MBB: Duke 80, Ga Tech 69 Post-Game Thread

[hudlow]

Though I couldn't see much, from what the ref was saying to the coach, that was a Kevin Ware. I can't imagine he's not done for the year.

When you see someone holding that part of their arm, there's almost nothing else it's going to be other than a break.

Feel for the kid. rough way to end your year.

From GT men's Basketball Twitter...

"...point guard Jose Alvarado suffered a dislocated elbow and is likely out for the remainder of the season."

[robed deity]

A lapse implies that Duke has control, that Duke could just decide to play great ball for 40 minutes but for some reason we don't. It's a very comforting explanation that many people here have decided to adopt. Comforting from the standpoint that it could all just change for Duke at any point in time. Our players could just all of a sudden decide to concentrate for 40 minutes or try hard for 40 minutes or care for 40 minutes or not think about the NBA draft for 40 minutes or whatever label one might use.

But, unfortunately, I don't think that's what's happening. I think Duke has real weaknesses, mostly on defense. Sometimes those weaknesses manifest themselves for the full 40 minutes; for example, I thought @NCSU was 40 minutes of bad play by us. But sometimes those weaknesses manifest themselves for smaller stretches of the game. Yesterday, three of our weaknesses started to manifest themselves in the second half: (1) defensive rebounding, (2) over-focus on postups and telegraphed post entries, and (3) transition defense. The fact they didn't manifest for 40 minutes doesn't make them any less real.

No, I don't believe the narrative that we have lapses. I believe my narrative that we have weaknesses. It's not that we have a great team that doesn't concentrate or try hard. It's that we don't have a great team. (Yet, hopefully.)

Totally agree with all of this. I will say that 2 of your defensive weaknesses (def rebounding and transition defense) are often linked to effort so it perhaps contributes to the notion they aren't "trying hard." But yeah, there is a skill element to these things too.

[Kedsy]

he's also bricked some 3s that negate all of what you wrote. For example, vs. BC, he bricked a 3 in crunch time and that sparked BC on to the win.

I don't think it negates what he wrote. I mean, I'm sure Tyus Jones missed a few threes, too. We only remember the ones he made.

People may also be selectively considering our guards (who do seem to leave a lot at the rim). Our bigs, of course, raise the percentage significantly.

Maybe, but our guards aren't missing disproportionately inside, either. Here's a comparison of percentage at the rim (from Hoop-math) among the last four Duke teams:

2015
-----
Grayson Allen: 75.0% (wow, but limited number of attempts)
Quinn Cook: 66.7%
Rasheed Sulaimon: 56.2%
Tyus Jones: 55.6%
Matt Jones: 51.7%

2016
-----
Grayson Allen: 61.1%
Luke Kennard: 59.5%
Brandon Ingram: 58.8%
Derryck Thornton: 51.9%
Matt Jones: 39.7%

2017
-----
Frank Jackson: 63.2%
Jayson Tatum: 62.0%
Luke Kennard: 61.8%
Matt Jones: 55.6%
Grayson Allen: 52.2%

2018
-----
Gary Trent: 66.7%
Alex O'Connell: 66.7%
Grayson Allen: 62.2%
Trevon Duval: 59.6%

At the very least, this year's perimeter group appears to be shooting a higher percentage at the rim than any of our previous three teams (including 2015). So I'm back to we just notice it more when we miss.

Though it's possible we just don't understand that a guard hitting 60% of his shots at the rim is pretty good and 65% is really good.

[Wander]

Matt Jones: 39.7%

Oh god. No offense to Matt (we could definitely use him on this defensive-challenged team!), but this is a stat I do not miss.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

the name on the front of the jersey inspires EVERY opponent to have a career night. This can not go unspoken...

I just wish the name on the front of the jersey inspired more from OUR guys.

[freshmanjs]

But, unfortunately, I don't think that's what's happening. I think Duke has real weaknesses, mostly on defense. Sometimes those weaknesses manifest themselves for the full 40 minutes; for example, I thought @NCSU was 40 minutes of bad play by us. But sometimes those weaknesses manifest themselves for smaller stretches of the game. Yesterday, three of our weaknesses started to manifest themselves in the second half: (1) defensive rebounding, (2) over-focus on postups and telegraphed post entries, and (3) transition defense. The fact they didn't manifest for 40 minutes doesn't make them any less real.

No, I don't believe the narrative that we have lapses. I believe my narrative that we have weaknesses. It's not that we have a great team that doesn't concentrate or try hard. It's that we don't have a great team. (Yet, hopefully.)

I'm not sure why this is one narrative or the other -- it can be both. The question (to me) is *why* do those weaknesses manifest sometimes and not other times. The reason could have to do with concentration, focus, or effort. It is certainly possible to have a weakness that you can overcome with great focus and discipline, but resurface with any let up in focus.

[AtlDuke72]

The I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing on this Board is too much for me. The team was up by 26 points without its best player. Anybody who watches sports knows it is hard to play with a huge lead in a blow out. I saw the first game of the year in 1992 in Greensboro when the same thing happened to the defending national champs with Hurley, Laettner , Hill et al. only ended up winning by 10 points or so. I am gone.

[FerryFor50]

The I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing on this Board is too much for me. The team was up by 26 points without its best player. Anybody who watch s sports knows it is hard to play with a huge lead in a blow out. I say the first game of the year in 1992 in Frensboreo when the same thing happened and the defending national champs with Hurley, lawtrner , Hill et al. Only ended up winning by 10 points or so

What are you talking about? The 1991 Duke team won every game by 100 points, never turned the ball over and never missed a shot.

[freshmanjs]

What are you talking about? The 1991 Duke team won every game by 100 points, never turned the ball over and never missed a shot.

I was a freshman that year...Hanes house. My roommate kept saying all year: "We're just not that good." By the time of the Kansas game, it became a bit of a running joke. There was definitely a lot of angst about the team (and its sophomore PG) that year.

[FerryFor50]

I was a freshman that year...Hanes house. My roommate kept saying all year: "We're just not that good." By the time of the Kansas game, it became a bit of a running joke. There was definitely a lot of angst about the team (and its freshman PG) that year.

No worries. Tyus Jones' perfection erased all memory of the flawed Bobby Hurley.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

What are you talking about? The 1991 Duke team won every game by 100 points, never turned the ball over and never missed a shot.

Only better team was 1999. Pretty sure why were unscored on until the Final Four.

[jv001]

Totally agree with all of this. I will say that 2 of your defensive weaknesses (def rebounding and transition defense) are often linked to effort so it perhaps contributes to the notion they aren't "trying hard." But yeah, there is a skill element to these things too.

Defensive rebounding is a failure of our big guys not boxing out. So, I put that into the mental failure portion of weaknesses because all our guys are athletic enough to box out. As for transition defense, some of it is effort and some of it is getting caught standing around. Once again a mental weakness. I think lack of focus(mental) and in-experience are our two biggest weaknesses. GoDuke!

[Matches]

What are you talking about? The 1991 Duke team won every game by 100 points, never turned the ball over and never missed a shot.

That does seem to be the standard around here these days. We just won by double digits on the road against an ACC team that is not Pitt without our best player, but that’s somehow bad because at some point in the game the other team went on a run.

We took our foot off the gas, guys. It happens. I’d love to see us put together 40 great minutes every time out but that’s not a realistic expectation. I am sensitive to the idea that we have been prone to lapses this year, and I agree that maintaining mental focus is a work in progress for this team, but if we’re going to have lapses let’s have them when we’re up by 26.

Anyway I thought we played well up until that point. The zone looked more active to me although I wonder if it is exacerbating our defensive rebounding problems by confusing box-out assignments. Happy to see Grayson be more aggressive - yes there were more shots than usual available for him but the lane wasn’t any less clogged than it ever is. We still played two bigs almost the whole game.

[Rich]

Defensive rebounding is a failure of our big guys not boxing out. So, I put that into the mental failure portion of weaknesses because all our guys are athletic enough to box out. As for transition defense, some of it is effort and some of it is getting caught standing around. Once again a mental weakness. I think lack of focus(mental) and in-experience are our two biggest weaknesses. GoDuke!

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but isn't defensive rebounding harder in zone compared to m2m because it's harder to find a body to box out? I would have to think that any dip in our defensive rebounding compared to previous years has to be somewhat related to our extensive use of zone over m2m this season.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing on this Board is too much for me. The team was up by 26 points without its best player. Anybody who watches sports knows it is hard to play with a huge lead in a blow out. I saw the first game of the year in 1992 in Greensboro when the same thing happened to the defending national champs with Hurley, Laettner , Hill et al. only ended up winning by 10 points or so. I am gone.

Frankly, I don't see I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing...I see some comments of concern, and a big part of the Tech game looked a lot like the beginning of the second half of the Carolina game. I think it's fair to say we would like that thing tightened up. That's not I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing.

And BTW, you refer to the Iowa game, in the second round (they beat Campbell in the opening round) in Greensboro. They were beating Iowa so badly that for a while, the Duke fans were yelling "Campbell's Better" at Iowa. Then they did implode. And yes, they almost lost the lead. And guess what? They were indeed concerned. They were rattled. Sometimes that is appropriate.

Frankly, I think fans who never say anything but 100% positive comments are unrealistic and like parents who spoil their kids.

[moonpie23]

The I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing on this Board is too much for me. The team was up by 26 points without its best player. Anybody who watches sports knows it is hard to play with a huge lead in a blow out. I saw the first game of the year in 1992 in Greensboro when the same thing happened to the defending national champs with Hurley, Laettner , Hill et al. only ended up winning by 10 points or so. I am gone.

the green light says you're still here


seriously, it's a college bb sports forum, not a manfesto...

[AtlDuke72]

I was a little off. The game I was referring to was against St. John’s on Dec. 5, 1991 in Greensboro. Final score was 91-81

You must have a very high bar for I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing if you can’t see it ion this Board!

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I was a little off. The game I was referring to was against St. John’s on Dec. 5, 1991 in Greensboro. Final score was 91-81

You must have a very high bar for I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing if you can’t see it ion this Board!

Perhaps I do have a high bar, I spend more time on political forums....and I'm really glad you mentioned that St Johns game in Dec of 1991. That was when the 91-92 team peaked...the first 30 minutes of that game, when they were up 60 something to 30 something. The announcers were going crazy. This was the very experienced defending champions as you know...and they started the season in peak form.

They were just so good that they managed to win the NCAA title even while peaking four months earlier. Their run to the 92 title was far tougher over all than their 91 run, including of course the Laettner game.

[devildeac]

I was a little off. The game I was referring to was against St. John’s on Dec. 5, 1991 in Greensboro. Final score was 91-81

You must have a very high bar for I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing if you can’t see it ion this Board!

"Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please:"

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Perhaps I do have a high bar, I spend more time on political forums...and I'm really glad you mentioned that St Johns game in Dec of 1991. That was when the 91-92 team peaked...the first 30 minutes of that game, when they were up 60 something to 30 something. The announcers were going crazy. This was the very experienced defending champions as you know...and they started the season in peak form.

They were just so good that they managed to win the NCAA title even while peaking four months earlier. Their run to the 92 title was far tougher over all than their 91 run, including of course the Laettner game.

To be fair, AtlDuke72 has been here eleven years longer than you...