The Latest From Seth Davis in SI

[slower]

Here's a direct quote from Seth Davis in his latest "Hoop Thoughts" column:

"Between their blowout loss at Ohio State and their near-collapse against Washington on Saturday, it's becoming evident that Duke doesn't have a talent problem so much as a leadership problem."

I think he may have a bit of elaborating to do.

[DukieTiger]

I mean I disagree with the use of the word "problem," but is he wrong? I would certainly agree that Duke is plenty talented, but lacks in consistency- which is a leadership/experience issue. This is not new. We've known since last year that this team would have to find its identity and guys would have to step up and be dependable on a daily basis. You can see guys start to do that, but it isn't quite there. Further, you have guys like Seth and Dre- who are quiet by nature- learning to become more vocal and step into leadership roles. Problem? No. Room for improvement? A resounding yes.

[ThePublisher]

Is terrible free throw shooting really a collapse? Come on now...

[toooskies]

We've pretty consistently let teams close the gap on us at the ends of games this year:

Belmont: Up 53-37 (16) and 72-66 (6), finished at 77-76 (1). Outscored 39-24 and 10-5.
Michigan State: Up 67-54 (13), finished at 74-69 (5). Outscored 15-7.
Michigan: Up 69-55 (14), finished at 82-75 (7). Outscored 20-13.
Washington: Up 74-58 (16), finished at 86-80 (6). Outscored 22-12.

We're definitely taking our foot off the accelerator against quality competition at the end of games. It's definitely a weakness, and while I don't chalk it up to a leadership issue, I also don't see a leader out on the floor (yet).

[gep]

We've pretty consistently let teams close the gap on us at the ends of games this year:

Belmont: Up 53-37 (16) and 72-66 (6), finished at 77-76 (1). Outscored 39-24 and 10-5.
Michigan State: Up 67-54 (13), finished at 74-69 (5). Outscored 15-7.
Michigan: Up 69-55 (14), finished at 82-75 (7). Outscored 20-13.
Washington: Up 74-58 (16), finished at 86-80 (6). Outscored 22-12.

We're definitely taking our foot off the accelerator against quality competition at the end of games. It's definitely a weakness, and while I don't chalk it up to a leadership issue, I also don't see a leader out on the floor (yet).

Well... the bottom line is that Duke WON those games. I will give Coach K and his staff the benefit of the doubt that they know how to close out a game. That said, yes, they don't appear to have a leader visible leader yet... but, as the say, it's only December. :cool:

I've even thought that those games you mentioned will be the teaching points going forward. The fact that the games were actually WON is a plus... so, looking foward to 2012.

[sagegrouse]

We're definitely taking our foot off the accelerator against quality competition at the end of games. It's definitely a weakness, and while I don't chalk it up to a leadership issue, I also don't see a leader out on the floor (yet).

FWIW Coach K likes to run an offense in the last five minutes that milks the clock. Is it working? No, we are practicing it so that it can work. Will it work much better in February or March? Maybe. If we just played our normal up-and-down game, would we avoid the losing teams closing the gap? Possibly, but that isn't the point.

The deliberate offense worked really well in 2009 and 2010, when Nolan Smith would have the ball. Nolan could not only penetrate, but he could also make the leaners and floaters. Austin and Seth could possibly develop the same skills, but, of course, they both fouled out against UDub.

sagegrouse
'Letting the losing team close the gap is a familiar refrain at Duke. I remember a December game against St. John's in the champion season of 1991-1992. We had a 30-point lead and ended up winning by ten. But this was pure sloppiness, and in no sense were we ever in danger of losing'

'Why is this important? Well twice we had substantial leads that got away at the end of Final Four games -- Arkansas in 1994 and UConn in 2004. The end of the game matters. OTOH we had a rousing comeback against Arkansas in 1990 in the FF at McNichols Arena'

[OldPhiKap]

We only have one senior (who comes off the bench in many games) and are playing a number of freshmen in the back court. I think the "problem" being discussed is a matter of maturation and experience with our prime ball handlers. That should improve over the season, and will hopefully round out come March.

[wncdevilfan]

One thing we're struggling with is free throws. If we hit more of our free throws this game, its not even an issue. That 6 point game could have easily been a 10 or 12 point game. Bottom line is, its a W. I know leadership is key, but the basics of the game all need to be figured in too. K will right the ship. I have confidence.

[MulletMan]

So if Seth Davis is wrong, who is the leader on the floor at the end of games? Heck, in light of what happened at tOSU, you could ask who is the leader during games?

(And yes... the Washington game was a "near" collapse. Had we missed a few more FTs, and UW made one more three it would have been an "epic" collapse... so calling it a near collapse isn't that far of a stretch.)

[Kedsy]

(And yes... the Washington game was a "near" collapse. Had we missed a few more FTs, and UW made one more three it would have been an "epic" collapse... so calling it a near collapse isn't that far of a stretch.)

I don't know what it looked like on TV, but in the arena the game never seemed to be in serious jeopardy. It never got worse than a 6 point lead and us having the ball, which is essentially a three possession game. You can't really count the last three, which was unguarded and came at the buzzer of a 9 point game. So, if we miss a few more FTs and they hit one more three, it would have been a scare (i.e., Washington down 3 with the ball and a chance to tie if they hit a three), but that's sort of a worst case scenario. It was never close to "epic collapse," or even "near collapse," in my opinion.

[MulletMan]

I don't know what it looked like on TV, but in the arena the game never seemed to be in serious jeopardy. It never got worse than a 6 point lead and us having the ball, which is essentially a three possession game. You can't really count the last three, which was unguarded and came at the buzzer of a 9 point game. So, if we miss a few more FTs and they hit one more three, it would have been a scare (i.e., Washington down 3 with the ball and a chance to tie if they hit a three), but that's sort of a worst case scenario. It was never close to "epic collapse," or even "near collapse," in my opinion.

Fine... this is splitting hairs anyway. Is this thread about the use of an adjective, or about Davis' assertion that Duke currently lacks a leader?

I feel its the latter and would love to hear people on the board explain why he's wrong... if he is.

[Kedsy]

Fine... this is splitting hairs anyway. Is this thread about the use of an adjective, or about Davis' assertion that Duke currently lacks a leader?

I feel its the latter and would love to hear people on the board explain why he's wrong... if he is.

Well, I don't disagree, although I wouldn't necessarily call it a problem. In my opinion, the question of who is leading the team is muddled by the relationship between Austin Rivers and our upperclassmen. All five of our upperclassman have had a history of deferring to the stars of the team (of course, this is while they were underclassmen, but habits are sometimes hard to break). Austin is the star of this team, but I get the feeling he is attempting to defer to his elders. At some point, either one or more of our upperclassmen will have to seize the leadership mantle and stop deferring, or Austin is going to have to step up as a leader despite his youth. My guess is it will end up being the latter, but presumably Coach K will have a say in the matter.


P.S.: The word I was disputing was "collapse," which is a noun in this context, not an adjective.

[Duvall]

So if Seth Davis is wrong, who is the leader on the floor at the end of games? Heck, in light of what happened at tOSU, you could ask who is the leader during games?

It's usually a waste of time for fans and commentators to talk about leadership.

Duke didn't have a leadership problem Saturday, it had a foul trouble problem and a lack of players with experience at lead guard problem.

[Wander]

We've pretty consistently let teams close the gap on us at the ends of games this year:

Belmont: Up 53-37 (16) and 72-66 (6), finished at 77-76 (1). Outscored 39-24 and 10-5.
Michigan State: Up 67-54 (13), finished at 74-69 (5). Outscored 15-7.
Michigan: Up 69-55 (14), finished at 82-75 (7). Outscored 20-13.
Washington: Up 74-58 (16), finished at 86-80 (6). Outscored 22-12.

We're definitely taking our foot off the accelerator against quality competition at the end of games. It's definitely a weakness, and while I don't chalk it up to a leadership issue, I also don't see a leader out on the floor (yet).

But isn't it just true in general that a team is statistically unlikely to have its biggest lead be its final margin of victory? Our last national title team was up by 6 against Butler in the championship game before winning by 2, 20ish against UConn before winning by 9, 10ish against Georgia Tech in the ACC title game before winning by 4, and 40ish against Carolina before only winning by 32 (just had to throw that one in there). I'm sure there are lots more, but those are the games I actually remember.

I guess I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, just that it's not immediately intuitive to me that the scores (aside from Belmont) constitute anything too unusual or worrisome.

[MChambers]

It's usually a waste of time for fans and commentators to talk about leadership.
Boy, do I agree with this. And everyone usually points to the one guy who is in the face of his teammates, yelling, and says, "there's a leader." I've always wondered about that. How do the teammates feel?

[Des Esseintes]

So if Seth Davis is wrong, who is the leader on the floor at the end of games? Heck, in light of what happened at tOSU, you could ask who is the leader during games?

(And yes... the Washington game was a "near" collapse. Had we missed a few more FTs, and UW made one more three it would have been an "epic" collapse... so calling it a near collapse isn't that far of a stretch.)

What Duvall said.

When Duke doesn't have the correct point differential in a game, we suddenly start hearing about "leadership." I have no idea what a basketball leader looks like through a television screen or how I might identify his actions. Would a leader have prevented the ignominy of the Ohio State game? We have Coach K. He seems like a leader, though it's not something I can tell by watching his actions on tv. We have Mason. He went at Sullinger in the first half, taking on the opposition's best player. We have Rivers. He made a number of tough plays to get Duke back in the game in the first half. All of those things are stuff leaders do, I think.

But guess what. Ohio State played annihilating team defense on our perimeter; they have a NPOY candidate on the low blocks; and I'm pretty sure they didn't miss a single shot, all game, made every single shot they tossed in the air. Sometimes leaders do leaderly things and still lose in a landslide. In March 2009, Villanova kuh-rushed Duke in the Sweet 16. That Duke team, minus Henderson and plus a couple of freshman who played modest minutes, won a national title the following year. Thomas, Zoubek, Singler, Scheyer, Smith--not a leader among them in March 2009, leaders aplenty starting in November 2009?

Leadership is intangible, right? So WHY are we talking about leadership in the games we lose big or don't beat the spread?

[Mike Corey]

I hesitate to say this, but I think Seth Davis is right in that Duke is yet to have a leader. I think that will change.

I think part of the reason for the leadership gap may be that, until very recently, Nolan Smith--a tremendous leader--was around this team an awful lot: in China, at Duke, even on Twitter. I think it reasonable to think that others may have been reluctant or unable to step into the leadership role fully with Nolan still around.

Granted, having someone like Nolan around is never a bad thing. But I wonder if the leadership role can now be more fully assumed by one or more of the guys, having been through the fires of the OSU loss and a few months' worth of practice.

No doubt that Duvall is correct that free throws were the immediate problem against Washington, and that other more quantifiable problems exist for this iteration of the Blue Devils.

And to be fair, this whole thesis could be entirely wrong: we don't see what happens where leadership is developed--away from the cameras. We only get glimpses of the results; we may only see conspicuous leadership. That we don't see it does not necessarily mean it is not there.

[fgb]

"leadership" might not be the best term, but i agree with the gist of what i think davis is saying. there is, at this point, nobody on our team that instills confidence in me, as a fan, in late game situations, the way nolan and kyrie did last year, and scheyer the couple of years prior. which is not to say that somebody on the team won't emerge in this role; i think somebody will. my money would be on seth or austin, with quin being a dark horse to assume this role. i do think someone will assume it.

at this point, though, i don't think that person has emerged, although i do think that somebody will rise to the occasion. my best guess would be that this is what in part the staff is doing right now: putting different players in positions to take on that role.

[MulletMan]

What Duvall said.

In March 2009, Villanova kuh-rushed Duke in the Sweet 16. That Duke team, minus Henderson and plus a couple of freshman who played modest minutes, won a national title the following year. Thomas, Zoubek, Singler, Scheyer, Smith--not a leader among them in March 2009, leaders aplenty starting in November 2009?

Leadership is intangible, right? So WHY are we talking about leadership in the games we lose big or don't beat the spread?

Umm... well, yes. In 2010 Jon Scheyer took control of the Duke Men's basketball team and helped drive them to a National Title. 2010 Scheyer and 2009 Scheyer were dramatically different players and people. I can't believe that you weren't able to see that.

On-court leadership during games is an issue when we win as well. Davis was commenting on two of our most recent three games, but I would submit that the Colorado State game wasn't all that impressive either, and I've been concerned for the entire season as to who will push guys and run the team on the floor.

I would assert that at this point, one of the main leaders is Tyler. Surprisingly. But Curry and Rivers have yet to figure out exactly what they are doing on the floor and what their roles are. I also think that Mike's point about Nolan is a good one.

[ncexnyc]

But isn't it just true in general that a team is statistically unlikely to have its biggest lead be its final margin of victory? Our last national title team was up by 6 against Butler in the championship game before winning by 2, 20ish against UConn before winning by 9, 10ish against Georgia Tech in the ACC title game before winning by 4, and 40ish against Carolina before only winning by 32 (just had to throw that one in there). I'm sure there are lots more, but those are the games I actually remember.

I guess I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, just that it's not immediately intuitive to me that the scores (aside from Belmont) constitute anything too unusual or worrisome.

Don't know if I buy into your claim about final margins of victory. In a number of games, the winning team pulls away from their opposition due to the losing team fouling in an attempt to catch-up, only to have the other team hit freethrows and see their scoring attempts fail.

I think some people are concerned at how fast these large leads seem to vanish. It appears that we get a large lead and suddenly the wheels fall off. If we were executing classic stallball, we'd milk the clock get a decent shot and force the other team to work for a score. So far it seems as if we aren't doing a very good job of either. I think some people are worried we are dancing on the razor's edge and sooner or later we are going to slip.

Is end of game management/execution a problem for this team? It would appear many don't buy into this claim based on the results. However, I believe it's an area that needs some improvement.

[Duvall]

"leadership" might not be the best term, but i agree with the gist of what i think davis is saying. there is, at this point, nobody on our team that instills confidence in me, as a fan, in late game situations, the way nolan and kyrie did last year, and scheyer the couple of years prior. which is not to say that somebody on the team won't emerge in this role; i think somebody will. my money would be on seth or austin, with quin being a dark horse to assume this role. i do think someone will assume it.

at this point, though, i don't think that person has emerged, although i do think that somebody will rise to the occasion. my best guess would be that this is what in part the staff is doing right now: putting different players in positions to take on that role.

Sure. But I wouldn't call that leadership, I would call it not having one of the top ten or so players in college basketball. (At this point.)

[Lid]

I would assert that at this point, one of the main leaders is Tyler. Surprisingly. But Curry and Rivers have yet to figure out exactly what they are doing on the floor and what their roles are. I also think that Mike's point about Nolan is a good one.

I believe K has said as much, too, that TT is emerging as a leader (the leader?) on the team. (Thought I read or heard that, but now I can't find a link. You'll trust me, right?) I do think it's interesting to consider the different types of leadership, and the narrow range of leadership that fans can observe (mostly just on-court). It's an intangible, but surely we're not debating whether having strong leadership is helpful, and likely to have positive repercussions in terms of stats/game flow? You don't have to have leadership to hit your free throws, but a leader might make you more likely to settle in and do so.

I'm quite curious to see how this plays out this year (as much as I can see, since I'm just a fan). I think there are lots of guys who seem like they could grow into that role. I hadn't thought about Mike's point re: Nolan, and I think it's a good one. Having a strong leader around makes for a great role model, but it could also delay other guys' development in that area. Necessity is the mother of something. I forget what.

[Matches]

It's usually a waste of time for fans and commentators to talk about leadership.



This, a thousand times. Was Jon Scheyer the "leader" of the 2010 team? I don't think so. Clearly he was one of the best and most important players on the team, but I never had the sense that he was general leading followers into battle.

Greg Paulus was praised over and over again on this site for being a "leader". I never saw any evidence of it on the court. Greg was a useful, sometimes above-average player who, by all accounts, worked hard and was a good kid and a good teammate, but nothing visible on the court suggested he was, in any way, the team's leader. Perhaps that all occurred off-court, but that just reinforces the notion that it's silly for fans and commentators to speculate about it, since none of us knows what happens off-court.

I think it's relatively clear that, thus far this season, we have had difficulty delivering the killing blow i.e. putting away a team once we have them down. We do not run stall ball particularly efficiently as of yet. We do not, however, look disorganized or lost in those situations; we're just not executing particularly well. "Duke needs a leader" = "Duke needs a go-to guy on key possessions late in the game."

[jimsumner]

Back in the early part of the season, K indicated that Seth Curry needed to find his "command voice." Coming from someone trained in leadership skills at the United States Military Academy, this was not an off-hand comment.

I think that's still an ongoing process. Curry is, IMO, the best combination of experience, basketball IQ and skill-set on the team. He's intelligent, articulate and well-respected by his teammates. But he's awfully quite. I think the best-case-scenario is for Curry to find his command voice.

[Duvall]

I believe K has said as much, too, that TT is emerging as a leader (the leader?) on the team. (Thought I read or heard that, but now I can't find a link. You'll trust me, right?) I do think it's interesting to consider the different types of leadership, and the narrow range of leadership that fans can observe (mostly just on-court). It's an intangible, but surely we're not debating whether having strong leadership is helpful, and likely to have positive repercussions in terms of stats/game flow? You don't have to have leadership to hit your free throws, but a leader might make you more likely to settle in and do so.

I agree that leadership is both real and important. I'm just skeptical about the ability of fans and talking heads to spot its presence or absence.

[ncexnyc]

Back in the early part of the season, K indicated that Seth Curry needed to find his "command voice." Coming from someone trained in leadership skills at the United States Military Academy, this was not an off-hand comment.

I think that's still an ongoing process. Curry is, IMO, the best combination of experience, basketball IQ and skill-set on the team. He's intelligent, articulate and well-respected by his teammates. But he's awfully quite. I think the best-case-scenario is for Curry to find his command voice.
As the character from, "Laugh-In" used to say, "Veeery interesting."

I'm glad you mentioned K's background and coming from you it should put to rest some of the comments from those who are downplaying the importance of leadership on the court.

I will say that I'm not quite as sold on Seth as you seem to be. I still believe we'll be seeing a great deal of movement within our backcourt as I don't think Coach K has found the right combination as of yet.

[OldPhiKap]

Back in the early part of the season, K indicated that Seth Curry needed to find his "command voice." Coming from someone trained in leadership skills at the United States Military Academy, this was not an off-hand comment.

I think that's still an ongoing process. Curry is, IMO, the best combination of experience, basketball IQ and skill-set on the team. He's intelligent, articulate and well-respected by his teammates. But he's awfully quite. I think the best-case-scenario is for Curry to find his command voice.

Reminds me of Grant Hill, who was a natural leader on the floor but -- quiet and reserved when talking to his teammates. But he learned to fill the role quite well.

I agree that Seth is the logical choice, and also agree that he has it within him to do it. But like many things, vocalizing leadership is a learned trait. The kid is very bright, it seems, and I think it will come with time.

It is somewhat difficult when the most experienced players on the team are big men, because you really need someone up top who sees the whole floor on the offensive end to get the table set and the offense run correctly. It's hard to lead from the baseline.

[gumbomoop]

I believe K has said as much, too, that TT is emerging as a leader....

About halfway through last season - TT's first - K said on his TV show that TT "is going to be a leader."

He has said this season that the team just plays better when Tyler's on the floor. I suppose that has something to do with sneaky-court-sense-D as much as anything, but to K being a step ahead of the other team - not to mention one's teammates - might be understood as a kind of leadership.

Must be something, as TT has not yet exhibited classic PG skills on O.

[jacone21]

About halfway through last season - TT's first - K said on his TV show that TT "is going to be a leader."

He has said this season that the team just plays better when Tyler's on the floor. I suppose that has something to do with sneaky-court-sense-D as much as anything, but to K being a step ahead of the other team - not to mention one's teammates - might be understood as a kind of leadership.

Must be something, as TT has not yet exhibited classic PG skills on O.

K's offense and defense are systems. They both require players to make the right plays/reads and be where they're supposed to be. Some players always know where everyone is and should be. That's what Tyler has the ability to see, and what K sees in Tyler. Tyler coaches his teammates on the floor and in huddles. He was even doing that last year. I'm sure he's very active in practice, correcting guys and helping guys with the system. I was telling my wife during the Colorado game that if Tyler had Austin's physical gifts, he would be ridiculously good. Because he sees everything. Unfortunately, just because he can see it, doesn't mean he can do it. Kinda like being over 40. :D

[Kedsy]

I think some people are concerned at how fast these large leads seem to vanish. It appears that we get a large lead and suddenly the wheels fall off. If we were executing classic stallball, we'd milk the clock get a decent shot and force the other team to work for a score. So far it seems as if we aren't doing a very good job of either. I think some people are worried we are dancing on the razor's edge and sooner or later we are going to slip.

In my observation, the dramatic part of the lead vanishing (e.g., 19 to 12 in one minute against Washington) generally happens before we go into stall ball. Who knows, maybe the vanishing lead is what incites us to start stall ball.

[johnb]

Sure. But I wouldn't call that leadership, I would call it not having one of the top ten or so players in college basketball. (At this point.)

I agree. Grant Hill did apparently need to be goaded into being more vocal on the court, but he still led by the fact that he was as good a player as K has ever coached. Laettner was obviously much more vocal (and difficult), but he also was ridiculously good.

We have a whole bunch of very good players but no one who is a POY candidate, at least this year. When we play a top tier team that is ALSO operating on all cylinders, we'll probably lose, but I don't think it's because of a leadership issue.

[cspan37421]

Back in the early part of the season, K indicated that Seth Curry needed to find his "command voice." Coming from someone trained in leadership skills at the United States Military Academy, this was not an off-hand comment.

I think that's still an ongoing process. Curry is, IMO, the best combination of experience, basketball IQ and skill-set on the team. He's intelligent, articulate and well-respected by his teammates. But he's awfully quite. I think the best-case-scenario is for Curry to find his command voice.

That really makes sense to me. Think about it - who gathers the other four on the floor after, say, a foul has been committed by us, gathers them in a huddle and reminds them of what to do, what to watch out for, etc? That's what K apparently seeks ... and it reminds me of the praise he heaped upon past leaders as well. He's looking for a guy to be him, when he can't be out of the floor himself.

It's kind of surprising, but this has not an uncommon problem for us. While it would be nice to chalk it up to players who are too selfless ... that's probably just part of it. Some are naturally quiet. Some may be trying to gauge their place in the pecking order. But we do need someone to step up and be the vocal leader. This requires seeing the whole game too ... not just the guard part, not just the big man part. I infer that Coach sees that potential in Seth ... he can understand the whole floor. However, it's not at all clear that Seth has that command voice. Quite quiet, indeed! ;) I certainly don't see it in Andre or Austin. I see sparks of it in Tyler - he's vocal and seems to have his mind on the whole floor.

[feldspar]

I mean, what really is the definition of a leader on the basketball floor anyway? Is it the guy who scores the most points? That's usually the default by lazy sports reporters. But I think it's much more than that. It's a lot of things -- the guy who shows the most heart, the guy who gets the other guys fired up when the chips are down, the one initiating communication on the floor.

I don't think we have a leadership problem. I think it's just easy for sportswriters like Seth who want something cut and dry to point at to look at this team and just assume nobody is leading the helm. How many huddles has Seth been in? How many practices has he been to? What is he basing this assumption on? That's the problem when you have a well-balanced scoring team like this team is. Not one guy is going to stand out.

I think what Seth maybe should have leaned toward is that this team doesn't necessarily have one "go-to" guy. One guy you can point to and say, with the game on the line, he can get the job done. I'd agree with that to a point. But "go-to" guy does not equal leadership.

[snowdenscold]

Don't know if I buy into your claim about final margins of victory. In a number of games, the winning team pulls away from their opposition due to the losing team fouling in an attempt to catch-up, only to have the other team hit freethrows and see their scoring attempts fail.


Well it depends on how close things are throughout the game, and especially going into the final minute. If you're within 5 points, of course you'll foul, and there's a decent chance the final margin with be much higher than 5 (if as you say, the winning team hits FT's and the losing team takes quick 3's and misses).

If, however, you're leading by 15+ for most of the 2nd half, I wouldn't be surprised to see that final margin reduced by the end - as long as you don't cross that threshold to where intentional fouling by the other team becomes worthwhile.

[g-money]

This, a thousand times. Was Jon Scheyer the "leader" of the 2010 team? I don't think so. Clearly he was one of the best and most important players on the team, but I never had the sense that he was general leading followers into battle.

Greg Paulus was praised over and over again on this site for being a "leader". I never saw any evidence of it on the court. Greg was a useful, sometimes above-average player who, by all accounts, worked hard and was a good kid and a good teammate, but nothing visible on the court suggested he was, in any way, the team's leader. Perhaps that all occurred off-court, but that just reinforces the notion that it's silly for fans and commentators to speculate about it, since none of us knows what happens off-court.

I think it's relatively clear that, thus far this season, we have had difficulty delivering the killing blow i.e. putting away a team once we have them down. We do not run stall ball particularly efficiently as of yet. We do not, however, look disorganized or lost in those situations; we're just not executing particularly well. "Duke needs a leader" = "Duke needs a go-to guy on key possessions late in the game."

I would generally agree with this. I made a post in the UW postgame thread linking leadership to the person that has the ball at the end of the game, but maybe I didn't think it through enough. So, here goes:

In my 25 years of playing organized basketball at various levels, I've always found that when high pressure situations occur in games, a cohesive team tends to look to one player to make the right decisions with the ball. [That doesn't necessarily mean 'shoot the ball', it just means 'make the right play', if that makes any sense.] While this player may not possess all the generally accepted qualities of leadership, he always has a sufficient combination of talent and leadership that the other players are willing to place their trust in him. It's almost as if the other four guys on the floor have enough confidence in the "leader" that they're able to subdue whatever fear they would otherwise be feeling (such as the sort of panic that can set in when a big lead suddenly starts to evaporate, for example).

Last year we were fortunate enough to have three guys - Kyrie, Nolan, and Kyle - that the other players on the floor could have total confidence in in critical spots. This year we have not yet seen that person emerge. Based on Jim's comments above it sounds like Seth could potentially be that guy. He definitely has the talent and the rapport with his teammates to make the leap.

It'll be fun to see it play out. Luckily this sort of challenge is right up Coach's alley.

PS I didn't intend to be gender-specific in my writing above. I suspect that this observation could apply equally well to the women's game.

[Newton_14]

I agree with Mullet and Seth Davis on this one actually. I don't necessarily agree that leadership had anything to do with the loss of the lead in the Washington game, but, losing leads late has become a pattern with this team. It started with Belmont and reared its head in practically every game. This team does not yet know how to play with a lead and close games out properly. It's not just executing clock management/stall ball in the final 6 minutes, they have lost leads before getting to that point. However, they survived every single one of those and sit at 9 an 1 against a tough schedule, are still developing, and have plenty of time to improve. Many different factors at play, with leadership being just one.

That said, I want to comment on leadership separate from the "lost leads" thing. I spoke on this in all of the Phase threads, most recently in the Phase II thread where I shared what K stated was current status. In short, K said that Tyler is the best leader on the team, but at that time (in between OSU loss and CSU win) Tyler was not on the floor enough minutes to be the main leader. He stated that of the guys that do play a lot of minutes, Mason was beginning to emerge as a leader, and K feels that Ryan has the potential and qualities required to be a leader as well. This came from one of K's daily DBR reports, a 3 minute radio show each day at 8:30. I believe GoDuke.com stores each of these daily reports on their website. Short, but great info most days.

I got the impression early in the year watching the guys, that this was going to be Seth's team, and he would step up into that role. Like Jim stated, Seth is so quiet, it appears to be an issue for him to be a vocal leader. I still think he can be that guy, but it hasn't really happened yet.

I disagree strongly with those who believe having a leader isn't important, and especially those who feel Jon Scheyer was not a leader on that title team. Both he and Lance were great leaders on that team. Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie were definitely leaders on last year's team. This year's team needs leaders as well.

[Des Esseintes]

Umm... well, yes. In 2010 Jon Scheyer took control of the Duke Men's basketball team and helped drive them to a National Title. 2010 Scheyer and 2009 Scheyer were dramatically different players and people. I can't believe that you weren't able to see that.


See what? I saw that he was a greatly improved player. Drilled threes, got to the line, never turned the ball over. Now, these were things he had always done, from the days when he was the team's steadiest player as a freshman, but he did them more productively in 09-10. So productively that he started getting mentioned as a Naismith candidate. But changed as a person? I understand I have a tv set that probably needs replacing, but I don't know how you know such things.

Here's what I think. I think Scheyer, LT, Zoubek, Nolan, and Singler got better between March 2009 and March 2010. At basketball. Maybe they did as people, too, but that's for someone who has met them to say. So all of those guys who were already excellent at basketball got better, Duke had some favorable matchups in the tournament, and that halfcourt three didn't fall.

That, or Scheyer-Rasputin "took control" of the various players' limbs and "drove" them to levels of athletic achievement their delicate wills could never have achieved alone.

[basket1544]

Duke in 2009 had several leaders, but none of them were able to push their teammates over the wall that was Villanova. 2010 team had very vocal leaders. There was a difference in their attitude and their drive. It was very clear that Lance, Jon and the rest were not going to back down to anyone.
This year's team doesn't have someone that will get in the other players faces and push them during a game (I remember seeing Lance do that). However, we don't know what the players are doing during practice. Seth gets a very determined look on his face that shows he has the desire. I've seen Ryan talk to other players during the game very adamantly. I think they are learning to lead but they still have a ways to go.

[Des Esseintes]

I disagree strongly with those who believe having a leader isn't important, and especially those who feel Jon Scheyer was not a leader on that title team. Both he and Lance were great leaders on that team. Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie were definitely leaders on last year's team. This year's team needs leaders as well.

Is anyone saying leadership isn't important? I don't get that impression. It's more that leadership is not something those of us unconnected to the program can meaningfully measure.

You mention lost leads, and maybe that is a sign of absent leadership. But somebody got those leads. We want to attach narratives to everything, and thus diminished leads suggest a leadership vacuum. But you can create a narrative of anything. Imagine a Washington game in which Duke's leadership pushed the team in a burst to take advantage of the young Huskies' disarray to generate a big lead, a lead large enough to guarantee victory even when Washington righted its ship. Is that what happened? I have no idea. Probably not. But if it did, it would be leadership, not its absence, and you and I would have no ability to tell the difference from the stands or our living rooms. You can even find evidence for the fantasy. ("Veteran leader" Ryan Kelly, after struggling with his shot all first half, "took over the game" early in the second when Duke pushed for its biggest lead.) Narratives are nothing if not supple.

Maybe Duke does have a leadership problem. But I don't know how the games to this point have suggested that. Was Maui really that long ago?

[Newton_14]

Is anyone saying leadership isn't important? I don't get that impression. It's more that leadership is not something those of us unconnected to the program can meaningfully measure.

You mention lost leads, and maybe that is a sign of absent leadership. But somebody got those leads. We want to attach narratives to everything, and thus diminished leads suggest a leadership vacuum. But you can create a narrative of anything. Imagine a Washington game in which Duke's leadership pushed the team in a burst to take advantage of the young Huskies' disarray to generate a big lead, a lead large enough to guarantee victory even when Washington righted its ship. Is that what happened? I have no idea. Probably not. But if it did, it would be leadership, not its absence, and you and I would have no ability to tell the difference from the stands or our living rooms. You can even find evidence for the fantasy. ("Veteran leader" Ryan Kelly, after struggling with his shot all first half, "took over the game" early in the second when Duke pushed for its biggest lead.) Narratives are nothing if not supple.

Maybe Duke does have a leadership problem. But I don't know how the games to this point have suggested that. Was Maui really that long ago?

I specifically stated in my post, that I was totally separating the lost leads discussion, and leadership discussion. I also stated that there were many factors that go into the lost leads and it was possible leadership played a role, but if so, was one of many factors. The part where I discussed leadership exclusively had nothing at all to do with the leads this team has lost. Sorry, I thought I made that clear, but maybe it did not come across that way. My intention was to discuss leadership on the current team in and of itself. Losing the leads is a different topic altogether.

[turnandburn55]

People talking a lot about 2009 and 2010, but isn't 2001 and 2002 a more salient example?

The commonly accepted narrative of why the 2002 team couldn't navigate their way to the Final Four is that, while uber-talented and certainly not lacking in great players, missed the steadying presence (ahem- leadership) of a gentleman who we politely informed other teams was "Yo Daddy". Perhaps, to a lesser extent, Nate James as well.

[Mike Corey]

There was a difference in their attitude and their drive. It was very clear that Lance, Jon and the rest were not going to back down to anyone..

Jon Scheyer gave one of the more memorable speeches in Duke basketball lore when, upon learning that one of his teammates was thinking of transferring, pulled him aside and said, "We're going to win a freaking national championship, and I want you to be a part of it! And if you don't, then get the freak outta here!"

Or something to that effect.

:)

Make no mistake, the Blue Devils got better and better at basketball. But do not underestimate that senior leadership.

If you don't think developing leaders is at the core of Coach K's success, along with developing basketball talent and--primarily--building boys into men, then I don't know what to tell ya, friendo.

[gep]

I agree with Mullet and Seth Davis on this one actually. I don't necessarily agree that leadership had anything to do with the loss of the lead in the Washington game, but, losing leads late has become a pattern with this team. It started with Belmont and reared its head in practically every game. This team does not yet know how to play with a lead and close games out properly. It's not just executing clock management/stall ball in the final 6 minutes, they have lost leads before getting to that point. However, they survived every single one of those and sit at 9 an 1 against a tough schedule, are still developing, and have plenty of time to improve. Many different factors at play, with leadership being just one.


I wonder how much of this "collapse" during the last 6 or so minutes of a game is the "Coach K plan". That is, this is all a part of learning how to manage a game at the end and ensure a win. Of course, a leader is important... and these games are the "laboratory" to develop both the leader and team.


Is anyone saying leadership isn't important? I don't get that impression. It's more that leadership is not something those of us unconnected to the program can meaningfully measure.

You mention lost leads, and maybe that is a sign of absent leadership. But somebody got those leads. We want to attach narratives to everything, and thus diminished leads suggest a leadership vacuum. But you can create a narrative of anything. Imagine a Washington game in which Duke's leadership pushed the team in a burst to take advantage of the young Huskies' disarray to generate a big lead, a lead large enough to guarantee victory even when Washington righted its ship. Is that what happened? I have no idea. Probably not. But if it did, it would be leadership, not its absence, and you and I would have no ability to tell the difference from the stands or our living rooms. You can even find evidence for the fantasy. ("Veteran leader" Ryan Kelly, after struggling with his shot all first half, "took over the game" early in the second when Duke pushed for its biggest lead.) Narratives are nothing if not supple.

Exactly... the team performed very well for the first 35 minutes or so. They've learned that part. Now to learn the last 5 minutes. Coach K has a plan... :cool:

[Des Esseintes]

I specifically stated in my post, that I was totally separating the lost leads discussion, and leadership discussion. I also stated that there were many factors that go into the lost leads and it was possible leadership played a role, but if so, was one of many factors. The part where I discussed leadership exclusively had nothing at all to do with the leads this team has lost. Sorry, I thought I made that clear, but maybe it did not come across that way. My intention was to discuss leadership on the current team in and of itself. Losing the leads is a different topic altogether.

My apologies. I replied to your post to stress that it wasn't leadership I was doubting, either its existence or importance, but our ability to perceive and usefully analyze it. But then I wanted to discuss the "lost leads" discussion that's presided elsewhere in the thread, forgetting that you were the one person trying to take the conversation elsewhere. I got carried away on my own stupid rhetoric. Your post was very clear in its intent.

And just to be perfectly clear, I don't doubt Jon and Lance were magnificent leaders for Duke, or that their leadership played a role in Duke winning a championship. However, the reason I know they were leaders was not from watching the games, but rather from hearing testimony by those near to the program about who called the shots, rallied the troops, cliched the cliches, etc. Everything else is just witchcraft and armchair psychology. Finally, I want to say that if they were leaders as seniors, they probably were leaders as juniors, too. The notion that what separated the very talented team that got decimated by Nova from the even more talented team that survived Butler was a radical Napoleonic transformation in Jon Scheyer seems both silly and ignorant of his role on the team his first three years. Good kids are good kids. They grow, obviously, and become better captains--K makes certain of that--but guys like Scheyer and Singler were warriors from the day they set foot on campus.

Not that you were arguing against any of these things either. I simply wanted to get them out there.

[Matches]

People talking a lot about 2009 and 2010, but isn't 2001 and 2002 a more salient example?

The commonly accepted narrative of why the 2002 team couldn't navigate their way to the Final Four is that, while uber-talented and certainly not lacking in great players, missed the steadying presence (ahem- leadership) of a gentleman who we politely informed other teams was "Yo Daddy". Perhaps, to a lesser extent, Nate James as well.

I think an equally commonly-accepted narrative is that the 2002 team missed Shane and Nate's ability to rebound and play lock-down defense. No doubt both of them were, as you say, steadying presences - but they were also both really good players. The trouble with narratives is that they're formed only in retrospect. If Boozer gets the foul call and we move on that year, would we all be debating what was "wrong" with the 2002 team?

[CDu]

People talking a lot about 2009 and 2010, but isn't 2001 and 2002 a more salient example?

The commonly accepted narrative of why the 2002 team couldn't navigate their way to the Final Four is that, while uber-talented and certainly not lacking in great players, missed the steadying presence (ahem- leadership) of a gentleman who we politely informed other teams was "Yo Daddy". Perhaps, to a lesser extent, Nate James as well.

I think it's just as likely that the 2002 team lacked that second post defender that Battier provided. Having to move Dunleavy from SF to PF hurt us against teams who could play two guys inside. And that's where Indiana beat us (well, that and the fact that Boozer got fouled at the end).

Battier and James provided excellent leadership. But it wasn't a lack of leadership that allowed Indiana to outrebound us 46-29 and allowed Jeffries, Odle, and Newton to combine for 47 points and 30 rebounds (17 offensive!), including 10-12 for 23 points and 15 rebounds from Odle and Newton. It was lack of interior defense. Dunleavy couldn't defend on the blocks and wasn't a strong rebounder. Sanders wasn't ready to contribute consistently. And nobody else was big enough to play the post.

[Marcus]

I don't know if it is just me ... or seth davis too.. but I read his article and I have to agree that their is some sort of leadership missing on this team. For instance.... Seth Curry has the pure ability to be a great player and he is, same with Mason Plumlee, Miles Plumlee... however; they just aren't vocal enough, Dawkins isn't the leader type, he gets distraught to easily, Ryan Kelly...seems to be lost at times, maybe he's thinking about Bill Cowhers daughter....but There are 2 people on this team that I believe are vocal enough to lead and to push and to rescue this team from last minute collapses... I'd like to introduce you to Quinn Cook and Tyler Thornton... Quinn is the flamboyant character that I'd say Nolan Smith was... and generally when he comes in.. him and tyler.. .they pressure the ball so well, they make things happen. There is a hunger there, that Austin I'd say doesn't have.... and they can both guard quicker guards that penetrate and dish the ball... I've seen both Tyler and Quinn pressure the ballhandlers into 5 second calls. I trust Coach K's judgement... but we need someone fiery... someone that will tell you on the court... hey your not doing your job well, we aren't running this play as designed and we aren't digging down as hard as we should be. I mean for god's sakes... SLAP THE FREAKIN FLOOR AND LETS GO!!!! We are Duke Basketball not... some mid major non name brand garbage team that we have to pay bigger schools so that they will play us... With all that said though... We are 9-1.. I just feel like Quinn and Tyler are the glue and the leaders we need... no pun intended to seth.. or any of the other guys.. Some people are just born with this natural ability.

[Devilsfan]

Here's hoping Coach continues to use Quinn at the point. Watching Seth he seems to have his head down when he brings the ball over the time line. One thing I noticed about the "Evil Empire"'s point guard Marshall and tOSU's Craft is that their eyes are always up and looking for someone to receive their pass.

[Kedsy]

.... and they can both guard quicker guards that penetrate and dish the ball...

You're seeing something I'm not seeing. Both get beaten off the dribble routinely.

[jv001]

I don't know if it is just me ... or seth davis too.. but I read his article and I have to agree that their is some sort of leadership missing on this team. For instance.... Seth Curry has the pure ability to be a great player and he is, same with Mason Plumlee, Miles Plumlee... however; they just aren't vocal enough, Dawkins isn't the leader type, he gets distraught to easily, Ryan Kelly...seems to be lost at times, maybe he's thinking about Bill Cowhers daughter....but There are 2 people on this team that I believe are vocal enough to lead and to push and to rescue this team from last minute collapses... I'd like to introduce you to Quinn Cook and Tyler Thornton... Quinn is the flamboyant character that I'd say Nolan Smith was... and generally when he comes in.. him and tyler.. .they pressure the ball so well, they make things happen. There is a hunger there, that Austin I'd say doesn't have.... and they can both guard quicker guards that penetrate and dish the ball... I've seen both Tyler and Quinn pressure the ballhandlers into 5 second calls. I trust Coach K's judgement... but we need someone fiery... someone that will tell you on the court... hey your not doing your job well, we aren't running this play as designed and we aren't digging down as hard as we should be. I mean for god's sakes... SLAP THE FREAKIN FLOOR AND LETS GO!!!! We are Duke Basketball not... some mid major non name brand garbage team that we have to pay bigger schools so that they will play us... With all that said though... We are 9-1.. I just feel like Quinn and Tyler are the glue and the leaders we need... no pun intended to seth.. or any of the other guys.. Some people are just born with this natural ability.

Currently I have not seen one player that can guard quicker guards. All of our perimeter players get beat off the dribble way too much. And if you're going to slap the floor, you had better be able to guard your man and keep him in front of you. I do believe that Quinn, Tyler and Seth have the ability to double up on opposing guards and get the 5 second call. But not one on one. Seth and Tyler are great at anticipating where the ball will be passed and they make steals off that type of defense. If I'm not mistaken, Coach K said that Austin has the ability to be our best defender of the opposing point guard. Or it may have been the ability to be our best on the ball defender. But to say that Quinn and Tyler are good on the ball defenders is something that I don't see. I have not seen enough of Quinn to make any kind of statement on just how good he can be defensely. GoDuke!

[sagegrouse]

People talking a lot about 2009 and 2010, but isn't 2001 and 2002 a more salient example?

The commonly accepted narrative of why the 2002 team couldn't navigate their way to the Final Four is that, while uber-talented and certainly not lacking in great players, missed the steadying presence (ahem- leadership) of a gentleman who we politely informed other teams was "Yo Daddy". Perhaps, to a lesser extent, Nate James as well.

Yep, but backwards reasoning is treacherous. There is no way that Maryland should have lost to Duke in the FF, being up 38-16, but they got outscored 68 to 35. Absent this meltdown, history is different.

And, if Jason makes the free throw or Boozer makes the putback, Duke beats Indiana in 2002 and maybe beats Md for the NC.

In those cases Jason would be viewed as a great leader, not only because of the championship but also because of his great personal qualities. And Shane would be less well remembered.

And in 2009, we didn't need leadership from Gerald and Jon, we needed them to do a heckuva lot better than 1-14 and 3-18 from the field.

Peace--

sagegrouse
'BTW Jason was never making that free throw. Two weeks later he lost a shooting contest with Katie Couric on the Today show'

[Marcus]

I'm just saying... you see a kid... and you just know he's what you need.. I think this is the case with Quinn... No one would have ever said last year at this point that Kendall Marshall was what Carolina needed.. Im not saying Quinn Cook or Tyler are Marshall like.. in fact I think they both shoot better than Marshall... but we need a point guard.. I dont care how many points the point guard scores.. I just want him to dish the ball effectively.. look at the stats on assists.. Right now we are 198th in the nation for assists... that means we dont have enough opportunities for our perimeter players off of drive and kick opportunities.. or for our big men for drive and dishes for dunks ...

[airowe]

No one would have ever said last year at this point that Kendall Marshall was what Carolina needed..

I think EVERYONE except Larry Drew and his mother knew that Kendall Marshall was what Carolina needed at this point last year.

Your other point is a good one, but it's clear the coaches do not agree with you... yet. The team really only starting working on their own strengths and weaknesses after the Ohio State game. Up until then, it was working on game planning for their next opponent who was coming up at some point within the next 48 hours.

We're going to see a few different lineup configurations throughout the year in my opinion. One of them very likely will include Quinn Cook starting at the point guard spot.

[Kedsy]

I'm just saying... you see a kid... and you just know he's what you need.. I think this is the case with Quinn... No one would have ever said last year at this point that Kendall Marshall was what Carolina needed.. Im not saying Quinn Cook or Tyler are Marshall like.. in fact I think they both shoot better than Marshall... but we need a point guard.. I dont care how many points the point guard scores.. I just want him to dish the ball effectively.. look at the stats on assists.. Right now we are 198th in the nation for assists... that means we dont have enough opportunities for our perimeter players off of drive and kick opportunities.. or for our big men for drive and dishes for dunks ...

We may be 198th in assists, but we're 6th in offensive efficiency. Which means we probably do have enough opportunities for everyone.

Personally, I think we need a defensive stopper much more than a new point guard.

[CDu]

I think EVERYONE except Larry Drew and his mother knew that Kendall Marshall was what Carolina needed at this point last year.

I think there was still quite some debate at this point last year as to whether Marshall was what UNC needed. They clearly needed something, but I think there was quite a lot of uncertainty as to whether Marshall could provide that something. There was also some uncertainty as to whether or not Drew could still provide that something. After all, Drew did average nearly 6 assists per game as a sophomore.

[Wander]

Speaking of kenpom stats: out of the 345 schools, we're in the top ten for "luckiest" team.

The luck rankings are basically a reflection of how good your record is compared to how good your record kenpom predicts it to be. There are a few ways to interpret the luck rankings. One is to literally think they just reflect luck. Or maybe Duke's opponents so far haven't actually been as tough as kenpom thinks they are. But another is that they reflect something intangible that is difficult for numbers to capture - like leadership, clutch-ness, Tebow blessing your team before their games, etc.

So I'm not completely convinced leadership is a huge weak spot for the team. I'd be more concerned about perimeter defense.

[COYS]

Speaking of kenpom stats: out of the 345 schools, we're in the top ten for "luckiest" team.

The luck rankings are basically a reflection of how good your record is compared to how good your record kenpom predicts it to be. There are a few ways to interpret the luck rankings. One is to literally think they just reflect luck. Or maybe Duke's opponents so far haven't actually been as tough as kenpom thinks they are. But another is that they reflect something intangible that is difficult for numbers to capture - like leadership, clutch-ness, Tebow blessing your team before their games, etc.

So I'm not completely convinced leadership is a huge weak spot for the team. I'd be more concerned about perimeter defense.

Doesn't luck also factor in the mysterious "free throw defense?" I might be mistaken, but I thought luck also accounted for how much lower the other team shoots on free throws vs. the team's normal percentage. I don't think this is always pure luck, either (strategy can be involved by one team to force the other team's weakest players to shoot free throws), but Duke has had enough close games that some poorer than normal free throw shooting from the opposition could tilt the scales in our favor. Anyway, I didn't pay for the subscription this year (although I might have to breakdown and do it as it's waaay harder to find those stats anywhere else), so I couldn't double check this.

[Wander]

That's a good point. You might expect the luck ranking and free throw defense ranking to correlate with each other. It'd be interesting to see if there is a positive correlation between those two variables over all division 1 teams.

[Dr. Tina]

Umm... well, yes. In 2010 Jon Scheyer took control of the Duke Men's basketball team and helped drive them to a National Title. 2010 Scheyer and 2009 Scheyer were dramatically different players and people. I can't believe that you weren't able to see that.

On-court leadership during games is an issue when we win as well. Davis was commenting on two of our most recent three games, but I would submit that the Colorado State game wasn't all that impressive either, and I've been concerned for the entire season as to who will push guys and run the team on the floor.

I would assert that at this point, one of the main leaders is Tyler. Surprisingly. But Curry and Rivers have yet to figure out exactly what they are doing on the floor and what their roles are. I also think that Mike's point about Nolan is a good one.

Last week, in one of the daily radio segments Coach K is doing with Bob Harris now, K talked about leadership for about 3 minutes. Coach K talked about how leadership is still developing within the team, and that there are different types of leadership. You can see leadership in practice by the way guys prepare themselves and work hard in that context. There is the leadership that Nolan demonstrated...or Kyle...but K was particularly concerned about leadership on the court right now. K basically said that Tyler is the player closest to being the type of leader they want out on the floor. The caveat being that Tyler isn't in the game all the time, though. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason Tyler has started recently is because K identifies him as the frontrunner for leader right now. That's not to say one of the other guys can't or won't take over, but K obviously likes what he sees in Tyler during the game.

[Kedsy]

Doesn't luck also factor in the mysterious "free throw defense?"

Pomeroy's explanation of the Luck rating is as follows:


Luck, which is the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method. The luck factor has nothing to do with the rating calculation, but a team that is very lucky (positive numbers) will tend to be rated lower by my system than their record would suggest.

So I don't think it explicitly factors in free throw defense, although it may do so indirectly if Duke's opponents missing more free throws than they should have allowed Duke to win where they otherwise would have lost.

Looking at our opponents so far, every opponent except Colorado State and Washington have shot better from the line against Duke than they have for the season, and neither Colorado St or Washington shot so much worse against us that it would have changed the result. From which I conclude that, at least this year, Pomeroy's "luck" rating does not factor in free throw defense as far as Duke is concerned.

[94duke]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/12/14/breakout.juniors/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t13_a2

[airowe]

I love Ryan and think he's certainly more comfortable on the court this year, but isn't Mason more appropriate for the purposes of a "breakout" player article?

[COYS]

I love Ryan and think he's certainly more comfortable on the court this year, but isn't Mason more appropriate for the purposes of a "breakout" player article?

It's funny, I was thinking the same thing. Mason is averaging more minutes on the court, is a far more impressive rebounder, and also has the "wow" factor thanks to his leaping ability. Still, Mason will get love from most other places, especially since he seems to be solidly in the mid teens on the draft boards with the possibility of moving into the lottery if he continues to improve. It's nice to see the less-heralded but still-dangerous Ryan get some love from the media.

[Kedsy]

I love Ryan and think he's certainly more comfortable on the court this year, but isn't Mason more appropriate for the purposes of a "breakout" player article?

The article seems to focus on scoring average increase. Ryan went from 6.6 to 12.6 while Mason went from 7.2 to 12.2. If Mason was shooting 60% from the line and thus had his scoring average close to 14 ppg, my guess is he would have also been on the list (unless they just couldn't bear to have two Duke players on it).

[devilsadvocate85]

Currently I have not seen one player that can guard quicker guards. All of our perimeter players get beat off the dribble way too much. And if you're going to slap the floor, you had better be able to guard your man and keep him in front of you. I do believe that Quinn, Tyler and Seth have the ability to double up on opposing guards and get the 5 second call. But not one on one. Seth and Tyler are great at anticipating where the ball will be passed and they make steals off that type of defense. If I'm not mistaken, Coach K said that Austin has the ability to be our best defender of the opposing point guard. Or it may have been the ability to be our best on the ball defender. But to say that Quinn and Tyler are good on the ball defenders is something that I don't see. I have not seen enough of Quinn to make any kind of statement on just how good he can be defensely. GoDuke!

I don't have any empirical data to support what I'm about to say, but my instinct from watching hundreds of Duke games as well as being a college basketball junkie, tells me that people on this board focus way too much on our perimeter guys getting beat off the dribble. My reasoning stems from thinking about how often our guys are able to beat their men off the dribble. Austin Rivers seems able to get by his man almost at will. Kyrie Irving did this as well. How frequently have we seen Seth get into the lane for a floater or a kick-out pass? And he's not even thought of as an especially great penetrator. I would bet that if you watch a few games with teams other than Duke playing, or just watch one of our games from the opposite perspective (how frequently our guys get by their man on the dribble), you will find that our team, playing pressure defense, does not get beat off the dribble with any more success than others. Keep in mind that the popular thinking about playing against Duke is to "spread them out and try to break them down off the dribble" and I don't believe that this comes from having weak on-ball defenders, but that we are so good at drawing charges, switching, playing help defense, getting in passing lanes and disrupting set plays. So, other teams focus on running an offense that takes away from the incredible defense that Coach K teaches, which means that we see a large amount of dribble penetration attempts against us.

[toooskies]

Pomeroy's explanation of the Luck rating is as follows:



So I don't think it explicitly factors in free throw defense, although it may do so indirectly if Duke's opponents missing more free throws than they should have allowed Duke to win where they otherwise would have lost.

Looking at our opponents so far, every opponent except Colorado State and Washington have shot better from the line against Duke than they have for the season, and neither Colorado St or Washington shot so much worse against us that it would have changed the result. From which I conclude that, at least this year, Pomeroy's "luck" rating does not factor in free throw defense as far as Duke is concerned.

The "luck" is better described as: do our best possessions occur in a way where we maximize our number of wins? What this really translates into is: if we tend to win by smaller than predicted margins, our luck goes up. If we tend to win by larger than predicted margins, our luck goes down. If we win games we're projected to lose, our luck goes up, and if we lose games we're projected to win, our luck goes down. Finally, if we are projected to lose and lose by more than projected, our luck goes up; if we make the game closer than we were projected, our luck goes down.

What we've seen this year definitely gives us concrete reasons to believe that we've been gaming the system a little bit in terms of luck. I've already listed in this thread that we've been taking big leads at the end of the game and turning them into small ones. Despite those possessions typically not having an outcome on the game, they still count against us in the algorithm. In the other direction, we played our worst basketball against OSU, a team we were projected to lose to already. Whether we lose by 2 or 22, a loss is a loss in our record; but to the algorithm, it says we were lucky to get all of our bad play out of our systems against a team which likely would have beaten us even if we played well.

In other words, it's only "luck" if you consider every team to be a random number generator and you compare records with average performances. In reality, it's more of a descriptor of how we've won and lost our games.

[gumbomoop]

...focus way too much on our perimeter guys getting beat off the dribble.... So, other teams focus on running an offense that takes away from the incredible defense that Coach K teaches, which means that we see a large amount of dribble penetration attempts against us.

Two points about this. (1) IMO, a good handle is the single most important physical skill for perimeter players. This season, for example, Duke has only one player with a superior handle, Austin. Cook, maybe, hard to know for sure, but his will develop into a superior handle with more PT in coming seasons. TT's is adequate, as is Seth's. Andre's still needs work, or in-game reps.

Contrast this with most recent opponent, UW, who had 4 guys with good-to-excellent handles, Gaddy, Wroten, Ross, and Wilcox. Those guys got into the lane most of the times they tried. Surprisingly, to me, Gaddy didn't try much.

But, (2) I'm thinking this season the Devils have enough shot-blockers to make up somewhat for the inability of our perimeter D-guys to stop dribble-drive by opposing guys with good handles. Those 7 blocks v. UW helped, a lot. Although I wouldn't quite go so far as to claim Duke is now a "shot-blocking team" - that would be Baylor, probably, and UNC, a little, because of Henson. But I would say that we should definitely expect Mason to get 2-3 blocks/game, and Ryan and Miles 1-2 each. That's important.

[Wander]

What this really translates into is: if we tend to win by smaller than predicted margins, our luck goes up. If we tend to win by larger than predicted margins, our luck goes down. If we win games we're projected to lose, our luck goes up, and if we lose games we're projected to win, our luck goes down. Finally, if we are projected to lose and lose by more than projected, our luck goes up; if we make the game closer than we were projected, our luck goes down.

I think you're kind of right, but I don't know if simply winning a game by less than you're supposed to increases your luck so much as it just decreases your kenpom ranking.

A simple example to consider is this: say Duke is projected to beat Virginia by 10 points and lose to UNC by 8 points. Instead, Duke beats both Virginia and UNC by 1 point each. Overall, the kenpom record wouldn't change much because of these two games - kenpom predicted a combined margin of victory of 2 points over these two opponents, and Duke got a combined margin of victory of 2 points. However, kenpom's predictions called for Duke to get 1 win and 1 loss, whereas Duke actually got 2 wins. So Duke is considered "lucky."

On the other hand, if Duke is supposed to beat Maryland by 14 points and beat FSU by 6 points, and ends up beating Maryland by 10 points and FSU by 4 points, I don't think that changes Duke's luck ranking. Duke was predicted to win twice and they did. I think it just decreases Duke's overall ranking.

[Kedsy]

I think you're kind of right, but I don't know if simply winning a game by less than you're supposed to increases your luck so much as it just decreases your kenpom ranking.

A simple example to consider is this: say Duke is projected to beat Virginia by 10 points and lose to UNC by 8 points. Instead, Duke beats both Virginia and UNC by 1 point each. Overall, the kenpom record wouldn't change much because of these two games - kenpom predicted a combined margin of victory of 2 points over these two opponents, and Duke got a combined margin of victory of 2 points. However, kenpom's predictions called for Duke to get 1 win and 1 loss, whereas Duke actually got 2 wins. So Duke is considered "lucky."

On the other hand, if Duke is supposed to beat Maryland by 14 points and beat FSU by 6 points, and ends up beating Maryland by 10 points and FSU by 4 points, I don't think that changes Duke's luck ranking. Duke was predicted to win twice and they did. I think it just decreases Duke's overall ranking.

I think this is kind of what toooskies is saying. If we beat teams by less than we're supposed to, our rating goes down and we're expected to lose more games than we have. So indirectly our "luck" rating is better.

[Wander]

I think this is kind of what toooskies is saying. If we beat teams by less than we're supposed to, our rating goes down and we're expected to lose more games than we have. So indirectly our "luck" rating is better.

Yeah, I think you're basically right, but it's a secondary effect. Your kenpom rating has to not just go down, but go down by enough such that your projected number of wins over the season changes. Since the projected number of wins is a whole number, this isn't a given. I think.

I guess I'm just driving home that the point that luck ranking is more based on win/losses than the other kenpom metrics are (as opposed to being based strictly on possessions). In summary, winning lots of close games make you lucky. And might be a sign of leadership, or clutchness, or whatever you want to call it. But it's debatable how to interpret it.

[toooskies]

I think you're kind of right, but I don't know if simply winning a game by less than you're supposed to increases your luck so much as it just decreases your kenpom ranking.

A simple example to consider is this: say Duke is projected to beat Virginia by 10 points and lose to UNC by 8 points. Instead, Duke beats both Virginia and UNC by 1 point each. Overall, the kenpom record wouldn't change much because of these two games - kenpom predicted a combined margin of victory of 2 points over these two opponents, and Duke got a combined margin of victory of 2 points. However, kenpom's predictions called for Duke to get 1 win and 1 loss, whereas Duke actually got 2 wins. So Duke is considered "lucky."

On the other hand, if Duke is supposed to beat Maryland by 14 points and beat FSU by 6 points, and ends up beating Maryland by 10 points and FSU by 4 points, I don't think that changes Duke's luck ranking. Duke was predicted to win twice and they did. I think it just decreases Duke's overall ranking.

I over-simplified more than I should have.

Technically, Duke is never "expected to win" in the sense that we are given a 100% chance of winning. Rather, the likelihood of winning is calculated at some percentage, whether it be 99% or 51% or 1%, based on each team's offensive and defensive efficiencies so far. Ultimately, Duke's expected win number is naively approximate to the sum of all those percentages, divided by 100. This win number will always be a fraction. (The real way they do this is simulate a number of seasons, but regardless...)

So, when Duke's overall offensive and defensive efficiencies go down, our expected win percentage in every game we've played goes down (pending what our opposition does). And when we still win, our past wins get "luckier" because we are retroactively expected to have lost more.