I agree that if Dawkins gets 10+ shots per game he'll likely score at least 13-15+ ppg. But that is a LOT of attempts. That'd make him our leading shot-taker. Do we really want a streaky 3pt shooter (who doesn't do much else) taking the most shots on the team? Especially when our second leading shot taker is also going to take over half his shots from 3pt range?
That's not meant to be argumentative. It's a legitimate question. I think our best offensive players next year are likely to be Kelly, Curry, Sulaimon, Mason (if he returns), Dawkins, and perhaps Murphy, and Cook. Dawkins' best attribute is one that is also possessed by 3 other key players, each of whom brings more to the table in other areas. Murphy and Cook are not likely to be as capable offensively as Dawkins, but they each bring something that Dawkins doesn't bring. Does it really make sense to put Dawkins out there over those other guys?
For a team that is going to shoot a lot of 3s already, do we want our primary shot taker to be a guy who takes 70+% of his attempts from 3pt range?
Austin: 12.2 (4.7 threes per game)
If we play at a similar pace, we have to divvy up Austin's shots somehow. Between him and Miles there are 16.5 shots that other people will be taking. If Andre, Mason, and Ryan each moved up to 9 shots a game, we'd still have around 5 each for Alex (or Michael), Rasheed and Quinn. And that's only giving Andre an additional two shots per game. If we start that way and Andre plays well, he could probably find another shot per game somewhere. His offensive efficiency has always been very high (117.2, 124.7, and 114.5) in his three years at Duke.
Of course, it could also happen that Rasheed and Alex take 8 shots a game and Andre gets relegated to 3 or 4 shots in 10 to 12 mpg. We obviously won't know until it happens. But I don't think Andre taking 9 or 10 shots a game next year is out of the realm of reasonable possibility. Nor do I think it would be a bad thing.
When he takes less than 5 threes: 11-43 (26%)
When he takes 5, 6, 7, or 8 threes: 21-55 (38%)
When he takes more than 8 threes: 34-68 (50%) <--- (!!)
--- Minutes per game in respective categories: 20.8, 22.9, and 30.6
Is Andre just a hot-or-cold, on-or-off, all-or-nothing shooter?
Well, the numbers certainly seem to add fuel to the speculation that the coaches would ride Andre when he was hot and sit him when he was cold. But I don't know if the stats completely settle the debate or not, because you could still argue that if Andre were given additional shots on his supposedly "cold" nights, he probably would have reverted back to the mean. Statistically, at least, that argument should hold water.
Personally, I have no horse in the race. Andre remains a total mystery to me.
"With seven national titles and 20 Final Fours in the 64-team NCAA Tournament era, Duke and UNC have had more playoff success than any other CONFERENCE." - Al Featherston
To me thats kind of like saying well 3's or worth 3 points and 2's only 2 so we should just shoot all 3's....It's a question of efficiency. If he scores 1.2 points per shot shooting threes and 0.9 points per shot shooting twos, I'd rather he shoot threes.
Now, if he were to expand his game to be able to take 3-5 2pt attempts (and hit over 50% of those without tons of turnovers) to go along with 5-6 3pt attempts, then I'm on board. That will add some more dynamics to the offense, and may help his 3pt shooting too. But that seems unlikely. He's been primarily a spot-up 3pt shooter for his entire career.
Go way back to his freshman year and he drained I think 4 threes in a row in the Wisconsin game, played huge in the ACC final game against Ga Tech and the regional semifinal against Baylor (2 big threes in the 1st half), only to completely dissapear in so many other games.
My point is he has the ability focus and place himself in the mental state to hit really big shots (or hit a lot of them) in big games, but it seems he struggles with either getting to that state of mind, or staying in that state of mind (see Wake 2nd half). The result......he is (at least up to this point in his college career) and on-off type of player.
I would love to see him come in next season with an off the dribble shot (either around a screen from 3 a-la Curry, or fake 3 drive + pull up for a mid-range a-la Henderson). It may help him stay in the attack frame of mind.
I would like to suggest the reason Andre's numbers look good when he takes a lot of shots is because *if* he hits a lot of his early 3s he is left in the game to shoot a lot. In other words, the made shots cause many shots to be taken (and since the early part of the 'many shots' have an unusually good number of makes, the total is liable to show the same, all though lesser, trend), instead of the other way around. K would not be alone in being a classic basketball guy who believes in the hot hand. A quick (and a little dirty) test would be to see if Andre's shooting percentage after (say) shot number 6 is great or about his season avg (which the idea I am presenting would suggest).
1. there is a systematic difference in the style of play in the game that is resulting in differences in success (not likely)
2. there is a systematic difference in Dawkins' confidence and overall level of play when he hits shots early and often as compared to when he misses early and often (more plausible)
The second seems like a very reasonable (though thoroughly difficult to prove) possibility: when Dawkins thinks he's feeling it, he shoots more and plays harder/more focused. When he thinks he's off, he shells up. I guess that sort of falls under the "hot hand" theory, but in a very indirect way.