PDA

View Full Version : Featherston Article one of the best EVER!



jfhammer01
04-17-2012, 08:31 AM
We accept the "one-liners" from blog artists and people who seem to be in a position of "knowing"...the so-called experts with a reputation as a gamer. But what we have on our website today is pure intelligence. Big men can't "flourish" at Duke......I remember quite a few big men who improved each year. Ask Alaa Abdelnaby, Jay Bilas and Brian Zoubek. If Tony Parker wants to be truly great, then there is a spot waiting for him in Durham to prepare.

Bluealum
04-17-2012, 09:34 AM
We accept the "one-liners" from blog artists and people who seem to be in a position of "knowing"...the so-called experts with a reputation as a gamer. But what we have on our website today is pure intelligence. Big men can't "flourish" at Duke......I remember quite a few big men who improved each year. Ask Alaa Abdelnaby, Jay Bilas and Brian Zoubek. If Tony Parker wants to be truly great, then there is a spot waiting for him in Durham to prepare.

Agreed. Great, great article. Someone with a login should link this over on IC and watch the place go into a meltdown with all the facts staring them in the face. Thanks Al!

Devil in the Blue Dress
04-17-2012, 09:50 AM
Three cheers for an insightful, well written article about a topic previously exhausted by the limited perspective so common today. I especially love the phrase "big man factory" applied to Carolina!:cool:

lotusland
04-17-2012, 10:19 AM
Yes he made a very good argument. I think he mentioned but sort of "glosssed over" what a poor job Duke did getting the ball Mason in the second half of year. There were several games where we had a big size advantage but we only made a token effort to exploit it. Daugherty saying Mason regressed was really silly though.

gwlaw99
04-17-2012, 10:25 AM
The more I read about Parker's attitude toward Duke, the less I want him on our team. Sounds like another kid who wants everything handed to him and not work for it. I also saw him play in the Jordan Brand classic was not impressed.

miramar
04-17-2012, 10:37 AM
The more I read about Parker's attitude toward Duke, the less I want him on our team. Sounds like another kid who wants everything handed to him and not work for it. I also saw him play in the Jordan Brand classic was not impressed.

The kid comes to Duke, doesn't get enough playing time as a freshman, and then transfers out and says that it's because just as he feared, Duke doesn't know how to develop big men.

In the unlikely event that he chooses Duke, the coaches should make him sign a disclaimer: "I have read and understood Al Featherston's post on Mason Plumlee's return."

Lord Ash
04-17-2012, 10:47 AM
Agreed, fantastic article, thanks for bringing it! To be honest, even had me re-evaluating Mason a bit...

PaIronDuke
04-17-2012, 10:51 AM
Yes he made a very good argument. I think he mentioned but sort of "glosssed over" what a poor job Duke did getting the ball Mason in the second half of year. There were several games where we had a big size advantage but we only made a token effort to exploit it. Daugherty saying Mason regressed was really silly though.

When he was a basketball analyst, I usually found Daughtery's comments to be insightful and objective-especially for a faux Columbia blue'r!

One explanation for his off-base comments on Mason may be that he originally was from Black Mountain, fifteen miles or so from Christ School, from which a similar comment emenated earlier from Mason's prep coach............

While I have the podium, let me add that I think, in general,
our society is wildly over-communicating, and
there are far too empty heads on the internet following too little news............

Matches
04-17-2012, 10:53 AM
It was a great article but trying to use facts in these types of debates is beating against the current. The unfortunate fact is that much of the "mainstream" college bball media is exceptionally lazy. They tend to settle on narratives that are easily reducible to sound bites and then cling to them regardless of actual facts. (Hence the ludicrous statement that Mason has "regressed", which is so obviously contrary to the facts that it's absurd.)

UrinalCake
04-17-2012, 11:54 AM
I also enjoyed the article. When Mason first committed to Duke, I remember the scouting report of him stating that he was more perimeter oriented and would even shoot the three. He was never an inside banger, and really had no post game when he got here. Mason's high school coach (the one whose criticisms of Duke's system were recently publicized) was on the local radio show last week and he himself told David Glenn that in high school Mason shot a lot of jump shots and didn't score much because he loved to pass and get others involved. So it blows my mind that he's now criticizing Duke's system, as if Mason came in possessing an abundance of post moves that we're simply ignoring.

As for Daugherty's comments, Mason obviously has not regressed when you look at his numbers. However, a more fair statement might be to say that his draft stock has slipped each year he has stayed at Duke. That's even debatable, and I personally think it's stayed about the same (low-first round to early-second round pick), but the fact that he's improved each year means whenever he does enter the league he'll be better prepared.

buzz
04-17-2012, 11:56 AM
Daugherty is usually pretty good, but he's just way off the mark on this one. Anyone who watched Plumlee's footwork, handle, and lack of strength going to the hoop upon his arrival at Duke can easily see the progress he's made in those areas - not that he's finished. Add to that the baby hook, solid shot-blocking, and elite rebounding, all of which have visibly improved during his time at Duke.

There's a tendency for the former big-man commentators (Elmore, Kellogg, Walton, etc) to over-emphasize the big-man back-to-the-basket game in general. I suppose it hearkens back to their glory days in the pre-3 era when they were option numero uno. Rarely do you see other commentators go on these extended big-man rants. The game has changed, and there are other ways to impact it.

NSDukeFan
04-17-2012, 12:05 PM
It was a great article but trying to use facts in these types of debates is beating against the current. The unfortunate fact is that much of the "mainstream" college bball media is exceptionally lazy. They tend to settle on narratives that are easily reducible to sound bites and then cling to them regardless of actual facts. (Hence the ludicrous statement that Mason has "regressed", which is so obviously contrary to the facts that it's absurd.)

I wonder if it is that much laziness or more simply generalization. On the board there are often comments about the unintelligent things that some analysts say. In the analysts' defense (a position I don't usually take), they are usually supposed to be focused on all the teams in the country and have to use some assumptions in their analysis. Some of these assumptions or blanket statements are indeed if looked at with more scrutiny, but if you are looking at the whole country, or even the top 50 or so teams, you may not have time for that more scrutiny about each team. That is why it is nice to get a more solid analysis from Jim or Al, or Watzone, or some on this board, who focus on Duke and/or the ACC. At least that's my theory for today.

ChillinDuke
04-17-2012, 12:36 PM
It was a great article but trying to use facts in these types of debates is beating against the current. The unfortunate fact is that much of the "mainstream" college bball media is exceptionally lazy. They tend to settle on narratives that are easily reducible to sound bites and then cling to them regardless of actual facts. (Hence the ludicrous statement that Mason has "regressed", which is so obviously contrary to the facts that it's absurd.)

Couldn't agree more with this post. Why are we even debating Mason's progress? It's so clearly evident, it baffles me that we are even discussing this.

The board as a whole seems to be more insecure (at the moment) than I've seen it in my 4-5 years reading. Perhaps that results from the early tournament loss.

But I, for one, am not even remotely close to worried about Mason Plumlee's trajectory as a basketball player, as it is and has been clearly headed upward.

- Chillin

PS - For the record, (and to balance out some of the "insecurity" as I term it) I would like to also note that I am not even remotely close to worried about our ability to recruit, our future prospects as a team, or our coaching staff.

Dr. Rosenrosen
04-17-2012, 12:57 PM
I will preface this comment by saying I wholeheartedly agree with AF's assessment and that they mainstream view is wildly skewed. It's impossible to account for the laziness of the vast majority of sports journalism - er, reporting - er, whatever you want to call it. And I agree that it's a bit of a waste of time to try to argue with those who are so impressionable and lazy as to simply adopt the viewpoint of the masses. But...

Whatever the numbers say, the impressionable masses will argue from a point of view similar to the one presented at the end of this very article... they will say that MP2 is not passing the "eye-test" (I really do hate that term) when they watch him play do to lack of development of go-to post moves, jump shot, etc. Never mind that he apparently never had outstanding skills in these areas and has actually shown very nice improvement if one cares to pay attention. But he doesn't have the buttery big man moves and jumper of guys like Sullinger, Robinson, etc., and so therefore he has "regressed." It's silly and stupid and shortsighted and wholly uninformed. But this is the point the masses will argue - and it's not nearly as easy to refute with numbers.

I, for one, look forward to next season with great enthusiasm and anticipation and can't way to see how much further MP2 "regresses" over the summer! :rolleyes:

FerryFor50
04-17-2012, 12:58 PM
You guys are missing the point... really athletic people are automatically awesome basketball players, right? :rolleyes:

CDu
04-17-2012, 01:12 PM
I agree with Matches that it is somewhat pointless to go to any effort in refuting the "perception." The perception is out there, and the only way to change that perception is for folks to see some really productive (by that I mean high-scoring) post players come through Duke for a few years. Note that Ryan Kelly won't help the perception, because he's one of the other Duke stereotypes: only big men who shoot 3s thrive at Duke.

Next season has the potential to be a start of the transition. If Mason can average 15-17ppg and 10+ rpg (by no means out of the question based on his current trajectory and the potential opportunities avialable next year), he'll be a star in the post. If we follow him up with Julius Randle and/or another quality post-up big man who thrives and Jahlil Okafor after that, suddenly the perception could go away.

Of course, that relies a lot on a few recruits overlooking the perception and taking a chance on Duke. But all it takes is one or two guys to change the perception. Discussion in the media isn't going to do anything to change it.

smvalkyries
04-17-2012, 02:00 PM
One of the best articles analyzing Duke big men I have ever seen and very timely too. I think the only thing that may have been missed is that every time Coach K gets a dominant bigman a national championship ( or two) seem to follow. I wonder how that happens without fully utilzing big mens' talents. Not all Duke Big men are like Zoobs maybe Coach K's crime (and bad bigman rep?) is that he won with a center like Zoobs too. By the way long term there is nothing much better than being one of Duke's most beloved and well remembered athletes like Brian Zoubek- we all still revel in his achievements and perserverance in overcoming obstacles which I can almost guarantee would not have happened anywhere else.

Kedsy
04-17-2012, 02:12 PM
I think the only thing that may have been missed is that every time Coach K gets a dominant bigman a national championship ( or two) seem to follow.

You mean, like Elton Brand? Shelden Williams? Danny Ferry? Hmmm.

Also, I believe it's "Featherston," not "Featherstone."

johnb
04-17-2012, 06:07 PM
You mean, like Elton Brand? Shelden Williams? Danny Ferry? Hmmm.
"

OK, perhaps it should be said that great big men become All Americans and the team does well, but it's still an important point: I don't know of a top notch C/PF who was "underutilized" at Duke and then became an NBA star. The reverse is more often true: a really excellent big man plays for us, wins lots of national awards, and hits a ceiling (sometimes a very high ceiling) at the next level; this seems to substantiate Featherston's great points about K's ability to adapt the team to the talent.

toooskies
04-17-2012, 06:17 PM
Yes he made a very good argument. I think he mentioned but sort of "glosssed over" what a poor job Duke did getting the ball Mason in the second half of year. There were several games where we had a big size advantage but we only made a token effort to exploit it. Daugherty saying Mason regressed was really silly though.

I'm tired of hearing about the "poor job Duke did getting the ball [to] Mason". He was shooting 40% from the free throw line, and other teams started fouling him hard rather than giving him a clean shot. And when you shoot 40%, you're only expected to get 0.8 (shooting two) or 0.56 (one-and-one) points per possession, well under Duke's team average. Foul trouble for the other team also comes into play, but not enough to swing those numbers.

In other words, until Mason's FT% came around, purposely running plays for him was a bad play, objectively. We stopped running plays for Mason because he couldn't hit free throws. We stopped giving the other team opportunities to deliberately put him at the line.

We knew he was working hard at improving his free throws and he did; but realistically, how many players go from 40% free throw shooters to 60%? Shaq spent an entire NBA career trying to do that with little success. At the very least, no one could have predicted that turnaround, mid-season. Any game could've been the one where it fell apart all over again.

lotusland
04-17-2012, 08:13 PM
I'm tired of hearing about the "poor job Duke did getting the ball [to] Mason". He was shooting 40% from the free throw line, and other teams started fouling him hard rather than giving him a clean shot. And when you shoot 40%, you're only expected to get 0.8 (shooting two) or 0.56 (one-and-one) points per possession, well under Duke's team average. Foul trouble for the other team also comes into play, but not enough to swing those numbers.

In other words, until Mason's FT% came around, purposely running plays for him was a bad play, objectively. We stopped running plays for Mason because he couldn't hit free throws. We stopped giving the other team opportunities to deliberately put him at the line.

We knew he was working hard at improving his free throws and he did; but realistically, how many players go from 40% free throw shooters to 60%? Shaq spent an entire NBA career trying to do that with little success. At the very least, no one could have predicted that turnaround, mid-season. Any game could've been the one where it fell apart all over again.

My point wasn't to make you weary but reading any post is optional so you have only yourself to blame. I would like to point out that we stopped featuring Mason as his free throw shooting improved and as our shooters went cold (probably because our offense was predictable so they were not getting as many open looks. Also the General loves to remind everyone that making a free throw is only one of several benefits that result from drawing fouls and you don't draw fouls as often jacking up threes as when you attack the post. I hope you found the energy to read this entire post.

UrinalCake
04-17-2012, 09:08 PM
The reverse is more often true: a really excellent big man plays for us, wins lots of national awards, and hits a ceiling (sometimes a very high ceiling) at the next level; this seems to substantiate Featherston's great points about K's ability to adapt the team to the talent.

Duke antagonists will use this as evidence that we "cannot produce NBA big men." Haters gonna hate no matter what.


In other words, until Mason's FT% came around, purposely running plays for him was a bad play, objectively. We stopped running plays for Mason because he couldn't hit free throws. We stopped giving the other team opportunities to deliberately put him at the line.

I disagree with this. His free throw shooting steadily improved over the course of the season, while we went to him less and less. I don't have the numbers to prove it, but from watching nearly every game there seemed to me to be almost a negative correlation between his free throw shooting and how much he got the ball. I really didn't see other teams foul him on purpose all that often. I think what happened is that other teams figured out they could deny the entry pass and dare our guards to shoot. They got cold over a long stretch and so our offense fell flat.

toooskies
04-17-2012, 10:32 PM
My point wasn't to make you weary but reading any post is optional so you have only yourself to blame. I would like to point out that we stopped featuring Mason as his free throw shooting improved and as our shooters went cold (probably because our offense was predictable so they were not getting as many open looks. Also the General loves to remind everyone that making a free throw is only one of several benefits that result from drawing fouls and you don't draw fouls as often jacking up threes as when you attack the post. I hope you found the energy to read this entire post.

Didn't mean that to be taken to be so confrontational. Let me restate...

I disagree with the common sentiment that we failed to get the ball to Mason. I think we decided to stop getting the ball to Mason because he was shooting 40%, and when it improved, we never reinstated that strategy. Part of that may be that the team wasn't sure he actually had gotten better, or if it was merely a streak. On the season's average, Mason's offensive efficiency was second-last on the team, and that's mostly because of his free-throw percentage. By the time he was demonstrably better and not just on a free throw streak, the offense had already changed.

Also, while the free throw is only a portion of the benefits, that more applies to actually drawing fouls. Purposeful fouls, on the other hand, don't give the same benefits. If you're purposely fouling, you get to decide whether it's a foul you can give away or not; usually, it doesn't directly lead to foul trouble. A lesser player can effectively play better defense if they aren't afraid to foul. And the defense is entirely in control of the situation, unlike a drawn foul which is done at best as a last resort and much likely on accident. A given foul is very different from a drawn foul.

Mason's game clearly changed, too: he seemed reluctant in games (as announcers frequently said), and the perimeter shooting didn't go cold until the end. Note that we were quite successful in Chapel Hill. In fact, the team 3-point percentage didn't drop at all from the first Carolina game to the second. What actually dropped significantly was Mason's FG% starting in mid-January, just as his FT% started increasing. The team's 3-point percentage didn't drop significantly until the team's last 5 games, and that is more likely because of Kelly's injury.

So, I don't believe the narrative that a lack of running the ball through the post was the biggest problem for Mason; everything I see says Mason wasn't that effective in the post when you take into account his free throw issues. Continuing to improve that area is the best thing he can do. If he stays at the 65 or 70% clip he finished the year on, then he'd start relishing getting fouled, which will let him play more aggressively. Conversely, defenders will see fouling as a worse option and play him less aggressively.

greybeard
04-17-2012, 11:32 PM
Featherstone's article was a great read. His take on Mason, however, is all wet. First of all, Mason has a killer move from the right block, a power move with a finish with a lefty mini hook from maybe a foot from the rim, that no one he played against was able to stop. The only thing that stopped that move all season was the outside players' failure to get it to him in that position, which is where Mason was planted. Second, on the other side of the lane, Mason plays with terrific tempo in getting to the middle and either finishing with a classic hook shot, stepping through and putting it in from right in front of the rim, or drop stepping off the easy tempo to the middle if the defender commits to taking the middle away. This is an impressive array of inside moves from a guy in an offense that never has him catching it in the paint because he has obviously been told to stay put on the low block.

Tihrd, Mason has shown a very effective game from the foul line; he gets to the rim ojn a very effective cross over move and drive with a left handed dribble and left handed finish. When he goes to the right and the defense (his defender and a help defender commit to taking that away he has a great spin move that I have never seen fail. Have any of you?

Fourth, when on the right side of the lane, Mason often comes two or three feet out to catch the ball. It is from there that he will start his tempoed move to the middle. Sometimes, however, he does face up when he is in the low block extended. The defender must take away the middle then because one big step and Mason is dust. When he has the room to face-up after catching in that spot, Mason has shown a very effective baseline move, again dribbling with his left hand. He finishes on the same side with a jump stop and, with his back to the defender puts it off the board. Or, if he has the angle, he simply goes up and throws it down. Or, he finishes on the other side of the basket with a hook layup or, at times, with a two handed over the head dunk.

This to me is a fine array of offensive moves. Where Mason's game has not developed, however, is moving without the ball into the paint and catching it there. It hasn't developed because that part of the game is not part of Duke's offense. And, speaking of offense, there is no question that Duke plays off set plays, that have sequenced options. That is why Kelly would always begin half court sets on the foul line and walk towards the bench to get the play and communicate it to his teammates; ditto for Tyler if Kelly wasn't in.

Now, as for Mason's jump shot. It is ridiculous to say he doesn't have one because he never takes any. Why? I think that he was under directions not to, and that that was not because he doesn't have a decent jump shot, but rather is because he was the only Big that K had who could score inside, draw fouls in the process, offensive rebound, and that is what K wanted Mason to do. It seems to me that one of the easiest shots in the game, especially for a wide body like Mason, to turn and shoot a short jump shot off the board. He would have to be catching it higher up the lane from the spot he set up in on both sides all season, or he would have no angle to shoot a bank shot from, which is further proof to me that K wanted Mason to go to the rim, period.

Featherstone, however, makes an impressive case that Mason had an impressive season. With anything approaching decent free throw shooting, Mason would have averaged from two to four more points per game. One other thing, because Duke was so thin up front, Mason seemed to me to have hit the wall five or six games before the end of the season. He was much slower in all aspects of his defensive game during that stretch than he had been during the very, very long stretch against high quality opponents that preceded it. Through that point, Mason showed quick feet to get great rebounding position (he reads that part of the game extremely well) and terrific hops in getting anything that came near him. After he hit the wall, rebounds that would easily have been his earlier, weren't. So, I agree that Mason had a real quality season.

What he didn't show was a short to mid-range jump shot and a facility to see and move to effective space to create good scoring opportunities. I think we'll see whether he has those parts of the game in him next season; we didn't see whether he had them or not this season, which, given that he was the only inside scoring option Duke had, is perfectly understandable.

You might recall that, when Singler came back for his senior year, he was playing on the perimeter from the start, rather than beginning on the baseline, coming off screens and playing a catch, turn and shoot game. Singler, I think, had to show that he could play as an exterior player of that sort to be a top draft pick, and K gave him every opportunity. Singler seemed out of place starting from the perimeter; he understandably did not see and feel the game well from that vantage point, quite understandably. He went from being an experienced and crafty player with every advantage to one who was a relative neophyte. But, Singler had a big shift to make, much bigger than the one facing Mason. I like the odds that Mason's game diversifies, and, with it, his spot in the draft.