PDA

View Full Version : Our Magic Number is 10



Udaman
03-04-2012, 05:09 PM
OK, this isn't what you are thinking. I'm not talking about wins left in the season.

Then again, our number might be 9 (which would tie to that)....but I think it's 10.

By magic number, I mean number of three pointers we have to make in order to have a chance to beat a decent team. To me, this is kind of sad...but it's the reality of our team and our season, and it will be the reason that we either win the NCAA tournament, or lose somewhere along the way. The season speaks for itself:

Quality wins/Good games against top teams

Michigan State. We went 10 for 21 from behind the arc. I was a little surprised we took that many threes in the game...but it was merely a sign of things to come
Michigan. We were 11 for 21 from behind the arc.
Kansas. 11 for 25
at UNC. 14 for 36
at Florida State. 13 for 28

Tough loses against decent teams:

Home to Miami. We were 9 for 31. That's an incredible number of attempts. Hit just 2 more and we win.
Home to Florida State. We were 10 for 23. It took a buzzer beater from them to beat us.

Bad Losses:

Temple 6 for 14. OK, people might argue this wasn't a bad loss, but that's not the case. Temple let from 18-17 on, and consistently had a 7 point lead in the 2nd half, and we hit a meaningless 3 pointer at the buzzer to cut the final margin to 5, and another one 24 seconds before that, which by the way, increased our made three pointers from 4 to 6.

Ohio State. 3 for 15 (brutal)

UNC. 6 for 21

So, let's face it. We are literally team that lives and dies by the three point shot. Yes, I'm sure some people will point to our wins over Washington and Virginia where we didn't make a bunch of threes. But with Washington we went to the free throw line 44 times (which is nuts), and Virginia is an odd team, where you don't really need to hit threes to beat them, just play good defense and be smart with the ball.

That said, to beat any good team in the tournament (Kentucky, UNC, Syracuse, Ohio State, Kansas, Michigan State, Michigan, Missouri, Murray State, etc, etc - basically any top 4 seed, I think it's a must that make 9 or more three pointers. The team that beats us will be the one that shuts us down on the perimeter with their defense, or a game where we simply can't buy a basket.

That's our season, in my eyes. Again, a little sad to think that's what it comes to, but it sure seems that way.

Dev11
03-04-2012, 05:18 PM
Again, a little sad to think that's what it comes to, but it sure seems that way.

Sad? I think all you just proved is that when we don't make shots, we don't win. Show me a team that misses lots of shots and wins a lot.

Greg_Newton
03-04-2012, 05:45 PM
Probably true. Our post play is better than it has been, but we don't have many guards or wings with a slashing or mid-range game, and don't score off of turnovers or in transition. Say we get 15 post points, 15 points from Rivers/Curry going to the rim, and 10-15 FTs. Where else are our points going to come from?

gofurman
03-04-2012, 08:59 PM
Sad? I think all you just proved is that when we don't make shots, we don't win. Show me a team that misses lots of shots and wins a lot.

actually I think it is a little sad. It isnt saying we have to 'make shots'. Its saying we have to make THREES. IE, as another poster said - we have very little mid range or penetration game. I noticed when VT pushed us to OT they specifically guarded the threes and dared us to drive and pull up 10 foot jump shots. We cant. *A big difference to me in the win over UNC and the loss was not just "us missing" it was how hard UNC ran at our three point shooters - UNC is byno means the best perimiter D out there but it was obvious to me they were making a concerted effort to run at our threes a little harder this game hoping to lower our percentage a little. I think VT and UNC gave a good blueprint on how to beat Duke. The key is they are saying "if we sell out on guarding the three, you will get some points from the Plumlees but who is going to pull those teardrop shots Nolan used to make?" Rivers and Curry are possible threats here and need to incorporate this in their game. Pump fake and either take the three if the defender flies by or pump and drive and take the 10 footer.

The irony of this to me is it is the same thing Duke D is predicated on. Guard far out to stop the opposing O from getting started and thus pressure the three ball also. Our bigs stand in front of the goal and rotate well to take charges to stop layups /dunks... Let's see if the opposing O can pull up from 8 feet and shoot a 'j' without coming in and charging. Most teams cant or wont. The kids want to go all the way to the goal once they beat the initial defender and end up with either a big in their face or a charge.

davekay1971
03-04-2012, 09:30 PM
In other news, if we score more points than the other team, we tend to win.

OK, being more serious, let's look at this.

Austin Rivers: 39%
Seth Curry: 39%
Ryan Kelly 43%
Andre Dawkins 41%

So, four of our top 5 scorers make roughly 40% from 3 point range. In terms of points per shot taken, that's the same as 60% from 2 point range...which is about the offensive efficiency of an exceptionally good post player. It's pretty hard to argue that the 3 point shot isn't just an important part of our offensive arsenal - it's a devastatingly effective part of our offensive arsenal.

I understand the reluctance to love the 3. There's an inherent inconsistency to it. Some games, it seems like they're just not falling. In fact, it's happened that way enough this season to contribute significantly in 5 losses...out of 31 games.

I would love to see more balance to our offense, but Coach K is smart enough to play to the strengths of his players. We have one perimeter player who is exceptionally skilled at getting to the basket to score - Austin - and he's doing it nicely. We have one who is pretty decent at getting mid range looks - Curry - but he's much more effective from 3. We have 2 guys who are capable of doing pretty decent work inside, but both have historically been inconsistent and neither has shown the ability to carry the offense - Miles and Mason - and they're both contributing in spots.

Meanwhile we have four guys...FOUR guys...who are shooting at a 40 percent clip from 3. Frankly, I don't think there is a problem with the offense. Our offensive efficiency, even after yesterday's debacle, is ranked 6th. However, given where our effectiveness is this season, and the skills sets available, if one thinks our offense has a problem, then the problem is that we don't shoot enough threes.

gep
03-04-2012, 10:59 PM
In other news, if we score more points than the other team, we tend to win.

OK, being more serious, let's look at this.

Austin Rivers: 39%
Seth Curry: 39%
Ryan Kelly 43%
Andre Dawkins 41%

So, four of our top 5 scorers make roughly 40% from 3 point range. In terms of points per shot taken, that's the same as 60% from 2 point range...which is about the offensive efficiency of an exceptionally good post player. It's pretty hard to argue that the 3 point shot isn't just an important part of our offensive arsenal - it's a devastatingly effective part of our offensive arsenal.

I understand the reluctance to love the 3. There's an inherent inconsistency to it. Some games, it seems like they're just not falling. In fact, it's happened that way enough this season to contribute significantly in 5 losses...out of 31 games.

I would love to see more balance to our offense, but Coach K is smart enough to play to the strengths of his players. We have one perimeter player who is exceptionally skilled at getting to the basket to score - Austin - and he's doing it nicely. We have one who is pretty decent at getting mid range looks - Curry - but he's much more effective from 3. We have 2 guys who are capable of doing pretty decent work inside, but both have historically been inconsistent and neither has shown the ability to carry the offense - Miles and Mason - and they're both contributing in spots.

Meanwhile we have four guys...FOUR guys...who are shooting at a 40 percent clip from 3. Frankly, I don't think there is a problem with the offense. Our offensive efficiency, even after yesterday's debacle, is ranked 6th. However, given where our effectiveness is this season, and the skills sets available, if one thinks our offense has a problem, then the problem is that we don't shoot enough threes.

Interestingly... one of the four you mention seems to have a very short line, and gets "hooked" very quickly. I understand the question of defense, but as others have posted, with everyone struggling on defense, why is Andre given the "shortest leash"? :confused:

uh_no
03-04-2012, 11:10 PM
Interestingly... one of the four you mention seems to have a very short line, and gets "hooked" very quickly. I understand the question of defense, but as others have posted, with everyone struggling on defense, why is Andre given the "shortest leash"? :confused:

Probably because he has the least to provide in other aspects of the game, so if he's not shooting well, he's not helping the team. Seth can drive and dish, austin can...well....austin, ryan is big...

if he's not hitting, he's hurting the team, so we put in tyler or someone, who is going to play some hard nosed defense, and has shown to be a good leader on the floor

davekay1971
03-04-2012, 11:13 PM
Interestingly... one of the four you mention seems to have a very short line, and gets "hooked" very quickly. I understand the question of defense, but as others have posted, with everyone struggling on defense, why is Andre given the "shortest leash"? :confused:

Is everyone struggling equally on defense? This is only my speculation, and probably only the coaches can give a definitive answer, but my speculation is that Andre's "leash" length is related to some observation of his defensive effectiveness and level of effort. For what it's worth...he has the most number of 3 point attempts on the team. However short his leash, he's on the court enough to have more three point attempts than anyone else.

Regardless of what dictates Andre's playing time (the central point of discussion of at least one other thread), Andre is actually a prime example of why our offense maybe needs to shoot more 3s. As others have noted, Andre might very well be a more effective and consistent player if he was able (via playing time, offensive focus, longer "leash", etc) to have more 3 point attempts per game. Further, it's fairly obvious where Andre is most efficient as a scorer - from the perimeter, not at mid range or attacking the basket. Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of your men, adapt your strategy accordingly. Small unit tactics 101, and undoubtedly an area of expertise of our coach.

OZZIE4DUKE
03-04-2012, 11:27 PM
Fact of life for Duke basketball - we shoot well, we win; if we don't shoot well, we might have a problem and not win. We often still win when we don't shoot well. It's been this way for many years.

Udaman
03-05-2012, 09:43 AM
Ozzie - I guess I disagree with you. This year, much more than others, we seem to truly live or die by the three pointer. If we don't make 10 of them against a good team, we lose, and often badly. It's not about shooting well. It's about hitting threes.

Carolina only made 4 three pointers against us, and blew us out of the gym. If our team makes 4 three pointers against anyone in the top 20, we are going to lose by 8 or more points. And that's frustrating. Especially when we have big guys who play (the Plumlees, Kelly). We just seem to be so keyed for the three point play that when we struggle, every other part of our game struggles.

And we haven't always been like that. Against Butler 2 years ago, we only made 5 three pointers and won. Against Purdue that same year in the tournament, we made 6 three pointers and won.

Last year, against Kansas State we made 6 three pointers and won. Against UNC we made 8 and won. Against Michigan State we made 7 and won. We've always taken three's, but we've usually been much more balanced.

davekay1971
03-05-2012, 09:51 AM
We've always taken three's, but we've usually been much more balanced.

I think that's a fair way to put it. I my previous post, I defended the use of the 3 on this year's team as being our most efficient weapon. I think that's the case and we'd be foolish, as a team, to try to focus more on interior offense and mid-range offense with the personnel that we have, particularly at this stage of the year. Basically, stick with your best guns in battle, and our best guns happen to be really freaking good from beyond the arc. I think everyone, from you to me to Coach K, would like to see a more balanced offense, but Coach is smart enough to not try to force the players he has into a classically balanced offense that doesn't match the strengths of the players on the team (a la Roy 2010).

gus
03-05-2012, 10:02 AM
So, let's face it. We are literally team that lives and dies by the three point shot.

Literally? This is basketball, not tlatchtli.

Reilly
03-05-2012, 10:21 AM
What % of our FG attempts are 3's? A sampling ...

1987: 19%
1988: 21%
1991: 19%
1992: 19%
1999: 30%
2001: 42%
2006: 35%
2010: 33%
2011: 35%
2012: 38%

gus
03-05-2012, 10:42 AM
What % of our FG attempts are 3's? A sampling ...

1987: 19%
1988: 21%
1991: 19%
1992: 19%
1999: 30%
2001: 42%
2006: 35%
2010: 33%
2011: 35%
2012: 38%

That's based on official attempts right? I wonder what it looks like if you factor in shots not counted as attempts because of fouls. That might bring the 2001 team's number down a little.

Reilly
03-05-2012, 11:37 AM
On the goduke stats database, I pulled up a given year, then divided 3 pt attempts by total FG attempts.

I guess there are various ways to try to get at how important was the 3-pointer in any given year. Another way would be to see what percentage of our total points in a given year came from 2 pt makes, from 3 pt makes, and from made FTs.

Edouble
03-05-2012, 12:10 PM
Literally? This is basketball, not tlatchtli.

Thank you so much for this post. Seriously, this drives me nuts.

Udaman
03-11-2012, 09:31 AM
5 for 20 from three yesterday, against a top 25 team, and we lose. And yeah, we only lost by 3....but we were down the entire second half, down 10 at one point, and we look completely and utterly lost on offense. Want proof? We had 7 assists yesterday. That means we became a 1 on 1 team with little ball movement and a whole lot of "dribble the ball up, dribble, dribble, dribble, then drive to the basket and make a tough shot."

When you toss in the fact that Dawkins has less confidence out there than I do.....this has become one of the most frustrating Duke seasons in a while. It reminds me of the year we got smoked by Villanova in the Sweet 16. Far too reliant on outside shooting, no ability to stop dribble penetration, no overall team chemistry (for whatever reason), and at least one player who is a shell of himself while out on the court.