Plumlees vs. Lance and Zoubs

[hq2]

Now that we're about 10 games into the season, the LBS game should get us to think about all this a bit more. I think there have been two misconceptions that a lot of us have labored under, (including me) that appear to have been wrong.

1. The Plumlees were going to come in and tear up the league, providing rebounding, defense, and great low post scoring.

2. Lance and Zoubs were senior write-offs, players who never amounted to much, playing out the string on their college careers.

At this juncture, both assumptions appear to have been wrong. Although the Plumlees have been quite effective in rebounding and defense, neither has shown any consistent low post offensive play. Conversely, Zoubs has hit a number of shots under the basket, while Lance has developed a late-in-the-career jump shot (see Brian Davis and Dahntay Jones) that appears to be useable, at least when he's open.

Now. At some point, you have to say, what do we have, and what can we expect? I know a lot of you still expect the Plumlees to be major contributors by season's end. However, at this point, I think history should show that probably isn't going to happen. When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, (except G man, who snuck in under the radar a year early). Of those players, all of whom went on to be All-Americans, not one of them averaged more than 8 points a game as freshmen except Gminski, and he played for a bad team (without Tate Armstrong) with no bench.

Those were the best. More recently (and maybe representatively) we have Shavlik Randolph, Chris Burgess, and Josh McRoberts. All three were highly rated, two were busts at Duke, and the third didn't stay long enough to really achieve his potential (McRoberts; Burgess was done by his sophomore year.) All of them, for that matter, appeared to at the outset, be equal to
or better than the Plumlees. So, if history is any indication, expecting great things this year from MP1 or MP2 is too much; even if they go on to be All Americas, they aren't quite ready to do it this year.

So. The answer, I believe is just use what we've got. What we have are four incomplete post players, each with different strengths and weaknesses.
It's going to be up to K to figure out how to use them all to get the most production out of the 4 and 5 (and maybe 3 with Lance) positions. That, IMHO, would mean about 20 minutes a game for each, +-5 and/or minutes
for RK. By moving the players in and out, K can use depth to replace ability.
Keeping fresh legs in the post, will mean more rebounds and better defense, and more easy scoring opportunities against tired defenders. K can also use each player's abilities according to the matchups. Since we have pretty good scoring from the 1, 2, and 3 spots, that may be all we need. What do people think?

[Devilsfan]

Like a great Shakespearian play, Zoub was our (the fans) comic relief four three years but I have to admit he has seemed to transform into quite a sweet basketball player this year. By far he and Lance have out preformed Plum one and Plum two. Plum two seems lost out there at times and on one specific play last night he didn't seem to have the strength to finish at point blank range. I thought I'd never say this but I'm becoming a fan of #55. We might go far into March if this continues and we don't run into a team that runs extremely well and forces us to get back on D in a hurray. I hope we get the luck of the draw because we can play half court with anybody, imo.

[Mcluhan]

Lance and Zoubs are currently playing better. The Plumlees will get their opportunities. Matchup issues with various teams are a variable. Nice to have all four of them. Not sure how much else there is to discuss, though I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

[jimsumner]

With all due respect, you might want to revisit Laettner's freshman season. It really doesn't support your position.

None of the others do, either but Laettner is an especially egregrious misreading.

[rthomas]

I say let coaches coach and players play. Everybody else sit back and watch.

When someone becomes coach K, I'll listen. Until then........

[ricks68]

First of all, kudos to Hq2 for some interesting points of discussion and some well-presented opinions---even if there are some valid points of contention.

For years and years I have read on the boards how some new guy is going to tear it up for us the first year and lead us to the championship. All posters should be required to read Throaty's list before even thinking about posting the hint of a possibility of such a rare occurrence. While it certainly can happen, I believe that it just seems overblown so often that it detracts from the normal reasonable discussions on the boards.

It never ceases to amaze me how such a supposedly knowledgeable fan base here on the DBR boards consistently repeats this kind of stuff. Duke basketball is team basketball. Even the most talented players have to learn to play with the other players to achieve maximum potential for winning.

What I constantly read on these boards is no different than fans that think the quarterback is bad because he gets sacked all the time because the line play is terrible and he gets no time to throw the ball, or the running back is no good because the line doesn't give him any holes to run through.

Haven't you noticed the comments every year by Coach K about the maturity and development of the new players by the end of the regular season? He usually points out during post game interviews that such-and-such a first year player should really be considered a sophmore since he has completed a season with the team. Do you ever think what kind of a point he is trying to make when he says that?

If you watch the plays as they develop and note how players get in position to receive a pass from Jon for another successful assist, you may understand what I am alluding to. Or, maybe you will note that Jon knows just where that player is going to be so that he can pass the ball to him at just the right time. And if you are really observant, you may see how another player sets a pick in a completely different area of the court so that the scoring player can get to that spot where Jon knows he will end up. The team is coached that way, and the only way to be able to pull all of that stuff off, is for the players to play together alot, and be "coachable." Just raw talent doesn't cut it. I believe two examples of this were Memphis under Calamari and "The Fab Five" of Michigan with an inexperienced time out call.

Look at the big jump in Plumlee I's play after last year. That should happen with Plumlee II. Another thing to watch out for is: while Andre is a great shooter at this point in the season, he will hopefully make a big jump defensively by the beginning of next season and, therefore, be more of an asset to the team. Coach K substitutes for a purpose. The emphasis on defense is just where Coach K believes it's supposed to be. Remember, if the other team can't score, you cannot lose----even if you have less than ideal firepower on your side.

So, maybe the best that the experienced posters can do is to try to somehow limit the "rah-rah" posters from getting out of hand a lot of the time. Or, maybe a test on the Stickies before they can post. With the addition of so many new posters repeating the same old worn-out cliche's, it takes me hours and hours of valuable wasted time reading the boards every day instead of just a few hours a day. ;) (I wish I was kidding on this point, but I'm not. For the newbies: a member's post count is not necesarily reflective of their years spent on the boards.):D

ricks

[Dukeford]

I agree that there is quite a bit of inconsistency right now, but I love watching Miles block shots way up above the rim. To quote an oft used saying, that's something you can't teach.

When the last time we saw that at Duke? Even the landlord did all of his shot blocking below the rim.

[Wander]

To me, there's no need to group Lance and Z together, as they're completely different. I've slowly become a fan of Zoubek as an efficient offensive player, excellent rebounder and a guy who bothers opposing players on defense with his size. On the other hand, I still feel Lance does not bring enough to the offensive side of the game to warrant being higher than a role player for a team with Final Four hopes, defensive versatility aside.

I'm still excited about what the Plumlees can do for us by season's end. They bring a dose of - wait for it - athleticism that will I hope give Duke its first really complete lineup since 2004. There are plenty of recent examples of big guys who have contributed very early in their career that make me think this is possible - like Kyle Singler and Trevor Booker. I'm not guaranteeing they'll pan out this year, but I think you're being a bit quick to dismiss them based on November/December games, particularly when one of them was injured for most of that time period and the other actually has better season averages so far than Lance.

[Kedsy]

Now. At some point, you have to say, what do we have, and what can we expect? I know a lot of you still expect the Plumlees to be major contributors by season's end. However, at this point, I think history should show that probably isn't going to happen. When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, (except G man, who snuck in under the radar a year early). Of those players, all of whom went on to be All-Americans, not one of them averaged more than 8 points a game as freshmen except Gminski, and he played for a bad team (without Tate Armstrong) with no bench.

In my opinion there is a problem with your analysis. The problem is not that fans have distorted expectations regarding the contributions of "highly recruited" players, but rather that they have distorted expectations of what statistics can be said to be "major" contributions.

You named four Duke big men from days of yore as examples of less-than-major contributors, and said we should examine their careers, so I did. Gminski averaged 15 ppg and 11 rpg his freshman year. That rebounding average would have led the ACC in 2008-09, not to mention that he averaged a solid double-double. Laettner averaged 8.9 ppg and 4.7 rpg his freshman year (in only 17 minutes). I couldn't find league stats for 1988-89, but in 2008-09, in the entire ACC, there were only 23 players that topped both those numbers. Ferry averaged 5.9 ppg and 5.5 rpg (on a senior dominated national championship game team). His rebounding average would have been 23rd in the 2008-09 ACC. Even Parks, who played on an upperclassman dominated national champion, had 15.6 points per 40 minutes, along with 7.5 rebounds per 40 and 3.1 blocks per 40.

One could argue Parks (whose actual averages were 5.0 and 2.5) was not a major contributor as a freshman, but based on his per 40 numbers he was certainly contributing while he was on the court. Freshmen tend to play a lot fewer minutes than seniors. But even if we can discount Parks, the other three were certainly major contributors based on their actual stats and not just per 40. They weren't averaging 15 and 10 (well, Gminski was), but just because they weren't all-ACC doesn't mean they didn't contribute.

This year, Miles Plumlee averages 7.7 ppg and 6.4 rpg (18th in ACC in rebounding, which has to mean he's a major contributor, doesn't it?). His per 40 numbers are 16.1 pp40, 13.4 rp40, and 3.1 block per 40. Mason is still coming back from an injury, but his per 40 numbers are 11.9 pp40, 7.8 rp40, 4.4 assists per 40, and 1.7 blocks per 40. Similar to Parks he is contributing but not playing a lot of minutes yet.

So, while I would agree there are unrealistic expectations with regard to our young bigs, I think the unrealistic part is not in expecting these players to contribute, but in defining a reasonable measure of that contribution.

[hq2]

Which is precisely the point I was making (and note that I did point out that
Gminski was an exception, but that team (whom I saw repeatedly because I had season tickets that year) had no bench and little other reliable scoring besides Spanarkel). You need to have realistic expectations as to what players can do at this point in their careers. It takes time for big men to develop. To mention Laettner (see above), the Georgetown 22-point game aside, Laettner did not average double figures as a freshman, and shot mostly layups because Danny Ferry drew most of the defenders. He did not have a good low post game that year either. A lot of these kids are still just growing into their bodies, and don't really know what they can do yet. They need some time to get adjusted and learn their capabilities.

And the same goes for the Plumlees as well. They simply need some time to develop and grow into their abilities. In terms of athletic abilitiy, MP1 IMHO is the equal of Chris Burgess, and MP2 the equal of Cherokee Parks, but they still need to learn what they can do. Expecting them to somehow step in and produce double-doubles at this point in their careers is simply not realistic. We need to accept what they can do, not expect more than that, and get contributions from Lance and Zoubs to fill things out some.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, (except G man, who snuck in under the radar a year early). Of those players, all of whom went on to be All-Americans, not one of them averaged more than 8 points a game as freshmen except Gminski, and he played for a bad team (without Tate Armstrong) with no bench.



Your recollection of Cherokee Parks' career at Duke is different from mine. As I recall, the only All-America team that included him was McDonald's in 1991 (when he was in high school). He was second team All-ACC at Duke ... not an All-American.

[miramar]

With all due respect, you might want to revisit Laettner's freshman season. It really doesn't support your position.


I think Alonzo Mourning will back Jim up on that one.

[jimsumner]

" I know a lot of you still expect the Plumlees to be major contributors by season's end. However, at this point, I think history should show that probably isn't going to happen. When we examine the careers of similar earlier Duke players, the best ones would be Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks, Mike Gminski, and Danny Ferry, all of whom were of similar size and came in highly recruited, "

Let's examine this section. For the life of me, I can't imagine why these four guys are the best analogs to the Plumlees. For one thing, Miles Plumlee was the consensus #81 player in his class. Ferry was #1, Parks top 5, Laettner top 15. Similar size? So was Todd Anderson. Why not Greg Newton? Or Crawford Palmer? Or Eric Meek?

Not to mention that Miles Plumlee is a sophomore.

Mike Gminski's competition at center was Scott Goetsch and Cameron Hall. Put Miles back in a time machine to 1977 and have him replace Gminski. Think he'd sit on the bench behind Goetsch?

Ferry started early at Duke because Bilas was recovering from knee surgery. As Bilas got stronger, Ferry went to the bench but played a lot. So, where's the comparison to Mason?

As a freshman, Parks backed up a senior by the name of Laettner. So, there goes your starting spot. K did play the two side-by-side on occasion but Grant Hill and Tony Lang played much of the time at the 4, with Brian Davis at the 3. No offense to Lance, but those comparisons to Grant Hill aren't too common.

But Laettner is the exact opposite if your hypothesis. He hardly played early, backing up two future first-rounders, Danny Ferry and Alaa Abdelnaby. But what you say won't happen with the Plumlees did happen with Laettner. He got better. And better.

By the end of the season he had put Abdelnaby on the bench. He had 15 points and 7 rebounds in the ACC Tournament title game against UNC (J.R. Reid, Scott Williams, Pete Chilcutt). He then scored 60 points in the four East Region games, including that 24 and 9 performance Mourning and the Hoyas. He ended his freshman season with 13 points against Seton Hall, despite being in foul trouble most of the game.

He ended the season averaging 8.9 ppg, which is more than 8 and shot over 70% from the field. So, how does Laettner averaging 14.6 ppg in five NCAA Tournament games support the thesis that the Plumlees can't get any better over the course of the season?

[hq2]

A number of points to address about all this. First of all, with regard to Laettner. Yes, at the end of the season he had benched Abelnaby. But Laettner was a better shooter than either of the Plumlees; he came out of high school a good shooter, and still was not a good low post player as a freshman. Laettner scored 22 points against Alonzo and Dikembe because they were too busy trying to stop Ferry, so Laettner kept getting open on the baseline.

Secondly, with regard to my choice of players for comparison. I was trying to find the best players to compare the Plumlees to, to say what could the Plumlees realistically do, at best. I didn't even bother with the ones we know who didn't do much; Crawford Palmer, Joey Beard, Burgess, Greg Newton, Clay Buckley, Shav Randolph, McRoberts (well, he was O.K. but still underachieved), Eric Meek, who didn't do anything at all as a freshman (although he was injured some then) and not much as a sophomore, Marty Nessly, (!!!) George Burgin, etc. Some of those (Burgess and McRoberts in particular) would probably be better comparisons, because they were great athletes with somewhat limited basketball skills. The point is, even at the best, the future All-Americas were still limited as freshman. Most of the other players did even less.

Third, with regard to their statistics. The Plumlee's per 40 minutes production looks impressive, until you see who they did it against; namely lousy teams with short or mediocre low post players. Against teams with respectable big men (Uconn, Arizona State, Wisconsin) they have been able to do little or nothing on offense besides layups and tip-ins. Shav Randolph had a 26 point game early in his freshman year, and disappeared later on against quality comp.

Finally with regard to development. No question, they'll get better; these kinds of players (usually, Burgess) do. But that's not saying they'll be getting 15 points boards and 10 points each by the end of the season. I'd say 7 and 5 each is more in line with expectations; and more in line with history.

[jimsumner]

"Secondly, with regard to my choice of players for comparison. I was trying to find the best players to compare the Plumlees to, to say what could the Plumlees realistically do, at best"

Then why use the word "similar?" Your word, not mine. Again, why compare Miles Plumlee to Danny Ferry? How were their reputations similar coming out of high school?

You used four players to support your thesis that Duke shouldn't expect significant improvement this season from the Plumlees. You seem to ignore context. None of these four examples support your argument and Laettner could not be a better example of the contrary.

If I were trying to make the point that freshmen couldn't make big shots in the NCAA Tournament, I wouldn't use Michael Jordan to support that point.

Players, even freshmen improve over the course of a season. Look at Shavlik Randolph and Shelden Williams at the beginning of their freshmen seasons and at the end of their freshmen seasons. One could cite season stats to demonstrate that Randolph had a better freshman season than Williams. But that would ignore in-season advances and declines.

Numerous other examples exist. The idea that the Plumlees, especially the one who BROKE HIS WRIST-cannot get better over the next three months is nonsense. IMO.

[mgtr]

I think that we are in an excellent position. We have two seniors who have improved and can play significant minutes. Then we have two brothers who can develop and also play significant minutes, but upon whom we need not rely exclusively while they develop. How great is that? I am pleased with most aspects of the Duke team this year.

[Tim1515]

I was surprised before the season that people thought Miles and Mason would be a force on offense in the post. Miles has built himself into more of a post option but Mason himself said he didn't view himself or have any intentions fo being a banger inside.

IMO Mason looks like a freshman on the court. His injury time didn't help but he looks an awful lot like McRobert's did as a freshman. Since both Miles and Mason will see their playing time jump significantly next year...i expect their confidence and production will jump also.

[SupaDave]

I think that we are in an excellent position. We have two seniors who have improved and can play significant minutes. Then we have two brothers who can develop and also play significant minutes, but upon whom we need not rely exclusively while they develop. How great is that? I am pleased with most aspects of the Duke team this year.

Exactly. As Jim has stated - the Plumlees are no Ferry/Laetner's but they are contributing. Not to mention their potential is tremendous - once they get it.

You have to remember that things are situational and Coach K will lean on the players that know the system more.

Honestly, ALL four players will continue to improve throughout the season as the TEAM grows and learns. There just so happens to be two that could turn into absolute monsters if things come together - and even that takes time.

So let's not try to minimize anyone's contributions just yet. The ACC starts soon...

[jimsumner]

Over the years, Mike Krzyzewski has demonstrated a considerable willingness to change lineups and rotations, depending on what happens during games, what happens during practices, matchups and other variables. All we have to do is look at last season, when he benched a three-year starter at point guard and followed up by tripling the PT of a freshman reserve-turned starter partly on the basis of improved practice performances.

Greg Paulus and Elliott Williams were not outliers. Krzyzewski does this sort of thing all the time. So, the idea that players are locked into permanent roles at the end of December simply doesn't hold water.

[hq2]

Well, we agree on that anyway. One of K's great strengths as a coach has always been his ability to use the players' abilities as they are. He designs the offense around what they can do, rather than forcing them to fit the system. He'll get his mileage out of all four. The Plumlees will run the floor both ways, Zoubs will plug up the middle, Lance will get some jumpers. If we can get, say 20-25 points combined from all four each game, I think that would be enough.

[jimsumner]

hq2, I think we agree on lots of things. Many of Duke's best players have had modest freshmen seasons before becoming greats. We could add Shane Battier, Shelden Williams, and many others to Laettner, Ferry and Parks. I also agree that fans tend to overvalue newcomers and undervalue veterans.

My points are that improvement can take place during a season and that individual roles can expand or contract during the season. So, imo, it's way too early to assume that we know what Plumlee, Plumlee, Kelly and Dawkins are going to do as the season progresses.

[chrisheery]

Oddly, I don't think we have ever had guys quite like the Brothers Plumlee. I think they are quite unique (even though there are two of them who are somewhat similar).

More similar players would be guys like:
David Lee (Florida)
Drew Gooden (Kansas)
Kenyon Martin (Cinn.)

These guys have similar athletic abilities and skills to our new big guys. Would Miles and Mason improve more rapidly if they played all the time until they fouled out or figured it out? Yes, probably. But, we have two guys who have put in their time in Zoubek and Lance and have both made huge strides to be the contributers that they are. It wouldn't be fair to them or the rest of the team to let everyone struggle so these guys can learn on the job. That said, tonight will be a good chance for them to work on some things. Particularly, sealing a defender to ask for a post entry feed, awareness on offense to find an open spot to recieve a dump off pass when a teammate is driving, and help defense.

Also, I agree that it was odd to think that either of them would become huge post threats right away, but the idea that one has to be a "banger" to be a post player is incorrect. Hakeem Olajuwon was one of the best post players I have ever seen and was in no way a "banger." Understanding how you are being played, composure, and a few consisetent post moves can make a guy with their talents look like studs. It would all start with making a jump hook on the catch with no dribble or wasted movement. Then, the next time, you have that option or the pump fake, followed by an up-and-under, drive by, or reverse to the opposite hand. Elton and Carlos knew how to do this and they happened to be bangers, but you don't have to be overpowering to do any of these things. Just ask Ed Davis.

So, back to the original point, both of them can improve, but they will need some game experience to understand what will work in real game action. They need to maintain confidence to try new things, and I hope we let them have that chance. Tonight, and in more difficult games.

[jpfrizzle]

Keep up the great work guys!!!

[Johnboy]

. . . I couldn't find league stats for 1988-89 . . .

I think there are other places to find them, but when I need ACC stats from 2002 or earlier, there's no place like Charlie Board (http://www.sportsstats.com/bball/).

For example, here (http://www.sportsstats.com/bball/leader.lists/index.html) are the all time ACC leaders in various categories.

[airowe]

I'm wondering if some of the shotblocking prowess of the Plumlee Brothers has rubbed off on Z. He looks to swat almost every shot taken near him.

Of course, it could just be the beard...

[hsheffield]

that Zoubek played like a stud in the preseason of his freshman year?

It seems like until now, we've all been waiting for that player to re-surface.

I've been getting a huge kick out of Zoubek playing with confidence. Wonder sometimes if he was just thinking too much (I mean he is an academic all-american at Duke) or just plain tight in a game situation?

Regardless, if he can keep this up, we are looking MUCH better for the post-season IMHO.

(BTW, Plum1 has improved markedly compared to last year and Plum2 hasn't had a lot of playing time at this point so I think it's too early to tell)

[mgtr]

Oddly, I don't think we have ever had guys quite like the Brothers Plumlee. I think they are quite unique (even though there are two of them who are somewhat similar).

More similar players would be guys like:
David Lee (Florida)
Drew Gooden (Kansas)


I compare the Plumlees to David Lee, which is a good thing. He did well at UF, and he is doing well in the NBA. Keep improving, guys!

[Bob Green]

With 18 points and 7 rebounds, Mason Plumlee made a strong statement that he belongs in the starting line-up. I wouldn't be suprised to see Plumlee, Plumlee, Singler, Smith, and Scheyer as the starting five in the near future.

[hq2]

A little hard to say tonight against a pretty bad team. But nonetheless...
looking at the Plumlees, tonight showed what happens when you have two guys 6-10 and 6-11 who can run and jump like that. It doesn't matter that neither has developed a good post-up game. The sheer impact of them running up and down the floor, on the other team it's like being hit by a freight train. If they play like that, they can get their points off fast breaks, layups and tip ins, (a la Chris Burgess) and let our Triple S-and-Andre offense take care of the rest. They don't have to do anything else. Their impact will be all the more effective when you use Lance and Zoubs to keep their legs fresh; then, you can have them come off the bench and impact the other team multiple times in one game. If I'm on the other team, facing those two guys with fresh legs is a mighty scary prospect!

[chrisheery]

A little hard to say tonight against a pretty bad team. But nonetheless...
looking at the Plumlees, tonight showed what happens when you have two guys 6-10 and 6-11 who can run and jump like that. It doesn't matter that neither has developed a good post-up game. The sheer impact of them running up and down the floor, on the other team it's like being hit by a freight train. If they play like that, they can get their points off fast breaks, layups and tip ins, (a la Chris Burgess) and let our Triple S-and-Andre offense take care of the rest. They don't have to do anything else. Their impact will be all the more effective when you use Lance and Zoubs to keep their legs fresh; then, you can have them come off the bench and impact the other team multiple times in one game. If I'm on the other team, facing those two guys with fresh legs is a mighty scary prospect!

I just couldn't disagree with you more. This is the kind of thinking that prevents us from becoming a complete team. We can beat teams that aren't as good as us this way, but we need to have an inside threat to change the look for defenses when our perimeter players are shut down (which is how we have been eliminated from the last 3 NCAA tournaments). If they just show they can score from the block, they can draw double teams and keep the defense honest on the big three S's.

[hq2]

Yes, I agree it would be nice if either could be a good half court offensive low-post player. But until either of them develops that way, they're better off being deployed this way. Remember, in the half court set, there's still a lot they can do; set screens and picks, catch alley oops, shoot garbage buckets, hit free throws. Plus, there's the motion aspect; they can keep moving to make the other teams chase after them some, so they can get open for easy baskets. I agree, in a lock down, half court NCAA game, they could get in trouble; but nonetheless, for now, what they're doing is effective. Hopefully, one of them will step up the repertoire a little to help some on O in the close games.

[chrisheery]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but my point is that it must be a concerted effort to get them comfortable in that setting. Just hoping they expand their game by seasons end will not get the job done. It needs to be part of what we do each game to get better. I agree this is a good way to use them if our next game was our last, but we should be working toward a bigger goal than just winning each next game.

[SupaDave]

I just couldn't disagree with you more. This is the kind of thinking that prevents us from becoming a complete team. We can beat teams that aren't as good as us this way, but we need to have an inside threat to change the look for defenses when our perimeter players are shut down (which is how we have been eliminated from the last 3 NCAA tournaments). If they just show they can score from the block, they can draw double teams and keep the defense honest on the big three S's.

I've just GOT to stir this pot. Chris, can I just throw in the fact that Mason can play the point? This could change things altogether in a game where our perimeter players get "shut down"... So many scenarios.

[mapei]

In a basketball sense, I don't see a valid analysis either way for "the Plumlees." Miles is just as similar/dissimilar to Zoubs and Lance as he is to Mason, and likewise Mason may ultimately be just as similar to Singler in style (if not talent, time will tell) as he is to Miles. These are two different guys who have the same name but different basketball talents. It obscures understanding to group them as if they are an entity.

My basic take on who plays when and how among Miles/Lance/Zoubs/Mason is that it is a really, really nice problem to have. Sit back and enjoy.

[ncexnyc]

I might be missing something here, but wasn't the gist of the original post that Brian and Lance were viewed as afterthoughts entering this season?

You can disagree with the way the original poster tried to prove his point, but I believe his point was spot on.

As several others have said, it's great to have 4 solid bigs at this point in time. Let's enjoy this surplus of riches while we can and thrill in watching each of them slowly improve as the season progresses.

[1Devil]

With 18 points and 7 rebounds, Mason Plumlee made a strong statement that he belongs in the starting line-up. I wouldn't be suprised to see Plumlee, Plumlee, Singler, Smith, and Scheyer as the starting five in the near future.

FWIW, of dukeblueplanet's Top 5 plays for the Penn game, 4 were Mason highlights, and one was a Miles dunk (feed from Scheyer). Who chooses those top plays anyway?

[hq2]

As the original poster, I'll agree with the post before last. If all four continue to develop like this (although I'm not sure if Lance and Zoubs have any more upside at this point) we can indeed start considering a deep NCAA run this spring. It certainly is looking more plausible. One nice thing about all this is that I don't see there being any acrimony between any of them for P.T. At this stage, I think Zoubs and Lance are just glad they're good enough to still play, and know that there's no point in worrying about impressing the pros, because that isn't going to happen. (Or, very, very unlikely) The Plumlees, for their part, know they're still underclassmen and have a lot to learn, so they won't be getting upset about not getting enough minutes.

And chemistry does matter. Anybody who saw Carolina self-destruct in 1994 will attest that all the talent in the world won't matter if the players won't play together. We can be sure that Lance and Zoubs will dedicate their senior year to getting Duke to the final four, where it has not been during their tenure, and enjoy the last of their privileged years as Duke basketball players.

[Kedsy]

I was surprised before the season that people thought Miles and Mason would be a force on offense in the post. Miles has built himself into more of a post option but Mason himself said he didn't view himself or have any intentions fo being a banger inside.

IMO Mason looks like a freshman on the court. His injury time didn't help but he looks an awful lot like McRobert's did as a freshman. Since both Miles and Mason will see their playing time jump significantly next year...i expect their confidence and production will jump also.

McRoberts as a freshman was a starter, 3rd leading scorer, and 2nd leading rebounder on a team that was ACC champion (both regular season and tournament) and was 30-3 and the #1 team in the country going into the NCAA tourney. If Mason performs like that, I think we'll be OK.

[jv001]

With 18 points and 7 rebounds, Mason Plumlee made a strong statement that he belongs in the starting line-up. I wouldn't be suprised to see Plumlee, Plumlee, Singler, Smith, and Scheyer as the starting five in the near future.

I know it was against a real weak team, but the Plumlee brothers played an excellent game. I've got to agree with Bob if they keep it up, they will get starters minutes even if they don't start the game. Man, I'm excited in that we have the bigs to get the job done. We'll need them against Clemson. Go Duke!

[DukeVol]

Guys,

I hope I don't get killed for this, but I have been watching the Plumlee brothers closely on defense (and during rebounding opportunities) and have made an observation.

I think both the brothers elevate very well and are great "run and jumpers", but I think they are not nearly as explosive as standing jumpers. In fact, there have been some instances when they seem a little slow in collecting themselves prior to a standing jump for a block or rebound. Additionally, I've noticed a HUGE difference in the height of their jumps while running versus standing.

Contrast them to McRoberts who I always thought was very quick off his feet from a standing position (and consequently a good shot blocker in college). And Jarvis Varnado at Mississippi State who is a great shot blocker because of his timing and "quick" hops.

Am I just crazy or has anyone else seen this?

I may have noticed this more recently because we have played against undersized frontcourts who have scored some buckets against the Plumlee brothers that I thought for sure would be rejected.

Could one of the causes be the brothers' high jumping background (always running before jumping)?

Perhaps a confidence/aggressiveness issue for Mason as a frosh?

Your thoughts?

[moonpie23]

as i watch the plums, i see development in both of them. Miles is still ahead by virtue of knowing what to do, mason shows glimpses of overtaking mp1 by virtue of his physical attributes.

confidence is a major factor for both of them......i see miles READY for league play.....mason will be ready.....soon...

[Bob Green]

Man, I'm excited in that we have the bigs to get the job done. We'll need them against Clemson. Go Duke!

Our next three games represent a litmus test for our big men.

Clemson: Trevor Booker (6'7" 240) 14.8 pts/8.9 rebs, Devin Booker (6'8" 235) 5.6 pts/3.3 rebs, Jerai Grant (6'8" 220) 5.5 pts/3.8 rebs

Iowa State: Craig Brackins (6'10 230) 17.5 pts/8.1 rebs, LaRon Dendy (6'9" 225) 7.7 pts/3.3 rebs), Jamie Vanderbeken (6'11" 245) 4.6 pts/3.1 rebs

Georgia Tech: Gani Lawal (6'9" 234) 13.7 pts/9.7, Derrick Favors (6'10" 246) 12.9 pts/9 rbs, Zachery Peacock (6'8" 235) 9.6 pts/4.7 rebs

Each of these teams are teams whose leading scorer/best player is a big man and each of these teams have multiple inside options. We should have a much better understanding of how good our five big men are after this stretch of games.

[Devilsfan]

I agree. MP2 has made unbelievable progress in the last two games. Maybe it's how bad the Penn team was. He was totally lost against LBS. I think he needs a lot more strength to be a major factor in the ACC. What about R Kelly? I think he was the highest ranked of the freshmen. And don't these high schools have weight rooms? Shav needed to build up his strength at Duke also. On the very positive side, Zoub has all of a sudden become a basketball player against all competition not just the warm up D-3 pre-ACC teams.

[jv001]

Bob you are correct that our next several games will be a test for our "bigs". Clemson not only has the size, they have quickness as well. They will no doubt press us from start to finish. This game will be a test for our guards as well. We all know how we reacted to their press last year. Some how Clemson seems to play their best basketball against us. Even if they don't always win. I'm anxious to see how we do Sunday, as it may tell us how good this team is right now. Go Duke

[jimsumner]

"Just hoping they expand their game by seasons end will not get the job done."

Chris, do you really think the Duke coaching staff and the Plumlees are "just hoping" they get better?

[Greg_Newton]

"Just hoping they expand their game by seasons end will not get the job done."

Chris, do you really think the Duke coaching staff and the Plumlees are "just hoping" they get better?

If I'm not mistaken, the context of that comment was to argue that we should make a concerted effort in game situations to get them more comfortable and confident with making post moves, which I would also like to see us do more of. I'm sure coaches are working with them in practice, but applying what you've learned in game situations is a big part of the process... I was hoping we'd have a "no shots outside 12 feet" type of mentality once we were up 40+ against Penn. Our halfcourt offense is still almost entirely based on jump shooting, which really worries me... but that's a larger issue than our bigs and probably for another thread.

In response to the "quick jumper" post earlier, I don't think you're crazy - but I think what you're seeing is more a function of how good they are at jumping off of one foot, rather than them being slow jumping off of vertical. Remember, Miles does have a 36" standing vert, which is higher than any big guy drafted in the past 2 years. Mason does seem to be a little slower getting off the ground, but he's so long that he still gets way, way above the rim off vertical (see Penn highlights: http://www.youtube.com/user/DukeBluePlanet).

I also think they're still in the habit of gathering themselves to go up for a big block or dunk rather than getting in the correct position and jumping straight up, which is probably why they look like they take a lot of time to gather themselves sometimes. I think that's just as important for them to figure out as their post moves... if they start rotating quickly and effectively and trusting their length and athleticism to do the rest, we will be a hard team to score on.

[jimsumner]

"If I'm not mistaken, the context of that comment was to argue that we should make a concerted effort in game situations to get them more comfortable and confident with making post moves, which I would also like to see us do more of."
Doesn't really address my question. Is the Duke staff simply hoping for improvement? Or actively working for improvement? The post Im questioning implies a level of passivity that I think is unwarranted.


"Our halfcourt offense is still almost entirely based on jump shooting, which really worries me... "

When you have three first-team All-ACC caliber players starting at the three perimeter positions, you're going to take some jump shots. But Duke scored 46 points in the paint last night, 30 on three-pointers, 32 on foul shots. That leaves 6 on two-pointers outside the paint. Some of the points in the paint came in transition but so did some of the three-pointers.

In 70 minutes, Plumlee, Plumlee, Thomas and Zoubek attempted 20 field goals, none of them jump shots, IIRC, and 13 foul shots. How many more should they have taken?

More to the point, should Scheyer, Smith and Singler stop doing what they are doing at a high rate of success to force the ball into the post? This trio plus Dawkins attempted 37 field goals last night, compared to 20 for the bigs. Kelly took one outside, two inside.

That seems like a good ratio to me. I want Singler shooting more often than Thomas, Scheyer more often than Plumlee.

Duke also had 24 assists on 36 field goals. That also seems like a pretty good ratio to me. Many of those assists were passes from the perimeter into the post. Mason wasn't getting those dunks off lobs by himself. In fact, it seemed to be that getting Mason involved was a priority last night.

I do think there's every reason to expect Plumlee, Plumlee, Dawkins and Kelly to get better and a lot of that improvement will take place in practice. Then we'll see it in games.

Like it or not but players under K earn PT in practice. You do things in practice, then you do them in games. Not the other way around. I'm pretty sure the coaching staff doesn't see the efficacy of forcing the ball into the post to unprepared players.

So, get them prepared first. I think we're looking for the same goal but maybe not the same way to get there. Learning in practice and then transferring that knowledge into game situations is the order of the Duke universe.

[chrisheery]

Chris, do you really think the Duke coaching staff and the Plumlees are "just hoping" they get better?

That comment was in direct response to the person I was arguing the point with. Feel free to read it all in context and ask me again if it isn't clear.

[chrisheery]

Hopefully, one of them will step up the repertoire a little to help some on O in the close games.

This is what I was talking about.

[Hermy-own]

Doesn't really address my question. Is the Duke staff simply hoping for improvement? Or actively working for improvement? The post Im questioning implies a level of passivity that I think is unwarranted.



When you have three first-team All-ACC caliber players starting at the three perimeter positions, you're going to take some jump shots. But Duke scored 46 points in the paint last night, 30 on three-pointers, 32 on foul shots. That leaves 6 on two-pointers outside the paint. Some of the points in the paint came in transition but so did some of the three-pointers.

In 70 minutes, Plumlee, Plumlee, Thomas and Zoubek attempted 20 field goals, none of them jump shots, IIRC, and 13 foul shots. How many more should they have taken?

More to the point, should Scheyer, Smith and Singler stop doing what they are doing at a high rate of success to force the ball into the post? This trio plus Dawkins attempted 37 field goals last night, compared to 20 for the bigs. Kelly took one outside, two inside.

That seems like a good ratio to me. I want Singler shooting more often than Thomas, Scheyer more often than Plumlee.

Duke also had 24 assists on 36 field goals. That also seems like a pretty good ratio to me. Many of those assists were passes from the perimeter into the post. Mason wasn't getting those dunks off lobs by himself. In fact, it seemed to be that getting Mason involved was a priority last night.

I do think there's every reason to expect Plumlee, Plumlee, Dawkins and Kelly to get better and a lot of that improvement will take place in practice. Then we'll see it in games.

Like it or not but players under K earn PT in practice. You do things in practice, then you do them in games. Not the other way around. I'm pretty sure the coaching staff doesn't see the efficacy of forcing the ball into the post to unprepared players.

So, get them prepared first. I think we're looking for the same goal but maybe not the same way to get there. Learning in practice and then transferring that knowledge into game situations is the order of the Duke universe.


Everything you said was correct. If our game against Penn is representative of our future games, then we have a good ratio between jump shots vs post play. But as you said, we made a concerted effort that game to get Mason and all the other post players involved. When we get into an ACC game, then we'll see whether we turn into a jump shooting team.

[Greg_Newton]

So, get them prepared first. I think we're looking for the same goal but maybe not the same way to get there. Learning in practice and then transferring that knowledge into game situations is the order of the Duke universe.

I certainly agree with this... but I would argue that if the Plumlees have impressed K enough to warrant being named starters by K, they aren't exactly clueless down there. Miles in particular has shown a nice jump hook and touch around the basket, and Mason has been very effective facing up and attacking the basket. I don't know if we're disagreeing much, I just think that applying lessons to game situations is part of the improvement process, not just something that should begin after the fact.

As for the jump shooting debate... I don't think using the numbers from the Liberty game is all that useful. I would look at our more competitive games, like ASU and Wisconsin... in which our non-perimeter players attempted 7 and 8 shots, respectively.

But really, my main point isn't that our perimeter players should be shooting less - like you said, they're our best players - it's that I would like to see a little more diversity in how we get our shots in the halfcourt offense against good teams. We don't get many layups and chip shots, and we never really go at the rim...even most of our points off penetr ation are pull-up jumpers. This also means we don't get to the line much.

That's been okay so far, as it has through December in past seasons. The problem becomes, what do you do when thinks aren't clicking and running smoothly and you're playing against an equally talented team in a tough environment? We know all too well the swing-the-ball-around-the-perimeter-until-someone-gets-a-semi-open-18-20-foot-shot offense we tend to lapse into in those situations.

And IMO, Kyle is just as big of a key to those "gritty" points than our bigs, just because he has the tools right now to get them. He has the frame and skills to make a living at the line (a la 1994 Grant Hill), but it hasn't quite clicked yet. When he drives right now, he's pulling up or jumping away from his defender to get clean looks... I would much rather see him just hesitate for a second, make the smaller defender commit, then react by creating contact and going up through the defender. It might just be something as simple as taking two dribbles into the lane rather than one huge swooping dribble that leaves him completely committed to one path... but I think this is the key to him becoming a dominant go-to player for us and would really give our offense a little more dimension.

But like I said, that's a bigger issue than just our post play.:)

[hq2]

I'm a little more concerned about the other guys not getting to the rim also, especially Kyle, who has done what K said and played more outside. However, assuming they can use the Plumlees to get better screens and picks (Miles especially should set good ones), they could maybe work more pick and rolls with both of them.

In terms of big/small shot selection, I'm not convinced it really matters that much, as long as the shot variety is enough to keep the defense guessing. Remember, the 1990 Georgia Tech team went to the Final Four with basically 3 wing and outside players who did all the scoring, and the center, Malcolm Mackey, simply picking up the loose change. The 2001 Duke team made the Final Four without a good low post player (Boozer was injured until the Maryland game), but it's also worth pointing out that without him Duke would have lost that game. Realistically, when you examine this team, I'd say the Triple S's will get you 45-50 per game, and Andre gets you about 10. So assuming RK gets 3 or 4, you really only need about 20 a game from the Lance/Zoubs/Plumlees combo, or about 5 each, which is certainly doable.

The problem is going to come when maybe two of the three S's foul out or have a bad shooting game. Then, we'll have some serious scoring problems unless one or more Plumlees steps up inside. Without that happening, being a Final Four team could be very tough indeed.