Starters?

[gofurman]

I was at the Clemson game - refuse to call it the unc game ... Why did Paulus and Lance not start? Is Lance still hurt? Is Nolan starting to puch Paulus more for even time? Thanks for help here!

[CDu]

I was at the Clemson game - refuse to call it the unc game ... Why did Paulus and Lance not start? Is Lance still hurt? Is Nolan starting to puch Paulus more for even time? Thanks for help here!

Starting Zoubek over Thomas could be due to Thomas still recovering, or it could be because Coach K felt that Cornell was a better matchup for Zoubek (given that Cornell has a 7-footer).

I am, however, interested like you in finding out why Paulus didn't start.

[speedevil]

not sure why paulus didnt start ,but i heard the commentators mention zoubek may have been starting to match up against cornells 7'0 center; plus has lance given much lately? i think mcclure has performed much better than lance and should be given the opportunity for more minutes if lance continues to not show up during games

[ThatDukeFan1]

paulus or lance not starting really has nothing to do with injuries or talent level. if you've watched duke in the past (like i would hope you would of) then you'd realize that coach k, changes the line-up around a lot against cupcake teams, just for guys to get a start, because it's a nice experience.

lance thomas was perfectly healthy. zoubek just played a lot mainly because cornell had a 7 footer in and because we had the game in hand w/o the help of thomas. it's just to give zoubek some playing time (which he desperatly needs to be better.) just like last year when we played carolina, zoubek got the start over mcroberts, but it had nothing to do with talent level.

as far as paulus / smith. same reason really, just for nolan smith to get a start under his belt. paulus is still obviously our main PG, but when we play cupcakes you're going to see the bench play a lot and start.

[yancem]

paulus or lance not starting really has nothing to do with injuries or talent level. if you've watched duke in the past (like i would hope you would of) then you'd realize that coach k, changes the line-up around a lot against cupcake teams, just for guys to get a start, because it's a nice experience.

lance thomas was perfectly healthy. zoubek just played a lot mainly because cornell had a 7 footer in and because we had the game in hand w/o the help of thomas. it's just to give zoubek some playing time (which he desperatly needs to be better.) just like last year when we played carolina, zoubek got the start over mcroberts, but it had nothing to do with talent level.

as far as paulus / smith. same reason really, just for nolan smith to get a start under his belt. paulus is still obviously our main PG, but when we play cupcakes you're going to see the bench play a lot and start.

While I don't disagree with you it still doesn't explain why Zoubek only got 10 minutes, Thomas got 9 and King only got 6. I thought that with the exception of the one travel violation, Zoubek played pretty effectively against Cornell's 7 footer. I don't have much of recollection of Thomas's play which says something by its self but if we are going to have success in the acc he is going to have to play more minutes. Same goes for King; how does he only get 6 minutes? I know he had a couple of bad plays but K is going to have to let them play through their mistakes if they are going to learn. All 3 of those guys have shown they have earned some minutes, I'm hoping that they start getting more of them.

[ThatDukeFan1]

as for why zoubek and thomas didn't play a lot, i think coach k just likes the more athletic line-up. but i do agree with you that they need to play more to gain experience.

as for king, there was a reason why he sat. he got in, made a bad pass and threw the ball right into the stands. then he dribbled into traffic, and got a turnover. not to mention he missed a wide open shot, and then air-balled another shot, then on the defensive end he let a man get by him twice (one time was only half his fault) .... all within a span of 3 minutes, you just CAN'T do that and expect to play a lot.

[Jumbo]

While I don't disagree with you it still doesn't explain why Zoubek only got 10 minutes, Thomas got 9 and King only got 6.

Well, part of the reason was that Duke's best lineup -- by far -- was Paulus/Scheyer/Nelson/Henderson/Singler. They outscored Cornell 20-7.

Same goes for King; how does he only get 6 minutes? I know he had a couple of bad plays but K is going to have to let them play through their mistakes if they are going to learn.

King was completely lost in all facets of the game during those six minutes. He didn't earn the right to play more. And considering Duke has a wealth of other options his size, those guys deserved to get King's time (mainly McClure). King can play through his mistakes in practice, too.

All 3 of those guys have shown they have earned some minutes, I'm hoping that they start getting more of them.

In games where they have played well, they've played a lot. When they don't play well, they don't play much. Considering how deep Duke is this year, I have no problem with that approach.

[Bob Green]

It will be interesting to see who starts against Temple. Will Coach K mix it up again? Will he go back to the standard five who've started almost every game? Temple has some size that starts in a 7'0" Center and a 6'9" forward, but only eight players see significant minutes and six are guards. This is our last game prior to the ACC schedule so I wouldn't be suprised to see Coach K experimenting with combinations. Temple is 6-6 for the year but they've played some good teams tough.

[greybeard]

paulus or lance not starting really has nothing to do with injuries or talent level. if you've watched duke in the past (like i would hope you would of) then you'd realize that coach k, changes the line-up around a lot against cupcake teams, just for guys to get a start, because it's a nice experience.

lance thomas was perfectly healthy. zoubek just played a lot mainly because cornell had a 7 footer in and because we had the game in hand w/o the help of thomas. it's just to give zoubek some playing time (which he desperatly needs to be better.) just like last year when we played carolina, zoubek got the start over mcroberts, but it had nothing to do with talent level.

as far as paulus / smith. same reason really, just for nolan smith to get a start under his belt. paulus is still obviously our main PG, but when we play cupcakes you're going to see the bench play a lot and start.

I think that this is about right. I think that it has to do with the lower intensity level of the fans more than anything. If this were an away game, I doubt that K would have done anything but start his starters.

If Cornell had proved a cup cake, maybe Zoubs would have seen more time. They didn't and he didn't.

Smith's athletic style fit with where Cornell went with their offense in the second half, which I thought broke down, as in completely, except for Foote. The wing defense by Duke in the second half was terrific, shut down Whittman and Gore, and left the ball in the hands of a dribbler trying to penetrate, except when they looked for Foote and he was not sucking wind. Smith could fit with that style.

If Whittman or Gore could have helped Foote in the half court offense, I don't think that you'd have seen Smith on the court in the second half either. As it was, Smith used his length well against Cornell's smaller guards.

You agree DukeFan1, don't you?

[Oriole Way]

Well, part of the reason was that Duke's best lineup -- by far -- was Paulus/Scheyer/Nelson/Henderson/Singler. They outscored Cornell 20-7.



King was completely lost in all facets of the game during those six minutes. He didn't earn the right to play more. And considering Duke has a wealth of other options his size, those guys deserved to get King's time (mainly McClure). King can play through his mistakes in practice, too.



In games where they have played well, they've played a lot. When they don't play well, they don't play much. Considering how deep Duke is this year, I have no problem with that approach.

Jumbo, what's your take on why Zoubek got so little time in the second half?

I'm very concerned about what appears to be K shortening his bench yet again. I understand King and Thomas getting less time, but I think Zoubek should have gotten way more, not only because he played well in the first half, but also because this team desperately needs to develop either one of Zoubek or Thomas, and I think Zoubek is much further along and can offer far more to this team both offensively and defensively this year.

Don't you think that Zoubek would have been an answer to Foote and how Foote dominated certain stretches of the second half? I suppose K doesn't think Zoubek is ready to contribute, but I don't know why he's on the team if we don't plan on ever using the kid. Last night was a good situation against a weak opponent to see if he could deliver against a good situational matchup.

[greybeard]

Jumbo, what's your take on why Zoubek got so little time in the second half?

I'm very concerned about what appears to be K shortening his bench yet again. I understand King and Thomas getting less time, but I think Zoubek should have gotten way more, not only because he played well in the first half, but also because this team desperately needs to develop either one of Zoubek or Thomas, and I think Zoubek is much further along and can offer far more to this team both offensively and defensively this year.

Don't you think that Zoubek would have been an answer to Foote and how Foote dominated certain stretches of the second half? I suppose K doesn't think Zoubek is ready to contribute, but I don't know why he's on the team if we don't plan on ever using the kid. Last night was a good situation against a weak opponent to see if he could deliver against a good situational matchup.

Foote was not going to beat him. Cornell's ability to make Zoub's switch onto Gore or Whittman might have. You say that Cornell was a weaker opponent but they missed an open 3 with 120 seconds to go that would have brought it to 7. A little less weaker and you'd be looking up to look down.

K won this with a defense that shut down Cornell's two best scorers and took the legs out from their starting bigs. He couldn't do that with Zoubek on the floor. Next question.

[Troublemaker]

Jumbo, what's your take on why Zoubek got so little time in the second half?

I'm very concerned about what appears to be K shortening his bench yet again. I understand King and Thomas getting less time, but I think Zoubek should have gotten way more, not only because he played well in the first half, but also because this team desperately needs to develop either one of Zoubek or Thomas, and I think Zoubek is much further along and can offer far more to this team both offensively and defensively this year.

Don't you think that Zoubek would have been an answer to Foote and how Foote dominated certain stretches of the second half? I suppose K doesn't think Zoubek is ready to contribute, but I don't know why he's on the team if we don't plan on ever using the kid. Last night was a good situation against a weak opponent to see if he could deliver against a good situational matchup.

greybeard might be onto something with matchups, but another reason why Z played 10 minutes instead of 15 or 20 may be because Duke never really pulled away in this game. That's the nice thing about blowouts. You can fool around with lineups a bit more and give your lesser players more time. That said, I was happy with what Z produced in his 10 minutes but he's at that point in his development where it needs to become a consistent effort.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, what's your take on why Zoubek got so little time in the second half?

I'm very concerned about what appears to be K shortening his bench yet again. I understand King and Thomas getting less time, but I think Zoubek should have gotten way more, not only because he played well in the first half, but also because this team desperately needs to develop either one of Zoubek or Thomas, and I think Zoubek is much further along and can offer far more to this team both offensively and defensively this year.

Don't you think that Zoubek would have been an answer to Foote and how Foote dominated certain stretches of the second half? I suppose K doesn't think Zoubek is ready to contribute, but I don't know why he's on the team if we don't plan on ever using the kid. Last night was a good situation against a weak opponent to see if he could deliver against a good situational matchup.

First, 10 minutes is not insignificant (like that double negative? ). Secondly, I'll provide the same answer I gave about King -- Duke's small lineup of Paulus/Scheyer/Nelson/Henderson/Singler was extremely effective. So K went with it.

And I think Greybeard is right about at least one thing -- Cornell forced a lot of switches on defense. So a lot of Foote's points came off switches onto smaller guys, not straight post-ups against Singler or McClure. Zoubek would have faced a lot of trouble in those switches. And while I don't think he played poorly when he was in, I don't think Zoubek played particularly well, either.

[Jumbo]

Foote was not going to beat him. Cornell's ability to make Zoub's switch onto Gore or Whittman might have. You say that Cornell was a weaker opponent but they missed an open 3 with 120 seconds to go that would have brought it to 7. A little less weaker and you'd be looking up to look down.

K won this with a defense that shut down Cornell's two best scorers and took the legs out from their starting bigs. He couldn't do that with Zoubek on the floor. Next question.

Come on, man. I love the Ivy League. I love the progress Cornell's program has made in recent years. If you think Cornell is remotely close to being as good a team as Duke, well, <sigh>

[dw0827]

First, 10 minutes is not insignificant (like that double negative? ). Secondly, I'll provide the same answer I gave about King -- Duke's small lineup of Paulus/Scheyer/Nelson/Henderson/Singler was extremely effective. So K went with it.

I remember the threads this summer about small ball. I was (and maybe still am) someone who worried about our overall success if we played a lot of small ball. But now that we're a dozen games in, I really like the lineup Jumbo talks about. Paulus/Scheyer/Nelson/Henderson/Singler.

I had high hopes that Lance or Zoub would make significant strides . . . and while they both have improved, I still think the smaller line-up cited above is our best.

Question for Jumbo: I haven't really been following your +/- threads for a variety of reasons, but what do your numbers indicate about the "small ball" line-ups? I suspect that they have been our most effective . . .

And Jumbo, I watched Henderson very carefully last night . . . "head down" and all. I thought he missed one, maybe two obvious passes . . . but that's about it . . . although his passing was far from crisp. Kinda awkward, in fact. Up in the air needing to do something, like, now. But he did pass. What did you think?

[Ignatius07]

I'm not Jumbo (obviously), but I definitely noticed a difference. Henderson passed more than he would typically, maybe even too much. You're right that his passes weren't crisp, but this will be a work in progress for him. Honestly, he probably could have scored on a few of those drives he ended up passing on.

[Jumbo]

I remember the threads this summer about small ball. I was (and maybe still am) someone who worried about our overall success if we played a lot of small ball. But now that we're a dozen games in, I really like the lineup Jumbo talks about. Paulus/Scheyer/Nelson/Henderson/Singler.

I had high hopes that Lance or Zoub would make significant strides . . . and while they both have improved, I still think the smaller line-up cited above is our best.

Question for Jumbo: I haven't really been following your +/- threads for a variety of reasons, but what do your numbers indicate about the "small ball" line-ups? I suspect that they have been our most effective . . .

And Jumbo, I watched Henderson very carefully last night . . . "head down" and all. I thought he missed one, maybe two obvious passes . . . but that's about it . . . although his passing was far from crisp. Kinda awkward, in fact. Up in the air needing to do something, like, now. But he did pass. What did you think?

I thought Henderson took fewer bad shots than usual and was aware. Passing is not a natural skill for him, but I don't think he played selfishly. To be fair, he wasn't driving in the same manner as the Pitt game -- there were fewer slashes toward the middle of the lane from the wing where the opposite wing was open on the weak side. Still, it seemed like Henderson was making an effort to move the ball a big quicker.

As far as plus/minus goes (and how could anyone have a "variety of reasons" for not paying attention to it), that lineup is Duke's second-most effective (+28). Of course, it has also been used the second-most often (17 times).

[mgtr]

Another factor about Zoubek playing less is that McClure is rounding into shape and doing a good job. I know he isn't tall, but he sure can rebound. While I though Zoubek did a good job (for Zoubek), I thought McClure was very effective. He did take a three, as I recall -- not his game.

[dw0827]

As far as plus/minus goes (and how could anyone have a "variety of reasons" for not paying attention to it), that lineup is Duke's second-most effective (+28). Of course, it has also been used the second-most often (17 times).

Wasn't trying to be sarcastic or negative about the plus/minus stuff . . . but there are several reasons why I haven't paid much attention to it. First, to do it justice, I think I'd have to look it over carefully and I just don't have the time these days. Second, what little of the threads I read seemed to focus on various posters trying to justify why their favorite should get more and more playing time . . . and I have no use for that so I don't read it. I happen to believe that playing time is earned in practice and I'm not going to second-guess the coaching staff . . . and no amount of +/- is going to change that. Third, I didn't think meaningful patterns or trends would emerge until you had a good bit of data available to even out the uncontrolled variables. At this point, after a dozen games, I think your data universe is becoming meaningful. It wasn't earlier. Finally, (and related to the first) I'd have to think real hard about the value of the data and what I think it is telling me (and what it isn't telling me). My immediate knee-jerk (and perhaps invalid) impression is that it is not particularly useful in measuring the relative value of any specific player . . . because there are too many other variables involved that are not held constant.

HOWEVER, I am intrigued by the possibility that, over time, the data may suggest useful trends regarding specific line-ups . . . hence my original question to you regarding the "small ball" line-up.

[Jumbo]

Wasn't trying to be sarcastic or negative about the plus/minus stuff . . . but there are several reasons why I haven't paid much attention to it. First, to do it justice, I think I'd have to look it over carefully and I just don't have the time these days. Second, what little of the threads I read seemed to focus on various posters trying to justify why their favorite should get more and more playing time . . . and I have no use for that so I don't read it. I happen to believe that playing time is earned in practice and I'm not going to second-guess the coaching staff . . . and no amount of +/- is going to change that. Third, I didn't think meaningful patterns or trends would emerge ulti you had a good bit of data available to even out the uncontrolled variables. At this point, after a dozen games, I think your data universe is becoming meaningful. It wasn't earlier. Finally, (and related to the first) I'd have to think real hard about the value of the data and what I think it is telling me (and what it isn't telling me). My immediate knee-jerk (and perhaps invalid) impression is that it is not particularly useful in measuring the relative value of any specific player . . . because there are too many other variables involved that are not held constant.

HOWEVER, I am intrigued by the possibility that, over time, the data may suggest useful trends regarding specific line-ups . . . hence my original question to you regarding the "small ball" line-up.

Gotcha. I actually don't think the discussion has devolved into one over playing time. I absolutely agree that the data is only starting to grow meaningful. The only area in which I disagree is the value of the data -- I know for a fact that as teams at both the pro and college levels are using more statistical analysis to determine value. Plus/minus is used heavily, as is lineup combos. Now, those teams have more sophisticated stats as well (and much more sophisticated resources). Hell, I wish I had the patience simply to track the amount of time a lineup is used. Meanwhile, teams can track who is on the court for both teams, who is matched up against whom, all sorts of stuff. That said, I know that teams definitely take plus/minus seriously as an added way to measure effectiveness, which is why I started posting it in the first place.