PDA

View Full Version : Duke and the "live by the 3" cliche/myth



FerryFor50
03-15-2013, 10:38 PM
When Duke loses games this year, I often hear people say "well if Duke doesn't hit their 3s, you can beat them," and "Duke lives by the 3."

I think that's a common misconception. I'm not real sure where it started either, because Duke doesn't really shoot a ton of threes.

This year, Duke shot 1772 FG attempts so far. Of those, 586 were 3pt attempts. That's 33% of all attempts.

Last year, Duke shot 1915 FG attempts. 739 were 3pt attempts. That's 38.6%.

The 2010 championship team took 2206 shots. 35% of those were threes.

So compared to the previous two years, Duke shoots much fewer threes.

Compared to the top of the ACC, Duke's 3pt attempts are in line with the others. Below is a list of the % of shots taken from three....

Miami 34.5%
Maryland 30%
UNC 30%
NCSU 23.3%
UVA 26.6%

The nation's top teams also compare similarly.

Indiana 32%
Kansas 29.6%
Gonzaga 31%
Louisville 30.4%
Georgetown 32.5%
Syracuse 30.6%
Michigan 34.1%
Michigan St 27%
Florida 40.5%

When you look at number of shots, Duke compares to Indiana (33% on 1772 shots vs 32% on 1719 shots). Georgetown has taken about 260 fewer total FGA, so their % of 3PA actually is more impactful, as they play at a slower overall pace.

However, while Duke takes 33% of their shots from 3pt range, they hit around 41.6% of those shots. IU hits around 41.8%. Georgetown hits around 38%. It might just be why these teams are pretty good. And if any of those teams are missing 3s, they're likely also missing other shots, which eventually leads to games they may lose. That's how it works.

I know it's a real rough way to look at it, but I don't think it's accurate at all to say Duke is a 3 pt shooting team this year. If that's the case, then nearly every team in the country is a 3pt shooting team since many of them hover in the 30-35% of all attempt range. Florida, a top 15 team, took 40.5% from 3.

But if you want a REAL glimpse at a "live by the 3" team, check out Iowa St.

They have attempted 845 3pt shots out of 1936 total shots. That's 43.6% of their shots.

However, Iowa St goes to the FT line about as often as Duke. So either Duke shoots a lot of jumpers or they just never get fouled. :)

hurleyfor3
03-15-2013, 10:46 PM
Interesting work.

This thread is NOT a substitute postgame thread. If you want to discuss 3-point shooting in general, go for it.

FerryFor50
03-15-2013, 10:49 PM
Interesting work.

This thread is NOT a substitute postgame thread. If you want to discuss 3-point shooting in general, go for it.

Thanks... didn't want it to de-rail. :)

cruxer
03-15-2013, 10:52 PM
These numbers bear out what I've seen with my eyes this year. Given that we have Mason in the post, we're just as likely to give him an opportunity down low. I don't mind the perception though. Teams seem to close so hard on our 3pt shooters that they have ample opportunity to jab step, pump fake, or drive by their defender--which immediately puts the defense at a disadvantage. Of course if you can't buy a 3, it's tough to win a close game or narrow a big deficit. That's true regardless of how much you depend on the 3 in general.

-c

vick
03-15-2013, 10:53 PM
Before tonight's game, we ranked 170th in the country in terms of three-point attempts to field goal attempts. So, broadly speaking, I think you're right, this is not a particularly three-dependent team.

I think it's an interesting question why the perception that Duke shoots a ton of threes every year continues to exist despite the evidence that it's not really true. I would argue that at least one reason is the incredibly low percentage of our opponents' field goal attempts that are threes--honestly, I think it's probably the most consistent aspect of our defense. Since 2003, here are the percentages of opponent FGAs that are threes, along with the national rank:

03 - 25.0 (6)
04 - 25.2 (4)
05 - 20.8 (1)
06 - 21.3 (1)
07 - 24.3 (2)
08 - 25.0 (2)
09 - 25.9 (5)
10 - 25.4 (11)
11 - 24.5 (5)
12 - 24.1 (3)
13 - 26.4 (21)

Keep in mind, there have been something like 340 teams in the country over this span, so to be so consistently very close to the top in this metric is really incredible. I think when you watch Duke games, it's easy to be fooled into thinking it's Duke shooting a lot of threes, when in fact it's far more the case that it's our opponents who aren't shooting threes.

FerryFor50
03-15-2013, 10:55 PM
Before tonight's game, we ranked 170th in the country in terms of three-point attempts to field goal attempts. So, broadly speaking, I think you're right, this is not a particularly three-dependent team.

I think it's an interesting question why the perception that Duke shoots a ton of threes every year continues to exist despite the evidence that it's not really true. I would argue that at least one reason is the incredibly low percentage of our opponents' field goal attempts that are threes--honestly, I think it's probably the most consistent aspect of our defense. Since 2003, here are the percentages of opponent FGAs that are threes, along with the national rank:

03 - 25.0 (6)
04 - 25.2 (4)
05 - 20.8 (1)
06 - 21.3 (1)
07 - 24.3 (2)
08 - 25.0 (2)
09 - 25.9 (5)
10 - 25.4 (11)
11 - 24.5 (5)
12 - 24.1 (3)
13 - 26.4 (21)

Keep in mind, there have been something like 340 teams in the country over this span, so to be so consistently very close to the top in this metric is really incredible. I think when you watch Duke games, it's easy to be fooled into thinking it's Duke shooting a lot of threes, when in fact it's far more the case that it's our opponents who aren't shooting threes.

It's the design of the defense.... sometimes to my chagrin. I hate watching players drive at will when we close out on shooters so much.

vick
03-15-2013, 11:01 PM
It's the design of the defense.... sometimes to my chagrin. I hate watching players drive at will when we close out on shooters so much.

Oh I agree--for better or for worse, it's clearly what K wants to do. My point was that one partial answer to the implied question of where the idea that Duke is always a heavily three-dependent team comes from is that we generally shoot far more than our opponents--but this is driven primarily from our defensive choices.

OZ
03-15-2013, 11:11 PM
What I have learned about stats is that they are good for discussions.
However, being a rather simple minded individual, in the coliseum tonight, it felt like we died by the three and not-so-smart defense.
Maryland was 8-20 from the three (40%) - they won. We were 4-25 (16%) - we lost. Tonight, almost 40% of our shots came from the three. We hit 40% from the three - we win.

ns7
03-15-2013, 11:17 PM
Since 2003, here are the percentages of opponent FGAs that are threes, along with the national rank:

03 - 25.0 (6)
04 - 25.2 (4)
05 - 20.8 (1)
06 - 21.3 (1)
07 - 24.3 (2)
08 - 25.0 (2)
09 - 25.9 (5)
10 - 25.4 (11)
11 - 24.5 (5)
12 - 24.1 (3)
13 - 26.4 (21)


Thanks for these numbers. This is actually part of K's brilliance. 3PT shots are inherently less consistent than 2PT shots. So when you're a better team, you don't want your opponent shooting 3's. Otherwise they can get hot from long range and win in an upset.

The opposite is true on offense. Ideally you would want all your shots to be short jump shots or layups. These are more consistent and it's harder to have a really bad shooting night if you solely shoot 2's. UNC has traditionally done this well, so when they have a great team they are less prone to upsets via bad shooting nights. (Though they're not as good at denying the 3).

One interesting thing about Duke's defense that has been written many times is that it takes away the two efficient shots in basketball: the layup (via charges down low) and the 3 (via aggressively guarding and closing in on 3PT shots).

brevity
03-15-2013, 11:23 PM
I didn't see tonight's game (2013 ACC Tournament loss to Maryland, in case you're reading this in this distant future*). I read the since-closed postgame thread and noticed a renewed despair that Duke lives and dies by the 3. Thanks to Ferryfor50's post -- which should become a DBR Sticky, get added to Throatybeard's Commandments, or both -- I wonder if the sentiment is simply being misstated. Maybe Duke doesn't live or die by the 3. Instead, maybe Duke does live or die by single chance possessions, a high percentage of which are missed 3-point shots with no offensive rebounds. (Do stats at least support that phrasing?)

I'm no coach, but over the years I've trained my eyes to watch the other 4 players when a shooter fires from beyond the perimeter. Generally, their body language tells me that they either believe that the shot is going in, or have made peace with themselves that the possession had to end this way. What I don't see is a healthy distrust of the shooter. Maybe this is counterproductive to the idea of teamwork, and at that moment those 4 players are simply proud to let the shooter represent them. Maybe the forward movement required in offensive rebounding has to be sacrificed to retain valuable seconds of defensive positioning at the other end. I don't know.

I've come to terms that Duke's all-or-nothing approach, or whatever you want to call it, isn't going away, and I consider it part and parcel of being a Duke fan. But I am curious to hear what others think about the complaint that never seems to go away.

* To readers from the future: Yes, there was once a University of Maryland in the town of College Park. Up until 2014, they were members of the Atlantic Coast Conference. Then they moved to the Big Ten, and it all went to hell. Forced to compete with the research giants of the Midwest, and quickly running out of viable options, they placed all their eggs into one basket: building meth labs, sponsored by Under Armour. In 2018, the men's basketball team lost in conference to previously winless Eastern Washington, and a postgame riot created a giant fireball, destroying everything in sight. The Big Ten replaced Maryland by unanimous vote with Cuba's top university, the Universidad de La Habana, so that they could keep their eight-division format.

ns7
03-15-2013, 11:27 PM
Instead, maybe Duke does live or die by single chance possessions, a high percentage of which are missed 3-point shots with no offensive rebounds. (Do stats at least support that phrasing?)
[/SIZE]

Miles Plumlee and Zoubek were great on the offensive glass. The 2010 title team was one of the best o-rebounding teams in the nation. Other than that team, Duke has been okay to bad on the offensive glass over the last ten years.

I imagine the Brand, Boozer, Battier years were better, but I don't have any numbers to prove it.

jipops
03-15-2013, 11:32 PM
We die by poor defense, not missed 3's. It's just that when the 3's don't go down we die miserably.

FerryFor50
03-15-2013, 11:33 PM
What I have learned about stats is that they are good for discussions.
However, being a rather simple minded individual, in the coliseum tonight, it felt like we died by the three and not-so-smart defense.
Maryland was 8-20 from the three (40%) - they won. We were 4-25 (16%) - we lost. Tonight, almost 40% of our shots came from the three. We hit 40% from the three - we win.

Tonight 38% of Duke's shots were from 3. 39% of Maryland's shots were from 3. And they led the entire game.

Duke threw up about 5-7 forced 3pt shots in the final 2 min to try to come back, so they shot an even fewer % of 3s than the final would indicate (similarly to how a losing team has to foul and force a team to shoot FTs at the end of a game can skew the FTA numbers).

If *any* team in the country knocks down 40% of their 3s, they likely win.

In Duke's losses, this is their 3pt %:

ACCT Maryland 16% (38% were 3pt attempts)
UVA 32% (47% were 3pt attempts)
Maryland 31.6% (30% were 3pt attempts)
Miami 17% (31% were 3 pt attempts)
NCSU 30% (29.8% were 3pt attempts)

So in the losses, only 2 games Duke shot abysmally from 3. In only one game did they "live/die by the 3" (UVA at 47%).

The real reason Duke loses games is FG% allowed vs FG % for and an opposing player (or several, like against Miami) goes off on us.

In the losses:

ACCT Duke 41.5% Maryland 51% Wells scores 30
UVA 46% Duke 39.6% Harris scores 36
Maryland 60% (!!!!) Duke 47.6% Len scores 19 and shuts down Plumlee
Miami 56.9% Duke 29.7% (!!!!) Everyone on Miami not named Reggie Johnson destroys us
NCSU 50.8% Duke 44.8% Leslie wakes up and scores 25

There have been games that Duke has won where they shot poorly, but their opponent also shot poorly. It all comes down to defense, just like it has with every Duke team with championship aspirations...

FerryFor50
03-15-2013, 11:40 PM
Miles Plumlee and Zoubek were great on the offensive glass. The 2010 title team was one of the best o-rebounding teams in the nation. Other than that team, Duke has been okay to bad on the offensive glass over the last ten years.

I imagine the Brand, Boozer, Battier years were better, but I don't have any numbers to prove it.

This year's team would be even more dominant with a Zoubek... a guy who cleans up the glass, plays as big as he is and plays within himself and doesn't need shots to be effective.

SCMatt33
03-15-2013, 11:59 PM
To some extent, I think that the reputation comes from selection bias and the chucking factor.

As has already been pointed out, Duke shot no better than 32% in any of its losses. So while only 2 losses had terrible 3 point shooting, being sub par on 3's is common to the losses. The selection bias comes in because Duke has had bad 3 point shooting nights in wins as well. For example, against VCU, Duke only shot 26.6% from 3 and against Louisville, Duke shot only 25% from 3. People tend to overlook those kinds of stats because Duke won the games. That's where the selection bias comes in.

The chucking factor happens because in losses, teams will take more 3's in an effort to come back. Tonight for example, 6 of Duke's last 8 shots were from 3. Duke made 2 of them. In fact, before the end of the game, Duke was shooting 3's at a rate right around their season average (19/57 for 33%). I didn't look at the play by play for every loss, but Duke's overall 3 point rate in losses is 34.7%. In the second half of losses, that number jumps way up to 43.7%. In the VCU and L'ville wins, Duke's 3 point rate was 33.9%, not far off from the losses. In the second half of those games, Duke only shot 31% of their shots from 3. They were in the lead an thus no need to chuck.

In some ways, the 3 point myth becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. In wins, teams will be more selective from 3 and often shoot better (and when they don't it gets ignored because of the W). In losses, teams are forced to take tougher 3's to try and come back, which pumps up the 3 point rate, and holds down the 3 point percentage.

Bob Green
03-16-2013, 08:07 AM
When Duke loses games this year, I often hear people say "well if Duke doesn't hit their 3s, you can beat them," and "Duke lives by the 3."

I think that's a common misconception. I'm not real sure where it started either, because Duke doesn't really shoot a ton of threes.

My take on how to analyze the "Live by the 3, Die by the 3" label is not to look at how many 3 PT FGs we attempt as a percentage of total FGs attempted or to compare how many we take compared to how many other teams take, but to look at how many we make when we lose compared to how many we make when we win.

I compare bad Duke (losses) to good Duke (wins):

In five losses this season, the numbers are 28-112 (25%) on 3 PT FGs.

1/12/13: [State 84 - Duke 76] 6-20 (30%) on 3 PT FGs
1/23/13: [Miami 90 - Duke 63] 4-23 (17.4%) on 3 PT FGs
2/16/13: [Maryland 83 - Duke 81] 6-19 (31.6%) on 3 PT FGs
2/28/13: [Virginia 73 - Duke 68] 8-25 (32%) on 3 PT FGs
3/15/13: [Maryland 83 - Duke 74] 4-25 (16%) on 3 PT FGs

In our 25 wins (I am way too lazy to list the numbers for 25 games), the numbers are 203-461 (44%). So in our five losses, our 3 PT FG% is 19 percentage points lower than it is in our 25 wins. That's significant.

Perhaps the numbers are skewed by jacking up multiple 3s late in the game during comeback attempts but I don't know that to be true. To prove a skew exists, the rate 3 PT FGs are attempted over the last five minutes or six minutes (arbitrary number) of the game would need to be compared to the rate over the first 35 or 34 minutes. I am not going to do that for two important reasons: 1) I am lazy; 2) Multiple posters with a strong math background and Duke statistics classes under their belt would pipe in an explain why my calculations are inaccurate/false due to principles I don't understand.

For me, the "Live by the 3, Die by the 3" label isn't important because we live a lot more than we die. It is what it is.

Kedsy
03-16-2013, 08:42 AM
...but to look at how many we make when we lose compared to how many we make when we win.

But isn't this sort of thing true for every team? At least with regard to shooting, not necessarily three-point shooting. Teams that shoot well tend to win and teams that shoot poorly tend to lose. If we took fewer threes, maybe the correlation would be for overall shooting percentages (or two-point shooting percentages), but so what? Then we'd "live and die by the two."


(I'm not at all picking on you, Bob; I'm just saying the whole "live and die" meme is flawed.)

Bob Green
03-16-2013, 08:51 AM
But isn't this sort of thing true for every team? At least with regard to shooting, not necessarily three-point shooting. Teams that shoot well tend to win and teams that shoot poorly tend to lose.

Absolutely.


(I'm not at all picking on you, Bob; I'm just saying the whole "live and die" meme is flawed.)

No problem. I'm not feeling picked on. I'm too depressed to feel picked on. However, as an East Coaster I can confirm the sun came up this morning.

Wander
03-16-2013, 10:15 AM
But isn't this sort of thing true for every team?

Maybe, but it still might be true there's a higher correlation between Duke losses/wins and 3-point shooting than for other teams. I honestly have no idea if that's the case, but it seems reasonable to me that some teams could be more sensitive to it than others (even if it affects everyone to some degree). It would be interesting to see what Bob's 19% differential of 3 point percentage between wins and losses is for other ranked teams, or other ACC teams.

Spret42
03-16-2013, 11:45 AM
I for one have never thought Duke won because of taking more 3's. Duke has won because Duke's defense has always been about taking away two things, drives to the basket which result in lay ups and the three point shot. ADuke has been entirely willing to allow a team to attempt to beat it shooting from 12-19 feet. Duke and Coach Krzyzewski also realized that there is no point to shooting from 15 feet since the college 3 point shot is essentially not a long distance shot, but is in reality a mildly extended mid-range shot, and the reward vastly outpaces the difficulty. You get a full 50% more reward for hitting a shot that is only about 10% more difficult. Coach K realized that the shot was in essence too short and that the team who had a better time with it would always win.

Every team in college basketball has lived and died on some level via the three point shot, whether it was hitting it, or taking it away. The shot was never long enough and wildly skewed the nature of basketball. It removed the importance of the big man and in essence made college basketball a jumpshooting contest and a mid-range one at best.

20 feet is essentially a long range shot only for starters on the average high school basketball team. Or... 16 year old boys. Move the line back to 22' 6", where the shot becomes more of a shot for a grown man and you will see the risk/reward come back and the game will be back in balance. Think about it, the line was for a long time the same for both the women's and men's game. That is insane! And the difference now is almost negligible.


I am not saying people don't enjoy watching the game played with the short three point line. I am saying it skews the game wildly. The shot was purposefully made too short to make the game seem more exciting to the casual observer and to enhance the ability of underdogs to pull an upset.

FerryFor50
03-16-2013, 12:22 PM
I for one have never thought Duke won because of taking more 3's. Duke has won because Duke's defense has always been about taking away two things, drives to the basket which result in lay ups and the three point shot. ADuke has been entirely willing to allow a team to attempt to beat it shooting from 12-19 feet. Duke and Coach Krzyzewski also realized that there is no point to shooting from 15 feet since the college 3 point shot is essentially not a long distance shot, but is in reality a mildly extended mid-range shot, and the reward vastly outpaces the difficulty. You get a full 50% more reward for hitting a shot that is only about 10% more difficult. Coach K realized that the shot was in essence too short and that the team who had a better time with it would always win.

Every team in college basketball has lived and died on some level via the three point shot, whether it was hitting it, or taking it away. The shot was never long enough and wildly skewed the nature of basketball. It removed the importance of the big man and in essence made college basketball a jumpshooting contest and a mid-range one at best.

20 feet is essentially a long range shot only for starters on the average high school basketball team. Or... 16 year old boys. Move the line back to 22' 6", where the shot becomes more of a shot for a grown man and you will see the risk/reward come back and the game will be back in balance. Think about it, the line was for a long time the same for both the women's and men's game. That is insane! And the difference now is almost negligible.


I am not saying people don't enjoy watching the game played with the short three point line. I am saying it skews the game wildly. The shot was purposefully made too short to make the game seem more exciting to the casual observer and to enhance the ability of underdogs to pull an upset.

Totally agree. I look at it this way - I can shoot a college 3 pretty effortlessly. I've tried nba 3s and it's like heaving a half court shot for me.

Moving the line back would definitely force teams to think about shooting 3s a little more carefully.

jv001
03-16-2013, 12:26 PM
I for one have never thought Duke won because of taking more 3's. Duke has won because Duke's defense has always been about taking away two things, drives to the basket which result in lay ups and the three point shot. ADuke has been entirely willing to allow a team to attempt to beat it shooting from 12-19 feet. Duke and Coach Krzyzewski also realized that there is no point to shooting from 15 feet since the college 3 point shot is essentially not a long distance shot, but is in reality a mildly extended mid-range shot, and the reward vastly outpaces the difficulty. You get a full 50% more reward for hitting a shot that is only about 10% more difficult. Coach K realized that the shot was in essence too short and that the team who had a better time with it would always win.

Every team in college basketball has lived and died on some level via the three point shot, whether it was hitting it, or taking it away. The shot was never long enough and wildly skewed the nature of basketball. It removed the importance of the big man and in essence made college basketball a jumpshooting contest and a mid-range one at best.

20 feet is essentially a long range shot only for starters on the average high school basketball team. Or... 16 year old boys. Move the line back to 22' 6", where the shot becomes more of a shot for a grown man and you will see the risk/reward come back and the game will be back in balance. Think about it, the line was for a long time the same for both the women's and men's game. That is insane! And the difference now is almost negligible.


I am not saying people don't enjoy watching the game played with the short three point line. I am saying it skews the game wildly. The shot was purposefully made too short to make the game seem more exciting to the casual observer and to enhance the ability of underdogs to pull an upset.

I agree to most of your post, but there are teams that will give up the uncontested mid-range shot. And you need players that can take advantage of that defense. Ryan and Rasheed are pretty good at making the mid-range shot. What I don't want to see is Josh taking that shot. He rarely makes one. GoDuke!

Spret42
03-16-2013, 01:07 PM
Totally agree. I look at it this way - I can shoot a college 3 pretty effortlessly. I've tried nba 3s and it's like heaving a half court shot for me.

Moving the line back would definitely force teams to think about shooting 3s a little more carefully.

I fully agree. I have posted this before on this forum but I heard Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe, who has been watching basketball at a high level since Russell and Cousy, say any average male will be able to shoot a 20 foot jumper with relative ease...move him back 3.5 feet and he will be lucky to draw rim.

And like Lou Carnesseca said when they implemented the 3 in college basketball - "19'9" is a Mickey Mouse shot."

It is funny that I have been saying this for 15 years and slowly people have begun to agree that the shot has really skewed the game. Remember the NBA shortened the shot and realized after one season that they had totally screwed up and put it back where it belonged.


I agree to most of your post, but there are teams that will give up the uncontested mid-range shot. And you need players that can take advantage of that defense. Ryan and Rasheed are pretty good at making the mid-range shot. What I don't want to see is Josh taking that shot. He rarely makes one. GoDuke!

I think a lot of coaches have realized what Coach K knew from the beginning (he was SO ahead of the curve on it because he tailored his DEFENSE to the three while everyone else was tailoring their OFFENSE to it.) You need players who can take advantage of the 15 foot 2 pointer being entirely uncontested it for sure, but as long as the three pointer shot is such a Mickey Mouse shot the game will be out of balance.

ns7
03-16-2013, 01:46 PM
This year's team would be even more dominant with a Zoubek... a guy who cleans up the glass, plays as big as he is and plays within himself and doesn't need shots to be effective.

Agreed--he would have improved our defensive rebounding and interior defense, our two biggest weaknesses. It's a shame he wasn't healthy for all four years.

Kedsy
03-16-2013, 02:31 PM
Agreed--[Brian Zoubek] would have improved our defensive rebounding and interior defense, our two biggest weaknesses. It's a shame he wasn't healthy for all four years.

Mason Plumlee is just as good a defensive rebounder as Brian Zoubek. Z's defensive rebounding percentage his senior year was 24.4%. Mason's this year is 23.4% (last year it was 24.4% and the year before it was 23.3%). Where Z excelled was in offensive rebounding -- he had one of the top five season long performances in that area by anyone on any team since the turn of the century.

Also, depending on how you define "interior defense," I don't think it's one of our biggest weaknesses. On defense our problems seem to be stopping penetration and defending the pick-and-roll (both of which involve interior defenders but personally I wouldn't classify as interior defense).

ns7
03-16-2013, 09:32 PM
Mason Plumlee is just as good a defensive rebounder as Brian Zoubek. Z's defensive rebounding percentage his senior year was 24.4%. Mason's this year is 23.4% (last year it was 24.4% and the year before it was 23.3%). Where Z excelled was in offensive rebounding -- he had one of the top five season long performances in that area by anyone on any team since the turn of the century.

I know about that stat, that's why I thought Z would have a long career in the NBA as a role player. As for my comment on DR, I assumed the OP meant that Zoubek would supplement Mason, not replace him.


Also, depending on how you define "interior defense," I don't think it's one of our biggest weaknesses. On defense our problems seem to be stopping penetration and defending the pick-and-roll (both of which involve interior defenders but personally I wouldn't classify as interior defense).

Okay, I'll buy that. But having a big guy who can block shots would help on both.

FerryFor50
03-16-2013, 09:34 PM
I know about that stat, that's why I thought Z would have a long career in the NBA as a role player. As for my comment on DR, I assumed the OP meant that Zoubek would supplement Mason, not replace him.



Okay, I'll buy that. But having a big guy who can block shots would help on both.

Exactly what I meant. :)

greybeard
03-16-2013, 11:54 PM
Tonight 38% of Duke's shots were from 3. 39% of Maryland's shots were from 3. And they led the entire game.

Duke threw up about 5-7 forced 3pt shots in the final 2 min to try to come back, so they shot an even fewer % of 3s than the final would indicate (similarly to how a losing team has to foul and force a team to shoot FTs at the end of a game can skew the FTA numbers).

If *any* team in the country knocks down 40% of their 3s, they likely win.

In Duke's losses, this is their 3pt %:

ACCT Maryland 16% (38% were 3pt attempts)
UVA 32% (47% were 3pt attempts)
Maryland 31.6% (30% were 3pt attempts)
Miami 17% (31% were 3 pt attempts)
NCSU 30% (29.8% were 3pt attempts)

So in the losses, only 2 games Duke shot abysmally from 3. In only one game did they "live/die by the 3" (UVA at 47%).

The real reason Duke loses games is FG% allowed vs FG % for and an opposing player (or several, like against Miami) goes off on us.

In the losses:

ACCT Duke 41.5% Maryland 51% Wells scores 30
UVA 46% Duke 39.6% Harris scores 36
Maryland 60% (!!!!) Duke 47.6% Len scores 19 and shuts down Plumlee
Miami 56.9% Duke 29.7% (!!!!) Everyone on Miami not named Reggie Johnson destroys us
NCSU 50.8% Duke 44.8% Leslie wakes up and scores 25

There have been games that Duke has won where they shot poorly, but their opponent also shot poorly. It all comes down to defense, just like it has with every Duke team with championship aspirations...

The way teams have been "gaming" Duke is to get in the chest of its best and predominent three shooter, that would be Curry, and double Mason, if Duke is getting him the ball. If Curry gets off early in either half but especially at the outset of the game, Duke is very tough to beat. If he doesn't, he isn't particularly valuable on the court. Then Duke has a real problem. Until Kelly's explosion, the only real answer if Curry is shut down is for Mason to really go off. With a hard double, that is tough.

Kedsy
03-16-2013, 11:57 PM
The way teams have been "gaming" Duke is to get in the chest of its best and predominent three shooter, that would be Curry, and double Mason, if Duke is getting him the ball. If Curry gets off early in either half but especially at the outset of the game, Duke is very tough to beat. If he doesn't, he isn't particularly valuable on the court. Then Duke has a real problem. Until Kelly's explosion, the only real answer if Curry is shut down is for Mason to really go off. With a hard double, that is tough.

That's why Ryan is so valuable. He had a tough night against Maryland, and that's a big reason why we lost.

greybeard
03-17-2013, 12:17 PM
That's why Ryan is so valuable. He had a tough night against Maryland, and that's a big reason why we lost.

Bingo, but I still would have very much liked to have seen Marshall ready to give Duke a rotation aka the past three years. That said, you got it Kedsy.

Chris Randolph
03-17-2013, 12:52 PM
I dislike the notion of live and die by shooting/scoring. It is about heart, grit, intelligence and will:

I watched Louisville throw up brick after brick in the first half against Syracuse last night and still score 78 points and win by almost 20. They found a way to dig down deep and figure out a way to score (defense, run outs, free throw line) and play a great second half. Sometimes it is just a matter of will and determination by a few to get the job done.

ns7
03-17-2013, 01:01 PM
I dislike the notion of live and die by shooting/scoring. It is about heart, grit, intelligence and will:

I watched Louisville throw up brick after brick in the first half against Syracuse last night and still score 78 points and win by almost 20. They found a way to dig down deep and figure out a way to score (defense, run outs, free throw line) and play a great second half. Sometimes it is just a matter of will and determination by a few to get the job done.

What you're saying is that shooting is only one component of offense. The others are rebounding, free throw shooting, and turnovers.

The 2010 Duke team is an example of a team that shot poorly inside the arc but had an elite offense because of rebounding. Would you say it was because they had "will and determination" or because they were skilled at rebounding?

The NC State teams under Sidney Lowe are counterexamples: they usually shot well, but were poor at the other elements of offense. Once again, was their lack of success at rebounding and holding on to the ball because of skill or will?

Chris Randolph
03-17-2013, 01:13 PM
What you're saying is that shooting is only one component of offense. The others are rebounding, free throw shooting, and turnovers.

The 2010 Duke team is an example of a team that shot poorly inside the arc but had an elite offense because of rebounding. Would you say it was because they had "will and determination" or because they were skilled at rebounding?

The NC State teams under Sidney Lowe are counterexamples: they usually shot well, but were poor at the other elements of offense. Once again, was their lack of success at rebounding and holding on to the ball because of skill or will?

Sure 2010 was skilled at many things, and rebounding was one of their best attributes. But there were times where Zoubs, LT just out worked/out toughed people (Baylor) to the boards. That is a mindset to go along with a skill.

Louisville had the same skill set in the first half as they did the second half, so what changes? Mindset (what we are doing isn't working tonight/right now, we have to do something else). Sure skill must go with that but I don't buy that this Duke team doesn't have the skill to do other things to score when the jumpers aren't falling. Ryan and Mason can't rebound at 6'10? Or Sheed as an athletic wing?

Kedsy
03-17-2013, 01:27 PM
Sure skill must go with that but I don't buy that this Duke team doesn't have the skill to do other things to score when the jumpers aren't falling. Ryan and Mason can't rebound at 6'10? Or Sheed as an athletic wing?

Well, Rasheed had six rebounds in the game (including 3 offensive rebounds), I'm not sure how much more we could reasonably expect from him. And since Ryan's place in our offense is generally on the perimeter, the only way he could get a lot of offensive rebounds would have been if we completely changed our offensive sets. That's not mindset, it's a coaching decision.

Gmadaduke
03-17-2013, 01:36 PM
The last time I felt truly confident about our inside game, we had a guy named Shelden Williams... Mason has his moments and is much improved this year, but every one of those hook-shots is an adventure.

Chris Randolph
03-17-2013, 01:44 PM
Well, Rasheed had six rebounds in the game (including 3 offensive rebounds), I'm not sure how much more we could reasonably expect from him. And since Ryan's place in our offense is generally on the perimeter, the only way he could get a lot of offensive rebounds would have been if we completely changed our offensive sets. That's not mindset, it's a coaching decision.

Glad Sheed hit the boards, hope he continues to do so as he hasn't done it consistently, in my eyes. I understand Kelly is on the perimeter a lot but when a shot goes up he can crash. LT and Zoubs crashed from the perimeter plenty after setting screens. But I also get your point that maybe coach K doesn't necessarily want that. Seems needed in times you are throwing up bricks though haha

greybeard
03-17-2013, 02:15 PM
Zoubek created an ofense that nobody has seen before or since. He set multiple screens on each offensive set until a three shooter who was also capable of attacking the basket--Singler, Smith and cheyer--was wide open for a three. Zoubek, instead of playing a classic screen and roll in which the
screener went directly to the basket, a game that defenses were trained to defend in multiple ways, kept the other side's best big running like a chicken with his head chopped off from screen to screen having to "show" on each of them, rather than retreat immediately and be in a position to guard the basket. The other team's best big was worn out running around, the inside was left exposed to attack, and Zoubek, when the shot went up, often beat the show guy to the basket when the shot went up, and, if he got the rebound, eshewed putting it back up but instead found the open three shooter for a step in three. This is, in my opinion, loved by Kornheisser, as to why Duke won the whole thing when everyone had them going out early. Kornheiser told me that K responded with a big grin when Kornheisser described to him the Greybeard theory.

As to the 2010 team's interior defense and rebounding strength, Zoubek and Lance got regular breaks with little drop off from two horses who understood the game--Miles and Mason. While they lacked the seemless ability of Zoubek and Lance to alter how they dealt with the roll part of the screen and role (sometimes they switched and other times Lance shaded and then went back to his own man), Miles and Mason comprised as strong and effective an interior presence on defense as any around, Mason's penchant for reach-in fouls nothwithstanding.

This team, if it had the equivalent of a Miles/Mason pairing, a Miles or Mason pairing with Hairston would suffice, I believe would have to be seen as having the best chance to win it all.