MBB: Duke 75, Wake Forest 70 Post-Game Thread

[roywhite]

While I'm not going to claim this game was a thing of beauty, the negativity in the in-game thread was kind of over the top. I believe Wake Forest has scored 0.95 points per possession in ACC play to date if my calculations are right. In this game we gave up...1.01. Obviously you want to do better, but it was hardly the total train wreck that it was being made out to be. Given that Mason obviously has to play to avoid fouls--I believe three of his four fouls were on the offensive end, and unlike some others I think those were fair calls, though the fourth one was pretty weak I thought--and our best perimeter defender, Sulaimon, was saddled with foul trouble in the first half, I don't think it was horrible. It was just...average.

And the floor was slippery as could be...looked like the players were on ice sometimes. On a slippery football field, they say the receiver has an advantage over the defender because he knows where he is going and the defender has to react, at greater risk of slipping. Saw some of that tonight on both sides...advantage to the offense.

[sporthenry]

Amen! I'm always amazed at howsome posters have to fly to their keyboards to make some unanalytical negative comment. some seemed unaware that you cant risk fouling out when you are your teams most important player...This was an ACC road win against an improving geeked up team and Duke did not play that badly. we had better ball movement and with Bzdks or however you spell it bad decision to single team Mason, Mason did take advantage.

I don't think calling out our defense is some "unanalytical negative comment" especially during the game. At one point, I believe Wake was shooting 70% from the field and at the half it was mid 50%. They ended at 48% compared to Duke's FG defense % of 39.7% (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball...nt/team/149/p2). I don't think you'll find many on here say this was a good Duke defensive performance and I'm sure K's presser will allude to that as well (at least in the first half).

And as far as Mason being the most important player so he can't risk fouling out. I have never heard or seen K coach like this. Sure, there have been times when our bigs haven't given 100% b/c of foul trouble and just challenged straight up but there have been several times when Mason's effort on the defensive end has been questioned and again, I'm sure K wasn't exactly happy with that b/c of his obvious emphasis on defense.

[vick]

And as far as Mason being the most important player so he can't risk fouling out. I have never heard or seen K coach like this. Sure, there have been times when our bigs haven't given 100% b/c of foul trouble and just challenged straight up but there have been several times when Mason's effort on the defensive end has been questioned and again, I'm sure K wasn't exactly happy with that b/c of his obvious emphasis on defense.

I disagree with this. While I cannot imagine Coach K coming out and saying "well of course Marshall and Hairston are not good enough right now for us to be competitive if they have to log major minutes," I think it's very clear that Coach K wants players to keep in mind their importance when playing defense--look at how Redick went from an average college defender to one of the NBA's most effective defenders on Ray Allen a couple of years later. I do not believe this is because he woke up and decided to play tougher defense, it's because he knew that the 2005 and 2006 teams were utterly dependent on his offense and he simply couldn't afford to be in foul trouble.

[davekay1971]

I don't think calling out our defense is some "unanalytical negative comment" especially during the game. At one point, I believe Wake was shooting 70% from the field and at the half it was mid 50%. They ended at 48% compared to Duke's FG defense % of 39.7% (http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball...nt/team/149/p2). I don't think you'll find many on here say this was a good Duke defensive performance and I'm sure K's presser will allude to that as well (at least in the first half).

And as far as Mason being the most important player so he can't risk fouling out. I have never heard or seen K coach like this. Sure, there have been times when our bigs haven't given 100% b/c of foul trouble and just challenged straight up but there have been several times when Mason's effort on the defensive end has been questioned and again, I'm sure K wasn't exactly happy with that b/c of his obvious emphasis on defense.

I'm not sure K will say it explicitly, but Mason's defensive tendencies have become enough of a pattern that I suspect he may be being coached to avoid defensive fouls until late in the game. From K's point of view, especially with Ryan being out, Mason is probably our most irreplaceable guy on the court. A front court combo of Amile/Josh/Marshall for any length of time would leave us totally dependent on outside shooting. Defensively, we'd have trouble...though we've defended with an undersized center before often enough. I honestly think Mase got instructed at halftime to avoid the fourth foul the endgame was in sight. Especially with the way he was performing on offense this game, it's not hard to imagine coach telling him: "give up the layup if you have to, Mase...just do NOT pick up that fourth foul!"

[sporthenry]

I disagree with this. While I cannot imagine Coach K coming out and saying "well of course Marshall and Hairston are not good enough right now for us to be competitive if they have to log major minutes," I think it's very clear that Coach K wants players to keep in mind their importance when playing defense--look at how Redick went from an average college defender to one of the NBA's most effective defenders on Ray Allen a couple of years later. I do not believe this is because he woke up and decided to play tougher defense, it's because he knew that the 2005 and 2006 teams were utterly dependent on his offense and he simply couldn't afford to be in foul trouble.

Guards are completely different in the sense that they usually aren't in foul trouble and most of the time that they are, they can avoid the 4th or 5th foul much more easier than someone down low. Redick was also our worst defender at the time and when he first came into the NBA, he wasn't a great defender. This is often cited as one of his greatest growths was his effort and intelligence on defense. This was not something that happened because he decided to just start trying.

[wgl1228]

One question. Why do we stop going to Mason for about 6-7 minutes in the 2nd half when he's virtually unstoppable? he scored 32 on 15 shots and should've had more.

[uh_no]

One question. Why do we stop going to Mason for about 6-7 minutes in the 2nd half when he's virtually unstoppable? he scored 32 on 15 shots and should've had more.

sometimes you can't get him the ball...maybe they were doing something different on defense (until they got into foul trouble)?
maybe K wanted them to run the clock a bit more, and then it was more difficult to dump it down low late in the shot clock?

[sporthenry]

I'm not sure K will say it explicitly, but Mason's defensive tendencies have become enough of a pattern that I suspect he may be being coached to avoid defensive fouls until late in the game. From K's point of view, especially with Ryan being out, Mason is probably our most irreplaceable guy on the court. A front court combo of Amile/Josh/Marshall for any length of time would leave us totally dependent on outside shooting. Defensively, we'd have trouble...though we've defended with an undersized center before often enough. I honestly think Mase got instructed at halftime to avoid the fourth foul the endgame was in sight. Especially with the way he was performing on offense this game, it's not hard to imagine coach telling him: "give up the layup if you have to, Mase...just do NOT pick up that fourth foul!"

I'm sure he tells him to be smart, sure. But I doubt he says to give up a wide open lay up to avoid a foul. This would fly in the face of most of K's philosophy which seems to be it is much easier to keep the other team from scoring 2 points than it is to score 2 points ourselves, which explains the reliance on guys like Hairston and Thornton throughout the years despite their offensive limitations.

Perhaps this is K adapting a bit b/c sometimes I wished our bigs like Shelden or Boozer would have followed this strategy when they were in foul trouble. But I must also say that this trend has been there in situations when Mason wasn't necessarily in foul trouble and even games when Kelly was healthy which would lessen the argument that it was a change to deal with foul trouble.

[jlear]

In real time, i thought it was a backcourt, but as you point out there are a few things that would have avoided it (not that any of these things happen, but just to list them)

1) if either of amile's feet were touching the line at the time when he caught the deflected ball, it is not a violation (and he could then dribble all the way to the other end line should he choose)
2) if amile had caught the ball in the air and gotten rid of it before landing on the line, it is not a violation
3) if the ball had first bounced in the backcourt and amile started dribbling it at that time even if his feet were still in the frontcourt, he could then still put a foot on the line, as my understanding is that all 3 of the ball and your 2 feet must be in the front court before there can be a violation

I thought the over and back rule was only the location of the ball not the player. I didn't see the ball go back over the line, so I thought it was a bad call.

[uh_no]

I thought the over and back rule was only the location of the ball not the player. I didn't see the ball go back over the line, so I thought it was a bad call.

nope, it's any of the three

once they are all established in the front court, if any one of them passes back into the backcourt (touches the line), it is a violation

the only exception is when a defensive player deflects the ball, then the offensive player is allowed to regain possession in the backcourt

[jlear]

nope, it's any of the three

once they are all established in the front court, if any one of them passes back into the backcourt (touches the line), it is a violation

the only exception is when a defensive player deflects the ball, then the offensive player is allowed to regain possession in the backcourt

Thanks! I guess I was yelling for nothing then

[dyedwab]

...but was frustrated with our defensive effort. That said, Mason's issue was foul trouble here, not lack of defense. Mason HAS to stay on the floor. As Coach K said in the post game presser, Mason is the most important player to his team in league. He clearly can't challenge as much as we would like because he has to avoid fouls.

But that ups the importance of our perimeter defense, and I thought it was pretty weak tonight. Yes, it was a conference game. And yes, Wake, like every team that plays us at home, was amped and focused. But really, playing hard hustling defense from the outset of a game would be awesome.

On the really positive side, they couldn't guard Mason, we knew it and exploited it. That will serve us extremely well.

[rsvman]

...with Bzdks or however you spell it bad decision to single team Mason, Mason did take advantage.

Totally disagree with this. I think it was an outstanding strategy. They gave us a fight all night long and almost pulled off the win. Had they doubled Mason all night they probably would've lost the game by 10 or 15. Giving our guards a lot of open looks usually results in them heating up and making a few threes. Bzdelik's strategy was to say, essentially, that even if Mason scores 48 points, he usually only scores them 2 at a time. And it Mason scores 50 and Wake Forest wins the game, it's no skin off Bzdelik's back.

I thought it was a gritty, hard-fought win. Despite shaky defense, they managed to stiffen it at just the right time. The poise at crunch time was vintage Duke.

[rsvman]

Oh, and with regard to the double-dribble call...when I played hoops that was called every single time. Lately (meaning the last several years) I've seen numerous players in many different games get away with what I consider blatant double-dribble. Nobody calls it anymore! I was shocked that it was called, but I don't think it was a bad call.

[sagegrouse]

.. And Duke leads the ACC in three-pointers made and in shooting percentage. Then, when you shoot 2-14 from outside, you are lucky not to die by the jump shot. Our freshman and sophs need to learn to play tough and focused offense on the road.

I am happy for any kind of win on the road, but we need to get our bearings and play better this weekend in Tallahassee.

Mason was dominant, unless one can think of a stronger word. Seth's scoring, mostly on pull-up shots and layups, was also key to our win. I thought our defense got a lot better after the first eight-ten minutes, and later, as others noted, Wake got some easier baskets inside when Mason had to draw back because of fouls.

In the last two minutes, Duke shone and Wake crumbled. And we got the win.

sagegrouse

[dyedwab]

Totally disagree with this. I think it was an outstanding strategy. They gave us a fight all night long and almost pulled off the win. Had they doubled Mason all night they probably would've lost the game by 10 or 15. Giving our guards a lot of open looks usually results in them heating up and making a few threes. Bzdelik's strategy was to say, essentially, that even if Mason scores 48 points, he usually only scores them 2 at a time. And it Mason scores 50 and Wake Forest wins the game, it's no skin off Bzdelik's back.

I thought it was a gritty, hard-fought win. Despite shaky defense, they managed to stiffen it at just the right time. The poise at crunch time was vintage Duke.

During the Shelden era, we employed this strategy to great effect in a victory over Indiana at Assembly Hall. IU had a great 3-point shooting team, so we concentrated on shutting that off, while leaving Shelden on an island to deal with Marco Killingsworth, who went off for something like 35 points. But we won, because we contained there most dangerous weapon, which was the 3 point shot.

[wk2109]

It looks like Duke has added in a new little wrinkle (at least I think it's new) with Seth taking some of the same mid-range shots that Ryan had been getting. He hit three jumpers from around the foul line that were created from curls around screens. Open jumpers from that range are like layups for Seth (and Ryan) and I love that the team is running plays to get him those looks. He'll still take his fair share of threes, but it can only help if he can take a healthy dose of 12-15 foot shots as well.

Defensively, it's up to the perimeter guys to help Mason stay out of foul trouble and/or give up easy shots to stay out of foul trouble. They've gotta prevent entry passes to the post and prevent dribble penetration + drop-offs to the bigs. It's pretty clear how much Ryan's absence has affected Duke's defensive efficiency.

[sporthenry]

During the Shelden era, we employed this strategy to great effect in a victory over Indiana at Assembly Hall. IU had a great 3-point shooting team, so we concentrated on shutting that off, while leaving Shelden on an island to deal with Marco Killingsworth, who went off for something like 35 points. But we won, because we contained there most dangerous weapon, which was the 3 point shot.

I'm not sure if this strategy works from a numbers standpoint. Mason shot 80% tonight. That is the equivalent of shooting 53.3% from 3. Usually you want to hit the 60% from 2/40% from 3 threshold. On the season, Duke is 41.1% from 3. Now this is all 3 pointers and perhaps Wake did an advanced study that when doubled and Mason finds an open 3 point shooter, Duke shoots 53% or greater but I highly doubt that. That said, the two things that work in favor of this strategy is that it seems to take some guys out of their game a la Sheed who has to learn to score without the 3 and the strategy also works when the other team tries to force 3's to try to get going which Duke did a few times tonight.

But Curry and even Cook did a better job than years past of not settling just for the 3, getting to the rim and creating shots. Seth did a very good job of creating openings for himself and looked a bit like Scheyer using his pace and shoulders to get ahead of defenders.

[El_Diablo]

I'm not sure K will say it explicitly, but Mason's defensive tendencies have become enough of a pattern that I suspect he may be being coached to avoid defensive fouls until late in the game.

Yes, it was very much the same way with Zoubek (and many other mature/seasoned big men)...try to disrupt the shot if possible, but don't try to block everything or you'll usually either foul or give up the offensive rebound. Mason has very good ups and can probably average an extra block or two per game if he tried swatting everything that came his way (like Nerlens Noel tries to do). But Mason would also get in more frequent foul trouble, and our offense and defense would be worse off over the course of the game with him on the bench. I am sure Coach K has him calibrated pretty much the way he wants him in that respect.

Of course, it can be frustrating sometimes to see him "give up" a short gimme shot or layup when I would like to see him just send it back, but I am also glad to see that Mason's minutes per foul (the time it takes to accumulate one foul) has increased steadily over the course of his career from 6.71 as a freshman, to 9.85 as a sophomore, to 11.36 as a junior, to 17.15 as a senior.

[mo.st.dukie]

One question. Why do we stop going to Mason for about 6-7 minutes in the 2nd half when he's virtually unstoppable? he scored 32 on 15 shots and should've had more.

Coach K commented on this in the post game, he is 100% aware that Mason and Seth should get the ball but, as he said, getting the ball to them and in the right spot is the challenge. That's kind of what the opponent's job is, to keep you from scoring. It's much easier to say Mason should've had more touches than it is to actually execute that on the court, the other team has some good players too. But there is no way that the team is purposefully not giving Mason the ball.