MBB: Duke-67 Davidson-50 Post Game Thread

[cptnflash]

If you read through the original thread, you will find that I was responding to a poster that referred to Curry as a "deadly outside shooter". I was questioning the label of "deadly outside shooter" as it applies to Seth, which is where this specific stat, and really the only relevant stat when assessing one's deadliness as an outside shooter, comes into play. I won't respond to the rest because it's going into some new territory that isn't related to what I wrote, as what I wrote was a specific response to one small part of a large post.

There are two relevant stats when assessing outside shooting ability - percentage of shots made, and frequency of attempts relative to minutes played. This is where your argument is flawed.

[Edouble]

.406 is a higher 3pt% than 3 of Redick's 4 years at Duke. I guess he wasn't a deadly outside shooter either.

I'm not worried about the 3rd ranked offense and 7th ranked defense in the country, nor its senior captain. You shouldn't be either, unless that's what you do for a good time. I like Tyler too, but he's great in his current role with the team.

No he was the greatest ever. You should read through the whole sequence of threads to see how we arrived here. You are missing significant context.

[Edouble]

There are two relevant stats when assessing outside shooting ability - percentage of shots made, and frequency of attempts relative to minutes played. This is where your argument is flawed.

No offense, but I don't know where such a stat is readily available. For that matter, distance from the basket is another important stat. If someone is shooting all their 3s as a half court heave and he's hitting 35%, then he's a brilliant shooter (maybe...).

Don't mean to offend, but this feels a bit tangent-ish to me though, as this path that we are going down is based off of one line from one post. I'll just say that I don't consider Seth to be a "deadly outside shooter". I think that he's a very good shooter, and would benefit our chances in March by having a different role.

[vick]

I appreciate this well thought out post. It seems like a lot of people are jumping in here without having read the whole thread, and I don't have time to write everything out again.

I don't think that this is completely different. My argument was that a line-up shift, either Tyler or Amile, would have a benefit to rebounding, defense, and/or athleticism, depending on if you are talking about Tyler or if you are talking about Amile. I thought that everyone could understand that I meant Amile would bring rebounding, athleticism and defense, with Tyler bringing defense and perhaps a slight upgrade in rebounding and/or athleticism with little drop off in 3 point shooting. This is where I brought up the current roster's 3PT%s and noted that even without Seth on the floor, we have some pretty serious bombers.

The reason I think that the overall offense would be better is because I think that a better defense and rebounding would lead to more transition baskets, easier shots, etc. etc. When it comes down to it, everyone's numbers are in part reflective of the teammates they are playing with and their mindset. Had JJ, since someone brought him up, played with Grant Hill and Jason Williams, instead of Lee Melchionni and Greg Paulus, he probably would have shot about 60% from 3 point range. Now, this is clearly a drastic comparison, but it serves its purpose.

Yeah, I mean, I do understand where you are coming from, especially after this post, and I don't think it's crazy. If I believed Amile or Thornton were at the sort of defensive level where they could seriously affect rebounding or defensive FG% enough to do this, it'd make sense. It's just that, while I do believe Thornton is pretty clearly a better defender than Curry, it's not enough to offset the loss in offensive efficiency, and from what I've seen of Amile, he's not capable of guarding quality wings at this stage in his career.

I do think you're view of how another shooter like Curry fits into the offense is mistaken, though. Curry is a wonderful complement to Mason, especially with the development of Cook, I think. If you have three guys (Cook, Sulaimon, and Curry) who are strong off the dribble and can make their own shot inside and are credible three point shooters, then defenders are faced with a difficult dilemma when one of these three gets past their guy--break off Mason (leaving him free for a lob or bounce pass inside), Ryan (who can go inside or pop out), or one of the two shooters floating around the outside. I mean, compare the respective offensive roles of this team vs. the end of year 2001 team:

C: Boozer - Plumlee: efficient inside presence (I'm ignoring that Sanders technically started)
PF: Battier - Kelly: some post game, ability to pop for three
SF: Dunleavy - Sulaimon: strong off dribble, ability to hit the three (Dunleavy had more interior game though)
SG: Duhon - Curry: can distribute if necessary, some midrange game, efficient on open threes
PG: Williams - Cook: I mean obviously J-Will was a much better player at this stage, but Cook is a good shooter, and can get to the the rim, though clearly not at the same proficiency

First off bench: James - Thornton: Strong defensive presence, but ability to hurt teams who leave you open

I'm obviously not claiming this year's team is the equal of a team who sent all five starters to the NBA, so don't read me that way. But I do think the offensive structure consists of a group of reasonably complementary players the way it is, and is a fairly vintage Coach K offense.

[Li_Duke]

Yeah, I mean, I do understand where you are coming from, especially after this post, and I don't think it's crazy. If I believed Amile or Thornton were at the sort of defensive level where they could seriously affect rebounding or defensive FG% enough to do this, it'd make sense. It's just that, while I do believe Thornton is pretty clearly a better defender than Curry, it's not enough to offset the loss in offensive efficiency, and from what I've seen of Amile, he's not capable of guarding quality wings at this stage in his career.

I do think you're view of how another shooter like Curry fits into the offense is mistaken, though. Curry is a wonderful complement to Mason, especially with the development of Cook, I think. If you have three guys (Cook, Sulaimon, and Curry) who are strong off the dribble and can make their own shot inside and are credible three point shooters, then defenders are faced with a difficult dilemma when one of these three gets past their guy--break off Mason (leaving him free for a lob or bounce pass inside), Ryan (who can go inside or pop out), or one of the two shooters floating around the outside. I mean, compare the respective offensive roles of this team vs. the end of year 2001 team:

C: Boozer - Plumlee: efficient inside presence (I'm ignoring that Sanders technically started)
PF: Battier - Kelly: some post game, ability to pop for three
SF: Dunleavy - Sulaimon: strong off dribble, ability to hit the three (Dunleavy had more interior game though)
SG: Duhon - Curry: can distribute if necessary, some midrange game, efficient on open threes
PG: Williams - Cook: I mean obviously J-Will was a much better player at this stage, but Cook is a good shooter, and can get to the the rim, though clearly not at the same proficiency

First off bench: James - Thornton: Strong defensive presence, but ability to hurt teams who leave you open

I'm obviously not claiming this year's team is the equal of a team who sent all five starters to the NBA, so don't read me that way. But I do think the offensive structure consists of a group of reasonably complementary players the way it is, and is a fairly vintage Coach K offense.

I think comparing Williams - Curry (offense) and Duhon - Cook (distributor) would probably be better for your example.

[CDu]

Yeah, I mean, I do understand where you are coming from, especially after this post, and I don't think it's crazy. If I believed Amile or Thornton were at the sort of defensive level where they could seriously affect rebounding or defensive FG% enough to do this, it'd make sense. It's just that, while I do believe Thornton is pretty clearly a better defender than Curry, it's not enough to offset the loss in offensive efficiency, and from what I've seen of Amile, he's not capable of guarding quality wings at this stage in his career.

I do think you're view of how another shooter like Curry fits into the offense is mistaken, though. Curry is a wonderful complement to Mason, especially with the development of Cook, I think. If you have three guys (Cook, Sulaimon, and Curry) who are strong off the dribble and can make their own shot inside and are credible three point shooters, then defenders are faced with a difficult dilemma when one of these three gets past their guy--break off Mason (leaving him free for a lob or bounce pass inside), Ryan (who can go inside or pop out), or one of the two shooters floating around the outside. I mean, compare the respective offensive roles of this team vs. the end of year 2001 team:

C: Boozer - Plumlee: efficient inside presence (I'm ignoring that Sanders technically started)
PF: Battier - Kelly: some post game, ability to pop for three
SF: Dunleavy - Sulaimon: strong off dribble, ability to hit the three (Dunleavy had more interior game though)
SG: Duhon - Curry: can distribute if necessary, some midrange game, efficient on open threes
PG: Williams - Cook: I mean obviously J-Will was a much better player at this stage, but Cook is a good shooter, and can get to the the rim, though clearly not at the same proficiency

First off bench: James - Thornton: Strong defensive presence, but ability to hurt teams who leave you open

I'm obviously not claiming this year's team is the equal of a team who sent all five starters to the NBA, so don't read me that way. But I do think the offensive structure consists of a group of reasonably complementary players the way it is, and is a fairly vintage Coach K offense.

Dunleavy didn't really have an interior game as a sophomore. In fact, it's debatable whether he ever had an interior game at Duke. His lack of an interior game (on the defensive end) is a big part of why we lost to Indiana in 2002.

In terms of it being a 4-out, 1-in approach, I agree that this team has a similar arrangement. But the similarities probably end there. That's not to say that this team can't win a championship. But the differences are more than the similarities, in my opinion.

[vick]

Dunleavy didn't really have an interior game as a sophomore. In fact, it's debatable whether he ever had an interior game at Duke. His lack of an interior game (on the defensive end) is a big part of why we lost to Indiana in 2002.

In terms of it being a 4-out, 1-in approach, I agree that this team has a similar arrangement. But the similarities probably end there. That's not to say that this team can't win a championship. But the differences are more than the similarities, in my opinion.

Oh sure, agreed, I hesitated to even make the comparison just because 2001 was a phenomenally talented top 6 (though I specifically said offensive roles--by the way, as a fun surprising fact, Dunleavy actually led the 2002 team in both defensive rebounds and blocks, not that it really changes your point, just shows the limitations of defensive statistics). My only real point is having a fourth real shooter is valuable on offense, especially when you have an efficient interior scorer, and while Tyler has settled nicely into the corner 3 role, he has two non-three point FGs so far this season--that relatively limited offensive skillset would have to hurt your offensive efficiency.