The Streak

[Jumbo]

OK, this clearly can't continue much longer, both because the quality of opponents is about to increase and because the nature of basketball means mistakes inevitably will be made. But the fact that Jon Scheyer has played 131 minutes in four games this year without a turnover while running the point -- often without a secondary ball-handler on the floor -- is simply stunning. A/TO ratio, or turnovers in general, isn't always the best measure of a point guard's effectiveness. Sometimes, do-nothing point guards are rewarded too much simply for not creating, and thereby not even putting themselves in position to make a mistake. But Scheyer has been creating, too. I've been saying since he got to Duke that good things happen when the ball is in his hands. But also, bad things happen less. It would be amazing if he can keep this run going for a couple more games.

[MulletMan]

OK, this clearly can't continue much longer, both because the quality of opponents is about to increase and because the nature of basketball means mistakes inevitably will be made. But the fact that Jon Scheyer has played 131 minutes in four games this year while running the point -- often without a secondary ball-handler on the floor -- is simply stunning. A/TO ratio, or turnovers in general, isn't always the best measure of a point guard's effectiveness. Sometimes, do-nothing point guards are rewarded too much simply for not creating, and thereby not even putting themselves in position to make a mistake. But Scheyer has been creating, too. I've been saying since he got to Duke that good things happen when the ball is in his hands. But also, bad things happen less. It would be amazing if he can keep this run going for a couple more games.

Did you mean played 131 minutes w/o a TO?

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I was afraid this was going to happen. We are actually waiting for Jon to have a turnover. So what if he does so what if he doesn't. A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative.

[Jumbo]

Did you mean played 131 minutes w/o a TO?

Yeah, fixed.

[Jumbo]

I was afraid this was going to happen. We are actually waiting for Jon to have a turnover. So what if he does so what if he doesn't. A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative.

Uh ... wow. I don't want to be rude. What can I say that isn't rude? SOMEONE SHOW ME HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS POSTER WITHOUT BEING RUDE!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[Greg_Newton]

Uh ... wow. I don't want to be rude. What can I say that isn't rude? SOMEONE SHOW ME HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS POSTER WITHOUT BEING RUDE!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

LOL.:rolleyes:

"Serenity now, serenity now..."

[MulletMan]

A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative.

You can't seriously mean this. You think that because Jon hasn't had a TO he's not playing up to his potential? Have you watched any of the games this season? Jon is beautifully getting the team into the offense, running the break well, pushing the ball off of defensive rebounds, and has 21 assists in 4 games. Not to mention he is averaging 16.5 points per contest. You think that he's going out there with K telling him, "Hey Jon... I know you've dropped about 5 assists in each game this year, but try to squeeze some tight passes in too... I don't really care if you turn the ball over"? You think that's happening?

Hey... Lance has 10 TOs on the season... maybe he should play the point.

Geez.

[sagegrouse]

I was afraid this was going to happen. We are actually waiting for Jon to have a turnover. So what if he does so what if he doesn't. A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative.

What Jumbo said! This quote reads like a premise for a Caulton Tudor column.

sagegrouse

[MulletMan]

Uh ... wow. I don't want to be rude. What can I say that isn't rude? SOMEONE SHOW ME HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS POSTER WITHOUT BEING RUDE!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

See above.

Now go have a drink.

[Jumbo]

LOL.:rolleyes:

"Serenity now, serenity now..."

Maybe we need The Airing of Grievances? "I got a lotta problems with you people!"

[MulletMan]

Maybe we need The Airing of Grievances? "I got a lotta problems with you people!"

For so long I have wanted to take you on in the feats of strength!!!

OK... perhaps we should get back on point here? (Get it... on point? Geez I crack myself up.):D

[Jumbo]

What Jumbo said! This quote reads like a premise for a Caulton Tudor column.

sagegrouse

And what's most hilarious is that literally, in my original post, I made the point of comparing Jon to "do-nothing" point guards with A/TO ratios that make them look better than they are, because they don't look to do anything with the ball. Wojo, early in his career, was sort of like that on offense. Not sure how that point went completely over dukefanbrooklyn's head. Oh well. Next play ... errrrr ... post.

[Jumbo]

Geez I crack myself up.:D

And that officially makes one person ... ;)

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

LOL i knew i was going to take heat for my comment but i'm still sticking to them. I'm not saying Jon hasn't been playing great, but when ACC play comes around we are going to need him to make those risky plays that can either turn out huge for us or turn out to be a turnover.

[Jumbo]

LOL i knew i was going to take heat for my comment but i'm still sticking to them. I'm not saying Jon hasn't been playing great, but when ACC play comes around we are going to need him to make those risky plays that can either turn out huge for us or turn out to be a turnover.

Seriously, have you watched a minute of Duke's season this year?

[BlueintheFace]

I was afraid this was going to happen. We are actually waiting for Jon to have a turnover. So what if he does so what if he doesn't. A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative.

look what you did...

Do you really feel that Jon is not creating? Really?

[MulletMan]

LOL i knew i was going to take heat for my comment but i'm still sticking to them. I'm not saying Jon hasn't been playing great, but when ACC play comes around we are going to need him to make those risky plays that can either turn out huge for us or turn out to be a turnover.

I mean yeah... what I like to see out of my Duke PGs is careless and risky ball handling against teams like UNC who excel at running the fast break.

What, in God's name, are you talking about? Please... show me a good PG who turns the ball over. Please. Show me I'm wrong.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Seriously, have you watched a minute of Duke's season this year?

All games televised :)

[BlueintheFace]

LOL i knew i was going to take heat for my comment but i'm still sticking to them. I'm not saying Jon hasn't been playing great, but when ACC play comes around we are going to need him to make those risky plays that can either turn out huge for us or turn out to be a turnover.

I got this.

dukefanbrooklyn, why exactly do you feel that Jon will need to make risky plays? Do you feel our offense will be too inefficient or inconsistent otherwise?

[Jumbo]

All games televised :)

And the conclusion you've drawn from watching these games -- with Jon navigating through the defense throwing lobs to Miles, hitting open shooters, getting the ball in the right hands -- is that he isn't creating? What???

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I got this.

dukefanbrooklyn, why exactly do you feel that Jon will need to make risky plays? Do you feel our offense will be too inefficient or inconsistent otherwise?

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

[Jumbo]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

I'm really at a loss for how to respond. If you don't mind my asking, are you, say, younger than college age?

[Greg_Newton]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

Oh boy.

[huied]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

I get what you're trying to say, but here's why I don't think it makes sense. Yes, sometimes a risky pass is the one that pays out the most. But if there's a non-risky pass that ends with the same result, why take the risk?

To me, Jon's been making these "smart" plays that put as many points on the board as those "risky" plays. I mean seriously, if we lose a game and Scheyer has no turnovers, are you going to say "Man, if only Jon had a couple of turnovers we'd have won that one."

[BlueintheFace]

...this is awkward

[MulletMan]

Allow me to end this discussion in true Duke fashion....

Jumbo began the thread by discussing Jon's assist to turnover ratio. However, as any Dukie knows, the product of a fraction with a denominator of 0 is an undefined or meaningless number. Therefore, Jon's assist to turnover ratio is actually undefined and some might say, even Jumbo, is meaningless.

So I ask, if an assist to turnover ratio is undefined and meaningless, is there actually an assist to turnover ratio to discuss? No. There is not.

Therefore, I will agree with the very first post, that Jon's current streak of minutes played without a TO is an amazing way to start the season. I will add that if he continues to give us 5 assists a game with out a TO, I will be a very happy Dukie.

Sleep on that, suckas!

[DukieBoy]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

I don't understand your logic. You would rather have a player that forces things that aren't there for the sake of possibly making an amazing play as opposed to what Jon's been doing, which is make the smart play?

And why fix something that isn't broken. Duke is blowing teams out (albeit it Radford and others) by playing smart, not risky. When we start losing these games, we can switch up how we play. But right now, I think 99% of all Duke fans are satisfied with Jon's play. You, sir, are that 1%

[houstondukie]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

Please just stop while you're behind.

[Spam Filter]

See, here is what I think is going on.

I think he has a legitimate point that not having many turnovers is not by itself a positive, if it is accomplished through never attempting to make plays.

That's why the assist/turnover ratio is always looked at, it's not about how many assists or how many turnovers, but the ratio which indicates how successful the player is at making good passes versus how many times the risky passes go awry.

So far, based on observations of Jon's play, it simply is not true that he isn't making plays, he's averaging over 5 assists per game. The idea that he isn't turning the ball over because he isn't attempting to make plays is simply not based on fact. He is making plenty of plays, which is what makes his no turnover streak so remarkable.

[Wander]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers.

What you're saying might almost maybe kind of make sense if Scheyer had zero turnovers, wasn't scoring much, and averaging 1.5 assists or something. You do realize he's averaging more than 5 assists a game, scoring a lot, and that Duke has had two games over the 100 point mark despite barely trying to ever run a fast break?

[BlueintheFace]

From here on out I am following "P-word" game protocol. Sure I'll exchange a knowing glance or two with friends, but I will not speak directly to this issue... only give vague references to "special" things happening with Jon.

This is how it has been done for generations....

[speedevil2001]

OK, this clearly can't continue much longer, both because the quality of opponents is about to increase and because the nature of basketball means mistakes inevitably will be made. But the fact that Jon Scheyer has played 131 minutes in four games this year without a turnover while running the point -- often without a secondary ball-handler on the floor -- is simply stunning. A/TO ratio, or turnovers in general, isn't always the best measure of a point guard's effectiveness. Sometimes, do-nothing point guards are rewarded too much simply for not creating, and thereby not even putting themselves in position to make a mistake. But Scheyer has been creating, too. I've been saying since he got to Duke that good things happen when the ball is in his hands. But also, bad things happen less. It would be amazing if he can keep this run going for a couple more games.

kinda like pitching a no hitter going into the 7th...dont talk about it!

[TwoDukeTattoos]

I was afraid this was going to happen. We are actually waiting for Jon to have a turnover. So what if he does so what if he doesn't. A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative.

ZERO turnovers and an average of 7 assists and 22 points while running the point. Simply staggering, period. Production at its finest.

[oldnavy]

I think two things can be taken away from this: (both of which Jumbo made in his original post btw)

1. Jon is playing at an amazing level. At a level that hasn't been seen at the point for a long time if ever. The lack of a turnover at this point is unheard of no matter who or what the competition.
2. It cannot last forever, so enjoy it while it does.

If a baseball hitter was on a 40 game hitting streak, would you focus on the assumption that he was not being aggressive enough because he hadn't hit enough triples??? You could, but you would miss the beauty of the moment...

Like the rest of you, I can't seem to get dukefanbrooklyn's point.

[davekay1971]

Uh ... wow. I don't want to be rude. What can I say that isn't rude? SOMEONE SHOW ME HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS POSTER WITHOUT BEING RUDE!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes you should just be rude.

[hughgs]

Sometimes you should just be rude.

And sometimes you need to let posters continue so that the rest of us can evaluate his basketball IQ and hence his credibility on this board.

[allenmurray]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

Yeah, cuz plays that result in turnovers are so very helpful to the team. :confused:

Seriously if he had 3 assists to no turnovers criticism that he is playing too conservatively might make sense, but 21 assists in four games shows this to not be true. He obviously is distributing the ball and making the kinds of plays that benefit the team. In order that Jumbo can remain kinder and gentler, I will do this for him: Which of the three stooges are you? Moe, Curly, or Larry? Please change your posting name to identify whether your last name is Howard (that would be Moe and Curly) or Fine (Larry). Shemp was the older brother of Curly and Moe (and was replaced by Curly), so if that is you Shemp, Howard will still suffice as a posting name.

[slower]

And sometimes you need to let posters continue so that the rest of us can evaluate his basketball IQ and hence his credibility on this board.

you don't need more than one post to evaluate their basketball IQ and credibility. But I suppose a larger sample size makes for more accurate interpretation. Post away, dude!

Best verbiage in this thread so far:

"...i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word)..."

Rates fairly high on Bill Simmons' Unintentional Comedy scale.

[slower]

Yeah, cuz plays that result in turnovers are so very helpful to the team. :confused:

Seriously if he had 3 assists to no turnovers criticism that he is playing too conservatively might make sense, but 21 assists in four games shows this to not be true. He obviously is distributing the ball and making the kinds of plays that benefit the team. In order that Jumbo can remain kinder and gentler, I will do this for him: Which of the three stooges are you? Moe, Curly, or Larry? Please change your posting name to identify whether your last name is Howard (that would be Moe and Curly) or Fine (Larry). Shemp was the older brother of Curly and Moe (and was replaced by Curly), so if that is you Shemp, Howard will still suffice as a posting name.

Curly Joe, the forgotten Stooge!

[Saratoga2]

I don't understand your logic. You would rather have a player that forces things that aren't there for the sake of possibly making an amazing play as opposed to what Jon's been doing, which is make the smart play?

And why fix something that isn't broken. Duke is blowing teams out (albeit it Radford and others) by playing smart, not risky. When we start losing these games, we can switch up how we play. But right now, I think 99% of all Duke fans are satisfied with Jon's play. You, sir, are that 1%

Paulus often tried to make pinpoint passes that resulted in TO's. I prefer Jon's approach.

[Fish80]

At great personal risk, let me pose this theoretical question:

Is it better to have 5 assists and no turnovers or 10 assists and 1 turnover? Debate among yourselves. :D

For the record, I love Jon and the team and all things Duke (except parking).

IMHO, Jon is playing great and if we're winning by 40 points he doesn't need any turnovers.

[Indoor66]

Against better compition we will need better play and sometimes that requires risky plays that turn into turnovers. I am not saying i hope he turns the ball over every other play but when Acc time comes around he is going to need to make plays that somtimes result in turnovers. I hope he doesn't but the reality is that he is and i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word) to a make a thread about when a guy is going to have his first turnover. As when he does it's most likely not going to be a game changing play.

I think I get it now. Jon is not flashy enough, not enough bling, no behind the back, too conservative in his style.

[oldnavy]

At great personal risk, let me pose this theoretical question:

Is it better to have 5 assists and no turnovers or 10 assists and 1 turnover? Debate among yourselves. :D

For the record, I love Jon and the team and all things Duke (except parking).

IMHO, Jon is playing great and if we're winning by 40 points he doesn't need any turnovers.

Impossible to say for sure (insufficient data to properly analyze - what if the t/o led to a game losing shot?), but in general I would have to say 10 assists which would lead to between 20 and 30 points (ruling out 4 pt plays) and one turn over leading to possibly 3 points (17-27+) would be preferable to a possibility of 10-15 points on 5 assists.

Oh wait you said discuss b/w ourselves, sorry....

[DukieInBrasil]

I would rather my PG have 10 assists with 1 turn, understanding of course that the two options (5/0 vs. 10/1) were against the same team.

10 assists means that your PG is really making things happen.

Also, he passer is often credited with a turn even if it was really the receiver who botches the play, so the TO stat can be a little flawed.

[hughgs]

you don't need more than one post to evaluate their basketball IQ and credibility. But I suppose a larger sample size makes for more accurate interpretation. Post away, dude!

Best verbiage in this thread so far:

"...i think it's kinda of stupid(for a lack of a better word)..."

Rates fairly high on Bill Simmons' Unintentional Comedy scale.

Or as Bill Engvall says "Here's your hat"

[COYS]

I would rather my PG have 10 assists with 1 turn, understanding of course that the two options (5/0 vs. 10/1) were against the same team.

10 assists means that your PG is really making things happen.

Also, he passer is often credited with a turn even if it was really the receiver who botches the play, so the TO stat can be a little flawed.

Well, the obvious answer is 10 to 1, but I'm not sure the question is all that relevant to the game played. All together our big three had 21 assists and 5 turnovers. Oh, and they scored a little, too. That's making things happen, sharing the ball, creating a few "flashy plays" with some oops sprinkled in as well as making the easiest passes for the easiest shots. I really don't know what more we could ask for without becoming insanely unrealistic with our expectations. Our ball movement this year has been VASTLY improved over the past three seasons. Putting the ball in Scheyer's hands is a big reason for this in large part because he makes things happen without giving the ball away. Jon was one of the most efficient offensive players in the country last year, yet his usage rate was below that of G's and Singler's AND his shooting percentage was poor by his standards. His shooting percentage this season is bound to be higher if only because we know he's better than he was most of last season (and he improved during the home stretch last year) and because his usage rate will be higher, our entire offense should be higher. Jon is not a play it safe guard by any means. He is an incredibly efficient offensive player and he makes our whole team noticeably better when the ball is in his hands.

[BlueintheFace]

Or as Bill Engvall says "Here's your hat"

I thought it was "there's your sign"

[lpd1982]

LOL i knew i was going to take heat for my comment but i'm still sticking to them. I'm not saying Jon hasn't been playing great, but when ACC play comes around we are going to need him to make those risky plays that can either turn out huge for us or turn out to be a turnover.

risky plays..or...turnover

Those are not the only two options.
Risky play that succeeds is also a possibility, and my money is on JoN!

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

HAHAHA people are still on this. I'm not saying i'm not proud of the way Jon is playing i just don't understand why people are making such a big deal about him not having any turnovers against lesser compition in four games. You guys are blowing it up to something it's not. But continue to have your fun.

[Jumbo]

HAHAHA people are still on this. I'm not saying i'm not proud of the way Jon is playing i just don't understand why people are making such a big deal about him not having any turnovers against lesser compition in four games. You guys are blowing it up to something it's not. But continue to have your fun.

You didn't answer my question about your age.

And when everyone in the room is pointing at you, the proper response is not to wonder what is wrong with them ...

[Jumbo]

Well, the obvious answer is 10 to 1, but I'm not sure the question is all that relevant to the game played. All together our big three had 21 assists and 5 turnovers. Oh, and they scored a little, too. That's making things happen, sharing the ball, creating a few "flashy plays" with some oops sprinkled in as well as making the easiest passes for the easiest shots. I really don't know what more we could ask for without becoming insanely unrealistic with our expectations. Our ball movement this year has been VASTLY improved over the past three seasons. Putting the ball in Scheyer's hands is a big reason for this in large part because he makes things happen without giving the ball away. Jon was one of the most efficient offensive players in the country last year, yet his usage rate was below that of G's and Singler's AND his shooting percentage was poor by his standards. His shooting percentage this season is bound to be higher if only because we know he's better than he was most of last season (and he improved during the home stretch last year) and because his usage rate will be higher, our entire offense should be higher. Jon is not a play it safe guard by any means. He is an incredibly efficient offensive player and he makes our whole team noticeably better when the ball is in his hands.

Exactly, and it's not as if we're running a 1-4 offense where everything is based of a PG's ability to penetrate. We're running motion. Averaging 5+ assists in a motion attack where guys are sharing the ball is even more impressive. And Scheyer is attacking and is creating -- part of why he is so good is that he makes "risky" plays look easier. Whether he's lobbing to Miles or driving deep into the lane to wrap a pass beautifully around a defender (which happened against Radford, only to have Lance blow the layup), he's not just sitting there, passing to jump shooters. Someone mentioned that Paulus often tried to make pinpoint passes, and I agree -- except they were from the perimeter and what we'd call "maybe" passes. He was trying to zip the ball through the heart of the defense from beyond 3-point line. I'd say Scheyer has been far more creative in his ability to get inside the defense to make plays for others.

The other thing to watch is subtle, but really important. Paulus, for instance, used to pound the ball up the floor and then set up the offense. But watch Scheyer as soon as he gets an outlet pass. Even if Duke doesn't seem to have numbers, he is immediately looking up. In each game, he has made quick hit-aheads that have resulted in easy, open threes. Paulus never made those plays, but they are incredibly effective -- the ball is advanced much faster with the pass, and you never know when you might catch the D sleeping. They are very unselfish plays -- most point guards love the idea of controlling/advancing the ball themselves.

[Jarhead]

Lety me draw a comparison to another sport. What if next year, Derek Jeter starts out the season into early May with five home runs, a .310 batting average, and not a single strike out? Would dukefanbrooklyn say that Derek is not trying hard enough? How else can you hit homers if you don't swing hard enough? Be aggressive and strike out a little more. How else can you reach maybe 20 homers and 65 RBIs?

Well if Derek tried that, and started striking out a lot, I think he would soon lose his spot in the batting order.

[davekay1971]

While it is true that a PG can limit turnovers by making only conservative, safe passes, it's hard to watch the games and apply that explanation to Scheyer's turnover-free season to date. Jon is not merely tossing the ball around the perimeter. He's initiating the motion offense and making great decisions with the ball in his hands. He's making high yield passes (greater than 5 apg, which is very respectable) and avoiding mistakes. Some people may fault him for not being a drive-and-dish PG, but I think that's a mistake. The guy is just a phenomenal player, and his performance and production this season are great.

As an aside, I think it reflects a little bit poorly on the "experts" that Scheyer's early season play hasn't gotten any significant attention from the national hoops media. If he keeps up this level of production against better competition, he'll probably get a little more attention for what he's doing. But I think he's just got a kind of game where it takes a very high level of basketball acumen to really get how good he is, and the media is never going to really acknowledge it. CNNSI had four of their "experts" pick their all-college team, and there was no mention of Scheyer. Between his smarts, his consistency as a ball-handler, scorer, and defender, and his perfect glue-guy persona, he's right at the top of the list of college players that I'd build around right now.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Duke's record streak in February 1974, when 623 of us (the official count, taken over a mile into the run) ran 2 1/2 miles (for those of us who trekked the entire way) nekkid around West Campus, through Hanes House and then back to West. It was the national record for a few days, and still is for sub 30 F temps :cool::D

[devildeac]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Duke's record streak in February 1974, when 623 of us (the official count, taken over a mile into the run) ran 2 1/2 miles (for those of us who trekked the entire way) nekkid around West Campus, through Hanes House and then back to West. It was the national record for a few days, and still is for sub 30 F temps :cool:

The posters on DBR just never seem to learn...
:eek::rolleyes::o

[Greg_Newton]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Duke's record streak in February 1974, when 623 of us (the official count, taken over a mile into the run) ran 2 1/2 miles (for those of us who trekked the entire way) nekkid around West Campus, through Hanes House and then back to West. It was the national record for a few days, and still is for sub 30 F temps :cool::D

Did anyone get arrested? If not, you guys probably weren't streaking aggressively enough...:rolleyes:

[Newton_14]

Lety me draw a comparison to another sport. What if next year, Derek Jeter starts out the season into early May with five home runs, a .310 batting average, and not a single strike out? Would dukefanbrooklyn say that Derek is not trying hard enough? How else can you hit homers if you don't swing hard enough? Be aggressive and strike out a little more. How else can you reach maybe 20 homers and 65 RBIs?

Well if Derek tried that, and started striking out a lot, I think he would soon lose his spot in the batting order.

Let me take your analogy to the other side of the coin in baseball. It's like saying that the only reason the shortstop has a streak of 30 games going with 55 putouts and zero errors is only because he does not have any range and doesn't get to as many balls.. it is just a flawed theory.

Jon is off to a great start, the stat is very meaningful and should not be pooh-poohed away or even worse, seen as a negative. He touches the ball more often than any other player on the court so the fact that he does not have any turnovers after 4 games is darn impressive.

[hughgs]

I thought it was "there's your sign"

Dang, that sounds right also.

OK, I just checked and you're correct. I will now go into my closet and dope slap myself (on the head).

[COYS]

As an aside, I think it reflects a little bit poorly on the "experts" that Scheyer's early season play hasn't gotten any significant attention from the national hoops media. If he keeps up this level of production against better competition, he'll probably get a little more attention for what he's doing. But I think he's just got a kind of game where it takes a very high level of basketball acumen to really get how good he is, and the media is never going to really acknowledge it. CNNSI had four of their "experts" pick their all-college team, and there was no mention of Scheyer. Between his smarts, his consistency as a ball-handler, scorer, and defender, and his perfect glue-guy persona, he's right at the top of the list of college players that I'd build around right now.

Yeah, the lack of flashy plays and record setting numbers really obscure just how good Scheyer is. I hate to continue to harp on efficiency ratings, but in my humble opinion, they do the best job telling the whole story. The fact is, last season he was a more efficient player on offense than G or Singler by a significant amount, yet his usage rate was way lower (G was at 28% and Kyle was at 27% while Jon was down at 20%). Those numbers obviously went up later in the season when he switched to point guard and it's no coincidence that we played better after that switch. As much as Elliot Williams was a boost to our team last year, it was putting the ball in our best offensive players hands more frequently. This year, there is absolutely no question that Jon will be responsible for starting our offense. Obviously Nolan will bring a lot to the table, but if Jon sees the ball as much as G did last year (and I mean this with the utmost respect to G, as he was GREAT at Duke, fun to watch, and hopefully will have a great pro career), our offense will be much better this year than last, even without G and Elliot. I really can't wait to see how much better we end up being.

[hughgs]

HAHAHA people are still on this. I'm not saying i'm not proud of the way Jon is playing i just don't understand why people are making such a big deal about him not having any turnovers against lesser compition in four games. You guys are blowing it up to something it's not. But continue to have your fun.

You're correct you never said that you're not proud of the way Jon is playing. Here's what you said:

"A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play [sic] conservative."

You have yet to defend this statement. So, if you can't defend it then you must be trolling. You're response will tell us everything we need to know.

[YourLandlord]

You're correct you never said that you're not proud of the way Jon is playing. Here's what you said:

"A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play [sic] conservative."

You have yet to defend this statement. So, if you can't defend it then you must be trolling. You're response will tell us everything we need to know.

He's not trolling, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. See some of his baseball posts in the Off-Topic forum. Not worth your time arguing with him.

[Jumbo]

You're response will tell us everything we need to know.

I think his silence on a couple of things -- like the question I asked him -- in addition to his track record has already told us enough.

[JasonEvans]

Or as Bill Engvall says "Here's your hat"

I think it is "Here's your sign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7eYnDddsic)."

-Jason

[hughgs]

He's not trolling, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. See some of his baseball posts in the Off-Topic forum. Not worth your time arguing with him.

Even if he doesn't know what he's talking about he could at least defend his statement. Ignorance is not a problem, heck that's why you don't see me offering ay basketball analysis, But he hasn't defended his position. And, to me, that's trolling.

[BlueintheFace]

I think his silence on a couple of things -- like the question I asked him -- in addition to his track record has already told us enough.

In fairness Jumbo, I don't think anybody's reluctance at reporting their age to the board is indicative of much at all. However, his failure to answer a few other questions are indeed indicative.

Guys, I think he may be regretting it, lets give it a rest now. the points have been made and his arguments run in to the ground. Good job.

[-jk]

In fairness Jumbo, I don't think anybody's reluctance at reporting their age to the board is indicative of much at all. However, his failure to answer a few other questions are indeed indicative.

Guys, I think he may be regretting it, lets give it a rest now. the points have been made and his arguments run in to the ground. Good job.

So, do we expect a mea culpa, or does he run away with his tail between his legs?

DBR strives for high standards, and generally expects posters to post in good faith and defend their positions.

-jk

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I'm not on here all the time to agrue my points for EVERY post. But i continue to stand behind what i had said at first.

[BlueintheFace]

So, do we expect a mea culpa, or does he run away with his tail between his legs?

DBR strives for high standards, and generally expects posters to post in good faith and defend their positions.

-jk

A mea culpa would be nice, but 20 posters all proclaiming that he just doesn't know what he is talking about over and over doesn't exactly add much to the discussion and certainly is not likely to induce a response if he didn't respond to more substantial argumentation earlier on... just sayin

[Duvall]

So, do we expect a mea culpa, or does he run away with his tail between his legs?

DBR strives for high standards, and generally expects posters to post in good faith and defend their positions.

-jk

And, failing that, we can all dogpile on a poster that, while dead wrong, is being neither inflammatory nor offensive. Good plan.

[bird]

Let me take a try here.

If I was going to defend the poster's position, I would use Bobby Hurley.

Bobby was the definition of a high risk / high reward playmaker. He would do the craziest things, and generate amazing results. You would spend the game alternating between yelling and loving him. Here's the thing: the crazy pass into the second row was part of the same dynamic that would lead to the great assists. Risk/reward.

So, Bobby averaged 8.2 assists a game in his senior season, at the cost of 3.4 turnovers. That's a + 4.8 margin. In the 1992 season he averaged 7.6, at the cost of 3.5 turnovers, for a +3.9. In the 1991 season he averaged 7.4 assists a game, at the cost of 3.9 turnovers, for a +3.5. As a freshman he averaged 7.6 assists, at the cost of 4.4 turnovers, for a +3.2.

Now for some subjectivity here: a typical Hurley assist was not spotting an open three point shooter in the corner. It was some wild adventure in the lane that ended happily.

And Hurley was a great point guard, a wildly creative point guard, his jersey's in the rafters, his championship banners are at one end of Cameron.

Scheyer is a different kind of point guard. Great vision, accurate passer, good decision maker, but he does not inject the pure insanity into the game that Hurley could. So, Scheyer's lack of turnovers is commendable, admirable, remarkable. But he's not a Bobby, and the lack of turnovers is an objective datapoint showing that.

Now, that's the case if I was the poor blasted poster. Personally, if what this team needed was a reckless creative force from Scheyer, I think he could do that too. He's doing exactly what the teams needs, nearly perfectly.

[hughgs]

I'm not on here all the time to agrue my points for EVERY post. But i continue to stand behind what i had said at first.

No one has asked you to defend EVERY post, just this one. I not sure how one stands behind a statement he refuses to defend, but if that's what you think you're doing then so be it.

But, your above response answers the question, to me, of whether you are simply ignorant of basketball or trolling.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Bobby Hurley.

the crazy pass into the second row was part of the same dynamic that would lead to the great assists.

You've got to remember, he had Grant Hill going up to turn that pass into an assist! And he did! :cool:

[feldspar]

I think his silence on a couple of things -- like the question I asked him -- in addition to his track record has already told us enough.



http://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png

[Jumbo]

And, failing that, we can all dogpile on a poster that, while dead wrong, is being neither inflammatory nor offensive. Good plan.

I suppose that depends on your definition of inflammatory.

[Greg_Newton]

Let me take a try here.

If I was going to defend the poster's position, I would use Bobby Hurley.

Bobby was the definition of a high risk / high reward playmaker. He would do the craziest things, and generate amazing results. You would spend the game alternating between yelling and loving him. Here's the thing: the crazy pass into the second row was part of the same dynamic that would lead to the great assists. Risk/reward.

So, Bobby averaged 8.2 assists a game in his senior season, at the cost of 3.4 turnovers. That's a + 4.8 margin. In the 1992 season he averaged 7.6, at the cost of 3.5 turnovers, for a +3.9. In the 1991 season he averaged 7.4 assists a game, at the cost of 3.9 turnovers, for a +3.5. As a freshman he averaged 7.6 assists, at the cost of 4.4 turnovers, for a +3.2.

Now for some subjectivity here: a typical Hurley assist was not spotting an open three point shooter in the corner. It was some wild adventure in the lane that ended happily.

And Hurley was a great point guard, a wildly creative point guard, his jersey's in the rafters, his championship banners are at one end of Cameron.

Scheyer is a different kind of point guard. Great vision, accurate passer, good decision maker, but he does not inject the pure insanity into the game that Hurley could. So, Scheyer's lack of turnovers is commendable, admirable, remarkable. But he's not a Bobby, and the lack of turnovers is an objective datapoint showing that.

Now, that's the case if I was the poor blasted poster. Personally, if what this team needed was a reckless creative force from Scheyer, I think he could do that too. He's doing exactly what the teams needs, nearly perfectly.

Valiant effort, and point taken... but none of those numbers approaches Scheyer's current +5.25 differential, so you really can't even begin to make that case. Unless you want to argue each incremental assist is worth turning it over 1+ times, which is insulting to the rest of the team's offensive capabilities and IMO just incorrect.

Side note: I think the direction this thread has taken is maybe partly due to some pent up irritation felt towards the influx of simplistic, unpunctuated, one-line posts on the board recently. I'm a relatively new poster myself, but there are a lot of quite intelligent people on here that have been posting here for a long time. I see it as insulting to them whenever one of us newer posters just starts throwing out every partially formed thought that flows through our stream of consciousness (often without giving it a second look for typos). We're guests here, so observe how the posters with "Feb 2007" in their join date act and show some deference.:confused:

But like I said, I'm new too so I'll shut up now.

[Jumbo]

Side note: I think the direction this thread has taken is maybe partly due to some pent up irritation felt towards the influx of simplistic, unpunctuated, one-line posts on the board recently.

I think that's a fair assumption. And for someone "new" here, you certainly bring a lot of valuable insight, so I don't think "newness," by itself, is an issue.

Ignorance, on the other hand, is an issue. And that's why it's so annoying that dukefanbrooklyn completely ignored my original post, in which I specifically addressed the "do-nothing point guard" phenomenon and then explained all the reason why Scheyer doesn't fit into that group. Dukefanbrooklyn has shown neither an ounce of basketball knowledge nor a willingness to engage in a reasonable dialogue. I can't understand the desire for someone with that mindset to post at all.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I must say i'm very surprissed at the fact people are getting upset because i voiced my opinion on here. If you don't agree with me fine, but the fact people are getting mad because i won't answer their questions(i.e. how old are you? what does it matter?), then say i have no knowledge about the game of basketball is crazy. If i'm wrong i'm wrong but there is no need to get mad, it's just my opinion.

[juise]

Dukefanbrooklyn has shown neither an ounce of basketball knowledge nor a willingness to engage in a reasonable dialogue. I can't understand the desire for someone with that mindset to post at all.

Some are here to exchange/gain knowledge (though discourse) and some are here because they appreciate the sense of community. I would imagine that many of are here for both. I think that sometimes an imbalance in the two motives can cause friction. If someone just likes to spout off knowledge without being civil or recognizing that the vision of this place is to be a "neighborhood pub," that's problematic. If someone wants to participate in the conversation just to "have a take" and participate without good logic/reasoning, that is also problematic.

That's just my opinion on what may be going on here.

[Jumbo]

I must say i'm very surprissed at the fact people are getting upset because i voiced my opinion on here. If you don't agree with me fine, but the fact people are getting mad because i won't answer their questions(i.e. how old are you? what does it matter?), then say i have no knowledge about the game of basketball is crazy. If i'm wrong i'm wrong but there is no need to get mad, it's just my opinion.

This isn't a place where people just spout opinions. You need to be able to back up what you say. And when you not only refuse to back up your opinion, but also ignore repeated evidence to the contrary that might actually cause you to rethink your stance, you're not adding any value to the community. In short, it's annoying and obnoxious.

Why is your age relevant, you ask? Because if you are, say, 15, your behavior is a lot more understandable.

[Jumbo]

Some are here to exchange/gain knowledge (though discourse) and some are here because they appreciate the sense of community. I would imagine that many of are here for both. I think that sometimes an imbalance in the two motives can cause friction. If someone just likes to spout off knowledge without being civil or recognizing that the vision of this place is to be a "neighborhood pub," that's problematic. If someone wants to participate in the conversation just to "have a take" and participate without good logic/reasoning, that is also problematic.

That's just my opinion on what may be going on here.

Yup, that's definitely part of the problem.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

So i can't state my opinion?


I do this to see what other people think about it and gain insight on the situation. Not to argue online with someone i don't know over MY opinion.

[-jk]

So i can't state my opinion?


I do this to see what other people think about it and gain insight on the situation. Not to argue online with someone i don't know over MY opinion.

You're quite welcome to state an opinion. But the community here expects you to back it up with something more than just "It's my opinion."

Validate it. Defend it. Bring your "A" game. Explain to us why you think it. Cite sources.

There are plenty of sites out there for folks who want to spout an opinion and expect it to stand, defenseless. We're not one of them.

-jk

[juise]

So i can't state my opinion?


I do this to see what other people think about it and gain insight on the situation. Not to argue online with someone i don't know over MY opinion.

Of all the opinions that are stated on these boards, criticism of Duke players/coaches require the highest level of reasoning to back them up. As Duke fans, we are very defensive of the guys who represent the program. If criticism is warranted, the person presenting must be able to logically explain why.

[77devil]

I can't understand the desire for someone with that mindset to post at all.

Narcissism

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

You're quite welcome to state an opinion. But the community here expects you to back it up with something more than just "It's my opinion."

Validate it. Defend it. Bring your "A" game. Explain to us why you think it. Cite sources.

There are plenty of sites out there for folks who want to spout an opinion and expect it to stand, defenseless. We're not one of them.

-jk

I understand what your saying. But this topic wasn't really that important to me and i had a busy day today. So to argue meaningless facts about someone who has no turnovers really wasn't my goal for today. I'll try to come with the "FACTS" next time. Although after this incounter with 20 other posters telling me i'm wrong, i might just keep my mouth shut.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Of all the opinions that are stated on these boards, criticism of Duke players/coaches require the highest level of reasoning to back them up. As Duke fans, we are very defensive of the guys who represent the program. If criticism is warranted, the person presenting must be able to logically explain why.

I always said i like how Jon was playing. I just don't see why we put so much into him not having any turnovers only four games into the season against lesser compition.

[Newton_14]

I always said i like how Jon was playing. I just don't see why we put so much into him not having any turnovers only four games into the season against lesser compition.

But actually you did not say that. You said "A guy with no turnovers for a long amount of time to me means he hasn't been playing to his best ability and has just been play conservative."

I think that is the quote that stirred the pot more than your theory on whether having zero turnovers after 4 games is important or not. People took offense to that because if you look at Jon's play thru the first 4 games, 2 of which he was missing his backcourt mate, he has been stellar. The guy has played great. He is not flashy. He never will be, but he does not need to be flashy to lead this team to victory no matter who the opponent is..

That moreso than whether your theory on turnovers is what led to the onslaught...

[Spam Filter]

If an opinion is not important enough for you to bother defending, then it's not important enough that you should bother posting in the first place.

The people on this board don't need to read every inane and flippant thought that happens to pop into your or my head.

[jipops]

I always said i like how Jon was playing. I just don't see why we put so much into him not having any turnovers only four games into the season against lesser compition.

I'm really not trying to pile on here, but has anyone else who is a primary ball handler playing 30+ minutes per game in division 1 ball accomplished what Jon has so far? Maybe that stat alone backs up why this is worth talking about and relishing in.

[dyedwab]

I always said i like how Jon was playing. I just don't see why we put so much into him not having any turnovers only four games into the season against lesser compition.

Because its interesting, and Bobby Hurley and Jason Williams, and Tommy Amaker and others didn't do it...

... given the fact that Scheyer wasn't a point guard until the middle of last season, it seems that playing 131 minutes as a point guard, averaging 5 assists per game and not turning the ball over is, well, really good.

[PhillyDuke]

Personally, I don't like Scheyer at point guard, although I love him as a player. He's not quick enough. All it takes is a quick guard to play him close and it will shut down the entire offense. That's what villanova did to us in the tournament last year.

[jipops]

Personally, I don't like Scheyer at point guard, although I love him as a player. He's not quick enough. All it takes is a quick guard to play him close and it will shut down the entire offense. That's what villanova did to us in the tournament last year.

I bet Roy would love to have him at pg right now.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Because its interesting, and Bobby Hurley and Jason Williams, and Tommy Amaker and others didn't do it...
.

Exactly my point. I love Jon but who would you rather have starting at point guard between those Jon and those three you mentioned.

[roywhite]

Personally, I don't like Scheyer at point guard, although I love him as a player. He's not quick enough. All it takes is a quick guard to play him close and it will shut down the entire offense. That's what villanova did to us in the tournament last year.

whoa...

Jon did not have a good game and was bothered by pressure against Villanova last year, but he wasn't the only one. However, he played very well down the stretch last year, especially considering his position change past mid-season.

And, as noted several times in this thread, he is playing very, very well at PG this year.

A test against a Villanova-caliber team will be interesting, but Jon is our guy at PG this year, and shows every sign of handling it well.

[roywhite]

Exactly my point. I love Jon but who would you rather have starting at point guard between those Jon and those three you mentioned.

Do we get a chance and go back over our rosters for the last 20 years to pick our players?

People here are celebrating Jon's play and justifiably so. You appear determined to rain on this parade, and for no good reason.

[JasonEvans]

Whew, you know we are having a bad day when I try to chime in as the voice of reason.

Chime in #1-- I am not sure I like how people are treating dukefanbrooklyn. There have been more than a few posts here that could be deemed worthy of an infraction because they attack the poster, not the post. And, let me assure you, his post was worthy of attacking.

Chime in #2-- dukefanbrooklyn has done a terrible job of either a) admiting he might be wrong or b) defending his quite inflammatory post or c) explaining further how he was misunderstood. As a result, it is hard not to see the ire directed as being at least a little bit justified.

Chime in #3-- reputation is a huge part of the community experience here on the DBR. Allow me to expand on this because I think it is really important.

Wanna know why the threads started by Jumbo almost always evolve into some of the most read and most replied to on the board? It is because folks know Jumbo brings a lot of thought and analysis to the table when he posts. He makes us think about Duke hoops. Most of us know that a Jumbo post is one worth reading... which puts him about ten notches above many of the rest of us ;)

Conversely, dukefanbrooklyn has sullied his reputation to what may be an unrepairable state in this thread. If we had an "ignore" function on the DBR that allowed us to not see the comments of some posts, I am willing to bet that many of us would be ignoring everything dukefanbrooklyn had to say at this point. It is not that he said something negative about a Duke player, but his reluctance to explain and defend his points that causes us to feel this way. At this point, it would appear that most readers of this thread see him as either a young kid who knows nothing about the world or a troll who is only pretending to care about Duke hoops. Well, there is one other category into which he could fall-- abject fool when it comes to understanding basketball. Sadly, I suspect it is possible he is none of the above, but he has not given us a chance to see him otherwise.

I do not say any of this to imply that dfb should care what we think. The only thing more arrogant than posting to a bulletin board so others can read what you think is assuming that the folks who post to a bulletin board care what you think about what they post. Did that make sense?

I say all this to try to explain to dfb why I think it is unfortunate that he did not play things differently in this thread. I also say it to let folks know that a lot of us came down really hard on this dude. Lets try to be a bit less angry next time, mmmkay?

Thanks for listening.

--Jason "right about now, some of ya'll are probably wishing you had me on ignore" Evans

[dyedwab]

Exactly my point. I love Jon but who would you rather have starting at point guard between those Jon and those three you mentioned.

Since you brought it up....

....the 1991 Duke team had assists on 56% of its baskets
....the 1992 Duke team has assists on 59% of its baskets

through the first 4 games of the season, the 2010 Duke team has assists on 57% of its baskets.

I recognize that this % will certainly go down - but neither of the teams of the last two years had assists on 50% of baskets

Once again, you asserted without evidence that Jon's lack of a turnovers means he's not being aggressive enough. There should be some comparative stat that at least sustains your point. I just found one that seems to refute it.

I'm willing to entertain your point, but if you are right, what I would expect to find is a team that has fewer assists on made baskets, scored fewer points, something that tells me that. I haven't found that...

...

[JasonEvans]

Exactly my point. I love Jon but who would you rather have starting at point guard between those Jon and those three you mentioned.

I'd rather have JWill at PG, JJ at shooting guard, Grant at SF, Battier at PF, and Laettner at C. I'd rather have Hurley, Ferry, Dawkins, and Brand as my backups.

(looks around)

But none of them seem to be at Duke right now. I just double checked. Bummer man. The fact that none of them are here must mean that the guys who are here really suck, right?

Dude, no offense, but the logic behind your arguments is... well... confusing at best.

--Jason "did I just violate what I wrote in my previous post?" Evans

[Dukeface88]

whoa...

Jon did not have a good game and was bothered by pressure against Villanova last year, but he wasn't the only one. However, he played very well down the stretch last year, especially considering his position change past mid-season.

And, as noted several times in this thread, he is playing very, very well at PG this year.

A test against a Villanova-caliber team will be interesting, but Jon is our guy at PG this year, and shows every sign of handling it well.

I don't think it's an entirely unfounded statement; Jon is naturally more of a 2 than a point. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this makes his preformance this year more impressive, not less. I agree that a match-up against a Villanova type team will be interesting. Do people think that K might be using zone a bit in these early games as an option against those teams to allow the bigs to help with inside penetration?

[juise]

Does anyone remember who guarded Jon when Duke played at UNC to end the last regular season? If it was, by an chance, the quicker Ty Lawson, Jon's stats were:

24 points (7-7 FG, 3-3 3PT), 5 assists, no turnovers

This was the first game I looked at to test the "quick guard" theory because I knew UNC had a quick guard. Anyway... five asists, zero turnovers... sounds familiar. :)

[dukeENG2003]

Although after this incounter. . .

After all the jumping on this guy, nobody has mocked him for this? I mean, come on, it underlines incorrectly spelled words in red when you post! "Incounter"? Seriously?

Just kidding of course. I actually see some validity to his original post. The problem being that the only point he might have made, had already been acknowledged by Jumbo in his original post. I honestly would have preferred to see 8 ast and 2 t/o's per game out of Jon to 5/0. He HAS had a couple of missed opportunities in crucial parts of games (our last possession at WF on the road last year comes to mind when he jacked up a 3 instead of hitting a relatively open man under the basket). He's still learning the position.

I can't necessarily fault what he's done this year so far, he's played great, and the "streak" is indeed impressive, but I wouldn't make too much of it due to the inferior competition.

Its important to realize though, the way this years team is built, it IS exactly what we need. Last years team could have used more assts at the expense of add'l turnovers.

[ice-9]

I have to say I don't like the way the DBR community is doing a piledrive on dukefanbrooklyn. It doesn't jive with my classy view of said community and reminds me of a bunch of school kids ganging up on a weaker child.

dukefanbrooklyn, on the other hand, I hope you see what's happened. Several posters brought up very reasonable points (10:1 vs 5:0, not Bobby Hurley assists) that are neither inflammatory nor counter-productive. The way you have posted makes it seem like you're convinced Scheyer is not doing a good job thus far as a PG, which is of course patently false.

[dyedwab]

... the "streak" is indeed impressive, but I wouldn't make too much of it due to the inferior competition.



I just wanted to say, that despite my earlier post, I would agree that this streak doesn't necessarily have predictive value because of the level of competition, etc.

That said, playing 4 games as a starting point guard in Div 1 basketball, and averaging nearly 32 minutes a game and not turning the ball over is, at the very least, a notable and interesting statistical achievement. I mean, we've played 4 early season games against this level of competition before, and I don't think this has ever happened.

[Kedsy]

Chime in #1-- I am not sure I like how people are treating dukefanbrooklyn. There have been more than a few posts here that could be deemed worthy of an infraction because they attack the poster, not the post. And, let me assure you, his post was worthy of attacking.

I don't usually bother taking sides in this sort of dogfight, but I say give the guy a break.

dukefanbrooklyn was trying to make the point that having no turnovers is not necessarily a wonderful thing. Personally, I don't entirely agree with that, but I don't always agree with everybody else, either. To clarify his point, he tried to tell us that having no turnovers is not a great thing if it means the guard isn't doing enough to make the offense work. The examples he used didn't support his point all that well, but I sort of agree with his general argument, while also believing it doesn't currently apply to either Jon's or the team's current situation (and also acknowledging it was already covered in Jumbo's original post). In dfb's defense, even though Jon and the offense are both firing on all cylinders now, who's to say that will continue forever? Why shouldn't dfb have a right to conjecture if he wishes?

Which is really what I think he was trying to do -- anticipate this being a problem in the future and expressing his hope that if it came to it, Jon would take chances instead of playing it safe. I don't know that it's worth anticipating problems that don't exist, but there's nothing wrong with hoping Jon is more concerned with running the offense than in simply avoiding turnovers, notwithstanding that the evidence to date suggests Jon will do the right thing when the time comes.

(Having said that, I too hope Jon doesn't get too caught up in "the streak" and change what he's doing in order to avoid turnovers in the future. I don't think he will, and there's no evidence to suggest he will, but that doesn't keep me from thinking about it.)

Finally, if an entire wave of irate posters attacked me the way you all attacked dfb, and demanded I explain my opinion, my first impulse would be to give you all the finger rather than to engage in reasonable discourse. He made a flip comment and everyone jumped down his throat.

So I'll say it again: give the guy a break and let's all move on, OK?

[juise]

Its important to realize though, the way this years team is built, it IS exactly what we need. Last years team could have used more assts at the expense of add'l turnovers.

This is an interesting point. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by saying that Scheyer's error-free play is exactly what Duke needs this season. I have a couple of thoughts about why turnovers are especially bad for this team.

(1) Turnovers often lead to transition offense for the other team. Usually the guards are the ones who have to get back and defend the break, often resulting in a foul. This year's team can't afford to have its back court in foul trouble.

(2) Turnovers are always worse than a missed shot, but with this team's size, it seems like we may have better opportunities for offense rebounds than years past. So... perhaps turnovers are more costly from this perspective.

[BlueintheFace]

Chime in #1-- I am not sure I like how people are treating dukefanbrooklyn. There have been more than a few posts here that could be deemed worthy of an infraction because they attack the poster, not the post. And, let me assure you, his post was worthy of attacking.

Yah, I am seeing some hypocrisy creep in to this thread here when I see people talk about what DBR is all about and then go over the top to chastise dukefanbrooklyn. Seriously, reel it in people.

[roywhite]

In a related area, Jon is not the only Blue Devil who has been taking care of the ball and generating assists this year.

Kyle has 12 assists, 7 turnovers
Nolan (2 games) 12 assists, 6 turnovers
Andre 6 assists, 1 turnover
Ryan Kelly 6 assists, 1 turnover

The overall ballhandling and passing is really encouraging.

[Spam Filter]

With regards to the topic of the streak, I really do think we should stop making a big deal out of it.

Because I think the awareness of this streak might in of itself affect Jon's play. In that he may become more cautious than he needs to be because of a subconscious desire to preserve the streak.

I actually hope that he dribbles the ball out of bounds on our first possession in the next game so that he can get this streak out of the way and just play.

[ricks68]

I say we give the poster at least some credit for starting a debate that has added to the knowledge base of the boards. I mean, reading about the A/T of past players and comparing the teams' success rates has been very enlightening. Also, the comparison of Jon's most recent accomplishments and the team's recent accomplishments, in that regard, to the teams of the past has been very informative.

If the poster had not made his/her original statements, however criticized to be poorly thought out, many members of the DBR community would not have had the benefit of the many informative responses.

As far as the board decorum, I agree that we need to keep it as civil as possible. Some response posts have appeared to me to be a little condescending and borderline as far as our normal discourse. When comparing the dialogue to the normal (?) IC, Kentucky, Maryland, etc. boards, however, we deserve an "A" to their D-- or F.

When I first read the original post, my original thought process focused in on whether or not the poster was expressing his ideas correctly. It appeared to me, on the surface, that maybe he was trying to say that it would be more constructive to the team if Jon was less conservative and more of a risk taker.

Why could that possibly be more helpful to the team than Jon's perceived conservatism, you ask? Well, as other posters have mentioned, Hurley, Williams, Amaker, etc. were a lot flashier and had more turnovers, yet their teams were extremely successful. Maybe that approach energized their teams a lot more. Maybe it forced them to be more aggressive and play better defense and offense in an effort to make up for those turnovers. This could have translated into more and more inspired play, and more experience in knowing how to make up for mistakes, as the season wore on, resulting in better preparation for the tough NCAA Tournament.

That was my original take on what he might have been alluding to. I just thought that he might have expressed it very poorly. I don't think he was ever asking for a grammar lesson, or for a lesson in humility, or certainly not for a general bashing.

Now, I must say that he also did not handle any kind of defense very well. As the posting continued, he kind of began to dig his own hole a little faster and deeper----as, alas, he did not defend what I originally thought his case to be. So, he has apparently been exposed as basing his original premise on poor knowledge of the possible implications of Jon's achievements on the court so far this year.

In closing, however, I must bring up a valuable lesson from the past that was mentioned by one of the posters: These past 4 games should not be given a whole lot of credence in judging the future success or failure of the coming campaign. Too many times we have seen players have really stellar games at this point of the season, only to be relegated to bench duty once the meat of the season begins. (And, how I wish that were not the case.)

I think that we will have a better chance at seeing what we are really made of in the next 2 games, and probably a more accurate measure of the team's and the individual player's abilities to gauge what our team is all about this year.

So, maybe we should thank this poster for the lively discussion and the thought provoking dialogue. I mean, it got me to add a rare post. ;)

ricks

[Jumbo]

I always said i like how Jon was playing. I just don't see why we put so much into him not having any turnovers only four games into the season against lesser compition.

No one is putting "so much" into him not having any turnovers as far as what it means for the future. It's just a cool, unusual accomplishment, and you didn't understand that from the very first post in this thread. Can't we just appreciate the fact that he's playing well?


I understand what your saying. But this topic wasn't really that important to me and i had a busy day today. So to argue meaningless facts about someone who has no turnovers really wasn't my goal for today. I'll try to come with the "FACTS" next time. Although after this incounter with 20 other posters telling me i'm wrong, i might just keep my mouth shut.

If it wasn't important to you, why did you bother posting at all? And if replying with facts is enough to deter you from posting, then maybe you should follow your own advice.


If an opinion is not important enough for you to bother defending, then it's not important enough that you should bother posting in the first place.

The people on this board don't need to read every inane and flippant thought that happens to pop into your or my head.

I think that belongs in a sticky up top. Well said.


Personally, I don't like Scheyer at point guard, although I love him as a player. He's not quick enough. All it takes is a quick guard to play him close and it will shut down the entire offense. That's what villanova did to us in the tournament last year.

I'm tired of hearing this "not quick enough" thing. I'm not sure what I have to do to prove otherwise -- he has successfully guarded point guards before. He was quick enough to absolutely shut down Wayne Ellington off the ball during the three years they faced off in college. Maybe I should start posting relevant video clips? And the Villanova gam was hardly a result of quick guards shutting him down and therefore killing the whole offense. We ran into a team with an incredibly odd combination of quickness and strength at every position, which matched up perfectly with the small lineup we used last year. The bigger problem was that we couldn't exploit Villanova's interior problems and that we missed a lot of open shots early, which spiraled. I'm not worried at all about Jon going up against quick guards. Why? See below ...


Does anyone remember who guarded Jon when Duke played at UNC to end the last regular season? If it was, by an chance, the quicker Ty Lawson, Jon's stats were:

24 points (7-7 FG, 3-3 3PT), 5 assists, no turnovers

This was the first game I looked at to test the "quick guard" theory because I knew UNC had a quick guard. Anyway... five asists, zero turnovers... sounds familiar. :)

Exactly. And if I remember correctly, wasn't Jon one of the four guys who came into that game banged up, too? He's done well against small quick guys, big athletic guys (anyone remember him guarding Thaddeus Young as a frosh) and everyone in between. And I don't understand why people can't see that he is, in fact, a dynamic, creative player. He doesn't have Jason Williams' cross-over and he doesn't finish with dunks. But he regularly gets into the lane, makes clever, thread-the-needle passes, finishes in traffic and gets to the line. Seriously, if you guys really want video evidence, I'll see what I can dig up on blueplanet and youtube tomorrow. But I'm tired of hearing about his "savvy" and "grit" and all the other code words announcers use because they can't realize that he is just a really good basketball player who has more than enough athletic gifts to succeed.


With regards to the topic of the streak, I really do think we should stop making a big deal out of it.

Because I think the awareness of this streak might in of itself affect Jon's play. In that he may become more cautious than he needs to be because of a subconscious desire to preserve the streak.

I actually hope that he dribbles the ball out of bounds on our first possession in the next game so that he can get this streak out of the way and just play.

I highly, highly doubt Jon Scheyer cares one bit about any kind of a streak, or is even aware of it. And based on the mature play he has demonstrated since his freshman year, there's no way he'd let it affect his game. Again, this isn't meant to suggest that he's not going to turn the ball over later in the year, or that this is some sort of accomplishment to rival Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak. It's just cool, is all, and worthy of some appreciation.

[1999ballboy]

The comparison of Jon Scheyer's stats with those of guys like Hurley is apples-and-oranges. No one in this thread, not Jumbo or anyone else, was putting emphasis on him being a point guard; they merely mentioned it, because, well, that's what he effectively is for now. He doesn't have to fit the mold of a Bobby Hurley or Tommy Amaker or anyone else. Honestly though, dukefanbrooklyn's opinion isn't that weird. Actually, it's downright predictable that someone would make that argument. It's no different from someone pointing out that a quarterback completes a lot of unchallenging passes, and therefore perhaps completion percentage isn't exactly the best measure of his quality as a player. Fine. The problem is, in this case, it's totally wrong. No one cares that Jon Scheyer is putting up these numbers as a point guard; the fact that he's putting them up as a player at all is impressive enough. Look at the stats for every other player in the ACC who has been playing Jon's kind of minutes, at any position, and I bet they all have at least one turnover. Turnovers are a negative thing, no matter how you look at them.

I was lurking during the preseason threads, and I can't remember who kept on doubting Scheyer as a point guard, but I was shocked and saddened by the number of people who did. It's like they've already forgotten about last season, when switching him to the point did us a lot of good. Now, most of those people seem to be quiet (funny how that happens when he gets no turnovers in 4 games, huh?), except for dukefanbrooklyn.

There's no rule that a team has to have a Bobby Hurley. And even if there was, it wouldn't be very efficient to convert a player like Jon Scheyer into that type of player when that's just not how he plays. While some teams have flashy, penetrating, quick, athletic point guards, this one has Jon Scheyer, and he's done an excellent job of playing his own game so far. It's far more important to have five guys on the floor who maximize their own strengths on the floor than it is to have five guys trying to mold themselves to the "standard" basketball position descriptions. Right now, I would defy anybody to tell me that Jon Scheyer is not maximizing his strengths as a player.

[Greg_Newton]

...Exactly. And if I remember correctly, wasn't Jon one of the four guys who came into that game banged up, too? He's done well against small quick guys, big athletic guys (anyone remember him guarding Thaddeus Young as a frosh) and everyone in between. And I don't understand why people can't see that he is, in fact, a dynamic, creative player. He doesn't have Jason Williams' cross-over and he doesn't finish with dunks. But he regularly gets into the lane, makes clever, thread-the-needle passes, finishes in traffic and gets to the line. Seriously, if you guys really want video evidence, I'll see what I can dig up on blueplanet and youtube tomorrow. But I'm tired of hearing about his "savvy" and "grit" and all the other code words announcers use because they can't realize that he is just a really good basketball player who has more than enough athletic gifts to succeed....

Honestly? It's because he runs on his heels, rather than the balls of his feet. I know that sounds incredibly silly, but I really think that's what it is.

I submit for your consideration: a video of a young Olek Czyz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2TXxeVy9h4&feature=related Notice how he bounces off the balls of his feet when he runs and jumps, giving off that "bouncy", athletic impression (of course, his 40" vert doesn't hurt either).

Most elite fast-twitch athletes do this... heck, you could probably pick out the "athletes" from the trundlers at your local pickup game by watching nothing but this if you wanted to. Here's Deron Williams, who probably isn't much quicker than Jon, but looks like he is - see if you can pick out his heel hitting the ground, even once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GorZGZK63PU&feature=related

And now, Jon. For whatever reason, he hardly ever runs on the balls of his feet... he lands on his heels and rolls forward, like a fast walk. Watch his feet, particularly when he's in the open court: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xplQAIBTds&feature=related

So, no matter how fast he's actually moving, he gives off an "unathletic" vibe by HOW he's moving. Come to think of it, this may have something to do with the "overly cautious" perception some have of him - it can make it look like he's not going at a full-out sprint when he actually is.

That's my theory, at least.:D

[Trooper]

Hey everyone,

I don't post here very often, mostly because of time constraints, but I have been reading the boards for years (I'm T'99). For some reason, this debate made me decide to chime in.

I'm going to ignore the rants pro and con about DFB's posts. I don't think he was remotely trying to inflame or anger anyone. At this point, it doesn't much matter.

Assist to Turnover ratio is a great stat, but it is also one that doesn't tell you much unless you, you know, actually watch the games. There are many instances where a very high assist to turnover ratio is misleading if you haven't seen the games or don't know what to look for.

There are three things that are absolutely true about our first four games:

1) It's really cool that Scheyer has managed to compile 21 assists without a turnover simply because it's incredibly unusual and difficult to do

2) Jon is playing great basketball right now and making great decisions. Several of his assists have come from him creating plays and making great passes. He's NOT being too conservative with the ball. To say anything different is a bit silly.

3) The competition we've played has been very weak to date and the whole team's assist and assist/turnover ratios are inflated, especially since we're shooting the lights out from three so far this year.

Now, the real debate is how well Jon (and the rest of the team) will be able to keep up this level of play/efficiency as the competition increases. Jumbo and one other person (can't remember who) brought up his game vs. Lawson as evidence he can handle small, quick point guards. Others brought up Villanova as a counter example. They are both relevant.

From watching Jon, I think there is only one type of player that really gives him fits...and that is a 6'3-6'6 athlete that is both quick AND strong. Jon has actually faired well against lightning quick, but smaller players like Lawson. He is great at using his height advantage in those situations. Villanova happened to have a couple of those guys that give him fits. It was a bad matchup for him (and for a number of our wing players). But here's the thing, there's about 10-15 guys in the country that fit that mold and will really give him problems.

John's going to have a great season and maybe 2-4 times this year he'll run up against guys of this ilk and he'll have to battle in those games. Maybe he doesn't have a great game...those games we'll need Nolan and Kyle to step up more. That's ok...especially since they both are more than capable.

Where this sort of thing will actually become a serious is for Jon will be in his attempt to catch on with an NBA team. The NBA is littered with 6'3-6'6 guys that are incredibly strong and quick. Jon will have to find a way to adapt...or possibly just become one heck of a player in Europe.

Lastly, I wanted to use Andre as an example of what DFB was incorrectly attempting to attribute to Scheyer's game this season. Andre has a 6-1 assist to turnover ratio thus far and has only turned the ball over once in 90 minutes of play. For a freshman guard, that's pretty impressive in its own right.

However, Andre's ratio is misleading, because nearly every one of his assists has come on a pass at the three point arc to another player at the arc who knocked down a 3. Right now, Andre's handle and his vision when driving are his weaknesses. He's basically a spot up shooter who can finish at the rim on the break. This isn't remotely a knock on Andre's game...just that he has a few things to work on over the next couple of years like most freshman do. My favorite thing I saw him do in any game so far was to pump fake a three, take two dribbles to the elbow, and shoot a 16ft jumper. He missed it, but it doesn't matter. That's a play that will make him impossible to guard eventually.

[The Gordog]

Personally, I don't like Scheyer at point guard, although I love him as a player. He's not quick enough. All it takes is a quick guard to play him close and it will shut down the entire offense. That's what villanova did to us in the tournament last year.

I would argue that there was another more powerful reason we lost that game, but I don't like to put down a guy who I have significant respect for both a player and a person.

[Kedsy]

However, Andre's ratio is misleading, because nearly every one of his assists has come on a pass at the three point arc to another player at the arc who knocked down a 3. Right now, Andre's handle and his vision when driving are his weaknesses. He's basically a spot up shooter who can finish at the rim on the break. This isn't remotely a knock on Andre's game...just that he has a few things to work on over the next couple of years like most freshman do. My favorite thing I saw him do in any game so far was to pump fake a three, take two dribbles to the elbow, and shoot a 16ft jumper. He missed it, but it doesn't matter. That's a play that will make him impossible to guard eventually.

I think Andre has shown better court vision than you're giving him credit for. In one of the early games (I think UNCG but I'm not certain) around the middle of the 2nd half he had two nifty assists, both of which were set up by his driving toward the basket, drawing a man (or two) and finding the open player. The first was Ryan Kelly at the 3-point line (but it wasn't just a pass from one place on the arc to another; it was a drive and dish) and the 2nd was someone (don't remember who) for the layup. Both, to me, were very impressive plays; I hadn't expected to see that sort of play from him.

I know he doesn't do it often, presumably because for now, at least, his role is to spot up and shoot the 3, but I think he's shown a lot of potential as a passer and if he doesn't turn it over he's going to be a big asset with the ball.

[The Gordog]

After all the jumping on this guy, nobody has mocked him for this? I mean, come on, it underlines incorrectly spelled words in red when you post! "Incounter"? Seriously?

Just kidding of course. I actually see some validity to his original post. The problem being that the only point he might have made, had already been acknowledged by Jumbo in his original post. I honestly would have preferred to see 8 ast and 2 t/o's per game out of Jon to 5/0. He HAS had a couple of missed opportunities in crucial parts of games (our last possession at WF on the road last year comes to mind when he jacked up a 3 instead of hitting a relatively open man under the basket). He's still learning the position.

I can't necessarily fault what he's done this year so far, he's played great, and the "streak" is indeed impressive, but I wouldn't make too much of it due to the inferior competition.

Its important to realize though, the way this years team is built, it IS exactly what we need. Last years team could have used more assts at the expense of add'l turnovers.

Actually, it doesn't (for me, and perhaps not for him.) I am at work and not allowed to download the code to help IE make that happen.

[oldnavy]

Actually, it doesn't (for me, and perhaps not for him.) I am at work and not allowed to download the code to help IE make that happen.

I cut and paste into word to spell check.

I will never mock anyone for spelling. I am terrible at spelling and always have been. Even after 21 years of formal schooling I struggle... oh whale?;)

[Trooper]

Kedsy, I agree that Andre has the potential to become a complete player, and frankly a star on the offensive end. I may have missed the drive and dish assist, because I don't remember that...I've had some streaming issues and missed bits and pieces of the non-tv games. If so, that's great to hear.

But still, just from watching him when he tries to penetrate in the half court, I think he needs to improve both his handle and his decision making. The former, fortunately, is something he can easily work on in the offseason. The latter is something I think will come as he adjusts to the speed of the game and the larger defenders in the paint in the college level.

Don't get me wrong, Andre is materially better than I could've hoped given that he didn't get a summer at Duke to acclimate. Just having him on the court will open driving lanes for Kyle, Nolan, and Jon all season.

Andre doesn't need to be a creator on this team. We have three upperclassmen that are going to be the focus of the offense, and we're running a motion set that doesn't require as much penetration. Frankly, the biggest thing he could do to improve Duke's offense this season is to master the use of screens to free up his jump shot.

Someone should mail him tapes of JJ's last two seasons at Duke to study in this regard. JJ really figured it out over his time at Duke. On the NBA level, there has been no one better than Rip Hamilton at using screens to get open -- though this pains me to admit since I'm class of '99 and he killed us in the title game that year.

[brevity]

Small points:

1. This thread should be closed as soon as the streak ends.

2. The "why bother posting at all" retort could apply to, conservatively, 95% of opinions given on the Internet. Social conventions and specific forum rules do a much better job of keeping posts in check than that lame catch-all.

3. I might take an individual's 5 assists and no turnovers versus 10 assists and 1 turnover, under the assumption that the point guard is not the only player who can pass a ball. A good point guard can also set a play in motion whereby he isn't credited with an assist, yet his team still scores. Ask me about TEAM assists and turnovers, however, and I'd be more interested in the 10/1 option.

4. Right now I'd take Jon Scheyer over Hurley and Amaker, and probably Williams. He's younger and in much better game shape...