Charting Duke vs. Wisconsin

[Jumbo]

Tough loss, but let's not make it out to be more than it is -- one game, on the road in a tough environment, in December. And that goes for these numbers, too. A couple of things will jump out at you. One is Miles Plumlee going +11. Part of that was a small benefit from offense/defense at the end of the game (interesting that he was in for the offense part). Another is Lance Thomas at -13, who suffered the defensive part of that equation. And you'll also notice that while the small lineups didn't play appreciably better than the bigger lineups, there was one exception -- Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles. That group was +13.

In the post-game thread, there are some really strong opinions being expressed, people jumping to conclusions based on an incredibly small sample size, etc. I'd urge even more restraint in dealing with these numbers; again, single-game plus/minus ratings can be misleading. That said, there's one cool thing that jumped out at me. On a night where Mason Plumlee returned and was clearly rusty, he was part of one particularly successful lineup ... when paired with his brother. That will be worth watching as the season goes on. In the meantime, hang in there and realize there are much bigger prizes at stake than a win at Wisconsin and the outcome of this game doesn't tell us that much about Duke's ability to capture those prizes.

Anyway, on to the numbers ...

Individuals
Miles Plumlee 50-39 (+11)
Andre Dawkins 43-43 (+0)
Mason Plumlee 15-15 (+0)
Jon Scheyer 67-69 (-2)
Kyle Singler 69-73 (-4)
Brian Zoubek 15-19 (-4)
Nolan Smith 59-67 (-8)
Lance Thomas 27-40 (-13)

Per 40 Minutes
Miles Plumlee +21.0
Andre Dawkins +0
Mason Plumlee +0
Jon Scheyer -2.1
Kyle Singler -4.0
Nolan Smith -8.6
Brian Zoubek -17.8
Lance Thomas -23.6

Lineups
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (x5) 22-9 (+13)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles 7-3 (+4)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Mason-Zoubek 6-4 (+2)
Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Miles 4-2 (+2)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Mason (x2) 2-2 (+0)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Zoubek (x3) 2-4 (-2)
Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas-Miles 2-4 (-2)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Zoubek 7-11 (-4)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Thomas (x5) 2-7 (-5)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Thomas-Miles (x3) 15-21 (-6)
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason 0-6 (-6)

[feldspar]

Boy, Lance was...how shall I say this without getting an infraction or getting my post deleted...um....less than effective.

Disappointing to say the least.

[COYS]

I wondered how Andre's +/- stats would end up because I felt like we had a few more defensive lapses while he was on the court tonight. Obviously, going 4-4 from three goes a long way toward offsetting his defensive lapses. I'm really excited to see where the team goes from here because, despite the loss, I saw nothing tonight that either can't be corrected or can be attributed to a blip (our overall guard play).

[Edouble]

Lineups
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (x5) 22-9 (+13)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles 7-3 (+4)


This first lineup was clearly our best tonight, both by the numbers and just in watching the game. The second lineup is the one that many projected to be out best in the preseason. It's an interesting sign (either good or bad, depending on how you look at it) that one game in, it's already up so high.

In my opinion, and I think many other's around here, these are going to be the best two lineups for the bulk of the season.

[SilkyJ]

Tough loss, but let's not make it out to be more than it is -- one game, on the road in a tough environment, in December. And that goes for these numbers, too. A couple of things will jump out at you. One is Miles Plumlee going +11. Part of that was a small benefit from offense/defense at the end of the game (interesting that he was in for the offense part). Another is Lance Thomas at -13, who suffered the defensive part of that equation. And you'll also notice that while the small lineups didn't play appreciably better than the bigger lineups, there was one exception -- Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles. That group was +13.

Some of that has got to be the last ~4 minutes when Dawkins got fire, so that is a bit misleading as well. Although I guess you could argue that if we're scoring with that lineup its effective and not misleading.

Jumbo (and others)- I wasn't going to read through the entire post game thread and i only was able to watch the 2nd half, but did we get away from our motion(ish) offense? It looked like we went back to trying to force drives and kick...


This first lineup was clearly our best tonight, both by the numbers and just in watching the game. The second lineup is the one that many projected to be out best in the preseason. It's an interesting sign (either good or bad, depending on how you look at it) that one game in, it's already up so high.

In my opinion, and I think many other's around here, these are going to be the best two lineups for the bulk of the season.

Uh-Gree.

[Kedsy]

This first lineup was clearly our best tonight, both by the numbers and just in watching the game. The second lineup is the one that many projected to be out best in the preseason. It's an interesting sign (either good or bad, depending on how you look at it) that one game in, it's already up so high.

In my opinion, and I think many other's around here, these are going to be the best two lineups for the bulk of the season.

Once Mason gets up to speed I think you'll enjoy Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason, as much or more than Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles.

[jv001]

Once Mason gets up to speed I think you'll enjoy Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason, as much or more than Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles.

I have to agree these are our best lineups for scoring the ball. Andre, Miles and Mason are pretty interchangable and need to see the most minutes. With Lance and Zoubs minutes being down and some of their minutes going to Kelly. I think it was SilkyJ that mentioned our lack of motion offense. And I agree that there was way too much standing around. Look for hi-low action from Miles and Mason. Go Duke!

[Jeffrey]

Lineups
Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles (x5) 22-9 (+13)
Scheyer-Smith-Singler-Mason-Miles 7-3 (+4)


This first lineup was clearly our best tonight, both by the numbers and just in watching the game. The second lineup is the one that many projected to be out best in the preseason. It's an interesting sign (either good or bad, depending on how you look at it) that one game in, it's already up so high.

In my opinion, and I think many other's around here, these are going to be the best two lineups for the bulk of the season.

Sorry to say, I agree.

IMO, the first lineup will not produce a championship level team and we cannot afford for it to be our best. IMO, the first lineup is one of our worst defensive lineups (Dawkins instead of Thomas). Even more concerning, foul and injury trouble (which will occur at some point) make it impossible to play all three of our guards simultaneously. Until foul and injury trouble appear, we will be wearing out are only three true guards.

I continue to believe that the loss of G and Elliot are extreme. We will be very lucky if Dawkins can consistently match their offensive production. It appears he will not come close defensively.

[Jeffrey]

Andre, Miles and Mason are pretty interchangable and need to see the most minutes.

How is Andre "pretty interchangable" with Miles and Mason?

[eightyearoldsdude]

This says a lot about Miles because the one problem with +/- numbers is that they don't adjust for the quality of the competition. Starters face the other team's starters, so it's harder (on average) to get a big positive.

[jv001]

How is Andre "pretty interchangable" with Miles and Mason?

Did you see the two lineups that were posted? Our big 3 of Kyle, Jon and Nolan will play the most minutes. Then Mason, Andre and Miles will be the players to fill out the lineup with most of the remaining minutes. Maybe I should have said it better. Go Duke!

[davekay1971]

I continue to believe that the loss of G and Elliot are extreme. We will be very lucky if Dawkins can consistently match their offensive production. It appears he will not come close defensively.

It's not realistic (or fair) to expect or hope for Andre to match or make up for the loss of G and Elliot. That's not his role. He gives us a very productive offensive option and he'll improve his defense as the season goes on. Good enough. Any team would be better with G and Elliot, including us this year. They're not here, but we've still got a good team that is trying to improve for the ACC season and March. Good enough.

[Jeffrey]

It's not realistic (or fair) to expect or hope for Andre to match or make up for the loss of G and Elliot. That's not his role. He gives us a very productive offensive option and he'll improve his defense as the season goes on. Good enough. Any team would be better with G and Elliot, including us this year. They're not here, but we've still got a good team that is trying to improve for the ACC season and March. Good enough.

I'm not trying to be critical of Andre. He will be a very good Duke player and we're very fortunate he came a year early. His D will definitely improve... it must for him to get the PT he desires and he has the potential to play significantly better D.

My statements are in regards to my on-going discussion with Jumbo (since he is the OP) as to whether this year's team is championship level.

[Edouble]

Once Mason gets up to speed I think you'll enjoy Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Mason, as much or more than Scheyer-Smith-Dawkins-Singler-Miles.

I was thinking of that line-up too actually at the time of my post. It was approaching 3 in the morning and I decided not to go into more detail. You're right, though, that is a promising grouping.

I also like Scheyer-Dawkins-Singler-Miles-Mason. I am not as big on Nolan as some, and this line-up gives us a ton of height and some great three point shooting and rebounding. The defense definitely drops off w/out Nolan, but I like this as an offsensive "nail-in-the-coffin" lineup, say for the last two minutes of the first half of a game where we are up by 6 or 8 points and we want to extend a quick lead of 10-12 by half time to really make the other team think/worry in the locker room.

[Jumbo]

I'm not trying to be critical of Andre. He will be a very good Duke player and we're very fortunate he came a year early. His D will definitely improve... it must for him to get the PT he desires and he has the potential to play significantly better D.

My statements are in regards to my on-going discussion with Jumbo (since he is the OP) as to whether this year's team is championship level.

Huh? What do this game's plus/minus ratings have to do with whether the team is "championship level," let alone any "ongoing" conversations you seem to think we're having? And why on Earth is it necessary for Andre to "replace" Henderson and Williams? Every team loses players every year. They are replaced by other players improving and multiple new players joining a program.

[jv001]

I'm not trying to be critical of Andre. He will be a very good Duke player and we're very fortunate he came a year early. His D will definitely improve... it must for him to get the PT he desires and he has the potential to play significantly better D.

My statements are in regards to my on-going discussion with Jumbo (since he is the OP) as to whether this year's team is championship level.

So you don't think this team is capable of winning the ACC Regular season Championship or the ACC Tournament? I beg to differ because this team has some good players and a HOF Coach. So if you're taking the negative in your discussion with Jumbo, you're in serious doo-doo. Go Duke!

[Jeffrey]

Huh? What do this game's plus/minus ratings have to do with whether the team is "championship level," let alone any "ongoing" conversations you seem to think we're having?

My original post on this thread was continuing the discussion of our best lineup:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=338609&postcount=8

This is similar to a conversation you & I have had regarding this year versus last year's lineup:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=322530&postcount=148

That discussion started with our difference of opinion of whether this year's team has a realistic chance of winning a national title:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=322082&postcount=113

[Jeffrey]

So you don't think this team is capable of winning the ACC Regular season Championship or the ACC Tournament? I beg to differ because this team has some good players and a HOF Coach. So if you're taking the negative in your discussion with Jumbo, you're in serious doo-doo. Go Duke!

In his words....


.........compete for a championship -- the biggest one.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Just to get your juices flowing...

From what Iv'e seen to this point in the season. I'll take Wear, Wear, Henson, Strickland and Watts and give any Duke team you want to put on the floor a good run. :)

[NSDukeFan]

Just to get your juices flowing...

From what Iv'e seen to this point in the season. I'll take Wear, Wear, Henson, Strickland and Watts and give any Duke team you want to put on the floor a good run. :)

I'll take Ryan Kelly, Olek Czyz, Mason Plumlee, Andre Dawkins and Jordan Davidson and give you a great run. :p

[Hermy-own]

This first lineup was clearly our best tonight, both by the numbers and just in watching the game. The second lineup is the one that many projected to be out best in the preseason. It's an interesting sign (either good or bad, depending on how you look at it) that one game in, it's already up so high.

In my opinion, and I think many other's around here, these are going to be the best two lineups for the bulk of the season.

You are probably right. Personally, I much prefer the
Sheyer-Singler-Smith-Mason-Miles to
Dawkins-Sheyer-Singler-Smith-Mason/Miles

Because going small is very dangerous. Going small can produce large runs, large leads, and occasionally lock down defense because our players will be quicker than theirs. The flip side is that when we go small, the opposing teams often gain confidence, especially once our small lineup is on the floor for a long time. They start pounding the ball on us and wearing us down. Basically, my feeling is that a small lineup is high risk, high reward, and being small is exactly the achilles heel that the Duke teams of the past couple years have had.

On the other hand, a lineup with 2 guards, an ACCPOY SF, and two tall athletic inside men, is perfectly balanced and hard to beat. It is also a perfect arrangement for our bench, so that Dawkins can sub for the 3 S's, while Zoub and Thomas both get respectable playing time subbing for the Plumlees.

One quick addition: Wheat, you are delirious. The lineup you proposed would be blown out by a number of Duke lineups. You are far, far overconfident after one good game by UNC and one loss by Duke.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

One quick addition: Wheat, you are delirious. The lineup you proposed would be blown out by a number of Duke lineups. You are far, far overconfident after one good game by UNC and one loss by Duke.

It's all about matchups.

Wears matched up against Plumlees in the post?...from what I've seen Wears more fundamentally sound.

Henson against Singlar? That length/quickness of Henson's is hard to deal with.

Strickland against Scheyer? We know how Scheyer struggles with the really quick guards.

Watts and Nolan? Hmmmmm....

Just jerking around here on a slow night. Of course Duke's best starting five would have a big advantage. But it wouldn't be as easy as you think.

[Jumbo]

It's all about matchups.

Wears matched up against Plumlees in the post?...from what I've seen Wears more fundamentally sound.

Henson against Singlar? That length/quickness of Henson's is hard to deal with.

Strickland against Scheyer? We know how Scheyer struggles with the really quick guards.

Watts and Nolan? Hmmmmm....

Just jerking around here on a slow night. Of course Duke's best starting five would have a big advantage. But it wouldn't be as easy as you think.

Wheat, I love you man, and we've known each other a while, but this is the wrong time, in the wrong thread, and some really, really wrong analysis. Like, as wrong as I've seen you since the Bersticker days.
(BTW, ask Ty Lawson how Scheyer does against quick guards, or do you not remember the 24 points, 7-for-7 shooting, 5 assists, 4 steals, 3 boards and 0 turnovers he put on Ty in Chapel Hill last March?)

[BlueintheFace]

Wheat, I know the quality commentary you bring to this board but...

Is it possible the Michigan St. win has you a little bit higher on the horse than you should be? Do you think you will feel comfortable saying these things in a few weeks?

[CDu]

Just to get your juices flowing...

From what Iv'e seen to this point in the season. I'll take Wear, Wear, Henson, Strickland and Watts and give any Duke team you want to put on the floor a good run. :)

I understand what you're trying to say, but that UNC five would get absolutely pounded by Duke. It wouldn't be close. You'd have no one to provide any consistent offense. Strickland has had one decent game, but he hasn't come close to showing the ability to consistently lead/carry an offense. And none of the other four have shown even the slightest ability to create offense for themselves at this point. The Wears can hit open jumpshots and don't make a lot of mistakes as bit-part players, but they are not impact players. Henson's game, as you've noted, is still not ready for prime time. And Watts is just an energy guy.

Over a 40-minute game, I'd guess we'd win that matchup by 30+ points. Your five might be able to hold us to 65-70 points (emphasis on "might"), but you'd have trouble scoring 40 with that group right now against Duke. I think you're seriously overrating your role players and perhaps you're a bit high off the struggles Duke had the other night.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat, I know the quality commentary you bring to this board but...

Is it possible the Michigan St. win has you a little bit higher on the horse than you should be? Do you think you will feel comfortable saying these things in a few weeks?

Sorry if the post came across as a high horse thing..

But yes, I am very comfortable with the quality of UNC's front court against any team I've seen so far this year. You guys know that I believe the best ball is played inside out, not outside in. And I'm happy that this UNC team seems to understand that. They are looking inside every trip down as first option if the break is not there.

I was just having a little fun on a slow night with a thread talking about line ups. Just trying to stimulate a little conversation , ya know?
And I thought this thread was as good a place as any to talk players and lineups...no way I open up a new UNC player thread :)

In all seriousness....

Everybody, including me, knows I missed on Bersticker. He turned out to be a poor mans Josh McRoberts. In my defense, it's hard to get inside a kids head from a keyboard. He had really nice skills for a 6'11" kid, but not the work ethic to use them. One bad miss in 15 years I'll always have to live with around here :)

So here's the next deal that many of you are likely to challenge me on...

The Wear kids are very good players. Very good players.

I've probably focused on them when they are on the floor more than any other players with the possible exception of Henson because I had never seen them before the season started. I am impressed.

I would absolutly match those two up with the Plumlees at this point and feel confident in their play. The Plumblee boys have one advantage at this time, they are more athletic than the Wear boys. (It is ok if I say that about 2 white players right? ;) But the Wear boys do everything pretty darn well on the floor as freshmen. Plumlees are not as fundamentally sound at this point.

I really can't recall any freshmen big men that came right in at UNC and hit the floor with a more well rounded game than the Wear two. And keep in mind they are 6'10, 235lbs when you watch them. I find myself forgetting just how big they are watching them because they are so active and mobile, along with the fact that they are often out there with 7'0" and a long 6'10" (Zeller,Henson) who are quicker.

Now don't get me wrong here. I really like Miles Plumlee's game. He has a great upside. And he has an NBA body. I like his aggressiveness and he has the hands he needs to have, which is the back breaker if a player does not have them. He's getting better and better. He just needs to get more comfortable with his passing, his D, and his ball handling, specifically putting it on the floor.

Mason? I need to see more of him, but ten minutes was enough to see he belongs out there.

One last thought...

Henson.... The out of bounds play where he reached on the run, falling out of bounds, and threw it back in play between his legs got my attention.

Not so much from the athleticism it took for a 6'10" player to do that, but from the fact that he mentally saw that opportunity unfold and had the confidence to attempt it and succeeded. He's got a lot of work to do on his game, but he's one of those athletic "freak" type players.

[CDu]

So here's the next deal that many of you are likely to challenge me on...

The Wear kids are very good players. Very good players.

Here's the problem with the extension you're making. The Wears are fundamentally sound players. They hit their shots when open. They make the right passes when available. They don't force things. They don't look horrible defensively. They get in the right spots on the floor. And when they're playing with guys like Drew (who has really improved so far this year), Davis, and Thompson, they can be useful sometimes. But playing alongside much better players has helped to hide their weaknesses. They aren't being asked to do anything but fill minutes, they aren't being put in position to make mistakes.

Where you went wrong in this discussion is suggesting that a group of fundamentally sound role players (the Wears and Watts) can compete with an elite team without substantial star power around them. They simply can't (at least not yet for the Wears, and probably never for Watts). And right now, neither Strickland nor Henson have shown that they're ready to be that star power at the ACC level.

The Wears have been useful in 5-10 minute roles as the 4th/5th man on the court with much better players doing the heavy lifting. But they are periphery players at this point. Watts is even more of a periphery player. Henson and Strickland certainly have talent (I think Henson will become a force if he stays around long enough to get it), but they are far from ready to do the heavy lifting offensively for those other three. And that team just isn't going to be close to competing with a team as good as Duke.

Luckily for you, Roy knows this and will play Davis, Thompson, Ginyard, and Drew 25-30 minutes, and Zeller ~20 minutes, and we will see limited minutes from the Wears and Watts.

[UrinalCake]

We really need to organize a two-on-two match between these guys. Can someone make this happen?