PDA

View Full Version : End of the 3 guard lineups??



ohiodukefan
07-03-2012, 10:35 AM
Getting Amile Jefferson and now Rodney Hood, and with Alex Murphy coming off a redshirt year, will we finally see the end of the the 3 guard lineups for Duke?

I went back and checked on K's career in the NCAA Tournament. When he's had conventional lineups (2 guards, 2 forwards and a center), K is an incredible 64-15 (81%) in the NCAA Tournament with 10 Final Fours and 4 National Championships.
With 3 guard lineups (2003, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12) Duke is only 15-9 (63%) with 1 Final Four and no National Championships.

Dr. Rosenrosen
07-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Oy! I predict a thread full of evaluations of who played what position, PT by player/position, what is a 2 vs 3 and a 3 vs 4, and identification of a million other confounding factors. It's not uninteresting, but I doubt there is any specific push to eliminate "3 guard lineups" which may at times be dictated by circumstance or opportunity. Oh, yeah, and how do we define "guard" anyway? See, I just did it! :D

Kedsy
07-03-2012, 11:04 AM
Getting Amile Jefferson and now Rodney Hood, and with Alex Murphy coming off a redshirt year, will we finally see the end of the the 3 guard lineups for Duke?

I went back and checked on K's career in the NCAA Tournament. When he's had conventional lineups (2 guards, 2 forwards and a center), K is an incredible 64-15 (81%) in the NCAA Tournament with 10 Final Fours and 4 National Championships.
With 3 guard lineups (2003, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12) Duke is only 15-9 (63%) with 1 Final Four and no National Championships.

The problem with this analysis is it can get pretty subjective whether a player was a "guard" or a "forward." In 1991, for example, if you look at the box scores you'll see almost every game lists three guards in the starting lineup. A lot of those games started Bobby Hurley, Billy McCaffrey, and Thomas Hill -- clearly a three guard lineup. A lot of the other games had different combinations but the box score listed Brian Davis and/or Grant Hill as playing "G." Obviously you counted 1991 in the "conventional" camp, but I don't think it's so clear cut.

Other years are similar. Were Grant Hill and Chris Carrawell guards or a forwards? They played like guards, but they were tall. But if they were guards, your whole analysis falls apart, because 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2000, at least would switch from one side of the analysis to the other. I haven't analyzed every year, but I don't think it's as easy to delineate as you seem to think.

UrinalCake
07-03-2012, 11:11 AM
I think we'll see a lot of both this year (3-guard lineups and conventional lineups). We have a lot of depth and a lot of flexibility, so we can change things up based on our opponent, who's hot, the score, etc. Also, I agree with what you said Kedsy but I think for this year in particular there's a pretty clear delineation between who our guards are and who are forwards are. Murphy would be the one exception of a guy who plays like a guard in a forward's body, but we'll have to see.

Monmouth77
07-03-2012, 11:22 AM
The problem with this analysis is it can get pretty subjective whether a player was a "guard" or a "forward." In 1991, for example, if you look at the box scores you'll see almost every game lists three guards in the starting lineup. A lot of those games started Bobby Hurley, Billy McCaffrey, and Thomas Hill -- clearly a three guard lineup. A lot of the other games had different combinations but the box score listed Brian Davis and/or Grant Hill as playing "G." Obviously you counted 1991 in the "conventional" camp, but I don't think it's so clear cut.

Other years are similar. Were Grant Hill and Chris Carrawell guards or a forwards? They played like guards, but they were tall. But if they were guards, your whole analysis falls apart, because 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2000, at least would switch from one side of the analysis to the other. I haven't analyzed every year, but I don't think it's as easy to delineate as you seem to think.

This criticism is not without merit.

But I think there is plenty of insight in the OP's observation. Another way to look at this is that Coach K's best teams have featured scoring wings with enough height and length to defend their position. That's what we had in the Championship and Final Four years. Could you call Kyle Singler or Mike Dunleavy or Chris Carrawell or Grant Hill a guard? You could. But it wouldn't be anyone's first description of their (college) position. No one would call Luol Deng a guard.

And the point about 1991 (with a lot of minutes for McCaffrey) is interesting, but clearly Grant Hill is what pushed that team over the edge (and made it better than the prior year's model that relied more on smaller wing players --Phil Henderson, principally).

CDu
07-03-2012, 11:28 AM
The problem with this analysis is it can get pretty subjective whether a player was a "guard" or a "forward." In 1991, for example, if you look at the box scores you'll see almost every game lists three guards in the starting lineup. A lot of those games started Bobby Hurley, Billy McCaffrey, and Thomas Hill -- clearly a three guard lineup. A lot of the other games had different combinations but the box score listed Brian Davis and/or Grant Hill as playing "G." Obviously you counted 1991 in the "conventional" camp, but I don't think it's so clear cut.

Other years are similar. Were Grant Hill and Chris Carrawell guards or a forwards? They played like guards, but they were tall. But if they were guards, your whole analysis falls apart, because 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2000, at least would switch from one side of the analysis to the other. I haven't analyzed every year, but I don't think it's as easy to delineate as you seem to think.

I would consider Hill and Carrawell to both be forwards under any scenario. Hill played SF and PF in college. Carrawell played SF in college (occasionally guarding the other team's center). There was never a season in which those guys played a conventional guard role.

In 1991, the lineup was Laettner, Hill, Palmer, and Lang at PF/C, Koubek/Davis at SF, and Hurley, T. Hill, and McCaffrey at guard. It was almost exclusively a "conventional" college lineup.

ohiodukefan
07-03-2012, 11:34 AM
Greg Koubek and Grant Hill started every NCAA tournament game for Duke in 1991 and McCaffery came off the bench as a 6th man. I'll never forget the call on the Blue Devil network that said "Billy McCaffery would rather shoot when he's open than eat when he's hungry"!!

In JJ's 4 years (2003-2006) he always played in a lineup with a combination of 3 guards in Duhon, Ewing, Dockery, Paulus. Those were some small Duke lineups. Last year we had the 3 guard lineup of 6'4" Rivers, 6'1" Curry and 6' Thorton or 5'11" Cook starting. Pretty easy for a Lehigh to match up with a lineup that small!!

Charles Barkely, who I don't always like or agree with did say one thing that fateful Friday night. He said "Duke and Missouri played small with all those guards. That's why teams like Lehigh and Norfolk St can play with them. It's time for the big boys to play like big boys"!!

luvdahops
07-03-2012, 11:57 AM
I would consider Hill and Carrawell to both be forwards under any scenario. Hill played SF and PF in college. Carrawell played SF in college (occasionally guarding the other team's center). There was never a season in which those guys played a conventional guard role.

In 1991, the lineup was Laettner, Hill, Palmer, and Lang at PF/C, Koubek/Davis at SF, and Hurley, T. Hill, and McCaffrey at guard. It was almost exclusively a "conventional" college lineup.

I think you argue Carrawell was the de facto SG in his senior year, playing alongside J-Will and Nate on the perimeter, with Dunleavy backing up. He handled the ball much more than Nate or Dunleavy, and played the point when Williams sat (which admittedly wasn't that often, given that he played 34 mpg as a frosh). But CC was just a very unique and versatile player. Same with Grant, of course, whose own senior season also defied easy categorization position-wise.

I don't see any of the guys in the fold currently (including Hood) having quite the same degree of versatility. Parker would be another story, though.

CDu
07-03-2012, 12:06 PM
I think you argue Carrawell was the de facto SG in his senior year, playing alongside J-Will and Nate on the perimeter, with Dunleavy backing up. He handled the ball much more than Nate or Dunleavy, and played the point when Williams sat (which admittedly wasn't that often, given that he played 34 mpg as a frosh). But CC was just a very unique and versatile player. Same with Grant, of course, whose own senior season also defied easy categorization position-wise.

I don't see any of the guys in the fold currently (including Hood) having quite the same degree of versatility. Parker would be another story, though.

I would argue that that team in 1999-2000 didn't have a SG. They started a PG, 2 SF, a PF, and a C as their main 6 rotation players. But that's semantics. In any case, that team was not conventional.

Kedsy
07-03-2012, 12:28 PM
Another way to look at this is that Coach K's best teams have featured scoring wings with enough height and length to defend their position.

I completely agree with this, and I think this is the real issue. Debates like this are why Coach K says we don't play positions, when we clearly do. What I believe he means is, on offense each player should play where he has the biggest advantage and ability to score or help the team score and on defense each player has to be able to defend in such a way that nobody on the other team has a mismatch.

So if you have a 6'3" guy who can defend the SF position well, then you don't need a traditional SF. If you have a 6'6" guy who can defend opposing centers, you don't need a 7 footer. However, if you're forced to play smaller players and they can't adequately defend the person they're guarding, as seemed to have often happened in 2011-12, then we have a problem.


No one would call Luol Deng a guard.

Well, Deng played PF on that team, so I don't think he's even in the discussion. The 2004 team clearly played three guards.


And the point about 1991 (with a lot of minutes for McCaffrey) is interesting, but clearly Grant Hill is what pushed that team over the edge (and made it better than the prior year's model that relied more on smaller wing players --Phil Henderson, principally).

I agree that Grant Hill was the missing ingredient for the 1991 team. But the 1990 starting lineup included Hurley and Phil Henderson along with Laettner, Abdelnaby, and Brickey (or sometimes Koubek). That was a much more traditional lineup than the 1991 version and relied on smaller wing players much less.


I would consider Hill and Carrawell to both be forwards under any scenario. Hill played SF and PF in college. Carrawell played SF in college (occasionally guarding the other team's center). There was never a season in which those guys played a conventional guard role.

I'm not sure why the position they played in college should end the argument. JJ Redick played mostly SF in his career at Duke. But most people would characterize him as a guard.

DeMarcus Nelson and Gerald Henderson played SF in college too. DeMarcus often played PF. And their game was as much of a forward's game as Chris Carrawell's or Grant Hill's. Why shouldn't Nelson and Henderson be counted as forwards as much as Carrawell or Hill? But in the OP's analysis, he counted the shorter guys as guards and the taller guys as forwards.


In 1991, the lineup was Laettner, Hill, Palmer, and Lang at PF/C, Koubek/Davis at SF, and Hurley, T. Hill, and McCaffrey at guard. It was almost exclusively a "conventional" college lineup.

Hurley, T Hill and McCaffrey started together in 6 games that year, and even when they didn't all start, I'd bet the three of them played at the same time for a reasonable number of minutes in every single game. Koubek and Davis combined for only 24 starts in 39 games, which means G Hill or T Hill were starting at "SF" in a large number of games. We played a lot of different starting lineups that year -- I don't think anything was done "almost exclusively."

ohiodukefan
07-03-2012, 12:42 PM
DeMarcus Nelson was always listed as 6'4" at Duke but when he got to the NBA camp, he measured 6'1 1/2". You can call him and JJ a forward if you want but those Duke teams played 3 guard lineups and fell short (except 2004) in the NCAA Tournament to lower seeded teams.

Play small, be small!!

flyingdutchdevil
07-03-2012, 12:45 PM
DeMarcus Nelson was always listed as 6'4" at Duke but when he got to the NBA camp, he measured 6'1 1/2". You can call him and JJ a forward if you want but those Duke teams played 3 guard lineups and fell short (except 2004) in the NCAA Tournament to lower seeded teams.

Play small, be small!!

Oh, Demarc. Yes - he is tiny in height. We frequently caught the same bus to Central and I would often find myself standing next to him, waiting for the bus. He is tiny! I am a legit 6'3" and Demarc was a good two inches shorter than me. Hendo, on the other hand, was a legit 6'4" borderline 6'5". Scheyer is deceptively tall, but that's because his neck is so long! Just sharing a few anecdotes.

luvdahops
07-03-2012, 01:01 PM
Oh, Demarc. Yes - he is tiny in height. We frequently caught the same bus to Central and I would often find myself standing next to him, waiting for the bus. He is tiny! I am a legit 6'3" and Demarc was a good two inches shorter than me. Hendo, on the other hand, was a legit 6'4" borderline 6'5". Scheyer is deceptively tall, but that's because his neck is so long! Just sharing a few anecdotes.

Per the NBA Draft Express site, DeMarcus actually measured only 6"1" in socks, 6'2 1/4" with shoes, but he had a 6'10" wingspan and 38.5" max vert, which allowed for a max standing reach of 11'5", which is more in line with guys in the 6'5" to 6'8" range, and helps explains why he was able to more than hold his own against most college SFs. His sprint and agility test results were very strong, too, which is probably why he got a look in the league despite a lack true guard skills.

Kedsy
07-03-2012, 01:09 PM
DeMarcus Nelson was always listed as 6'4" at Duke but when he got to the NBA camp, he measured 6'1 1/2". You can call him and JJ a forward if you want but those Duke teams played 3 guard lineups and fell short (except 2004) in the NCAA Tournament to lower seeded teams.

Play small, be small!!

So your definition of who is a guard and who is a forward is strictly based on height?

Charles Barkley was listed at 6'6" but apparently was really 6'4". Was he a guard, too?

MChambers
07-03-2012, 01:20 PM
So your definition of who is a guard and who is a forward is strictly based on height?

Charles Barkley was listed at 6'6" but apparently was really 6'4". Was he a guard, too?

Can we get some cinderblock measurements here?

UrinalCake
07-03-2012, 01:28 PM
Per the NBA Draft Express site, DeMarcus actually measured only 6"1" in socks, 6'2 1/4" with shoes, but he had a 6'10" wingspan and 38.5" max vert, which allowed for a max standing reach of 11'5", which is more in line with guys in the 6'5" to 6'8" range, and helps explains why he was able to more than hold his own against most college SFs.

Yeah, DeMarcus had some sort of back abnormality, maybe a form of scoliosis (?) that made his back shorter than the rest of his body. Which helps explain the freakishly long wingspan and other odd measurements. I would classify him as a "penetrating guard," meaning he's a guard but prefers to go inside to score. Same with Carrawell and G. Hill.

I'd love to see someone who has way too much time on their hands go through all of the past NCAA champions and list the average heights of the third tallest person on the team, as compared to the national average. Maybe do the same for all the final four teams.

jimsumner
07-03-2012, 01:49 PM
Getting Amile Jefferson and now Rodney Hood, and with Alex Murphy coming off a redshirt year, will we finally see the end of the the 3 guard lineups for Duke?

I went back and checked on K's career in the NCAA Tournament. When he's had conventional lineups (2 guards, 2 forwards and a center), K is an incredible 64-15 (81%) in the NCAA Tournament with 10 Final Fours and 4 National Championships.
With 3 guard lineups (2003, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12) Duke is only 15-9 (63%) with 1 Final Four and no National Championships.

How did the 2011 team become a three-guard team? Singler started every game at small forward, with Mason Plumlee (32), Ryan Kelly (27) and Miles Plumlee (15) getting the 74 starts at the 4/5. This trio combined for 63 mpg, with Hairston adding another six. That leaves only about 11 mpg, much of which would have been end-of-game situations, when Singler moved to the 4 and Dawkins to the 3 to get better foul-shooting and ball-handling on the floor.

CDu
07-03-2012, 01:52 PM
I'm not sure why the position they played in college should end the argument. JJ Redick played mostly SF in his career at Duke. But most people would characterize him as a guard.

I was discussing the college position they were suited to play because we're discussing playing guys at the positions they're suited to play. Redick was a SG who was forced to play out of position at SF for most of his career. Carrawell was a SF who played most of his career at SF (i.e., the right position) and occasionally out of position by need. Grant Hill was a SF/PF who played mostly PF as a freshman and mostly SF thereafter.

This whole discussion was in reference to guys playing their conventional college position. There were times when we had Nelson playing PF when he should have played SF. Redick played most of his college career at SF when he should have played SG. Last year, Rivers was forced to play a lot of minutes at SF instead of SG, and we compounded that issue by frequently being small at PG and SG. Next year and the year after, we're much less likely to see that problem.

ice-9
07-03-2012, 01:58 PM
So your definition of who is a guard and who is a forward is strictly based on height?

Charles Barkley was listed at 6'6" but apparently was really 6'4". Was he a guard, too?

I don't have intimate understanding of the OP's data, but maybe height/length is what we're really talking about. I.e., not so much that it's two guards, two forwards and a center, but more a line up that is two players under 6'3, two players between 6'4 and 6'7, and one player that is 6'8 and above.

Of course there will be exceptions. Illinois won the NCAA tournament with a three guard line-up and I'm sure Duke could've used Barkley to win a lot of game. Moreover, the 63% tournament game win rate of Duke's "non-traditional" line-up is something most teams will take in a heart beat.

But overall, based on percentages, the OP's point about "traditional" line-ups is quite compelling.

luvdahops
07-03-2012, 02:14 PM
I was discussing the college position they were suited to play because we're discussing playing guys at the positions they're suited to play. Redick was a SG who was forced to play out of position at SF for most of his career. Carrawell was a SF who played most of his career at SF (i.e., the right position) and occasionally out of position by need. Grant Hill was a SF/PF who played mostly PF as a freshman and mostly SF thereafter.

This whole discussion was in reference to guys playing their conventional college position. There were times when we had Nelson playing PF when he should have played SF. Redick played most of his college career at SF when he should have played SG. Last year, Rivers was forced to play a lot of minutes at SF instead of SG, and we compounded that issue by frequently being small at PG and SG. Next year and the year after, we're much less likely to see that problem.

I completely agree. And FWIW, I've always thought of the "small ball / 3-guard lineup" issue in a more simplistic way - i.e. height and weight notwithstanding, is our nominal SF someone capable of grabbing around 5 boards a game as a full-time starter? JJ and Austin certainly weren't. Same with Jeff Capel and Ricky Price back in the day, and Andre now. All are therefore true guards by my definition, and playing them at SF was "small ball" by definition.

Carrawell, Grant, G, DMarc, among others, obviously were 5 rpg (or better) guys. Hood averaged 4.8 rpg as a frosh, and I think most of us would expect Alex to average around that - or at least a board every 6 minutes, so maybe ~4 rpg in 25 mpg - this year.

OldPhiKap
07-03-2012, 02:17 PM
Yeah, DeMarcus had some sort of back abnormality, maybe a form of scoliosis (?) that made his back shorter than the rest of his body. Which helps explain the freakishly long wingspan and other odd measurements. I would classify him as a "penetrating guard," meaning he's a guard but prefers to go inside to score. Same with Carrawell and G. Hill.

I'd love to see someone who has way too much time on their hands go through all of the past NCAA champions and list the average heights of the third tallest person on the team, as compared to the national average. Maybe do the same for all the final four teams.

Our big man coach has below-average height, but above-average championship rings.

Edouble
07-03-2012, 02:21 PM
Illinois won the NCAA tournament with a three guard line-up

Say what?

ice-9
07-03-2012, 02:25 PM
Say what?

Oops! Past 2 am from where I'm posting. Got to the championship game I mean!

Kedsy
07-03-2012, 03:00 PM
There were times when we had Nelson playing PF when he should have played SF.

Yes, but in the OP's analysis, he considered Nelson a guard (not a forward at all), just because he was short. All I was trying to say in my response to you is if Chris Carrawell was a forward then DeMarcus Nelson was too. And DeMarcus started two of the nine years the OP called "three guard" years. I would say Gerald Henderson similarly played like a college SF, so that covers 2009, and as Jim Sumner pointed out 2011 doesn't belong on that side of the ledger under any interpretation. Also, were David Henderson and Billy King forwards, or guards playing forward? Because maybe 1986 and 1988 should switch sides, too?

Really, all we're talking about as "true" three-guard teams are JJ's last three years and last year (maybe JJ's first year, too, if you count Dahntay Jones as a guard, but again he's no more of a college guard than the other guys we've been discussing). And with only four (or even five) years, I don't think we have enough data to draw any kind of conclusion about how successful or unsuccessful the three guard approach has been.


I don't have intimate understanding of the OP's data, but maybe height/length is what we're really talking about.

Yes, I think this is right. Clearly we had defensive issues last season (at least for Duke), and a lot of those issues appeared to stem from having such a small lineup on the court. The years where DeMarcus Nelson and JJ Redick played forward for us arguably had similar problems, although not to the same extent, presumably because those teams made up for the lack of size with more defensive quickness than we had last season.

jimsumner
07-03-2012, 03:12 PM
Yes, but in the OP's analysis, he considered Nelson a guard (not a forward at all), just because he was short. All I was trying to say in my response to you is if Chris Carrawell was a forward then DeMarcus Nelson was too. And DeMarcus started two of the nine years the OP called "three guard" years. I would say Gerald Henderson similarly played like a college SF, so that covers 2009, and as Jim Sumner pointed out 2011 doesn't belong on that side of the ledger under any interpretation. Also, were David Henderson and Billy King forwards, or guards playing forward? Because maybe 1986 and 1988 should switch sides, too?

Really, all we're talking about as "true" three-guard teams are JJ's last three years and last year (maybe JJ's first year, too, if you count Dahntay Jones as a guard, but again he's no more of a college guard than the other guys we've been discussing). And with only four (or even five) years, I don't think we have enough data to draw any kind of conclusion about how successful or unsuccessful the three guard approach has been.



Yes, I think this is right. Clearly we had defensive issues last season (at least for Duke), and a lot of those issues appeared to stem from having such a small lineup on the court. The years where DeMarcus Nelson and JJ Redick played forward for us arguably had similar problems, although not to the same extent, presumably because those teams made up for the lack of size with more defensive quickness than we had last season.

FWIW, I would consider David Henderson, Billy King, Robert Brickey, Chris Carrawell and Gerald Henderson college fowards. I'm a little more on the fence regarding Nelson but if forced to choose, I would consider him a guard.

The only truly successful--by Duke standards--three-guard team was the 2004 team, with 2006 getting a high honorable mention.

I do agree with the OP's premise that Duke seems to be moving away from this configuration. That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that we will see Curry, Sulaimon and one of Cook/Thornton on the floor at the same time this year, with Sulaimon likely playing the role of nominal 3.

CDu
07-03-2012, 03:47 PM
Yes, but in the OP's analysis, he considered Nelson a guard (not a forward at all), just because he was short. All I was trying to say in my response to you is if Chris Carrawell was a forward then DeMarcus Nelson was too. And DeMarcus started two of the nine years the OP called "three guard" years. I would say Gerald Henderson similarly played like a college SF, so that covers 2009, and as Jim Sumner pointed out 2011 doesn't belong on that side of the ledger under any interpretation. Also, were David Henderson and Billy King forwards, or guards playing forward? Because maybe 1986 and 1988 should switch sides, too?

Really, all we're talking about as "true" three-guard teams are JJ's last three years and last year (maybe JJ's first year, too, if you count Dahntay Jones as a guard, but again he's no more of a college guard than the other guys we've been discussing). And with only four (or even five) years, I don't think we have enough data to draw any kind of conclusion about how successful or unsuccessful the three guard approach has been.

I don't disagree. Though I'd note that in Redick's freshman year he played quite a bit of SF as well. That year, Jones played quite a bit at PF. Our regular "guards" were Duhon (36mpg), Redick (30.7mpg), Ewing (27.9mpg), and Dockery (10.5mpg). That accounts for 105.1mpg, meaning that we had a 3-guard lineup for 25.1mpg (not counting the end-of-bench minutes). Nelson was out of position in one year in which he was playing a lot of PF (instead of SF, where he was undersized but capable). So it's really 6 years of data, but that still is a small sample size.

Kedsy
07-03-2012, 03:49 PM
FWIW, I would consider David Henderson, Billy King, Robert Brickey, Chris Carrawell and Gerald Henderson college fowards. I'm a little more on the fence regarding Nelson but if forced to choose, I would consider him a guard.

The only truly successful--by Duke standards--three-guard team was the 2004 team, with 2006 getting a high honorable mention.

I do agree with the OP's premise that Duke seems to be moving away from this configuration. That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that we will see Curry, Sulaimon and one of Cook/Thornton on the floor at the same time this year, with Sulaimon likely playing the role of nominal 3.

I would probably consider all of them forwards, including Nelson, but I understand it's a highly subjective assessment. I also agree that we appear to be recruiting taller wings and that the lack of height on our perimeter seemed to pose a defensive challenge for Duke last season. As an aside, I personally would call the 2006 team very successful overall, although obviously not in the NCAA tournament.

However, even if "success" at Duke is defined as a Final Four, if you call DeMarcus a forward (and I understand you don't) then we've only had four three-guard seasons. And in the years since Coach K's injury in 1995, the 1 in 4 success rate of those three-guard seasons is exactly the same percentage as the 3 in 12 success rate of the two-guard seasons. So is the 1 in 4 because we played three guards, or because the ridiculous tournament success of 1986 to 1994 isn't coming back? I'd argue the latter.

UrinalCake
07-03-2012, 03:50 PM
...I have no doubt whatsoever that we will see Curry, Sulaimon and one of Cook/Thornton on the floor at the same time this year, with Sulaimon likely playing the role of nominal 3.

Yeah, I'm thinking when we're up 40 on UNC with three minutes to go, we'll probably roll out the small lineup. Mason will deserve a rest after his triple-double ;)

CDu
07-03-2012, 03:56 PM
I would probably consider all of them forwards, including Nelson, but I understand it's a highly subjective assessment. I also agree that we appear to be recruiting taller wings and that the lack of height on our perimeter seemed to pose a defensive challenge for Duke last season. As an aside, I personally would call the 2006 team very successful overall, although obviously not in the NCAA tournament.

However, even if "success" at Duke is defined as a Final Four, if you call DeMarcus a forward (and I understand you don't) then we've only had four three-guard seasons. And in the years since Coach K's injury in 1995, the 1 in 4 success rate of those three-guard seasons is exactly the same percentage as the 3 in 12 success rate of the two-guard seasons. So is the 1 in 4 because we played three guards, or because the ridiculous tournament success of 1986 to 1994 isn't coming back? I'd argue the latter.

We've had 5 three-guard seasons (all 4 of Redick's years and last year). But still, your point is correct.

Wander
07-03-2012, 04:19 PM
Can we bypass the subjective discussions by just looking at average height or something? I do get the feeling that we've done better on average, at least in the NCAA tournament, when we play with a taller line-up. I especially like the 2010 formula of two guys who can play either guard spot very well, two guys who can play either forward spot very well, and a traditional center.

NSDukeFan
07-03-2012, 04:30 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking when we're up 40 on UNC with three minutes to go, we'll probably roll out the small lineup. Mason will deserve a rest after his triple-double ;)

I expect Curry will be on the bench at that point and the team will be big with Marshall, Amile, Hairston, Sulaimon and Cook/Thornton continuing to increase the lead. Is Todd Z. back this year? Would you expect Mason's triple double to include assists or blocks?

sagegrouse
07-03-2012, 04:35 PM
Oy! I predict a thread full of evaluations of who played what position, PT by player/position, what is a 2 vs 3 and a 3 vs 4, and identification of a million other confounding factors. It's not uninteresting, but I doubt there is any specific push to eliminate "3 guard lineups" which may at times be dictated by circumstance or opportunity. Oh, yeah, and how do we define "guard" anyway? See, I just did it! :D

I believe the Bard of Avon said it all. I may not get the quote exactly, but I recall he wrote, "What is is a name? A Derrick Rose by any other name -- guard, forward or center -- would smell as sweet."

I start from the position that K would like to have a linep with five exact copies of Grant Hill -- all long, fast, skilled and highly mobile. Variations from the model would substitute a big stud in the middle for defense and rebounding (and to score as well) or a penetrating and passing presence at the point (did the Bard like alliteration, or am I thinking of someone else?).

I might stand the OP's excellent question on its head. If Duke has 2-3 long, fast, skilled and highly mobile players, wouldn't the average height of the team go up and wouldn't there be at most two players 6-3 or under in the starting lineup?

sagegrouse

Zeb
07-03-2012, 06:24 PM
start from the position that K would like to have a linep with five exact copies of Grant Hill -- all long, fast, skilled and highly mobile.

Best argument I have ever seen for human cloning.

jimsumner
07-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Can we bypass the subjective discussions by just looking at average height or something? I do get the feeling that we've done better on average, at least in the NCAA tournament, when we play with a taller line-up. I especially like the 2010 formula of two guys who can play either guard spot very well, two guys who can play either forward spot very well, and a traditional center.

Average height call only tell you so much. Jon Scheyer and Robert Brickey are both 6-5 but are/were very different players. Grant Hill and Elton Brand are both 6-8 but are very different players.

My feeling is that Duke does better with more talented players. K has done quite well with a variety of different blue-prints. Talent is the constant.

miramar
07-04-2012, 11:17 AM
My feeling is that Duke does better with more talented players. K has done quite well with a variety of different blue-prints. Talent is the constant.

The three-guard lineups may have been less successful simply because they suffered from a talent shortfall. In other words, Coach K had to put in an extra guard since he didn't have enough talented big men. If we accept CDu's idea that Duke had true three-guard lineups during Redick's four years and last year, then I would say that last year's squad just didn't work as a team, while some of the Redick teams were full of guys who ended up going scoreless in their final college game. It's pretty hard to be successful in the NCAAs when you can't get any points (IIRC) from key players such as Melchioni, Dockery, and Randolph.

As far as who a real SF is, certain guys can be a great swingman (does anyone even use that word any more?) even if they are not classic forwards. I'm sure we would have a few more championships if we had a John Havlicek type to play with J.J. and Shelden. Wikipedia lists him at 6-5 and 203. Whatever happened to guys like that?

CDu
07-04-2012, 11:50 AM
The three-guard lineups may have been less successful simply because they suffered from a talent shortfall. In other words, Coach K had to put in an extra guard since he didn't have enough talented big men. If we accept CDu's idea that Duke had true three-guard lineups during Redick's four years and last year, then I would say that last year's squad just didn't work as a team, while some of the Redick teams were full of guys who ended up going scoreless in their final college game. It's pretty hard to be successful in the NCAAs when you can't get any points (IIRC) from key players such as Melchioni, Dockery, and Randolph.

As far as who a real SF is, certain guys can be a great swingman (does anyone even use that word any more?) even if they are not classic forwards. I'm sure we would have a few more championships if we had a John Havlicek type to play with J.J. and Shelden. Wikipedia lists him at 6-5 and 203. Whatever happened to guys like that?

They still exist. William Buford of OSU is an example of such a player. Scheyer was that type of player too. Hood will be that type of player.

WVDUKEFAN
07-06-2012, 09:56 AM
I believe a 3 guard line up could still be effective with the right combination and level of talent. We have really been blessed over the years with some the the best guards to ever play college basketball. We had a misfortune with the injury Kyrie Irving. That was a title year for had he not gotten hurt. Last year, I believe we were a little sub par at the guard position.

FerryFor50
07-06-2012, 10:10 AM
So your definition of who is a guard and who is a forward is strictly based on height?

Charles Barkley was listed at 6'6" but apparently was really 6'4". Was he a guard, too?

Not to derail the thread or anything, but if that's true... wow.

I have always respected Barkley's game, but that just makes me respect it even more.

Undersized. Constantly fighting weight issues. Not overly athletic. But still one of the all-time greats...

Was there ever a more unlikely superstar than a pudgy, 6'4" inch power forward rebound machine?

CDu
07-06-2012, 10:11 AM
I believe a 3 guard line up could still be effective with the right combination and level of talent. We have really been blessed over the years with some the the best guards to ever play college basketball. We had a misfortune with the injury Kyrie Irving. That was a title year for had he not gotten hurt. Last year, I believe we were a little sub par at the guard position.

Of course, the Irving year was a year in which we typically had a true SF (Singler) at SF and didn't use a 3-guard lineup. But 2004 is an example of a year in which we had a 3-guard lineup and could have won a championship. So I agree it is possible. But it helps to have a dominant defensive center like Williams, a lottery pick at PF in Deng, and terrific players from 1 to 5.

dcdevil2009
07-06-2012, 01:29 PM
DeMarcus Nelson was always listed as 6'4" at Duke but when he got to the NBA camp, he measured 6'1 1/2". You can call him and JJ a forward if you want but those Duke teams played 3 guard lineups and fell short (except 2004) in the NCAA Tournament to lower seeded teams.

Play small, be small!!

That's somewhat of an unfair statement considering that we wouldn't have played a higher seeded team until the Final Four in 4 of the 9 years you listed originally (not to mention, we actually lost to a lower seeded team in 2004). We also lost two #2 v. #3 games in those years ('03 to 2-seed Kansas and '09 to #3 Villanova).

Having said that, there does seem to be a negative correlation between guard-heavy lineups and Final Fours, but if you look closer at those '03 to present teams, I think the bigger issue is that none of them had a point guard that could consistently create shots for himself and his teammates. The result is that when shots haven't been going in, most of those teams couldn't find other ways to get easy buckets. In 2004 Duhon could get to the rim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgIz6VxqCV4) consistently and find J.J. for open 3s and in 2010, Zoubek was able able to makeup for it by controlling the boards on defense and generating extra possessions on offense, but otherwise it's been bad shooting nights that have done us in in March, not a lack of talent.

CDu
07-06-2012, 02:33 PM
Not to derail the thread or anything, but if that's true... wow.

I have always respected Barkley's game, but that just makes me respect it even more.

Undersized. Constantly fighting weight issues. Not overly athletic. But still one of the all-time greats...

Was there ever a more unlikely superstar than a pudgy, 6'4" inch power forward rebound machine?

To be fair, early in his career Barkley was actually fairly athletic. It wasn't until he got older that gravity really wore on him. But in his Philly days, Barkley was a shockingly athletic guy.

And yes, while he was listed at 6'6", he was widely considered to really only be about 6'4.5". Just goes to show you that height isn't everything when it comes to post play and rebounding. Body position, strength, effort and knowledge are just as important.

The two best rebounders of their respective eras (Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman) were probably not even 6'8". But they worked harder than just about anyone else, and they knew what they were doing.

NSDukeFan
07-06-2012, 02:41 PM
To be fair, early in his career Barkley was actually fairly athletic. It wasn't until he got older that gravity really wore on him. But in his Philly days, Barkley was a shockingly athletic guy.

And yes, while he was listed at 6'6", he was widely considered to really only be about 6'4.5". Just goes to show you that height isn't everything when it comes to post play and rebounding. Body position, strength, effort and knowledge are just as important.

The two best rebounders of their respective eras (Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman) were probably not even 6'8". But they worked harder than just about anyone else, and they knew what they were doing.

I would say your second of the sentences I bolded above is more accurate than your second. I have just been watching the Dream Team documentary and it reminded me of how much of a freak Barkley was (athletically and as a player.)

As far as this thread goes, I expect there will be a bunch of 3 guard lineups this year, and think there is nothing wrong with that if there is the option to have a taller "3" for at least some of the game which the team should this year and certainly in 2013-14. I also agree that coach K's most talented teams tend to have the most success and tend towards better ACC and NCAA tournament success (with some variation, of course.)

NS "only a little more than 3 months until Countdown to Craziness" DukeFan

Edouble
07-06-2012, 05:08 PM
I would say your second of the sentences I bolded above is more accurate than your second.

Huh?

NSDukeFan
07-06-2012, 06:13 PM
Huh?

Sorry. Second sentence is more accurate than the first.
Read what I mean, not what I type. (;

Bay Area Duke Fan
07-06-2012, 06:42 PM
I also agree that coach K's most talented teams tend to have the most success and tend towards better ACC and NCAA tournament success (with some variation, of course.)

This statement is likely true for almost every coach in every sport.