PDA

View Full Version : In Defense of Austin Rivers



theAlaskanBear
11-27-2012, 12:09 PM
(Mods feel free to push this into the NBA thread if you feel that is where it best fits)

I read the recent DBR front-page blurb on Austin in the NBA with great interest, but I was disappointed in the tone. I know that Austin doesn’t have the best reputation here, but it is way too early in the season to be judging a rookie. 1/8 of the season has passed. This is the equivalent of getting your sea legs on a ship.

Sure, Austin hasn’t blown away expectations, but from watching him in 4 games this year, I think he shows a lot of potential. He is able to get to the rim, to create space, to find open shots. His biggest adjustment is the physicality of the game. When he does get to the rim or goes into the lane, he has trouble finding the strength to finish or is playing too fast and misses. But he is still good getting by guys and at drawing fouls.

The biggest negative to his game so far has been his mid-range shooting. This is the primary reason he is sub .400 from the field. He also is uncomfortable going left. The only two shots he has made from the left side of the floor (aside from at the rim) have been three-pointers. That is 2-15 by my calculations. But he is hitting 40% from 3-pt land and as he gets stronger in the lane his percentages should go up. Personally, I think his shooting improve as he adjusts to the pace and strength in the NBA.

Let’s play a fun game and compare him to our favorite nemesis, Harrison Barnes. They play roughly the same number of minutes per game, but Barnes has played two more games than Rivers. Austin has twice as many assists (41-18), two more steals, 3 times as many blocks (haha, ok its 3-to-1 here), just three fewer free-throws in fewer games. Barnes averages 3 more ppg on the season with an extra shot per game, and doubles up Austin in rebounding.

I think also, Austin hurts a little in overexposure. It is great that he gets so much playing time as a rookie, but he is forced to carry and to create for a bad team. When he is on the floor, he accounts for 26% of his teams assists, 24% of his teams steals, 22% of his teams FT.

Austin was selected 10th in the draft, is 2nd in assists (he only trails Lillard in both rate and totals) 9th in PPG, 20th in rebounds, and he is playing as well as the 3rd pick Bradley Beal. Let’s evaluate Austin when at a quarter, half, and 3/4 of the season and see how he is progressing, rather than jump to a snap decision after 12 games and say, “Mistake. He came out too early.”

So Austin has value, he shows a lot of promise and now he gets to learn on the biggest stage. I realize this post doesn’t negate the argument that he might have been better to stay another year at Duke. But staying an extra year doesn’t mean he won’t face an equally difficult transition after his sophomore year. The better question is, "will his rate of growth as an NBA player be better by spending a year playing in the NBA, or will he grow more as an NBA player spending another year playing college ball"

OldSchool
11-27-2012, 12:31 PM
I agree. Here's what I said in the summer: "it'll take a few years before Austin blossoms into the player he can be, and in the meantime I predict fans whining and complaining that he is not living up to billing."

He's going to get significantly better. Sometimes people look at an amazing prodigy like Kyrie and expect everyone to develop at such an exponential rate.

For example, look at AR's back court mate, Greivis Vasquez, who is playing so well. He's a lot better now than when he was a sophomore in college.

As you noted, there are a number of areas AR needs to improve on but we saw a lot of improvement from him during the course of last year, and I expect it will only continue.

UrinalCake
11-27-2012, 12:43 PM
Great post. Just because a guy doesn't set the world on fire doesn't mean it was a mistake for him to leave. Like you said, if he had stayed another year, how much would be have improved? I always feel like as long as a guy is good enough to earn a legitimate opportunity to play, then it's not a mistake to leave. For someone like William Avery, who wasn't good enough to play and therefore fell out of the league, then you could say it was a mistake and an extra year of college could have been the difference in him having an nba career.

It also kind of sounds from the quote like his coach is kind of biased against early-entry rookies in general. But overall I think he's pretty fortunate to have been drafted by a team in which he merits playing time.

COYS
11-27-2012, 12:49 PM
I agree. Here's what I said in the summer: "it'll take a few years before Austin blossoms into the player he can be, and in the meantime I predict fans whining and complaining that he is not living up to billing."

He's going to get significantly better. Sometimes people look at an amazing prodigy like Kyrie and expect everyone to develop at such an exponential rate.

For example, look at AR's back court mate, Greivis Vasquez, who is playing so well. He's a lot better now than when he was a sophomore in college.

As you noted, there are a number of areas AR needs to improve on but we saw a lot of improvement from him during the course of last year, and I expect it will only continue.

I agree with all of this. Austin was an inefficient scorer in college. It should be surprise he's even less efficient as a young pro, especially given his relative lack of strength. That being said, last season we could see the potential oozing from his limbs. He had so many games where crazy layups and floaters just didn't stay down, where he got caught over penetrating when pulling up for an easy jumper or bounce pass would have been the right course of action, or the point totals he might have put up if he could pull his free throw percentage up into the 80% range.

He still has room to improve in all of these areas. However, he's already proving to be a better playmaker for others in the NBA than he was in college, sporting a pretty decent assist rate. If he is able to improve his field goal percentage, even modestly, and reign in some of the turnovers, he will dramatically improve his efficiency. In reality, though, it's mostly the true shooting percentage that he needs to bring up. In my opinion, that is a good sign as I see no way in which he doesn't start to make more of his shots as he adjusts. As for the free throw percentage, I hope that he works hard to improve it as it would make him much more effective if he can become automatic at the line.

Steven43
11-27-2012, 12:51 PM
(Mods feel free to push this into the NBA thread if you feel that is where it best fits)

I read the recent DBR front-page blurb on Austin in the NBA with great interest, but I was disappointed in the tone. I know that Austin doesn’t have the best reputation here, but it is way too early in the season to be judging a rookie. 1/8 of the season has passed. This is the equivalent of getting your sea legs on a ship.

Sure, Austin hasn’t blown away expectations, but from watching him in 4 games this year, I think he shows a lot of potential. He is able to get to the rim, to create space, to find open shots. His biggest adjustment is the physicality of the game. When he does get to the rim or goes into the lane, he has trouble finding the strength to finish or is playing too fast and misses. But he is still good getting by guys and at drawing fouls.

The biggest negative to his game so far has been his mid-range shooting. This is the primary reason he is sub .400 from the field. He also is uncomfortable going left. The only two shots he has made from the left side of the floor (aside from at the rim) have been three-pointers. That is 2-15 by my calculations. But he is hitting 40% from 3-pt land and as he gets stronger in the lane his percentages should go up. Personally, I think his shooting improve as he adjusts to the pace and strength in the NBA.

Let’s play a fun game and compare him to our favorite nemesis, Harrison Barnes. They play roughly the same number of minutes per game, but Barnes has played two more games than Rivers. Austin has twice as many assists (41-18), two more steals, 3 times as many blocks (haha, ok its 3-to-1 here), just three fewer free-throws in fewer games. Barnes averages 3 more ppg on the season with an extra shot per game, and doubles up Austin in rebounding.

I think also, Austin hurts a little in overexposure. It is great that he gets so much playing time as a rookie, but he is forced to carry and to create for a bad team. When he is on the floor, he accounts for 26% of his teams assists, 24% of his teams steals, 22% of his teams FT.

Austin was selected 10th in the draft, is 2nd in assists (he only trails Lillard in both rate and totals) 9th in PPG, 20th in rebounds, and he is playing as well as the 3rd pick Bradley Beal. Let’s evaluate Austin when at a quarter, half, and 3/4 of the season and see how he is progressing, rather than jump to a snap decision after 12 games and say, “Mistake. He came out too early.”

So Austin has value, he shows a lot of promise and now he gets to learn on the biggest stage. I realize this post doesn’t negate the argument that he might have been better to stay another year at Duke. But staying an extra year doesn’t mean he won’t face an equally difficult transition after his sophomore year. The better question is, "will his rate of growth as an NBA player be better by spending a year playing in the NBA, or will he grow more as an NBA player spending another year playing college ball"

Sounds like Austin is essentially the same player he was in college. He always was able to get to the rim, that's nothing new. The problem is that he has never been a finisher and it sounds like he still isn't. During his only year at Duke I was continually amazed at how often he got near the rim and could not get it to go down. I'm not sure why he is unable to finish other than the fact that he almost always telegraphs what he is going to do and there is usually one or two bigger players waiting for him as he approaches the basket. As for his mid-range game, he's never had one. He has always been a player that either bombs from way outside or tries to get to the rim. If he doesn't improve his poor shooting mechanics he is never going to develop a mid-range game. Poor mechanics also limit his ceiling on 3-point shooting. I hope he is willing to work on these aspects of his game because if he is successful at these modifications he will become a very good player. If not, he won't.

sagegrouse
11-27-2012, 01:05 PM
Moreover, right on cue, Austin was 14/1/6 in 27 minutes last night against the Clippers. and 3 of 4 from 3-pt. land.

Sounds like a Kyle Singler performance. :p

sage

kingboozer
11-27-2012, 01:30 PM
I have no doubt that Rivers will be a solid NBA player in a few years, but he had no business leaving last year. The culture these days is to get the NBA as fast as possible but reality is, they aren't always ready. Another year or two under K, who knows how he'd be.

BD80
11-27-2012, 01:39 PM
Has he played defense yet?

theAlaskanBear
11-27-2012, 02:43 PM
Has he played defense yet?

He has a poor DRtg pf 113, but you have to view this in the context of his team. It is tremendously hard to find a defensive metric that isolates the individual from the team effectively.

I will say this - New Orleans is a terrible defensive team, and Austin Rivers has a better D-Rating than 4 of his teammates (Vasquez, Brian Roberts, Roger Mason, Xavier Henry) and is just beat out by Ryan Anderson 112-to-113. Of the 12 members of the NOH team who have a DRtg, only two are under 110 (Davis and Lopez). More steals and blocks than Harrison Barnes is an admittedly low bar ;) but no one is claiming he should have returned to college to improve his D.

And lets be honest, is your defense going to improve more playing on a night by night basis in against NBA players or against college kids from schools like Wisconsin?

rocketeli
11-27-2012, 04:59 PM
Al Featherston (I think) pointed out in a column here a couple of years ago that fans tend to blame the best player on a team, not the worst, for their disappointments (he was talking about Josh McRoberts) and perhaps that explains some of the un-love that AR gets from Duke fans--
I also think however that some of it is also due to the fact that he has such a unique skill set that it confuses people.
It seems that both the fans and his current coaches have fallen into the trap of being given a great orange and b-ing about what a lousy apple it is.
As a background--there are really different kinds of drives that players do during a game. Many drives are really feints--looking to pass off or test the defense, and only shoot if unexpectedly open. Another kind of drive is the drive to score. In this kind of drive, it is NOT a mistake to "put your head down" and just go to the hoop--that's the ONLY way it will work. The average player drives to SCORE 1-3 times a game. AR can do it 10 or more times a game.

If you put this in perspective--if you had a guard that hit 55% of his jump shots, you'd never complain if he took 10 or 12 or even more shots in a game. But because we aren't used to seeing it, if AR drives ten times we are confused, and wonder if he's "selfish" or "inefficient" Actually AR has perfected a unique skill, which compares in efficiency favorably with the usual guard scoring mechanism--the jump shot.

And to answer another posters question--why didn't he finish more--go back and watch some tape--it's because he got hammered on virtually every drive--tripped, slammed to the ground, punched,kicked in the groin, you name it--and rarely got the calls he deserved. If he'd gotten half the foul calls he would have averaged another 5-6 points a game.

For those who criticize his defense--he was the best backcourt defender, by the end of year, we had last year. (admittedly there wasn't as much competition as in some years)

One last thought--AR didn't have to come to Duke. he could have gone anywhere in the country after he decommitted from Florida, where every coach would have kissed his rear and let him do whatever he wanted on the court. He choose to come to perhaps the only school where he would have to play defense and improve other aspects of his game. I think that says something about his desire and character.

lotusland
11-27-2012, 05:24 PM
Al Featherston (I think) pointed out in a column here a couple of years ago that fans tend to blame the best player on a team, not the worst, for their disappointments (he was talking about Josh McRoberts) and perhaps that explains some of the un-love that AR gets from Duke fans--
I also think however that some of it is also due to the fact that he has such a unique skill set that it confuses people.
It seems that both the fans and his current coaches have fallen into the trap of being given a great orange and b-ing about what a lousy apple it is.
As a background--there are really different kinds of drives that players do during a game. Many drives are really feints--looking to pass off or test the defense, and only shoot if unexpectedly open. Another kind of drive is the drive to score. In this kind of drive, it is NOT a mistake to "put your head down" and just go to the hoop--that's the ONLY way it will work. The average player drives to SCORE 1-3 times a game. AR can do it 10 or more times a game.

If you put this in perspective--if you had a guard that hit 55% of his jump shots, you'd never complain if he took 10 or 12 or even more shots in a game. But because we aren't used to seeing it, if AR drives ten times we are confused, and wonder if he's "selfish" or "inefficient" Actually AR has perfected a unique skill, which compares in efficiency favorably with the usual guard scoring mechanism--the jump shot.

And to answer another posters question--why didn't he finish more--go back and watch some tape--it's because he got hammered on virtually every drive--tripped, slammed to the ground, punched,kicked in the groin, you name it--and rarely got the calls he deserved. If he'd gotten half the foul calls he would have averaged another 5-6 points a game.

For those who criticize his defense--he was the best backcourt defender, by the end of year, we had last year. (admittedly there wasn't as much competition as in some years)

One last thought--AR didn't have to come to Duke. he could have gone anywhere in the country after he decommitted from Florida, where every coach would have kissed his rear and let him do whatever he wanted on the court. He choose to come to perhaps the only school where he would have to play defense and improve other aspects of his game. I think that says something about his desire and character.

Amen brother. I'm a big AR fan. He did nothing but improve every game he played last year. I have no doubt that he had the geen light and was encouraged to attack as often as he could. That kid is an ice cold assassin. You can see the determination to succeed in his eyes. You would be foolish to bet against him succeeding.

KenTankerous
11-27-2012, 06:36 PM
Amen brother. I'm a big AR fan. He did nothing but improve every game he played last year. I have no doubt that he had the geen light and was encouraged to attack as often as he could. That kid is an ice cold assassin. You can see the determination to succeed in his eyes. You would be foolish to bet against him succeeding.

Agreed.

But also, Austin plays for Austin. Always has. Always will.

UrinalCake
11-27-2012, 07:43 PM
I don't get all the hate towards Austin. The guy played his heart out for us for a year. We pretty much knew what we were getting when we recruited him, and he said all along that his goal was to leave after a year. We recruited him anyways, so why are people so shocked and offended that he left? Without him we would have lost at UNC by 30, and several other games as well.

tommy
11-27-2012, 07:48 PM
Agreed.

But also, Austin plays for Austin. Always has. Always will.

Sorry, can't buy that. If that was true, K would've had his butt on the bench, as he would've done (and has done) for any other player putting himself above the team.

ice-9
11-28-2012, 05:47 AM
Al Featherston (I think) pointed out in a column here a couple of years ago that fans tend to blame the best player on a team, not the worst, for their disappointments (he was talking about Josh McRoberts) and perhaps that explains some of the un-love that AR gets from Duke fans--
I also think however that some of it is also due to the fact that he has such a unique skill set that it confuses people.
It seems that both the fans and his current coaches have fallen into the trap of being given a great orange and b-ing about what a lousy apple it is.
As a background--there are really different kinds of drives that players do during a game. Many drives are really feints--looking to pass off or test the defense, and only shoot if unexpectedly open. Another kind of drive is the drive to score. In this kind of drive, it is NOT a mistake to "put your head down" and just go to the hoop--that's the ONLY way it will work. The average player drives to SCORE 1-3 times a game. AR can do it 10 or more times a game.

If you put this in perspective--if you had a guard that hit 55% of his jump shots, you'd never complain if he took 10 or 12 or even more shots in a game. But because we aren't used to seeing it, if AR drives ten times we are confused, and wonder if he's "selfish" or "inefficient" Actually AR has perfected a unique skill, which compares in efficiency favorably with the usual guard scoring mechanism--the jump shot.

And to answer another posters question--why didn't he finish more--go back and watch some tape--it's because he got hammered on virtually every drive--tripped, slammed to the ground, punched,kicked in the groin, you name it--and rarely got the calls he deserved. If he'd gotten half the foul calls he would have averaged another 5-6 points a game.

For those who criticize his defense--he was the best backcourt defender, by the end of year, we had last year. (admittedly there wasn't as much competition as in some years)

One last thought--AR didn't have to come to Duke. he could have gone anywhere in the country after he decommitted from Florida, where every coach would have kissed his rear and let him do whatever he wanted on the court. He choose to come to perhaps the only school where he would have to play defense and improve other aspects of his game. I think that says something about his desire and character.


Great post!

Only thing I have to nitpick with is the scoring drive thing. The best guards keep their heads up no matter what the play to either lay-it-up or pass to the open man when doubled (or hacked). For the lesser player, there may be a cost to keeping your head up vs. putting your head down in that you may be less aggressive in the former...but for the elevated player that trade off is minimized. They can be aggressive to score AND pass when that's the better play.

Jeffrey236
11-28-2012, 08:57 AM
Sounds like Austin is essentially the same player he was in college. He always was able to get to the rim, that's nothing new. The problem is that he has never been a finisher and it sounds like he still isn't. During his only year at Duke I was continually amazed at how often he got near the rim and could not get it to go down. I'm not sure why he is unable to finish other than the fact that he almost always telegraphs what he is going to do and there is usually one or two bigger players waiting for him as he approaches the basket. As for his mid-range game, he's never had one. He has always been a player that either bombs from way outside or tries to get to the rim. If he doesn't improve his poor shooting mechanics he is never going to develop a mid-range game. Poor mechanics also limit his ceiling on 3-point shooting. I hope he is willing to work on these aspects of his game because if he is successful at these modifications he will become a very good player. If not, he won't.

Steven, your assessment of AR is spot on. I personally question whether he can get to the next level. IMO, he's somewhat of a one-trick pony, in that he can blow by his man almost any time he wants, but as you (and others) noted, he has trouble finishing. Guys his size who rely on that kind of game generally need to have crazy hops, because once they get by their guy, there's another guy 7" taller waiting for him. We saw this last year - once his MO became clear, teams kept somebody big home to wait for him. And as you noted, he really isn't that great of a shooter, at least not by NBA standards. He's got an ultracompetitive spirit, and I'm sure he'll work hard, but I just don't think he has the skills to pull it off.

NSDukeFan
11-28-2012, 09:56 AM
Steven, your assessment of AR is spot on. I personally question whether he can get to the next level. IMO, he's somewhat of a one-trick pony, in that he can blow by his man almost any time he wants, but as you (and others) noted, he has trouble finishing. Guys his size who rely on that kind of game generally need to have crazy hops, because once they get by their guy, there's another guy 7" taller waiting for him. We saw this last year - once his MO became clear, teams kept somebody big home to wait for him. And as you noted, he really isn't that great of a shooter, at least not by NBA standards. He's got an ultracompetitive spirit, and I'm sure he'll work hard, but I just don't think he has the skills to pull it off.

Are we talking about the only freshman to ever be 1st team all-ACC? Austin may not have been great at creating opportunities for his teammates, but he certainly by the end of the year recognized when to attack and when to pass out of the lane and was making very good decisions almost all of the time. He was one of the most electric scorers in the country with his ability to get by his man any time and hit shots from wherever he wanted to. He was not overmatched defensively, is a pretty good athlete and is only 20 years old? He has started most games in the NBA as a rookie, seems already to have improved his ability to create shots for others as his assists are up from his time at Duke and has always seemed to me to be someone who was very keen to learn from coach K and is a student of the game. I expect Austin will be an NBA all-star in a few years and someone competing to play for Team USA again.

CDu
11-28-2012, 10:09 AM
As a background--there are really different kinds of drives that players do during a game. Many drives are really feints--looking to pass off or test the defense, and only shoot if unexpectedly open. Another kind of drive is the drive to score. In this kind of drive, it is NOT a mistake to "put your head down" and just go to the hoop--that's the ONLY way it will work. The average player drives to SCORE 1-3 times a game. AR can do it 10 or more times a game.

This is simply not correct. Watch Curry drive when he's driving to score. He uses a variety of hesitation dribbles, head fakes, and angles. He most certainly doesn't just put his head down and go. Putting your head down and going is effective for some players, but it's not the only way for it to work.

Now, putting your head down and going is the only way for an out-of-control drive to the basket to work, if that's what you meant by "drive to score." But the counterargument to that is that putting your head down and going is a poor approach to "drive to score", because you put yourself at an increased risk of an offensive foul, turnover, or very bad shot just as much as you give yourself a chance to score (if not moreso). Rivers was more effective than most would be at this approach, but it was still not a nuanced or refined approach.

Where Rivers did have skill is in figuring out how to beat his man off the dribble. It's what he did (or didn't do) AFTER that time that was his limitation (along with his inability/unwillingness to play off the ball effectively). After beating his man, he made an immediate decision as to what he was going to do, regardless of the help defense. And that decision limited his effectiveness (at least it did against good defenses) because he didn't subsequently react to what the help defense gave him.


If you put this in perspective--if you had a guard that hit 55% of his jump shots, you'd never complain if he took 10 or 12 or even more shots in a game. But because we aren't used to seeing it, if AR drives ten times we are confused, and wonder if he's "selfish" or "inefficient" Actually AR has perfected a unique skill, which compares in efficiency favorably with the usual guard scoring mechanism--the jump shot.

If Rivers hit 55% from the field, I doubt people would be discussing him in this manner. But he didn't. He hit 43% and 66% of his free throws.


And to answer another posters question--why didn't he finish more--go back and watch some tape--it's because he got hammered on virtually every drive--tripped, slammed to the ground, punched,kicked in the groin, you name it--and rarely got the calls he deserved. If he'd gotten half the foul calls he would have averaged another 5-6 points a game.

I would say that he got fouled quite a bit, but he also dove into contact (or attempted to dive into contact) quite a bit as well. It seemed to me that Rivers often was playing to the foul (or anticipation of the foul) rather than the finish. In high school, that probably worked to draw the foul (either that or he was athletic enough to just finish anyway). In college, the athletes and defense are better, the "star" calls are less frequent, and a little more contact is allowed.

scottdude8
11-28-2012, 11:06 AM
For me, it'll always be about separating the good from the bad with Rivers. In particular, his personality always rubbed me the wrong way: a few times when I interviewed him following games I found him extremely arrogant, cocky, and over-confident. That being said, part of that comes from being under a possibly unparalleled microscope not only being Duke's star, but also a hall-of-fame caliber coach's son, so you can't judge him too harshly. And one's personality while being surrounded by 10 sports journalists in a locker room is in no way indicative of your actual personality.

Regardless, though, he gave us THE shot, and he should have a place somewhere in Duke history forever for that.

CDu
11-28-2012, 02:00 PM
For me, it'll always be about separating the good from the bad with Rivers. In particular, his personality always rubbed me the wrong way: a few times when I interviewed him following games I found him extremely arrogant, cocky, and over-confident. That being said, part of that comes from being under a possibly unparalleled microscope not only being Duke's star, but also a hall-of-fame caliber coach's son, so you can't judge him too harshly. And one's personality while being surrounded by 10 sports journalists in a locker room is in no way indicative of your actual personality.

Regardless, though, he gave us THE shot, and he should have a place somewhere in Duke history forever for that.

Yeah, he definitely had his gifts. He had the ability and fearlessness to create and take big shots. One of those big shots will forever live in the history of the rivalry. He could score in some pretty amazing ways. And he never backed down defensively. And above all else, he was a really, really talented player.

But he also had his flaws. He would lose focus at times whining to the officials at any perceived "no-call" slight, often to the detriment of team defense. On offense, he didn't seem capable or willing to play off the ball, and whenever he caught the ball the offense came to a halt as he set himself up for a one-on-one attack. He frequently made up his mind too early on his drives, resulting in some inefficient offense (especially for a player of his skill level). Basically, he didn't seem to grasp the concept of a structure team offense at all.

As a ballhandler, he's far more advanced than Sulaimon. But Sulaimon brings an entirely different set of skills to the team. He's completely able to play within the offense. You don't see play break down when Sulaimon gets the ball because he doesn't have to stop and size up his man every time he gets the ball. It's different, and (so far) I like it better. Not saying I didn't like what Rivers brought. He was undoubtedly a good player and won us some key games throughout the season. But aesthetically, I like what Sulaimon brings to the table more.

AZLA
11-28-2012, 04:49 PM
Yeah, he definitely had his gifts. He had the ability and fearlessness to create and take big shots. One of those big shots will forever live in the history of the rivalry. He could score in some pretty amazing ways. And he never backed down defensively. And above all else, he was a really, really talented player.

But he also had his flaws. He would lose focus at times whining to the officials at any perceived "no-call" slight, often to the detriment of team defense. On offense, he didn't seem capable or willing to play off the ball, and whenever he caught the ball the offense came to a halt as he set himself up for a one-on-one attack. He frequently made up his mind too early on his drives, resulting in some inefficient offense (especially for a player of his skill level). Basically, he didn't seem to grasp the concept of a structure team offense at all.

As a ballhandler, he's far more advanced than Sulaimon. But Sulaimon brings an entirely different set of skills to the team. He's completely able to play within the offense. You don't see play break down when Sulaimon gets the ball because he doesn't have to stop and size up his man every time he gets the ball. It's different, and (so far) I like it better. Not saying I didn't like what Rivers brought. He was undoubtedly a good player and won us some key games throughout the season. But aesthetically, I like what Sulaimon brings to the table more.

Agreed for the most part. The ball would often stop with AR as he'd contemplate his NBA like move to the hoop and when he was hot, it would go in a lot, at the risk of slowing down the momentum for the overall offense. Sometimes the iron ran cold. This style is what is perceived to be the standard "star" one-on-one approach we see in the NBA. There's a difference between NBA style of play and putting together some go-to highlight moves. They have to translate into buckets and over much more experienced, taller and faster NBA caliber of opponents. Naturally there needs to be a transition period, especially for someone so young. There's no need for people to feel like they need to defend AR. He's got plenty of support, above and beyond the average player trying to make it in the league, and really he's not getting attacked nor is he above some feedback. If anything some gaps that are being observed by coaches or press, are just that -- things to work on. Big deal. That's good feedback to work on. And he will and it will serve him well. The problem with having a "fast quick step" is that mostly applies to starting from a stand still and then beating the defender of a hesitation. The problem with it is that defenders can clue in and adjust easily. It also keeps the ball out of other player's hands and stalls the offense and gives the D a chance to chill. Moving with out the ball and being decisive in motion once receiving the ball is a highly valuable skill that will benefit his game. Take a look at Kyrie or Westbrook. These guys are getting the assists and the buckets. His career at Duke speaks for itself as will his career in the NBA. If we're comparing to Saulaimon, man, who doesn't get excited about how he moves without the ball, passes well (remember that up and under in the lane to Mason against Kentucky), and fits in well to the overall team offense. My only observation there is that the ball flows throw S-Man more fluidly than it did with AR. They're two distinctly different styles.

snowdenscold
11-28-2012, 05:50 PM
This thread has made me go onto youtube and rewatch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTBDQScd3U0

Instant pick-me-up !
55 second mark =)

Des Esseintes
11-28-2012, 06:21 PM
Yeah, he definitely had his gifts. He had the ability and fearlessness to create and take big shots. One of those big shots will forever live in the history of the rivalry. He could score in some pretty amazing ways. And he never backed down defensively. And above all else, he was a really, really talented player.

But he also had his flaws. He would lose focus at times whining to the officials at any perceived "no-call" slight, often to the detriment of team defense. On offense, he didn't seem capable or willing to play off the ball, and whenever he caught the ball the offense came to a halt as he set himself up for a one-on-one attack. He frequently made up his mind too early on his drives, resulting in some inefficient offense (especially for a player of his skill level). Basically, he didn't seem to grasp the concept of a structure team offense at all.

As a ballhandler, he's far more advanced than Sulaimon. But Sulaimon brings an entirely different set of skills to the team. He's completely able to play within the offense. You don't see play break down when Sulaimon gets the ball because he doesn't have to stop and size up his man every time he gets the ball. It's different, and (so far) I like it better. Not saying I didn't like what Rivers brought. He was undoubtedly a good player and won us some key games throughout the season. But aesthetically, I like what Sulaimon brings to the table more.

I don't mean to minimize Rivers's flaws, because they were real. On the other hand, let's not forget that Rivers was the focal point of an offense that lost a massive amount of scoring talent from the year previous, and up until Kelly's injury, that offense remained elite. If his play held Duke's scoring back, it didn't hold it back much. Far more likely, it was a prime reason for the offense staying elite.

You mention aesthetics, and I'm glad you did because it's worth keeping in mind regarding both Rivers and Sulaimon. Sulaimon *looks* fantastic. He has long arms, he scores, he has a knack for getting his hands on loose balls in transition, and his athleticism is clear through a television screen. I think the excitement he brings to the court causes us to make him out as even better than he is at present, however. He's given credit, for example, as a distributor, though at this point in his career, Sulaimon is anything but. For the most part, Rasheed plays as though he is unaware the rulebook allows passing. That early drive and dish to Mason against Kentucky is a huge outlier. The guy attempts to drive or shoot almost the instant he touches the ball, and his shot selection is hardly invulnerable to criticism. (Whatever. Dude's a freshman, a massive talent, a big reason for the undefeated start, and he'd be sitting right now if the coaching staff didn't think his contributions overwhelmed his negatives. I am overjoyed Duke got him.)

If Sulaimon were Option #1 on this offense as Rivers was on his, I think you would have many of the same complaints you had of Rivers, even if each player looked different committing the same sort of sin. Probably more, because Rivers is the more talented player. Happily, Sulaimon has the luxury to be the #3 or #4 scorer on this team, because the rest of the squad is superior to last year's, shooting aside. Sulaimon can kill the #3 role. When we compare the two players, let's not make the mistake of forgetting that context.

johnb
11-28-2012, 06:27 PM
You mention aesthetics, and I'm glad you did because it's worth keeping in mind regarding both Rivers and Sulaimon. Sulaimon *looks* fantastic. He has long arms, he scores, he has a knack for getting his hands on loose balls in transition, and his athleticism is clear through a television screen. I think the excitement he brings to the court causes us to make him out as even better than he is at present, however... Happily, Sulaimon has the luxury to be the #3 or #4 scorer on this team, because the rest of the squad is superior to last year's, shooting aside. Sulaimon can kill the #3 role. When we compare the two players, let's not make the mistake of forgetting that context.

Regarding Sulaimon, count me as one of the excitable. He is terrific and is going to be great. The team seems to just play better when he is on the court, and it's easy to see why some other excellent players aren't getting PT.

As for the "rest of the squad being better than last year," I'd say we lost Miles, Andre, and Austin, and we gained... Rasheed (though Amile and Alex will be real players in the ACC, they haven't been on the court nearly as much as were Miles and Andre).

Rivers played his game, and I have no doubt that if Coach saw him as a detriment, he wouldn't have gotten off the bench. Nevertheless, if I were given a choice between the two players, I know who I'd rather have on the team...

AZLA
11-29-2012, 01:08 PM
Regarding Sulaimon, count me as one of the excitable. He is terrific and is going to be great. The team seems to just play better when he is on the court, and it's easy to see why some other excellent players aren't getting PT.

As for the "rest of the squad being better than last year," I'd say we lost Miles, Andre, and Austin, and we gained... Rasheed (though Amile and Alex will be real players in the ACC, they haven't been on the court nearly as much as were Miles and Andre).

Rivers played his game, and I have no doubt that if Coach saw him as a detriment, he wouldn't have gotten off the bench. Nevertheless, if I were given a choice between the two players, I know who I'd rather have on the team...


"Sulaimon makes his teammates want to be a better team."

--Melvin Udall
:D

CDu
11-29-2012, 03:05 PM
He's given credit, for example, as a distributor, though at this point in his career, Sulaimon is anything but. For the most part, Rasheed plays as though he is unaware the rulebook allows passing. That early drive and dish to Mason against Kentucky is a huge outlier. The guy attempts to drive or shoot almost the instant he touches the ball, and his shot selection is hardly invulnerable to criticism. (Whatever. Dude's a freshman, a massive talent, a big reason for the undefeated start, and he'd be sitting right now if the coaching staff didn't think his contributions overwhelmed his negatives. I am overjoyed Duke got him.)

Sulaimon is averaging 1.7 assists per game so far. Rivers averaged 2.1 assists per game. That's noteworthy because Sulaimon plays fewer minutes and undoubtedly is involved in fewer possessions than Rivers was. So to suggest he is completely averse to passing is inaccurate. Sure, assists aren't a perfect measure, but the available stats and the eye test both suggest that he's more willing to move the ball quickly than Rivers was.


If Sulaimon were Option #1 on this offense as Rivers was on his, I think you would have many of the same complaints you had of Rivers, even if each player looked different committing the same sort of sin. Probably more, because Rivers is the more talented player. Happily, Sulaimon has the luxury to be the #3 or #4 scorer on this team, because the rest of the squad is superior to last year's, shooting aside. Sulaimon can kill the #3 role. When we compare the two players, let's not make the mistake of forgetting that context.

Very possibly true. But remember: we had Seth Curry last year. We had Mason Plumlee last year (though clearly a less effective version). We had a capable scorer in Kelly last year. Rivers wasn't "forced" to be the #1 option by anyone but himself. Further, his style of play made it difficult for others to get involved whenever he touched the ball, because every time he touched it he stopped, faced up, and prepared for an isolation play. Basically, when he didn't have the ball, he was nonexistent in the offense. I don't remember a single time last year that he scored due to his work off the ball. When he was on the floor, he either had the ball on an isolation play or he was not involved.

I can completely agree that Rivers is the more talented scorer. And if Sulaimon had to be the #1 scorer, things might be tough (we'll see as the season progresses how/if Sulaimon's role expands, though). But Sulaimon provides better offensive continuity, better passing, and better defense than Rivers.

bedeviled
12-25-2012, 11:35 PM
The term “ball stopper” is one I’ve heard to suggest that a player is a ‘black hole,’ never to relinquish the ball again. However, in a recent podcast (that we debated in this thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?29849-Interesting-Podcast-Discussion-of-Duke&highlight=doug+gottlieb)), Doug Gottlieb referred to a ball stopper as someone who gets the ball and everyone else stops to watch…as if the rest of the players are just as important to the game’s development. And it’s true; of course the game is greater than one individual! Unfortunately, it’s easy for us to overly schematize a complex system that involves (in descending randomness) coaches, two full teams, fans, moms, ball caroms, the unwashed socks of the superstitious armchair-general, and the Twitterverse.

There continues to be undue criticism of Austin’s play for Duke. That darn Twitter will have you believe that he is a ‘black hole’…a selfish player who needs the ball in his hands at all times, won’t pass, can’t pass, and is a gunner who gets stats by chucking up as many shots as possible. I think the three characteristics of play that would best describe this conception are as follows:
1. Usage (must be the center of attention)
2. Passing (won’t or can’t pass)
3. Shooting (pads stats with inefficient shooting).

I would like to present a comparison to illustrate the importance of considering the system as a whole. The stats I’ll present are obviously also just simple descriptors used to call attention to distinct parts within the system, and I’m actually hoping that reader treats them as such!! I hope you will see that there is much more than the parts! For a comparison, I thought it would be nice to choose another shooting guard-type that we know well. So, let’s take a look at Austin’s output last year vs Seth’s output this year.

USAGE:
Hard data:


Minutes per game:
Seth 29.5
Austin 33.2


Estimated metrics:


USG:
Seth 18.71
Austin 20.74


%TmPos:
Seth 17.2
Austin 20.8


USG%:
Seth 23.2
Austin 25.2


USG%:
Seth 23.41
Austin 24.98


USG (formula from turbostats.com) is an estimate of the percentage of a team’s possessions that were used by the player. You could think of it as that player ending the team’s possession instead of having someone else on the team completing the play.
%Tm Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is like USG but uses a different estimation parameters.
USG% (formulas from DraftExpress and basketball-reference.com) factor minutes into USG to estimate the percentage of the team's possessions, while the player was on the floor, that were used by the player.
Thus, we see that they are using a similar amount of resources, both in terms of time and possessions. You might argue, “they are responsible for the same amount of time and possessions, but they sure used them differently!” Okay, let’s check data regarding how they used their resources.

PASSING:
Hard data:


Assists per game:
Seth 1.0
Austin 2.1


Assists per 40 mins:
Seth 1.36
Austin 2.52


Assist/turnover ratio:
Seth 0.83
Austin 0.90


A/FGA:
Seth 0.10
Austin 0.18


A/FGA, Assists per Field Goal Attempt, is a ratio of setting up a teammate relative to taking one’s own shot.
Estimated metrics:


Ast/Pos:
Seth 0.08
Austin 0.15


A/TP:
Seth 1.97
Austin 3.66


Assist Ratio:
Seth 6.91
Austin 11.22


AST%:
Seth 6.65
Austin 12.87


Ast/Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is a ratio of assists to possessions used by the player and “provides a good measure of a players ability and willingness to set up his teammates.”
A/TP (formula from basketball-reference.com) is the percent number assists made per team possessions.
Assist Ratio, John Hollinger’s Assist Ratio, is an estimate of the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist (rather than a shot, turnover, or foul).
AST%, Pomeroy's Assist Rate, estimates the percentage of teammates' baskets a player assisted on while he was on the court.
So, it appears Austin passed (and passed well-enough to get an assist) more frequently than our comparator. He was also more likely to pass than shoot, relative to Seth. And, his teammates apparently benefited from his passing. “Hmm,” you say, “I don’t remember the passing, but I do remember him taking a lot of shots.” Okay, let’s look at that…

SHOOTING:
Hard data:


FG%:
Seth 47.06
Austin 43.28


eFG%:
Seth 57.84
Austin 50.50


TS%:
Seth 63.14
Austin 53.84


Notice that the difference in shooting percentages is greater in eFG% and TS%. Consider that these values reflect a higher reward for 3P shots. And, it does appear that Seth is more likely to take long-range shots than Austin was:


3PA/Min:
Seth 0.19
Austin 0.14


3PA/FGA:
Seth 0.54
Austin 0.40


3PA/FGA, also called 3Ptd and 3-point Tendency, is the % of a player's shots that come from long-distance.
“Sure, I know Austin didn’t just jack up 3-balls. But, he did get his points by taking all our shots…and lots of them….didn’t he?”
Hard data:


%TmFGA:
Seth 17.8
Austin 21.0


FGA/min:
Seth 0.35
Austin 0.36


%TmFGA (formula from DraftExpress) is the percent of the whole team’s FGA that were taken by the player. Note that this does not account for minutes played, an adjustment that would balance out the numbers above. Also note that 20% would be the expected value for a perfectly balanced 5-man team.
Estimated metrics:


FGA/Pos:
Seth 0.84
Austin 0.83


Shots%:
Seth 24.61
Austin 25.29


FGA/Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is the ratio of shots taken by the player to possessions used.
%Shots (also called %FGA) is a Pomeroy stat estimating the percentage of a team’s shots taken while the player is on the court.
“Oh, I know what it is!!” It doesn’t look like he’s gunning from outside, hogging all the shots, or even taking a lot of shots because he was getting fouled. That’s why his attempts aren’t showing up in the numbers.” Drawing fouls, huh? Okay, well then, let’s take a look…
Hard data:


FTA/min:
Seth 0.16
Austin 0.16


FTA/FGA:
Seth 0.46
Austin 0.46


Estimated metrics:


FTA/Pos:
Seth 0.39
Austin 0.38


FTA/Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is the ratio of free-throws taken by the player to possessions used.
So, Austin was involved in, approximately, the same amount of time and possession usage as Seth. Austin racked up better passing numbers in our shooting guard comparison. He does not appear to be shooting the long-ball, hogging the shots, or hoisting up quantities of shots any more than Seth is. They were also equivalent in getting to the FT line.

“That’s fine, but I still want to use him as a scapegoat for my dissastifaction in losing to a 15-seed. Maybe the ball didn’t disappear, but I will still call him a black hole for slowing down the game.” So, it’s come to this, has it? We have already seen that, in approximately the same amount of time and usage, Austin did not slow down his assists, shots, or free throws relative to Seth. For an extra measure, let’s look at Bob Chaikins ‘Touches’ statistic as an estimate of the number of offensive plays the player had per minute.
Estimated metrics:


Touches per minute:
Seth 0.72
Austin 0.93


% of Touches ending in an assist by the player:
Seth 27.77
Austin 39.80


% of Touches ending in a shot by the player:
Seth 48.15
Austin 38.31


% of Touches ending in the player being fouled:
Seth 18.42
Austin 14.37


Thus, it appears that, in contrast to standing around, Austin was involved in more plays per minute compared to Seth. And, those plays were relatively unselfish.

“Sure, sure, I hear ya, but those are just the plays that happened when Austin had the ball. What about all the downtime as he stared the opponent into a trance? I’m trying to think of the bigger picture – didn’t Austin’s handling of the ball take away plays that teammates would be making?"
Hard data:


FGA/game:
This year 57
Last year 56


Points/game:
This year 80
Last year 77


Estimated metrics:


Possessions:
This year 70
Last year 68.8


PPP:
This year 1.15
Last year 1.12


Floor %
This year 54
Last year 54.9


ORtg:
This year 114.8
Last year 112.3


PPP is Points Per Possession
Floor% is a measure of offensive efficiency. It is the number of scoring possessions divided by the number of total possessions.
ORtg is another measure of offensive efficiency. It is points scored per 100 possessions.
Thus, it looks like we had about the same number of possessions and points per possession between the two years. This suggests that overall team play didn’t slow down, and the team was not less efficient on offense during Austin’s year.

To conclude, if we view this year and last year as different teams/styles/feels/potential, we should probably consider that the difference cannot be attributed to a single individual. Moreover, perhaps the ‘black hole’ is the deficit in our own perception. Consider the larger picture. And, I do realize there can be other perspectives using these stats….that’s almost to the point! Looking at a subsection of the system (or, worse, ignoring parts of the system) can prevent us from seeing the true field. It’s fine to think in schematics and talking points, especially when we just want to bask in being #1. But we should remember to step back and consider the full view when things don’t feel so great.

Poincaré
12-26-2012, 01:20 AM
Austin has K's blessing. Does anyone really think that Austin would have been allowed to take the shots he did (repeatedly) if he did not have the green light from Coach K? Whatever happened on the court last year happened mostly by design.

Also, Austin really has not said anything negative about his Duke experience. This makes me think that if he was not chummy with everyone, then it was a result of general awkwardness and underdeveloped social skills rather than malice or selfishness. That is, he doesn't seem like a bad kid. If he was, then I think we would have heard some stupid stuff come out of his mouth by now.

Perhaps the team is better off without Austin. Sometimes that's how the pieces fit best. However, Austin says good things about Duke and he is in the NBA. Therefore it is good for Duke if he plays well. It's as simple as that, right?

Lastly, I would not put much stock into any assist numbers from home games in New Orleans. Their scorekeeper was infamous for giving Chris Paul assists for baskets that came after two dribbles, a jump stop, shot fake, and an up-and-under finish.

hq2
12-26-2012, 08:54 AM
Rivers wasn't "forced" to be the #1 option by anyone but himself. Further, his style of play made it difficult for others to get involved whenever he touched the ball, because every time he touched it he stopped, faced up, and prepared for an isolation play. Basically, when he didn't have the ball, he was nonexistent in the offense. I don't remember a single time last year that he scored due to his work off the ball. When he was on the floor, he either had the ball on an isolation play or he was not involved.


Yes, the way the offense worked last year clearly had problems. It perhaps isn't quite fair to blame Austin for all of it; his natural
position is 2, and he played it the way a lot of 2s would have done, except that he drove instead of shooting. The problem was
that Seth wasn't a point guard either, so with Quinn Cook still a freshman and not yet 100%, there really wasn't anyone in the backcourt whose primary interest was passing. This year, with Quinn handling the ball, it's the first time in a long time we've had a real pass-first PG at the point (Nolan wasn't either). The way the offense is working (especially with Mason, who looks as good as he was when Kyrie was getting him the ball) is clearly noticeable.

MHNOLADevil
12-26-2012, 10:22 AM
The term “ball stopper” is one I’ve heard to suggest that a player is a ‘black hole,’ never to relinquish the ball again. However, in a recent podcast (that we debated in this thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?29849-Interesting-Podcast-Discussion-of-Duke&highlight=doug+gottlieb)), Doug Gottlieb referred to a ball stopper as someone who gets the ball and everyone else stops to watch…as if the rest of the players are just as important to the game’s development. And it’s true; of course the game is greater than one individual! Unfortunately, it’s easy for us to overly schematize a complex system that involves (in descending randomness) coaches, two full teams, fans, moms, ball caroms, the unwashed socks of the superstitious armchair-general, and the Twitterverse.

There continues to be undue criticism of Austin’s play for Duke. That darn Twitter will have you believe that he is a ‘black hole’…a selfish player who needs the ball in his hands at all times, won’t pass, can’t pass, and is a gunner who gets stats by chucking up as many shots as possible. I think the three characteristics of play that would best describe this conception are as follows:
1. Usage (must be the center of attention)
2. Passing (won’t or can’t pass)
3. Shooting (pads stats with inefficient shooting).

I would like to present a comparison to illustrate the importance of considering the system as a whole. The stats I’ll present are obviously also just simple descriptors used to call attention to distinct parts within the system, and I’m actually hoping that reader treats them as such!! I hope you will see that there is much more than the parts! For a comparison, I thought it would be nice to choose another shooting guard-type that we know well. So, let’s take a look at Austin’s output last year vs Seth’s output this year.

USAGE:
Hard data:


Minutes per game:
Seth 29.5
Austin 33.2


Estimated metrics:


USG:
Seth 18.71
Austin 20.74


%TmPos:
Seth 17.2
Austin 20.8


USG%:
Seth 23.2
Austin 25.2


USG%:
Seth 23.41
Austin 24.98


USG (formula from turbostats.com) is an estimate of the percentage of a team’s possessions that were used by the player. You could think of it as that player ending the team’s possession instead of having someone else on the team completing the play.
%Tm Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is like USG but uses a different estimation parameters.
USG% (formulas from DraftExpress and basketball-reference.com) factor minutes into USG to estimate the percentage of the team's possessions, while the player was on the floor, that were used by the player.
Thus, we see that they are using a similar amount of resources, both in terms of time and possessions. You might argue, “they are responsible for the same amount of time and possessions, but they sure used them differently!” Okay, let’s check data regarding how they used their resources.

PASSING:
Hard data:


Assists per game:
Seth 1.0
Austin 2.1


Assists per 40 mins:
Seth 1.36
Austin 2.52


Assist/turnover ratio:
Seth 0.83
Austin 0.90


A/FGA:
Seth 0.10
Austin 0.18


A/FGA, Assists per Field Goal Attempt, is a ratio of setting up a teammate relative to taking one’s own shot.
Estimated metrics:


Ast/Pos:
Seth 0.08
Austin 0.15


A/TP:
Seth 1.97
Austin 3.66


Assist Ratio:
Seth 6.91
Austin 11.22


AST%:
Seth 6.65
Austin 12.87


Ast/Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is a ratio of assists to possessions used by the player and “provides a good measure of a players ability and willingness to set up his teammates.”
A/TP (formula from basketball-reference.com) is the percent number assists made per team possessions.
Assist Ratio, John Hollinger’s Assist Ratio, is an estimate of the percentage of a player's possessions that ends in an assist (rather than a shot, turnover, or foul).
AST%, Pomeroy's Assist Rate, estimates the percentage of teammates' baskets a player assisted on while he was on the court.
So, it appears Austin passed (and passed well-enough to get an assist) more frequently than our comparator. He was also more likely to pass than shoot, relative to Seth. And, his teammates apparently benefited from his passing. “Hmm,” you say, “I don’t remember the passing, but I do remember him taking a lot of shots.” Okay, let’s look at that…

SHOOTING:
Hard data:


FG%:
Seth 47.06
Austin 43.28


eFG%:
Seth 57.84
Austin 50.50


TS%:
Seth 63.14
Austin 53.84


Notice that the difference in shooting percentages is greater in eFG% and TS%. Consider that these values reflect a higher reward for 3P shots. And, it does appear that Seth is more likely to take long-range shots than Austin was:


3PA/Min:
Seth 0.19
Austin 0.14


3PA/FGA:
Seth 0.54
Austin 0.40


3PA/FGA, also called 3Ptd and 3-point Tendency, is the % of a player's shots that come from long-distance.
“Sure, I know Austin didn’t just jack up 3-balls. But, he did get his points by taking all our shots…and lots of them….didn’t he?”
Hard data:


%TmFGA:
Seth 17.8
Austin 21.0


FGA/min:
Seth 0.35
Austin 0.36


%TmFGA (formula from DraftExpress) is the percent of the whole team’s FGA that were taken by the player. Note that this does not account for minutes played, an adjustment that would balance out the numbers above. Also note that 20% would be the expected value for a perfectly balanced 5-man team.
Estimated metrics:


FGA/Pos:
Seth 0.84
Austin 0.83


Shots%:
Seth 24.61
Austin 25.29


FGA/Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is the ratio of shots taken by the player to possessions used.
%Shots (also called %FGA) is a Pomeroy stat estimating the percentage of a team’s shots taken while the player is on the court.
“Oh, I know what it is!!” It doesn’t look like he’s gunning from outside, hogging all the shots, or even taking a lot of shots because he was getting fouled. That’s why his attempts aren’t showing up in the numbers.” Drawing fouls, huh? Okay, well then, let’s take a look…
Hard data:


FTA/min:
Seth 0.16
Austin 0.16


FTA/FGA:
Seth 0.46
Austin 0.46


Estimated metrics:


FTA/Pos:
Seth 0.39
Austin 0.38


FTA/Pos (formula from DraftExpress) is the ratio of free-throws taken by the player to possessions used.
So, Austin was involved in, approximately, the same amount of time and possession usage as Seth. Austin racked up better passing numbers in our shooting guard comparison. He does not appear to be shooting the long-ball, hogging the shots, or hoisting up quantities of shots any more than Seth is. They were also equivalent in getting to the FT line.

“That’s fine, but I still want to use him as a scapegoat for my dissastifaction in losing to a 15-seed. Maybe the ball didn’t disappear, but I will still call him a black hole for slowing down the game.” So, it’s come to this, has it? We have already seen that, in approximately the same amount of time and usage, Austin did not slow down his assists, shots, or free throws relative to Seth. For an extra measure, let’s look at Bob Chaikins ‘Touches’ statistic as an estimate of the number of offensive plays the player had per minute.
Estimated metrics:


Touches per minute:
Seth 0.72
Austin 0.93


% of Touches ending in an assist by the player:
Seth 27.77
Austin 39.80


% of Touches ending in a shot by the player:
Seth 48.15
Austin 38.31


% of Touches ending in the player being fouled:
Seth 18.42
Austin 14.37


Thus, it appears that, in contrast to standing around, Austin was involved in more plays per minute compared to Seth. And, those plays were relatively unselfish.

“Sure, sure, I hear ya, but those are just the plays that happened when Austin had the ball. What about all the downtime as he stared the opponent into a trance? I’m trying to think of the bigger picture – didn’t Austin’s handling of the ball take away plays that teammates would be making?"
Hard data:


FGA/game:
This year 57
Last year 56


Points/game:
This year 80
Last year 77


Estimated metrics:


Possessions:
This year 70
Last year 68.8


PPP:
This year 1.15
Last year 1.12


Floor %
This year 54
Last year 54.9


ORtg:
This year 114.8
Last year 112.3


PPP is Points Per Possession
Floor% is a measure of offensive efficiency. It is the number of scoring possessions divided by the number of total possessions.
ORtg is another measure of offensive efficiency. It is points scored per 100 possessions.
Thus, it looks like we had about the same number of possessions and points per possession between the two years. This suggests that overall team play didn’t slow down, and the team was not less efficient on offense during Austin’s year.

To conclude, if we view this year and last year as different teams/styles/feels/potential, we should probably consider that the difference cannot be attributed to a single individual. Moreover, perhaps the ‘black hole’ is the deficit in our own perception. Consider the larger picture. And, I do realize there can be other perspectives using these stats….that’s almost to the point! Looking at a subsection of the system (or, worse, ignoring parts of the system) can prevent us from seeing the true field. It’s fine to think in schematics and talking points, especially when we just want to bask in being #1. But we should remember to step back and consider the full view when things don’t feel so great.

Bedeviled's post is terrific example of why I love DBR and rarely miss a day reading the new posts on the board. I so much appreciate my brothers and sisters on DBR taking the time to do the kind of thoughtful analysis Bedeviled did on Christmas night to support or refute a point and then sharing it with us. Happy Holidays to my DBR family.

oakvillebluedevil
12-26-2012, 10:34 AM
Bedeviled, great stuff putting all the analysis together, it was pretty eye opening.

The one point I'd push you on is your definition of a ball stopper:


The term “ball stopper” is one I’ve heard to suggest that a player is a ‘black hole,’ never to relinquish the ball again. However, in a recent podcast (that we debated in this thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?29849-Interesting-Podcast-Discussion-of-Duke&highlight=doug+gottlieb)), Doug Gottlieb referred to a ball stopper as someone who gets the ball and everyone else stops to watch…as if the rest of the players are just as important to the game’s development.

I don't think a "ball stopper" has to finish the possession. I think a ball stopper literally just has to get the ball and hold it. I bet that'd be enough to cut down on everyone's motivation to move and run the offense (which is why we saw so many stagnant possessions) and make it tougher for people to truly give maximum effort on defense. I'm NOT exclusively blaming Austin for our shortcomings on that side of the floor, but a small contributing factor may have been that people were less involved on offense, so they were less involved in the game overall.

I'd be interested to see Austin's assists / total minutes he had the ball in his hands vs. Seth's. I bet that Seth uses his minutes with the ball more effectively. I googled to see if I could find these stats, but wasn't able to. Maybe someone more experienced than I in the ways of advanced stats could help out?

Kedsy
12-26-2012, 11:04 AM
I would like to present a comparison to illustrate the importance of considering the system as a whole. The stats I’ll present are obviously also just simple descriptors used to call attention to distinct parts within the system, and I’m actually hoping that reader treats them as such!! I hope you will see that there is much more than the parts! For a comparison, I thought it would be nice to choose another shooting guard-type that we know well. So, let’s take a look at Austin’s output last year vs Seth’s output this year.

Thanks for this very detailed analysis. Interesting stuff.

Personally, I never had a problem with Austin at Duke. He was a great player who did what he was told to do. I agree with you that most of the criticism of him is way off base. However, I would like to quibble a bit with your comparison of Austin and Seth, because I don't entirely think Austin's role last year was the same as Seth's role this year.

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of their relative usage numbers as "approximately the same." In usage, a couple percentage points is significant. The numbers I found were from StatSheet (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=seth-curry&p1=austin-rivers), which are not quite the same as yours, but Seth's 20.9 possession percentage is the country's 965th highest such total and Austin's 24.1 was 402nd, which I think is a pretty significant difference. (Having said that, I'd like to point out to the Austin criticizers out there that according to these numbers more than 400 Division I ballplayers "used" a higher percentage of their team's possessions than Austin did. He wasn't Allen Iverson by any stretch.)

Second, an important component of Austin's game -- driving into the lane and then either finishing or distributing -- is not really part of Seth's role this year. Seth's role this season is as a finisher. If he gets the ball in an open space he's supposed to shoot. That's a main reason why Austin's assists are so much higher than Seth's. (Austin may also be a better passer, but like I said that's OK because passing is not part of Seth's role this season. Austin was also a better rebounder than Seth, which also makes sense since he's several inches taller and has much quicker feet.)

Finally, even if you're right about their usage being similar, Seth this year is much more efficient than Austin was last year. Seth's ORating of 121.0 (188th in the nation) is worlds better than Austin's 104.7 (920th in the nation). If your highest usage player is also your lowest efficiency player, there's a decent argument the team has some trouble.

SupaDave
12-26-2012, 12:11 PM
Austin was great. I loved every minute of him. That UNC shot and being the 2nd one in done are enough ammo to last me against UNC fans for years.

Not to mention, anybody that really watches the team knows that things went all down hill once we lost Ryan. He's just as important this season.

Kedsy
12-26-2012, 12:50 PM
Not to mention, anybody that really watches the team knows that things went all down hill once we lost Ryan.

I totally agree with this. Our offense was rated #1 in the country by Pomeroy shortly before Ryan went down, so if he'd been healthy probably we'd have won a few more post-season games and very few would be bad-mouthing Austin or talking about his ball-stopping effect on our offense, etc.

killerleft
12-26-2012, 12:57 PM
Austin was great. I loved every minute of him. That UNC shot and being the 2nd one in done are enough ammo to last me against UNC fans for years.

Not to mention, anybody that really watches the team knows that things went all down hill once we lost Ryan. He's just as important this season.

Must agree with you, here, SupaDave. Ryan, once again, is of vital importance to our chances to finish strong this year. His smarts, his height, his help defense, the offensive mismatches he creates... you could rattle off stuff for a while. When Ryan is on the court, he presents challenges to the other team that no other player for us can duplicate. Losing him wouldn't be quite as bad this year, but it would be sad and unpleasant, none the less.

dukelifer
12-26-2012, 01:38 PM
Thanks for this very detailed analysis. Interesting stuff.

Personally, I never had a problem with Austin at Duke. He was a great player who did what he was told to do. I agree with you that most of the criticism of him is way off base. However, I would like to quibble a bit with your comparison of Austin and Seth, because I don't entirely think Austin's role last year was the same as Seth's role this year.

First of all, I disagree with your characterization of their relative usage numbers as "approximately the same." In usage, a couple percentage points is significant. The numbers I found were from StatSheet (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=seth-curry&p1=austin-rivers), which are not quite the same as yours, but Seth's 20.9 possession percentage is the country's 965th highest such total and Austin's 24.1 was 402nd, which I think is a pretty significant difference. (Having said that, I'd like to point out to the Austin criticizers out there that according to these numbers more than 400 Division I ballplayers "used" a higher percentage of their team's possessions than Austin did. He wasn't Allen Iverson by any stretch.)

Second, an important component of Austin's game -- driving into the lane and then either finishing or distributing -- is not really part of Seth's role this year. Seth's role this season is as a finisher. If he gets the ball in an open space he's supposed to shoot. That's a main reason why Austin's assists are so much higher than Seth's. (Austin may also be a better passer, but like I said that's OK because passing is not part of Seth's role this season. Austin was also a better rebounder than Seth, which also makes sense since he's several inches taller and has much quicker feet.)

Finally, even if you're right about their usage being similar, Seth this year is much more efficient than Austin was last year. Seth's ORating of 121.0 (188th in the nation) is worlds better than Austin's 104.7 (920th in the nation). If your highest usage player is also your lowest efficiency player, there's a decent argument the team has some trouble.

I also had no problems with Austin as a player. I am not exactly sure how you compare teams and performances. It is not clear how this year's Duke team would have fared against last year's Ohio State team or last year's UNC team. All we know is that this year's team is having a good season. What I will say is that for all of Austin's gifts as a player- he was not the most endearing on or off the court. There are rumors and statements have been made that suggest that Austin was not fully connected. As one example- after the game against Elon, Mason was asked what was the difference between this year's team and last. He said that this year's team is more unselfish. You can interpret that many ways- but it does add fuel to the fire.

But despite the rumors, there is no denying that Austin was responsible for many wins. Duke's season ended badly and that will forever cloud how folks perceive the 2011-2012 season- but as others have said - that was mostly because a few players did not step up and make shots. But except for a couple of home losses that could have gone either way- Duke was very good throughout- a record that most programs would die for. Austin was a major reason for the team's success and his contributions should be appreciated- even if he was not a fan favorite.

NSDukeFan
12-26-2012, 02:27 PM
I totally agree with this. Our offense was rated #1 in the country by Pomeroy shortly before Ryan went down, so if he'd been healthy probably we'd have won a few more post-season games and very few would be bad-mouthing Austin or talking about his ball-stopping effect on our offense, etc.

It's interesting that the criticism of Austin is almost exclusively about his offense. It may not have been as pretty as this year's inside-outside pretty passing offense, but it was at least as efficient. The leader of that offense was Austin who, may not have been the most efficient player, but could always create something.

Phoenix22
12-26-2012, 02:48 PM
Lots of things to say, but mainly this:

Go watch the shot, again and again.

killerleft
12-26-2012, 03:30 PM
Lots of things to say, but mainly this:

Go watch the shot, again and again.

LOL, I haven't watched it more than three hundred times. Mr. Rivers was as cool as a cucumber, right as rain, and was NOT going to miss that shot. But which is better? Watching the ball go in, or freezing the playback when the camera shows the Tar Heel faithful in total shock?:o

OldPhiKap
12-26-2012, 03:34 PM
But which is better? Watching the ball go in, or freezing the playback when the camera shows the Tar Heel faithful in total shock?:o

Why choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, when you can have two scoops?

greybeard
12-26-2012, 04:50 PM
I agree. Here's what I said in the summer: "it'll take a few years before Austin blossoms into the player he can be, and in the meantime I predict fans whining and complaining that he is not living up to billing."

He's going to get significantly better. Sometimes people look at an amazing prodigy like Kyrie and expect everyone to develop at such an exponential rate.

For example, look at AR's back court mate, Greivis Vasquez, who is playing so well. He's a lot better now than when he was a sophomore in college.

As you noted, there are a number of areas AR needs to improve on but we saw a lot of improvement from him during the course of last year, and I expect it will only continue.

Greivis sees the game,hasn't always played like it, but, when he does, he makes things flow and his teammates better. He also attracts teammates, they want to be with him. An exceptional quality. I don't think Rivers has/does these things anywhere near the degree as Greivas.

I think that assists numbers are way overrated. For the most part, they indicate that a guy occupies the ball. With rare exceptions, I find such play boring. But, the game is about highlights, assists off dribble penetration make them, fans learn to value them, and, you make them, you get paid. Fascilitators in a team attack don't make the highlights, they might get a shout out, aka Cooke, and might even get a long stay in the League, although no one hardly notices, aka Blake and Duhon. That's progress, I suppose, but as Yogi Berra aptly put it, "the future ain't what it used to be.

BD80
12-26-2012, 05:44 PM
... That's progress, I suppose, but as Yogi Berra aptly put it, "the future ain't what it used to be.

So the past will continue to get better and better?

licc85
12-26-2012, 09:55 PM
I've never been a particularly big hater of Austin Rivers, but I just read this article about him on ESPN (it's an insider article), and it's pretty harsh:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/PerDiem-121226/nba-austin-rivers-having-worst-season-ever

Basically, to sum it up, Austin is having a historically bad season, and, as the title of the article indicates, could arguably be the worst ever. He's projected to have the worst WARP (wins above replacement player) ever recorded.

His per-minute win percentage is .271, which is actually about the same as his college rate (.274). While I'm not going to definitively say that we are a better team without him, I'll say that I'm extremely happy with what our team is doing right now, and I'm not sure that adding Austin Rivers to our current lineup would produce a significantly better product than what we have out there at the moment, and I'd probably bet that the team runs much more smoothly with Cook as the main ball handler.

This year, with Quinn as our main guy with the ball, Duke is assisting on 59.8 percent of its baskets, which is the highest mark we've had since KenPom started tracking the stat in 2002-03. Another good stat to look at is our assist to turnover rate between this year and last: this year, we are averaging 17 assist and 11 turnovers (1.5), while last year, we were averaging 12 and 12 (1.0). We're also shooting a better percentage this year (48.3%) than last year (45.6%), which translates to better shot selection. Actually, Quinn had a quote recently which illustrates this point: "When we were down last year, guys would just try to go one-on-one." I'm guessing he's talking about 1 "guy" in particular.

All that said, I'm still rooting for Austin. and I hope he bucks the trend and becomes a good pro. However, if he keeps this up, I don't see how he's going to get much more playing time, especially with Eric Gordon coming back very soon.

cptnflash
12-26-2012, 11:43 PM
I still don't get the knee-jerk pro-Austin dogma that seems to have a tight grip on this otherwise rational and objective message board. I've said it before (to much harassment and derision), and I'll keep saying it as long as the data supports it: Austin isn't very good. He wasn't good last year, and predictably he's even worse this year against better competitition.

First of all, comparing Austin to Seth is silly. They are completely different players. Seth is an efficient catch-and-shoot scorer (120.2 ORtg as of this writing) that operates best within a team concept. He has a very high effective field goal percentage, and a low turnover rate, like most great shooters. Seth is not a primary ball handler - one of our problems last year was that Seth was being utilized in a way that didn't match his skill set, especially early in the year when we tried to use him as a Scheyer-esque point guard. As I said back in April, Seth is finally being given the opportunity to play his natural position this year (featured scorer), and not surprisingly, he is performing at a very high level despite his injury.

Contrary to popular opinion, Austin's problem last year wasn't that he was a super-high usage player (i.e., ball hog) - it's that he was an inefficient player on the possessions that he did use. Austin was a highly inefficienty scorer in college (104.7 ORtg), and is even worse in the pros (historically bad so far this year, thus the ESPN article). No one should be surprised that Austin is struggling mightily in the NBA. He had one skill last year - getting fouled. Unfortunately, he's a poor free throw shooter for a guard, so that skill often went unrewarded (or at best, partially rewarded). In the NBA, he's going up against significantly better defenders, so his ability to get to the line at a high rate has been compromised, leaving him without any means of contributing offensively. And as an undersized two guard, he was never going to be a great defender at the next level. Put those two together, and you get things like ESPN's "worst season of all time" article. Frankly, if he wasn't playing on an otherwise awful team and if his last name wasn't Rivers, he would be buried on the bench right now.

Data aside, two things were abundantly clear last year just from watching. First, Austin is a poor shooter. His "elbow out" form needs significant improvement, so it's no surprise that he was a mid-30's 3-point shooter and a mid-60's free throw shooter. Second, he is not a good finisher around the rim - his foul rate was good as I mentioned, but on plays where he wasn't fouled, he made less than 50% of his two's. For someone with no mid-range game, for whom the overwhelming majority of 2-point field goal attempts were within a few feet of the basket, that is a very poor percentage against college-level defenses. Again, its no surprise that he is faring even worse against NBA-level defenders.

My two cents for those that are in the "pro-Austin no matter what" camp: get over his buzzer beater against UNC. It was a great shot, but that doesn't make him a good player. Just because he wore a Duke jersey for a year does not mean we all have to pretend that he was or is better than the data suggests.

bedeviled
12-26-2012, 11:46 PM
--**Warning: this post is mostly boring stats stuff...not of interest to most people....and the person that I'm responding to knows more about stats than I do**--
quibble a bit with your comparison of Austin and Seth, because I don't entirely think Austin's role last year was the same as Seth's role this year.Oh, I agree. I was hoping the critics would think about larger context, including roles, instead of castigating one component in isolation (counter argument: I did watch Larry Drew II make many unaided turnovers for UNC). I like that people have questioned whether we can validly compare across two different teams, that’s the point. My post was more for thought rather than presenting a sound argument. I find the emotional splitting fickle and thought it would be nice if the haters had to thoughtfully reflect on their feelings.

In usage, a couple percentage points is significant...Seth's 20.9 possession percentage is the country's 965th highest such total and Austin's 24.1 was 402nd, which I think is a pretty significant difference.
I think the USG% numbers (which are a tad more equal than the %Poss) are a little more useful in comparing the output because it takes into account the difference in minutes played. Following your lead, though, I looked at the StatSheet %Poss data for this year. I think the difference in rankings is misleading. It seems large because there are so many players in that section of the distribution (Like, in KenPom, seeing a big change in the rank of AdjD despite the actual AdjD changing little – a phenomenon due to how tightly clustered a number of teams are around that data point).

I’m no math wiz, and I’m only aware of the potential of doing descriptive statistics on data like this (no true “significance” calculations). The theoretical mean for %Poss = 20.0 (all possessions divided by 5 players). Players cluster to here (and there’s >2000 of them in StatSheet).
Mean = 21.0
Range = 14 to 38
Seth & Austin’s values (20.9, 24.1) are both within one standard deviation of this year’s mean. And, despite their proximity to the mean, 75% of the players are outside of the range between Seth and Austin’s values. Thus, I don’t think the difference is a big deal numbers-wise within the population of basketball players. IDK. I mean, they are probably significantly different than each other because they cluster around their own means, but that’s a different story…Like if PlayerA always scores 1 point per game and PlayerB always scores 2, they will be statistically significant from each other, but the difference is not significant in the broader basketball context.

After saying all this, I do wonder if a 3.2 difference in %Poss is meaningful. I’ve never heard anyone comment on how large a range makes a difference, probably because the stat by itself doesn’t tell us much. It seems reasonable to think that it could be meaningful. 3.2% of a team’s possession * 70 possessions per game (for example) = 2.24. If Seth completed positive plays with each of those, that’s 6 more points per game or 4 more assists per game! Those could change the way the data looks. But, if we take into account that he’s not in the game for all our possessions, he would only be completing an additional 1.65 possessions. Again, he could boost his assists with that, but what’s the likelihood of that? If he’s completing 1-2 additional plays of ours per game, is it really going to change his style? the team’s style? Probably not. He would likely complete that possession in the same manner as the others. That means that the data presented would most likely continue to look the exact same. Looking back at the data points used in the comparison, I don’t think they’d look much different. Thus, I’m pretty satisfied that, for the immediate purpose, the difference in %Poss is trivial.

Second, an important component of Austin's game -- driving into the lane and then either finishing or distributing -- is not really part of Seth's role this year.
I agree....although I like it when he does (not like bursting in like Austin or even finishing or distributing. I love when Seth is particularly mischievous and ducks in and out of the lane like the Louisville guards, pulling the defense apart...very veteran, and very different than Austin). But, I don’t see how this obviates the intent or hinders the effect of the post.

Seth this year is much more efficient than Austin was last year. Seth's ORating of 121.0 (188th in the nation) is worlds better than Austin's 104.7 (920th in the nation). If your highest usage player is also your lowest efficiency player, there's a decent argument the team has some trouble.
I haven’t seen the formula for ORtg and can’t find it online now. I have heard ORtg likened to the comprehensive statistics (eg PER) minus the usage component. Stats like PER (Player Efficiency Rating) and EFF (Efficiency) are known for overvaluing 3-point shooting and, perhaps, inefficient shooting in general. Trying to find the ORtg, I saw this (http://www.gatheringmagic.com/jessemason-more-stats-about-magic-and-sports/): “3-point specialists and low-usage bigs tend to do well in it.” Anyway, I think these stats are inflated for high quantity 3-pt shooters because the primary positive component is points, and boosting point-making is the surefire way to boost the rating.

Funny #1: As mentioned in that link, it is a misnomer to call these “Efficiency” measures. It’s stated well here (http://wagesofwins.com/2011/02/01/by-request-the-history-of-the-efficiency-measures-in-the-nba/):
"These measures all align because each tells a similar story about player scoring. For example, imagine a player who takes twelve shots from two-point range. If he makes four shots, his NBA Efficiency will rise by eight. The eight misses, though, will cause his value to decline by eight. So a player breaks-even with respect to NBA Efficiency by converting on 33% of his shots from two-point range. From three-point range, a player only needs to makes 25% of his shots to break-even.
Most NBA players can exceed these thresholds. Therefore, the more shots most NBA players take the higher will be his NBA Efficiency total. As a consequence, players who take a large number of shots tend to dominate the player rankings produced by this measure."

Funny #2: That article also points out that the measures prove their validity by correlation with each other and with the perception of who the top players are…..which happens to largely be based on shooting.

Final note: Since the topics we hit on were %Poss and ORtg, I suppose I should mention 'Skill Curves' which illustrate an inverse relationship between %Poss and ORtg (for each possession gained by a player, his ORtg goes down 1.25). I don't know if it's important or if I believe it, but thought I'd pass it along.

bedeviled
12-27-2012, 01:14 AM
I still don't get the knee-jerk pro-Austin dogma...
Since I wrote the initiating post, I guess I should respond: Personally, I made my post because I, too, didn't appreciate the knee-jerk, extreme dogma (though from the opposite camp). Like you, I hoped for more rational considerations, and I think the recent posts have been more thoughtful, from both sides. I grew up in Atlanta and have a very salient memory of watching Doc Rivers lose the ball going to the rim over and over. Seeing history repeat itself, I am actually quite far from pro-Austin (let alone the no-matter-what part) other than wishing him well.

throatybeard
12-27-2012, 01:18 AM
I've seen a lot more mindless anti-Austin sentiment than the opposite.

licc85
12-27-2012, 01:50 AM
I still don't get the knee-jerk pro-Austin dogma that seems to have a tight grip on this otherwise rational and objective message board. I've said it before (to much harassment and derision), and I'll keep saying it as long as the data supports it: Austin isn't very good. He wasn't good last year, and predictably he's even worse this year against better competitition.

First of all, comparing Austin to Seth is silly. They are completely different players. Seth is an efficient catch-and-shoot scorer (120.2 ORtg as of this writing) that operates best within a team concept. He has a very high effective field goal percentage, and a low turnover rate, like most great shooters. Seth is not a primary ball handler - one of our problems last year was that Seth was being utilized in a way that didn't match his skill set, especially early in the year when we tried to use him as a Scheyer-esque point guard. As I said back in April, Seth is finally being given the opportunity to play his natural position this year (featured scorer), and not surprisingly, he is performing at a very high level despite his injury.

Contrary to popular opinion, Austin's problem last year wasn't that he was a super-high usage player (i.e., ball hog) - it's that he was an inefficient player on the possessions that he did use. Austin was a highly inefficienty scorer in college (104.7 ORtg), and is even worse in the pros (historically bad so far this year, thus the ESPN article). No one should be surprised that Austin is struggling mightily in the NBA. He had one skill last year - getting fouled. Unfortunately, he's a poor free throw shooter for a guard, so that skill often went unrewarded (or at best, partially rewarded). In the NBA, he's going up against significantly better defenders, so his ability to get to the line at a high rate has been compromised, leaving him without any means of contributing offensively. And as an undersized two guard, he was never going to be a great defender at the next level. Put those two together, and you get things like ESPN's "worst season of all time" article. Frankly, if he wasn't playing on an otherwise awful team and if his last name wasn't Rivers, he would be buried on the bench right now.

Data aside, two things were abundantly clear last year just from watching. First, Austin is a poor shooter. His "elbow out" form needs significant improvement, so it's no surprise that he was a mid-30's 3-point shooter and a mid-60's free throw shooter. Second, he is not a good finisher around the rim - his foul rate was good as I mentioned, but on plays where he wasn't fouled, he made less than 50% of his two's. For someone with no mid-range game, for whom the overwhelming majority of 2-point field goal attempts were within a few feet of the basket, that is a very poor percentage against college-level defenses. Again, its no surprise that he is faring even worse against NBA-level defenders.

My two cents for those that are in the "pro-Austin no matter what" camp: get over his buzzer beater against UNC. It was a great shot, but that doesn't make him a good player. Just because he wore a Duke jersey for a year does not mean we all have to pretend that he was or is better than the data suggests.

The data suggests he's terrible as an NBA player thus far, but he really probably was our best player last year. You can't just look at numbers and nothing else. I've always taken a sort of half and half approach when it comes to stats vs. non-statistical analysis. Austin definitely passed the eye test last year. He was clearly our most dynamic player on offense, and was just about as unguardable as a player could be in college. He has a crazy quick first step, a picture perfect crossover move, unlimited confidence, and deep shooting range. You can say all you want about this bad shooting form, but his long range shooting is actually the one thing he's doing well in the pros (37%).

The main thing that brings him down is that his style of play does not make his teammates better at all. Mason Plumlee could have really been doing last year what he's doing this year. It's crazy how much better a big man can be when he's consistently getting the ball in the paint because of unselfish guard play. It's not like he just improved THAT dramatically in every aspect of the game. He was basically doing this for the first 8 games 2 years ago when Kyrie was running the show. Therefore, I like our team better this year sans Austin, but you still cant say he's a BAD player. Bad players don't get rated #1 coming out of high school. They don't get recruited by Duke, and they don't get drafted in the NBA draft lottery. Is he overrated? Most definitely. He's still an NBA player, and he should be one for the rest of his basketball career, but I see his long term role as more of a scorer off the bench due to his style of play and his bad defensive numbers. He can't possibly do worse than he is now. He's only 20, he's going to improve a lot. There's nowhere to go but up.

tommy
12-27-2012, 01:51 AM
I still don't get the knee-jerk pro-Austin dogma that seems to have a tight grip on this otherwise rational and objective message board. I've said it before (to much harassment and derision), and I'll keep saying it as long as the data supports it: Austin isn't very good. He wasn't good last year, and predictably he's even worse this year against better competition

Huh. Austin "isn't very good."

I appreciate data too, and use it often. But let's see. Austin Rivers was a consensus top 3 player nationally in high school, with many having him ranked number 1. He started from Day One on a team and in a program that operates at the very highest level of college basketball year-in and year-out, and was the leading scorer on the team that won 29 games, including 13 in the ACC, and was in the top 10 all year. Then he was selected first team all-ACC, as a freshman, the first frosh in six years to be so honored, in the process beating out Kendall Marshall and the league's leading scorer Terrell Stoglin, among other outstanding players.

Then he was a lottery pick in the NBA.

Seems to me that all the high school talent evaluators, the #1 or #2 greatest coach in the history of college basketball, and NBA scouts and GM's apparently think he's pretty good.

tommy
12-27-2012, 02:02 AM
Mason Plumlee could have really been doing last year what he's doing this year. It's crazy how much better a big man can be when he's consistently getting the ball in the paint because of unselfish guard play. It's not like he just improved THAT dramatically in every aspect of the game. He was basically doing this for the first 8 games 2 years ago when Kyrie was running the show.

Myth.

Mason had one huge game playing with Kyrie, scoring 25 in an early season matchup in Kansas City against Marquette. That's the game everyone always remembers. But in the three games that preceded that Marquette game that year, Mason scored 5, 10, and 9 points, and in Kyrie's 4 regular season games after Marquette, Mason scored 10, 7, 10, and 8 points.

Then in the tournament when Kyrie came back, Mason scored 12 against Hampton, 4 against Michigan, and 8 against Arizona.

Add em all up, and playing with Kyrie, Mason averaged 9.8 ppg . Take out the outlier, which was the Marquette game, and he averaged 8.3 ppg.

sporthenry
12-27-2012, 02:45 AM
Myth.

Mason had one huge game playing with Kyrie, scoring 25 in an early season matchup in Kansas City against Marquette. That's the game everyone always remembers. But in the three games that preceded that Marquette game that year, Mason scored 5, 10, and 9 points, and in Kyrie's 4 regular season games after Marquette, Mason scored 10, 7, 10, and 8 points.

Then in the tournament when Kyrie came back, Mason scored 12 against Hampton, 4 against Michigan, and 8 against Arizona.

Add em all up, and playing with Kyrie, Mason averaged 9.8 ppg . Take out the outlier, which was the Marquette game, and he averaged 8.3 ppg.
Well using the tournament numbers aren't fair b/c the whole team looked a bit out of sync. So I'd probably throw them out and Colgate he had 9 points against Colgate, it was in 13 minutes. Many of the early games weren't really games and I think many used the eye test and we've seen what Mason can do when out on the break which is what excited us.



Huh. Austin "isn't very good."

I appreciate data too, and use it often. But let's see. Austin Rivers was a consensus top 3 player nationally in high school, with many having him ranked number 1. He started from Day One on a team and in a program that operates at the very highest level of college basketball year-in and year-out, and was the leading scorer on the team that won 29 games, including 13 in the ACC, and was in the top 10 all year. Then he was selected first team all-ACC, as a freshman, the first frosh in six years to be so honored, in the process beating out Kendall Marshall and the league's leading scorer Terrell Stoglin, among other outstanding players.

Then he was a lottery pick in the NBA.

Seems to me that all the high school talent evaluators, the #1 or #2 greatest coach in the history of college basketball, and NBA scouts and GM's apparently think he's pretty good.

The HS scouts doesn't tell us much. Barnes was "better" than Irving. AR was highly touted but I did see some questions about the talent level that AR was playing against in HS as he wasn't on a traditional powerhouse and that he wasn't used to playing with other top players (a la Irving with MKG and Strickland). I don't think anyone is saying AR is bad, per se, but that he was overrated and calling someone out for being overrated sometimes seems as though someone is saying they are bad. Sure, K recruited him b/c he is/was a skilled player but that doesn't mean K saw him as the #1/#2 prospect. He could have been K's 20th prospect and still got an offer.



The main thing that brings him down is that his style of play does not make his teammates better at all. Mason Plumlee could have really been doing last year what he's doing this year. It's crazy how much better a big man can be when he's consistently getting the ball in the paint because of unselfish guard play. It's not like he just improved THAT dramatically in every aspect of the game. He was basically doing this for the first 8 games 2 years ago when Kyrie was running the show. Therefore, I like our team better this year sans Austin, but you still cant say he's a BAD player. Bad players don't get rated #1 coming out of high school. They don't get recruited by Duke, and they don't get drafted in the NBA draft lottery. Is he overrated? Most definitely. He's still an NBA player, and he should be one for the rest of his basketball career, but I see his long term role as more of a scorer off the bench due to his style of play and his bad defensive numbers. He can't possibly do worse than he is now. He's only 20, he's going to improve a lot. There's nowhere to go but up.

But as far as being Duke's best player and his terrible NBA numbers, as some mentioned, it is b/c there wasn't much else for Duke to use nor the Hornets to play. In the NBA, the Hornets are bad, really bad. Davis has missed substantial time and his offense is very limited. Vasquez is a nice player but doesn't seem to complement AR and either way, it isn't like the teams playing NO have to worry about anyone else so it makes sense to see him struggle. Add in the fact they have nobody else and want to see what they have in AR, it makes sense to play him even with some bad stats. Similar to Duke last year, Duke didn't really have much of a better option last year. Cook didn't seem to get it defensively or to be fully recovered from his leg and the offense was limited with TT. Either way, I agree that he'll be in the league, it'll just be whether he can become a scorer like Crawford or even Lou Williams type or a Willie Green/Randy Foye type which is the difference between an impact player or an average 6th/7th man but getting his assists up will be the biggest thing b/c his finishing around the rim, foul rate, and going to his left should all be things that go up with time.

NSDukeFan
12-27-2012, 10:33 AM
I still don't get the knee-jerk pro-Austin dogma that seems to have a tight grip on this otherwise rational and objective message board. I've said it before (to much harassment and derision), and I'll keep saying it as long as the data supports it: Austin isn't very good. He wasn't good last year, and predictably he's even worse this year against better competitition.
I am obviously biased because I believe that every player on Duke's roster (including walk-ons) is very good at basketball and get much enjoyment from watching them play and cheering for them. I think it is reasonable that I believe the players on a top ten team are good at basketball. I would say that is rational and objective, according to any statistical analysis and data that I am aware of. Austin was the best player on a top ten team that was 27-7 last year. I thought Tommy summarized things very well here:

Huh. Austin "isn't very good."

I appreciate data too, and use it often. But let's see. Austin Rivers was a consensus top 3 player nationally in high school, with many having him ranked number 1. He started from Day One on a team and in a program that operates at the very highest level of college basketball year-in and year-out, and was the leading scorer on the team that won 29 games, including 13 in the ACC, and was in the top 10 all year. Then he was selected first team all-ACC, as a freshman, the first frosh in six years to be so honored, in the process beating out Kendall Marshall and the league's leading scorer Terrell Stoglin, among other outstanding players.

Then he was a lottery pick in the NBA.

Seems to me that all the high school talent evaluators, the #1 or #2 greatest coach in the history of college basketball, and NBA scouts and GM's apparently think he's pretty good.


First of all, comparing Austin to Seth is silly. They are completely different players. Seth is an efficient catch-and-shoot scorer (120.2 ORtg as of this writing) that operates best within a team concept. He has a very high effective field goal percentage, and a low turnover rate, like most great shooters. Seth is not a primary ball handler - one of our problems last year was that Seth was being utilized in a way that didn't match his skill set, especially early in the year when we tried to use him as a Scheyer-esque point guard. As I said back in April, Seth is finally being given the opportunity to play his natural position this year (featured scorer), and not surprisingly, he is performing at a very high level despite his injury.
The team was 7-1 last year with Seth as the primary ball-handler, including an impressive tournament win at Maui, against a very solid field. I would argue that having Seth handle the ball was way down the list as far as reasons the team struggled last year (this is, of course, relative as the team had an excellent year last year until the last 4 games.)


Contrary to popular opinion, Austin's problem last year wasn't that he was a super-high usage player (i.e., ball hog) - it's that he was an inefficient player on the possessions that he did use. Austin was a highly inefficienty scorer in college (104.7 ORtg), and is even worse in the pros (historically bad so far this year, thus the ESPN article). No one should be surprised that Austin is struggling mightily in the NBA. He had one skill last year - getting fouled. Unfortunately, he's a poor free throw shooter for a guard, so that skill often went unrewarded (or at best, partially rewarded). In the NBA, he's going up against significantly better defenders, so his ability to get to the line at a high rate has been compromised, leaving him without any means of contributing offensively. And as an undersized two guard, he was never going to be a great defender at the next level. Put those two together, and you get things like ESPN's "worst season of all time" article. Frankly, if he wasn't playing on an otherwise awful team and if his last name wasn't Rivers, he would be buried on the bench right now.
I may not have had the popular opinion as I certainly did not consider Austin a ball hog last year. I don't think Austin was a highly inefficient scorer in college, but was not greatly above average. According to statsheet, he was 35th in the ACC last year, which puts him at about the average for starters in the ACC. I agree that he does not take advantage of his ability to draw fouls by scoring at a great rate from the line, though I might add that getting the other team and its players in foul trouble helps the team but does not show up in offensive rating. Austin has not had a brilliant start to his NBA career, though he is starting and averaging almost 8 ppg, which is better than all but about 150 basketball players in the world. I believe that, at 20 years of age, Austin has not peaked and that he will continue to improve, much like he did in his time at Duke. If his last name wasn't Rivers, he would not have articles titled "worst season of all time" about him; he would just be considered one of the top 15 rookies who is going through rookie struggles like many young players do.


Data aside, two things were abundantly clear last year just from watching. First, Austin is a poor shooter. His "elbow out" form needs significant improvement, so it's no surprise that he was a mid-30's 3-point shooter and a mid-60's free throw shooter. Second, he is not a good finisher around the rim - his foul rate was good as I mentioned, but on plays where he wasn't fouled, he made less than 50% of his two's. For someone with no mid-range game, for whom the overwhelming majority of 2-point field goal attempts were within a few feet of the basket, that is a very poor percentage against college-level defenses. Again, its no surprise that he is faring even worse against NBA-level defenders.

Reggie Miller and Larry Bird disagree. My old coach told me there are two important things when shooting and I believe he was correct. You have to be able to get your shot off and you have to be able to make it. Austin is exceptional at being able to get his shot off with a good look at the basket, he has not been exceptional at hitting his shots at an extremely efficient rate, though he is, and was at Duke, a good 3-point shooter. There are very few guards who score more than 50% of their two point shots, so I don't know that that is a fair criticism of Austin. Austin would be well-served to improve his mid-range game, but I did like some of his pull-ups he began taking last year and would disagree that he has no mid-range game. If we are going to be talking about efficiency, maybe Austin is very smart then, if he is focusing more on getting to the rim and 3-point shooting, the two most efficient shots.

My two cents for those that are in the "pro-Austin no matter what" camp: get over his buzzer beater against UNC. It was a great shot, but that doesn't make him a good player. Just because he wore a Duke jersey for a year does not mean we all have to pretend that he was or is better than the data suggests.
I'm sorry, but I am going to treasure the buzzer beater forever. It capped off a brilliant comeback, a fabulous performance and was an amazing ending to the game. I was and am very happy that as a freshman, he was able to come in and be the leading scorer and focus of an offense that was the most efficient in the country for most of the year. I also very much enjoyed watching the team's best player lead a team that, until Ryan Kelly got hurt, was one of the leading contenders to make a run in the ACC and NCAA tournaments. I enjoy watching all Duke players, appreciate when these kids improve and was very happy to see Austin represent Duke very well, listen to the coaching staff and become the first Duke freshman to be named first team all-ACC. I very much agree with throatybeard's point:

I've seen a lot more mindless anti-Austin sentiment than the opposite.



Myth.

Mason had one huge game playing with Kyrie, scoring 25 in an early season matchup in Kansas City against Marquette. That's the game everyone always remembers. But in the three games that preceded that Marquette game that year, Mason scored 5, 10, and 9 points, and in Kyrie's 4 regular season games after Marquette, Mason scored 10, 7, 10, and 8 points.

Then in the tournament when Kyrie came back, Mason scored 12 against Hampton, 4 against Michigan, and 8 against Arizona.

Add em all up, and playing with Kyrie, Mason averaged 9.8 ppg . Take out the outlier, which was the Marquette game, and he averaged 8.3 ppg.

I agree that this is an myth. Mason benefits from Cook pushing the ball and looking for him on the break and he is also the beneficiary of a system that is more focused on getting the ball inside to him more often. Unlike previous years, he is taking advantage of the opportunities and playing with more confidence. I think that the biggest factor in Mason's improvement has been Mason and his taking advantage of his opportunities.

azzefkram
12-27-2012, 11:13 AM
...but he really probably was our best player last year...

He was our most talented player but by just about every metric our worst starter. As for the eye test, well I could certainly see the talent but I saw a whole lot of other stuff that wasn't so pretty. I will always hope for the best for Austin since he played for Duke but to say he was our best player just isn't true.

azzefkram
12-27-2012, 11:34 AM
Myth.

Mason had one huge game playing with Kyrie, scoring 25 in an early season matchup in Kansas City against Marquette. That's the game everyone always remembers. But in the three games that preceded that Marquette game that year, Mason scored 5, 10, and 9 points, and in Kyrie's 4 regular season games after Marquette, Mason scored 10, 7, 10, and 8 points.

Then in the tournament when Kyrie came back, Mason scored 12 against Hampton, 4 against Michigan, and 8 against Arizona.

Add em all up, and playing with Kyrie, Mason averaged 9.8 ppg . Take out the outlier, which was the Marquette game, and he averaged 8.3 ppg.

Only partially myth. Mason's scoring in the 2010-11 season had more to do with the fact that he was at best the fourth option on that team. A facilitator makes scoring easier. Kyrie did that for a bit two years ago and Quinn is doing it this year. Additionally, most big men benefit more from a facilitator. Our best facilitator last year was Ryan (one of his more underrated skills IMO). Unfortunately, Ryan did not control the ball as much as others on the team. Also if you cherry pick stats every player is either all world or the suckiest player ever.

WillJ
12-27-2012, 11:41 AM
I have no problem with Austin, but the team is just moving the ball so much better with Quinn Cook being the primary ballhandler this year. Mason Plumlee should be taking Cook out to a nice dinner every week.

oldnavy
12-27-2012, 11:57 AM
When looking at stats I think people (myself included) tend to place more importance on numbers than the intangibles. There is no doubt in my mind that Austin Rivers was a very good player for us last year.

But, what some of you are calling the "eye test" clearly (to me) shows that this team is playing better and enjoying themselves more than last year. Is that all due to Austin leaving... doubtful.

Coach K likes to say when asked about "defending" a title, that the team is not defending anything. It is a new team and that the team that won said title is gone and will never have to defend anything.

This years team is a different animal than last years. Players have grown, players have left, and players have been added. For whatever reason, this team seems to be more cohesive.

I would be hesitant to attribute all of that to Austin's departure for the NBA, although it has to be "a" factor.

hq2
12-27-2012, 12:36 PM
When looking at stats I think people (myself included) tend to place more importance on numbers than the intangibles. There is no doubt in my mind that Austin Rivers was a very good player for us last year.

But, what some of you are calling the "eye test" clearly (to me) shows that this team is playing better and enjoying themselves more than last year. Is that all due to Austin leaving... doubtful.

Coach K likes to say when asked about "defending" a title, that the team is not defending anything. It is a new team and that the team that won said title is gone and will never have to defend anything.

This years team is a different animal than last years. Players have grown, players have left, and players have been added. For whatever reason, this team seems to be more cohesive.

I would be hesitant to attribute all of that to Austin's departure for the NBA, although it has to be "a" factor.

Well, maybe a better way to look at it is, what would have happened if he had stayed? He probably would have kept his starting
spot, pushing (two of) either Quinn, Seth or Rasheed to the bench. My bet is, with his improvement, good ball handling, and defense,
Quinn would have started, leaving Seth (especially) and possibly Rasheed not happy about P.T.

Or conversely, maybe one of the reasons Austin went pro was that he knew, in fact, that he was likely to lose substantial
amounts of P.T. to the other three. That meant his ability to showcase himself for a high draft pick might have diminished
had he stayed. In addition, the pros would have had more take on his overall ceiling, assuming he was closer to it, and not
taken him expecting as much improvement (see Mc Bobs for example). Consequently, it may well have been better for all parties for him
to leave early after all.

oldnavy
12-27-2012, 12:52 PM
Well, maybe a better way to look at it is, what would have happened if he had stayed? He probably would have kept his starting
spot, pushing (two of) either Quinn, Seth or Rasheed to the bench. My bet is, with his improvement, good ball handling, and defense,
Quinn would have started, leaving Seth (especially) and possibly Rasheed not happy about P.T.

Or conversely, maybe one of the reasons Austin went pro was that he knew, in fact, that he was likely to lose substantial
amounts of P.T. to the other three. That meant his ability to showcase himself for a high draft pick might have diminished
had he stayed. In addition, the pros would have had more take on his overall ceiling, assuming he was closer to it, and not
taken him expecting as much improvement (see Mc Bobs for example). Consequently, it may well have been better for all parties for him
to leave early after all.

I don't think him staying was ever part of the plan. But your point is well taken, I believe that his struggles in the NBA demonstrate that he would have been better off to stay another year or perhaps two at Duke, but that was never going to happen.

I don't think Duke is suffering due to his departure, so perhaps Austin would have benefitted, but maybe the team would not have if he had stayed. Of course we will never know for sure.

I wish him the best and hope that his learning curve in the NBA is short-lived and that he becomes an All-Star within the next 5 years.

bedeviled
12-27-2012, 01:09 PM
I whole-heartedly agree with comments about Quinn moving the ball better. It’s much prettier to watch and, as already stated, makes his teammates look better. It’s interesting to me, though, to consider if the ‘proof is in the pudding.’ If the teams’ output is similar, perhaps the style last year didn’t need the same type of embellishments. I’ve been forced to totally rethink what “efficient” basketball really is (commonly measured as more plays per unit). Perhaps, in some situations, more activity is just a fun diffusing of energy that makes it more enjoyable to watch. Sometimes, the extra pass is not necessary. The worst part for me is that I am now considering that I could actually learn to appreciate the NBA <gasp!> which I gave up on years ago.

nmduke2001
12-27-2012, 01:22 PM
at least Austin knows the difference between a pelican and stork.

http://screen.yahoo.com/sports-friends-austin-rivers-anthony-000000332.html

Silly, but pretty funny.

NSDukeFan
12-27-2012, 01:29 PM
I whole-heartedly agree with comments about Quinn moving the ball better. It’s much prettier to watch and, as already stated, makes his teammates look better. It’s interesting to me, though, to consider if the ‘proof is in the pudding.’ If the teams’ output is similar, perhaps the style last year didn’t need the same type of embellishments. I’ve been forced to totally rethink what “efficient” basketball really is (commonly measured as more plays per unit). Perhaps, in some situations, more activity is just a fun diffusing of energy that makes it more enjoyable to watch. Sometimes, the extra pass is not necessary. The worst part for me is that I am now considering that I could actually learn to appreciate the NBA <gasp!> which I gave up on years ago.

NBA basketball is so much better now than it was in the 90s, IMO, due to more teams with good passing attacks and the change in hand checking allowing greater offense by penetrating players.

CDu
12-27-2012, 02:02 PM
The data suggests he's terrible as an NBA player thus far, but he really probably was our best player last year. You can't just look at numbers and nothing else. I've always taken a sort of half and half approach when it comes to stats vs. non-statistical analysis. Austin definitely passed the eye test last year. He was clearly our most dynamic player on offense, and was just about as unguardable as a player could be in college. He has a crazy quick first step, a picture perfect crossover move, unlimited confidence, and deep shooting range. You can say all you want about this bad shooting form, but his long range shooting is actually the one thing he's doing well in the pros (37%).

He shot 43% from the field and was just slightly above average in efficiency. I'd hardly call that "just about as unguardable as a player could be in college."


The main thing that brings him down is that his style of play does not make his teammates better at all.

I'd say that his style of play actually stagnated the offense quite a bit. There was no fluidity to his game, and no court awareness. Whenever he didn't have the ball, he would usually just stand on the wing waiting to be handed the ball. Whenever he got the ball, he looked to set up an isolation game. You couldn't run a team play involving him, because he was always looking to attacking his man or shoot (i.e., not seeing what others were doing). So any team offense had to be run only using the other 4 players. That does limit what an offense can do. Thankfully, we had so many great shooters (including his 36.5% 3pt%) that it just didn't matter for most of the season.


Therefore, I like our team better this year sans Austin, but you still cant say he's a BAD player. Bad players don't get rated #1 coming out of high school. They don't get recruited by Duke, and they don't get drafted in the NBA draft lottery. Is he overrated? Most definitely. He's still an NBA player, and he should be one for the rest of his basketball career, but I see his long term role as more of a scorer off the bench due to his style of play and his bad defensive numbers. He can't possibly do worse than he is now. He's only 20, he's going to improve a lot. There's nowhere to go but up.

This part I completely agree with. Rivers is a very talented player. He was definitely overrated coming out of high school, and he was probably overrated at Duke. He wasn't among the absolute best freshmen ever at Duke, but he was pretty good for a freshman. He wasn't a cancer, and he wasn't the reason we didn't win. The team is better this year for a number of reasons, including:

1. Mason has gotten MUCH better. That's not simply a result of better PG play - he's really a much more polished, confident, player around the basket.
2. Cook has gotten MUCH better. His emergence has given the team a new dynamic offensively.
3. Sulaimon is a better defender than Rivers.
4. Kelly has become a much better defender than he was last year. And oh by the way, had he been healthy late last season, I think we win the ACC tournament and don't flame out against Lehigh.

oldnavy
12-27-2012, 02:47 PM
He shot 43% from the field and was just slightly above average in efficiency. I'd hardly call that "just about as unguardable as a player could be in college."



I'd say that his style of play actually stagnated the offense quite a bit. There was no fluidity to his game, and no court awareness. Whenever he didn't have the ball, he would usually just stand on the wing waiting to be handed the ball. Whenever he got the ball, he looked to set up an isolation game. You couldn't run a team play involving him, because he was always looking to attacking his man or shoot (i.e., not seeing what others were doing). So any team offense had to be run only using the other 4 players. That does limit what an offense can do. Thankfully, we had so many great shooters (including his 36.5% 3pt%) that it just didn't matter for most of the season.



This part I completely agree with. Rivers is a very talented player. He was definitely overrated coming out of high school, and he was probably overrated at Duke. He wasn't among the absolute best freshmen ever at Duke, but he was pretty good for a freshman. He wasn't a cancer, and he wasn't the reason we didn't win. The team is better this year for a number of reasons, including:

1. Mason has gotten MUCH better. That's not simply a result of better PG play - he's really a much more polished, confident, player around the basket.
2. Cook has gotten MUCH better. His emergence has given the team a new dynamic offensively.
3. Sulaimon is a better defender than Rivers.
4. Kelly has become a much better defender than he was last year. And oh by the way, had he been healthy late last season, I think we win the ACC tournament and don't flame out against Lehigh.

Agree 100%, I think people forget how much Ryan meant (means) to our team. We had little margin of error last year, and losing Ryan was devastating.

NSDukeFan
12-27-2012, 03:21 PM
A couple of people have not been impressed with my statement that Austin had one of the 5 best freshmen seasons of all-time at Duke, which I thought was a no-brainer when I made it since he is the only Duke freshman to be first team all-ACC. I decided to take a peak at past Duke freshmen season to make a comparison and think that Austin can still be grouped in with the best freshman seasons ever at Duke, I confess that there have been many great freshmen seasons and it isn't the slam dunk that I believed. I was doing a chart of freshmen seasons and left from Spanarkel to Brand and Battier at home, so will just share this for now.



Player record mpg ppg other stats all-ACC teammates recognition
Corey Maggette 37-2 17.7 10.6 52.5% fg Brand, Langdon (1st) Battier, Carrawell (3rd)
Jason Williams 29-5 34 14.5 6.5 apg 2.4 spg Carrawell, Battier (1st) 3rd team all-ACC
Carlos Boozer 29-5 23.7 13 6.3 rpg 61% fg Carrawell, Battier (1st)
Chris Duhon 35-4 27.8 7.2 4.5 apg 2.0 spg Battier, J. Williams (1st), N. James (3rd) ROY
J.J. Redick 26-7 30.7 15 41.3% 3fg D. Jones (1st), Duhon (3rd) 3rd team all-ACC
Shelden Williams26-7 19.2 8.2 5.9 rpg, 1.6bpg D. Jones (1st), Redick, Duhon (3rd)
Luol Deng 31-6 31.1 15.1 6.9 rpg Duhon (1st), Redick, S. Williams (2nd) 3rd team all-ACC
Josh McRoberts 32-4 24.5 8.7 5.3 rpg 61%fg Redick, S.Williams (1st)
Jon Scheyer 22-11 33.7 12.2 84.6 ft% McRoberts (2nd)
Kyle Singler 28-6 28.6 13.3 5.8 rpg D. Nelson (1st), G. Paulus (3rd) ROY, 3rd team all-ACC
Kyrie Irving 32-5 27.5 17.5 4.3 apg N. Smith, Singler (1st)
Austin Rivers 27-7 33.2 15.5 3.4 rpg S. Curry, Mas. Plumlee (3rd) ROY, 1st team all-ACC


One reason (besides the only Duke freshman to be 1st team all-ACC) that I think Austin deserves a lot of credit compared to other Duke freshmen seasons is that he was the best player on a very good team. There are few freshmen who have been the best players on their teams and led their teams to such a lofty record. I realize this is not a statistically significant view as different teammates can have different effects on the success of the team and Austin certainly had other very good players on last year's squad, but so have many other freshmen in the past.

hq2
12-27-2012, 03:47 PM
Missing Gene Banks; think he was actually the best freshman, overall.

azzefkram
12-27-2012, 04:07 PM
A couple of people have not been impressed with my statement that Austin had one of the 5 best freshmen seasons of all-time at Duke, which I thought was a no-brainer when I made it since he is the only Duke freshman to be first team all-ACC. I decided to take a peak at past Duke freshmen season to make a comparison and think that Austin can still be grouped in with the best freshman seasons ever at Duke, I confess that there have been many great freshmen seasons and it isn't the slam dunk that I believed. I was doing a chart of freshmen seasons and left from Spanarkel to Brand and Battier at home, so will just share this for now.



Player record mpg ppg other stats all-ACC teammates recognition
Corey Maggette 37-2 17.7 10.6 52.5% fg Brand, Langdon (1st) Battier, Carrawell (3rd)
Jason Williams 29-5 34 14.5 6.5 apg 2.4 spg Carrawell, Battier (1st) 3rd team all-ACC
Carlos Boozer 29-5 23.7 13 6.3 rpg 61% fg Carrawell, Battier (1st)
Chris Duhon 35-4 27.8 7.2 4.5 apg 2.0 spg Battier, J. Williams (1st), N. James (3rd) ROY
J.J. Redick 26-7 30.7 15 41.3% 3fg D. Jones (1st), Duhon (3rd) 3rd team all-ACC
Shelden Williams26-7 19.2 8.2 5.9 rpg, 1.6bpg D. Jones (1st), Redick, Duhon (3rd)
Luol Deng 31-6 31.1 15.1 6.9 rpg Duhon (1st), Redick, S. Williams (2nd) 3rd team all-ACC
Josh McRoberts 32-4 24.5 8.7 5.3 rpg 61%fg Redick, S.Williams (1st)
Jon Scheyer 22-11 33.7 12.2 84.6 ft% McRoberts (2nd)
Kyle Singler 28-6 28.6 13.3 5.8 rpg D. Nelson (1st), G. Paulus (3rd) ROY, 3rd team all-ACC
Kyrie Irving 32-5 27.5 17.5 4.3 apg N. Smith, Singler (1st)
Austin Rivers 27-7 33.2 15.5 3.4 rpg S. Curry, Mas. Plumlee (3rd) ROY, 1st team all-ACC


One reason (besides the only Duke freshman to be 1st team all-ACC) that I think Austin deserves a lot of credit compared to other Duke freshmen seasons is that he was the best player on a very good team. There are few freshmen who have been the best players on their teams and led their teams to such a lofty record. I realize this is not a statistically significant view as different teammates can have different effects on the success of the team and Austin certainly had other very good players on last year's squad, but so have many other freshmen in the past.


I appreciate the effort required to put together the above chart but it doesn't show a whole lot. Whether or not someone is 1st team all ACC is as much a function of the league as the individual player. That doesn't even taken into account the "beauty pageant" aspect of all-anything. There is enough statistical evidence to show that Austin wasn't the best player on his team. Kyle Singler as a freshman had a higher TS%, eFG% and WS than Austin did. There is a whole lot of good with Austin but if he's top 5 it's just barely so.

NSDukeFan
12-27-2012, 04:30 PM
I appreciate the effort required to put together the above chart but it doesn't show a whole lot. Whether or not someone is 1st team all ACC is as much a function of the league as the individual player. That doesn't even taken into account the "beauty pageant" aspect of all-anything. There is enough statistical evidence to show that Austin wasn't the best player on his team. Kyle Singler as a freshman had a higher TS%, eFG% and WS than Austin did. There is a whole lot of good with Austin but if he's top 5 it's just barely so.

Whether someone is 1st team or not is a function of the league, but does give some indication of how good a season a player had relative to the rest of the conference. I was hoping to give some perspective to the players' freshmen seasons, based on how good their teammates were, compared to the rest of the conference and what kind of record the team was able to achieve. Unfortunately, this was not helpful to you, but I hope it gives some perspective to others, and will add to it later.
There may be enough statistical evidence to show that Austin wasn't the best player on his team, but there may also be enough to show that he was, depending on which stats you prefer. I am curious as to where you get WS (I assume that is Win Shares), as I have not been able to find it on Statsheet. Thanks. I have only been able to look at Statsheet for data, but it indicates that Austin had a higher TrueShooting % (53.8-53.6 than Kyle's freshman year and a similarly close eFG% (50.4-49.4 for Austin). I assume there must be some differences in the ways that these numbers are calculated? I agree completely with your last sentence.

azzefkram
12-27-2012, 04:57 PM
Whether someone is 1st team or not is a function of the league, but does give some indication of how good a season a player had relative to the rest of the conference. I was hoping to give some perspective to the players' freshmen seasons, based on how good their teammates were, compared to the rest of the conference and what kind of record the team was able to achieve. Unfortunately, this was not helpful to you, but I hope it gives some perspective to others, and will add to it later.
There may be enough statistical evidence to show that Austin wasn't the best player on his team, but there may also be enough to show that he was, depending on which stats you prefer. I am curious as to where you get WS (I assume that is Win Shares), as I have not been able to find it on Statsheet. Thanks. I have only been able to look at Statsheet for data, but it indicates that Austin had a higher TrueShooting % (53.8-53.6 than Kyle's freshman year and a similarly close eFG% (50.4-49.4 for Austin). I assume there must be some differences in the ways that these numbers are calculated? I agree completely with your last sentence.

I use Basketball Reference. Like all sites, it has its good parts and bad parts. The advanced stats don't go back too far unfortunately.

oldnavy
12-27-2012, 04:58 PM
As much as I loved Austin's shot at the DD last year, I loved Robbie West's shot in Cameron x10.

Maybe because I was there for it and at the time wins against UNC were very rare indeed.

vick
12-27-2012, 05:33 PM
I use Basketball Reference. Like all sites, it has its good parts and bad parts. The advanced stats don't go back too far unfortunately.

But luckily, they detail the methodology here (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/about/ws.html), like most such measures with which I am familiar, it's based on Dean Oliver's efficiency metrics. Although sports-reference.com only has figures from 1999 on, using this methodology (which like all statistics has its pluses and minuses) and taking the season statistics from goduke.statsgeek.com, the top freshman seasons in the Coach K era are:

Shane Battier - 98 6.2
Luol Deng - 04 5.4
Christian Laettner - 89 5.2
Carlos Boozer - 00 5.2
Kyle Singler - 08 4.5
Corey Maggette - 99 4.5
Elton Brand - 98 4.4
Josh McRoberts - 06 4.2
J.J. Redick - 03 4.1
Jason Williams - 00 3.9
Jon Scheyer - 07 3.7
Grant Hill - 91 3.7
Shelden Williams - 03 3.6
Chris Duhon - 01 3.4
Austin Rivers - 12 3.2

So, at least by this metric, which has its flaws but isn't bad (that it tends to concentrate defensive 'wins' to forwards and centers--hence Shane's superlative freshman season--may be the most controversial part), Austin didn't really have even close to the best freshman season at Duke.

(Extremely technical note: my figures differ slightly from sports-reference.com, although they are 99.992% correlated. I believe this is because we have slightly different figures for NCAA averages, and also possibly because of different accounting for 'team' rebounds. Also, I really wish I could do this for pre-K teams, but 1981 is the first season with steal and block data available from goduke.com for individual players.)

77devil
12-27-2012, 06:13 PM
Missing Gene Banks; think he was actually the best freshman, overall.


As much as I loved Austin's shot at the DD last year, I loved Robbie West's shot in Cameron x10.

Maybe because I was there for it and at the time wins against UNC were very rare indeed.

Agree with both of these. Robbie West's shot was more improbable. Too many on this board think Duke basketball success began in the 80's.

Furniture
12-27-2012, 07:44 PM
Cook is much better and he didn't play much last year. Tyler started a LOT last year and clearly with Cook being much better and playing now the team is a much improved. Mason is much better. MUCH better! Is curry playing better now without Austin? Maybe. Then we have Rasheed. Perhaps the overall sum of his D and O makes him equal to Austin?

I think we were just not as good as we thought we were last year end of story.

Let's forget this silly argument and concentrate on looking forward!

licc85
12-27-2012, 08:50 PM
He shot 43% from the field and was just slightly above average in efficiency. I'd hardly call that "just about as unguardable as a player could be in college."

I disagree, being unguardable is completely different than shooting well. Rivers' main issue in the NBA as well as in college was never not getting to the rim, it was finishing after he got there. When I said he was unguardable, I was referring to the ease with which he could beat his defender. He's actually incredibly good when he's playing a guy 1 on 1 out on the perimeter because of his lightning quick first step and good to great handles. The problem is when he gets in the paint, he's one of the worst finishers at the rim in the NBA. He must get better at finishing through contact and finishing when help defense comes.


I'd say that his style of play actually stagnated the offense quite a bit. There was no fluidity to his game, and no court awareness. Whenever he didn't have the ball, he would usually just stand on the wing waiting to be handed the ball. Whenever he got the ball, he looked to set up an isolation game. You couldn't run a team play involving him, because he was always looking to attacking his man or shoot (i.e., not seeing what others were doing). So any team offense had to be run only using the other 4 players. That does limit what an offense can do. Thankfully, we had so many great shooters (including his 36.5% 3pt%) that it just didn't matter for most of the season.


Isn't this exactly what "not making his teammates better" means? Because of his sub-par off the ball movement and tunnel vision when he had the ball, he was rarely able to set up his teammates or free up teammates through good movement. You did a good job elaborating my point, but I think we agree in principle, although I didn't go quite as far as saying "he stagnated the offense." He did, maybe a little, and it wasn't as fun to watch, but we still scored 77 points a game. That's not bad at all really. We're only scoring 80 a game this year, albeit much more efficiently.