IMHO: Kyle is playing too many minutes

[Cdog923]

I really think we need to find some more minutes for Lance, Miles, and even Dave at the 4. I know Kyle bulked up over the summer, and is more capable to handle the load this year, but I really think we need to take his minutes down, just to save his wheels for March. Same goes for Jon and Gerald. I don't want to see the shots start falling short in March.

[wisteria]

why is everyone all so particularly concerned about kyle's minutes, when Jon is actually playing as many, if not more, minutes?

I wonder if it's because kyle just has that look.

edit: OP does mention Jon. But overall it seems that only kyle gets the concern.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Personally, I think the minutes argument is overblown. But I think Kyle is getting so much attention because he and K explicitly said that he was worn out last season and his performance dropped significantly as a result. FWIW, I've actually been very happy with our use of depth and substitution patterns. /Shrug.

[FireOgilvie]

I'm not concerned with the minutes Kyle is getting. We do a lot of standing around on offense anyway. We aren't exactly running like UNC...

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Kyle tends to look pale and not particularly strong, but his appearance is deceiving. He plays like he's in a hockey match. I'm with Coach K on what's best in managing the players' minutes in the game.

[Cell-R]

I'm not too worried about Kyle. I do worry a little about Scheyer. We hear almost every game about those 20 pounds that Kyle added over the summer, but how many did Scheyer add? I could see a similar end of season situation with him.

If you factor in the depth of this years team, I can also see everybody ending healthy and strong.

Don't forget that our team was wrecked by the flu last year. It seems as if they have their shots this year :) (knock on wood).

[Bob Green]

The "Kyle Singler plays too many minutes" theory is very popular but fortunately it does not hold water when subjected to statistical analysis. Simply stated, the best player on the best teams in the nation play similar minutes. I took a look at the current Top 10:

1. Pittsburgh - Levance Fields - 30.8 mpg
2. Wake Forest - Jeff Teague - 30.7 mpg
3. Duke - Jon Scheyer - 30.4 mpg
4. UConn - Jeff Adrien - 33.8 mpg
5. UNC - Tyler Hansbrough - 28.6 mpg
6. Oklahoma - Blake Griffin - 32.8 mpg
7. Michigan State - Kailin Lucas - 30.6 mpg
8. Syracuse - Jonny Flynn - 34.7 mpg
9. UCLA - Darren Collison - 30.5 mpg
10. Clemson - K.C. Rivers - 29.8 mpg

So for starters, Kyle Singler doesn't even play the most minutes-per-game on Duke, Jon Scheyer does. Now, comparing this year's team to our National Championship teams:

1991 - Bobby Hurley - 34.7 mpg
Christian Laettner - 30.2 mpg

1992 - Bobby Hurley - 33.6 mpg
Christian Laettner - 32.2 mpg

2001 - Jason Williams - 31.8 mpg
Shane Battier - 31.8 mpg

Kyle Singler will be fine playing the number of minutes he is playing. We may or may not make a deep run in the NCAA Tournament (who knows we may win the whole enchilada) but the number of minutes Kyle Singler averages per game will be irrelevant to the end result.

[Jumbo]

I'm not too worried about Kyle. I do worry a little about Scheyer. We hear almost every game about those 20 pounds that Kyle added over the summer, but how many did Scheyer add? I could see a similar end of season situation with him.

If you factor in the depth of this years team, I can also see everybody ending healthy and strong.

Don't forget that our team was wrecked by the flu last year. It seems as if they have their shots this year :) (knock on wood).

We don't need 17 different threads talking about minutes played. Going forward, we will beging combining them. Also, certain posters should refer to the guidelines and the defintion of "repetitive rant." We will be enforcing it.

FYI, no one is worried about Scheyer's minutes because he plays on the perimeter, had that ridiculous VO2 max score and has better stats when he plays a lot (check the numbers I posted in another thread). The concern was with Singler repeating last year. But last year ... he was a freshman. This year, not only has he added weight, not only is he spending less time guarding fives, he's also a sophomore. You don't grab 16 rebounds and hit a big late three when you're playing "too many minutes."

And the team didn't have the flu last year. I think that was debunked on the boards about six months ago.

[duketaylor]

I'll take a different opinion here, Bob. I look at the minutes Kyle's getting in these conference games and it's elevated quite a bit from the earlier somewhat softer schedule. Recently, K has pared down minutes for non-starters as the season has gone along and we've seen the better players staying on the court longer. As long as Kyle's not inside all the time banging with the other bigs I'm OK with elevated minutes, but only to a degree. I'd still like to see more Miles, Lance and Zoubs, even McClure.
In my perfect little Duke world nobody plays more than about 32 minutes per game; these games where guys are playing 37 minutes is just too wearing, IMO. Just my .02

[ACCBBallFan]

Good thing Kyle was tired or he might have gotten 20 rebounds today.

Duke really has no alternative other than foul trouble to cause K to want to exchange someone else at the 4/5, whichever Kylke is playing at the moment.

Jon on the other hand may get a bit more rest if Greg continues to play well. Coach K seems to like pairing Marty with Greg which is surprising and also Nolan with Greg.

The difference this year is not only more weight, but also that Zoubs or even McClure are banging with the biggest guy and Kyle is just having fun from the perimeter.

Miles Plumlee's decent performance in 7 minutes of action is encouraging, and waiting to hear why Lance played so little, doghouse or minor injury or bad practices the past week on top of non sterling games.

It's understandable why Z cannot match up with Monroe and Summers but that is when Lance normally gets the call, as does Dave., and now maybe Miles.

[77devil]

I look at the minutes Kyle's getting in these conference games and it's elevated quite a bit from the earlier somewhat softer schedule.

This is correct. Kyle and Jon are averaging 36 minutes for the 3 conference games plus Georgetown. Gerald has averaged 34 for the last 4 games. I am not taking a position that it is good or bad, just reporting the data.

I was surprised that Coach K did not take Kyle out after his 3rd foul with a 16 point lead in the second half. Kyle had played the entire game to that point.

[DukeCO2009]

The physical play of college ball makes its 35 or so games a lot more physically taxing than the 35 high school games players are used to. Accordingly, minutes are somethimes an issue with freshmen who have play heavy time and are simply not in good enough shape to handle the rigors of the college game for five months. We saw this with Jon a couple years ago, but he was fine last season; all signs point to Kyle being similarly well-prepared to handle the stretch run this year. No need to worry.

[quickgtp]

We don't need 17 different threads talking about minutes played. Going forward, we will beging combining them. Also, certain posters should refer to the guidelines and the defintion of "repetitive rant." We will be enforcing it.

FYI, no one is worried about Scheyer's minutes because he plays on the perimeter, had that ridiculous VO2 max score and has better stats when he plays a lot (check the numbers I posted in another thread). The concern was with Singler repeating last year. But last year ... he was a freshman. This year, not only has he added weight, not only is he spending less time guarding fives, he's also a sophomore. You don't grab 16 rebounds and hit a big late three when you're playing "too many minutes."

And the team didn't have the flu last year. I think that was debunked on the boards about six months ago.

I don't know if it was the "flu" last March but I can tell you at least 3 players appeared to have had an upper respiratory issue of some sort.

[_Gary]

And the team didn't have the flu last year. I think that was debunked on the boards about six months ago.

Hold the bus, for me please. Are you telling me that all the stuff I read on here about several members of the team having the flu (or some variation) during that first round of the tourney last year was just bunk? I really want to know because it definitely colors how I view the close call and subsequent loss last year in the Big Dance.


Gary

[DukeUsul]

We don't need 17 different threads talking about minutes played. Going forward, we will beging combining them. Also, certain posters should refer to the guidelines and the defintion of "repetitive rant." We will be enforcing it.

FYI, no one is worried about Scheyer's minutes because he plays on the perimeter, had that ridiculous VO2 max score and has better stats when he plays a lot (check the numbers I posted in another thread). The concern was with Singler repeating last year. But last year ... he was a freshman. This year, not only has he added weight, not only is he spending less time guarding fives, he's also a sophomore. You don't grab 16 rebounds and hit a big late three when you're playing "too many minutes."

And the team didn't have the flu last year. I think that was debunked on the boards about six months ago.

I was just thinking you should combine all the threads about minutes played and retitle it with the HPR number when I discovered..... there's no section in the HPR for complaining about minutes played? Sounds like Throaty might need to do some updating.

[Wander]

But last year ... he was a freshman.

This is something that should be brought up more... the year before, Scheyer seemed to wear down in exactly the same way as Singler last year, but then was completely fine his sophomore year. I think this is more relevant than minutes played or even position played. Since we don't have any freshmen seeing similar minutes this year, I'm not worried about anyone being tired in March.

[MChambers]

I was just thinking you should combine all the threads about minutes played and retitle it with the HPR number when I discovered..... there's no section in the HPR for complaining about minutes played? Sounds like Throaty might need to do some updating.

Please add this to the HPR, so that we can shorthand all of these discussions about minutes or getting tired.

[Ders24]

This is something that should be brought up more... the year before, Scheyer seemed to wear down in exactly the same way as Singler last year, but then was completely fine his sophomore year. I think this is more relevant than minutes played or even position played. Since we don't have any freshmen seeing similar minutes this year, I'm not worried about anyone being tired in March.

I'm just quoting this for emphasis. I honestly think this is the most important factor in Kyle wearing down last year. There are a few players who, as freshmen, are able to handle the grind/transition to college basketball flawlessly, but I think for the most part that is pretty rare.

[Jumbo]

Hold the bus, for me please. Are you telling me that all the stuff I read on here about several members of the team having the flu (or some variation) during that first round of the tourney last year was just bunk? I really want to know because it definitely colors how I view the close call and subsequent loss last year in the Big Dance.


Gary

It was all over the board. The flu stuff was some weird, speculative rumor because Coach K was sick. A bunch of people finally pointed out that there was no truth to the rumors. Don't know where to look to find them.

[dukelifer]

This is correct. Kyle and Jon are averaging 36 minutes for the 3 conference games plus Georgetown. Gerald has averaged 34 for the last 4 games. I am not taking a position that it is good or bad, just reporting the data.

I was surprised that Coach K did not take Kyle out after his 3rd foul with a 16 point lead in the second half. Kyle had played the entire game to that point.
I have to agree here as well. Singler should be playing about 4 minutes per game less to be on par with other big players in the league. One way to think about this is that is for every ten games he is playing in the league, he is playing an extra game. But while the minutes are wearing him down- it is also an opportunity to get some other folks some more time. It is possible, that Plumlee may have earned some more after yesterday (an how he is doing in practice)- but it may be at the expense of Thomas and Zoubek and not Singler. I am sure Singler is feeling fine right now- but Duke has a brutal end of the regular season stretch- so will see. If anything- that is when he needs the rest. But the three headed center has to step up and do more. McClure has done a great job in my opinion. Unfortunately when Kyle goes out- so does a lot of Duke's O as he does so much out there.

[godukecom]

Hansbrough would get tired as well except he works harder at not getting tired than anyone else... ;)
but in all seriousness, how does tyler's pt compare to Kyle's in "big" or ACC games? TH plays a lot in "big" games...

[jimsumner]

Nelson wasn't 100% but I don't think it was the flu. All four years at Duke, he was prone to upper-respiratory infections. Over and over again. He tried to explain it to me once but my comprehension of such things is limited. Something about the temperature and humidity changes in Durham. But he battled this stuff constantly. Sometimes after games he could barely talk above a whisper.

This sort of stuff happens to every basketball team, of course. We all know what is meant by "cold and flu" season and that season overlaps almost completely with the basketball season. These guys are young, healthy, and have quick and easy access to some of the best medical care on the planet. But that doesn't confer complete immunity from rhinoviruses.

[dukelifer]

Hansbrough would get tired as well except he works harder at not getting tired than anyone else... ;)
but in all seriousness, how does tyler's pt compare to Kyle's in "big" or ACC games? TH plays a lot in "big" games...

I think it is about 4 minutes less and TH exerts a lot of his energy shooting free throws ;)

[_Gary]

It was all over the board. The flu stuff was some weird, speculative rumor because Coach K was sick. A bunch of people finally pointed out that there was no truth to the rumors. Don't know where to look to find them.

Thanks. I somehow missed that info.

[Kedsy]

2001 - Jason Williams - 31.8 mpg
Shane Battier - 31.8 mpg


Battier actually played 34.9 mpg in 2000-01, and from my angle at the championship game that year he didn't look tired at all.

[Kedsy]

I have to agree here as well. Singler should be playing about 4 minutes per game less to be on par with other big players in the league. One way to think about this is that is for every ten games he is playing in the league, he is playing an extra game.

Following this logic, I should run a mile a week for 26 weeks and then I can say I ran a marathon. I agree we've beat this topic to death, but 4 minutes a game, twice a week, for a 20 year old, is meaningless.

[RainingThrees]

The thing I'm worried about is that Jon and Kyles 3's haven't been falling the last couple games. Is it fatigue or just a slump? Strange to have 2 players slumping at the same time.

[dukelifer]

Following this logic, I should run a mile a week for 26 weeks and then I can say I ran a marathon. I agree we've beat this topic to death, but 4 minutes a game, twice a week, for a 20 year old, is meaningless.

This is an additional "mile" to his long workout. By your logic, if Kyle played only 4 minutes a game for the season- he might be pretty fresh at the end of the season. I agree with that. If 4 extra minutes means nothing to these kids-- why rest any starter during a game when not in foul trouble? If players can get tired in a game- why would this not carry over to the next day or day after? I have no doubt he can play 40 minutes a game every day, but will he be his best at the end. That is what is being argued.

[Truth]

This is an additional "mile" to his long workout. By your logic, if Kyle played only 4 minutes a game for the season- he might be pretty fresh at the end of the season. I agree with that. If 4 extra minutes means nothing to these kids-- why rest any starter during a game when not in foul trouble? If players can get tired in a game- why would this not carry over to the next day or day after? I have no doubt he can play 40 minutes a game every day, but will he be his best at the end. That is what is being argued.

Can you pinpoint a single occurrence in your life where you felt tired THREE DAYS after exercising for 35-minutes and you thought to yourself "man, I'd be so refreshed today if I that exercise I did 3 days ago only lasted for 30-minutes!"???

[chadlee989]

We have the BEST coach in the country. I think he is capable of deciding who needs to play and who doesn't need to play. However the only thing i will say is that when Kyle is not on the floor i want G and Jon to both be on the floor if the game is close.

[Jumbo]

The thing I'm worried about is that Jon and Kyles 3's haven't been falling the last couple games. Is it fatigue or just a slump? Strange to have 2 players slumping at the same time.

If this were the NBA, no one would even notice that a player went two or three games with poor shooting numbers. Obviously, the college game is shorter, but players go through periods like this all the time. Scheyer, for instance, had a few cold performances early in the season, then exploded from deep against Xavier. The better answer is that both players are probably just streaky shooters at this point, and they will have hot and cold nights throughout the season. Certainly makes more sense than the generic and empty idea of "fatigue."

[Jumbo]

This is an additional "mile" to his long workout. By your logic, if Kyle played only 4 minutes a game for the season- he might be pretty fresh at the end of the season. I agree with that. If 4 extra minutes means nothing to these kids-- why rest any starter during a game when not in foul trouble? If players can get tired in a game- why would this not carry over to the next day or day after? I have no doubt he can play 40 minutes a game every day, but will he be his best at the end. That is what is being argued.

Princeton, under Pete Carril, basically played this way. Maybe he'd use one sub. I think they had plenty of success, and certainly didn't seem fatigued late in games, or late in the season.

I've talked to a lot of basketball players in my life. I've straight-up asked them about minutes. Not one has ever indicated that somehow playing 32 minutes instead of 37 makes an ounce of difference over the course of the season.

[throatybeard]

I was just thinking you should combine all the threads about minutes played and retitle it with the HPR number when I discovered..... there's no section in the HPR for complaining about minutes played? Sounds like Throaty might need to do some updating.

Not only is it there, it's 1A.

[jgehtland]

1) Does EVERY fan base obsess over this question, or just ours? Like, two or three years ago, were State fans sitting around on the WolfWeb lamenting that Hodge and Atsur were playing 38 minutes a game? Or were they cringing whenever they came out? This is a serious question; is this endless argument specific to Duke or more general?

2) Can anybody think of a single interview with a *former* player (doesn't even have to be Duke) where this question was asked and answered? You'd think there are a ton of ex-college ball players out there who would fess up if this were a problem.

And, lastly but interestingly, anybody notice that Chris Duhon has now played more minutes since the college season started than Kyle+Jon+G all put together? He's averaging 40 minutes a game, and has played 40 games so far. That's 1600 minutes. Kyle+Jon+G come in, together, right around 1550 if my math is correct.

Granted, Chris has had a long time to work on his conditioning, but c'mon, he's darn near a grampa compared to college kids. ;-)

[DukeUsul]

Not only is it there, it's 1A.

Thank you for correcting me. I knew it had to be there and looked through the list three times to find it.

[Bob Green]

Battier actually played 34.9 mpg in 2000-01, and from my angle at the championship game that year he didn't look tired at all.

Not according to this source:

http://www.dukeupdate.com/Alumni/shane_battier.htm

Shane Battier played 35.5 mpg his junior season and 31.8 mpg as a senior. I agree with you that he didn't look tired during the championship game.

[dukelifer]

Princeton, under Pete Carril, basically played this way. Maybe he'd use one sub. I think they had plenty of success, and certainly didn't seem fatigued late in games, or late in the season.

I've talked to a lot of basketball players in my life. I've straight-up asked them about minutes. Not one has ever indicated that somehow playing 32 minutes instead of 37 makes an ounce of difference over the course of the season.

Well I am not sure there are a ton of players that played 37 minutes over a course of a season- but I did look at a comparable example- Danny Ferry. He was definitely playing 37+ minutes in big games on a regular basis (even though he averaged less) in his senior year. His last game in the NCAA semis he scored 34! He also played 39 minutes against Georgetown in the regional fnals and 40 in the semis. So with an N=1 at Duke with a guy who did as much if not more than Kyle, it is possible to play those kinds of minutes and still be fresh at the end. My guess is that Grant Hill did the same his senior year. So, I guess I am now on the "it probably does not matter" side of this debate.

[MarkD83]

On the CBS broadcast, Greg Anthony pointed out something very important about sooting and a players performance. He mentioned that shooting did not define how great players play. If they shoot poorly they will find other ways to contribute. Both Kyle and Jon do that well. if they miss some outside shots they go after rebounds, drive to the basket or create offense by playing great D.

So if Kyle and Jon are showing signs of fatigue because their shooting is off, it certainly does not show up in the other areas of their games.

[_Gary]

Certainly makes more sense than the generic and empty idea of "fatigue."

Jumbo, if it were only me and a few other posters on a message board that were talking about this you'd have a point. But when players, former players turned announcers, and coaches talk about "fatigue" multiple years in a row I'd think the idea isn't empty. You may not agree. You may tire of hearing it. And if no one on the team had said anything about it during the last 5 or so years then it would go away. But just about every year (barring '04) since JJ's freshman campaign someone associated with the team has mentioned it either after an early exit from the tourney or at the start of the new season. I just can't believe you guys are blowing this off when even Coach K has mentioned it previously. No flame or disrespect intended. Just curious as to why this issue keeps being summarily dismissed when the players and coaches aren't dismissing it.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, if it were only me and a few other posters on a message board that were talking about this you'd have a point. But when players, former players turned announcers, and coaches talk about "fatigue" multiple years in a row I'd think the idea isn't empty. You may not agree. You may tire of hearing it. And if no one on the team had said anything about it during the last 5 or so years then it would go away. But just about every year (barring '04) since JJ's freshman campaign someone associated with the team has mentioned it either after an early exit from the tourney or at the start of the new season. I just can't believe you guys are blowing this off when even Coach K has mentioned it previously. No flame or disrespect intended. Just curious as to why this issue keeps being summarily dismissed when the players and coaches aren't dismissing it.

We are talking about two different things. Of course I believe players get fatigued. I just don't see playing time as the cause.

The cumulative effective of several practice sessions is far more grueling than the cumulative effect of two games a week. I can't remember a basketball player disagreeing with that sentiment when we've discussed the matter.

Now, I'm willing to concede that a player's physical stature (i.e. an underweight freshman) and the tasks he's asked to do (i.e. pound against men much bigger and stronger) can take a toll. I think that happened to Kyle last year. It wasn't the number of minutes he played that mattered, though, it was the nature of them and how they related to his body. This year, he's dishing pusnishment as much as he takes it, and he's way more physically mature.

Finally, as far as some of the quotes you're talking about, there's such a thing as "filling air." Announcers and players are both guilty of it, and a lot of times, it's just easy to say something that's conventional wisdom. In the course of an interview, a player might respond to a question about depth, and the first thing that might come to mind to fill the space is something about minutes played. That doesn't mean, though, that when the player actually has time to think about the issue with some depth, and whether an extra five minutes on the bench each game does/would matter to him, that he'd agree.

Same with announcers. Most just talk for the sake of talking. They repeat comments constantly that just aren't supported by anything empirical. In fact, I find this phenomenon to be worst in baseball (for instance, when certain players are described as "clutch," even though most statistical analysis shows there is no such thing as being "clutch" and that the player being discussed rarely has any better stats in "clutch" situations than regular ones). But it happens in all sporting events, too. And I imagine you'd agree with this, given the way you've complained about Billy Packer over the years.

So, again, players can get tired, sure. But there is simply no proof that an extra 10 minutes of playing time each week contributes to said fatigue. There's far more evidence that minutes played has little impact on performance, in fact.

[DukeVu]

It seems to me that this is unrelated to the pros because:
College player must go to class.
Must cram for exams and pass them.
True students, and especially at Duke have more
of a strenuous class requirement than pros or even other
collegians. Study time is a MUST. This can create Mental and
physical fatigue depending on the courses taken.

It also occurs to me that Duke plays a FRENETIC defense which in itself can cause quite a bit of fatigue. Duke being such an outstanding defensive team probably drains the athletes and could very well be the reason that the offense is off at times. Fatigue can cause just enough of a timing problem to affect shots and free throws.

Lastly, but not least, Coach K himself stated that they were 'tired' at the end of last season. I suppose he did not really mean that.

[Jumbo]

Lastly, but not least, Coach K himself stated that they were 'tired' at the end of last season. I suppose he did not really mean that.

Yes, but he did not say they were "tired" because they "played too many minutes." As you acknowldege, there are other factors that lead to fatigue. There were a number of posts and articles during the summer and the early fall about how Duke changed its conditioning program during the offseason. I remember Nolan (I think) being quoted about how this year it was more about weight room work and just playing ball than running. So, let's hope that K, if he recognized a problem with fatigue, decided that was a far more important cause than "minutes played," and that it will pay off in the long run.

[DukeVu]

Yes, but he did not say they were "tired" because they "played too many minutes." As you acknowldege, there are other factors that lead to fatigue. There were a number of posts and articles during the summer and the early fall about how Duke changed its conditioning program during the offseason. I remember Nolan (I think) being quoted about how this year it was more about weight room work and just playing ball than running. So, let's hope that K, if he recognized a problem with fatigue, decided that was a far more important cause than "minutes played," and that it will pay off in the long run.

Neither did the coach NOT say that was the reason. Of course you can read it your way if you like. Of course there are other factors, but in the finality of it the practicing and playing are the MAIN reasons for physical fatigue.
Certainly, we both hope that coach K has reasoned it out and has/will make the proper adjustments for this season end. Time will tell.

[Jumbo]

Neither did the coach NOT say that was the reason. Of course you can read it your way if you like. Of course there are other factors, but in the finality of it the practicing and playing are the MAIN reasons for physical fatigue.
Certainly, we both hope that coach K has reasoned it out and has/will make the proper adjustments for this season end. Time will tell.

No, but you can deduce his priorities from his actions. The team talked about a change in conditioning. On the other hand, Kyle and Jon are playing huge minutes. So, a logical conclusion from that would be that if K felt there was a problem with fatigue, and changed one aspect of the way the team operates, he felt that was the larger culprit.

[Devilsfan]

Ease up some during January and February practices and I think we will be fine.

[MChambers]

I agree with Jumbo's points. I'd add:

1. One usually builds endurance by longer workouts. I'd think playing 38 minutes now makes one stronger in March, not weaker.

2. We've seen lots of college players succeed playing 40 minutes.

3. I'd trust Coach K. He seems to have a nice future in coaching.

4. When Coach K has said the players have seem fatigued, he hasn't said that fewer minutes during the season is the solution, has he?

[dukelifer]

Can you pinpoint a single occurrence in your life where you felt tired THREE DAYS after exercising for 35-minutes and you thought to yourself "man, I'd be so refreshed today if I that exercise I did 3 days ago only lasted for 30-minutes!"???

I doubt any exercise I have ever done is equivalent to playing in full ACC basketball game- so I am sure I do not have a real point of equivalent experience- but I am sure if I did- I would probably need a month to rest ;)

[-jk]

We seem to have a disconnect between "playing time" and "playing and practice time."

The NCAA limits players to 20 hours of directed athletic time each week, with one day off each week. The NCAA states (in the Constitution Operating Bylaws Administrative Bylaws) "a student-athlete’s participation in countable athletically related activities shall be limited to a maximum of four hours per day and 20 hours per week." The NCAA states that "countable athletically related activities include any required activity with an athletics purpose involving student-athletes and at the direction of, or supervised by one or more of an institution’s coaching staff (including strength and conditioning coaches) and must be counted within the weekly and daily limitations" There are exceptions when there are more than 2 games in a 7 day period and such, but the gist of it is that players get 20 hours of hoops in a week.

This doesn't count any personal, undirected practice time a player may have: pickup or free-throw or 3 pt practice.

They're at it a minimum of 20 hours in a week. 80 minutes (or 4 hours) of that is game time. If practices are anywhere as intense as players have described over K's tenure, 5 minutes of game time, give-or-take, really won't make much difference over a season.

We don't see practice or conditioning exercises. (Della, please feel free to jump in here!) Let's trust that the coaches can do their jobs.

-jk

[devildownunder]

The "Kyle Singler plays too many minutes" theory is very popular but fortunately it does not hold water when subjected to statistical analysis. Simply stated, the best player on the best teams in the nation play similar minutes. I took a look at the current Top 10:

1. Pittsburgh - Levance Fields - 30.8 mpg
2. Wake Forest - Jeff Teague - 30.7 mpg
3. Duke - Jon Scheyer - 30.4 mpg
4. UConn - Jeff Adrien - 33.8 mpg
5. UNC - Tyler Hansbrough - 28.6 mpg
6. Oklahoma - Blake Griffin - 32.8 mpg
7. Michigan State - Kailin Lucas - 30.6 mpg
8. Syracuse - Jonny Flynn - 34.7 mpg
9. UCLA - Darren Collison - 30.5 mpg
10. Clemson - K.C. Rivers - 29.8 mpg

So for starters, Kyle Singler doesn't even play the most minutes-per-game on Duke, Jon Scheyer does. Now, comparing this year's team to our National Championship teams:

1991 - Bobby Hurley - 34.7 mpg
Christian Laettner - 30.2 mpg

1992 - Bobby Hurley - 33.6 mpg
Christian Laettner - 32.2 mpg

2001 - Jason Williams - 31.8 mpg
Shane Battier - 31.8 mpg

Kyle Singler will be fine playing the number of minutes he is playing. We may or may not make a deep run in the NCAA Tournament (who knows we may win the whole enchilada) but the number of minutes Kyle Singler averages per game will be irrelevant to the end result.


I'm not necessarily buying the argument that Kyle is playing too much but what do the minutes of other players have to do with the question? Isn't it an individual thing that he and coach K have to mind?

[wisteria]

I am convinced that, if you believe Duke practices just as hard as they play the game, several minutes of game time does not make a difference when compared to the 20hr/week grind. Therefore, if the players do get tired in March, it would not be because they played 5 more minutes in every game, but perhaps because their conditioning could not keep up with a whole season's hard work. Key players probably have to endure more pressure mentally, which could also lead to their fatigue.

However, I'd also like to point out that, it is important to have minutes of "breather" time during the game. While playing 5 more minutes will probably not lead to fatigue 2 months later, it does lead to tired legs at the end of the game. Especially when today's college games are becoming more and more physical. Both Kyle and Jon have actually played a bit better toward the end in the past two games, however we've also seen situations where they were so tired that they couldn't hit freethrows. Limiting their playing time is important, not to keep them fresh in March, but to keep them fresh during the game.

[devildownunder]

I agree with Jumbo's points. I'd add:

1. One usually builds endurance by longer workouts. I'd think playing 38 minutes now makes one stronger in March, not weaker.

2. We've seen lots of college players succeed playing 40 minutes.

3. I'd trust Coach K. He seems to have a nice future in coaching.

4. When Coach K has said the players have seem fatigued, he hasn't said that fewer minutes during the season is the solution, has he?

Re No.4: No, he hasn't, which is probably why someone here is bringing it up as a possibility. If we have to wait for K to say something in order for it to be OK to mention it ourselves, what's the point?

I don't really think fatigue has been an issue this year, just saying.

[jv001]

Coach K is not going to cut Kyle's mins under 30mpg for two reasons. 1. It's not going to make a difference in his play. 2. He is too valuable a front court defender and rebounder. In other words we need him in the game. I agree that Kyle may get tired but it's not from the number of mins he plays but the style he plays. He never takes a play off. He's like Shane in that regard. So don't thinkn Coach K is going to lower his mins. Now if Plumlee really comes on, he could earn more mins but I don't know if those mins would come at Kyle's expense. Go Duke!

[_Gary]

We are talking about two different things. Of course I believe players get fatigued. I just don't see playing time as the cause.

Fair enough. As long as there isn't a denial that "fatigue", regardless of the reason, has entered into the equation recently in March. I agree that it's not as simple as limiting minutes per game. Not by any stretch.

[devildownunder]

Coach K is not going to cut Kyle's mins under 30mpg for two reasons. 1. It's not going to make a difference in his play. 2. He is too valuable a front court defender and rebounder. In other words we need him in the game. I agree that Kyle may get tired but it's not from the number of mins he plays but the style he plays. He never takes a play off. He's like Shane in that regard. So don't thinkn Coach K is going to lower his mins. Now if Plumlee really comes on, he could earn more mins but I don't know if those mins would come at Kyle's expense. Go Duke!

We don't really know how it would affect his play but I agree it's not going to happen. He's our best player and K's going to keep him out there as much as he can, regardless.

[Bob Green]

I'm not necessarily buying the argument that Kyle is playing too much but what do the minutes of other players have to do with the question? Isn't it an individual thing that he and coach K have to mind?

The purpose behind posting the minutes played by other players was to illustrate that Duke's top players play minutes equivalent to the top players on other top teams. In other words, Duke's rotation is consistent with the rotations of other Top 10 teams. An underlying element to the "Kyle Singler plays too many minutes" myth is the "Coach K doesn't develop his bench" myth. If the latter myth didn't exist, the former would not be being discussed.

[devildownunder]

The purpose behind posting the minutes played by other players was to illustrate that Duke's top players play minutes equivalent to the top players on other top teams. In other words, Duke's rotation is consistent with the rotations of other Top 10 teams. An underlying element to the "Kyle Singler plays too many minutes" myth is the "Coach K doesn't develop his bench" myth. If the latter myth didn't exist, the former would not be being discussed.

Well, don't both ideas start when people compare our team with others without the benefit of proper context for both? I'd argue that they do. Therefore, I think it's odd to try to refute either idea by providing raw numbers. The idea you're putting forth seems to be that because Duke players' minutes are in line w/other top teams' minutes, then everything is fine. But I think that each team is different. So, really, what's appropriate minutes for others shouldn't dictate what's right for Duke, or vice versa. And I think that logic is probably the best way to counter anything you think is a myth about Duke's bench or minutes for Duke's starters.

[Bob Green]

Therefore, I think it's odd to try to refute either idea by providing raw numbers.

Raw numbers are tangible and provide a baseline for reasonable analysis. However, I believe you and I are saying the same thing utilizing different tactics. I am using a quantitative approach while you are using a qualitative approach.

[Ian]

The bottom line fact, more relevant than the minutes played by players on other teams (who often by the way don't play the high pressure man to man defense or the motion offense which requires constant movement), is that this team in recent years have experienced significant drop off late in the season due to fatigue.

The issue then is "are we doing anything differently to prevent the same thing from happening"? Or are we sticking our heads in the sand, and expecting that thing will be different even though nothing has been done differently, simply on the hope that freshmen becoming sophomores is the panacea to the fatigue problem.

[-jk]

Well, don't both ideas start when people compare our team with others without the benefit of proper context for both? I'd argue that they do. Therefore, I think it's odd to try to refute either idea by providing raw numbers. The idea you're putting forth seems to be that because Duke players' minutes are in line w/other top teams' minutes, then everything is fine. But I think that each team is different. So, really, what's appropriate minutes for others shouldn't dictate what's right for Duke, or vice versa. And I think that logic is probably the best way to counter anything you think is a myth about Duke's bench or minutes for Duke's starters.

Well, if an arbitrary statistical measure isn't valid, what is? Is there anyone better placed than K to provide "context"? I'm inclined to trust his experienced, professional, first-hand view.

But perhaps I'm just naïve. I'm a mediocre mod on a fan site who's been watching hoops for decades; I claim nothing more. I've watched Duke hoops since Bubas, and I think no one disputes that K is good at what he does. I've seen nothng in decades to shake my own view that he is: he's adapted to various changes over the years and I just can't doubt his overall judgment.

Anyone who wants to question him, go ahead. But please defend your position beyond simple playing time. Either minutes matter - and they matter for everyone - or our coach knows what happens day in and day out and adjusts appropriately for each individual player.

-jk

[devildownunder]

The bottom line fact, more relevant than the minutes played by players on other teams (who often by the way don't play the high pressure man to man defense or the motion offense which requires constant movement), is that this team in recent years have experienced significant drop off late in the season due to fatigue.

The issue then is "are we doing anything differently to prevent the same thing from happening"? Or are we sticking our heads in the sand, and expecting that thing will be different even though nothing has been done differently, simply on the hope that freshmen becoming sophomores is the panacea to the fatigue problem.

I'm not convinced fatigue is our big problem down the stretch in recent years. I do think it hurt Singler's performance last year but I think a far bigger "problem" for Duke down the stretch in recent years has been the fact that K's excellent coaching has allowed he and the team to mask some substantial deficiencies for much of the season, which then become exposed by the time March rolls around, when everyone has a chance to see us for months and figure us out.

I'll give you Singler in 2008, although Henderson got better down the stretch, if anything. As for other recent years, however, here are a couple of questions for you:

1. Did the 2006 team fall when it did because of fatigue, or was it more due to teams finally coming to the realisation that there were only 2 real offensive threats on the team who, with an abundance of attention, could be contained?

2. Did the 2007 team lose in the tournaments because of fatigue, or was it because that team never really developed a consistent offensive rhythm and the relatively limited options we had were again, sussed out and countered by tourney time.

[-bdbd]

We are talking about two different things. Of course I believe players get fatigued. I just don't see playing time as the cause.

The cumulative effective of several practice sessions is far more grueling than the cumulative effect of two games a week. I can't remember a basket- ball player disagreeing with that sentiment when we've discussed the matter.

Now, I'm willing to concede that a player's physical stature (i.e. an under-weight freshman) and the tasks he's asked to do (i.e. pound against men much bigger and stronger) can take a toll. I think that happened to Kyle last year. It wasn't the number of minutes he played that mattered, though, it was the nature of them and how they related to his body. This year, he's dishing pusnishment as much as he takes it, and he's way more physically mature...

...So, again, players can get tired, sure. But there is simply no proof that an extra 10 minutes of playing time each week contributes to said fatigue. There's far more evidence that minutes played has little impact on performance, in fact.
========
I generally agree with Jumbo, but can't accept that minutes-played doesn't play a role in how tired players are at the end of the game. Just like running 10 miles is more draining than running 7 mi., how can that same player playing 36 minutes not be more drained at the end than playing 30?

Also there is another issue in terms of the Jon-vs-Kyle discussion - I can't believe that this hasn't received more discussion - playing minutes for "bigs" are not the same as playing minutes for perimeter guys. That's for numerous reasons, but two prominent ones are: (1) Banging inside, pushing against 240-pound ATHLETES for 36 minutes a game is exhausting (I played on the interior in high school, and it was an ongoing joke with some of our guards asking me why I was so exhausted at the end of games "...when us little guys played just as long... (and we're fine). " Of course they weren't pushing against someone 20 pounds heavier and three inches taller every time down the court, 70+ times a game, banging for every rebound, etc.! (2) Bigs usually carry around more weight/muscle. It is simply easier to run around for 36 minutes if you are a lithe 170 pounds, versus a 240-pound big-guy, and that's with ignoring all of the physical contact the bigs take. How many 240-pound marathon champs do you see?

Certainly conditioning is a huge factor, and so is the speed of the game, number of breaks, etc. But I can't believe anybody who watched the end of the FSU and Ga-Tech games didn't see Kyle as one fatigued puppy, bouncing free-throws off the front of the rims repeatedly, etc. One telling stat might be to look at his shooting % for FG's and FT's in 5-minute segments across the each game for season-long averages. Not knowing the answer, I'd still bet good money (or beer) that Kyle's percentages in the final 5 minutes of each half (esp the 2nd half) is below those of minutes 0 - 5 and 6-10 of each half, on average.

But the fact that Kyle plays extended minutes in these games WITHOUT OTHER BIG-MAN HELP is what concerns me the most. Against Georgetown, I think our "3-headed monster" (committee?) of a Center - Zoubs, Plumlee and Lance - totaled less than 20 minutes. So, at a minimum, for 20+ minutes Kyle is having to go up against the opponent's biggest, strongest player each night. THAT will cause fatigue. If our other bigs are playing more, that alone will mean less fatigue for Kyle, on average, b/c those are minutes he's not having to go up (on O and D) versus the other team's biggest and strongest.

I too have tremendous faith in K. He is, w/o reservation, the best coach in the NCAA. Thank God we have him at Duke. But in talking to some former players, they have said that he is SO competitive, though, that he simply is not the sort to rest star players early in the season in the hope that the reserves are more ready, or the stars more rested, for the season's stretch run. He REALLY wants to win every game, even the early ones, even if that means a shorter rotation gets developed for March. I just sincerely hope Kyle and Jon are still solid at the end of games in March this go-around...

Cheers!

-BDBD :confused:

[devildownunder]

Well, if an arbitrary statistical measure isn't valid, what is? Is there anyone better placed than K to provide "context"? I'm inclined to trust his experienced, professional, first-hand view.

But perhaps I'm just naïve. I'm a mediocre mod on a fan site who's been watching hoops for decades; I claim nothing more. I've watched Duke hoops since Bubas, and I think no one disputes that K is good at what he does. I've seen nothng in decades to shake my own view that he is: he's adapted to various changes over the years and I just can't doubt his overall judgment.

Anyone who wants to question him, go ahead. But please defend your position beyond simple playing time. Either minutes matter - and they matter for everyone - or our coach knows what happens day in and day out and adjusts appropriately for each individual player.

-jk


*sigh* how is it that I have to put up with this kind of sarcasm EVEN WHEN I'M DEFENDING K, HIS DECISIONS AND THE PROGRAM? Clearly, I have been targeted for some reason by the moderators on this board and, frankly, I'm sick of it.

My point, mr. mediocre mod, was that I think fans who post that players' minutes should be in line w/minutes players get at other programs is one that blindly looks at all said minutes in a vacuum. Each player/team/system is different, and so the correct number of minutes to maximize a player's production can't be judged by how many someone else is playing. Therefore, I find it somewhat counterproductive to try to present the similarity between any raw numbers to someone who argues that K plays somebody too much.


And by the way, the following either/or statement makes no sense: "Either minutes matter - and they matter for everyone - or our coach knows what happens day in and day out and adjusts appropriately for each individual player."

Either minutes matter or they don't. Either coach K knows what happens day in and day out (as of course he does!) or he doesn't. But to combine those two statements into one doesn't make any sense. I don't know what you mean.

[devildownunder]

========
I generally agree with Jumbo, but can't accept that minutes-played doesn't play a role in how tired players are at the end of the game. Just like running 10 miles is more draining than running 7 mi., how can that same player playing 36 minutes not be more drained at the end than playing 30?

Also there is another issue in terms of the Jon-vs-Kyle discussion - I can't believe that this hasn't received more discussion - playing minutes for "bigs" are not the same as playing minutes for perimeter guys. That's for numerous reasons, but two prominent ones are: (1) Banging inside, pushing against 240-pound ATHLETES for 36 minutes a game is exhausting (I played on the interior in high school, and it was an ongoing joke with some of our guards asking me why I was so exhausted at the end of games "...when us little guys played just as long... (and we're fine). " Of course they weren't pushing against someone 20 pounds heavier and three inches taller every time down the court, 70+ times a game, banging for every rebound, etc.! (2) Bigs usually carry around more weight/muscle. It is simply easier to run around for 36 minutes if you are a lithe 170 pounds, versus a 240-pound big-guy, and that's with ignoring all of the physical contact the bigs take. How many 240-pound marathon champs do you see?

Certainly conditioning is a huge factor, and so is the speed of the game, number of breaks, etc. But I can't believe anybody who watched the end of the FSU and Ga-Tech games didn't see Kyle as one fatigued puppy, bouncing free-throws off the front of the rims repeatedly, etc. One telling stat might be to look at his shooting % for FG's and FT's in 5-minute segments across the each game for season-long averages. Not knowing the answer, I'd still bet good money (or beer) that Kyle's percentages in the final 5 minutes of each half (esp the 2nd half) is below those of minutes 0 - 5 and 6-10 of each half, on average.

But the fact that Kyle plays extended minutes in these games WITHOUT OTHER BIG-MAN HELP is what concerns me the most. Against Georgetown, I think our "3-headed monster" (committee?) of a Center - Zoubs, Plumlee and Lance - totaled less than 20 minutes. So, at a minimum, for 20+ minutes Kyle is having to go up against the opponent's biggest, strongest player each night. THAT will cause fatigue. If our other bigs are playing more, that alone will mean less fatigue for Kyle, on average, b/c those are minutes he's not having to go up (on O and D) versus the other team's biggest and strongest.

I too have tremendous faith in K. He is, w/o reservation, the best coach in the NCAA. Thank God we have him at Duke. But in talking to some former players, they have said that he is SO competitive, though, that he simply is not the sort to rest star players early in the season in the hope that the reserves are more ready, or the stars more rested, for the season's stretch run. He REALLY wants to win every game, even the early ones, even if that means a shorter rotation gets developed for March. I just sincerely hope Kyle and Jon are still solid at the end of games in March this go-around...

Cheers!

-BDBD :confused:


BDBD, the majority of the season, K's rotation has been largely about preventing Kyle from guarding the other team's "bigs". I think G'town was the exception, not the rule. If the pattern changes, then I think perhaps it's something to worry about but Monroe's offense/personnel are atypical, I think, even among the other top teams.

[Bob Green]

*sigh* how is it that I have to put up with this kind of sarcasm EVEN WHEN I'M DEFENDING K, HIS DECISIONS AND THE PROGRAM? Clearly, I have been targeted for some reason by the moderators on this board and, frankly, I'm sick of it.

I personally guarantee you that the moderators are not targeting you. I'm not sure why you think we are. :(

Please have a VB and a Toohey's for me. I love Australian beer. :)

[devildownunder]

Please have a VB and a Toohey's for me. I love Australian beer. :)

You and I have different tastes in beer. I can't drink that stuff. James Squires pale is OK but, generally, I find Aussie beer unpalatable. Fortunately, there are some good labels here from Europe -- and always Guinness to fall back on.

[Bob Green]

You and I have different tastes in beer. I can't drink that stuff. James Squires pale is OK but, generally, I find Aussie beer unpalatable. Fortunately, there are some good labels here from Europe -- and always Guinness to fall back on.

Wow, I sorry to hear you don't like the stuff as I find Australia to be a beer drinker's paradise. Not to try and highjack the thread (actually this thread might be better served if highjacked) but I've enjoyed the different beers all over Australia. Besides the brands already mentioned, I've enjoyed Swan Lager and Emu Bitter out West, Cooper's in Victoria, XXXX in Queensland, etc...

I've had the James Squires you mention as well as Old Speckled Hen which is a British Beer popular in a couple of Sydney pubs I was hanging in a couple of years back.

[devildownunder]

Wow, I sorry to hear you don't like the stuff as I find Australia to be a beer drinker's paradise. Not to try and highjack the thread (actually this thread might be better served if highjacked) but I've enjoyed the different beers all over Australia. Besides the brands already mentioned, I've enjoyed Swan Lager and Emu Bitter out West, Cooper's in Victoria, XXXX in Queensland, etc...

I've had the James Squires you mention as well as Old Speckled Hen which is a British Beer popular in a couple of Sydney pubs I was hanging in a couple of years back.

yeah, you're probably right about the thread. I haven't really been out of the Sydney area, so maybe some others will be more to my liking. I tend to like full-flavoured beers (red stripe is a notable exception) and most aussie stuff I have had is more of the easy-drinking variety, which makes sense given the climate. Maybe when we venture away from NSW I can get a taste of some of the others. Emu Bitter sounds interesting.

[devildownunder]

BDBD, the majority of the season, K's rotation has been largely about preventing Kyle from guarding the other team's "bigs". I think G'town was the exception, not the rule. If the pattern changes, then I think perhaps it's something to worry about but Monroe's offense/personnel are atypical, I think, even among the other top teams.

ahem, anyway, I'm too late to edit that previous post but I wanted to add that Plumlee also so substantial, meaningful minutes -- really for the first time this year. I have to believe that was mainly to get another big body on the floor and give Kyle some help, after Z and LT proved ineffective against Gtown.

[sagegrouse]

Having just read this thread, I can't believe I am actually going to jump into this controversy, but....

I think the metric for Kyle should be pounds (or Kgs.) not minutes. Last year, he lost weight through the season and did not have the bulk to compete against the bigger players he was assigned to guard. He might have been as low as 200 pounds by the end of the year.

I assume Kyle is getting weighed at least once a week. If his weight begins to fall, the staff can reduce his workload in practice and, if necessary, in the games. Also, FWIW, he has much more help inside than last year. (Georgetown was an exception.)

sagegrouse
'I enjoyed Australian beer during our birding trip to Aussie-land this fall, although I didn't get to see "devildownunder" during our stop in Sydney'

[jgehtland]

I think the stat that most clearly sums up last year for me:

20-1: pre-G-wrist-injury
8-5: post-G-wrist-injury

Is it any wonder, really, that a late surge by G is what got us out of round 1 and almost out of round 2?

And, for that matter, people wondering about the offense the last couple of games, I have a sneaking suspicion that part of it is G is finally healthy enough to be the player he is "meant" to be, and the offense is adjusting around that. I suspect that over the next couple of games, it smoothes itself out quite a bit.

[jv001]

I think the stat that most clearly sums up last year for me:

20-1: pre-G-wrist-injury
8-5: post-G-wrist-injury

Is it any wonder, really, that a late surge by G is what got us out of round 1 and almost out of round 2?

And, for that matter, people wondering about the offense the last couple of games, I have a sneaking suspicion that part of it is G is finally healthy enough to be the player he is "meant" to be, and the offense is adjusting around that. I suspect that over the next couple of games, it smoothes itself out quite a bit.

You could be right about Gerald's injury. But another problem was D-Mark's play at the end of the year. His play realy fell off the last few games. I don't know what caused it but I think Jim had a informative post about it last week. Nelson was our best player at the beginning of the year but was not by years end. This year we have 3 capable players and the drop off should not hurt as much. Go Duke!

[Jumbo]

I think the stat that most clearly sums up last year for me:

20-1: pre-G-wrist-injury
8-5: post-G-wrist-injury

Is it any wonder, really, that a late surge by G is what got us out of round 1 and almost out of round 2?

And, for that matter, people wondering about the offense the last couple of games, I have a sneaking suspicion that part of it is G is finally healthy enough to be the player he is "meant" to be, and the offense is adjusting around that. I suspect that over the next couple of games, it smoothes itself out quite a bit.

The other thing is that, generally, you're playing better teams at the end of the year. So late-season records should be better than early season records (even though 8-5 is a bit extreme).

[MChambers]

Re No.4: No, he hasn't, which is probably why someone here is bringing it up as a possibility. If we have to wait for K to say something in order for it to be OK to mention it ourselves, what's the point?

I don't really think fatigue has been an issue this year, just saying.

We certainly don't have to wait for K for mention something. That would make for a pretty dull board.

Because some of the "too many minutes" poster had cited Coach K's statements about being tired, I just wanted to drive home the point that he didn't say that playing fewer minutes is the solution.

[ice-9]

1. One usually builds endurance by longer workouts. I'd think playing 38 minutes now makes one stronger in March, not weaker.


Something to add there is the idea that players need to "learn" how to play tired. The more tired you are, the more mental mistakes you make -- and unfortunately the best way to learn how not to make mistakes when tired is to practice playing tired. I.e. if none of our players play over 30 minutes a game over a season, come championship game time when we need our best players on the floor, they may not play well if they haven't practiced playing tired before. So in a way it's necessary for our best players to playing longer minutes...it's preparation for the tournament.

My recollection from my varsity sports days (a long, loooong time ago) is that, whenever I get tired, it's from practice that involves a combination of sprints, runs and weights. You know, the kind that results in stars in your eyes and muscles that ache for days. Those are what usually kill me...practice was usually harder (physically) than the actual games. I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to our young Duke players.

I'd also reiterate the idea that Singler gets tired not so much in the minutes he plays but more in the times that he goes to the post. I'm a short guy but I play on a short team, so I'm usually the guy who ends up guarding the post. And man let me tell you it's damn tiring...defending, boxing out, trying to get rebounds, it takes a lot out of you.

Bottom line, I think the minutes played concern is a red herring. The real drivers of exhaustion is probably more in practices and in dealing with mismatches during games.

[Kedsy]

Not according to this source:

http://www.dukeupdate.com/Alumni/shane_battier.htm

Shane Battier played 35.5 mpg his junior season and 31.8 mpg as a senior. I agree with you that he didn't look tired during the championship game.

I used this source: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2000-01

Obviously there's a discrepancy, but either way it's a lot of minutes.

[dkbaseball]

It also occurs to me that Duke plays a FRENETIC defense which in itself can cause quite a bit of fatigue.

To me this is the key point, and I don't see why it gets largely overlooked. The effort K demands on defense is like nothing I have ever seen before in basketball. In insisting upon it he is making a radical departure from 100 years of coaching conventional wisdom about conserving energy. I recall watching John Wooden's last team in person -- an amazing experience. On defense they were extremely sound fundamentally -- you could really hear those sneakers squeaking -- but when they needed a stop there was another gear they could go to, and it was flat awesome to behold. K's teams never have a higher gear to go to because they are going at 100 percent all the time.

I played competitive handball at a fairly high level for 30 years. I couldn't imagine playing two matches a week at 100 percent without crashing and burning before too long. The human body just isn't made to do that. And we can only speculate about how hard K pushes them in practice.

[jv001]

To me this is the key point, and I don't see why it gets largely overlooked. The effort K demands on defense is like nothing I have ever seen before in basketball. In insisting upon it he is making a radical departure from 100 years of coaching conventional wisdom about conserving energy. I recall watching John Wooden's last team in person -- an amazing experience. On defense they were extremely sound fundamentally -- you could really hear those sneakers squeaking -- but when they needed a stop there was another gear they could go to, and it was flat awesome to behold. K's teams never have a higher gear to go to because they are going at 100 percent all the time.

I played competitive handball at a fairly high level for 30 years. I couldn't imagine playing two matches a week at 100 percent without crashing and burning before too long. The human body just isn't made to do that. And we can only speculate about how hard K pushes them in practice.

I understand what you're saying but do you think Coach K is going to change the way he coaches? He's been too successful doing it his way to change now.

[dkbaseball]

I understand what you're saying but do you think Coach K is going to change the way he coaches? He's been too successful doing it his way to change now.

Well, as I argued in another recent thread, to my eye his teams' effort became much more frenetic after he came back in '95, which is a demarcation point of sorts in his career. Prior to then, he was clearly the best post-season coach in the business, since then his teams have rarely played up to their post-season seed.

No, I don't think he's going to change, in part because the inbred coaching staff isn't the best approach for getting fresh ideas on the table. I do think the question of peaking at the end of the season instead of in December has gotten his attention, but I'm not sure he's going to figure it out before he retires. Especially if it involves revisiting what he regards as a cherished PRINCIPLE, such as maximum effort at all times.

[jv001]

Well, as I argued in another recent thread, to my eye his teams' effort became much more frenetic after he came back in '95, which is a demarcation point of sorts in his career. Prior to then, he was clearly the best post-season coach in the business, since then his teams have rarely played up to their post-season seed.

No, I don't think he's going to change, in part because the inbred coaching staff isn't the best approach for getting fresh ideas on the table. I do think the question of peaking at the end of the season instead of in December has gotten his attention, but I'm not sure he's going to figure it out before he retires. Especially if it involves revisiting what he regards as a cherished PRINCIPLE, such as maximum effort at all times.

Take a few plays off? By not giving maximum effort at all times is just that. If you look at other teams there are several players that log more mins than our Duke players. These added mins do not seem to affect their play. And finally don't count Coach K out in the search for another FF or another championship. Go Duke!

[Jumbo]

Well, as I argued in another recent thread, to my eye his teams' effort became much more frenetic after he came back in '95, which is a demarcation point of sorts in his career. Prior to then, he was clearly the best post-season coach in the business, since then his teams have rarely played up to their post-season seed.

No, I don't think he's going to change, in part because the inbred coaching staff isn't the best approach for getting fresh ideas on the table. I do think the question of peaking at the end of the season instead of in December has gotten his attention, but I'm not sure he's going to figure it out before he retires. Especially if it involves revisiting what he regards as a cherished PRINCIPLE, such as maximum effort at all times.

It's silly to suggest a coach ask his team not to play as hard as possible on defense at all times. That said, there is something to pacing the team properly in practice during the season to preserve energy. None of us gets to go to practice, but if reports are true about how intense it can get, that would seem the better step.

But I don't buy your argument about peaking late at all, and if you ask guys who played for K before your 1995 cut-off date, they will go on and on at length about K being just as demanding then as he is now. They were battered, bruised, etc. the same way.

Yes, those earlier teams, in sum, had more postseason success. But there are plenty of other factors that matter, not the least of which is pure luck. Someone already addressed these same points when you made them in another thread, but it bears repeating that the idea of "playing up to your seed" post-1995 has been an incredible challenge. Why? Because more often than not, Duke has been a #1 seed. And if you expect a #1 seed to advance to the Final Four every year, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

There is no magic formula for success in March, and the parity generated by talent spread wider and early-entry has a lot more to do with Duke's performance in the Tourney post-1995 than the fact that the team plays really hard defense every game.

[dkbaseball]

There is efficient effort, and there is stupid, draining effort. The big trick in coaching is eliciting the former. That's presumably what they get paid for. Watch a typical j.v. high school basketball game and you'll see maximum effort, but it's directed into this manic, unfocused energy. Anybody who has ever played a sport that demands a lot of movement knows that you are generally playing your best when you're going at something like 80-90 percent. It couldn't be any clearer in a game like handball -- you throw yourself all over the court like a maniac and you can be pretty sure you aren't playing well. K seems to have made of maximum effort -- no matter how frenetic and inefficient it may be -- a cardinal principle. In doing so, he is, as I said, overturning many decades of coaching conventional wisdom. I think mistakenly. And if indeed he is asking for the same kind of effort in practice that we see in games, then I couldn't feel more strongly about it. Overtraining is something very real, and every serious athlete has to take account of it.

[Jumbo]

There is efficient effort, and there is stupid, draining effort. The big trick in coaching is eliciting the former. That's presumably what they get paid for. Watch a typical j.v. high school basketball game and you'll see maximum effort, but it's directed into this manic, unfocused energy. Anybody who has ever played a sport that demands a lot of movement knows that you are generally playing your best when you're going at something like 80-90 percent. It couldn't be any clearer in a game like handball -- you throw yourself all over the court like a maniac and you can be pretty sure you aren't playing well. K seems to have made of maximum effort -- no matter how frenetic and inefficient it may be -- a cardinal principle. In doing so, he is, as I said, overturning many decades of coaching conventional wisdom. I think mistakenly. And if indeed he is asking for the same kind of effort in practice that we see in games, then I couldn't feel more strongly about it. Overtraining is something very real, and every serious athlete has to take account of it.

Who is to say Duke's effort isn't efficient? The Duke games I watch, particularly defensively, are examples of incredibly efficient, focused effort. You're making a lot of assumptions here and basing them on few, if any, facts.

[ice-9]

I used this source: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2000-01

Obviously there's a discrepancy, but either way it's a lot of minutes.

Though I think the minutes argument is a red herring, I will mention remembering that Shane was playing exhausted during the national championship game. I read a quote from him after that stated he was running on fumes by the end of the game, and just playing in a place where he mind refused to acknowledge his body.

[dkbaseball]

Who is to say Duke's effort isn't efficient? The Duke games I watch, particularly defensively, are examples of incredibly efficient, focused effort. You're making a lot of assumptions here and basing them on few, if any, facts.

They are very, very good on defense this year. They're doing it with what I regard as effort that's unsustainable over a five-month season. I could be mistaken, but I believe Wooden didn't want his players diving for the ball, because he believed that sort of effort was counter-productive.

Duke does rest a bit on offense, with plenty of standing around. Personally, I'd rather see them moving around a little more at that end of the court running some pattern offense, so they'd have that tool in the kit if needed. It's all about finding a groove, and I'd think that would be hard to do operating at two so completely different speeds on defense and offense.

But we'll see how the season concludes. No question this team has final four talent.

[sagegrouse]

Well, as I argued in another recent thread, to my eye his teams' effort became much more frenetic after he came back in '95, which is a demarcation point of sorts in his career. Prior to then, he was clearly the best post-season coach in the business, since then his teams have rarely played up to their post-season seed.



It all depends on what you are measuring, doesn't it? Take comparable 10-year periods -- 1985 through 1994 on the one hand and 1997 through 2006 on the other. The post-season record (NCAA + ACC-T) is actually better in the more recent decade

In the first decade, Duke had seven FF teams and two NC's -- an all-time performance exceeded only by UCLA. It also won three ACC tournaments (1986, 1988, and 1992). The NCAA record was 40-8, and the ACC-T record was 16-7, for a combined record in the post-season of 56-15 (79%).

In the second decade Duke reached three FF's and won one NC. Yet the teams in this era won seven ACC tournaments (all but 1997, 1998. In the more recent decade, the NCAA record was a respectable 29-9, while the ACC-T record was a mind-blowing 25-3. The combined post-season record of 54-12 had a winning percentage of 82%.

This brings up the obvious question: Which would you pick if you had to choose between winning the ACC tournament or making the Final Four? I'd probably choose the FF, but winning the ACC-T isn't chopped chicken liver. Ask UNC, which won only twice in these ten years, or UMd, which won once. Or ask the other nine teams in the ACC, which haven't won at all.


sagegrouse

[dkbaseball]

It all depends on what you are measuring, doesn't it? Take comparable 10-year periods -- 1985 through 1994 on the one hand and 1997 through 2006 on the other. The post-season record (NCAA + ACC-T) is actually better in the more recent decade

In the first decade, Duke had seven FF teams and two NC's -- an all-time performance exceeded only by UCLA. It also won three ACC tournaments (1986, 1988, and 1992). The NCAA record was 40-8, and the ACC-T record was 16-7, for a combined record in the post-season of 56-15 (79%).

In the second decade Duke reached three FF's and won one NC. Yet the teams in this era won seven ACC tournaments (all but 1997, 1998. In the more recent decade, the NCAA record was a respectable 29-9, while the ACC-T record was a mind-blowing 25-3. The combined post-season record of 54-12 had a winning percentage of 82%.

This brings up the obvious question: Which would you pick if you had to choose between winning the ACC tournament or making the Final Four? I'd probably choose the FF, but winning the ACC-T isn't chopped chicken liver. Ask UNC, which won only twice in these ten years, or UMd, which won once. Or ask the other nine teams in the ACC, which haven't won at all.


sagegrouse

In the ACC, from about '98 to 2004 I think we may have benefitted from the absence of a certain Mr. Smith.

[jgehtland]

In the ACC, from about '98 to 2004 I think we may have benefitted from the absence of a certain Mr. Smith.

Ok, now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. On the one hand, you say we run our guys ragged such that they can't have post-season success. Then, when confronted with post-season success, you pin it all on the *retirement of Dean Smith*.

For *seven years*.

Because nobody else in the ACC was any good at all during those years. Are you serious?

[roywhite]

In the ACC, from about '98 to 2004 I think we may have benefitted from the absence of a certain Mr. Smith.

To digress a bit, I miss El-Deano. Nobody did a better job of playing the villain---the sideline gestures, the sly smiles, the well-packaged way he could deliver a cutting remark. It's as if the subsequent Chapel Hill actors just don't fill the part quite as well.

Seems to me Deano would often stress overall excellence as being more important than NCAA Tournament results; of course, this was mainly before the Heels won their first title under his tutelage. Certain of K's recent remarks sound similar to what Dean said.

As to the pacing/effort expended during the regular season leaving an empty tank in the Tournament?...perhaps; seems to me the 2007 team was just not championship material and the 2008 team was undersized and not especially healthy.

We'll see how this year turns out. It's beginning to look like anything short of a Final Four will seem unsatisfying to many fans (and probably team and coaches as well).

[dkbaseball]

Ok, now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. On the one hand, you say we run our guys ragged such that they can't have post-season success. Then, when confronted with post-season success, you pin it all on the *retirement of Dean Smith*.

For *seven years*.

Because nobody else in the ACC was any good at all during those years. Are you serious?

I don't get your point. Obviously I'm saying that winning the ACC tournament became easier to do after Dean left the league and was replaced by two vastly inferior successors. At that point, particularly after Cremins left Ga Tech, no one in the league could even begin to recruit with Duke and UNC. With our chief competition poorly coached, winning the tournament became easier.

I don't know exactly the point at which Duke tends to run out of gas. It appears to be during the NCAA tournament typically. But anybody who says it isn't happening, that they are playing as well in March as in December, should try removing the rose-colored lenses.

[devildownunder]

It's silly to suggest a coach ask his team not
But I don't buy your argument about peaking late at all, and if you ask guys who played for K before your 1995 cut-off date, they will go on and on at length about K being just as demanding then as he is now. They were battered, bruised, etc. the same way.

Yes, those earlier teams, in sum, had more postseason success. But there are plenty of other factors that matter, not the least of which is pure luck. Someone already addressed these same points when you made them in another thread, but it bears repeating that the idea of "playing up to your seed" post-1995 has been an incredible challenge. Why? Because more often than not, Duke has been a #1 seed. And if you expect a #1 seed to advance to the Final Four every year, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

There is no magic formula for success in March, and the parity generated by talent spread wider and early-entry has a lot more to do with Duke's performance in the Tourney post-1995 than the fact that the team plays really hard defense every game.


Isn't the handwringing about post-season troubles a more recent phenomenon than 1995? I mean, 98 was elite 8, 99 was national runner-up, 01 was NC, 04 was FF. I think the 2005 is a much better start date for the perception that duke underachieves in March.

[Jumbo]

But anybody who says it isn't happening, that they are playing as well in March as in December, should try removing the rose-colored lenses.

Ah, the old default "rose-colored glasses" line. How about this: "In March, particularly the NCAA Tourney, Duke is playing better teams than during December." Just a hunch, but that probably has something to do with the team's performance.

And, btw, if Wooden actually told his players not to dive on the floor, I guess I've found a good place to disagree with him. If the ball is on the floor, you go get it. Period.

[Jumbo]

Isn't the handwringing about post-season troubles a more recent phenomenon than 1995? I mean, 98 was elite 8, 99 was national runner-up, 01 was NC, 04 was FF. I think the 2005 is a much better start date for the perception that duke underachieves in March.

Well, people still complain about 2002, with the loss to Indiana. The 1998 loss to Kentucky, with the blown 17-point lead, gets lumped in there, too. Some fans mistakenly include the 2000 loss to Florida as a flameout, forgetting the degree to which that team overachieved and the fact that Duke basically had five healthy players in March.

The J.J.-led teams get hit pretty hard. Anyone who had high expectations for the 2006-07 team in March wasn't watching all season. Last year stung.

[devildownunder]

Well, people still complain about 2002, with the loss to Indiana. The 1998 loss to Kentucky, with the blown 17-point lead, gets lumped in there, too. Some fans mistakenly include the 2000 loss to Florida as a flameout, forgetting the degree to which that team overachieved and the fact that Duke basically had five healthy players in March.

The J.J.-led teams get hit pretty hard. Anyone who had high expectations for the 2006-07 team in March wasn't watching all season. Last year stung.

I never picked up on discussion of it as a trend until the J.J.-led years, as you put it. I didn't so much hear complaints about 98 and 02 as I did sorrow or disbelief, especially about 02.

I think the unfairly high expectations you cite for 2000 also apply to all years from 2005-2008. I think K did an amazing job with tailoring strategies -- especially offense -- to those teams' strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, I think he masked the fact that all of those teams had some pretty substantial weaknesses. But it gets harder and harder to cover those weaknesses as the competition gets tougher and the stakes higher.

My argument is that had the NCAA seedings been based on the last 10 games before the tourney, rather than the whole season, none of the no.1 seeds from those years would have been seeded that high, and the perception of them as tourney failures would go away -- or at least be greatly diminished. I'll post the relevant records in an hour or so. No time at the moment.

[Jumbo]

I never picked up on discussion of it as a trend until the J.J.-led years, as you put it. I didn't so much hear complaints about 98 and 02 as I did sorrow or disbelief, especially about 02.

I think the unfairly high expectations you cite for 2000 also apply to all years from 2005-2008. I think K did an amazing job with tailoring strategies -- especially offense -- to those teams' strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, I think he masked the fact that all of those teams had some pretty substantial weaknesses. But it gets harder and harder to cover those weaknesses as the competition gets tougher and the stakes higher.

My argument is that had the NCAA seedings been based on the last 10 games before the tourney, rather than the whole season, none of the no.1 seeds from those years would have been seeded that high, and the perception of them as tourney failures would go away -- or at least be greatly diminished. I'll post the relevant records in an hour or so. No time at the moment.

Yes, most of the complaints are misguided. Stuff happens in hoops, especially in the Tourney. The 1999-2000 and 2004-05 teams significantly overachieved, regardless of their finish in the Tourney. The fact that both teams earned #1 seeds was simply stunning. Losing in the Sweet 16 on both occasions was no cause for shame.

The two real "underachievers" of the bunch were probably 2001-02 and 2005-06. The '01-'02 team so so talented, although it never really played D at a high level. That loss to Indiana was just awful. The 2005-06 team wasn't nearly as talented -- it relied so heavily on J.J. and Shelden. But no one else was great that year and LSU certainly wasn't a "better" team. That team had decent supporting talent -- enough to win a title around those two players. But the margin for error was thin. And when the entire team can't hit a jump shot in the Sweet 16, you're probably going to lose.

[dkbaseball]

"In March, particularly the NCAA Tourney, Duke is playing better teams than during December." Just a hunch, but that probably has something to do with the team's performance.

Do you think Duke was playing as well against Belmont and WVU in March last year as they did against Wisconsin in November and UNC in early January? As well against LSU in March, '06 as against Texas earlier that season in December? As well against Kentucky in March '98 as against Arizona (who had just clobbered Kentucky) in the Maui tournament earlier in the season? Just to take three off the top of my head.

I mean help me out here: Are you just listening to these post-season games and not watching? It couldn't be more obvious that they have been running on fumes at the end of the season, if you know what dead legs look like.

[Jumbo]

Do you think Duke was playing as well against Belmont and WVU in March last year as they did against Wisconsin in November and UNC in early January?
Nope. Duke got exposed by the end of the season, and I agree that Singler wore down.

As well against LSU in March, '06 as against Texas earlier that season in December?
Nope, but that was a one-game scenario. The Texas game was as much of a fluke (Texas was WAY better than they showed that afternoon) as the LSU game was (we all know Duke wouldn't shoot like that nine out of 10 times).


As well against Kentucky in March '98 as against Arizona (who had just clobbered Kentucky) in the Maui tournament earlier in the season?
For 30 minutes, absolutely. That Duke team didn't wear down physically (and for those who harp on depth, it was super-deep). Kentucky went on a ridiculous 10-minute spurt, and you also have to give UK credit for being a WAY better team at the end of the season than the beginning of the year. You also, once again, employ the fatal flaw of applying single-game results against single-game results. I could retort with the following examples:

Was Duke playing better against Pitt last December or against UVA on March 5?

Was Duke playing better in January of 2006 against Georgetown or March of 2006 in the ACC Tourney?

Was Duke playing better at Michigan in December of 1997 or at home against UNC on the last day of February of 1998?

See my point?


I mean help me out here: Are you just listening to these post-season games and not watching? It couldn't be more obvious that they have been running on fumes at the end of the season, if you know what dead legs look like.

I'm watching them. That's how I'm able to see that Olek Czyz isn't the second-coming of Grant Hill, for instance.

[ice-9]

I'm watching them. That's how I'm able to see that Olek Czyz isn't the second-coming of Grant Hill, for instance.

Ooohhhh, ouch! It's going to be hard for dkbaseball to say anything pithy without that being brought up. :p

[devildownunder]

So these are the results for the final ten games leading into the ncaa tournament for the 2005 and 2006 teams, both of which earned no.1 seeds then lost in the sweet 16.

2005

Sat, Feb 12 at Maryland 7 92 - 99 (L)
Thu, Feb 17 at Virginia Tech 7 65 - 67 (L)
Sun, Feb 20 Wake Forest 7 5 102 - 92 (W)
Wed, Feb 23 at Georgia Tech 7 60 - 56 (W)
Sat, Feb 26 at St. John's 758 - 47 (W)
Thu, Mar 03 Miami 6 83 - 59 (W)
Sun, Mar 06 at North Carolina 73 - 75 (L)

ACC Tournament

Fri, Mar 11 vs. Virginia 5 76 - 64 (W)
Sat, Mar 12 vs. N.C. State 5 76 - 69 (W)
Sun, Mar 13 vs. Georgia Tech 5 69 - 64 (W)


2006

Sat, Feb 11 Maryland 2 96 - 88 (W)
Tue, Feb 14 WAKE FOREST 2 93 - 70 (W)
Sun, Feb 19 MIAMI 2 92 - 71 (W)
Wed, Feb 22 Georgia Tech 1 73 - 66 (W)
Sat, Feb 25 Temple 1 74 - 66 (W)
Wed, Mar 01 Florida State 1 74 - 79 (L)
Sat, Mar 04 NORTH CAROLINA 76 - 83 (L)

ACC Tournament

Fri, Mar 10 Miami 3 80 - 76 (W)
Sat, Mar 11 Wake Forest 78 - 66 (W)
Sun, Mar 12 Boston College 78 - 76 (W)


---------------

I would argue that, while neither team fell on its face down the stretch, neither was truly playing like a no.1 seed either. Not saying the seedings weren't earned (particularly with the ACC tourney success and the way the committee has rewarded that, historically) but I don't think either squad was performing like one of four best teams in the country either.

[Devilsfan]

It seems like one of the past posters doesn't like what Coach K has accomplished nor the method he uses to attain his goals. Could he be a fan of a nearby school that DEFINITELY doesn't OVER TRAIN?

[speedevil2001]

I really think we need to find some more minutes for Lance, Miles, and even Dave at the 4. I know Kyle bulked up over the summer, and is more capable to handle the load this year, but I really think we need to take his minutes down, just to save his wheels for March. Same goes for Jon and Gerald. I don't want to see the shots start falling short in March.

and the other guys dont play the 4 position well at all or at least not nearly at the level kyle plays the 4 spot

[Sixthman]

So these are the results for the final ten games leading into the ncaa tournament for the 2005 and 2006 teams, both of which earned no.1 seeds then lost in the sweet 16.

2005

Sat, Feb 12 at Maryland 7 92 - 99 (L)
Thu, Feb 17 at Virginia Tech 7 65 - 67 (L)
Sun, Feb 20 Wake Forest 7 5 102 - 92 (W)
Wed, Feb 23 at Georgia Tech 7 60 - 56 (W)
Sat, Feb 26 at St. John's 758 - 47 (W)
Thu, Mar 03 Miami 6 83 - 59 (W)
Sun, Mar 06 at North Carolina 73 - 75 (L)

ACC Tournament

Fri, Mar 11 vs. Virginia 5 76 - 64 (W)
Sat, Mar 12 vs. N.C. State 5 76 - 69 (W)
Sun, Mar 13 vs. Georgia Tech 5 69 - 64 (W)


2006

Sat, Feb 11 Maryland 2 96 - 88 (W)
Tue, Feb 14 WAKE FOREST 2 93 - 70 (W)
Sun, Feb 19 MIAMI 2 92 - 71 (W)
Wed, Feb 22 Georgia Tech 1 73 - 66 (W)
Sat, Feb 25 Temple 1 74 - 66 (W)
Wed, Mar 01 Florida State 1 74 - 79 (L)
Sat, Mar 04 NORTH CAROLINA 76 - 83 (L)

ACC Tournament

Fri, Mar 10 Miami 3 80 - 76 (W)
Sat, Mar 11 Wake Forest 78 - 66 (W)
Sun, Mar 12 Boston College 78 - 76 (W)


---------------

I would argue that, while neither team fell on its face down the stretch, neither was truly playing like a no.1 seed either. Not saying the seedings weren't earned (particularly with the ACC tourney success and the way the committee has rewarded that, historically) but I don't think either squad was performing like one of four best teams in the country either.


It is more difficult to win the ACC tournament than make the final 8 of the NCAAs, particularly if the factor you are debating is conditioning or players being worn down. If you are number 1 seed in both, the first round opponent is vastly tougher in the ACCS, the second round opponent is slightly tougher, and the ACCs/Sweet 16 is tougher unless there have been major upsets in the ACCs, in which case it could go the other way. Add to this that you play three days in a row in the ACCs, and conditioning (or being worn down), could play a huge role. And yet, these Duke teams being debated on the board have dominated the ACCs in recent years. One theory might be that playing in the ACCS wears teams down, and makes them less effective in the NCAAs. I doubt this. There is a lot of recovery time between weekends, and the coaches and training staffs know more about this subject than everyone on the board put together. Another plausible reason is that the challenge of the NCAAs includes lack of familiarity with the opponents and officials, or officiating style, which tends to equalize teams, making any thing possible.

[dkbaseball]

I'm watching them. That's how I'm able to see that Olek Czyz isn't the second-coming of Grant Hill, for instance.

Well, since you brought it up -- and appropriately in the context, I admit -- you should watch the kid play sometime when his coach allows him to have some confidence. Here's the backstory on Czyz, as I understand it, and you insiders can correct me as needed.

My understanding is that K asked him to take a redshirt early on, possibly even before practice started. Olek and his stepfather turned it down, and maybe their thinking went something like this. Since K had seen him play a couple of times in AAU ball in the summer of '07, Czyz had led his high school team to the state title, been named MVP of the Capitol Classic, named first team in a summer pro-am ahead of Singler, Smith and Plumlee, apparently abusing Plumlee when they went head to head. K and his top assistants were gone all summer and didn't see him play. Can you blame the kid for thinking maybe he could compete for time this year?

Apparently K did blame him for having the temerity to go against his wishes. Reports from the first day of practice were that he was being frozen out, getting into drills scarcely more than the walk-ons. The small handful of minutes when he has gotten into games, it is clear that he is playing not to screw up and with no confidence. I don't recognize the player I watched in high school -- the free throws he's taken have been hideous short-arm things, in high school he had a flowing textbook stroke.

It's a classic case of self-fulfilling prophecy. K has sent the message that he's a project who can't compete for time this year, and he's internalized it.

[dkbaseball]

It seems like one of the past posters doesn't like what Coach K has accomplished nor the method he uses to attain his goals. Could he be a fan of a nearby school that DEFINITELY doesn't OVER TRAIN?

Would that be me by any chance? I don't think they saw me as an ally during my baseball career at Duke when I gave up one run to the Heels in 15 innings pitched. Look it up under the name Gordon Jackson in the Duke baseball record books.

[_Gary]

For the record, I don't believe the concerns about fatigue were an issue (at least not in mass) before the JJ years. I'm sure someone on the old boards probably said fatigue contributed to losses in '98 or '00 or even '02, but my memory is that the majority of us didn't think fatigue was a major issue that was haunting the team year after year before '03 at the earliest.

In '98 we simply saw Kentucky go on a sick run. To this day I still believe the best two teams in the country that year were, unfortunately, playing in a Regional Final (us and them). But we didn't lose that lead or that game because of fatigue.

In '00 I do remember thinking we were gassed at the end of the game against Florida, but I don't remember thinking fatigue was something that had been building throughout the year.

In '02 there's no way we were gassed. We simply lost focus and let a team come back on us that had no business doing such.

Having said all that, I do sincerely believe a case can be made that we have tailed off in March as opposed to getting stronger over the last 4 seasons. The old adage about Duke being better in March has simply not held true recently. I'm sure there have been many factors that have contributed to this, but the simple fact is that both players and coaches have mentioned fatigue to one degree or another as a specific factor during that span of time. Therefore this is not something that should be dismissed lightly, IMHO.

[Wander]

It's a classic case of self-fulfilling prophecy. K has sent the message that he's a project who can't compete for time this year, and he's internalized it.

That's one explanation. Here's a simpler one: you're not a good scout of talent. Considering that recruiting experts have consistently ranked Czyz behind Zoubek, Thomas, Singler, and Plumlee, it's obvious which explanation makes more sense.

[dkbaseball]

That's one explanation. Here's a simpler one: you're not a good scout of talent. Considering that recruiting experts have consistently ranked Czyz behind Zoubek, Thomas, Singler, and Plumlee, it's obvious which explanation makes more sense.

Could be. I'll be sure to check back with you when he gets a chance to play somewhere.

[jimsumner]

dk,

Do you really want to argue the proposition that Mike Krzyzewski is refusing to play an impact freshman out of personal pique?

[dkbaseball]

dk,

Do you really want to argue the proposition that Mike Krzyzewski is refusing to play an impact freshman out of personal pique?

What I'm arguing is that K runs a star system and doles out confidence very sparingly. There may be a handful of talents -- a LeBron James, a Wilt Chamberlain -- who can perform when their coach is showing a clear lack of confidence in them. Most can't. I always felt that Czyz's confidence is a fragile proposition. I don't think he's going to begin to be able to perform like he can until K, or his next coach, gives his confidence back to him.

As far as the personal pique goes, I'd like to think not.

[jimsumner]

"Apparently K did blame him for having the temerity to go against his wishes. Reports from the first day of practice were that he was being frozen out, getting into drills scarcely more than the walk-ons."

Sounds like personal pique to me.

I think you're going to be walking a lonely road here.

[dkbaseball]

"Apparently K did blame him for having the temerity to go against his wishes. Reports from the first day of practice were that he was being frozen out, getting into drills scarcely more than the walk-ons."

Sounds like personal pique to me.

I think you're going to be walking a lonely road here.

Just speculation. You'd know a lot better than I as to whether he's capable of something like that. If you think that's clearly a misdescription of the dynamic then I accept your viewpoint. The reports about Czyz not getting into drills the first day of practice were on TDD.

[jv001]

Just speculation. You'd know a lot better than I as to whether he's capable of something like that. If you think that's clearly a misdescription of the dynamic then I accept your viewpoint. The reports about Czyz not getting into drills the first day of practice were on TDD.

I appreciate your viewpoint on baseball but as for basketball I appreciate Coach K's more. You have your opinion and then the majority has theirs on Coach K's coaching ability. Go Duke!

[jimsumner]

The first practice was open and I stayed for a long time. Czyz seemed to be doing the same drills as the other recruited players.

Look, Olek seems like a nice kid, he has exceptional athleticism, and he has a high ceiling. K has compared him to Dan Meagher and I know that Meagher is one of of K's favorite players.

But I have seen some practices, the b/w game, the two practice games and the blowout games where OC got minutes late. Duke has 200 player-minutes to divide amongst 12 recruited players. And I haven't seen anything that indicates that Czyz should be getting more of those minutes than he is now. Nor have I heard anything from anyone else clued into the program that would support that view. He's 12th in the pecking order on merit.

Duke doesn't redshirt for non-injury purposes very often. I can think of Kenny Blakeney (academics), George Burgin (thinnest person on the planet), and Matt Christensen (two-year Mormon Mission). Guys as raw as Casey Sanders and Michael Thompson weren't asked to redshirt as freshmen.

So, I think the fact that K thought that a redshirt was in the best interests of both Olek Czyz and the Duke basketball program speaks volumes. And I'd trust K's expertise in this area over that of Czyz's stepfather.

[dkbaseball]

So, I think the fact that K thought that a redshirt was in the best interests of both Olek Czyz and the Duke basketball program speaks volumes. And I'd trust K's expertise in this area over that of Czyz's stepfather.

I think that would depend on when the redshirt was offered, and my sense is it was either before practice began or shortly after. K and his top assistants weren't around during the summer, and were making that judgement based on... what? Nate's assessment during the summer, the rankings of recruiting gurus? I'd really like to know. I agree that Czyz looks pretty lost when he occasionally sees the floor. And that's what happens when your coach conveys to you the message that you can't compete for time this year -- you tighten up.

[Jumbo]

Well, since you brought it up -- and appropriately in the context, I admit -- you should watch the kid play sometime when his coach allows him to have some confidence. Here's the backstory on Czyz, as I understand it, and you insiders can correct me as needed.

My understanding is that K asked him to take a redshirt early on, possibly even before practice started. Olek and his stepfather turned it down, and maybe their thinking went something like this. Since K had seen him play a couple of times in AAU ball in the summer of '07, Czyz had led his high school team to the state title, been named MVP of the Capitol Classic, named first team in a summer pro-am ahead of Singler, Smith and Plumlee, apparently abusing Plumlee when they went head to head. K and his top assistants were gone all summer and didn't see him play. Can you blame the kid for thinking maybe he could compete for time this year?

Apparently K did blame him for having the temerity to go against his wishes. Reports from the first day of practice were that he was being frozen out, getting into drills scarcely more than the walk-ons. The small handful of minutes when he has gotten into games, it is clear that he is playing not to screw up and with no confidence. I don't recognize the player I watched in high school -- the free throws he's taken have been hideous short-arm things, in high school he had a flowing textbook stroke.

It's a classic case of self-fulfilling prophecy. K has sent the message that he's a project who can't compete for time this year, and he's internalized it.

So for those scoring at home, you think:
-K shouldn't ask his players to play so hard on defense.
-K should ask his players to play harder on offense.
-Basketball players should never dive on the floor, lest they injure themselves.
-K cares too much about winning games at the expense of winning titles.
-Despite that passion for winning, K is denying himself a chance to win more games by refusing to play Olek Czyz because of some sort of vendetta.

Interesting.

[jv001]

I think that would depend on when the redshirt was offered, and my sense is it was either before practice began or shortly after. K and his top assistants weren't around during the summer, and were making that judgement based on... what? Nate's assessment during the summer, the rankings of recruiting gurus? I'd really like to know. I agree that Czyz looks pretty lost when he occasionally sees the floor. And that's what happens when your coach conveys to you the message that you can't compete for time this year -- you tighten up.

Sometimes the truth hurts but it's what's right. Recruiting is not an exact science and it has changed drastically in the last few years. Go Duke!

[Jumbo]

Could be. I'll be sure to check back with you when he gets a chance to play somewhere.

And how about Jordan Taylor (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=136256&postcount=22)?

[roywhite]

No inside info, but it sometimes happens that a coach does not connect with a player. For example, I don't think Coach K and Shav were on the same wavelength. And there are examples of freshmen at Duke who really struggle with the adjustment on the floor and in their life generally. It takes a while sometimes.

That said, I hope OC works through his situation and sticks with the program. I see a lot of potential there.

And dkbaseball knows his sports.

[jimsumner]

My understanding is that the redshirt suggestion was made after several weeks of practice. I'm sure it was contemplated before then.

I'm pretty certain K doesn't pay a lot of attention to recruiting gurus when determining playing rotations. I also strongly suspect that he doesn't place a premium on unstructured summer leagues.

But I'm equally certain that Czyz could have played his way into the rotation in practice. K places a very high premium on how guys perform in practice.

Starting spots have been won and lost in practices. Playing time has been won and lost in practices. So, why would K close this avenue to Czyz?

You might want to entertain the idea that Krzyzewski knows what he's doing here and that Czyz just isn't ready. Yet.

[jv001]

Jim it's good to get the truth about Duke practices and how Olek has done in those you have seen. This sure beats speculation from others. I will take your first hand knowledge on this subject. Not to would be stubborness on my part. Go Duke!

[dkbaseball]

And how about Jordan Taylor (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=136256&postcount=22)?

Thanks for the assist Jumbo, in dredging up an instance where I was right. See also on these boards Kemba Walker and Tim Lincecum. You'll note that in this link I had not seen Jordan Taylor play yet, and he is in Wisconsin's rotation as a freshman, though he hasn't found his shot yet.

As for your efforts to caricaturize my positions -- there used to be a very handy word for that: sophistry. It was seen as something that appealed especially to young people who fancy themselves debaters.

[Jumbo]

Jim it's good to get the truth about Duke practices and how Olek has done in those you have seen. This sure beats speculation from others. I will take your first hand knowledge on this subject. Not to would be stubborness on my part. Go Duke!

In other words, Jim knows his sports.

[dkbaseball]

And dkbaseball knows his sports.

You're too kind Roy, especially since you know first hand that I missed on Tissaw, Palmer and Beard. But I keep watching, and it's fun to project.

[Jumbo]

Thanks for the assist Jumbo, in dredging up an instance where I was right. See also on these boards Kemba Walker and Tim Lincecum. You'll note that in this link I had not seen Jordan Taylor play yet, and he is in Wisconsin's rotation as a freshman, though he hasn't found his shot yet.

As for your efforts to caricaturize my positions -- there used to be a very handy word for that: sophistry. It was seen as something that appealed especially to young people who fancy themselves debaters.

Yup, Taylor has really distinguished himself in the "rotation." The three minutes he just played against Minnesota must have been awesome. He's having a fantastic season (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=41152).

No one else thought Tim Lincecum would be a good pitcher. Not like he was a hyped prospect at all ...

There is nothing false or misleading about the way I've characterized your positions. I'm repeating exactly what you've said. But there's a word for people who can't handle being wrong from time to time, and it's particularly popular among people of all ages who fancy themselves as debaters: Stubborn.

[dkbaseball]

Yup, Taylor has really distinguished himself in the "rotation." The three minutes he just played against Minnesota must have been awesome. He's having a fantastic season (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=41152).

No one else thought Tim Lincecum would be a good pitcher. Not like he was a hyped prospect at all ...

There is nothing false or misleading about the way I've characterized your positions. I'm repeating exactly what you've said. But there's a word for people who can't handle being wrong from time to time, and it's particularly popular among people of all ages who fancy themselves as debaters: Stubborn.

Did you read what I said, in the link and just now: I hadn't seen Taylor play? Got it? I was not evaluating him, I was saying I was looking forward to seeing him play based on what had been said by others who had seen him play. Are you clear on that distinction?

A lot of scouts dismissed Lincecum as too small.

I can handle being wrong about Czyz, as I was about the Duke players mentioned above. But I'm not willing to concede it on the basis of how he's been used this year.

[Jumbo]

I can handle being wrong about Czyz, as I was about the Duke players mentioned above. But I'm not willing to concede it on the basis of how he's been used this year.

But the whole argument was about how he'd be used this year. You wouldn't listen to anyone -- all summer -- who expressed the sentiment that Czyz was raw and wouldn't contribute immediately. No one has said that down the road, he can't be an impact player. Yet, as what we were saying came true, and Czyz got left out of the rotation, you haven't said a word. And now you're blaming Coach K.

[slower]

The other thing is that, generally, you're playing better teams at the end of the year. So late-season records should be better than early season records (even though 8-5 is a bit extreme).

You think that playing better teams will produce a BETTER record?

[Jumbo]

You think that playing better teams will produce a BETTER record?

No, obviously meant the opposite. Typed too fast for my own good!

[Classof06]

why is everyone all so particularly concerned about kyle's minutes, when Jon is actually playing as many, if not more, minutes?

I wonder if it's because kyle just has that look.

edit: OP does mention Jon. But overall it seems that only kyle gets the concern.

I know I'm really late to the conversation but did this poster watch last season at all? After the way last season became undone, I can't blame any Duke fan for being concerned about fatigue later on in the season. And while I worry about Scheyer and Henderson's minutes also, the reality is that they're not banging bodies for 40 minutes a game like Singler; they're perimeter players that don't have to deal with the constant contact in the paint.

I've been saying for a few weeks now that Zoubek needs to be playing more than 14 minutes/game and Plumlee needs to be getting more minutes as well. I was very happy to see Miles get in against G'Town and thought he played pretty well.

I personally still worry about Singler's minutes but the reality is that we won't know whether he's currently playing too many minutes until we get to March and see what's what.

[dkbaseball]

But the whole argument was about how he'd be used this year. You wouldn't listen to anyone -- all summer -- who expressed the sentiment that Czyz was raw and wouldn't contribute immediately. No one has said that down the road, he can't be an impact player. Yet, as what we were saying came true, and Czyz got left out of the rotation, you haven't said a word. And now you're blaming Coach K.

Well, obviously I was wrong about how he'd be used this year. Wasn't aware I was supposed to come on here and make a general declaration that I was wrong, and those of you who hadn't seen him play were right. All I can do is wait and see if time proves me right, as it eventually did after I looked like an idiot saying Duke would be playing a good Wisconsin team last year. Unfortunately, it looks like Czyz won't be seeing the floor until year after next.

K may have him evaluated correctly. Certainly he's entitled to the presumption. But I haven't drunk the (K)ool Aid, on player evaluation, conditioning, or X's and O's, and I'm afraid I have some doubts that in two weeks of watching the only player ever to turn him down for a redshirt (if Jim is right that the decision to offer a redshirt was made a couple weeks into practice) that he sized that player up correctly.

[jv001]

K and I'm afraid I have some doubts that in two weeks of watching the only player ever to turn him down for a redshirt (if Jim is right that the decision to offer a redshirt was made a couple weeks into practice) that he sized that player up correctly.

He didn't redshirt and he is practicing with the team. After all the practice sessions and games he's been in, he still has not gotten into the roatation. That tells me that Coach K sized him up correctly. High school games and AAU games do not tell us all it is to know about these young kids. I know that you can look at a high school baseball pitcher and get an idea if he has big league stuff. It's not so easy in evaluating high school basketball players. I think our coaching staff does a very good job in recruiting these young men. Go Duke!

[micah75]

That's one explanation. Here's a simpler one: you're not a good scout of talent.

Wouldn't you say that's a bit harsh and uncalled for? What was the need for that? We're talking about one player here. And even if DKB is in fact wrong, (and I'm not convinced that he is), how does that make him a bad judge of talent?? Hasn't Coack K recruited a fair number of guys who have fallen a bit short of the hype? Does that make Coach K an inferior judge of talent?

I have a ton of respect for DKB's take on things and I always enjoyed hearing his first-hand reports on Olek while he was in H.S. He also makes some valid points regarding Coach Wooden's perspective which has at the very least, given me something to ponder, what with all the injuries and off-season surgeries the players seem to have undergone in recent years.

Having said that, I'm with -jk and many of the others that 5 minutes less PT during games is not going to improve conditioning come March, especially when you consider the 20+ hours (that's 1200 minutes) of supervised (and gruelling) practice and workouts these guys experience inbetween games. And that's not counting the unsupervised practice.

[devildownunder]

It is more difficult to win the ACC tournament than make the final 8 of the NCAAs,

Not for Duke it hasn't been, over the years we've been discussing anyway.


particularly if the factor you are debating is conditioning or players being worn down. I haven't been arguing that Duke's losses in recent NCAA tournaments have been the result of fatigue. In fact, I've been arguing the opposite -- that fatigue hasn't been a factor (Singler last year excluded) so I'd say the ACC tournament results back me up on this.



I
f you are number 1 seed in both, the first round opponent is vastly tougher in the ACCS, the second round opponent is slightly tougher, and the ACCs/Sweet 16 is tougher unless there have been major upsets in the ACCs, in which case it could go the other way. Add to this that you play three days in a row in the ACCs, and conditioning (or being worn down), could play a huge role. And yet, these Duke teams being debated on the board have dominated the ACCs in recent years. One theory might be that playing in the ACCS wears teams down, and makes them less effective in the NCAAs. I doubt this. There is a lot of recovery time between weekends, and the coaches and training staffs know more about this subject than everyone on the board put together. Another plausible reason is that the challenge of the NCAAs includes lack of familiarity with the opponents and officials, or officiating style, which tends to equalize teams, making any thing possible.


I think we could have an entire new thread on whether it is (or has been) more difficult to win the ACC tournament than to reach the elite 8. That's quite a debate. I don't think you'd find universal agreement w/your assessment. Hmm, interesting argument. have to think on it.

[jv001]

Not for Duke it hasn't been, over the years we've been discussing anyway.

I haven't been arguing that Duke's losses in recent NCAA tournaments have been the result of fatigue. In fact, I've been arguing the opposite -- that fatigue hasn't been a factor (Singler last year excluded) so I'd say the ACC tournament results back me up on this.



I

I think we could have an entire new thread on whether it is (or has been) more difficult to win the ACC tournament than to reach the elite 8. That's quite a debate. I don't think you'd find universal agreement w/your assessment. Hmm, interesting argument. have to think on it.

Almost got away from too many minutes. GoDuke!

[roywhite]

Kyle has heard your concerns about too many minutes and has offered a remedy (sort of)---he gets in foul trouble and sits for a while. :)

[wisteria]

Kyle has heard your concerns about too many minutes and has offered a remedy (sort of)---he gets in foul trouble and sits for a while. :)

And Jon heard it as well, and offered to stay in his cold-shooting slump.

[DukeVol]

Unfortunately, it looks like Czyz won't be seeing the floor until year after next.


You have made several comments in this thread (like the one above) that imply that Czyz will transfer after this season. Do you have any information to back up this speculation or are you just making these comments because you believe that a coach other than Coach K would give Olek burn during his freshman year?

If Olek wanted guaranteed PT during his freshman year, he should not have gone to Duke. I'm hoping he went to Duke to really learn the game of basketball. If he learns the game and develops the necessary skills, he will see plenty of time on the court. Why would Coach K not play an impact player? Time will tell.

[TheBrianZoubekExperience]

I don't have the patience to read through this all and sort through the most recent Jumbo vs. X bickering but I'll offer two quick thoughts:

1. Although I don't think in the college season a 5 minute difference per game means anything (in the NBA maybe because the season is longer, games are more frequent and there is more travel, etc) because Singler can easily cut back practice minutes, etc, I would like to see some of the starter's minutes cut a little bit just to get more experience for March. I'd like to get more minutes for Plumlee (which we have been) and Williams in case we need them to play bigger roles due to foul trouble or a particular matchup in a game. It might cost us a game or two but probably won't have any major effect on seeding. I guess my thinking is that 5 less minutes for someone like Singler won't really affect his devlopment but adding five minutes to someone like Plumlee could help his development this season a lot.

2. I'm not a fan of Olek's game right now. I could see him developing into a McClure type role in a year or two but he doesn't seem to bring a lot to our team right now (or at least something we can't get from better players). He seems like he's far away from being a perimeter player (3) for us and will have to develop into an undersized college 4. I think he's going to have to improve a lot to find minutes down the road if Singler stays since we have Mason and Kyle coming in.

-TBZE

[Fish80]

. . . He seems like he's far away from being a perimeter player (3) for us and will have to develop into an undersized college 4. . . . -TBZE

Olek is not undersized for a college 4. He's 6'7" and 240, strong, with great leaping ability.

[TheBrianZoubekExperience]

I do know he's listed at 6'7 but when he's on the court he looks a bit shorter than that to me but I could be wrong. I'd guess he's about 6'6 and I don't know about his wingspan or standing reach. He just looks undersized to me on the court.

I do agree though that he is strong and extremely athletic.

[gumbomoop]

Unfortunately, it looks like Czyz won't be seeing the floor until year after next.

Like a couiple of other recent posters, I'm intrigued by dkb's comment here. I assume he means that either (1) Czyz will again get few minutes here at Duke next year, given that the depth at the 4 looks to be unusually strong (Singler -we all hope - plus LT, MP2, Kelly), or (2) he'll transfer (which I suspect is what dkb's sort of predicting, given all that depth).

I'm clueless as to what will happen (which does not mean I won't cluelessly speculate). I have found informative the debate between Jumbo and dkb, despite the occasionally discomfiting harsh tone. It's an interesting and tough issue, for I infer that all of us share dkb's enthusiasm for C's potential: surely no one will deny looking forward to C's monster dunks and physical toughness, once he gets his chance. And we all hope it's here at Duke. But given C's lack of minutes this year, plus the arrival of 2 guys who appear to share his 4 spot, and unless both G and KS depart [please, no], then, true, it's plausible that C may land elsewhere. Unanimously, we all hope it won't play out that way.

[roywhite]

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/story/4371778/

Article by Dane Huffman talks about how the coaches are handling practice sessions, etc. so as to be fresh for tournament time.

Some other interesting comments from Chris Collina about Gerald's vertical and Paulus's adjustment.

[jv001]

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/story/4371778/

Article by Dane Huffman talks about how the coaches are handling practice sessions, etc. so as to be fresh for tournament time.

Some other interesting comments from Chris Collina about Gerald's vertical and Paulus's adjustment.

Thanks roywhite. Good article from Chris Collins on the new practice sessions. Good to see Coach K is on top of the tired at end of the year issue. I think this will help Kyle especially. Go Duke!

[sagegrouse]

But given C's lack of minutes this year, plus the arrival of 2 guys who appear to share his 4 spot, and unless both G and KS depart [please, no], then, true, it's plausible that C may land elsewhere. Unanimously, we all hope it won't play out that way.

I was grievously disappointed when Taylor King decided to transfer; now I can barely remember he was a player at Duke.

I would like to see Olek stay and contribute. OTOH, who knows what's best for him? I don't think it will affect the Duke program very much either way.

sagegrouse
'When accomplished players transfer (McCaffrey) or leave early (Deng, Brand, Avery, Maggette), then I end up regretting their loss. Not so much with guys at the end of the bench'

[Lord Ash]

Interesting article; glad to see that even the coaches have considered the last few seasons as having winded down badly, in part perhaps because of the guys simply being worn down.

Remember what they said about Carmen Wallace and his vertical? Wasn't it supposed to be like 44 inches or something?:)

[_Gary]

Thanks for the latest link, RoyWhite. I think at this point everyone realizes that what some of us have said over the last several years is true (although I don't anticipate any "I was wrong" confessions). Let's hope the coaching staff has devised a plan that will indeed see us peaking in March.

Gary

[MChambers]

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/story/4371778/

Article by Dane Huffman talks about how the coaches are handling practice sessions, etc. so as to be fresh for tournament time.

Some other interesting comments from Chris Collina about Gerald's vertical and Paulus's adjustment.

Can we end the "too many minutes" posts now? No mas, por favor.

[calltheobvious]

Can we end the "too many minutes" posts now? No mas, por favor.

No matter how redundant the topic seems to some, as long as people remain civil, why would you discourage a discussion in which you're not forced to participate?

[RepoMan]

I think at this point everyone realizes that what some of us have said over the last several years is true (although I don't anticipate any "I was wrong" confessions).

While I do not recall precisely what arguments you personally have made in connection with the tiresome fatigue issue, I know that most of the arguments have arisen in the context of certain people bemoaning the number of minutes played by certain players in games for fear that they will be worn down by the end of the season. In opposition to that position, others have argued, with statistical and logical support, that playing an extra 5 minutes per game twice a week has absolutely no bearing on end of season fatigue.

The attached article doesn't directly speak to this issue at all. However, it does indirectly support the argument that at least the Duke coaching staff does not believe that reducing playing time by 5 minutes per game will help reduce end-of-season fatigue. Instead, the Duke coaching staff evidently believes that it is Duke's intense in-season practice regimin that may have contributed to such fatigue, and they are modifying it accordingly.

[gumbomoop]

I was grievously disappointed when Taylor King decided to transfer; now I can barely remember he was a player at Duke.

I would like to see Olek stay and contribute. OTOH, who knows what's best for him? I don't think it will affect the Duke program very much either way.

sagegrouse
'When accomplished players transfer (McCaffrey) or leave early (Deng, Brand, Avery, Maggette), then I end up regretting their loss. Not so much with guys at the end of the bench'

Point well taken. As a pro-McClure fanatic, I guess I had visions of OC gradually developing into a fierce wing and interior defender with much more offense. At the beginning of this season's practice, let's say, I assume many posters would have thought OC would wind up contributing much more than DMc over 4 years; and if - admittedly a big if - that were to happen, then that would certainly affect the program very positively. But as you say, who's to know what's best for him. Given what must be some disappointment for OC right now, not to mention the recruitment of highly rated Kelly, MP2, and Hairston, his future at Duke is up in air. I still hope he stays, busts out next year, etc.

(And to those who would prefer to drop all this speculation and focus on, say, Maryland, that point, too, is well taken, so I'll now read the Md pre-game thread......)

[GMR]

To read the roywhite posted article about Chris Collins talking about Duke peaking out to soon the past couple of years, and Duke modifying the intensity and length of their practices to help alleviate the "fatigue" factor was a very welcome relief. That's the first time that I can remember the coaches publicly talking about peaking too soon, which I firmly believe is the biggest problem, by far, in Duke's disappointing NCAA performances in recent years. They've talked about one or two particular players "running out of gas", but not recognizing and attempting to alleviate fatigue for the whole team.

I believe the time that a particular player averages in games is a factor in the fatigue issue, but I believe it's a very minor part. The intensity and length of practices, the mental aspect of playing for Duke, on TV all of the time, of expectations by parents, classmates, and hometown fans, of a difficult academic schedule, all contribute, in my opinion, to the fatigue so evident the past few years, by at least a few players. Pacing the practice sessions will be a major asset for Duke this year. You can't eliminate fatigue in college basketball, you simply try to alleviate it as best you can, and I think the article indicates that Duke is attempting to do that. BRAVO!!

GMR

[Jumbo]

Thanks for the latest link, RoyWhite. I think at this point everyone realizes that what some of us have said over the last several years is true (although I don't anticipate any "I was wrong" confessions). Let's hope the coaching staff has devised a plan that will indeed see us peaking in March.

Gary

I don't recall anyone arguing that fatigue wasn't an issue. The conflict was always over the cause of that fatigue.

[ncexnyc]

While I do not recall precisely what arguments you personally have made in connection with the tiresome fatigue issue, I know that most of the arguments have arisen in the context of certain people bemoaning the number of minutes played by certain players in games for fear that they will be worn down by the end of the season. In opposition to that position, others have argued, with statistical and logical support, that playing an extra 5 minutes per game twice a week has absolutely no bearing on end of season fatigue.

The attached article doesn't directly speak to this issue at all. However, it does indirectly support the argument that at least the Duke coaching staff does not believe that reducing playing time by 5 minutes per game will help reduce end-of-season fatigue. Instead, the Duke coaching staff evidently believes that it is Duke's intense in-season practice regimin that may have contributed to such fatigue, and they are modifying it accordingly.

Maybe you should try reading this line over and over, "Collins said the players who had big minutes against the Hoyas only stretched and shot around, while those who didn’t play much had a full practice." Seems pretty clear to me that the staff thinks playing big minutes is a contributing factor in causing fatigue, otherwise why would they single out the players with, "big" minutes.

[sagegrouse]

Maybe you should try reading this line over and over, "Collins said the players who had big minutes against the Hoyas only stretched and shot around, while those who didn’t play much had a full practice." Seems pretty clear to me that the staff thinks playing big minutes is a contributing factor in causing fatigue, otherwise why would they single out the players with, "big" minutes.

IMHO (with the grouse the H is always silent), it is not the same thing. Giving the players a light day after a big game is about the recovery cycle and not about wearing down over the course of the season.

sagegrouse

[MChambers]

No matter how redundant the topic seems to some, as long as people remain civil, why would you discourage a discussion in which you're not forced to participate?

I still like to visit the boards to learn things, but wading through repetitive posts gets a little discouraging.

[calltheobvious]

IMHO (with the grouse the H is always silent), it is not the same thing. Giving the players a light day after a big game is about the recovery cycle and not about wearing down over the course of the season.

sagegrouse

This seems an awful lot like a distinction without a difference. If sufficient care is not given to the "recovery cycle," or so the coaching staff now seems to believe, heavy-minutes guys will be more likely to "wear down" over the course of the season.

If I'm missing some nuance in your post please enlighten me.

[RepoMan]

Maybe you should try reading this line over and over, "Collins said the players who had big minutes against the Hoyas only stretched and shot around, while those who didn’t play much had a full practice." Seems pretty clear to me that the staff thinks playing big minutes is a contributing factor in causing fatigue, otherwise why would they single out the players with, "big" minutes.

Please locate any quote, comment, or suggestion from the coaching staff in which they opine that playing 5 fewer minutes per game would reduce end-of season-fatigue. That is what the discussion has been about. It hasn't been about whether: (i) certain Duke players, in fact, have been fatigued at the end of the season or (ii) players who play max minutes (e.g., Singler) would be less fatigued at the end of the season if they "didn't play much" (e.g., Williams).

[tbyers11]

Maybe you should try reading this line over and over, "Collins said the players who had big minutes against the Hoyas only stretched and shot around, while those who didn’t play much had a full practice." Seems pretty clear to me that the staff thinks playing big minutes is a contributing factor in causing fatigue, otherwise why would they single out the players with, "big" minutes.

IMO, Heavy minutes in the Georgetown game was likely defined as the six players (McClure, Paulus, G, Kyle, Jon and Nolan) who played more than 19 minutes. They were given limited practice to be better prepared for the NCST game only two days later. They are going to be more tired from the previous day's game than Lance (3 min) or Olek (0 min). The staff has openly acknowledged that the grind of a long basketball season wears these young men down and I am glad that they are tailoring the practice schedule accordingly.

However, I highly doubt that any distinction in the amount of rest was made between Jon (38 minutes) and Gerald (34 minutes) or between Kyle (36 minutes) and Nolan (31 minutes). I didn't see anything in the article that stated this and continue to believe that our main players playing 36 min/game versus 32 min/game twice a week will have no effect on their "freshness" in March compared to the amount and intensity of practice time between now and then.

[_Gary]

I don't recall anyone arguing that fatigue wasn't an issue. The conflict was always over the cause of that fatigue.

Then we have different memories. I seem to recall a lot of people "poo-pooing" the entire concept that we were getting tired at the end of seasons. What I see is people modifying their stances now that the coaches have come out firmly on this issue. But my recollection of the last 4 to 5 years is that many regulars thought those of us talking about fatigue were crazy.

Just my two cents.

[calltheobvious]

Then we have different memories. I seem to recall a lot of people "poop-pooping" the entire concept that we were getting tired at the end of seasons. What I see is people modifying their stances now that the coaches have come out firmly on this issue. But my recollection of the last 4 to 5 years is that many regulars thought those of us talking about fatigue were crazy.

Just my two cents.

FTR, Gary, my recollection matches yours. But I'm sure we're both wrong (again).

[Kedsy]

Then we have different memories. I seem to recall a lot of people "poo-pooing" the entire concept that we were getting tired at the end of seasons. What I see is people modifying their stances now that the coaches have come out firmly on this issue. But my recollection of the last 4 to 5 years is that many regulars thought those of us talking about fatigue were crazy.

Just my two cents.

My recollection matches Jumbo's. The coaches said last year that Kyle was fatigued. They've talked about fatigue several times in the past few years (although I also remember hearing about fatigue after the loss in 1986, so this is nothing new). So even if they wanted to, nobody has been arguing that fatigue has not been an issue. The raging debate has been whether playing time in games is the main factor or is it something else, like practice.

I, among many, have been saying it has to be something like practice (or Kyle being a freshman and having to guard much bigger players day in and day out) rather than minutes per game (and I've been saying this for quite awhile). I'm happy to hear the coaches agree.

[_Gary]

FTR, Gary, my recollection matches yours. But I'm sure we're both wrong (again).

I know for a fact we are correct, but it's no big deal. ;)

People just want to adjust the playing field a bit now, so as to make it seem as if they never denied fatigue was an issue. Whatever. I won't belabor the point after this post.

[Kedsy]

I know for a fact we are correct, but it's no big deal. ;)

People just want to adjust the playing field a bit now, so as to make it seem as if they never denied fatigue was an issue. Whatever. I won't belabor the point after this post.

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not correct. What I recall is people saying "mpg is not the issue," and you responding with, "how can you say fatigue is not an issue?" When that's not what they said at all.

[Duvall]

I know for a fact we are correct, but it's no big deal. ;)

People just want to adjust the playing field a bit now, so as to make it seem as if they never denied fatigue was an issue. Whatever. I won't belabor the point after this post.

There is a search function.

[_Gary]

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not correct. What I recall is people saying "mpg is not the issue," and you responding with, "how can you say fatigue is not an issue?" When that's not what they said at all.

We will have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I don't even remember you on the other boards, but maybe you went under a different name. I still maintain many people dismissed out of hand that fatigue had anything to do with the March disappointments from the last several years even though I and others said we thought fatigue was an issue. But now that it's more than obvious fatigue is an issue, some want to revise the history of the discussion and say it was only MPG that were the issue. I'm not denying that MPG were a part of the discussion. They were. And I'd still like to see us use more bench minutes, especially in the 2nd half of games (which is where the greater toll is taken on the players, both physically and mentally). But I steadfastly maintain that some posters here simply dismissed the entire issue of fatigue out of hand until recently, when coaches have really talked about it more openly.

[-jk]

I think we need to step away from this discussion for a while - it's devolving into finger pointing rather than discussing the issue at hand, and that's not terribly enlightening or helpful.

I'm closing this thread.

And - please - let's not revisit the topic for a few days at least. We're all a little tired, I think. Take some time to rest, think about it, and come back with fresh thoughts on the subject.

-jk