marquette game. In the 7 games after Butler, he averaged 3.86 shots per game and made only 44% with the toughest opponent probably being Miami. In the last 7 games before Kyrie returned he averaged 4.43 shots per game and made 61%, with two games against UNC and one with Temple.

No one ever stated that the loss of Kyrie was the primary and sole cause of this.

Don't let reality get in the way of your narrative.

[Kedsy]

If you look at the game logs you would see that there was a significant drop in his stats and usage.

If you do the same analysis this year, I bet you'd find a similar pattern during similar time periods.

[azzefkram]

If you do the same analysis this year, I bet you'd find a similar pattern during similar time periods.

Nope.

[Jderf]

If you look at the game logs you would see that there was a significant drop in his stats and usage. With Kyrie he averaged 6 shots per game and made nearly 55% of his attempts with games against #4 KSU, #6 MSU and Butler. I intentionally excluded his stats from that Marquette game. In the 7 games after Butler, he averaged 3.86 shots per game and made only 44% with the toughest opponent probably being Miami. In the last 7 games before Kyrie returned he averaged 4.43 shots per game and made 61%, with two games against UNC and one with Temple.

No one ever stated that the loss of Kyrie was the primary and sole cause of this.

Don't let reality get in the way of your narrative.

Ooh, ouch. Nice zinger at the end there, buddy. It really bolstered your argument.

I guess where we disagree is on what constitutes a significant drop. Like I said before, yes you can highlight a statistical difference, but is that drop big enough or meaningful enough to make it significant? Does it tell us anything?

Did Mason take 2 less shots per game because he didn't have Kyrie feeding him anymore? Or did his shots per game really drop because he played 7 mpg less? I'd bet the difference in his per-minute averages was much less striking. (Though it isn't like the differences are all that striking to begin with.)

Were his percentages over your early period better because of Kyrie's crisp passes? Or were they skewed because the early period had the Marquette game in it (which was a HUGE statistical outlier in terms of the rest of Mason's season)?

These are very tough questions to answer, especially when you consider the meagerness of the differences, as well as the diminutive sample size. I'm not saying it is simply wrong, I'm pointing out how odd it is that this notion has become incontrovertible fact through mere repetition, when the actual difference in question was not nearly so striking. It was actually pretty negligible.

Also, while we're at it, the majority of the benefit that Mason had from Kyrie didn't even have anything to do with entry passes, as I remember it. Most of his points came from drive-and-dish opportunities where Mason's defender helped off of him to try and stop Kyrie, leaving Mason open for the easy lay-in. He didn't really "get the ball on the block," as you said, all that often.

[azzefkram]

Ooh, ouch. Nice zinger at the end there, buddy. It really bolstered your argument.

I guess where we disagree is on what constitutes a significant drop. Like I said before, yes you can highlight a statistical difference, but is that drop big enough or meaningful enough to make it significant? Does it tell us anything?

Did Mason take 2 less shots per game because he didn't have Kyrie feeding him anymore? Or did his shots per game really drop because he played 7 mpg less? I'd bet the difference in his per-minute averages was much less striking. (Though it isn't like the differences are all that striking to begin with.)

Were his percentages over your early period better because of Kyrie's crisp passes? Or were they skewed because the early period had the Marquette game in it (which was a HUGE statistical outlier in terms of the rest of Mason's season)?

These are very tough questions to answer, especially when you consider the meagerness of the differences, as well as the diminutive sample size. I'm not saying it is simply wrong, I'm pointing out how odd it is that this notion has become incontrovertible fact through mere repetition, when the actual difference in question was not nearly so striking. It was actually pretty negligible.

Also, while we're at it, the majority of the benefit that Mason had from Kyrie didn't even have anything to do with entry passes, as I remember it. Most of his points came from drive-and-dish opportunities where Mason's defender helped off of him to try and stop Kyrie's drive, leaving Mason open for the easy lay-in. He didn't really "get the ball on the block," as you said, all that often.

Sorry about the snarky comment. It was out of line.

2 shots less is a 33% drop which I would say is significant. I agree that the per minute number will probably be different but if I had to guess I don't think neither of us cares enough to put the effort in to calculating it. I also agree with the small sample size negating some of the impact.

FTR, I excluded the Marquette game. As far as how Mason received the ball, I think we both would just be guessing, but whether a drop off or an entry pass he's on the block. Also it goes back to my original point the a good/great point guard makes a bigs job easier.

To step away from Duke since we both seem pretty passionate about it. Take a look at Alex Oriakhi from UConn.

[Kedsy]

If you look at the game logs you would see that there was a significant drop in his stats and usage.

This year, in the first 26 games, Mason took 7.8 shots per game. In the last 8 games of the season, he only took 5.8 shots per game. Similar drop as you are describing, along with a significant drop in stats and usage, but no major personnel change at that time. Sometimes these things just happen.

[NSDukeFan]

This year, in the first 26 games, Mason took 7.8 shots per game. In the last 8 games of the season, he only took 5.8 shots per game. Similar drop as you are describing, along with a significant drop in stats and usage, but no major personnel change at that time. Sometimes these things just happen.

Next your going to say that if a player posts below average numbers for a couple of games, he may just be having a bad game and may not necessarily have "regressed". /sarcastic rant from not liking the term regressed when looking at a very small sample size

[Saratoga2]

Next your going to say that if a player posts below average numbers for a couple of games, he may just be having a bad game and may not necessarily have "regressed". /sarcastic rant from not liking the term regressed when looking at a very small sample size

In the NBA, Mason would have to develop a mid range shot to add to his offensive abilities. Guys with his size and athleticism need to have more than he can bring to the party to be successful. I bring this up since he has shown no sign of going in that direction and he gets very few shots a game unless they are dunks. Why hasn't the staff encouraged him to add an outside shot? I hope the answer is that he has tried but it didn't work out.

[NSDukeFan]

Next your going to say that if a player posts below average numbers for a couple of games, he may just be having a bad game and may not necessarily have "regressed". /sarcastic rant from not liking the term regressed when looking at a very small sample size

Oops, too late to fix "your" to you're.

[Jderf]

Sorry about the snarky comment. It was out of line.

2 shots less is a 33% drop which I would say is significant. I agree that the per minute number will probably be different but if I had to guess I don't think neither of us cares enough to put the effort in to calculating it. I also agree with the small sample size negating some of the impact.

FTR, I excluded the Marquette game. As far as how Mason received the ball, I think we both would just be guessing, but whether a drop off or an entry pass he's on the block. Also it goes back to my original point the a good/great point guard makes a bigs job easier.

To step away from Duke since we both seem pretty passionate about it. Take a look at Alex Oriakhi from UConn.

Hmm, see I would say that this fact -- that just 2 shots makes a difference of 33% -- actually supports my point more than yours: we're just not talking about enough shots to substantiate a meaningful difference. But oh well, that's just me.

I think we've pretty much exhausted our talking points here, and I have a feeling that the more and more we debate this, the closer and closer our positions will get to each other's. In any case, I would never deny that having a great distributor can make life much easier for a big. I just don't think Mason's production or style of play in that season changed drastically in the wake of the toe injury. But from the way people around here assert it as undisputed fact, you'd think Mason went from 20 ppg to zero. (I realize that is an exaggeration, and that it is not your position at all. Just saying.)

[azzefkram]

This year, in the first 26 games, Mason took 7.8 shots per game. In the last 8 games of the season, he only took 5.8 shots per game. Similar drop as you are describing, along with a significant drop in stats and usage, but no major personnel change at that time. Sometimes these things just happen.

Love the back and forth, no snarkiness intended. We lost 3 of our last 8 games and got a little 3pt happy. I also felt that Austin dominated the ball more toward the end of the season.

A better analysis would probably involve touches but I don't know where you could find that data.

My point is that a good/great 1 makes the bigs better. Let me ask you a question. Does Tyler Zeller win ACC POY if you swap Kendall Marshall with either Austin Rivers or Seth Curry? I'd guess no. Does Mason have a better year if we make the same swap? I'd guess yes. Does Duke have a better year if we make that swap? I'd say probably with Austin and definitely with Seth. (FTR, I think Duke had a very good year with an unfortunate crappy ending).

[azzefkram]

Hmm, see I would say that this fact -- that just 2 shots makes a difference of 33% -- actually supports my point more than yours: we're just not talking about enough shots to substantiate a meaningful difference. But oh well, that's just me.

I think we've pretty much exhausted our talking points here, and I have a feeling that the more and more we debate this, the closer and closer our positions will get to each other's. In any case, I would never deny that having a great distributor can make life much easier for a big. I just don't think Mason's production or style of play in that season changed drastically in the wake of the toe injury. But from the way people around here assert it as undisputed fact, you'd think Mason went from 20 ppg to zero. (I realize that is an exaggeration, and that it is not your position at all. Just saying.)

My goodness... you're a regular Nostradamus. Just joking around. I too don't think Mason's production or style of play in that season changed drastically in the wake of the toe injury, but I think his effectiveness did. While he has pleasantly added to his repertoire, to this day, Mason's best move/shot is a dunk.

[Kedsy]

Love the back and forth, no snarkiness intended. We lost 3 of our last 8 games and got a little 3pt happy. I also felt that Austin dominated the ball more toward the end of the season.

A better analysis would probably involve touches but I don't know where you could find that data.

My point is that a good/great 1 makes the bigs better. Let me ask you a question. Does Tyler Zeller win ACC POY if you swap Kendall Marshall with either Austin Rivers or Seth Curry? I'd guess no. Does Mason have a better year if we make the same swap? I'd guess yes. Does Duke have a better year if we make that swap? I'd say probably with Austin and definitely with Seth. (FTR, I think Duke had a very good year with an unfortunate crappy ending).

There's no question in my mind that a great PG allows all his players (including the bigs) more shots and in most cases a higher degree of effectiveness. As far as Zeller is concerned, I didn't think he should have been player of the year even with Marshall (I would have given it to Scott), but I think he still would have been first team all-conference if he'd had Austin or Seth instead of Marshall. Of all the UNC players, it seems to me he's the one guy who could pretty much do what he does no matter who's feeding him the ball. My guess is Mason probably has a slightly better year with Marshall -- maybe an extra dunk a game, which is probably what Kyrie gave him, too.

Does Duke have a better year with Marshall swapped for Seth? Possibly. Marshall wouldn't have fixed our biggest problem -- defense. Our offense was actually rated higher than UNC's for pretty much the entire year before Ryan got hurt, so I'm not sure how much better Marshall could have made us. I suspect whether or not we'd have been better would depend on how well Austin could have learned to play off the ball. I also suspect that of all our players, the one who would have shown the most improvement with Marshall playing PG for us would have been Andre, who would have gotten the ball when he was open a lot more than he did. Swapping Marshall for Austin would have been interesting to see. It would have meant we had nobody who could get his own shot, but someone really good at getting shots for others. Although, again, offense wasn't really our problem, and Austin is a better defensive player than Marshall. (And when I say all this, I'm not talking about the last three games when Ryan was hurt, but for the 31 games before that.)

[ncexnyc]

Can somebody please pinch me and tell me that I'm dreaming. Am I really seeing Mason Plumlee and his severely limited offensive game being mentioned in the same breath as Tyler "ACC Player of the Year" Zeller?

Get post position. CHECK
Catch entry pass. CHECK
Feel defender on my body. CHECK
Sorry, but this appears to be Mason's offensive M.O. It's as if he's got a mental checklist that he goes down before attempting a shot.

Now he made huge strides this year as he actually seemed to have some moves, but stiff, robotic, and mechanical are pretty good adjectives to describe his post play.

As I've written throughout the year. The physical tools are there. If he can reach the point where his moves become second nature, he can become a true low post beast.

[MChambers]

Plumlee, Mason (if he returns): work on more post moves; free throw shooting; work on getting more relaxed out there so that his natural athleticism can take over; watch tape of Chris Webber.

Someone should make sure the tape does not show Webber shooting free throws.

[ncexnyc]

Someone should make sure the tape does not show Webber shooting free throws.

Nor should it involve end of game management.

[lotusland]

In the NBA, Mason would have to develop a mid range shot to add to his offensive abilities. Guys with his size and athleticism need to have more than he can bring to the party to be successful. I bring this up since he has shown no sign of going in that direction and he gets very few shots a game unless they are dunks. Why hasn't the staff encouraged him to add an outside shot? I hope the answer is that he has tried but it didn't work out.

He just got comfy shooting a set shot unguarded from 15-ft. Besides the rest of the team was standing outside the lane so no room for Mason to join them out there and someone had to try to rebound the three pointers.

[UrinalCake]

He just got comfy shooting a set shot unguarded from 15-ft. Besides the rest of the team was standing outside the lane so no room for Mason to join them out there and someone had to try to rebound the three pointers.

Yeah, it wouldn't really benefit our team that much for Mason to develop an outside shot. We're better off letting our guards take those shots and keeping Mason under the basket. In the NBA he'll need to have that shot in his arsenal, which is one of the reasons why I think he'll leave this summer - Pro Mason needs different skills than College Mason and he just won't have the opportunity to develop them here.

[ncexnyc]

Yeah, it wouldn't really benefit our team that much for Mason to develop an outside shot. We're better off letting our guards take those shots and keeping Mason under the basket. In the NBA he'll need to have that shot in his arsenal, which is one of the reasons why I think he'll leave this summer - Pro Mason needs different skills than College Mason and he just won't have the opportunity to develop them here.

You might want to store this away in your memory banks and look it over the next time we have a discussion on recruiting big men.

I know some have said that we could use the fact that Lance has made it to the NBA as a recruiting tool, however I'm sure there are coaches out there who will point to that and say, "See, Duke's scheme prevented Lance from developing to his full potential."

If we can't turn a physical specimen like Mason Plumlee into an NBA ready player, that might be further ammo to be used against us in recruiting.