PDA

View Full Version : Tyler Thornton's offense



tommy
12-16-2011, 12:39 AM
I charted Tyler's offense in the Washington game very closely to see if perhaps he was making more, or perhaps different contributions than I and other posters had been perceiving up to this point.

Here's what I noted, in no particular order:

On two occasions he simply made a poor pass on the outside. One went out of bounds for a turnover and the other was intercepted and led to a Wroten layup.
On one occasion he had the ball at the outset of the break and was on the dribble, but got stopped at halfcourt by a one-on-one defender and had to give the ball up. A better handle would've helped to continue the break there.
He had one good entry pass from the wing to Mason. He had one decent entry pass to Miles, but he wasn't in much of a position to do anything with it. He had another entry pass to Ryan on the block that was easy as Ryan had established good position and no other help defenders were nearby.
He had one poor entry pass to Miles; ball stolen.
He had one good challenge, early in the game, on an offensive rebound-type play where his hustle resulted in our getting a 50-50 ball.
One good pass-ahead to Austin on the break, and another to Andre for a transition 3 (missed). He also had a good skip-ahead pass off a rebound to Ryan who was alone at the offensive end after not making it back on D when he tweaked his ankle.
One good penetration that he followed with a poor attempt at a lob pass, which was knocked away.
One assist to Andre for a 3 -- not a tough pass but he did see him open and deliver the ball.
One one occasion he dribbled with a purpose towards the hoop as the tension in the game was building as UW was coming back. TT got fouled -missed one and made one.
In the last minute he got fouled again in the backcourt and again made 1 of 2.

He didn't take any shots from the field.

So that was some good and some not so good, but what really struck me was that the total number of offensive plays that he was involved in (in any kind of significant way) was very small for a point guard playing the kind of minutes Ty played in this game. That's because there were 29 times in this game (I counted) that Ty made passes that were simple, easy, nonthreatening passes to teammates on the outside.

My takeaway from this --and this is not news to anyone who watches the team play -- is that Tyler is really not putting very much pressure on the defense from the point guard position. He's not forcing very much action at all, not causing the defense to have to move, to adjust, to defend much that he's doing out there. He's not driving much, not dishing much, not pushing it up much; what he's really doing is bringing the ball upcourt successfully and just passing off to someone else, and then that someone else, along with the other 3 players, are involved in making a play.

It would be too harsh to say we're playing 4-on-5 on offense with Ty in the game, but it is a concern (at least of mine) that he's not causing very much stress on the defense really at all. I know he brings other attributes to the table, but nonetheless it seems important, in particular in Duke's system, that our guards be able to force the action and make plays, and we're not getting that from TT.

OldPhiKap
12-16-2011, 06:38 AM
I charted Tyler's offense in the Washington game very closely to see if perhaps he was making more, or perhaps different contributions than I and other posters had been perceiving up to this point.

Here's what I noted, in no particular order:

On two occasions he simply made a poor pass on the outside. One went out of bounds for a turnover and the other was intercepted and led to a Wroten layup.
On one occasion he had the ball at the outset of the break and was on the dribble, but got stopped at halfcourt by a one-on-one defender and had to give the ball up. A better handle would've helped to continue the break there.
He had one good entry pass from the wing to Mason. He had one decent entry pass to Miles, but he wasn't in much of a position to do anything with it. He had another entry pass to Ryan on the block that was easy as Ryan had established good position and no other help defenders were nearby.
He had one poor entry pass to Miles; ball stolen.
He had one good challenge, early in the game, on an offensive rebound-type play where his hustle resulted in our getting a 50-50 ball.
One good pass-ahead to Austin on the break, and another to Andre for a transition 3 (missed). He also had a good skip-ahead pass off a rebound to Ryan who was alone at the offensive end after not making it back on D when he tweaked his ankle.
One good penetration that he followed with a poor attempt at a lob pass, which was knocked away.
One assist to Andre for a 3 -- not a tough pass but he did see him open and deliver the ball.
One one occasion he dribbled with a purpose towards the hoop as the tension in the game was building as UW was coming back. TT got fouled -missed one and made one.
In the last minute he got fouled again in the backcourt and again made 1 of 2.

He didn't take any shots from the field.

So that was some good and some not so good, but what really struck me was that the total number of offensive plays that he was involved in (in any kind of significant way) was very small for a point guard playing the kind of minutes Ty played in this game. That's because there were 29 times in this game (I counted) that Ty made passes that were simple, easy, nonthreatening passes to teammates on the outside.

My takeaway from this --and this is not news to anyone who watches the team play -- is that Tyler is really not putting very much pressure on the defense from the point guard position. He's not forcing very much action at all, not causing the defense to have to move, to adjust, to defend much that he's doing out there. He's not driving much, not dishing much, not pushing it up much; what he's really doing is bringing the ball upcourt successfully and just passing off to someone else, and then that someone else, along with the other 3 players, are involved in making a play.

It would be too harsh to say we're playing 4-on-5 on offense with Ty in the game, but it is a concern (at least of mine) that he's not causing very much stress on the defense really at all. I know he brings other attributes to the table, but nonetheless it seems important, in particular in Duke's system, that our guards be able to force the action and make plays, and we're not getting that from TT.

One of my favorite players over the years was Billy King. Lock down defender. Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn on offense.

Our defense needs on-point pressure. If Tyler brings that, we can get by with him on the other side of the floor. You have watched the game in much greater detail than I have (multiple times -- very impressive) but I do not know how many times Tyler was able to either (1) act as a relief valve for someone who has discontinued his dribble; or (2) draw out a defender to open up a lane. Throw in some picks, and he's filling a useful role on offense even if he is not a huge offensive threat.

Having said that, of course, it helps if a player like that can hit enough shots to keep the other team honest. The jury may still be out on that point.

Overall, it seems that good things generally happen when he's out there. Haven't seen the overall +/- (and not sure how accurate a measure that is).

dukebballcamper90-91
12-16-2011, 07:36 AM
I'm sure his defense did not get him the DC player of the year in high school. The guy has the skill set to be a vital part of the O. We need him to make some plays to take the heat off Seth and Andre, who seem a little more slower at getting by defenders, creating shots.

Kedsy
12-16-2011, 10:00 AM
Thanks, Tommy. I have made the same observations you have, but it's great to see those observations confirmed by actual analysis.


Our defense needs on-point pressure. If Tyler brings that, we can get by with him on the other side of the floor.

I agree with this, except I don't think Tyler brings on-point pressure very well. His strength seems to be pesky help defense, doubling to create turnovers, etc. His on-ball defense against opposing PGs so far has been middling. He doesn't stay in front of his man nearly as well as a defensive stopper should. He's no Billy King.


Overall, it seems that good things generally happen when he's out there. Haven't seen the overall +/- (and not sure how accurate a measure that is).

I think good things happen on defense when he's out there. In my observation, the offense is much less dynamic and seems to bog down a lot more when Tyler is running the point.

In addition to Tommy's observations, I remarked in another thread that Seth seems to score a lot less than usual when he's teamed with Tyler (and Nolan scored a lot less than usual when he was teamed with Tyler). So not only is Tyler just passing the ball around the perimeter most of the time, he's apparently not giving it to his wing guard in a good position to get anything going.


I'm sure his defense did not get him the DC player of the year in high school.

I imagine defense probably had something to do with it. I couldn't find his high school stats anywhere, but I don't recall them being so eye-popping that he would have beat out Kendall Marshall for DC POY based on his offense.


The guy has the skill set to be a vital part of the O. We need him to make some plays to take the heat off Seth and Andre, who seem a little more slower at getting by defenders, creating shots.

You think Tyler is better than Seth at getting by defenders and creating shots? Wow, that's a fairly unique viewpoint, I expect, among people who have watched the games.

tommy
12-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Thanks, Tommy. I have made the same observations you have, but it's great to see those observations confirmed by actual analysis.



I agree with this, except I don't think Tyler brings on-point pressure very well. His strength seems to be pesky help defense, doubling to create turnovers, etc. His on-ball defense against opposing PGs so far has been middling. He doesn't stay in front of his man nearly as well as a defensive stopper should. He's no Billy King.

Amen to that. And the data, at least from the "defense vs. Washington" thread, confirms it.


I think good things happen on defense when he's out there. In my observation, the offense is much less dynamic and seems to bog down a lot more when Tyler is running the point.

In addition to Tommy's observations, I remarked in another thread that Seth seems to score a lot less than usual when he's teamed with Tyler (and Nolan scored a lot less than usual when he was teamed with Tyler). So not only is Tyler just passing the ball around the perimeter most of the time, he's apparently not giving it to his wing guard in a good position to get anything going.


I agree with you as to this as well. Not only is there little to no threat that Tyler is going to do something himself to pressure the defense, but he's not doing much to put his teammates in positions to apply that pressure either.

I'm certainly not in a position to question K, but he and the staff really must be putting a pretty high value on Ty's on-court leadership and the intangibles that he brings, because, at least in my opinion following fairly close viewing of these games, his defensive performance is uneven and his contributions at the offensive end are not all that substantial. Seems like an excellent energy guy to be coming off one's bench, but starting and playing 30 minutes?

jv001
12-16-2011, 12:09 PM
Amen to that. And the data, at least from the "defense vs. Washington" thread, confirms it.




I agree with you as to this as well. Not only is there little to no threat that Tyler is going to do something himself to pressure the defense, but he's not doing much to put his teammates in positions to apply that pressure either.

I'm certainly not in a position to question K, but he and the staff really must be putting a pretty high value on Ty's on-court leadership and the intangibles that he brings, because, at least in my opinion following fairly close viewing of these games, his defensive performance is uneven and his contributions at the offensive end are not all that substantial. Seems like an excellent energy guy to be coming off one's bench, but starting and playing 30 minutes?

I like Tyler and the energy that he brings to the team, but I just don't think he's the answer to our point guard position. At least not as you say the starter playing 30 minutes. My hope is that Quinn lights it up in practice and shows Coach K he can be our on the ball defender. And that he can add to our offense and not take away from it. Tyler has not shown me that he has the handle to be an elite point guard. GoDuke!

DUKIE V(A)
12-16-2011, 02:20 PM
It would be too harsh to say we're playing 4-on-5 on offense with Ty in the game, but it is a concern (at least of mine) that he's not causing very much stress on the defense really at all. I know he brings other attributes to the table, but nonetheless it seems important, in particular in Duke's system, that our guards be able to force the action and make plays, and we're not getting that from TT.

Not sure Bill Self agrees with you. :)

Kidding aside, I believe one of the more interesting aspects of this season will be how the coaching staff balances playing time between our guards -- obviously including TT. I am a fan of all our guys but am particularly excited to see Cook's development. I think he is one of the keys to how successful this team is.

elvis14
12-16-2011, 02:35 PM
Good thread guys and I appreciate the analysis. Kedsy hit the nail on the head. Tyler has a nose for the ball on defense and he's good at being a pain for the other team. He chases down loose balls, crashes boards, sticks his nose in places where it might be bent with reckless abandon. I like him but he really needs help on the other end of the floor. Other teams are leaving him to double team our bigs and to clog passing lanes. Just imagine if Dawkins had a nose for the ball the way Tyler does!

OldPhiKap
12-16-2011, 03:08 PM
Good thread guys and I appreciate the analysis. Kedsy hit the nail on the head. Tyler has a nose for the ball on defense and he's good at being a pain for the other team. He chases down loose balls, crashes boards, sticks his nose in places where it might be bent with reckless abandon. I like him but he really needs help on the other end of the floor. Other teams are leaving him to double team our bigs and to clog passing lanes.

Sounds like Wojo.

ncexnyc
12-16-2011, 04:43 PM
Can somebody help me out, I'm so confused. Coach K. has turned the team over to Tyler, yet we've still got people calling for Seth to be the PG.

Where are all the posts telling these people to stop seconding guessing a coach with over 900 wins? Where are the posts telling these people to stop throwing one player under the bus to build-up another player?:confused:

tommy
12-16-2011, 05:05 PM
Sounds like Wojo.

Don't know about that. Ty hasn't played nearly as many minutes or games as Wojo did, but so far at least his numbers do not measure up to Wojo's career numbers.

Category Wojo Tyler

minutes/game 25.5 12.02
assists/game 3.9 1.2
turnovers/game 1.57 0.75
A/TO ratio 2.48:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 2.3 0.9
steals/gm 1.6 0.5

-jk
12-16-2011, 05:23 PM
Don't know about that. Ty hasn't played nearly as many minutes or games as Wojo did, but so far at least his numbers do not measure up to Wojo's career numbers.

Category Wojo Tyler

minutes/game 25.5 12.02
assists/game 3.9 1.2
turnovers/game 1.57 0.75
A/TO ratio 2.48:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 2.3 0.9
steals/gm 1.6 0.5

That's hardly fair. At least compare Soph year to Soph year. And, of course, Wojo had the '95 anomoly mixed in. Not sure what that does. (I'm on my BB, so goduke stats aren't readily available; I'll have to leave it to you! Sorry.)

-jk

Verga3
12-16-2011, 05:32 PM
TT's leadership and defensive abilities may well trump, in Coach K's mind, some "deficiencies" some on this board are speculating about. I believe Coach K has a better finger on the pulse and development of this team than we do. Things can always change...and that may already be contemplated, with regard to Seth and Quinn's role. But, I fully support and enjoy seeing Tyler start at the point. Last I checked, we don't have many kids playing 40 minutes. Building depth and enhancing player development at this time of year is a tightrope act that I trust Coach K and his staff to manage.

Double DD
12-16-2011, 05:40 PM
Don't know about that. Ty hasn't played nearly as many minutes or games as Wojo did, but so far at least his numbers do not measure up to Wojo's career numbers.

Category Wojo Tyler

minutes/game 25.5 12.02
assists/game 3.9 1.2
turnovers/game 1.57 0.75
A/TO ratio 2.48:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 2.3 0.9
steals/gm 1.6 0.5

Wojo shot an incredible 0.318 from the floor as a sophomore. Even with Wojo being a superior passer at that point, it would hard for Thornton to match that ineffectiveness on offence.

tommy
12-16-2011, 06:21 PM
That's hardly fair. At least compare Soph year to Soph year. And, of course, Wojo had the '95 anomoly mixed in. Not sure what that does. (I'm on my BB, so goduke stats aren't readily available; I'll have to leave it to you! Sorry.)

-jk

You're right. I thought about that too. Comparison of Wojo's first two years' stats vs. TT's are below. Wojo still superior in all areas (not including shooting %) but not by as wide a margin.

I also notice that Wojo took about 3 times as many FG attempts per game in his first two years as Ty had. Neither qualifies as a bomber (about 3 shots per game for Wojo vs. 1 for Ty) and Ty clearly has shot a higher FG% than did Wojo his first two years, but most would say there is at least some value in the act of taking some shots, even if they don't go in, just to keep the defense honest and make it move and react to what you're doing, thereby increasing the chances of freeing up teammates.

ps - any idea how to do neat columns on this thing instead of the mess I've presented?


Category Wojo TT


minutes/gm 20.59 12.02
asst/gm 2.79 1.2
turnovers/gm 1.35 .75
asst/TO ration 2.06:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 1.76 0.9
steals/gm 0.8 0.5

-jk
12-16-2011, 06:39 PM
There are two ways to do columns. Both are described in the FAQ sticky (www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?3217-FAQ-TV-Coverage-Game-Chat-NCAA-Compliance-quot-9F-quot-NBA&p=53922#post53922).

-jk

94duke
12-16-2011, 09:06 PM
You're right. I thought about that too. Comparison of Wojo's first two years' stats vs. TT's are below. Wojo still superior in all areas (not including shooting %) but not by as wide a margin.

I also notice that Wojo took about 3 times as many FG attempts per game in his first two years as Ty had. Neither qualifies as a bomber (about 3 shots per game for Wojo vs. 1 for Ty) and Ty clearly has shot a higher FG% than did Wojo his first two years, but most would say there is at least some value in the act of taking some shots, even if they don't go in, just to keep the defense honest and make it move and react to what you're doing, thereby increasing the chances of freeing up teammates.

ps - any idea how to do neat columns on this thing instead of the mess I've presented?


Category Wojo TT


minutes/gm 20.59 12.02
asst/gm 2.79 1.2
turnovers/gm 1.35 .75
asst/TO ration 2.06:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 1.76 0.9
steals/gm 0.8 0.5

Here you go...

Category Wojo TT

minutes/gm 20.59 12.02
asst/gm 2.79 1.2
turnovers/gm 1.35 0.75
asst/TO ratio 2.06:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 1.76 0.9
steals/gm 0.8 0.5

sagegrouse
12-16-2011, 09:40 PM
You're right. I thought about that too. Comparison of Wojo's first two years' stats vs. TT's are below. Wojo still superior in all areas (not including shooting %) but not by as wide a margin.

I also notice that Wojo took about 3 times as many FG attempts per game in his first two years as Ty had. Neither qualifies as a bomber (about 3 shots per game for Wojo vs. 1 for Ty) and Ty clearly has shot a higher FG% than did Wojo his first two years, but most would say there is at least some value in the act of taking some shots, even if they don't go in, just to keep the defense honest and make it move and react to what you're doing, thereby increasing the chances of freeing up teammates.

ps - any idea how to do neat columns on this thing instead of the mess I've presented?


Category Wojo TT



minutes/gm 20.59 12.02
asst/gm 2.79 1.2
turnovers/gm 1.35 0.75
asst/TO ration 2.06:1 1.6:1
rebounds/gm 1.76 0.9
steals/gm 0.8 0.5




Here's one way. You need to use code /code and then play with the spacing. I used "Preview Post" 4-5 times to get this table. -- sage

tommy
12-16-2011, 10:00 PM
Thanks fellas for the help w the columns. I'll try it next time.

T

Greg_Newton
12-16-2011, 10:42 PM
Wojo shot an incredible 0.318 from the floor as a sophomore. Even with Wojo being a superior passer at that point, it would hard for Thornton to match that ineffectiveness on offence.

Good point. However, I don't think we should be using '95-'96 as any sort of benchmark for this current top 5-10 team, as 1996 was one of our worst seasons of the past 25 years.

I'll concur with Tommy; I love Tyler as a sixth man, but not a 30+mpg pillar of the lineup. He reminds me of Mike on Breaking Bad - send him in when you've got a situation that needs to be cleaned up!

(Side note, it's only a matter of time before he gets a solid nickname. Too bad The Fixer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fixer_(TV_series)) wasn't more popular, because that's basically who he is...)

Wildcat
12-18-2011, 09:00 PM
I think Coach knows that down the road this year; the intangibles that Tyler brings will be sorely needed. There may be more up-side with Tyler than Seth and Dre. Seth and Dre are effective scorers with a penchant for perimeter play. Tyler's skill set is in the hidden nuances of the game. Better to cultivate his confidence/experience now than later when it REALLY will be needed. Smart move K!

tommy
12-18-2011, 10:01 PM
Tyler's skill set is in the hidden nuances of the game.

What do you believe these hidden nuances to be and do you have anything specifically to reference to support those beliefs?

Wildcat
12-19-2011, 08:25 AM
There are some things human beings possess that are not: statistical, factual, empirically measureable or intelligible to the minds eye. I haven't seen Tyler play extensively; but what i have seen in him is a different skill-set than Seth or Dre. The same can be said of the Hairston kid; i believe that's his name. (6.7 forward off the bench) He too is not necessarily the scorer that Kelly or Plums is, but he has a toughness and willingness to bang with the roughnecks when called upon. I've said for years that K needed to diversify his player personnel. You can't keep fielding teams loaded with three-point shooters and have no MAJOR back to the basket players; or players who go "strong to the rim." That's why i was a major fan of Marty and Olek. They brought that diversity to the court when they played. The argument that was made about Scheyer was close; but i don't think he was exploited. He may not have been developed, but not exploited. Scheyer was not strong going to the rim; WE ALL KNOW THIS, whether we want to admit it or not. He was a great player; but his strength was not finishing at the rim. He would get to the free throw alot; because he mostly went in their looking to get fouled. But he was not a particularly strong finisher. Intangibles....? Our hall of famer knows this. Why are we questioning him? He has 900 wins.?.? Cmon people

duke09hms
12-19-2011, 05:57 PM
Intangibles....? Our hall of famer knows this. Why are we questioning him? He has 900 wins.?.? Cmon people

You lose so much credibility with this one statement. Coach K is a great coach no doubt about it, arguably the greatest bball coach ever. However as many have said over and over and over, he is far from infallible and therefore open to questioning.

Tyler is a pest on defense, but he is mediocre at staying in front of his man, which is a cardinal deficiency of our team. And except for the last two minutes against Kansas, his offense is also mediocre - not a good shooter, doesn't create much, mostly makes easy passes around the perimeter. Numbers show that his "intangibles" don't help the team take or increase the lead, and the offense of the guard he is paired with significantly drops (Seth this year, Nolan last year).

I hope Tyler does not become like a Paulus - a less capable upperclassman that keeps a more talented underclassman on the bench (Eliot Williams/Quinn Cook) to the team's detriment.

But hey, maybe the 2009 team would have been worse off if Elliot taken Paulus' spot earlier. Maybe the team would be worse with Quinn running point from the start. There's really no way to know for sure - we only get one go at it, so theres no perfect control experiment.

Des Esseintes
12-19-2011, 08:05 PM
There are some things human beings possess that are not: statistical, factual, empirically measureable or intelligible to the minds eye. I haven't seen Tyler play extensively; but what i have seen in him is a different skill-set than Seth or Dre. The same can be said of the Hairston kid; i believe that's his name. (6.7 forward off the bench) He too is not necessarily the scorer that Kelly or Plums is, but he has a toughness and willingness to bang with the roughnecks when called upon. I've said for years that K needed to diversify his player personnel. You can't keep fielding teams loaded with three-point shooters and have no MAJOR back to the basket players; or players who go "strong to the rim." That's why i was a major fan of Marty and Olek. They brought that diversity to the court when they played. The argument that was made about Scheyer was close; but i don't think he was exploited. He may not have been developed, but not exploited. Scheyer was not strong going to the rim; WE ALL KNOW THIS, whether we want to admit it or not. He was a great player; but his strength was not finishing at the rim. He would get to the free throw alot; because he mostly went in their looking to get fouled. But he was not a particularly strong finisher. Intangibles....? Our hall of famer knows this. Why are we questioning him? He has 900 wins.?.? Cmon people

This post is incoherent. Complaining that K needs "to diversify his player personnel," whatever that means, then chastising the notion of criticizing the coach? The idea that the team needed more Olek putting the ball on the floor in lieu of Scheyer?

Look, dude. The vast majority of posters, regardless of where they fall on the Tyler-love continuum, aren't criticizing K. I think many believe Quinn has a significantly higher upside than Tyler but that he hasn't yet demonstrated himself to be a superior player over Tyler *right now.* As the season progresses, that may well change, and Tyler's minutes may fall back a bit. So we talk about that. We talk, too, about the advantages and drawbacks of Tyler's defense. We talk, too, about his limitations on offense, about his effect on the overall team offense. These topics have the virtue of being tangibly observed and recorded.

It's interesting the four players you've singled out for needing more minutes are Tyler, Hairston, Olek, and Marty. It's not quite Duke's All-Decade Imaginary Team. But it's close. Needs a wing, though. Or a 2, depending on where you play Marty. Maybe King Taylor? Kenny Boynton? Look out, dreamworld NCAA.

Richard Berg
12-19-2011, 10:17 PM
It's interesting the four players you've singled out for needing more minutes are Tyler, Hairston, Olek, and Marty. It's not quite Duke's All-Decade Imaginary Team. But it's close. Needs a wing, though. Or a 2, depending on where you play Marty. Maybe King Taylor? Kenny Boynton? Look out, dreamworld NCAA.
I hear Nick Horvath is pwning Boozer 1-on-1 in pickup games, and Shav has started loading up on PB&J sandwiches.

Kedsy
12-20-2011, 12:50 AM
Another subpar offensive showing from Seth playing alongside Tyler. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

Newton_14
12-20-2011, 07:18 AM
Another subpar offensive showing from Seth playing alongside Tyler. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

In fairness, Seth had a nasty ankle sprain midweek and only got in one normal practice. I think the injury played a huge role in Seth's play last night. Not disputing there isn't a pattern there, but we need to throw last night's game out of the data collection due to the injury.

tele
12-20-2011, 07:43 AM
In fairness, Seth had a nasty ankle sprain midweek and only got in one normal practice. I think the injury played a huge role in Seth's play last night. Not disputing there isn't a pattern there, but we need to throw last night's game out of the data collection due to the injury.

From the sounds of things, many here probably think Seth's ankle sprain was caused by Tyler tripping him. :)
But seriously, Cook did look good with the ball at the end of the game and it looks like he can score, so maybe he will be getting more minutes as a shooting guard?

COYS
12-20-2011, 08:04 AM
Another subpar offensive showing from Seth playing alongside Tyler. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

I noticed this, too. Tyler doesn't really provide many drive and kick opportunities so Seth was left hanging out on the wing with no way to get the ball on a lot of possessions when Tyler was in the game.

MChambers
12-20-2011, 08:57 AM
I noticed this, too. Tyler doesn't really provide many drive and kick opportunities so Seth was left hanging out on the wing with no way to get the ball on a lot of possessions when Tyler was in the game.

Tyler contributes significantly in some ways, but he doesn't generate much offense, either for himself or his teammates. That almost certainly hurts Seth. Also, because Tyler is less of a three point threat, even if a post player gets a double team, the other team is unlikely to leave Seth or Austin open. That's not true when Andre is in the game.

I'm not saying that Tyler should get fewer minutes, however. I trust our coaches on this. I'm just agreeing that it probably affects Seth the most.

Wildcat
12-20-2011, 10:37 AM
All of a sudden Seth and others' inept play is a result of Tyler being on the floor?!? You gotta be kidding. These sentiments speak more of your evaluation of talent that we have on our team, than it does about Tyler. If you've got to have the EXACT/PERFECT combination for the drive and dish three, that seems to be signature, then i say our talent is truly too homogeneous! I too believe in offensive chemistry and lineup combinations that support certain players' strengths and abilities; but cmon, this is ridiculous to assert that Tyler's play is that much of a hindrance to others. At some point, a player has got to find a way to "play his game," regardless of who he is paired with. He has got to score, drive, dish, rebound,...play the d.. game like he can, whether or not his favorite backcourt mate is there or not.


I didn't watch the game the other night, so i can't comment on Cook yet. I did see him play against Ohio; he looked nervous, rattled, and out of sync. I have seen Tyler play in enough games to know he will be a valuable asset to this team down the road this year. He may go through a slump here and there; but his quickness, strength and competitiveness/intangibles will prove invaluable as the season progresses. Let's stop making excuses for these kids; either they play well; or they don't. It's not that difficult people.

OZZIE4DUKE
12-20-2011, 10:48 AM
I didn't watch the game the other night, so i can't comment on Cook yet. I did see him play against Ohio; he looked nervous, rattled, and out of sync .
That's the way Quinn looked in the first half last night, too. But suddenly in the second half, let's just say the light went on and Quinn looked smooth, confident and quite capable of controlling both tempo and the ball. He hit his shots, including a gorgeous drive down the right side of the lane finishing with a reverse layup on the left side of the basket to avoid the defender! He made an absolutely beautiful entry pass from the 3-point line to Mason under the basket (past two defenders) for an easy bucket. Last night, for the first time, we saw a glimpse of what Quinn can bring to the team! Let's hope it continues. IF it does, he'll be the starter and Tyler will be coming off the bench as a very valuable reserve.

DukieInBrasil
12-20-2011, 10:55 AM
All of a sudden Seth and others' inept play is a result of Tyler being on the floor?!? You gotta be kidding. These sentiments speak more of your evaluation of talent that we have on our team, than it does about Tyler. If you've got to have the EXACT/PERFECT combination for the drive and dish three, that seems to be signature, then i say our talent is truly too homogeneous! I too believe in offensive chemistry and lineup combinations that support certain players' strengths and abilities; but cmon, this is ridiculous to assert that Tyler's play is that much of a hindrance to others. At some point, a player has got to find a way to "play his game," regardless of who he is paired with. He has got to score, drive, dish, rebound,...play the d.. game like he can, whether or not his favorite backcourt mate is there or not.
I didn't watch the game the other night, so i can't comment on Cook yet. I did see him play against Ohio; he looked nervous, rattled, and out of sync. I have seen Tyler play in enough games to know he will be a valuable asset to this team down the road this year. He may go through a slump here and there; but his quickness, strength and competitiveness/intangibles will prove invaluable as the season progresses. Let's stop making excuses for these kids; either they play well; or they don't. It's not that difficult people.
I disagree with statement in every way possible. It is entirely reasonable to state that the play of one player can help/hinder the play of another. Just look at all the fun we had poking at Kerlina last year vis a vis Drew II vs Marshall and how well The Dark Pigeon played, or Zeller, or Henson, or well, just about the whole damn team, when KM played rather than Drew. It wasn't b/c those players just all of the sudden said "Daggumit, i'm gonna score the ball now cuz i'm gonna play my game". No, it was b/c the play of Drew II hindered the performance of others.
Someone did a very exhaustive study of one TT's starts and the frequency and types of passes that he made, and showed quite starkly that TT's passes led to less offensive activity. So please tell us how he (presumably Seth) is gonna score, drive, dish if he is being put at a disadvantage by how he gets the ball? Are you suggesting that most players generate all of their offense on their own? Do you understand that TT's assist rate is very low and that the assist rate is partly a function of getting the ball to good players in good spots to utilize their superior talents in advantageous situations?
No one is disputing that TT can and will be a valuable player on this team.
And no one is making excuses, they are, in fact, called observations.

Kedsy
12-20-2011, 11:12 AM
All of a sudden Seth and others' inept play is a result of Tyler being on the floor?!? You gotta be kidding.

I posted this last week, but perhaps you didn't see it. Seth's scoring average this season when Tyler doesn't start is 14.1 ppg (8 games). His scoring average in Tyler's starts is 7.3 ppg (3 games). Seth's two other subpar scoring performances occurred in games Tyler played 20+ minutes, while Seth scored 17 or more in four of the five games in which Tyler didn't start and played less than 20 minutes (the fifth game being Ohio State).

I did a more detailed analysis last year, looking at Nolan's performance when he played alongside Tyler and when he didn't. I don't have the exact figures handy any more, but my recollection is that when Nolan played alongside Tyler, Nolan's scoring average was under 10 points per 40 minutes, and in the same games, when Nolan was out there without Tyler, his scoring average was over 25 points per 40 minutes. That's a huge difference, and Nolan was the ACC player of the year, so I don't think it was a matter of "inept play."

Admittedly, both of these analyses involve small sample sizes, but based on the data we have, it's not far-fetched to hypothesize that something about the way Tyler runs the offense stifles the scoring ability of our wing guard.

This is not "blaming" Tyler for anything, it's merely something that I think is worth watching as the season progresses.

Wildcat
12-20-2011, 11:58 AM
what you are saying my friend; i just believe that their are other intangibles to the game. The season is early, but i can see why K would choose to "experiment" with Tyler in the game more. He may lack the Hurleyesque flair in terms of scoring, assist and other point guard qualities, but he brings something to "this" team that K feels they need. Do you recall that when Kyrie came back; Nolan at times appeared to dissapear. His game was thrown off too. It was due to the superior talent and point guard skill of Kyrie. Tyler doesn't have the scoring flair that Nolan had in my view. What Tyler does bring is a stronger, quicker, more diverse orientation to the game that can possibly help us later this year. There's more to the game than "three-point" shooting. I think we emphasize this too much and it ends up hampering our players and the team later in the season.

OZZIE4DUKE
12-20-2011, 01:35 PM
The Dark Pigeon
http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/24.gif http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/24.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/24.gif http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/24.gif

jv001
12-20-2011, 02:47 PM
what you are saying my friend; i just believe that their are other intangibles to the game. The season is early, but i can see why K would choose to "experiment" with Tyler in the game more. He may lack the Hurleyesque flair in terms of scoring, assist and other point guard qualities, but he brings something to "this" team that K feels they need. Do you recall that when Kyrie came back; Nolan at times appeared to dissapear. His game was thrown off too. It was due to the superior talent and point guard skill of Kyrie. Tyler doesn't have the scoring flair that Nolan had in my view. What Tyler does bring is a stronger, quicker, more diverse orientation to the game that can possibly help us later this year. There's more to the game than "three-point" shooting. I think we emphasize this too much and it ends up hampering our players and the team later in the season.

You can't compare Kyrie and Tyler because as you say Kyrie was more talented and has point guard skills that Tyler doesn't. When Kyrie came back we were playing much tougher teams during the most pressure packed time of the year. I agree that Tyler is strong and fairly quick, but he is not a good on the ball defender. He like Seth is a good off the ball defender and he has hit some big shots. But his ball handling is no better than Seths and I don't know what his diverse orientation to the game is. It's easy to see that Seth is not the same player playing along side Tyler for many minutes. GoDuke!

CDu
12-20-2011, 02:57 PM
Do you recall that when Kyrie came back; Nolan at times appeared to dissapear. His game was thrown off too. It was due to the superior talent and point guard skill of Kyrie.

That's because Irving took a large chunk of the role that Smith had offensively. Thornton doesn't seem to take any of the role offensively, other than bringing the ball up the floor some of the time. The offense runs largely the same way it did with Dawkins in the game, only teams don't have to defend Thornton as tightly.


Tyler doesn't have the scoring flair that Nolan had in my view. What Tyler does bring is a stronger, quicker, more diverse orientation to the game that can possibly help us later this year. There's more to the game than "three-point" shooting.

Unless you mean quicker than Hairston or another big, I don't think Thornton brings more quickness. I'd argue that he might be the least quick of our guard options - certainly less quick than Cook.

As for adding diversity to the lineup, I'd say he only adds defensive diversity. Offensively, I think he mostly detracts. The question is whether he makes up for that on the defensive end (which is possible).

MulletMan
12-20-2011, 03:19 PM
As for adding diversity to the lineup, I'd say he only adds defensive diversity. Offensively, I think he mostly detracts. The question is whether he makes up for that on the defensive end (which is possible).

You know... its been pretty obvious for a long time that Coach K is willing to add fire and brimstone to the defensive end of the floor while sacrificing offense. Ironically someone brought up Elliot Williams earlier in the thread... if you'll recall, Williams fought his way into playing time solely by developing his defensive prowess under the tutelage of one Nate James. That was exactly what that team needed, but Williams was a train wreck on the offensive end that season (and frankly, he didn't get much better in his one year at Memphis). K didn't care about that then, and he doesn't now I would presume.

Look, I really think that Cook is the better of the two all around players, but, right now, it seems like Tyler is just in the right place in the right time on the defensive end a lot. And with K, that's gonna get you PT. And that's keeping him in the game. I do think that its tough for Seth to be on the wing with Tyler distributing, but my guess is that if this is the long-term lineup that we're going to roll with, that Tyler and Seth will be working hard to improve their continuity on the court.

I also think we should not overlook the fact that Cook is coming off of a major knee injury and it seems possible that he's not ready to play 30 minutes per game right now. I have no evidence to that, but do think that its a conceivable possibility.

Wander
12-20-2011, 03:27 PM
That was exactly what that team needed, but Williams was a train wreck on the offensive end that season (and frankly, he didn't get much better in his one year at Memphis).


Elliot Williams was Memphis' leading scorer. Even at Duke, he always had more potential as an offensive player than Thornton does due to his fantastic athleticism (though this never came to fruition at Duke). You're confusing shooting with scoring.

MulletMan
12-20-2011, 03:48 PM
Elliot Williams was Memphis' leading scorer. Even at Duke, he always had more potential as an offensive player than Thornton does due to his fantastic athleticism (though this never came to fruition at Duke). You're confusing shooting with scoring.

No, you're confusing offensive ability with scoring (and granted we are splitting hairs). Elliot Williams led Memphis in scoring, but they ran the Dribble-Drive-Motion offense that Cal left behind in Pastner's first season. The majority of Williams' points in that season at Memphis were in the lane. He was the primary ball handler on that team after it was decimated by Cal leaving and taking all of his recruits to UK. That team was mediocre at best, lost to every ranked team they played and flamed out in the second round of the NIT. Williams averaged 17 points a game, but he also led the team in minutes played, shots taken, FTs attempted and turnovers... racking up an even 100 TOs for the year.

Regardless of any of that... he was offensively inept in his time at Duke. He didn't move without the ball and didn't know how to play without the ball in his hands. He started 12 games at Duke. In his first 5 he averaged double digits in points, but once teams got a look at how we were using him, and started preventing him from getting into the lane, his point lines were the following: 8, 2, 2, 0, 11, 2, 5. The 11 was the first round NCAA tourney game against Binghamton. In a total of 12 games that he started he had 12 assists and 11 TOs. In the games he started he shot 82% on 2pt FGs and 19% on 3pt FGs. I don't have a shot chart to tell you where those two point baskets were from, but I'll bet they were in the lane or pretty close to it. He was not a good offensive player at Duke, and to my original point, he was on the floor because K was willing to give up some offense for his incredible defense.

CDu
12-20-2011, 03:54 PM
No, you're confusing offensive ability with scoring (and granted we are splitting hairs). Elliot Williams led Memphis in scoring, but they ran the Dribble-Drive-Motion offense that Cal left behind in Pastner's first season. The majority of Williams' points in that season at Memphis were in the lane. He was the primary ball handler on that team after it was decimated by Cal leaving and taking all of his recruits to UK. That team was mediocre at best, lost to every ranked team they played and flamed out in the second round of the NIT. Williams averaged 17 points a game, but he also led the team in minutes played, shots taken, FTs attempted and turnovers... racking up an even 100 TOs for the year.

He also shot 46% from the field and 36.6% from 3pt range. And he drew a lot of fouls. He averaged 1.57 points per FGA. That's pretty efficient. I don't see any reasonable argument that he wasn't a terrific offensive player in his one year at Memphis. He wasn't perfect, and he wasn't a terrific shooter, but he was very good offensively.


Regardless of any of that... he was offensively inept in his time at Duke. He didn't move without the ball and didn't know how to play without the ball in his hands. He started 12 games at Duke. In his first 5 he averaged double digits in points, but once teams got a look at how we were using him, and started preventing him from getting into the lane, his point lines were the following: 8, 2, 2, 0, 11, 2, 5. The 11 was the first round NCAA tourney game against Binghamton. In a total of 12 games that he started he had 12 assists and 11 TOs. In the games he started he shot 82% on 2pt FGs and 19% on 3pt FGs. I don't have a shot chart to tell you where those two point baskets were from, but I'll bet they were in the lane or pretty close to it. He was not a good offensive player at Duke, and to my original point, he was on the floor because K was willing to give up some offense for his incredible defense.

I agree on this part. Although I'm not sure why you keep point out where he scored his points. I don't think it matters where he got his points. There are other ways to be productive offensively than just 3pt shooting, as you said. But I agree that he wasn't a ready player early as a freshman.

But my beef wasn't (necessarily) with Thornton being on the floor. Just with the earlier poster's assertion that he's providing much of anything offensively.

-jk
12-20-2011, 04:59 PM
He also shot 46% from the field and 36.6% from 3pt range. And he drew a lot of fouls. He averaged 1.57 points per FGA. That's pretty efficient. I don't see any reasonable argument that he wasn't a terrific offensive player in his one year at Memphis. He wasn't perfect, and he wasn't a terrific shooter, but he was very good offensively.



I agree on this part. Although I'm not sure why you keep point out where he scored his points. I don't think it matters where he got his points. There are other ways to be productive offensively than just 3pt shooting, as you said. But I agree that he wasn't a ready player early as a freshman.

But my beef wasn't (necessarily) with Thornton being on the floor. Just with the earlier poster's assertion that he's providing much of anything offensively.

Paging Pete and Press Maravich.

Ok, guity of attempting reductio ad absurdum.

EWill had a good year on a weak team. Granted.

Basketball is a team sport, though. A single player can put up incredible numbers for himself without truly helping the team accomplish its goals.

-jk

CDu
12-20-2011, 05:01 PM
Paging Pete and Press Maravich.

Ok, guity of attempting reductio ad absurdum.

EWill had a good year on a weak team. Granted.

Basketball is a team sport, though. A single player can put up incredible numbers for himself without truly helping the team accomplish its goals.

-jk

It's not Williams' fault that his teammates weren't that good. In fact, the fact that he was able to be so efficient with a bad team is further evidence that he was, in fact, a good offensive player that year.

I'm not sure the point in disparaging Williams here. The previous poster made a comment that he wasn't very good with Memphis. I disagree, and I think the evidence supports my viewpoint on this. It doesn't mean Coach K was wrong for limiting his minutes early in the ACC season as a freshman. I just think he was a vastly improved player as a sophomore, and in a system better suited for his offensive skillset. That happens sometimes.

Wander
12-20-2011, 06:26 PM
EWill had a good year on a weak team. Granted.

Basketball is a team sport, though. A single player can put up incredible numbers for himself without truly helping the team accomplish its goals.


EWill had a good year, period. There's no need or evidence for your other implications.



The majority of Williams' points in that season at Memphis were in the lane.


So what?



I'm not sure the point in disparaging Williams here.


Right. The only thing I can think of is that they think we're implying that Elliot was misused at Duke. Which isn't the case - I just think he was much better in his sophomore year (like many players are).

Scorp4me
12-20-2011, 10:14 PM
I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

ncexnyc
12-20-2011, 11:02 PM
I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!
While this thread is aimed at Tyler based on the comments spread throughout a number of different threads I'd say all of our guards have supporters and detractors, each with varying levels of rabidness. Probably the only kid who hasn't had any serious negativity directed towards him is Austin and that's probably because he's our best player. As long as our line-up continues to change like the weather, I'm fairly certain this will continue.

JNort
12-21-2011, 01:50 AM
I think he should be an 8th man for THIS team. I envision him as a guy who comes in for 6 to 8 mins a game just to harass either the PG or SG for the other team who is shooting the best at the moment. Maybe foul said PG/SG a few times to throw him out of rhythm and bring a dash of leadership and motivation for short spurts while resting Austin, Quinn, Curry or Dre.

FYI I know K doesn't typically go 8 deep let alone 9 but I see the same thing for Josh. High energy, harass a guy or two, motivate the guys then head back to the bench after no more than 5 to 7 mins total gameplay.

Now two years from this point I would love to see these two with larger roles on a championship team and scoring left and right and defending like mad dogs.




Just my .02

Double DD
12-21-2011, 06:10 AM
Regardless of any of that... he was offensively inept in his time at Duke. He didn't move without the ball and didn't know how to play without the ball in his hands. He started 12 games at Duke. In his first 5 he averaged double digits in points, but once teams got a look at how we were using him, and started preventing him from getting into the lane, his point lines were the following: 8, 2, 2, 0, 11, 2, 5. The 11 was the first round NCAA tourney game against Binghamton. In a total of 12 games that he started he had 12 assists and 11 TOs. In the games he started he shot 82% on 2pt FGs and 19% on 3pt FGs. I don't have a shot chart to tell you where those two point baskets were from, but I'll bet they were in the lane or pretty close to it. He was not a good offensive player at Duke, and to my original point, he was on the floor because K was willing to give up some offense for his incredible defense.

I know that was the media narrative but the numbers don't really back it up. After the insertion of Williams into the starting lineup, Duke's offensive efficiency actually improved from the 1st to the 2nd half of the ACC schedule and their defensive efficiency worsened significantly.

Channing
12-21-2011, 08:32 AM
I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

I dont think anyone wants to see TT fail. Personally, I would love to see him succeed beyond everyone's expectations. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. However, I don't understand why everyone keeps saying he brings great "intangibles" to the game. What does that mean? Several folks have documented that Seth is markedly less productive when playing next to TT, and while he may be a good (or even great) off ball defender, he gets burnt off the dribble just as much as our other guards. In my mind, Shelden brought great intangibles to the game because other teams were hesitant to drive the lane when he was in, meaning our guards could be more aggressive on the perimeter (same with Zoubek).

Great intangibles for a PG would be the ability to get in the lane, requiring other defenders to sag down off their men, leading to more open looks, or playing such good on ball defense that the other team can't get into their offense where or when they want to. The mere fact that someone doesn't put up good statistics doesn't, per se, mean they have good intangibles. Although they don't appear in the scorebook, we should be able to observe the impact of intangibles. I watch every Duke game, and rewatch most Duke games - and I just don't see the intangibles that TT brings.

I know Coach K has forgotten more basketball than I will ever know, so I am interested to see the long term plan for TT.

CDu
12-21-2011, 08:44 AM
I'm amazed...I mean simply amazed at how much some of you want to see Tyler fail. I mean, there just is no other way to put it. All I know is the team seems to be better when Tyler is in the game. Good things seem to happen. And the players seem to trust him. He's no Battier (but then who is) but he definitely has the intangibles down!

Actually, there are lots of others ways to put it. And most of them would be much more accurate than saying people want to see Thornton fail. I very much want Thornton (and every Duke player) to do well. But that doesn't mean I think he's the best option to start or (more importantly) play 25+mpg.

Also, I love the "he has the intangibles down", when by definition you can't quantify intangibles. And there are no alternative measures that currently suggest the team plays better with him on the floor, which is usually the basis for citing the "intangibles" comment.

Wildcat
12-21-2011, 09:38 AM
that some of us (posters) have never played the game of basketball in your lives! What does intangibles mean? Wow, if you have to spell out everything, roll out statistics ad nauseum, analyze time-played with player a or player b; its great that you are talented analytically; but cmon this is the game of basketball people. There's a vernacular of spech that says: "game knows game." This aphorism may not contain much merit in the halls of academia; but in some cicles, its a socratic truth. Seth has more of an upside offensively than Tyler; but again, when are you going to ralize that there is more to the game than a three point shot.?.

We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

CDu
12-21-2011, 10:03 AM
Seth has more of an upside offensively than Tyler; but again, when are you going to ralize that there is more to the game than a three point shot.?.

So because you can't illustrate how Thornton is so clearly improving the team by playing more (in spite of a lack of evidence in the team's actual performance) we're the ones who don't understand basketball? Got it. I just love the "it's obvious you've never played basketball" argument whenever someone disagrees with you. What a tired and usually inaccurate comment.


We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

If you think that Coach K just recognized that the game is more than a 3 point shooting contest and that it helps to have offensive diversity, then I think it's you who is not getting it. Coach K has changed his offensive approach nearly every year, depending upon the team's strengths. In fact, he has been known to change the approach midseason when necessary as well. This season is no different. I'd expect the lineup to continue to change as well.

What I don't see is anything to suggest that Thornton's uptick in playing time has actually made us any better on the court. His supporters talk about the intangibles he brings. And that's great. But if those intangibles aren't changing the on-court performance, then maybe those particular intangibles aren't all that valuable.

sagegrouse
12-21-2011, 10:19 AM
We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.

It's OK to criticize K on this Board, but it isn't OK to be demeaning or spout nonsense. Are you implying that one of the greatest basketball coaches of all-time believed the only way to win was the three point shot?

And it's OK to criticize other posters, but it is not all right to be demeaning through junk like


It[']s obvious that some us [posters] have never played the game of basketball in their lives.

In addition to being grammatically unfathomable, it implies that the only sensible commentators are former basketball players -- most of whom make no sense whatsoever.

sagegrouse

Wildcat
12-21-2011, 10:28 AM
i cannot illustrate how the team is better with Tyler on the floor. To be perfectly honest, i could care less who plays where, when or how many minutes. My commentary is based upon what i've seen from Tyler, Seth and Dre; neither of which are point guards. I have no problem conceeding to your viewpoint. I want us to win too. I just get tired of seeing us win big early in the season; only to lose in the latter season because our three's are not falling. It's a pattern. We are a finesse program. It's good when you can show a different look sometimes.

DukieInBrasil
12-21-2011, 10:32 AM
that some of us (posters) have never played the game of basketball in your lives! What does intangibles mean? Wow, if you have to spell out everything, roll out statistics ad nauseum, analyze time-played with player a or player b; its great that you are talented analytically; but cmon this is the game of basketball people. There's a vernacular of spech that says: "game knows game." This aphorism may not contain much merit in the halls of academia; but in some cicles, its a socratic truth. Seth has more of an upside offensively than Tyler; but again, when are you going to ralize that there is more to the game than a three point shot.?.
We are and have been mainly for the past decade characterized as a perimeter laden squad. The knock on us has been; if you can stop their threes, you can beat them. I think it is a stroke of genius and growth for K to start recognizing this. I'm applauding him for what looks like minor transitions in his philosophy.
I'll mostly defer to CDu and Sagegrouse on this, but in what way does TT bring anything offensively that is better than what Seth does? Seth has a great 3pt shot, true, but he is also getting some good shots inside and is able to put pressure on opposing D in ways that TT simply cannot. Aside from being a better shooter from pretty much every spot on the floor, he is also a much better FT shooter. As others have pointed out and analyzed with statistics, TT's passing is not all that excellent and does not put additional stress on the D. So, if TT is not a better 3pt shooter, then he better bring something else on offense to change our "perimeter laden" characterization. I don't think he does. So all signs point to TT bringing some defensive prowess that improves the team in ways that K thinks valuable, which is in no way whatsoever a "transition in his philosophy".

MChambers
12-21-2011, 10:39 AM
I think there really are intangible aspects that Coach K see in Tyler's game that he thinks are important. Mind you, I've always been a stat guy, so I'm skeptical about intangibles. In some sports, particularly baseball, I really don't believe in intangibles. In basketball, however, there clearly are aspects of the game that aren't captured by statistics. Duke's own Shane Battier is the best example of a great player whose qualities aren't captured by statistics.

I agree that Tyler isn't good at dribble penetration, that his passes, at least in the halfcourt offense, rarely lead directly to good scoring opportunities, and that he's only good, not great, at pressuring the other team's point guard.

Nevertheless, he apparently keeps the team calm and organized and is the on-court representation of the coaches, and Coach K think that, among other things, justifies his minutes. While some here may not agree, I think you need to acknowledge that there are aspects of the game not captured by stats or the eye test.

CDu
12-21-2011, 10:44 AM
While some here may not agree, I think you need to acknowledge that there are aspects of the game not captured by stats or the eye test.

I am quite certain there are things that can't be measured by stats or the eye test (at least not the ones we have access to today). My point is simply that those intangibles for Thornton don't seem to be resulting in any general improvement in team performance (at least not to this point).

And I think people are, in general, too quick to say "this guy brings intangibles" when sometimes the guy just isn't great (I'm not saying that's the case here).

ncexnyc
12-21-2011, 11:26 AM
Can somebody help me out, I'm so confused. Coach K. has turned the team over to Tyler, yet we've still got people calling for Seth to be the PG.

Where are all the posts telling these people to stop seconding guessing a coach with over 900 wins? Where are the posts telling these people to stop throwing one player under the bus to build-up another player?:confused:
So I posted this comment earlier in the thread. Of course not a soul stepped up and explained why certain posters get to remind people how many wins Coach K has whenever they want to brush aside someones thoughts on any particular topic, but others get chastized for doing it.

So now we've got a move made by our coach, a move which has put Andre on the bench and into a role that he is really excelling in and people want to know exactly why Tyler continues to get so much playing time. What's so hard to figure out? Rivers, Curry, and Dawkins just aren't firery, talkative guys and the team chemistry was terrible. Tyler is better at communicating and provides leadership to the team when he's on the floor. Yet some of you insist on quantifying the move with numbers and if it can't be done, then the move must be a mistake. Instead of trying to crunch the numbers why don't you take the time to think about why Coach K made the move and why he's sticking to it. Maybe then you'll get your answers and maybe then you'll understand what intagibles are.

Everyone on this board save for the most optimistic members was aware that something was off with this team. They just weren't playing cohesively as a team, but putting our finger on anyone specific reason wasn't easy to do and a number of people threw their hands up in the air and said it wasn't just one reason, but several reasons. Do you know why they did this? The answer is simple. It's because they couldn't crunch the numbers or cherry pick stats to prove one particular point. Somethings you just can't assign a numerical value too. So I'm going to place my faith in a man who has built a HOF career on putting teams together and trust that there is a method to what some of you obviously believe to be madness.

Now should you ask me if Tyler will be our PG for the rest of the year, my answer will be yes, or until Coach K feels that by inserting someone or some combination of players into various roles improves the team as a whole.

MChambers
12-21-2011, 11:28 AM
I am quite certain there are things that can't be measured by stats or the eye test (at least not the ones we have access to today). My point is simply that those intangibles for Thornton don't seem to be resulting in any general improvement in team performance (at least not to this point).

And I think people are, in general, too quick to say "this guy brings intangibles" when sometimes the guy just isn't great (I'm not saying that's the case here).
I agree with both of your points. Just wanted to point out that intangibles aren't limited to improving team defense.

For all I know, Coach K could be starting Thornton in an effort to get other players to embrace some of the things Tyler brings, like leadership in huddles and help defense.

niveklaen
12-21-2011, 11:30 AM
Actually, there are lots of others ways to put it. And most of them would be much more accurate than saying people want to see Thornton fail. I very much want Thornton (and every Duke player) to do well. But that doesn't mean I think he's the best option to start or (more importantly) play 25+mpg.

Also, I love the "he has the intangibles down", when by definition you can't quantify intangibles. And there are no alternative measures that currently suggest the team plays better with him on the floor, which is usually the basis for citing the "intangibles" comment.

Doesn't TT lead the team in plus-minus? Tought I saw that posted somewhere...

Channing
12-21-2011, 11:33 AM
To say there is absolutely no way to measure intangibles is (I believe) false. At worst, you should be able to look at the team's aggregate performance when a player is on the court and when they are off the court to see the impact of the intangibles. Another measure would be whether there is an uptick in everyone else's stats (e.g. they become better players) when the intangibles are added to the mix.

I haven't analyzed the +/- with TT, so I can't say for certain whether he is a net positive or not. I like the kid, and am sure there is a spot for him on this team. His shots against KU were unbelievable. But, on the whole, at this point in his career I don't think he is even in Greg Paulus's zip code - and GP was fully excoriated on this board.

Perhaps K realized that this team would (could?) not develop into a championship team with Seth at the point. With that in mind, I wonder if he is trying to throw TT to the wolves to see exactly what TT has (sort of like trial by fire), so he can determine if he is capable of guiding the team down the stretch, or if it will have to be Cook. Just a thought.

niveklaen
12-21-2011, 12:07 PM
I found the place where I had seen plus minus numbers for the season - it was posted on TDD by

ACCBballFan

"For the 8 games I have been tracking +/- the leaders are:

Dav TN Mich KU tOSU CSU Wash UNC-G Sum8
08 05 (4) 12 01 19 00 12 53 Tyler Thornton, G
14 06 04 (4) (24) 19 14 23 52 Austin Rivers, G
09 12 08 14 (22) 8 12 11 52 Mason Plumlee, F
14 01 03 (6) (8) 12 (1) 26 41 Miles Plumlee, F
00 08 06 06 (17) 13 06 16 38 Ryan Kelly, F
04 07 07 08 (14) 14 02 05 33 Seth Curry, G
13 01 03 02 (3) 3 (3) 15 31 Quinn Cook, G
06 12 08 03 (27) 9 03 14 28 Andre Dawkins, G
03 (2) 00 00 03 14 (1) 03 20 Josh Hairston, F
(6) 00 00 00 01 4 (2) 12 09 Michael Gbinije, G-F"

These are apparently just raw +/- numbers, once you adjust them to a per minute basis, TT leads the team by a substantial amount. Of course, TT's numbers did not take the hit that the rest of the team's did in the Ohio state game because he only played 8 minutes...

MChambers
12-21-2011, 12:31 PM
To say there is absolutely no way to measure intangibles is (I believe) false. At worst, you should be able to look at the team's aggregate performance when a player is on the court and when they are off the court to see the impact of the intangibles. Another measure would be whether there is an uptick in everyone else's stats (e.g. they become better players) when the intangibles are added to the mix.

I haven't analyzed the +/- with TT, so I can't say for certain whether he is a net positive or not. I like the kid, and am sure there is a spot for him on this team. His shots against KU were unbelievable. But, on the whole, at this point in his career I don't think he is even in Greg Paulus's zip code - and GP was fully excoriated on this board.

Perhaps K realized that this team would (could?) not develop into a championship team with Seth at the point. With that in mind, I wonder if he is trying to throw TT to the wolves to see exactly what TT has (sort of like trial by fire), so he can determine if he is capable of guiding the team down the stretch, or if it will have to be Cook. Just a thought.

I like reviewing the +/- stats as much as anyone, but there are some pretty strong arguments as to why you shouldn't put too much weight on them. Just search these boards for those arguments.

I'm not saying +/- is meaningless, of course, but it's a flawed measure and gives at best a weak inference as to intangibles.

Gosh, I can't believe I'm defending sports intangibles. This is a very uncomfortable feeling. :)

sagegrouse
12-21-2011, 12:33 PM
I found the place where I had seen plus minus numbers for the season - it was posted on TDD by

ACCBballFan

"For the 8 games I have been tracking +/- the leaders are:


Dav TN Mich KU tOSU CSU Wash UNC-G Sum8
08 05 (4) 12 01 19 00 12 53 Tyler Thornton, G
14 06 04 (4) (24) 19 14 23 52 Austin Rivers, G
09 12 08 14 (22) 8 12 11 52 Mason Plumlee, F
14 01 03 (6) (8) 12 (1) 26 41 Miles Plumlee, F
00 08 06 06 (17) 13 06 16 38 Ryan Kelly, F
04 07 07 08 (14) 14 02 05 33 Seth Curry, G
13 01 03 02 (3) 3 (3) 15 31 Quinn Cook, G
06 12 08 03 (27) 9 03 14 28 Andre Dawkins, G
03 (2) 00 00 03 14 (1) 03 20 Josh Hairston, F
(6) 00 00 00 01 4 (2) 12 09 Michael Gbinije, G-F

"

These are apparently just raw +/- numbers, once you adjust them to a per minute basis, TT leads the team by a substantial amount. Of course, TT's numbers did not take the hit that the rest of the team's did in the Ohio state game because he only played 8 minutes...

Good data. Looks like, eliminating OSU, Mason and Austin lead the team in total +/-.

sagegrouse

Kedsy
12-21-2011, 12:34 PM
I found the place where I had seen plus minus numbers for the season - it was posted on TDD by ACCBballFan

Not sure how ACCBballFan calculates his numbers. Troublemaker has posted plus/minus through the Colorado State game and his numbers don't paint Tyler in as positive a light:



Cumulative thru Colorado St


+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Player | Avg Min | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Miles Plumlee | 16:06 | 286 | 208 | 78 | 7 | 71 |
| Andre Dawkins | 25:48 | 451 | 390 | 61 | 24 | 37 |
| Austin Rivers | 31:05 | 552 | 497 | 55 | 30 | 25 |
| Seth Curry | 31:17 | 562 | 509 | 53 | 32 | 21 |
| Tyler Thornton | 18:05 | 326 | 279 | 47 | 38 | 9 |
| Quinn Cook | 09:16 | 162 | 118 | 44 | 41 | 3 |
| Josh Hairston | 08:27 | 122 | 89 | 33 | 44 | -11 |
| Mason Plumlee | 30:29 | 514 | 483 | 31 | 54 | -23 |
| Ryan Kelly | 26:06 | 469 | 439 | 30 | 55 | -25 |
| Todd Zafirovski | 03:04 | 3 | 4 | -1 | 42 | -43 |
| Michael Gbinije | 08:50 | 83 | 89 | -6 | 62 | -68 |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

Link to data prior to Colorado St (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?26755-Plus-Minus-2011-2012-through-Ohio-State)

Note: I hope to post some lineups data some time between the Washington game and the UNCG game



Per 40 thru Colorado St (Corrected "Off" and "Net")


+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Player | Avg Min | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Josh Hairston | 40:00 | 83 | 60 | 22 | 8 | 14 |
| Miles Plumlee | 40:00 | 79 | 57 | 22 | 1 | 21 |
| Quinn Cook | 40:00 | 78 | 57 | 21 | 6 | 15 |
| Tyler Thornton | 40:00 | 80 | 69 | 12 | 8 | 4 |
| Andre Dawkins | 40:00 | 78 | 67 | 11 | 8 | 3 |
| Austin Rivers | 40:00 | 79 | 71 | 8 | 15 | -7 |
| Seth Curry | 40:00 | 80 | 72 | 8 | 16 | -8 |
| Ryan Kelly | 40:00 | 80 | 75 | 5 | 18 | -13 |
| Mason Plumlee | 40:00 | 75 | 70 | 5 | 25 | -20 |
| Michael Gbinije | 40:00 | 75 | 81 | -5 | 16 | -21 |
| Todd Zafirovski | 40:00 | 39 | 52 | -13 | 45 | -58 |
+-----------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

So, obviously Troublemaker's numbers don't include Washington or UNCG, but according to these numbers, Tyler's in the top 4 or 5 on the team but nowhere near the top.

CDu
12-21-2011, 12:37 PM
Doesn't TT lead the team in plus-minus? Tought I saw that posted somewhere...

No, Miles Plumlee leads the team in +/-. As of the Colorado State game, Thornton had a slightly positive net +/- thanks to a great +/- against CSU. That took a big hit with the Washington game, though, and I believe that he's back to a negative +/- for the season.

Now, I'm on record as not being the biggest fan of +/-. But if you do believe in that statistic, it doesn't support an argument for Thornton. And it's certainly not evidence that Thornton is improving the team's performance on the court at the moment.

CDu
12-21-2011, 12:45 PM
To say there is absolutely no way to measure intangibles is (I believe) false. At worst, you should be able to look at the team's aggregate performance when a player is on the court and when they are off the court to see the impact of the intangibles. Another measure would be whether there is an uptick in everyone else's stats (e.g. they become better players) when the intangibles are added to the mix.

I didn't say there's absolutely no way to measure intangibles. I just said (perhaps poorly-worded) that we don't have a good way to measure it currently. What you're suggesting is essentially +/-, and (as MChambers said) there are lots of problems with using +/- to measure intangibles. I won't go into it again (there are plenty of threads on this), but essentially there's too much other stuff going on that isn't controlled for in +/- that it doesn't really capture intangible benefit.

The same problem exists for using teammates' performance with and without. There are so many other variables in play that it's just not a good measure.

Ignoring this, I'll add that the two suggestions you use for measuring intangibles (+/- and teammates' performance) can both be presented as negatives for Thornton. He has a negative net +/- for the season and several have discussed specifically how Curry plays worse with Thornton on the floor.

dcdrumsinc
12-21-2011, 01:04 PM
I can understand many Duke fans supporting the old school train of thought. Keeping the hard nosed, gritty defensive player and sophomore (thornton) over a more talented freshman (cook). But a team doesn't need the gritty leader to be a starter. That guy can always come off the bench or play in key moments of the game. But reality is, TT has not shown me much of an ability to break down defenders or dribble drive. Duke is so easy to guard when TT is playing the point. We can't convert turnovers into to easy points because TT is not that quick. TT is not an elite passer. Not an elite shooter. Not good at creating his own shot. Not good at changing pace or dictating tempo other than bringing the ball up the court. All reasons why our other guards struggle to get open clean looks against good defense from other teams like Ohio state who hounded andre and seth. And an amazing desperation 3 and another key shot against Kansas does not automatically mean he will be productive during the early course of games. Don't get me wrong, I like TT and the leadership qualities he brings and how he came up clutch against Kansas, but he is not going to be the long term answer against athletic guards we will face in the ACC and beyond into the tournament. Calling quin cook

Kedsy
12-21-2011, 01:25 PM
All reasons why our other guards struggle to get open clean looks against good defense from other teams like Ohio state who hounded andre and seth.

Well, Tyler didn't start against Ohio State and only played 8 minutes, so I don't think your litany of what he doesn't do had much of a bearing on why we struggled against OSU.

Bob Green
12-21-2011, 01:40 PM
Many of the posts in this thread seem to view the Tyler Thornton/Quinn Cook situation with an "either/or" perspective whereas my believe is it is an "and" situation. Coach Krzyzewski has both Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook available on the roster to mix into the rotation as the game situation dictates. Both players are talented guys who bring skills on the court. Currently, like every early season, the rotations are being mixed and matched by the staff in order to gain an understanding of which player combinations will work best when conference play begins. We've played an extremely tough early season schedule and have looked very good except against Ohio State. My glass half full perspective is feeling very optimistic as 2012 rapidly approaches so the angst present in this thread is perplexing.

I'm a huge fan of Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook and hope to see them both play a significant role as the seaon rolls on.

CDu
12-21-2011, 01:50 PM
Many of the posts in this thread seem to view the Tyler Thornton/Quinn Cook situation with an "either/or" perspective whereas my believe is it is an "and" situation.

I'm a huge fan of Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook and hope to see them both play a significant role as the seaon rolls on.

I also hope both do well. That can only mean good things for the team. But unfortunately there are only 120 minutes available at the positions they can conceivably play. If you assume that Curry and Rivers will get at least 60-65 of those minutes and that Dawkins and Gbinije combine for another 30, that leaves only about 25-30 minutes. And that's assuming no expansion of Gbinije's role as the season progresses.

So, depending on your definition of "siginificant role" it's hard to see a way for both guys to do so game in and game out. There's certainly not a way for both guys to be 20+ mpg contributors unless we see a huge decline in minutes for the combo of Rivers, Curry, and Dawkins. If you define "significant" as "averaging 10+ mpg and taking turns getting 20+ minute games throughout the season," then both can certainly have a significant role. But the discussion has (to my understanding) been about becoming the primary PG for the offense. That would imply that it'd be a 20+ mpg role. And I just don't see any realistic way that both guys can do that. I'm not even sure I see both guys being 15+ mpg guys. So in many ways, I think it really is an "either/or/neither" situation and not an "and" situation.

Verga3
12-21-2011, 06:09 PM
Many of the posts in this thread seem to view the Tyler Thornton/Quinn Cook situation with an "either/or" perspective whereas my believe is it is an "and" situation. Coach Krzyzewski has both Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook available on the roster to mix into the rotation as the game situation dictates. Both players are talented guys who bring skills on the court. Currently, like every early season, the rotations are being mixed and matched by the staff in order to gain an understanding of which player combinations will work best when conference play begins. We've played an extremely tough early season schedule and have looked very good except against Ohio State. My glass half full perspective is feeling very optimistic as 2012 rapidly approaches so the angst present in this thread is perplexing.

I'm a huge fan of Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook and hope to see them both play a significant role as the seaon rolls on.

Amen, Bob.

Saratoga2
12-21-2011, 07:35 PM
Many of the posts in this thread seem to view the Tyler Thornton/Quinn Cook situation with an "either/or" perspective whereas my believe is it is an "and" situation. Coach Krzyzewski has both Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook available on the roster to mix into the rotation as the game situation dictates. Both players are talented guys who bring skills on the court. Currently, like every early season, the rotations are being mixed and matched by the staff in order to gain an understanding of which player combinations will work best when conference play begins. We've played an extremely tough early season schedule and have looked very good except against Ohio State. My glass half full perspective is feeling very optimistic as 2012 rapidly approaches so the angst present in this thread is perplexing.

I'm a huge fan of Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook and hope to see them both play a significant role as the seaon rolls on.

They both have their skill sets and no doubt both will continue to improve. It will be up to the coaches to determine how best to use these skills, but they probably will look at matcvhups and substitute accordingly. The one thing that bothers me about our guard choices is that we have three who are 6'2" and under and I don't believe any of them will match up well against teams with big guards. UNC for instance has a lot of size to deal with and we will probably see others that are quick and much bigger than we are. I don't see our speed as negating those sorts of situations.

UrinalCake
12-21-2011, 10:52 PM
I agree that both players bring something to the table, but when was the last time a Duke team, or any team for that matter, went deep into the tournament with a point guard-by-committee kind of situation? I'm sure it's possible but difficult. And Coach K especially likes to identify his leader on the court, and it's usually the point guard. By the time we're halfway through the conference season everyone's roles are usually pretty set, except in case of injuries. So I think a decision is going to have to be made that someone takes over the point guard role and plays the majority of the minutes - be it Seth, Tyler, or Quinn - while the others play supporting roles.

Edit: if I remember correctly the Illinois team that lost to UNC in the 2005 final had essentially three point guards - Deron Williams, Luther Head, and someone else. But they all started and played at the same time, so it wasn't quite the same situation as ours.

CDu
12-22-2011, 06:42 AM
I agree that both players bring something to the table, but when was the last time a Duke team, or any team for that matter, went deep into the tournament with a point guard-by-committee kind of situation? I'm sure it's possible but difficult. And Coach K especially likes to identify his leader on the court, and it's usually the point guard. By the time we're halfway through the conference season everyone's roles are usually pretty set, except in case of injuries. So I think a decision is going to have to be made that someone takes over the point guard role and plays the majority of the minutes - be it Seth, Tyler, or Quinn - while the others play supporting roles.

Edit: if I remember correctly the Illinois team that lost to UNC in the 2005 final had essentially three point guards - Deron Williams, Luther Head, and someone else. But they all started and played at the same time, so it wasn't quite the same situation as ours.

The other one was Dee Brown. It was really a 2-point guard team, though (Head wasn't really a PG type). But as you said, all three were starters. They just happened to run a 3-guard lineup. And the two PG they had were both elite players.

sagegrouse
12-22-2011, 08:38 PM
I agree that both players bring something to the table, but when was the last time a Duke team, or any team for that matter, went deep into the tournament with a point guard-by-committee kind of situation? I'm sure it's possible but difficult. And Coach K especially likes to identify his leader on the court, and it's usually the point guard.


1994 for Duke, where Grant played the point some of the time, but I believe Jeff Capel was the starting PG.

sage

jimsumner
12-22-2011, 08:58 PM
1994 for Duke, where Grant played the point some of the time, but I believe Jeff Capel was the starting PG.

sage

IIRC, Mario Chalmers, Russell Robinson and Sherron Collins all took turns running the point for Kansas in 2008. That seemed to turn out okay.

Greg_Newton
12-22-2011, 11:10 PM
1994 for Duke, where Grant played the point some of the time, but I believe Jeff Capel was the starting PG.

sage


IIRC, Mario Chalmers, Russell Robinson and Sherron Collins all took turns running the point for Kansas in 2008. That seemed to turn out okay.

If our PG committee included a NPOY, future perennial NBA All-Star (Hill), or an NBA PG (Chalmers) and consensus 1st team All-American PG (Collins), I'd feel a little bit better about that. However, I don't think Curry is quite Hill, nor are Cook and Thornton Chalmers and Collins.

greybeard
12-22-2011, 11:19 PM
In addition to Tommy's observations, I remarked in another thread that Seth seems to score a lot less than usual when he's teamed with Tyler (and Nolan scored a lot less than usual when he was teamed with Tyler). So not only is Tyler just passing the ball around the perimeter most of the time, he's apparently not giving it to his wing guard in a good position to get anything going.


Like Steve Blake, Tyler is the product of high-end, Catholic league basketball--he gives it up easily to a guy whom he sees as having effective passing opportunities. Maybe the guys you mention are/were wedded to catching with a think-score-first mentality, even when that option plainly is not an option. Maybe Tyler's talent as a leader is to demand that such players start to get it--that Duke needs a team identity, a team approach to scoring the ball in lieu of too much reliance on individual riffs. Maybe that is precisely why K puts him in, because he is a strong leader who will take the shoot-first option off the table and also lead by example--to give it up so that someone else, who is thinking pass- first, will keep the ball moving until Duke gets what it wants, a player with an excellent chance to score the ball and does so as a team. Works for me, and for the Gonzaga team that he lead in precisely that fashion and took them pretty darn far.

Kedsy
12-23-2011, 12:06 AM
Maybe the guys you mention are/were wedded to catching with a think-score-first mentality, even when that option plainly is not an option. Maybe Tyler's talent as a leader is to demand that such players start to get it--that Duke needs a team identity, a team approach to scoring the ball in lieu of too much reliance on individual riffs. Maybe that is precisely why K puts him in, because he is a strong leader who will take the shoot-first option off the table and also lead by example--to give it up so that someone else, who is thinking pass- first, will keep the ball moving until Duke gets what it wants, a player with an excellent chance to score the ball and does so as a team.

Well, maybe. Except "the guys [I] mention" are Seth Curry and Nolan Smith. Do you really think that last season Coach K inserted freshman Tyler Thornton into the lineup to "demand" that senior ACC POY Nolan Smith "start to get it"? Really?

greybeard
12-23-2011, 09:03 AM
Yes, absolutely. No other reason to put him in.

As I said his first season at Duke, Tyler Thorton is the closest thing that Duke has had to Tommy Amaker since, well, it had Tommy Amaker. Thorton can and does organize and lead on offense, get teammates to coallese on a team-approach to wscoring. Asserting control in that fashion is what Thorton does extremely, extremely well. That's a principal reason he was recruited, why he was terrifically successful in leaing the fabled Gonzaga program in DC, and why he has been terrific this season and often relied on by KI in games that are close in the second half, especially down the stretch. So, you put Tyler on the floor as a freshman, that is what he is expected to do--to prevent quick shots in lieu of a team search for a better one, or even a worse one because team involvement and cohession and occupying the ball are deemed important at that time.


Thorton is also Amaker on defense. He mans up aggressively and with purpose on the point, and prevents the point from being effect. Amaker stayed "in front of his guy" much more consistently than Thorton, but Thorton is terrific in disrupting offensive initiation by the point. How, by preventing them from doing what they want, how they want, with the timing they want, and turning them over. You prevent someone with the ball from dribbling on the path that they prefer, you keep them from getting to the area of the court, or more particularly, the precise place on the court that they want, that they are comfortable in, or if they get there they have had to work hard and dribble and move in unfamiliar ways, arrive with a different step configuration, catch it off the bounce differently, and their whole world has changed. You don't have to "lock someone down" to significantly diminish what he contributes offensively. Thorton does that to folks. He also does similar things as an off the ball defender, He orients himself in a way that prevents a player with the ball from going where he wants with it or risk losing the ball, if the guy goes anyway, he has a devil (sorry I couldn't help myself) getting to where he wants, often starts to lose dominion of how and where a particular bouncew is made, and then is like the prey on the savanna who takes a wobblely step and becomes dinner shortly. Then wehn the ball is vulnerable, becomes loose, is in the air or on the floor and is up for grabs. Thorton is in the middle of tying to get it, and people come out of knowing that "they have been in it" when the ball is turned over or not.

That is who Tommy, oops, Tyler Thorton is and that is what he is sent in to do. Otherwise, go with Cook, no?

Kedsy
12-23-2011, 09:21 AM
Yes, absolutely. No other reason to put him in.

As I said his first season at Duke, Tyler Thorton is the closest thing that Duke has had to Tommy Amaker since, well, it had Tommy Amaker. Thorton can and does organize and lead on offense, get teammates to coallese on a team-approach to wscoring. Asserting control in that fashion is what Thorton does extremely, extremely well. That's a principal reason he was recruited, why he was terrifically successful in leaing the fabled Gonzaga program in DC, and why he has been terrific this season and often relied on by KI in games that are close in the second half, especially down the stretch. So, you put Tyler on the floor as a freshman, that is what he is expected to do--to prevent quick shots in lieu of a team search for a better one, or even a worse one because team involvement and cohession and occupying the ball are deemed important at that time.


Thorton is also Amaker on defense. He mans up aggressively and with purpose on the point, and prevents the point from being effect. Amaker stayed "in front of his guy" much more consistently than Thorton, but Thorton is terrific in disrupting offensive initiation by the point. How, by preventing them from doing what they want, how they want, with the timing they want, and turning them over. You prevent someone with the ball from dribbling on the path that they prefer, you keep them from getting to the area of the court, or more particularly, the precise place on the court that they want, that they are comfortable in, or if they get there they have had to work hard and dribble and move in unfamiliar ways, arrive with a different step configuration, catch it off the bounce differently, and their whole world has changed. You don't have to "lock someone down" to significantly diminish what he contributes offensively. Thorton does that to folks. He also does similar things as an off the ball defender, He orients himself in a way that prevents a player with the ball from going where he wants with it or risk losing the ball, if the guy goes anyway, he has a devil (sorry I couldn't help myself) getting to where he wants, often starts to lose dominion of how and where a particular bouncew is made, and then is like the prey on the savanna who takes a wobblely step and becomes dinner shortly. Then wehn the ball is vulnerable, becomes loose, is in the air or on the floor and is up for grabs. Thorton is in the middle of tying to get it, and people come out of knowing that "they have been in it" when the ball is turned over or not.

That is who Tommy, oops, Tyler Thorton is and that is what he is sent in to do. Otherwise, go with Cook, no?

Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

jimsumner
12-23-2011, 09:43 AM
Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

The idea that Tyler Thornton played last season to teach Nolan Smith lessons about shot selection is one of the more curious ideas I've seen on this board. Bonus points for originality.

Wildcat
12-23-2011, 09:43 AM
-While i agree with much of your thoughts regarding Tyler's role thus far. He aint no Tommy Amakers. Tommy was a much better scorer, ball-handler, thinker and on-court leader. I think i liked him better than i did Bobby. Tommy was a "classic point-guard," just not explosive enough to make it at the next level. Big diffference my friend, big difference.

jimsumner
12-23-2011, 09:50 AM
If our PG committee included a NPOY, future perennial NBA All-Star (Hill), or an NBA PG (Chalmers) and consensus 1st team All-American PG (Collins), I'd feel a little bit better about that. However, I don't think Curry is quite Hill, nor are Cook and Thornton Chalmers and Collins.

No one is saying this group is as accomplished as the aforementioned groups, although if we include Rivers in the equation, it might become so. But stylistically, there are similarities and that's what we're discussing.

FWIW, Hill won no NPOY awards and Collins was a consensus second-team All-America in 2009. He was more of a role player in the season referenced.

Kedsy
12-23-2011, 10:04 AM
The idea that Tyler Thornton played last season to teach Nolan Smith lessons about shot selection is one of the more curious ideas I've seen on this board. Bonus points for originality.

I assume (and hope) you realize it wasn't my idea. I was disputing the notion.

CDu
12-23-2011, 10:21 AM
Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

Completely agreed. Thornton was obviously a terrific high school PG. But the same is true of almost every PG who goes to a top-tier program. That doesn't make all of those guys good college PG. He's not in the same class as Amaker. Nor is he in the same class as Blake, who was actually a pretty good offensive player (MUCH better ballhandler and playmaker, more able to score as well).

And I absolutely agree that the idea that Thornton got any PT last year had anything to do with teaching Nolan Smith anything (let alone thinking that is the only possible explanation) is pretty ridiculous. I think Thornton played because there were times Dawkins and Curry were struggling mid-season and Coach K needed an alternative player to play defense and fill minutes. When those two were making an impact on the game, Thornton didn't really see the court.

Steven43
12-23-2011, 10:26 AM
Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

I have to agree with Kedsey on this. I am starting to wonder if greybeard is watching the Duke games in a completely different way than I am experiencing them. From his building up of Zoubs as Bill Walton Jr. (I know he didn't actually say that--I'm exaggerating for effect) to now putting Tyler Thornton near the level of one of our greatest point guards. It's perplexing to say the least. I don't know if greybeard is imagining TT and Zoubs as doing/having done all of the things he says they are or if I'm somehow just missing it.

DukieInBrasil
12-23-2011, 10:28 AM
No one is saying this group is as accomplished as the aforementioned groups, although if we include Rivers in the equation, it might become so. But stylistically, there are similarities and that's what we're discussing.
FWIW, Hill won no NPOY awards and Collins was a consensus second-team All-America in 2009. He was more of a role player in the season referenced.

Was the Collins referred to not the Kansas one? There was no Chalmers at Duke, mos def at KU. The PG by committee at KU was brought up earlier in this thread.
Grant Hill was the 94 ACC POY and the 93 DPOY. Several sites reference him as a NPOY, but don't specify which one.

sagegrouse
12-23-2011, 10:38 AM
I have to agree with Kedsey on this. I am starting to wonder if greybeard is watching the Duke games in a completely different way than I am experiencing them. From his building up of Zoubs as Bill Walton Jr. (I know he didn't actually say that--I'm exaggerating for effect) to now putting Tyler Thornton near the level of one of our greatest point guards. It's perplexing to say the least. I don't know if greybeard is imagining TT and Zoubs as doing/having done all of the things he says they are or if I'm somehow just missing it.


Or maybe the "Venerable One" could offer to share what he is smoking, ingesting, or imbibing while watching the games. -- sage

CDu
12-23-2011, 10:40 AM
Was the Collins referred to not the Kansas one? There was no Chalmers at Duke, mos def at KU. The PG by committee at KU was brought up earlier in this thread.
Grant Hill was the 94 ACC POY and the 93 DPOY. Several sites reference him as a NPOY, but don't specify which one.

I think that was a response to a combination of statements. The Collins being referred to was most definitely the KU Collins, who was a backup guard on their championship team (he and Aldrich played backup roles that year and emerged as stars later). The post it was in response to referenced several "PG by committee" examples, including 2008 KU and 1994 Duke. Although I'm not sure that 1994 Duke really counts as an example.

jimsumner
12-23-2011, 10:52 AM
Was the Collins referred to not the Kansas one? There was no Chalmers at Duke, mos def at KU. The PG by committee at KU was brought up earlier in this thread.
Grant Hill was the 94 ACC POY and the 93 DPOY. Several sites reference him as a NPOY, but don't specify which one.

It was suggested that teams with a point-guard-by-committee approach don't play deep into March. Duke, 1994 and Kansas, 2008 were given as counter-examples. Two different examples.

Trust me, Grant Hill was never national player of the year. Purdue's Glenn Robinson won those awards in 1994, the voting for which took place prior to the NCAA regional title games.

Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

The first is his ability to play physical defense. K loves pugnacious defenders. In this respect, Wojo is a better analog than Amaker, although I don't think TT is at the level of either. But Thornton is one of those nice guys who does a Hulk transformation when he gets on the floor. He bumps, trips, gets in the grille of opposing players as early and as often as he can.

Sometimes he gets beat, sometimes he fouls out. But he sets a tone that K wants set. The idea is that at some point in the game, the opposing PG is going to see Thornton coming at him and decide that he'd just as soon airmail a pass into the third row.

Thornton also has advanced verbal-communication skills. This is a focal point for K, on offense but especially on defense. In the post-games after a poor defensive effort by Duke, K will invariably cite some variation of "we didn't communicate well." Freshmen are amazed at how much this is emphasized in practices. Communicate-loudly, quickly, efficiently. Over and Over. And Over.

Thornton does this very well. He sees what needs to be seen and communicates that. Some people see what needs to be seen but don't communicate it. Some people communicate but communicate the wrong thing. Thornton does both. Think traffic cop.

In the long run, I think Cook has a higher ceiling than does Thornton. He might surpass him in the rotation next week, next month, next year. Maybe never. We shall see. But playing and starting Thornton right now is a rational allocation of resources.

IMO.

JMarley50
12-23-2011, 11:10 AM
Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

The first is his ability to play physical defense. K loves pugnacious defenders. In this respect, Wojo is a better analog than Amaker, although I don't think TT is at the level of either. But Thornton is one of those nice guys who does a Hulk transformation when he gets on the floor. He bumps, trips, gets in the grille of opposing players as early and as often as he can.

Sometimes he gets beat, sometimes he fouls out. But he sets a tone that K wants set. The idea is that at some point in the game, the opposing PG is going to see Thornton coming at him and decide that he'd just as soon airmail a pass into the third row.

Thornton also has advanced verbal-communication skills. This is a focal point for K, on offense but especially on defense. In the post-games after a poor defensive effort by Duke, K will invariably cite some variation of "we didn't communicate well." Freshmen are amazed at how much this is emphasized in practices. Communicate-loudly, quickly, efficiently. Over and Over. And Over.

Thornton does this very well. He sees what needs to be seen and communicates that. Some people see what needs to be seen but don't communicate it. Some people communicate but communicate the wrong thing. Thornton does both. Think traffic cop.

In the long run, I think Cook has a higher ceiling than does Thornton. He might surpass him in the rotation next week, next month, next year. Maybe never. We shall see. But playing and starting Thornton right now is a rational allocation of resources.

IMO.

Best description of TT ever!! :D

The question I think we should be debating is how does the team as a whole perform DEFENSIVELY with Tyler, vs. Seth or Quinn at PG. Team defense is the major concern right now. If we can't stop the other team it doesn't really matter who we run at point for offensive purposes, we won't last come March. I know statistically it would be tough to make an accurate assessment, due to varying opponent lineups, different game situations, and varying minutes. For me, based on eyes alone, it seems we are better defensively as a whole with Tyler at point rather than Seth. Up until the second half the other night I would have said we were better with Tyler than Quinn. But now I'm not so sure, they looked really good during the second half with Quinn. I would like to see a larger sample from Quinn before drawing that conclusion for certain. If Quinn proves he can lead the team as good defensively as Tyler can then I'd say he should be starting. He obviously has more offensive capabilities.

sagegrouse
12-23-2011, 11:12 AM
It was suggested that teams with a point-guard-by-committee approach don't play deep into March. Duke, 1994 and Kansas, 2008 were given as counter-examples. Two different examples.

Trust me, Grant Hill was never national player of the year. Purdue's Glenn Robinson won those awards in 1994, the voting for which took place prior to the NCAA regional title games.

Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

The first is his ability to play physical defense. K loves pugnacious defenders. In this respect, Wojo is a better analog than Amaker, although I don't think TT is at the level of either. But Thornton is one of those nice guys who does a Hulk transformation when he gets on the floor. He bumps, trips, gets in the grille of opposing players as early and as often as he can.

Sometimes he gets beat, sometimes he fouls out. But he sets a tone that K wants set. The idea is that at some point in the game, the opposing PG is going to see Thornton coming at him and decide that he'd just as soon airmail a pass into the third row.
Thornton also has advanced verbal-communication skills. This is a focal point for K, on offense but especially on defense. In the post-games after a poor defensive effort by Duke, K will invariably cite some variation of "we didn't communicate well." Freshmen are amazed at how much this is emphasized in practices. Communicate-loudly, quickly, efficiently. Over and Over. And Over.

Thornton does this very well. He sees what needs to be seen and communicates that. Some people see what needs to be seen but don't communicate it. Some people communicate but communicate the wrong thing. Thornton does both. Think traffic cop.

In the long run, I think Cook has a higher ceiling than does Thornton. He might surpass him in the rotation next week, next month, next year. Maybe never. We shall see. But playing and starting Thornton right now is a rational allocation of resources.

IMO.

Agreed on both points. WRT the boldfaced entry, remember the St. John's debacle in MSG last year? Duke appeared to be weak and unaggressive -- except Mr. Thornton. He played nine minutes before fouling out, and, as they say, he got his money's worth. He was also at the center of a near brawl. The next game he was in the starting lineup.

WRT the Duke Basketball Report, Tyler Thornton is the gift that keeps on giving in terms of causing messages and clicks. You have a starter with some intangibles who is less gifted offensively than at least two players sitting on the bench while he is playing (take any two of Quinn, Dre, Seth, and Austin). His starting position will be challenged by any number of posters. And, in like circumstances, it would happen on any fan site for any team.

sagegrouse

MChambers
12-23-2011, 11:34 AM
Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

I can't believe that Jim made this mistake nor that the board's software didn't correct it!

I also love the explanation of why Tyler plays so much.

airowe
12-23-2011, 12:09 PM
I've seen some posters on this thread saying that Tyler should not be starting because he's not one of Duke's five best players. I wonder why starting/not-starting is still looked at as a measure of how good a player is compared to the other players on his or her team.

The most-recent studies by both Ken Pomeroy and Luke Winn should be enough to put that one to bed: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/luke_winn/12/22/Syracuse.OSU/index.html?xid=si_topstories

I won't be surprised if they aren't enough though, as Pomeroy's obliteration of FG% as a useful stat is still somehow not sinkibg in to otherwise intelligent people. http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=610

greybeard
12-23-2011, 02:12 PM
I can't spell, never could, and can get downright dyslexic when engrossed in thought.

I said "the closest thing" to Tommy Amaker since Amaker left, not that he was Tommy Amaker. I have explained why. If anyone has other choices and makes the case for him, it would be fun to reflect.

If I said that Tyler was sent in to "teach" Nolan anything I misaspoke, but I don't think that I said or came close to implying it. It is not what I think.

I think Tyler's job when he is sent in on offense is to create team play. When he was a freshman, he projected subtley. What others might see as a meaningless pass because it does not create a scoring chance, or improve the scoring possibilities of the receiver, I see as a statement--"what's the rush, we can get that shot (whatever it is that the receiver might have in mind if Tyler was looking only to throw the ball to someone in a position to attack) later, let's see what develops if we take our time, move the ball, create some space in any of a variety of ways, you know, kick it like a team." You might think that I imputting too much influence on a "give it up early easily" pass, that seemingly does little more than make a connection with a teammate. To me, empasizing the value of those type connections, my making one yourself without so much as looking to do something special, is where the generosity, the syncghronicity of the game resides. Do some people not hear, do some refuse to listen,sure. If Nolan had been "going to quickly," and tried to make something happen upojn receiving such a pass from Thorton, would Thorton try to correct Nolan's choice? Please, that is what they pay K for.

On the other hand, this year, the tone is much different when Tyler is sent in to play the point. Now he takes command, he confidently without fan fair brings it up against pressure, refuses to be rushed, and I have to believe commands the show because it has been made explicit that that is what K wants. And the show that He leads is one of cohession, patience, and collective efforts to scoring the ball, in lieu of one on one play with a high screen thrown in. I think that he does a fine job of it. Oh, did I say that he was as good at it as Blake? If I did, boy, did I mispeak. Why, on a thread yesterday, I made it crystal clear that Blake is the best distributor of the ball that I have seen, with the exception of Magic and Bird, neither of whom played comparable rolls. Nope, I think that Blake as an old school lead guard is as good as it gets, is as good as I have seen. And, by stating that Blake and Thorton share the same roots and that Tyler was a terrific lead guard on a terrific Gonzaga high school team, I thought that that would evoke in many of you what the timeless passing game at its best is all about.

I have heard K praise Tyler for the offensive/defensive (really they are of one piece) strengths that I have been trying to put into words here. When I have heard him, it has been in after game interviews and K was constrained to putting out a few carefully framed thoughts in around 30 seconds. I think he loves the kid's game, which reminds me a lot of Amaker's. I shouldn't be surprised that, if asked in an after game interview, "what former player did Tyler remind him of," you'd get the same answer from K.

Another reason that K likes this kid is that he is cool at crunch time, and plays without fear when it is on him. He nailed a game winning three without hesitation, and was, in case anyone wasn't noticing, positioned to get the ball if Curry had nothing in the next one. So, K had Tyler on his short list to take the last shot when he nailed the split legged shot that won the next game. This is the same guy who everyone says can't score the ball. BTW, I have never tried it, but does splaying one's legs like Tyler had to necessarily throw off one's timing, release, and follow through on a shot, or did it serve to stablize Tyler's body from twisting and thus give him the best shot at making it. Guys make game winners from that distance on hurried shots all the time. Tyler took and hit two game winners in a row; was the second one just a matter of luck, as we all have assumed.

In sum. K loves to have this guy on the court in second halves of close games. he presents as a confident and strong leader of the offense during those times, he is the one guy on this team that you really don't want to battling for the ball against, and Duke is a much better defensive team when he is on the court than when he is not. And, since near everyone here seems to assume that the point guard position is key to most team's offensive success, and K likes having Tyler guarding the point when defense is most important, that is, late in tight games, and Duke has not lost one of those games yet, "You know how to whistle don't you, you just put your lips together and blow."

In keeping with the new me, I have had my say on this subject.

Kedsy
12-23-2011, 03:30 PM
I can't spell, never could, and can get downright dyslexic when engrossed in thought.

...Thorton... Thorton...

...Thorton...

This has nothing to do with dyslexia. You have spelled Tyler's name wrong consistently since he was recruited. You mention him a lot, and I have never once seen you spell his name correctly, despite being corrected often on the boards. Nor have I ever seen you spell (or misspell) it any way other than you did above. At this point, I assume you do it on purpose, to get under people's skins.

sagegrouse
12-23-2011, 04:13 PM
This has nothing to do with dyslexia. You have spelled Tyler's name wrong consistently since he was recruited. You mention him a lot, and I have never once seen you spell his name correctly, despite being corrected often on the boards. Nor have I ever seen you spell (or misspell) it any way other than you did above. At this point, I assume you do it on purpose, to get under people's skins.

Actual dialog on ESPN last year:

Bobby Knight: "Duke is better when they get the ball inside to Plummer."

Digger: "Plumlee."

Knight: "And then Plummer has to take it right up."

Digger: "Plumlee."

Knight: "Whatever."

sage

CDu
12-23-2011, 04:34 PM
I think Tyler's job when he is sent in on offense is to create team play.

Here's where I think you're making the mistake. I don't think Thornton is brought in for offensive reasons at all. I think he's brought in for defense.


On the other hand, this year, the tone is much different when Tyler is sent in to play the point. Now he takes command, he confidently without fan fair brings it up against pressure, refuses to be rushed, and I have to believe commands the show because it has been made explicit that that is what K wants. And the show that He leads is one of cohession, patience, and collective efforts to scoring the ball, in lieu of one on one play with a high screen thrown in. I think that he does a fine job of it.

Thornton hasn't been leading the offense at all. And the offense doesn't run dramatically differently when he's in. I think this might be another instance (similar to the Mason Plumlee discussion in another thread) where you perhaps haven't been watching enough of the games to have a clear picture of what's happening.

Steven43
12-23-2011, 05:10 PM
This has nothing to do with dyslexia. You have spelled Tyler's name wrong consistently since he was recruited. You mention him a lot, and I have never once seen you spell his name correctly, despite being corrected often on the boards. Nor have I ever seen you spell (or misspell) it any way other than you did above. At this point, I assume you do it on purpose, to get under people's skins.

Hmm, you think greybeard has purposely been misspelling Thornton's name to annoy people? To be honest I hadn't noticed the misspelling until you pointed it out. But still, if it has been done intentionally that would be, well, odd.

Greg_Newton
12-23-2011, 06:12 PM
No one is saying this group is as accomplished as the aforementioned groups, although if we include Rivers in the equation, it might become so. But stylistically, there are similarities and that's what we're discussing.

FWIW, Hill won no NPOY awards and Collins was a consensus second-team All-America in 2009. He was more of a role player in the season referenced.

...and first team in 2010. Point being that he was a very elite talent, as was Chalmers. My mistake about Hill, but you get the point; I don't think those two examples support an argument for PG-by-committee when none of the three players is an elite (or even average for a top-10 team) floor general at this time.

greybeard
12-23-2011, 06:42 PM
Here's where I think you're making the mistake. I don't think Thornton is brought in for offensive reasons at all. I think he's brought in for defense..

When he has been in the the close games I have seen,Tyler brings the ball up the court, the tempo of the offense is such that no one is taking it to the rim or shooting a 3 early in the clock, there are multiple touches, some might say of a meaningless variety, until an attack mode is seized upon. I do not think that this is a game-shortening tactic by K, nor do I think it is playing defense by offense. There is time for explosive, get it and rip it ball aka Rivers and Seth at their best, like eagles soaring, but that game has high risks. What yler brings to the offensive game when he is given the reigns in the second half is the quality, not of lone eagles soaring, but of a gagle of geese flying in formation. When geese fly in formation they Runniletting a three go before half the shot clock goes down. I do not think that that is because K has put on the breaks to shorten the game. I think it is because he wants his team to exercise dominion on the offensive end, but instead work for something good, which does take time, and find it. That's the way Duke rolls on offense when Tyler is at the point. I do not think that this is simply a means of playing defense by offense, but rather is presenting a much different and controlled way of attacking, which K thinks is a better percentage, has less downside, than letting birds fly as they will. By birds fly as they will, I am talking about eagles soaring, in this case to the rim, wich leads to a run and shoot contest in which anything can happen. That might be fine for coming out of the blociks, coming from behind, or when the other team's ability to force tempo leaves no choice.

Here, if you want to think birds, the apt analogy for how Duke rolls when Tyler is at the point, is a gaggle of geese. Geese fly in a V formation because it allows them to fly 71 percent farther than if each flew on its own; the lead does the hard work of cutting the resistence; the geese that follow honk to encourage the leader to press on, when the lead tires, another goose switches places, geese stick together, when one goes down because it is hurt or sick, two stay behind until all three can fly off or their team member passes on. I am not saying that Duke is anywhere near functioning even at its best, which would be when Tyler is at the point, with a coherent team approach to scoring the ball. However, I do think that, while attacking as a team is still very much a work in progress, it nevertheless is an important part of K's strategic arsenal. When Tyler is at the point, he sets the tempo and temperment for others to pick up on. very much a work in progress, K often decides that that is how the offense needs to run and that the team knows who has been sent out there to show the way.


Thornton hasn't been leading the offense at all. And the offense doesn't run dramatically differently when he's in. I think this might be another instance (similar to the Mason Plumlee discussion in another thread) where you perhaps haven't been watching enough of the games to have a clear picture of what's happening.

I don't know that anything anyone has said establishes that my take on how Miles is being utilized is at all off the mark. I have seen him get less touches than most centers, and many of them provide him with no opportunity to create a percentage shot. I only allowed that something different might have been happening in contested games that I have missed.

Now, the only times that I have seen Duke play with coherence, put forth a team attack, when I have watched is when Tyler is on the floor, and then almost exclusively when he is at the point. If you're perception about that is different, you haven't said it. Is Tyler used in other capacities throughout the game, sometimes to amp up the defense, sometimes to get a too amped up Rivers off the floor? Sure. He probably also is inserted simply as the first ssub for a guard off the bench. I think he has much more offensive game than most of you allow. Finally, if Tyler is on the court with Rivers and his job is to get the team playing a coherent offense, I think that that is one challenging task. I'm not made at him if he fails.

Finally, Duke ain't that good on offense to be playing one down to get what Tyler offers on defense, Tyler has taken and hit some pretty important shots (is there anyone on the team who has done it more, maybe Dre), and he does seem to create offense off of defense, knock down shots that he needs to take (you get a good shot and you don't take it, you hurt the team), drive succesfully to the rim on occasion, and make well timed and touch passes. I

jimsumner
12-23-2011, 07:09 PM
...and first team in 2010. Point being that he was a very elite talent, as was Chalmers. My mistake about Hill, but you get the point; I don't think those two examples support an argument for PG-by-committee when none of the three players is an elite (or even average for a top-10 team) floor general at this time.

Perhaps. But that wasn't the original question. This was the original question: "when was the last time a Duke team, or any team for that matter, went deep into the tournament with a point guard-by-committee kind of situation?" 2008 Kansas is an answer to that question, which did not reference the quality of the point guards in question.

lotusland
12-23-2011, 08:38 PM
TT's new nickname should be "Goose"



When he has been in the the close games I have seen,Tyler brings the ball up the court, the tempo of the offense is such that no one is taking it to the rim or shooting a 3 early in the clock, there are multiple touches, some might say of a meaningless variety, until an attack mode is seized upon. I do not think that this is a game-shortening tactic by K, nor do I think it is playing defense by offense. There is time for explosive, get it and rip it ball aka Rivers and Seth at their best, like eagles soaring, but that game has high risks. What yler brings to the offensive game when he is given the reigns in the second half is the quality, not of lone eagles soaring, but of a gagle of geese flying in formation. When geese fly in formation they Runniletting a three go before half the shot clock goes down. I do not think that that is because K has put on the breaks to shorten the game. I think it is because he wants his team to exercise dominion on the offensive end, but instead work for something good, which does take time, and find it. That's the way Duke rolls on offense when Tyler is at the point. I do not think that this is simply a means of playing defense by offense, but rather is presenting a much different and controlled way of attacking, which K thinks is a better percentage, has less downside, than letting birds fly as they will. By birds fly as they will, I am talking about eagles soaring, in this case to the rim, wich leads to a run and shoot contest in which anything can happen. That might be fine for coming out of the blociks, coming from behind, or when the other team's ability to force tempo leaves no choice.

Here, if you want to think birds, the apt analogy for how Duke rolls when Tyler is at the point, is a gaggle of geese. Geese fly in a V formation because it allows them to fly 71 percent farther than if each flew on its own; the lead does the hard work of cutting the resistence; the geese that follow honk to encourage the leader to press on, when the lead tires, another goose switches places, geese stick together, when one goes down because it is hurt or sick, two stay behind until all three can fly off or their team member passes on. I am not saying that Duke is anywhere near functioning even at its best, which would be when Tyler is at the point, with a coherent team approach to scoring the ball. However, I do think that, while attacking as a team is still very much a work in progress, it nevertheless is an important part of K's strategic arsenal. When Tyler is at the point, he sets the tempo and temperment for others to pick up on. very much a work in progress, K often decides that that is how the offense needs to run and that the team knows who has been sent out there to show the way.



I don't know that anything anyone has said establishes that my take on how Miles is being utilized is at all off the mark. I have seen him get less touches than most centers, and many of them provide him with no opportunity to create a percentage shot. I only allowed that something different might have been happening in contested games that I have missed.

Now, the only times that I have seen Duke play with coherence, put forth a team attack, when I have watched is when Tyler is on the floor, and then almost exclusively when he is at the point. If you're perception about that is different, you haven't said it. Is Tyler used in other capacities throughout the game, sometimes to amp up the defense, sometimes to get a too amped up Rivers off the floor? Sure. He probably also is inserted simply as the first ssub for a guard off the bench. I think he has much more offensive game than most of you allow. Finally, if Tyler is on the court with Rivers and his job is to get the team playing a coherent offense, I think that that is one challenging task. I'm not made at him if he fails.

Finally, Duke ain't that good on offense to be playing one down to get what Tyler offers on defense, Tyler has taken and hit some pretty important shots (is there anyone on the team who has done it more, maybe Dre), and he does seem to create offense off of defense, knock down shots that he needs to take (you get a good shot and you don't take it, you hurt the team), drive succesfully to the rim on occasion, and make well timed and touch passes. I

greybeard
12-23-2011, 10:51 PM
Sorry for the garbled morass put forth above. Editing time limits left the finalized version on the cutting room floor. My bad.

-jk
12-24-2011, 08:12 AM
Sorry for the garbled morass put forth above. Editing time limits left the finalized version on the cutting room floor. My bad.

That's why we have a preview button available while you compose.

-jk

ncexnyc
12-24-2011, 08:21 AM
Seems to me that many of Tyler's detractors keep pointing to Seth's decreased production since Tyler took over the point, however for some odd reason they don't want to discuss the positive influence that move has had on Dre.

Could it be that these people were the very same ones who said that Seth was absolutely, positively up to the job of running the point and maybe, just maybe they can't admit they were wrong?

sagegrouse
12-24-2011, 08:31 AM
That's why we have a preview button available while you compose.

-jk

The "Preview Post" button is your only defense against the typos that DBR inserts in otherwise pristine texts before publishing. -- sage

Jarhead
12-24-2011, 08:39 AM
The "Preview Post" button is your only defense against the typos that DBR inserts in otherwise pristine texts before publishing. -- sage

Has anyone ever composed a pretty good post, hit the review button, then forgot to hit submit, ending up wondering which mod deleted you post? Uh, no, not me.http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/icon_swear.gif Not this time.

Bob Green
12-24-2011, 08:49 AM
Sorry for the garbled morass put forth above. Editing time limits left the finalized version on the cutting room floor. My bad.

I recommend you compose your long posts in WordPad and then "cut and paste" them into DBR message board. This methodology is especially helpful when quoting and responding to multiple posters. For example:


I think Tyler's job when he is sent in on offense is to create team play.


Here's where I think you're making the mistake. I don't think Thornton is brought in for offensive reasons at all. I think he's brought in for defense.


On the other hand, this year, the tone is much different when Tyler is sent in to play the point. Now he takes command, he confidently without fan fair brings it up against pressure, refuses to be rushed, and I have to believe commands the show because it has been made explicit that that is what K wants. And the show that He leads is one of cohession, patience, and collective efforts to scoring the ball, in lieu of one on one play with a high screen thrown in. I think that he does a fine job of it.


Thornton hasn't been leading the offense at all. And the offense doesn't run dramatically differently when he's in. I think this might be another instance (similar to the Mason Plumlee discussion in another thread) where you perhaps haven't been watching enough of the games to have a clear picture of what's happening.

I could "cut and paste" a dozen more quotes into this WordPad document and then respond to each one, proof read, edit, proof read and edit a second and third time, and then "cut and paste" the result into a DBR post.

I find WordPad to be a great tool which enhances the total DBR experience.

CDu
12-24-2011, 11:33 AM
I recommend you compose your long posts in WordPad and then "cut and paste" them into DBR message board. This methodology is especially helpful when quoting and responding to multiple posters. For example:

I find WordPad to be a great tool which enhances the total DBR experience.

Agreed. Another idea might be to not try to answer every single comment from other posters in a single post. Especially if the response is going to involve a 6 paragraph essay (with or without the numerous grammatical errors). It makes it very cumbersome to scroll through if someone happens to want to skip the essay and move to the next post in the thread.

Kedsy
12-24-2011, 12:08 PM
Seems to me that many of Tyler's detractors keep pointing to Seth's decreased production since Tyler took over the point, however for some odd reason they don't want to discuss the positive influence that move has had on Dre.

Well, against UNCG, 8 of Andre's 11 points came when Tyler was on the bench. Not sure why Tyler should get credit for that.


Could it be that these people were the very same ones who said that Seth was absolutely, positively up to the job of running the point and maybe, just maybe they can't admit they were wrong?

Are you saying people who thought Seth was up to the job of running the point (which included and still includes me) are wrong because Coach K is starting Tyler at point now? That doesn't really follow, logically. K announced the switch was for defensive purposes, so it doesn't really say anything about Seth's ability to run the point, does it?

ncexnyc
12-24-2011, 01:35 PM
Well, against UNCG, 8 of Andre's 11 points came when Tyler was on the bench. Not sure why Tyler should get credit for that.



Are you saying people who thought Seth was up to the job of running the point (which included and still includes me) are wrong because Coach K is starting Tyler at point now? That doesn't really follow, logically. K announced the switch was for defensive purposes, so it doesn't really say anything about Seth's ability to run the point, does it?

I can't say this response from you wasn't expected. You love cherrypicking your stats. The fact is since becoming our 6th man, Andre's game has improved quite a lot. Whether it's on the defensive end of the court or the offensive end it really doesn't matter as his play has improved as a result of Tyler moving to the STARTING PG spot.

I also find it funny that you still claim steadfast support for Seth as our PG. Just the other day you were willing to go along with the suggestion of Austin getting a shot at the point.

CDu
12-24-2011, 01:55 PM
I can't say this response from you wasn't expected. You love cherrypicking your stats. The fact is since becoming our 6th man, Andre's game has improved quite a lot. Whether it's on the defensive end of the court or the offensive end it really doesn't matter as his play has improved as a result of Tyler moving to the STARTING PG spot.

I think Kedsy's point was that most of Dawkins' work is still being done when Thornton isn't on the floor. Therefore, it's hard to argue that Thornton's play is having a positive effect on Dawkins. Remember - Dawkins is subbing in for Thornton when he enters the game. So quite a few of Dawkins' minutes are coming with Curry or Cook at PG. And generally speaking, Thornton is sharing the PG duties with Curry anyway when he's in there. I'm not even sure if I'd call him the primary PG when he's in the game. He's one of the guards that brings the ball up court and one of the guys who rotates around on the perimeter in the half court sets.

Regardless, the arguments about Curry's relative productivity or Dawkins' relative productivity with and without Thornton on the floor is a bit myopic. The real question is whether the team's adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency is better with or without Thornton on the floor. All the intangible benefits that Thornton is supposedly bringing should show up in those stats. Based on Thornton's net +/- per 40 minutes (which is negative), I'm guessing it's not.

Kedsy
12-24-2011, 02:54 PM
I can't say this response from you wasn't expected. You love cherrypicking your stats. The fact is since becoming our 6th man, Andre's game has improved quite a lot. Whether it's on the defensive end of the court or the offensive end it really doesn't matter as his play has improved as a result of Tyler moving to the STARTING PG spot.

As CDu said, my point was that the fact that Andre's play has improved the past few games is not necessarily connected to anything Tyler has done. To me, a more likely explanation is getting benched was somewhat of a kick in the butt to Andre and he has responded admirably. If I'm right, who replaced him in the starting lineup was largely irrelevant.


I also find it funny that you still claim steadfast support for Seth as our PG. Just the other day you were willing to go along with the suggestion of Austin getting a shot at the point.

As I said in the other thread, my reasoning for being interested in seeing what Austin can do from the PG spot is mostly on the defensive end. I personally believe our best perimeter on offense is Austin/Seth/Andre. So if trying Austin at PG allows that trio to play more as a group, then I'm for it. That doesn't mean my belief that Seth can run the point for us has wavered. I thought he did quite well as our PG on offense; Coach K said he made the change because of Tyler's better D. If we could work out the defensive issues, I'd be thrilled to see Seth moved back to the point.

Also, I don't understand why you're trying to make this personal. Can't you disagree in a civil manner? And just because a stat doesn't support your view doesn't make it "cherrypicked."

ncexnyc
12-24-2011, 04:20 PM
As CDu said, my point was that the fact that Andre's play has improved the past few games is not necessarily connected to anything Tyler has done. To me, a more likely explanation is getting benched was somewhat of a kick in the butt to Andre and he has responded admirably. If I'm right, who replaced him in the starting lineup was largely irrelevant.



As I said in the other thread, my reasoning for being interested in seeing what Austin can do from the PG spot is mostly on the defensive end. I personally believe our best perimeter on offense is Austin/Seth/Andre. So if trying Austin at PG allows that trio to play more as a group, then I'm for it. That doesn't mean my belief that Seth can run the point for us has wavered. I thought he did quite well as our PG on offense; Coach K said he made the change because of Tyler's better D. If we could work out the defensive issues, I'd be thrilled to see Seth moved back to the point.

Also, I don't understand why you're trying to make this personal. Can't you disagree in a civil manner? And just because a stat doesn't support your view doesn't make it "cherrypicked."

Looks to me like you're getting a bit testy for being called out on your habit of cherrypicking stats for whenever they meet your need. I really don't see how that's not being civil.

Coach K makes moves which he feels will help the team as a whole, not just for the sake of one player. The Thornton move was just such a move and unfortunately some of you just can't grasp it because it isn't obvious to you from a statistical standpoint. Remember K is the master of leadership and motivation something, which is hard to put a number on. Some of Tyler's detactors have asked, "What are intangibles?" Well the fact that Andre is playing better is in fact just one of those intangibles. Whether it's because he's fired-up or more comfortable coming off the bench it doesn't matter. The move doesn't occur in a vacuum. Have you ever considered that with Tyler on the floor it frees up Austin to do his thing more often, as there is one less gifted offensive player looking to score?

So instead of seconding guessing the winningest coach in the game and attempting to find any obscure statistic that will give you an excuse to be down on Tyler, why not come along for the ride and let things play out as they will.

Kedsy
12-24-2011, 07:59 PM
I can't say this response from you wasn't expected. You love cherrypicking your stats.

...

I also find it funny that you still claim steadfast support for Seth as our PG.


I don't understand why you're trying to make this personal. Can't you disagree in a civil manner? And just because a stat doesn't support your view doesn't make it "cherrypicked."


Looks to me like you're getting a bit testy for being called out on your habit of cherrypicking stats for whenever they meet your need. I really don't see how that's not being civil.

Well, at least one of us is getting testy -- or at least making personal barbs at the other. But I don't think it's me. But I suppose now you'll just accuse me of cherrypicking my quotes.


So instead of seconding guessing the winningest coach in the game and attempting to find any obscure statistic that will give you an excuse to be down on Tyler, why not come along for the ride and let things play out as they will.

I haven't second guessed anyone. I merely pointed out that Seth has performed worse when he's teamed with Tyler (and that Nolan performed worse last year when he was teamed with Tyler), and suggested that it was a phenomenon that was worthy of watching going forward.

I'm also not "down on Tyler." I have said that I think our offense is less effective when he's in the game, but I also pointed out that Coach K must value his defense and intangibles enough to make up for the decrease in offensive efficiency. I've also said (in other threads) that I think Tyler would be most effective in short bursts to inject some energy into our defense, rather than starting and playing big minutes, but to me that's very different from being "down" on someone and is exactly the sort of discussion that I'd expect to find on a Duke message board.

tommy
12-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Some of Tyler's detactors have asked, "What are intangibles?" Well the fact that Andre is playing better is in fact just one of those intangibles. Whether it's because he's fired-up or more comfortable coming off the bench it doesn't matter.

Is Andre's playing better since Tyler began to start a "fact?" Tyler has only started the last 3 games. In the last, the UNCG game, he only played 16 minutes. In the first, Andre, though he played well, only played 12 minutes. Not much to go on, really. That leaves only the Washington game in which Tyler started and they both played significant minutes. Pretty small sample size, I'd say.

Also, it is a fact that Andre had several excellent games earlier in the year, against good competition, when he, not Tyler, was a starter. 26 against Michigan State; 4 for 7 against Tennessee. 4 for 9 3 point shooting against Michigan. No doubt Andre's point totals have looked good the last 3 games. But it's not enough to state that it is a "fact" that he's playing better since Tyler began to start.


So instead of seconding guessing the winningest coach in the game and attempting to find any obscure statistic that will give you an excuse to be down on Tyler . . .

I know. Facts can be so annoying.

Kedsy
12-25-2011, 12:04 AM
Are we playing more or less efficiently since Tyler's been starting? I haven't bought Pomeroy's inside stats, so I decided to calculate the raw efficiencies before and after and compare. Here's what I came up with:

OFFENSE
First 8 games (Belmont through Ohio State)
---------------------------------------------
Duke raw offensive efficiency: 111.5
Average adjusted defensive efficiency of our opponents (taken from today's Pomeroy ratings): 93.7

Latest 3 games (Colorado State through UNCG)
-------------------------------------------------
Duke raw offensive efficiency: 118.5
Avg. adj. defensive efficiency of our opponents: 103.2


DEFENSE
First 8 games (Belmont through Ohio State)
---------------------------------------------
Duke raw defensive efficiency: 98.8
Average adjusted offensive efficiency of our opponents: 108.9

Latest 3 games (Colorado State through UNCG)
-------------------------------------------------
Duke raw defensive efficiency: 93.5
Avg. adj. offensive efficiency of our opponents: 104.6


So, I don't know how to calculate adjusted efficiency, but I know Pomeroy adjusts for the opposing team's efficiency, and the site of the game. Considering 2 of the 3 latest games were played at home, and only 3 of the first 8 were at home, combined with the much worse efficiencies of our opponents, my guess is both our adjusted offensive efficiency and our adjusted defensive efficiency have been worse since Tyler's been starting (although defense might be close). Note also that the first 8 games include the clunker at Ohio State, which may or may not accurately reflect our team's actual efficiencies (without counting Ohio State, our raw efficiencies are 112.9 (off) and 94.8 (def)).

Assuming my guess is correct and our adjusted efficiencies have been worse, does that mean we shouldn't have made the switch to the starting lineup? Of course not, there are many other things to consider, including sample size, exams, getting used to the new changes, what lineup has the most upside and has the best chance to help us at the end of the season, etc. But I do think it's food for thought and something to consider going forward.

Your mileage may vary.

Scorp4me
12-25-2011, 03:31 PM
Coach K sees the entire team every day in practice and based on his years of experience has decided Tyler should start. Now this isn't a "don't question Coach K post" so perhaps he just hasn't seen the statistics. Maybe someone should call him up. I guess you'd classify this a "sarcasm" post.

Kedsy
12-25-2011, 10:18 PM
Coach K sees the entire team every day in practice and based on his years of experience has decided Tyler should start. Now this isn't a "don't question Coach K post" so perhaps he just hasn't seen the statistics. Maybe someone should call him up. I guess you'd classify this a "sarcasm" post.

Well, I don't know about you, but most of us haven't seen the practices. So what would you like to talk about?

greybeard
12-26-2011, 03:31 PM
I suggest that you read David Halberstam's book, The Breaks of the Game, and read what Dr. Jack Ramsey had to say about Bobby Gross and his value to the Portland Trailblazers--not a single statistic mentioned by Dr. Jack, nor by Bill Walton, who said quite clearly that, no Bobby Gross and his unmeasurable contributions, no Championship. Basketball is a game to be played by a Team, not a bunch of numbers calculated after the fact as if they provided even a close approximation of what actualy occurred on the court.Ramsey, to save you time, went on and on about how the intangibles that Gross contributed made him the second most valuable player on the team. Halberstam recounted in great detail how Ramsey explained that Gross would see two passes ahead, would clear space by cutting through to the other side of the court, knowing that hhis teammates would get the ball to the player whose defender had no help defense, only didn't know it, because Gross was outside his field of vision and who would expect him to make a cut for no discernible reason, the bll being two passes away from going to the side of the court that Gross was on and removing any chance that Gross would receive it.

Numbers are a poor approximation of the game and what a great team comprises, the selflessness of players, sometimes one like Bobby, sometimes two like Bobby and Bill, whose contributions to the quality of play make the team much more than any iteration of statistics one might come up with if one were inclined to invest the time. Keep 'em coming dude.

Kedsy
12-26-2011, 04:27 PM
I suggest that you read David Halberstam's book, The Breaks of the Game, and read what Dr. Jack Ramsey had to say about Bobby Gross and his value to the Portland Trailblazers--not a single statistic mentioned by Dr. Jack, nor by Bill Walton, who said quite clearly that, no Bobby Gross and his unmeasurable contributions, no Championship. Basketball is a game to be played by a Team, not a bunch of numbers calculated after the fact as if they provided even a close approximation of what actualy occurred on the court.Ramsey, to save you time, went on and on about how the intangibles that Gross contributed made him the second most valuable player on the team. Halberstam recounted in great detail how Ramsey explained that Gross would see two passes ahead, would clear space by cutting through to the other side of the court, knowing that hhis teammates would get the ball to the player whose defender had no help defense, only didn't know it, because Gross was outside his field of vision and who would expect him to make a cut for no discernible reason, the bll being two passes away from going to the side of the court that Gross was on and removing any chance that Gross would receive it.

Numbers are a poor approximation of the game and what a great team comprises, the selflessness of players, sometimes one like Bobby, sometimes two like Bobby and Bill, whose contributions to the quality of play make the team much more than any iteration of statistics one might come up with if one were inclined to invest the time. Keep 'em coming dude.

I don't know why you think I don't believe in intangibles. Or why you think I don't believe a player can be valuable without contributing statistically. I play a lot of basketball and watch a lot of basketball. I understand and believe I can recognize when a player has the skills that win ball games whether his stats reflect it or not.

But just because a player can have a great deal of valuable without racking up stats, it does not follow that every player who fails to rack up stats has a great deal of value. Some players do neither.

I also disagree with your apparent idea that any statistics that contradict your observation or opinion are wrong. It could just as easily be that you are wrong and the statistics are right.

Don't misunderstand me, I think Tyler does have value. I just don't think he brings as much value as you (and some others) seem to think. The idea struck me while observing with my eyes, and then I tried to see whether the numbers agreed with me or not. I don't know how else to evaluate something like that.

Finally, my last post was a discussion of team statistics. If Bobby Gross was as valuable as you and Dr. Ramsey said, then I'm sure his team performed better when he played a larger role than it did when he played a smaller role. If he contributed such wonderful intangibles, then the team would almost certainly have been more efficient on either the offensive side or the defensive side, or hopefully both. We are dealing with small sample sizes, but the point of my last post was to spur discussion of the idea that while Tyler has been starting, the Duke team does not appear to have been more efficient on either side of the ball. Which may (or may not) distinguish Tyler's play from that of Bobby Gross in 1976.

COYS
12-31-2011, 03:33 PM
I thought it might be worth bringing this thread back up to the front page after last night's game. Whether by design of happenstance, Seth was very involved in the offense even when he was on the court with Tyler. However, most of Seth's best scoring moments came off of passes from players other than Seth. He had a nice jumper on an inbounds play and had a great 2-man game going with Ryan. He also scored on a three off of a nice cross-court pass from Austin on a secondary break. Obviously, Western Michigan offered some of the weakest defense we'll see all season, but it was nice to see Seth get his shot back. Hopefully Seth's numbers suffered that temporary dip because of an initial adjustment period to playing more minutes with Tyler and then the ankle injury that looks to have healed. If Seth can find ways to score while Tyler is on the court without relying on Tyler to create those opportunities, it makes Tyler's lack of offensive contributions much less of an issue and makes the team far more explosive on the offensive end.

CDu
12-31-2011, 04:11 PM
I thought it might be worth bringing this thread back up to the front page after last night's game. Whether by design of happenstance, Seth was very involved in the offense even when he was on the court with Tyler. However, most of Seth's best scoring moments came off of passes from players other than Seth. He had a nice jumper on an inbounds play and had a great 2-man game going with Ryan. He also scored on a three off of a nice cross-court pass from Austin on a secondary break. Obviously, Western Michigan offered some of the weakest defense we'll see all season, but it was nice to see Seth get his shot back. Hopefully Seth's numbers suffered that temporary dip because of an initial adjustment period to playing more minutes with Tyler and then the ankle injury that looks to have healed. If Seth can find ways to score while Tyler is on the court without relying on Tyler to create those opportunities, it makes Tyler's lack of offensive contributions much less of an issue and makes the team far more explosive on the offensive end.

The interesting thing is how little of the typical PG duties were performed by Thornton yesterday. Curry, Rivers, and Cook were the ones typically bringing the ball up court and initiating the offense. Once in the halfcourt, Thornton was involved. But he wasn't at any time what I would have called the PG of the offense last night. I'd concur that Curry was much more the PG, although Curry's scoring did mostly come off passes from others rather than him creating his own shot.

jv001
12-31-2011, 04:48 PM
The interesting thing is how little of the typical PG duties were performed by Thornton yesterday. Curry, Rivers, and Cook were the ones typically bringing the ball up court and initiating the offense. Once in the halfcourt, Thornton was involved. But he wasn't at any time what I would have called the PG of the offense last night. I'd concur that Curry was much more the PG, although Curry's scoring did mostly come off passes from others rather than him creating his own shot.

This is absolutely correct. Tyler did very little pg duties in last nights game. He was on the wing and proceeded to hit a few threes when one of the above named guys hit him with a crisp pass. He and Quinn both guarded the opposing pg. It looked like the team worked in practice on getting down the court faster. Usually that was Austin or Cook leading the way. GoDuke!