Always live and die by the 3

[cameroncrazy3104]

I was really hoping that by the looks of our bigs this year we would actually have some post production, but after today it is obvious that we are still a team that lives and dies by the 3. Against Florida State we shout poorly and today we shot horribly. I haven't seen the stats but I am guessing that most of our points in the paint came from Nolan and Kyle. Last year we lived and died by the 3, but the difference is Zoubs was there to grab every offensive rebound near him and get out to Jon, Nolan, and Kyle. This year we do not have an offensive rebounding force and we do not have a shooter as consistent as Jon. Kyle has been off for a couple weeks from 3 and Nolan is better from mid-range. When Andre gets hot he is great, but when he misses a couple he misses them in bunches. Seth has trouble hitting contested 3s.

Now we do not get many open shots from offensive rebounds. At the beginning of the year we compensated because Kyrie drove in kicked, but now that hes gone we have struggled to get open shots and as of late knock them down.

We need to do one of 4 things to work around our post troubles

1) get Mason to have a devotion to put backs and offensive rebounds (the Zoubs treatment)

2) find out where last year's Miles went and get him back

3) Zoubs treatment on Josh

4) recruit a true post guy that will work down there and score

If we do the first 3 we could still lose a game by shooting like we did today but we would get more shots up

IF we can do option 4 we can play like we did when we had Brand or Boozer

Do any of you have any other ideas, because we just witnessed the definition of brutally dying by the 3 and I really did not enjoy it.

[diveonthefloor]

Agreed on all counts.

And the help D could use some work also.

[Devilsfan]

Bigs? What Bigs? Ryan wants to be an outside shooter, Mason only rebounds and blocks shots and Mason, he shows up every other game or so. We're a guard laden team, have been and always will be. Maybe that's why Monroe, Patterson and the like choose to go elsewhere. Don't get me wrong I love our guards and if given the choice would recruit exactly the same way we are recruiting. Four national banners and lots of ACC championships ain't bad. Go Devils.

[Duke4life92]

It seems to me that just about every post(but not all-i know some posters find fault even in wins;) ) i see here like's our team when the shots are falling and praise them mightily,but then dog them out terribly when we have a shooting performance from 3 like we had today.In my personal opinion i would rather see some type of defensive scheme to stop the layup drill St. johns was running against us today and then maybe we would have been much more in it at the end when a few 3's start falling.Duke will continue to shoot it and majority of the time they will hit enough to win games as we expect them to,can't have it both ways.Keep firing away as usual i say,just someone please step up and stop the easy layup drill baskets :mad:.JMHO :D

[CDu]

The bigger problem today was the complete lack of defense. The offense scored enough that we should still have won if we'd played even remotely acceptable defense.

I agree that the reliance on the 3pt shot is frustrating when it doesn't work. But if we even shoot 33% from 3pt range then we score 90 in this game. That's pretty good.

As for the suggestions:

1) yes, it would be lovely for Mason to become the most efficient offensive rebounder in the country. I have no idea how to teach this, though. It's a combination of size, hustle, and anticipation.

2) I'm not sure that Miles is all that different from last year.

3) I don't know what this means

4) This would be great, but it's not like great post scorers grow on trees.

The Plumlees have each shown an occasional flash of post skill. It'd be nice if they developed some sort of consistency. But that might not happen this year.

[loran16]

Now we do not get many open shots from offensive rebounds. At the beginning of the year we compensated because Kyrie drove in kicked, but now that hes gone we have struggled to get open shots and as of late knock them down.

We need to do one of 4 things to work around our post troubles

1) get Mason to have a devotion to put backs and offensive rebounds (the Zoubs treatment)

2) find out where last year's Miles went and get him back

3) Zoubs treatment on Josh

4) recruit a true post guy that will work down there and score

If we do the first 3 we could still lose a game by shooting like we did today but we would get more shots up

IF we can do option 4 we can play like we did when we had Brand or Boozer

Do any of you have any other ideas, because we just witnessed the definition of brutally dying by the 3 and I really did not enjoy it.

You know, Brian Zoubek was a 16% Offensive Rebounder his first three years, before he focussed entirely on kick-outs. That was good enough for top 10 in the country had he been on the floor long enough (foul trouble) to qualify.

The Plumlees and other bigs on this team have yet to crack 13%. Some how a change in focus isn't really going to create another Zoo.

[hq2]

The bigger problem today was the complete lack of defense. The offense scored enough that we should still have won if we'd played even remotely acceptable defense.



We didn't match up. They were too big for our quicks, and too quick for our bigs. And, they knew how to draw the defense out and pass to cutters on the baseline; an experienced, well coached team. We could have tried harder, but against this team, I don't think it would have made much difference.

[CDu]

We didn't match up. They were too big for our quicks, and too quick for our bigs. And, they knew how to draw the defense out and pass to cutters on the baseline; an experienced, well coached team. We could have tried harder, but against this team, I don't think it would have made much difference.

I certainly don't think it's impossible that we can beat St John's, so I hope I'm misinterpreting you there.

I agree that their guards are bigger and stronger than guards, and their bigs are quicker and more versatile than our bigs.

It's not a matter of simply trying harder, though effort and toughness were lacking to some degree. It's a matter of executing and making them adjust to our strengths rather than letting them play to theirs.

St. John's is a pretty bad 3pt shooting team and a pretty poor offensive rebounding team. By that logic, it seems like we should have emphasized not losing our assignments off the dribble or on off-ball cuts. If we force them to shoot jumpshots, they're likely to miss and they're not likely to rebound. Instead, we consistently let them get into the paint area, where their passing and athleticism allowed them easy baskets. They were only forced to take 5 shots from 3pt line, and those were generally completely uncontested on a drive-and-kick in which the passer beat his man off the dribble.

It's one of the weaknesses of playing extended pressure defense in the half court. If you're getting up on the dribbler and attacking the passing lanes you open up opportunities to create turnovers and generally take away easy perimeter shots. But against a team that is versatile and can attack of the dribble and make good decisions with the ball, you run the risk of giving up layups.

I agree that the matchup wasn't ideal. But I don't think that it's a matchup we are simply destined to lose. I think the loss was a combination of the players and coaches not being ready for SJU's gameplan, not adjusting to what they saw quickly enough, and of course just not hitting any shots of our own.

[sdotbarbee]

The bigger problem today was the complete lack of defense. The offense scored enough that we should still have won if we'd played even remotely acceptable defense.I agree that the reliance on the 3pt shot is frustrating when it doesn't work. But if we even shoot 33% from 3pt range then we score 90 in this game. That's pretty good.

As for the suggestions:

1) yes, it would be lovely for Mason to become the most efficient offensive rebounder in the country. I have no idea how to teach this, though. It's a combination of size, hustle, and anticipation.

2) I'm not sure that Miles is all that different from last year.

3) I don't know what this means

4) This would be great, but it's not like great post scorers grow on trees.

The Plumlees have each shown an occasional flash of post skill. It'd be nice if they developed some sort of consistency. But that might not happen this year.

I agree with you completely here, I had this argument with a heels fan on Monday. He said our lack of hitting 3's was why we lost and I told him it was how horrendous our D was, and of course he couldn't understand that.:) If Duke holds St Johns to their season averages of FG% which is 46% and 3 point% which is 31% then Duke wins without hitting another shot much less a 3 point shot. Now we do need to shoot better then 19% from 3 but we lost to St Johns because of our half court D and our full court press that gave them easy and open looks.

[Duvall]

We didn't match up. They were too big for our quicks, and too quick for our bigs. And, they knew how to draw the defense out and pass to cutters on the baseline; an experienced, well coached team.

I find this explanation implausible. Surely there must be another.

[elvis14]

I think the St. John's game is an example of how we can make adjustments on the offensive end. I was watching a friend we kept talking in the first half about how we needed to stop jacking up 3's that weren't falling and get the ball in the paint. I think we did that a good bit in the second half (Nolan, especially). I jus wish we would have made the adjustment earlier. I'd also like to see a little more passing and movement to get our bigs some easy baskets (like teams seem to do against us).

As bad as the St. Johns game was it's still a good learning opportunity for our players and coaches.

[Scorp4me]

You don't live by the 3 die by the 3. You win by the 3 don't win every game by the 3. I mean let's face it, relying on 3's can be a streaky thing. With the players we have the streaks usually work out, but you're not going to win them all doing it (heck you'll hardly win them all doing anything).

The problem is we keep hitting a bad streak in the tournament. As I heard some announcer put so smartly the other day, Duke started out 15-0 but now have lost 2 of their last 6. Talk about cherry picking your stats. That only matters when the last 6 is the tournament.

[CDu]

You don't live by the 3 die by the 3. You win by the 3 don't win every game by the 3. I mean let's face it, relying on 3's can be a streaky thing. With the players we have the streaks usually work out, but you're not going to win them all doing it (heck you'll hardly win them all doing anything).

The problem is we keep hitting a bad streak in the tournament. As I heard some announcer put so smartly the other day, Duke started out 15-0 but now have lost 2 of their last 6. Talk about cherry picking your stats. That only matters when the last 6 is the tournament.

This is where more versatile teams have an advantage in the tournament. It's unrealistic to expect the 3pt shooting to be awesome for 6 straight games (4 of which will be theoretically against very stiff competition). If you have balance, you can overcome this.

Last year's team, for example, shot poorly from 3pt range in the Cal game and the Butler game. Fortunately, we played stifling defense in both games and came out victorious. Had we played even mediocre defense, we would have certainly lost the championship and very well could have been out in round 2. It didn't hurt either in the Cal game that we didn't turn it over, we got lots of offensive rebounds, and we shot very well inside the 3pt line. In other words, we did enough other things well to compensate for bad shooting.

This year's team hasn't consistently shown the kind of stifling defense that last year's team showed in the tournament. That could still come. We also don't have the kind of offensive rebounding we had last year. That is less likely to come. And while we have several more capable shooters in the rotation, we don't have that third go-to offensive player like we had last year. That may or may not come, and it may or may not be crucial.

If we play defense like we did against SJU, we will not win the national championship. I'll say that with 99.999999999999999% certainty. Fortunately, we aren't likely to play defense that poorly again this year (I hope).

[pfrduke]

Two general responses to the subject matter of this thread:

First, while our two losses have one thing in common (lots of missed attempts from outside), it is wrong to state that we live and die by the 3. We are 6-1 in ACC play; in those 7 games, we've had precisely 1 where we shot better than 40% from outside, and just 2 better than 35%:

Miami: 8-22 (36.4%)
Maryland: 6-21 (28.6%)
FSU: 11-35 (31.4%)
Virginia: 5-20 (25.0%)
NC State: 7-23 (30.4%)
Wake Forest: 9-26 (34.6%)
Boston Coll.: 10-22 (45.4%)

We're making just under 1/3 of our 3s in conference play which is very pedestrian shooting. Heck, we're 9th in the conference in 3-point shooting in ACC games. Despite that, we have 541 points (most in the league by 41), average 6 more points per game than any other ACC team, and also have the most efficient offense in conference play. We're getting only 31% of our points from beyond the arc - that's 5th in the conference. If we truly "lived and died" by the 3, our below average 3-point shooting would result in a record that didn't match our first-place conference standing, and would result in offensive performance that was not, to date, the best in the ACC.

Second, many fans seem to have an irrational aversion to three-point attempts. We have 5 guys on this team who are 36%+ 3-point shooters on their career. We also have an offense that does a wonderful job getting 3-point shooters wide open looks. Are there times where we take contested 3s or 3s not in rhythm with the offense? Yes - nobody's perfect, and we should work to reduce/eliminate those. But the vast majority of our 3-point shots (and, I would wager, even the majority of our missed 3-point shots) are excellent looks by very good shooters that should not be passed up.

We had a bad game against St. John's. Although we shot poorly from outside, the primary failure in that game was defensive - we let their offense shred us. The St. John's game is not evidence of some dire need to rework our offense - our offense works just fine.

Also, as an aside, we have been, to date the best offensive rebounding team in conference play - we've picked up 37.5% of our own misses. We don't have a single dominant rebounder like Zoubek last year, but we're doing a good job as a collective unit getting second shots.

[Kedsy]

we do not have a shooter as consistent as Jon.

Last year Jon shot 38.3% from 3-point range. This included:

-- a five game stretch in the middle of the season where he shot a collective 9 for 37 from three-point range;
-- shooting 3 for 10 or worse on threes (one game he shot 3 for 11) in four of our final five regular season ACC games;
-- shooting a collective 5 for 21 from three in the ACC tourney;
-- shooting a collective 2 for 14 from three in the NCAAT in the games against Cal and Purdue;
-- shooting 1 for 5 in the championship game

This year, Andre is shooting 43% from three-pointland, Seth is shooting 40%, and Ryan is shooting 43.6%. Kyle is at 36.8% and Nolan at 34.1%.

So I think we have plenty of shooters as "consistent as Jon" (and as good as or better than Jon) although perhaps he wasn't as consistent as you seem to remember.


The problem is we keep hitting a bad streak in the tournament.

Yeah, last year's bad streak in the tournament really stunk, didn't it?

[CDu]

Last year Jon shot 38.3% from 3-point range. This included:

-- a five game stretch in the middle of the season where he shot a collective 9 for 37 from three-point range;
-- shooting 3 for 10 or worse on threes (one game he shot 3 for 11) in four of our final five regular season ACC games;
-- shooting a collective 5 for 21 from three in the ACC tourney;
-- shooting a collective 2 for 14 from three in the NCAAT in the games against Cal and Purdue;
-- shooting 1 for 5 in the championship game

This year, Andre is shooting 43% from three-pointland, Seth is shooting 40%, and Ryan is shooting 43.6%. Kyle is at 36.8% and Nolan at 34.1%.

So I think we have plenty of shooters as "consistent as Jon" (and as good as or better than Jon) although perhaps he wasn't as consistent as you seem to remember.

I'm always amused when people talk about Scheyer's consistency as a shooter. He was a terrific free throw shooter and on average was a very solid 3pt shooter. But he was far from consistent. In fact, I remember debates each year for a few years about his shooting slumps, which seemed to go on for weeks at a time. There was discussion about fatigue and injury.

Scheyer was a great player for us. He did a lot of really great things, especially his senior year. But providing consistent 3pt shooting was never one of them.

[UrinalCake]

First, while our two losses have one thing in common (lots of missed attempts from outside), it is wrong to state that we live and die by the 3.

I really like your analysis. It's easy to look back after a loss and say we shouldn't have taken so many threes because we shot a low percentage. But during the game, if you know that we have an open look and you have to choose whether or not to take it, what would you choose? And if you choose not to take that open look just for the sake of shooting less threes, then what's your other option? Would attempting to create a two point shot be a higher percentage play? Shooting three pointers is just part of our offense, there's no way around it. And as your numbers show, we've been able to win games without hitting a high percentage of our 3's.

[CDu]

I really like your analysis. It's easy to look back after a loss and say we shouldn't have taken so many threes because we shot a low percentage. But during the game, if you know that we have an open look and you have to choose whether or not to take it, what would you choose? And if you choose not to take that open look just for the sake of shooting less threes, then what's your other option? Would attempting to create a two point shot be a higher percentage play? Shooting three pointers is just part of our offense, there's no way around it. And as your numbers show, we've been able to win games without hitting a high percentage of our 3's.

Yup. I think I mentioned in another thread, if we hit just 4 more 3s on Sunday, we score 90 points. That would have put us at 9-26, which is still below our average. I don't think anyone would be complaining about our offense. Heck, I don't think anyone should be complaining about our offense as is. We scored 78 points and had an efficiency rating of above 1.000 despite having one of our worst 3pt shooting efforts in recent memory.

We've had all of two games this year in which our offensive efficiency was below 1. Generally, the offensive efficiency has been really good - even in games in which we haven't shot the 3 well.

The problem against SJU was not that we shot poorly (though that didn't help). The problem is that we allowed SJU score 1.257 points per possession. That's truly awful. The worst team in the country only gives up an average of 1.204 points per possession. The fact that we can discuss the idea that an average shooting game would have still given us a chance to win is a testament to how good our offense is. It's nearly impossible to overcome such a horrible defensive performance.

[throatybeard]

Second, many fans seem to have an irrational aversion to three-point attempts. We have 5 guys on this team who are 36%+ 3-point shooters on their career. We also have an offense that does a wonderful job getting 3-point shooters wide open looks. Are there times where we take contested 3s or 3s not in rhythm with the offense? Yes - nobody's perfect, and we should work to reduce/eliminate those. But the vast majority of our 3-point shots (and, I would wager, even the majority of our missed 3-point shots) are excellent looks by very good shooters that should not be passed up.

Exactly. "Live by the three, die by the three," is a meaningless quip. You might as well say "if you miss a whole lot of your shots, you'll probably lose." Well no duh. Some FG attempts are for two points and others are for three. And the 3pt attempts are less likely to be as stiffly contested, and include the extra point, in many cases offsetting the higher percentage of a closer shot.

Teams that shoot as badly as Duke did on Sunday (and turn the ball over a lot, and play long stretches of lousy defese) tend to lose.

I'm trying to imagine a post-1987 team that hardly attempts any threes. If there is one, I bet their message board is full of complaints flying under the banner "live by the two, die by the two."

[Scorp4me]

This is where more versatile teams have an advantage in the tournament. It's unrealistic to expect the 3pt shooting to be awesome for 6 straight games (4 of which will be theoretically against very stiff competition). If you have balance, you can overcome this.

Agree. If you got good shooters you'll win more than you lose, but you probably won't win it all all that often.

Second, I'm really surprised that Ryan is shooting such a good 3 pt %. I know he has come on lately, shooting lights out and barely missing a shot. But it seemed like a light switch with alot of misses before the switch was flicked. Guess I was wrong.

Also agree on the aversion to shooting 3's. It seems in the games we lose we shoot and miss alot of 3's. But that is often times because we are forced to shoot 3's, sometimes bad. The Florida State games is a good example. We were forced to shoot alot of 3's and many of them weren't good shots. Versatility helps as CDu mentioned, but the opposing teams defense has alot to do with it sometimes.

[mkirsh]

Exactly. "Live by the three, die by the three," is a meaningless quip. You might as well say "if you miss a whole lot of your shots, you'll probably lose." Well no duh. Some FG attempts are for two points and others are for three. And the 3pt attempts are less likely to be as stiffly contested, and include the extra point, in many cases offsetting the higher percentage of a closer shot.

Teams that shoot as badly as Duke did on Sunday (and turn the ball over a lot, and play long stretches of lousy defese) tend to lose.

I'm trying to imagine a post-1987 team that hardly attempts any threes. If there is one, I bet their message board is full of complaints flying under the banner "live by the two, die by the two."

Best example this year happened a week ago. Kansas is the best 2 point shooting team in the country, hitting 58% of their 2's so far. When they lost to Texas last week they shot only 38% from 2, and shot fewer threes than they normally do (30% of FGA vs 38% on the year). Bad shooting nights happen to all teams, regardless of whether they are shooting 3's or 2's. Should Kansas fans argue that the team should have shot more 3's (since they hit 32% in the game and the expected value was higher than what they were doing from 2)?

[UrinalCake]

Should Kansas fans argue that the team should have shot more 3's (since they hit 32% in the game and the expected value was higher than what they were doing from 2)?

They should argue that the Kansas coaches should create a time machine so that once they know that they would not shoot well from two, they could then go back in time and make the decision to shoot more threes.

That's essentially the same thing I hear when people claim we should shoot fewer threes after a loss.

[Scorp4me]

That's essentially the same thing I hear when people claim we should shoot fewer threes after a loss.

I think we should miss fewer 3's after a loss :cool:

[DukieTiger]

A few various thoughts about this:

-Last year's Duke team was a historically bad 2pt shooting team as far as National Champions go. Pomeroy and Gasaway talked about this periodically throughout last year. Duke was 270th in the country in the percentage of points it got off of 2pt fgs (48.5%.) While offensive rebounds was a strength, Duke greatly depended off of made shots off their ORebs- so it could be argued that our beloved 2010 national champions definitively lived by the three. It was just cushioned by the strength of their offensive rebounding.

-This year's Duke team is GREATLY improved in its 2pt shooting. Attribute that to a number of factors, but they are in the top 25 in the country in 2pt%, while getting a comparable % of its points off those 2pt shots- 47.8%. Duke is an above average offensive rebounding team- not near the elite level of last year- but that is made up for by a very significant increase in shooting percentage. 3pt% is about equal to last year.

What this tells me is that Duke isn't more reliant on 3pt shooting, but that it is more susceptible to a bad shooting night due to the inferior Offensive Rebounding compared to last year. When Duke isn't hitting from 3, this year it should play to its relative strength- the 2pt shot. (Also, it should fall back on its defense- but that's a given as a part of Duke culture.)

The trap we have fallen into in our losses is that we are getting punched in the mouth and have been unable to match our opponent's intensity. We lack aggression- on offense and defense. In both cases, this takes away from our 2pt opportunities (defensively, we don't force as many turnovers and have minimal fast break opportunities;) on offense we have subpar ball movement and dribble penetration- which turns us into a team of jump shooters- in which case we really are living by the three.