Duke and the "live by the 3" cliche/myth

[FerryFor50]

I for one have never thought Duke won because of taking more 3's. Duke has won because Duke's defense has always been about taking away two things, drives to the basket which result in lay ups and the three point shot. ADuke has been entirely willing to allow a team to attempt to beat it shooting from 12-19 feet. Duke and Coach Krzyzewski also realized that there is no point to shooting from 15 feet since the college 3 point shot is essentially not a long distance shot, but is in reality a mildly extended mid-range shot, and the reward vastly outpaces the difficulty. You get a full 50% more reward for hitting a shot that is only about 10% more difficult. Coach K realized that the shot was in essence too short and that the team who had a better time with it would always win.

Every team in college basketball has lived and died on some level via the three point shot, whether it was hitting it, or taking it away. The shot was never long enough and wildly skewed the nature of basketball. It removed the importance of the big man and in essence made college basketball a jumpshooting contest and a mid-range one at best.

20 feet is essentially a long range shot only for starters on the average high school basketball team. Or... 16 year old boys. Move the line back to 22' 6", where the shot becomes more of a shot for a grown man and you will see the risk/reward come back and the game will be back in balance. Think about it, the line was for a long time the same for both the women's and men's game. That is insane! And the difference now is almost negligible.


I am not saying people don't enjoy watching the game played with the short three point line. I am saying it skews the game wildly. The shot was purposefully made too short to make the game seem more exciting to the casual observer and to enhance the ability of underdogs to pull an upset.

Totally agree. I look at it this way - I can shoot a college 3 pretty effortlessly. I've tried nba 3s and it's like heaving a half court shot for me.

Moving the line back would definitely force teams to think about shooting 3s a little more carefully.

[jv001]

I for one have never thought Duke won because of taking more 3's. Duke has won because Duke's defense has always been about taking away two things, drives to the basket which result in lay ups and the three point shot. ADuke has been entirely willing to allow a team to attempt to beat it shooting from 12-19 feet. Duke and Coach Krzyzewski also realized that there is no point to shooting from 15 feet since the college 3 point shot is essentially not a long distance shot, but is in reality a mildly extended mid-range shot, and the reward vastly outpaces the difficulty. You get a full 50% more reward for hitting a shot that is only about 10% more difficult. Coach K realized that the shot was in essence too short and that the team who had a better time with it would always win.

Every team in college basketball has lived and died on some level via the three point shot, whether it was hitting it, or taking it away. The shot was never long enough and wildly skewed the nature of basketball. It removed the importance of the big man and in essence made college basketball a jumpshooting contest and a mid-range one at best.

20 feet is essentially a long range shot only for starters on the average high school basketball team. Or... 16 year old boys. Move the line back to 22' 6", where the shot becomes more of a shot for a grown man and you will see the risk/reward come back and the game will be back in balance. Think about it, the line was for a long time the same for both the women's and men's game. That is insane! And the difference now is almost negligible.


I am not saying people don't enjoy watching the game played with the short three point line. I am saying it skews the game wildly. The shot was purposefully made too short to make the game seem more exciting to the casual observer and to enhance the ability of underdogs to pull an upset.

I agree to most of your post, but there are teams that will give up the uncontested mid-range shot. And you need players that can take advantage of that defense. Ryan and Rasheed are pretty good at making the mid-range shot. What I don't want to see is Josh taking that shot. He rarely makes one. GoDuke!

[Spret42]

Totally agree. I look at it this way - I can shoot a college 3 pretty effortlessly. I've tried nba 3s and it's like heaving a half court shot for me.

Moving the line back would definitely force teams to think about shooting 3s a little more carefully.

I fully agree. I have posted this before on this forum but I heard Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe, who has been watching basketball at a high level since Russell and Cousy, say any average male will be able to shoot a 20 foot jumper with relative ease...move him back 3.5 feet and he will be lucky to draw rim.

And like Lou Carnesseca said when they implemented the 3 in college basketball - "19'9" is a Mickey Mouse shot."

It is funny that I have been saying this for 15 years and slowly people have begun to agree that the shot has really skewed the game. Remember the NBA shortened the shot and realized after one season that they had totally screwed up and put it back where it belonged.

I agree to most of your post, but there are teams that will give up the uncontested mid-range shot. And you need players that can take advantage of that defense. Ryan and Rasheed are pretty good at making the mid-range shot. What I don't want to see is Josh taking that shot. He rarely makes one. GoDuke!

I think a lot of coaches have realized what Coach K knew from the beginning (he was SO ahead of the curve on it because he tailored his DEFENSE to the three while everyone else was tailoring their OFFENSE to it.) You need players who can take advantage of the 15 foot 2 pointer being entirely uncontested it for sure, but as long as the three pointer shot is such a Mickey Mouse shot the game will be out of balance.

[ns7]

This year's team would be even more dominant with a Zoubek... a guy who cleans up the glass, plays as big as he is and plays within himself and doesn't need shots to be effective.

Agreed--he would have improved our defensive rebounding and interior defense, our two biggest weaknesses. It's a shame he wasn't healthy for all four years.

[Kedsy]

Agreed--[Brian Zoubek] would have improved our defensive rebounding and interior defense, our two biggest weaknesses. It's a shame he wasn't healthy for all four years.

Mason Plumlee is just as good a defensive rebounder as Brian Zoubek. Z's defensive rebounding percentage his senior year was 24.4%. Mason's this year is 23.4% (last year it was 24.4% and the year before it was 23.3%). Where Z excelled was in offensive rebounding -- he had one of the top five season long performances in that area by anyone on any team since the turn of the century.

Also, depending on how you define "interior defense," I don't think it's one of our biggest weaknesses. On defense our problems seem to be stopping penetration and defending the pick-and-roll (both of which involve interior defenders but personally I wouldn't classify as interior defense).

[ns7]

Mason Plumlee is just as good a defensive rebounder as Brian Zoubek. Z's defensive rebounding percentage his senior year was 24.4%. Mason's this year is 23.4% (last year it was 24.4% and the year before it was 23.3%). Where Z excelled was in offensive rebounding -- he had one of the top five season long performances in that area by anyone on any team since the turn of the century.

I know about that stat, that's why I thought Z would have a long career in the NBA as a role player. As for my comment on DR, I assumed the OP meant that Zoubek would supplement Mason, not replace him.

Also, depending on how you define "interior defense," I don't think it's one of our biggest weaknesses. On defense our problems seem to be stopping penetration and defending the pick-and-roll (both of which involve interior defenders but personally I wouldn't classify as interior defense).

Okay, I'll buy that. But having a big guy who can block shots would help on both.

[FerryFor50]

I know about that stat, that's why I thought Z would have a long career in the NBA as a role player. As for my comment on DR, I assumed the OP meant that Zoubek would supplement Mason, not replace him.



Okay, I'll buy that. But having a big guy who can block shots would help on both.

Exactly what I meant.

[greybeard]

Tonight 38% of Duke's shots were from 3. 39% of Maryland's shots were from 3. And they led the entire game.

Duke threw up about 5-7 forced 3pt shots in the final 2 min to try to come back, so they shot an even fewer % of 3s than the final would indicate (similarly to how a losing team has to foul and force a team to shoot FTs at the end of a game can skew the FTA numbers).

If *any* team in the country knocks down 40% of their 3s, they likely win.

In Duke's losses, this is their 3pt %:

ACCT Maryland 16% (38% were 3pt attempts)
UVA 32% (47% were 3pt attempts)
Maryland 31.6% (30% were 3pt attempts)
Miami 17% (31% were 3 pt attempts)
NCSU 30% (29.8% were 3pt attempts)

So in the losses, only 2 games Duke shot abysmally from 3. In only one game did they "live/die by the 3" (UVA at 47%).

The real reason Duke loses games is FG% allowed vs FG % for and an opposing player (or several, like against Miami) goes off on us.

In the losses:

ACCT Duke 41.5% Maryland 51% Wells scores 30
UVA 46% Duke 39.6% Harris scores 36
Maryland 60% (!!!!) Duke 47.6% Len scores 19 and shuts down Plumlee
Miami 56.9% Duke 29.7% (!!!!) Everyone on Miami not named Reggie Johnson destroys us
NCSU 50.8% Duke 44.8% Leslie wakes up and scores 25

There have been games that Duke has won where they shot poorly, but their opponent also shot poorly. It all comes down to defense, just like it has with every Duke team with championship aspirations...

The way teams have been "gaming" Duke is to get in the chest of its best and predominent three shooter, that would be Curry, and double Mason, if Duke is getting him the ball. If Curry gets off early in either half but especially at the outset of the game, Duke is very tough to beat. If he doesn't, he isn't particularly valuable on the court. Then Duke has a real problem. Until Kelly's explosion, the only real answer if Curry is shut down is for Mason to really go off. With a hard double, that is tough.

[Kedsy]

The way teams have been "gaming" Duke is to get in the chest of its best and predominent three shooter, that would be Curry, and double Mason, if Duke is getting him the ball. If Curry gets off early in either half but especially at the outset of the game, Duke is very tough to beat. If he doesn't, he isn't particularly valuable on the court. Then Duke has a real problem. Until Kelly's explosion, the only real answer if Curry is shut down is for Mason to really go off. With a hard double, that is tough.

That's why Ryan is so valuable. He had a tough night against Maryland, and that's a big reason why we lost.

[greybeard]

That's why Ryan is so valuable. He had a tough night against Maryland, and that's a big reason why we lost.

Bingo, but I still would have very much liked to have seen Marshall ready to give Duke a rotation aka the past three years. That said, you got it Kedsy.

[Chris Randolph]

I dislike the notion of live and die by shooting/scoring. It is about heart, grit, intelligence and will:

I watched Louisville throw up brick after brick in the first half against Syracuse last night and still score 78 points and win by almost 20. They found a way to dig down deep and figure out a way to score (defense, run outs, free throw line) and play a great second half. Sometimes it is just a matter of will and determination by a few to get the job done.

[ns7]

I dislike the notion of live and die by shooting/scoring. It is about heart, grit, intelligence and will:

I watched Louisville throw up brick after brick in the first half against Syracuse last night and still score 78 points and win by almost 20. They found a way to dig down deep and figure out a way to score (defense, run outs, free throw line) and play a great second half. Sometimes it is just a matter of will and determination by a few to get the job done.

What you're saying is that shooting is only one component of offense. The others are rebounding, free throw shooting, and turnovers.

The 2010 Duke team is an example of a team that shot poorly inside the arc but had an elite offense because of rebounding. Would you say it was because they had "will and determination" or because they were skilled at rebounding?

The NC State teams under Sidney Lowe are counterexamples: they usually shot well, but were poor at the other elements of offense. Once again, was their lack of success at rebounding and holding on to the ball because of skill or will?

[Chris Randolph]

What you're saying is that shooting is only one component of offense. The others are rebounding, free throw shooting, and turnovers.

The 2010 Duke team is an example of a team that shot poorly inside the arc but had an elite offense because of rebounding. Would you say it was because they had "will and determination" or because they were skilled at rebounding?

The NC State teams under Sidney Lowe are counterexamples: they usually shot well, but were poor at the other elements of offense. Once again, was their lack of success at rebounding and holding on to the ball because of skill or will?

Sure 2010 was skilled at many things, and rebounding was one of their best attributes. But there were times where Zoubs, LT just out worked/out toughed people (Baylor) to the boards. That is a mindset to go along with a skill.

Louisville had the same skill set in the first half as they did the second half, so what changes? Mindset (what we are doing isn't working tonight/right now, we have to do something else). Sure skill must go with that but I don't buy that this Duke team doesn't have the skill to do other things to score when the jumpers aren't falling. Ryan and Mason can't rebound at 6'10? Or Sheed as an athletic wing?

[Kedsy]

Sure skill must go with that but I don't buy that this Duke team doesn't have the skill to do other things to score when the jumpers aren't falling. Ryan and Mason can't rebound at 6'10? Or Sheed as an athletic wing?

Well, Rasheed had six rebounds in the game (including 3 offensive rebounds), I'm not sure how much more we could reasonably expect from him. And since Ryan's place in our offense is generally on the perimeter, the only way he could get a lot of offensive rebounds would have been if we completely changed our offensive sets. That's not mindset, it's a coaching decision.

[Gmadaduke]

The last time I felt truly confident about our inside game, we had a guy named Shelden Williams... Mason has his moments and is much improved this year, but every one of those hook-shots is an adventure.

[Chris Randolph]

Well, Rasheed had six rebounds in the game (including 3 offensive rebounds), I'm not sure how much more we could reasonably expect from him. And since Ryan's place in our offense is generally on the perimeter, the only way he could get a lot of offensive rebounds would have been if we completely changed our offensive sets. That's not mindset, it's a coaching decision.

Glad Sheed hit the boards, hope he continues to do so as he hasn't done it consistently, in my eyes. I understand Kelly is on the perimeter a lot but when a shot goes up he can crash. LT and Zoubs crashed from the perimeter plenty after setting screens. But I also get your point that maybe coach K doesn't necessarily want that. Seems needed in times you are throwing up bricks though haha

[greybeard]

Zoubek created an ofense that nobody has seen before or since. He set multiple screens on each offensive set until a three shooter who was also capable of attacking the basket--Singler, Smith and cheyer--was wide open for a three. Zoubek, instead of playing a classic screen and roll in which the
screener went directly to the basket, a game that defenses were trained to defend in multiple ways, kept the other side's best big running like a chicken with his head chopped off from screen to screen having to "show" on each of them, rather than retreat immediately and be in a position to guard the basket. The other team's best big was worn out running around, the inside was left exposed to attack, and Zoubek, when the shot went up, often beat the show guy to the basket when the shot went up, and, if he got the rebound, eshewed putting it back up but instead found the open three shooter for a step in three. This is, in my opinion, loved by Kornheisser, as to why Duke won the whole thing when everyone had them going out early. Kornheiser told me that K responded with a big grin when Kornheisser described to him the Greybeard theory.

As to the 2010 team's interior defense and rebounding strength, Zoubek and Lance got regular breaks with little drop off from two horses who understood the game--Miles and Mason. While they lacked the seemless ability of Zoubek and Lance to alter how they dealt with the roll part of the screen and role (sometimes they switched and other times Lance shaded and then went back to his own man), Miles and Mason comprised as strong and effective an interior presence on defense as any around, Mason's penchant for reach-in fouls nothwithstanding.

This team, if it had the equivalent of a Miles/Mason pairing, a Miles or Mason pairing with Hairston would suffice, I believe would have to be seen as having the best chance to win it all.