More PT for Dre and Curry!!

[lumberbaron]

First of all, I want to make a concerted effort to get everyone to call Dre Dawkins, Dre. It's just cool.

Second of all, I love these guys. Deadly shooters, energy and great attitudes. I want to argue for both of them, especially Dre, to get more PT. He does not miss and all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game.

Plus is there any doubt that when the 2 of them are in the game we have the best looking baby-faced backcourt in the NCAA?

[Kedsy]

First of all, I want to make a concerted effort to get everyone to call Dre Dawkins, Dre. It's just cool.

Second of all, I love these guys. Deadly shooters, energy and great attitudes. I want to argue for both of them, especially Dre, to get more PT. He does not miss and all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game.

Plus is there any doubt that when the 2 of them are in the game we have the best looking baby-faced backcourt in the NCAA?

They both are already averaging 20+ minutes a game. Who do you think should play less while Andre and Seth "get more PT"?

[CLW]

Well they both logged in nearly 20 mins each last night. That is 1/2 the game both "Dre" and Curry were on the floor. Considering the other options at the #1 and #2 are Nolan and Kyrie I think their PT has been fine.

[Kedsy]

He does not miss and all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game.

Also, through the Marquette game Seth is only 8th on the team in +/- per 40, so your statement that "all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game" is not entirely accurate.

[lumberbaron]

Also, through the Marquette game Seth is only 8th on the team in +/- per 40, so your statement that "all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game" is not entirely accurate.

Sigh, stop plying with me factual evidence!! Did I not mention how dreamy looking they are? :)

Actually I would like to see the small lineup a bit more with Dre at the 3. That would get them both a bit more PT.

[Kedsy]

Sigh, stop plying with me factual evidence!! Did I not mention how dreamy looking they are? :)

Actually I would like to see the small lineup a bit more with Dre at the 3. That would get them both a bit more PT.

Personally, I'd prefer that Ryan's and Miles's minutes don't get squeezed out. I like using a big lineup for two-thirds of the game and the small lineup for 10 or 15 minutes to give us a burst of energy or depending on matchups. I'd also like to see Josh and Tyler get at least some time on the court. The "problem" is we have ten guys who are deserving of minutes and only so many minutes to go around. A good problem to have, to be sure, but one that gets complicated when asking for certain players to see more playing time.

If Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie get 30 minutes each, and Mason gets 25, that only leaves 85 minutes for Andre, Seth, Ryan, Miles, Josh, and Tyler. Looking at it today, if I were doling out minutes, I'd give 42 for Andre and Seth to share (about what they have now), 35 for Ryan and Miles to share, and 8 for Josh and Tyler to share. Obviously I'd change that depending on matchups and how the players practice, but overall I think Andre and Seth are currently pretty much exactly where I'd want them, minutewise.

[MChambers]

Personally, I'd prefer that Ryan's and Miles's minutes don't get squeezed out. I like using a big lineup for two-thirds of the game and the small lineup for 10 or 15 minutes to give us a burst of energy or depending on matchups. I'd also like to see Josh and Tyler get at least some time on the court. The "problem" is we have ten guys who are deserving of minutes and only so many minutes to go around. A good problem to have, to be sure, but one that gets complicated when asking for certain players to see more playing time.

If Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie get 30 minutes each, and Mason gets 25, that only leaves 85 minutes for Andre, Seth, Ryan, Miles, Josh, and Tyler. Looking at it today, if I were doling out minutes, I'd give 42 for Andre and Seth to share (about what they have now), 35 for Ryan and Miles to share, and 8 for Josh and Tyler to share. Obviously I'd change that depending on matchups and how the players practice, but overall I think Andre and Seth are currently pretty much exactly where I'd want them, minutewise.
I'd prefer an immediate NCAA rules change to 24 minute halves, because I think the quality of our top 8 players (and perhaps top 10) would wear other teams out and because I'd like to see more of this team.

[Kedsy]

I'd prefer an immediate NCAA rules change to 24 minute halves, because I think the quality of our top 8 players (and perhaps top 10) would wear other teams out and because I'd like to see more of this team.

Think we could petition the NCAA at this late date?

[arnie]

Think we could petition the NCAA at this late date?

And while we're at it, let's change the game to 7 on 7. Pretty sure our top 7 are far better than anyone else's 7 (of course then our depth is questionable since only 10 on scholarship).

[Rudy]

I'd prefer an immediate NCAA rules change to 24 minute halves, because I think the quality of our top 8 players (and perhaps top 10) would wear other teams out and because I'd like to see more of this team.
But only for this season. Everybody knows that Coach K doesn't develop his bench enough. :rolleyes:

[dbluedevil222]

I think that when one player is having a hot hand, he should stay in the game. On the other hand, if a player has gone cold, I wouldn't want him benched. For instance, Kyle or Nolan having an off-shooting night is no reason to put them on the bench. I was, however, disappointed with both of their decision-making during the Marquette game, and felt they should have played fewer minutes so K could remind them to use their heads a little better.

Dre sat out against KState because of fouls, but Seth didn't even see action until the 13 min mark. To me, it's not a question of who is better (Nolan vs Dre/Smith), but psychologically, it makes a big difference when your star player knows he needs to be at his best to stay on the court. Just because Kyle and Nolan are proven players doesn't mean they shouldn't feel the need to compete for PT. I say this as a rower where on any day you could be seat-raced out of your boat. Trust me, it really makes you bring your A game.... and I thought both of them (Kyle/Nolan) played awful (relative to their abilities) against Marquette.

[dball]

I was, however, disappointed with both of their decision-making during the Marquette game, and felt they should have played fewer minutes so K could remind them to use their heads a little better.

Just because Kyle and Nolan are proven players doesn't mean they shouldn't feel the need to compete for PT. .... and I thought both of them (Kyle/Nolan) played awful (relative to their abilities) against Marquette.

Pretty sure Kyle and Nolan know that minutes are not guaranteed. Awful? Really? The two senior leaders provided nearly 40% of the points and about 42% of the rebounds and both played well defensively. This in a career game for Mason.

[dukeimac]

Understand, Duke needs people to come off the bench. If that is them, so be it. Things might change if they play more minutes, maybe it suits them to come off the bench.

I like them too, a lot! But nobody is qualified to question Coach K and how he is running the show, ever.

He worked magic last year and this year is working magic again. No one should question Coach's thinking.

IN Coach K i trust, just site back and enjoy the ride.

[Saratoga2]

First of all, I want to make a concerted effort to get everyone to call Dre Dawkins, Dre. It's just cool.

Second of all, I love these guys. Deadly shooters, energy and great attitudes. I want to argue for both of them, especially Dre, to get more PT. He does not miss and all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game.

Plus is there any doubt that when the 2 of them are in the game we have the best looking baby-faced backcourt in the NCAA?

I will go on with his given name.

[Duke of Nashville]

First of all, I want to make a concerted effort to get everyone to call Dre Dawkins, Dre. It's just cool.

Second of all, I love these guys. Deadly shooters, energy and great attitudes. I want to argue for both of them, especially Dre, to get more PT. He does not miss and all we do is build leads when these guys are in the game.

Plus is there any doubt that when the 2 of them are in the game we have the best looking baby-faced backcourt in the NCAA?

We all love Dre and Curry and as one columnist wrote they're not shooters, they're snipers.

The 20 minutes plus a game they are both averaging seems about right to me. During the game last night a question was brought up to Seth about making the most out of the minutes available. Seth replied about the way you would expect, when he comes in the game he works hard, takes good shots, and applies defense.

I know we had a thread earlier in the year about who would be a "better" player this year Seth or Dre, but to me both of them have been equally impressive. K can sub these two in the game in almost any given situation. What I am looking forward to is watching the developement of these two players personalities. We have alot to learn from Curry and Dre.

[dbluedevil222]

Pretty sure Kyle and Nolan know that minutes are not guaranteed. Awful? Really? The two senior leaders provided nearly 40% of the points and about 42% of the rebounds and both played well defensively. This in a career game for Mason.

you say that as someone who looks at the box score for the sole measurement of someone's play. Nolan's turnovers were bad that game. Kyrie had several, but 3 of his came from slipping on the court (2), and one from having the ball bounce off his foot. Nolan's TOs were much worse, trying to dribble into 3 players, playing out of control, etc. He expects more from himself, and should have been reminded of it before the end of the game (see his post-game quotes). Yes, they played awful, relative to how good they are.

Yes, Single scored 14. But on 5-13 shooting. 2 of those misses were out of control tosses while surrounded by 4 players after driving into the paint.

My point was that Nolan and Kyle were not playing well. They weren't substituted out after back-to-back-to-back mistakes. Watch the bigs, when any of them get out-rebounded or turnover the ball on two back-to-back plays, they're immediately taken out of the game. I am voicing my opinion that with such a strong backcourt, I would hope to see the same line of thinking there as well

[BattierBattalion]

I think that when one player is having a hot hand, he should stay in the game. On the other hand, if a player has gone cold, I wouldn't want him benched. For instance, Kyle or Nolan having an off-shooting night is no reason to put them on the bench. I was, however, disappointed with both of their decision-making during the Marquette game, and felt they should have played fewer minutes so K could remind them to use their heads a little better.

The hot hand theory has been disproven. Just because a player is shooting well at one point in the game is not indicative how they'll shoot for the rest of the game.

It's like playing a board game. Say you roll a dice and get 3's four straight times. This is not statistically improbable. The chance of roll another 3 is still 1/6.

Also, just not toward dbluedevil222, but for everyone in general, Coach K has been doing this for a long time and quite well. I'd trust his judgement over any of us.

[Lord Ash]

The hot hand theory has been disproven. Just because a player is shooting well at one point in the game is not indicative how they'll shoot for the rest of the game.

It's like playing a board game. Say you roll a dice and get 3's four straight times. This is not statistically improbable. The chance of roll another 3 is still 1/6.

Also, just not toward dbluedevil222, but for everyone in general, Coach K has been doing this for a long time and quite well. I'd trust his judgement over any of us.

Whoa whoa whoa... what? I disagree COMPLETELY.

Human beings are NOT dice being rolled. Humans absolutely can get on rolls... there are times when, to as basketball player, everything looks like it is moving slowly and the basket looks huge... to a hockey goalie that everything is moving a step slower and the puck is always where you want it to be... to a football player like you are almost seeing what the other team is doing a second before they do it. It is called being in the zone. As an athlete myself I have ABSOLUTELY "felt it," and KNOWN I would not lose, and sure enough, I win. Likewise there are times when you just cannot get it together and you can FEEL that you are off... and you are. Human beings can absolutely be hot and cold in sports.

[Kedsy]

The hot hand theory has been disproven. Just because a player is shooting well at one point in the game is not indicative how they'll shoot for the rest of the game.

It's like playing a board game. Say you roll a dice and get 3's four straight times. This is not statistically improbable. The chance of roll another 3 is still 1/6.



Whoa whoa whoa... what? I disagree COMPLETELY.

Human beings are NOT dice being rolled. Humans absolutely can get on rolls... there are times when, to as basketball player, everything looks like it is moving slowly and the basket looks huge... to a hockey goalie that everything is moving a step slower and the puck is always where you want it to be... to a football player like you are almost seeing what the other team is doing a second before they do it. It is called being in the zone. As an athlete myself I have ABSOLUTELY "felt it," and KNOWN I would not lose, and sure enough, I win. Likewise there are times when you just cannot get it together and you can FEEL that you are off... and you are. Human beings can absolutely be hot and cold in sports.

I'm 100% with Lord Ash on this. There is no question that players get hold and cold. As far as I know, most coaches believe in "feeding" the hot hand. When someone gets cold, the coach has to do something to snap him out of it, which may or may not involve taking him out of the game.

To dbluedevil222's point, I think the reason Kyle and Nolan have a longer leash than, e.g., Miles and Ryan is because Kyle and Nolan have a more proven track record. Plus, they're seniors and when they make a mistake, they know it and know how to fix it. If a younger, less accomplished player makes a mistake, it could be a teaching moment. Does K overdo it, causing the younger players to look over their shoulder and play timid? This is where I think we have to go with BattierBattalion's point and trust that K knows what he's doing.

[hq2]

Kansas State had a pretty decent sized front line. We needed bigs in for D. Against smaller lineups, I'd say they both play more.

[Kedsy]

Kansas State had a pretty decent sized front line. We needed bigs in for D. Against smaller lineups, I'd say they both play more.

Ryan and Miles only played 10 and 12 minutes, respectively, against K State. I'll be surprised if Andre and Seth take any more minutes from our second and third big men, no matter how small our opponent.

[BattierBattalion]

I'm 100% with Lord Ash on this. There is no question that players get hold and cold. As far as I know, most coaches believe in "feeding" the hot hand. When someone gets cold, the coach has to do something to snap him out of it, which may or may not involve taking him out of the game.

To dbluedevil222's point, I think the reason Kyle and Nolan have a longer leash than, e.g., Miles and Ryan is because Kyle and Nolan have a more proven track record. Plus, they're seniors and when they make a mistake, they know it and know how to fix it. If a younger, less accomplished player makes a mistake, it could be a teaching moment. Does K overdo it, causing the younger players to look over their shoulder and play timid? This is where I think we have to go with BattierBattalion's point and trust that K knows what he's doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand_fallacy . See the paper linked at the bottom.

C'mon, guys, this has been disproven with rigorous statistics. There's no such thing as a "streaky shooter". Streaks are natural parts of shooting.

[dukelifer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand_fallacy . See the paper linked at the bottom.

C'mon, guys, this has been disproven with rigorous statistics. There's no such thing as a "streaky shooter". Streaks are natural parts of shooting.

Well if it is on wikipedia...

Actually - there may be some advantage to playing Dre and Seth in spurts. First, they are not the focus on the D- they get wide open looks- increasing their chances of hitting for a while. When they start getting the D to concentrate on them- you put in Nolan or Kyrie and give another look- driving and attacking. It makes the D adjust. Dre and Seth are great in their role and it is not easy. It is very much the role they might play in the pros. I like the way they are being used because they come in - do their thing- expand the lead and get out- the other team has no idea what hit them.

[BattierBattalion]

Whoa whoa whoa... what? I disagree COMPLETELY.

Human beings are NOT dice being rolled. Humans absolutely can get on rolls... there are times when, to as basketball player, everything looks like it is moving slowly and the basket looks huge... to a hockey goalie that everything is moving a step slower and the puck is always where you want it to be... to a football player like you are almost seeing what the other team is doing a second before they do it. It is called being in the zone. As an athlete myself I have ABSOLUTELY "felt it," and KNOWN I would not lose, and sure enough, I win. Likewise there are times when you just cannot get it together and you can FEEL that you are off... and you are. Human beings can absolutely be hot and cold in sports.

Getting in the "zone" is related to biases in our memory and our physiology. Playing well in a given game/moment will release hormones that make us feel like we're in the "zone". Additionally, we remember times where we play exceptionally well or poorly better. So those moments stand out better. But taken separately, there's nothing statistically remarkable about what happened.

[BattierBattalion]

Well if it is on wikipedia...



Haha, I wanted to link the paper directly at the bottom of the Wiki page, but it wasn't loading.

[uh_no]

Haha, I wanted to link the paper directly at the bottom of the Wiki page, but it wasn't loading.

maybe linking the wiki article on how accurate wikipedia is would be more appropriate

[Kedsy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand_fallacy . See the paper linked at the bottom.

C'mon, guys, this has been disproven with rigorous statistics. There's no such thing as a "streaky shooter". Streaks are natural parts of shooting.

I couldn't get the link to work, either, but I still say you're wrong about this. To compare this to the "gambler's fallacy" (as the wikipedia blurb does) doesn't take into account the mental or mechanical elements of athletic performance.

When I roll a pair of dice, assuming they're not loaded, the odds of a 7 are constant and the same, every roll, whether I've just rolled ten in a row or none. When I take a jump shot, the odds are not the same every time. If I'm not feeling well, or am slightly injured, or am distracted, or even just not confident, the odds that my form is perfect (or even consistent) are much less. If I've hit several in a row, I feel looser and I concentrate better and I'm not afraid that I'll miss. I'm more likely to use proper form. If I've missed several in a row, I will probably overthink it or I get distracted or over-compensate for whatever I did wrong the last time. I'm less likely to use proper form.

I assume the scientific study looked at shooters who had made x in a row vs. those who had missed x in a row and determined that over time their next shot was no more likely to go in than the shooter's usual shooting percentage. But a study like that can't take into account the extraneous elements that may come into play, nor can it measure the shooter's state of mind at each shot. It can't even take into account the defender's behavior. For example, if a guy has made several in a row, the opposing defender will probably play more intense defense, or maybe they'll even double team the hot shooter, which should decrease his chance of making the next shot, but if his percentage goes back to normal when they do that, he's still performing better than one would expect, isn't he? Similarly, if a guy has a great defender on him and he shoots several contested air balls and then the opponent either switches defenders or just concentrates on other players and leaves him open because he's been shooting so poorly, and then he makes a wide open uncontested shot, what does that tell us? There are just too many human variables for a study like that to be valid.

There is such a thing as a hot hand, and anybody who has played the game would agree.

[OldPhiKap]

Getting in the "zone" is related to biases in our memory and our physiology. Playing well in a given game/moment will release hormones that make us feel like we're in the "zone". Additionally, we remember times where we play exceptionally well or poorly better. So those moments stand out better. But taken separately, there's nothing statistically remarkable about what happened.

Perhaps nothing statistically remarkable on average. I don't think there is much question, though, that players go through streaks -- whether it be from clear minds, good fundamentals, confidence, etc. There are many things that go into it. But K has often said in post-game press conferences that he wanted the team to get the ball to the guy with the hot hand.

[delfrio]

There is such a thing as a hot hand, and anybody who has played the game would agree.

Just because we believe in it, doesn't make it so. Argumentum ad populum. There are many mental processes that can cause a feeling of the hot hand, as well as explanations of behavior as "hot."

There have actually been quite a few studies since the original, with generally consistent (sometimes mixed results). The overall message as I understand it seems to be that the hot hand (likelihood of making next shot after several in a row) probably does not exist. However, the BELIEF in the hot hand can still improve a team's success if that player is one with a good shooting percentage. Put simply, passing that player the ball more often increases the chances that the team will get points. So even if there is no magic hot hand, thinking there is can be a good thing. So keep it hot.

[-jk]

The Google has the paper cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DbpLshREp9QJ:conferences.inf.ed.ac. uk/cogsci2001//pdf-files/0152.pdf+0152.pdf+hot+hand&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8).

-jk

[airowe]

you say that as someone who looks at the box score for the sole measurement of someone's play. Nolan's turnovers were bad that game. Kyrie had several, but 3 of his came from slipping on the court (2), and one from having the ball bounce off his foot. Nolan's TOs were much worse, trying to dribble into 3 players, playing out of control, etc. He expects more from himself, and should have been reminded of it before the end of the game (see his post-game quotes). Yes, they played awful, relative to how good they are.

Yes, Single scored 14. But on 5-13 shooting. 2 of those misses were out of control tosses while surrounded by 4 players after driving into the paint.

My point was that Nolan and Kyle were not playing well. They weren't substituted out after back-to-back-to-back mistakes. Watch the bigs, when any of them get out-rebounded or turnover the ball on two back-to-back plays, they're immediately taken out of the game. I am voicing my opinion that with such a strong backcourt, I would hope to see the same line of thinking there as well

you say that as someone who looks at offensive production for the sole measurement of someone's play. There are a TON of other factors that go into who plays when and for how long. Some that just aren't visible to us who only watch the games.

[-jk]

you say that as someone who looks at offensive production for the sole measurement of someone's play. There are a TON of other factors that go into who plays when and for how long. Some that just aren't visible to us who only watch the games.

Billy King? Is that you?

;)

-jk

[BattierBattalion]

Just because we believe in it, doesn't make it so. Argumentum ad populum. There are many mental processes that can cause a feeling of the hot hand, as well as explanations of behavior as "hot."

There have actually been quite a few studies since the original, with generally consistent (sometimes mixed results). The overall message as I understand it seems to be that the hot hand (likelihood of making next shot after several in a row) probably does not exist. However, the BELIEF in the hot hand can still improve a team's success if that player is one with a good shooting percentage. Put simply, passing that player the ball more often increases the chances that the team will get points. So even if there is no magic hot hand, thinking there is can be a good thing. So keep it hot.

This I can get behind more. Kedsy, delfrio hit it on the dot. Just because we "believe" or "feel" something, doesn't mean it exists. You gave some excellent reasons: so many variables, concentration, etc. But all of those things in itself don't mean that streakiness exists. Besides, the data used was from a wide range of different players and different seasons, so all of those minutiae effectively cancel out. I gave an explanation earlier behind the physiology of doing something good and remembering it. If you still don't buy it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

Also, I would like to add that the paper I linked did conclude that getting the ball to the "hot" hand does improve a team's chances of winning for the simple fact that a streaky shooter is more likely to be a high percentage one as well. So delfrio's ideas work out.

Anyway, my point is that there isn't a such thing as a streaky shooter, but that doesn't mean we can't use the idea to our advantage. ;) As far as minutes go, I think K is doing an excellent job.

[Kedsy]

This I can get behind more. Kedsy, delfrio hit it on the dot. Just because we "believe" or "feel" something, doesn't mean it exists. You gave some excellent reasons: so many variables, concentration, etc. But all of those things in itself don't mean that streakiness exists. Besides, the data used was from a wide range of different players and different seasons, so all of those minutiae effectively cancel out. I gave an explanation earlier behind the physiology of doing something good and remembering it. If you still don't buy it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

Also, I would like to add that the paper I linked did conclude that getting the ball to the "hot" hand does improve a team's chances of winning for the simple fact that a streaky shooter is more likely to be a high percentage one as well. So delfrio's ideas work out.

Anyway, my point is that there isn't a such thing as a streaky shooter, but that doesn't mean we can't use the idea to our advantage. ;) As far as minutes go, I think K is doing an excellent job.

Well, I hear you, and I have now read the paper (from the Google cached version that -jk linked), but I don't think you can separate the two (streakiness and belief in streakiness). The paper suggests feeding the hot hand works, but I say the reason it works is not just because the guy with more positive streaks is a better shooter. There are so many variables; I don't think you can say with any certainty that the shots are independent events. As another example, if I'm more confident I'm more likely to shoot when I get t he ball, and conversely if I'm less confident I'm less likely to shoot (more likely to pass). That, alone, might affect my baseline shooting percentage enough to make the assumptions underlying the "independent event" theory invalid.

My theory is sometimes my mechanics are off, for whatever reason. When that's the case, I feel "cold," and my confidence is down and thus I miss more. Although if I took more shots I'd miss more anyway because my mechanics are off, but I don't take more shots because I feel cold. Conversely, when my form is working properly, I feel "hot" and more confident and I take more shots and they're more likely to go in. The study couldn't possibly measure that. What's more, from reading the article it appears the study didn't even distinguish between layups and three pointers -- just "shots." If someone makes three layups in a row and then attempts a 25 foot shot, why is that even relevant to the debate?

So, I understand your point, but I don't agree. If that means we have to "agree to disagree," so be it.

[BigZ]

I would love to see what it would be like with the four guards and Singler playing together. It would be fun to watch and I don't think it would hurt defensively as much as it would be unstoppable for the opponent.

[Kedsy]

I would love to see what it would be like with the four guards and Singler playing together. It would be fun to watch and I don't think it would hurt defensively as much as it would be unstoppable for the opponent.

It would hurt defensively.

[dball]

you say that as someone who looks at the box score for the sole measurement of someone's play. Nolan's turnovers were bad that game. Kyrie had several, but 3 of his came from slipping on the court (2), and one from having the ball bounce off his foot. Nolan's TOs were much worse, trying to dribble into 3 players, playing out of control, etc. He expects more from himself, and should have been reminded of it before the end of the game (see his post-game quotes). Yes, they played awful, relative to how good they are.



You, of course, don't know anything about me. So, leave your comments to the game and performances.

Neither Nolan nor Kyle played anything close to awful, unless, of course, you meant awful as in the case of awe inspiring. In which case, I would still disagree. Your comment was either poorly reasoned or poorly phrased.

Nolan's self-assessment speaks more to the reason why Coach K would have confidence in leaving him in the game. Nolan recognizes his mistakes and owns them. Might Coach also have reasons beyond this one game in leaving seniors in (growth in leadership, communication, working through struggles)?