MBB: Duke 87, Pitt 52 Post-Game Thread

[devildeac]

While one would always want that, but really? in a game where justin robinson is our 6th man? and jack white gets 13 minutes? and we only won by 35?

There are certainly take aways from this game, but i don't think the smallness of the final margin is one of them.

82-50 is a reference point I use commonly.

[freshmanjs]

While one would always want that, but really? in a game where justin robinson is our 6th man? and jack white gets 13 minutes? and we only won by 35?

There are certainly take aways from this game, but i don't think the smallness of the final margin is one of them.

Someone showed a graphic that it was the biggest ACC road win we've had since 1999. If that's correct, it's hard to say we should have done even more than that.

[CDu]

Someone showed a graphic that it was the biggest ACC road win we've had since 1999. If that's correct, it's hard to say we should have done even more than that.

In fairness, this might be the worst team in the ACC in that span. Certainly comparable with the worst teams of the last 20 years in the ACC. BC had a couple of years comparable.

But, yeah, in a game in which Robinson, White, and Vrankovic got that much PT, I sure wouldn't complain about the margin of victory.

[Olympic Fan]

In fairness, this might be the worst team in the ACC in that span. Certainly comparable with the worst teams of the last 20 years in the ACC. BC had a couple of years comparable.

But, yeah, in a game in which Robinson, White, and Vrankovic got that much PT, I sure wouldn't complain about the margin of victory.

I would suggest that the four worst ACC teams of this century (since 1999) were:

1. 2016 Boston College -- 0-18 ACC/7-25 overall/225 Pomeroy (Duke won by 17 AT Boston College that year)

2. 2011 Wake Forest -- 1-15 ACC/8-24 overall/259 Pomeroy (Duke won by 24 AT Wake)

3. 2012 Boston College -- 4-12 ACC/9-22 overall/261 Pomeroy (Duke won by 25 at BC)

4. 2014 Virginia Tech -- 2-16 ACC/9-22 overall/174 Pomeroy (Duke didn't play in Blacksburg, but won by 18 in Cameron)

The 2018 Pitt Panthers are certainly in the discussion. At the moment -- 0-4 ACC/8-9 overall/195 Pomeroy -- they are probably fourth, but they could improve if Ryan Luther returns.

I think that in that context, a 35-point Duke win at Pitt should be appreciated

[House P]

Justin and Jack played a combined 16 first half minutes and both entered the game before the 2nd TV timeout when Pitt still had a slight chance of making it a competitive game (... Jack entered with 13:29 left in the the first half and Duke leading by 13).

Contrast this to the Evansville game, which was an ever bigger blowout against an even more overmatched opponent. Against Evansville, Justin only played 3 minutes in the 1st half and Jack didn't get in until Duke had a 55 point lead with 11:31 left in the 2nd half.

FWIW, I just spent (wasted?) some time looking at play-by-play data from all Duke's games so far this year.

- In the first half of the Pitt game, Jack played 9:08 and Justin played 7:05.

- Prior to the Pitt game, Jack played a total of 4:20 in the first half this season (2:03 of that in Duke's opener vs Elon) and Justin played a total of 2:05 in the first half.

- In the St. Francis game, Duke's 2nd largest blowout, Jack and Justin didn't get in until there was 7:55 remaining in the 2nd half and Duke had a 44 point lead.

[freshmanjs]

FWIW, I just spent (wasted?) some time looking at play-by-play data from all Duke's games so far this year.

- In the first half of the Pitt game, Jack played 9:08 and Justin played 7:05.

- Prior to the Pitt game, Jack played a total of 4:20 in the first half this season (2:03 of that in Duke's opener vs Elon) and Justin played a total of 2:05 in the first half.

- In the St. Francis game, Duke's 2nd largest blowout, Jack and Justin didn't get in until there was 7:55 remaining in the 2nd half and Duke had a 44 point lead.

I think the reason for this is very simple. Other guys weren't available. If Coach K could have used last night's game to develop his top 8, then those guys would not have played much (more like Evansville).

[devildeac]

I would suggest that the four worst ACC teams of this century (since 1999) were:

1. 2016 Boston College -- 0-18 ACC/7-25 overall/225 Pomeroy (Duke won by 17 AT Boston College that year)

2. 2011 Wake Forest -- 1-15 ACC/8-24 overall/259 Pomeroy (Duke won by 24 AT Wake)

3. 2012 Boston College -- 4-12 ACC/9-22 overall/261 Pomeroy (Duke won by 25 at BC)

4. 2014 Virginia Tech -- 2-16 ACC/9-22 overall/174 Pomeroy (Duke didn't play in Blacksburg, but won by 18 in Cameron)

The 2018 Pitt Panthers are certainly in the discussion. At the moment -- 0-4 ACC/8-9 overall/195 Pomeroy -- they are probably fourth, but they could improve if Ryan Luther returns.

I think that in that context, a 35-point Duke win at Pitt should be appreciated

Where would you rank the 8-20 "u"nc team that D'oh "coached"? Top 10? Or should I ask bottom 10?

[CDu]

Where would you rank the 8-20 "u"nc team that D'oh "coached"? Top 10? Or should I ask bottom 10?

Easily one of the best teams ever.

[Olympic Fan]

Where would you rank the 8-20 "u"nc team that D'oh "coached"? Top 10? Or should I ask bottom 10?

it's a candidate for the bottom 10 ... 4-12 ACC/8-22 overall/ but just 137 in Pomeroy .. Duke did win by 29 in Chapel Hill that season.

[uh_no]

I would suggest that the four worst ACC teams of this century (since 1999) were:

1. 2016 Boston College -- 0-18 ACC/7-25 overall/225 Pomeroy (Duke won by 17 AT Boston College that year)

2. 2011 Wake Forest -- 1-15 ACC/8-24 overall/259 Pomeroy (Duke won by 24 AT Wake)

3. 2012 Boston College -- 4-12 ACC/9-22 overall/261 Pomeroy (Duke won by 25 at BC)

4. 2014 Virginia Tech -- 2-16 ACC/9-22 overall/174 Pomeroy (Duke didn't play in Blacksburg, but won by 18 in Cameron)

The 2018 Pitt Panthers are certainly in the discussion. At the moment -- 0-4 ACC/8-9 overall/195 Pomeroy -- they are probably fourth, but they could improve if Ryan Luther returns.

I think that in that context, a 35-point Duke win at Pitt should be appreciated

Per KP, the worst final rankings are:
2012 BC (261)
2011 WF (259)
2016 BC (225)
2012 WF (211)
2018 pitt (192)
2015 VT (175)
2014 VT (174)
2012 GT (174)
2017 BC (173)
2013 VT (169)

Amazing that these are all post-expansion, and before 2011, the ACC had nobody outside the top 150 in the previous 10 years at least. not surprisingly, the expansion teams dominate the list, with 7 of the 10 spots.

[mkirsh]

Having posted a long list of Pitt's 3pt attempts, I'll talk about our team. I really liked what we did with high ball screens. Basically, whenever Carter was in a high ball screen situation, he was told to stay below the free throw line (or "drop" coverage). This did two things: it let him not get beat off the dribble as easily, and it allowed our other help defenders to stay home on 3pt shooters (especially the corner 3). It appeared that we had the same philosophy for Vrank, but he didn't "drop" far enough. That resulted in an open corner 3 with Robinson helping. There are weaknesses of drop coverage, as Troublemaker has laid out really nicely in his GIF thread (NOTE: if you haven't checked it out, please do. You can even enjoy a friendly debate between him and me there . Aside from that banter, it's a really informative thread.) is that it will allow pull-up jumpers and 3s, as the helper on the screen is now well away from the ball. But that's a tradeoff I'm gladly willing to take to prevent layups and wide open corner 3s.

Aside from Carter and Vrank, the play was generally to switch on high ball screens. This is because basically everyone else was considered mobile enough to stay with a perimeter guy. And for the most part, we didn't have troubles with it. Though, again, this was a REALLY bad Pitt team. So the results are going to be misleading.

That being said, I think it is a strategy that can work. We don't need to be UVa defensively to win. We just need to be average defensively. And I think this defense can be average.

We also played a lot of zone later in the second half. It's hard to take much away from that, though, as it was played mostly by guys who aren't going to play when we are healthy.

We did get beaten a couple of times for backdoor cuts, though again those were usually guys who weren't going to be in in key games. Allen did get caught napping once.

The other thing that seemed quite evident was that we were overplaying lateral perimeter passes. We did get a few steals this way. But we also misjudged a few times and gave up easy scores as a result. If we are going to cheat those lanes, we have to recover when we miss. Also, we had a few such attempts in the 2-3 zone by Robinson, which didn't go well. But, again, Robinson isn't likely to be playing once Bolden and DeLaurier return, so I'm less concerned about that.

All in all, I was hoping to see a consistent strategy, and one that showed signs that it could be effective. In that sense, last night was a complete success. Saturday will provide a bit tougher test, so it will be nice to see what happens with our new defense against a functional offense.

CDu - thanks for the post. I really enjoy your posts and I’m not trying to be contentious, but I’m curious about why you specifically call out corner threes. My understanding is that in the NBA the corner three is more efficient since the court isn’t wide enough for the NBA three point line to stay equidistant from the basket, and the corner 3 is a closer shot. On an NCAA court the 3 point line is uniform 20’9” all the way around, so don’t think corner threes are as favorable for an offense (and I can think of reasons they are worse - tougher visual shooting background, less likely to get help from the backboard, easier to step out of bounds since the sideline is very close, and easier fast break opportunities for the opponent as the Shooter is as far as possible from his own basket). Am I missing something here?

[phaedrus]

CDu - thanks for the post. I really enjoy your posts and I’m not trying to be contentious, but I’m curious about why you specifically call out corner threes. My understanding is that in the NBA the corner three is more efficient since the court isn’t wide enough for the NBA three point line to stay equidistant from the basket, and the corner 3 is a closer shot. On an NCAA court the 3 point line is uniform 20’9” all the way around, so don’t think corner threes are as favorable for an offense (and I can think of reasons they are worse - tougher visual shooting background, less likely to get help from the backboard, easier to step out of bounds since the sideline is very close, and easier fast break opportunities for the opponent as the Shooter is as far as possible from his own basket). Am I missing something here?

The key part of “wide open corner threes” is the “wide open,” not “corner.” The pull-up threes will be at least somewhat contested, and they will be off the dribble, a tougher proposition than a catch and shoot from the corner.

[Kedsy]

CDu - thanks for the post. I really enjoy your posts and I’m not trying to be contentious, but I’m curious about why you specifically call out corner threes. My understanding is that in the NBA the corner three is more efficient since the court isn’t wide enough for the NBA three point line to stay equidistant from the basket, and the corner 3 is a closer shot. On an NCAA court the 3 point line is uniform 20’9” all the way around, so don’t think corner threes are as favorable for an offense (and I can think of reasons they are worse - tougher visual shooting background, less likely to get help from the backboard, easier to step out of bounds since the sideline is very close, and easier fast break opportunities for the opponent as the Shooter is as far as possible from his own basket). Am I missing something here?

I don't have numbers handy, but I believe even in the NCAA, players hit corner threes at a higher percentage than other spots around the arc. It's possible that's because corner threes are almost always catch-and-shoot opportunities (which in general are made at a much higher rate than pull-up or step-back threes).

[CDu]

CDu - thanks for the post. I really enjoy your posts and I’m not trying to be contentious, but I’m curious about why you specifically call out corner threes. My understanding is that in the NBA the corner three is more efficient since the court isn’t wide enough for the NBA three point line to stay equidistant from the basket, and the corner 3 is a closer shot. On an NCAA court the 3 point line is uniform 20’9” all the way around, so don’t think corner threes are as favorable for an offense (and I can think of reasons they are worse - tougher visual shooting background, less likely to get help from the backboard, easier to step out of bounds since the sideline is very close, and easier fast break opportunities for the opponent as the Shooter is as far as possible from his own basket). Am I missing something here?

No offense taken! And great question. The “especially corner 3s” was referring to the fact that the corner 3 is the most common 3pt opportunity created by a drive, because with the collapsing defense and sightlines that is the easiest guy to spot and hit. “Especially” probably wasn’t the right word there. “Primarily” or “mainly” would have been better. Sorry for the confusion. It definitely reads that way in hindsight.

[Duke76]

I know that Grayson has a wonderful stroke, but this picture(no. 2 in the sequence from last night if the link doesn't direct to the actual photo) from GoDuke.com shows his eyes to be following the flight of the ball rather than being fixed on the rim. Any comments? Let's go, Duke!

http://www.goduke.com/PhotoAlbum.dbm...PALBID=2196687

that's interesting and it does look like...while he looks to be in balance in the shots and going straight up with his legs under him nicely...i thought I saw a few times he was off balance, maybe jack knifing his legs a little. i don't know it strange sometimes how little nuanced changes in your form knock your shot off...His misses didn't't seem to be consistent last night, some long, some short, kinda like not all his limbs working in concert.

[lotusland]

I agree with that. Vrank, while huge and experienced is just slow and doesn't get off the floor.

We did have very good games from bench players with Robinson, White and O'Connell doing very well. Robinson doesn't appear to be the greatest athlete, but he is good sized at 6'9" and is a smooth shooter. He has some experience so can help on the defensive side. White is very active and is a strong young player and can hold his own with the guys that Pitt could put on the floor. O'Connell is quite a skilled played and an excellent athlete. He plays better defense than he is given credit for and is a very capable shooter. He defers on the shot but when he does try to score he is effective. I didn't mention Goldwire as he cramped up before I had much chance to appraise his play.

It's nice to have three effective subs get a chance to play on the road for significant minutes against an ACC opponent, however weak. Isn't it what quite a few posters been hoping for?

Yes it was. I was going to post just that. It’s awesome to see 4-year guys get an opportunity to play more than spot minutes during garbage time. All the guys looked like they belong on the court. Now the coaches can break down what they did well and what needs improvement. I think it’s a big deal to for those guys. Also how awesome is it for JRob to come so far? I’ve seen some posts about his lack of athleticism but I don’t really see that. He looks like he’s fast walking when he changes ends but seems pretty quick and agile in the half court. Also wasn’t he a decent HS wide receiver? Maybe he’s still growing into his taller frame but I wouldn’t call him alarmingly unathathletic.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Per KP, the worst final rankings are:
2012 BC (261)
2011 WF (259)
2016 BC (225)
2012 WF (211)
2018 pitt (192)
2015 VT (175)
2014 VT (174)
2012 GT (174)
2017 BC (173)
2013 VT (169)

Amazing that these are all post-expansion, and before 2011, the ACC had nobody outside the top 150 in the previous 10 years at least. not surprisingly, the expansion teams dominate the list, with 7 of the 10 spots.

How did the worst ACC team in the modern era win 4 games in the ACC?

[English]

that's interesting and it does look like...while he looks to be in balance in the shots and going straight up with his legs under him nicely...i thought I saw a few times he was off balance, maybe jack knifing his legs a little. i don't know it strange sometimes how little nuanced changes in your form knock your shot off...His misses didn't't seem to be consistent last night, some long, some short, kinda like not all his limbs working in concert.

Purely anecdotally, but something that has been a really stark change this season for Grayson, in my view, is his almost insistence on shot faking every time he catches the ball. Shot fakes are a great weapon for a player with Grayson's array of attacking moves (shooting, driving, dishing, etc.), but again, in my layman's view, it's basically annihilated any catch-and-shoot 3pt opportunities he gets. It must have been a point of emphasis for him over the offseason, because I cannot remember this being a constant part of his game in the past. As a designed armchair shooting instructor, I think he needs to continue working on when to shot fake and when to take an open shot.

[Olympic Fan]

How did the worst ACC team in the modern era win 4 games in the ACC?

That was a team with four freshman starters (Tyan Anderson, Dennis Clifford, Lonnie Jackson, Patrick Heckmann). It struggled mightily early and got better late, beating a few weak ACC teams.

That's why when I listed the four worst ACC teams of this century, I had that team fourth and an 0-18 BC team first. I love Kenpom, but I didn't think his rankings are gospel.

[uh_no]

That was a team with four freshman starters (Tyan Anderson, Dennis Clifford, Lonnie Jackson, Patrick Heckmann). It struggled mightily early and got better late, beating a few weak ACC teams.

That's why when I listed the four worst ACC teams of this century, I had that team fourth and an 0-18 BC team first. I love Kenpom, but I didn't think his rankings are gospel.

I don't either in this case. i was simply pointing out that for a given metric, those were the four worst.